Thoughts on the current matching system

Unknown

Starting this post let me say that I am not one of the players with an amazing roster who is frustrated because he can't place in a top 5 or even top 1-2. I think for the last 6 weeks I have done relatively well, placing in top 15 quite often (4-5 times until mid of January) when the end of a tournament is not 7am. I see however how some with good rosters or some who play many hours struggle to get a good a place without much success and I would like to avoid finding myself in their place if I put in the game the effort or the money they do.

I think almost everyone agrees that the current matching system is broken. For some unexplained reason, the devs thought it was a good idea to punish the players who manage to climb high in order to give the opportunity to last minute heroes to climb fast and win the prizes. Although a system that makes everyone feel like he/she has a chance at a prize is admirable, it is simply not working. Also, imho, the retaliation system is even more broken.

If I attack a player with the same number of points (X), which would indicate I put the same effort or I have a team of similar skill, I end up with X+25 points. Since he lost some points and I gained some he will retaliate for 26-28 (just an estimate). If we also consider a situation where a player plays 5 matches before the first retaliation hits, then he will lose a lot more since now he is much higher than the player who retaliates. This creates a situation where players don't want to attack anyone of similar ranking, but instead search/skip until they find someone a lot higher. They do this for 2 reasons. The first is to gain as many points as possible from a match in order to advance faster and to counter the loses from the retaliations from previous matches. The second is to prevent the attacked player from retaliating since he would gain too little.

Let's take a break here. I have to admit that even though I find the cost of HP and ISO in the store absolutely ridiculous, the game is quite generous in events and tournaments. At least more than other games where event rewards may not see play at all. Giving a free 2** cover (knowing exactly what it is you get) even to players that place top 200 in a bracket of 1000, when the max cover * value in the game is 4 (only Wolverine and IW for now) is definitely not cheap. Even more so when you consider there are only 32 heroes, which means you need ~350 covers to have a fully maxed roster. You get most/all of the 1* covers from the campaign and the standard tokens and many 2* covers as rewards in tournaments/events and heroic/special tokens which are often progression rewards.

So whom does this system benefit? Normally I would say the really strong teams that no one will bother attacking (or retaliate) which have a cakewalk to the top and then shield and wait for the end. This is partly true, but the crazy AI complicates things. Since you can do well even against a team that is 30-40 levels above yours, these super scary teams get attacked more often than someone would assume, so someone can wait until that team gets to 600-1000 (depends on the bracket) and retaliate then gaining the famous 40-50 points (which I see myself getting in very rare occasions) and dropping the enemy team 40-50 points. Those 50 points the top team lost, if not shielded, took the player an hour to get, so grinding in this game is far less enjoyable than it is in other games, mostly because you compete directly with other players for ranking and the gain/loss too extreme.

Someone else may say that the system benefits those who grind like hell broke loose and pass that much sought after threshold where everything is peaceful and no attacks drop you for 50 points, because you ascended to the heavens and left the others below to slaughter each other in the worst massacre you have ever seen in your gaming history, until everyone, exhausted from the slugfest, is content with the black Punisher cover or maybe 50HP if he had to leave early. I tried that and failed miserably so grinding doesn't work for me. Maybe it will work after I get a maxed Punisher or Spiderman or whoever is getting fixed in the next patch. Although I can understand this. The game has to make some money so players who spend to buy HP (shields) and ISO MUST have a better chance to get the high prizes than me who plays for free. However, should they also have better time or more fun? Isn't there a middle ground where you can have those that pay with $ progress faster and let the others grind (effectively) if they wish to do it? For me, the issues that break the game are three. Matching system, HP used everywhere and limited roster (few heroes worth getting).


Matching system suggestion
I think it would be more fair to make some changes to the matching parameters.
- Reduce the rating range you can fight to -/+X (maybe 100) of your rating for below 500, -/+2*X of your rating 500-1000, and -/+3*X for 1000+ with the option to expand it if no eligible opponents are found.
- Break the point gain to 3 parts
1 - Have a base value (5) that will ensure a player always gains some points when he wins a match.
2 - Give a bonus of (0-15) based on how higher is the opponent's rating is.
3 - Give a bonus of (0-10) based on how higher is the opponent's team total level is.


This means that a player will always get some points from winning a game even if it is only 5. it also means that the player at the top could get 5-15 points depending on the level of the team he attacks, or that a player around 600 could receive 5-30 points if he attacks another team that is a lot high level and has a ~200 higher rating. The numbers I used serve only as an example and any change to the current system will most likely require changes to the reward requirements.

Unknown

I think most of the frustration could be mitigated if there was a cap to point losses ( say 30 pts) instead of -50. But it still does not solve the issue of available fights to you but would make it less painful.

Unknown

I believe a decent fix would be to simply keep track of the last 4 opponents you've attacked. Unless they retaliate, they can't show up on your attacks again. It'll help mitigate a lot of issues I've seen amongst various players where they're attacked several times in a short span of time.

nihilium

The question Im asking myself, why the point loss has to be over 10 at all o.o

I mean its PVP, and when u beet someone u get rewarded by gaining points. And it makes sense u get more points the better ur opponent is (however the system decides this).
What Im asking is, WHY do ppl have to losse points for matches they didnt even participate in?
Cant we just loose points if we loose a match against someone on the first try?
I mean thats PVP, right?

I play against person XY,
either I win and get points or I loose and loose also points & the other one gets points.

Just cut out the 3 tries and the loss of any considerable abount of points on defense completely. It never made any sense to have 3 tries imho.


It would imho take the preasure of the system, of it doesnt directly influence players rewards by taking away there points for a background system that doesnt work v.v

Unknown

The problem with your system is that if the more fights you have , the better your score is...So unless you grind 24/7 you are SOL.... There has to be a middle ground...

Unknown

I think the 2400 progression reward is a problem. Imo, just remove it completely. Also, sprinkle more lesser checkpoints along the way. 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, etc. Always make the player feel as if the next reward is attainable.

Yes, the thread is about matchmaking but I think more equalized activity would help it, as opposed to only a handful of players attempting 2400 while the majority settles for 500 or 1000.

Unknown

I think the current MMR will always remain broken to some degree so long as our matchmaking is based upon a player's rank and not the composition of their team. The best approach in my opinion would be for the developers to develop a system which identifies the strength of your team relative to your opponent's and dictate points/retaliations that way.

For example. If I were to see a team consistent of a non-maxxed 1*/2*/1* sitting at 500 points, it makes no sense for this person to lose 50 points to someone who just entered the tournament with a maxxed 2*/3*/3* team. The disparity of the two teams already dictates the latter team will almost certainly win. In this case, the second team should gain few points and yielding to such an underpowered team should come with stiffer penalties. In the same way, successful retaliations by the weaker team should net more points, potentially more than the stronger team even took away. Conversely, whoever is playing with that 1*/2*/1* team, should get higher point values for fighting teams of greater strength. It only makes sense as there would need to be a relative increased level of skill on behalf of the player with the weaker team to down an opponent of that magnitude, with or without boosts.

Granted one might say "then everyone might run weaker teams to get more points." Fine. If they can pull that off with a **** team, they deserve it. If everyone does it, then the advantage is gone because the relative strength of the two teams is now similar.

In addition, this would also solve your tanking problem as your matchmaking would then be against lower level/rarity opponents which may play to your disadvantage if you bring in your "A-Team".

The only issue that would be left is to solve the problem with two equally matched teams, but with a large point disparity, say one enters with 0 points, and another is sitting at 500. This is then easily solved by putting a range restriction on the available opponents such as +/- 150 points from your current rank.

Unknown

WorstAvenger wrote:

I think the current MMR will always remain broken to some degree so long as our matchmaking is based upon a player's rank and not the composition of their team. The best approach in my opinion would be for the developers to develop a system which identifies the strength of your team relative to your opponent's and dictate points/retaliations that way.

For example. If I were to see a team consistent of a non-maxxed 1*/2*/1* sitting at 500 points, it makes no sense for this person to lose 50 points to someone who just entered the tournament with a maxxed 2*/3*/3* team. The disparity of the two teams already dictates the latter team will almost certainly win. In this case, the second team should gain few points and yielding to such an underpowered team should come with stiffer penalties. In the same way, successful retaliations by the weaker team should net more points, potentially more than the stronger team even took away. Conversely, whoever is playing with that 1*/2*/1* team, should get higher point values for fighting teams of greater strength. It only makes sense as there would need to be a relative increased level of skill on behalf of the player with the weaker team to down an opponent of that magnitude, with or without boosts.

Granted one might say "then everyone might run weaker teams to get more points." Fine. If they can pull that off with a **** team, they deserve it. If everyone does it, then the advantage is gone because the relative strength of the two teams is now similar.

In addition, this would also solve your tanking problem as your matchmaking would then be against lower level/rarity opponents which may play to your disadvantage if you bring in your "A-Team".

The only issue that would be left is to solve the problem with two equally matched teams, but with a large point disparity, say one enters with 0 points, and another is sitting at 500. This is then easily solved by putting a range restriction on the available opponents such as +/- 150 points from your current rank.

The other problem that pops up under your plan is that if fielding lower-starred teams becomes a big part of the meta, then players have much less incentive to pump ISO and HP into 3* and 4* characters, reducing profitability for the devs. It's a conundrum, to be sure.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

The other problem that pops up under your plan is that if fielding lower-starred teams becomes a big part of the meta, then players have much less incentive to pump ISO and HP into 3* and 4* characters, reducing profitability for the devs. It's a conundrum, to be sure.

Hmm, I suppose that's a possibility. Though I'd find it difficult to see that happening. Mainly because if everyone opted to field low level/rarity teams, it just becomes a playground for the few that will bring in the higher strength teams and destroy everyone for points. Even if you saw an increase in the number of lower level teams, how often do we really see a low level team David & Goliath a significantly higher strength team? Even if they managed it, I doubt it would be in the first try. Though I would admit, the current state of the AI might very well prove my statement wrong. In the end, I think competition would dictate that others bring out their characters to climb the hill as well.

Purty_Hawkeye

I was wondering if we could have a sort of round-robin system. Smaller brackets I would say 50. You only play the teams in your bracket. You can only play them once. The points are determined by the total stars + Lvl of each team. If they are equal each match is worth 10 points. If your team is more powered than the opponent then via sliding scale the points would be reduced down to a minimum of 5. If you go in with a lesser powered team the same thing applies it scales up to a max of 15. This would provide variety in choices of teams as if you think you have a line-up which could work with a one-star you could reap a benefit. It would reward those with depth because you might not have to use a health pack if you sub Juggy in as a suicide tank for one match. Once he dies you can pull someone else off your bench.

Give everyone 72 hours to play 49 matches best point total wins. No progression awards straight prize brackets from 1-50. You can even do it with a waiting room kind of quality with brackets filling up and you can join one which is almost full. That way it isn't the time of day but pure luck of the draw. People will still be able to play in unfilled brackets as there will be opponents.

I know i would like this better but I'm sure this is probably some kind of nightmare to code and implement, one can dream though.

Unknown

I don't disagree with WorstAvenger. The only problem is imbalance between 2 and 3-star levels. 85 Thor and Wolvie are way better than 85 Mags and Punisher.

Unknown

WilliamK99 wrote:

The problem with your system is that if the more fights you have , the better your score is...So unless you grind 24/7 you are SOL.... There has to be a middle ground...

I forgot to add a calculation about the points you lose. I assume it could be the same as when you attack. That is a base of 5 and then lose more points the lower ranking has the other team and the lower * level. However, I think the points won by the winner should be less than the points lost by the loser.

Unknown

I just wanted to voice my support for the Op. The issues her arises with the current system are absolutely correct. I struggled all of the last tournament to maintain my number one position only to have someone with a mediocre team begin playing and rocket up the ranks. Players who put in time are essentially punished while players who sandbag are rewarded. The retaliation system and the amount of points lost is another extremely irritating system. Overall, these past two tournaments have just been very frustrating and have really turned me off the game.

Unknown

Just another thought, but perhaps the 2400 response was one to that of a surge. In other words, the activity during that previous event was way above average. Things have already started to stabalize, and once they do, 2400 will start to look ridiculous if it already doesn't.

Nemek

The problem with so many of the ideas tossed around in this forum is that 99% of them will lead to massive point inflation.

So many ideas are all about "gain more points, lose fewer! Everybody is happy!" But it just can't happen, because it removes incentive to have high level teams, or strong defense teams, and trivializes progression rewards (which are only meant for the top 0.1% of players. The focus would then shift to who could play more and not who could play smarter, which is ultimately more boring. I really don't want 10K to be the new winning score.

Unknown

Imo, if they only want 1%ers getting a 4-star cover, just leave them out of progress rewards.

Progress rewards should incentivise everyone to play, not just 1% of the playerbase.

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

The problem with so many of the ideas tossed around in this forum is that 99% of them will lead to massive point inflation.

So many ideas are all about "gain more points, lose fewer! Everybody is happy!" But it just can't happen, because it removes incentive to have high level teams, or strong defense teams, and trivializes progression rewards (which are only meant for the top 0.1% of players. The focus would then shift to who could play more and not who could play smarter, which is ultimately more boring. I really don't want 10K to be the new winning score.

Since when are progression rewards for 1 player out of a thousand? I don't have a problem with the idea of 4* character rarity (or I wouldn't, if those characters were desirable), but this notion that progression rewards should be largely unattainable is very strange to me. 3* characters are staples and they're playable. Earning one or two of them through progression shouldn't be something that only the top .1% of players should ever be able to do. I've said this before, and I'll say it again--PVP is the only mode of the game that we can always play; why should it only reward the very best of the best? Every other game I've played with this model has attainable prizes for players to work for. If those prizes aren't the progression rewards (and, by the way, that's more or less exactly what "progression rewards" means), then what are they? What on earth are the other 99.99% of the players actually supposed to be working toward?

Yeah, exactly what ihearthawthats said while I was typing, except wordier.

Unknown

WorstAvenger wrote:

I think the current MMR will always remain broken to some degree so long as our matchmaking is based upon a player's rank and not the composition of their team.

Yup.

I'd like to see PvP changed to be more like the PvE events, where there are multiple difficulty choices that yield varying points. Then perhaps there could be some sort of handicapping system, where you get more/less points based on the strength of the team you use.

Unknown

It effin sucks! Depleting points per match as you get higher in ranking is just dumb. Matches are either worth a certain value or they are not. The points per match shouldn't be based on where you are currently ranked. The end result is that you lose more points than you can possibly gain. Win a match 10 points, but oh, in that same timeframe you just got slammed for -75 points. It's maddening.

Also, I love it when you get to choose between a difficult matchup for 10 points or a much easier matchup for 20 points! hmmmmmmmmmmmm, think i'll choose the easier one worth more points.

Unknown

ihearthawthats wrote:

Imo, if they only want 1%ers getting a 4-star cover, just leave them out of progress rewards.

Progress rewards should incentivise everyone to play, not just 1% of the playerbase.

Personally, I am fine with 1% getting the top prize. If they think the game can withstand the number of rewards they give (progression - ranking) let them. However currently the top progression reward is not accessible even by that 1%. If placing top 1-2 was a matter of skill, money or time then I would be ok with it. The problem I have is they don't tell me what I have to do in order to compete and have a chance. Do I need to put 10x time than other players? Do I need to pay cash in order to buy recruit tokens to get the covers, or buy shields to protect my rating for 2 days? Do I need to enter 3 hours before the end pushing as hard as I can and avoid playing the rest of the time? To me it seems like it is not just a combination of these things, but there is even more. Add to the mixture the luck factor which determines in which bracket you land (apparently some are having a walk in the park while others suffer endlessly until their hopes expire) and the odd end times for some of us, and you have a bomb set to explode.

I don't ask to have the same chances as someone who plays for 3 months and has thrown $100 in the game. I mostly want to have fun, having at the same time the feeling I make progress, no matter how slow that may be. In the current tournaments unless you have a good team and shield like crazy I don't think you have a chance at the top rewards (top 1-15). This depends on the bracket of course, but I think as a general observation it is true.

I said in the first post that I think the devs are generally generous with the rewards the players get in the tournaments and the daily rewards considering the number of unique covers in the game is fairly small. Additionally, although I am happy for the rewards I managed to get (maxed the covers for Hawkeye and Ares in just 2 days for each thanks to the rewards of some events), I think that the consistency of the rewards will harm the game in the long run because someone who has already maxed the heroes that are given as rewards for top 3-200 has no incentive to play, other than the ISO gain. I think most of the time I would prefer tokens as rewards if there was a 30% chance to give a 2* or a 10% to give a 3*. It makes things more interesting and unpredictable. It may seem that this would hurt more new players, but after these players get to the point where they own those heroes I think they would agree with me.

In other words, I would like to feel like I make progress at the pace I choose and that my time and effort are rewarded, even if the game gave me less free or easily obtained rewards. All that without feeling I am punished for playing the game

Unknown

I noticed the new Punisher event the rewards are nerfed again (only 1 3 star cover) for progression.

And that's actually okay. In fact they need to nerf them some more, and then they don't have to make it a slaughterhouse where only the lucky few manages to get out of the 1000 range.

First they need to make it impossible for people to simply pull that far ahead. I'm pretty sure they're actively working on that since we're hearing a lot of story of the bagman teams never getting attacked which is the primary enabler of such teams. There probably still needs to be some rework to ensure high rating players appear in non-shielded player's matchup list when not shielded (because shielded players obviously don't attack each other) but it seems better than before. The top of my bracket is 960 and while that seems like an insurmountable lead when second place is 560, but I hit 1180 this tournament and I can tell the guy with 960 was just shielded the whole time after he hit his peak early yesterday (which is certainly obtainable through normal, albeit excessive, playing), and to me that's okay. He took a risk thinking this score ought to be hard to top and turned out to be correct and should be rewarded.

After the loopholes that allow people to simply break away and never get attacked are fixed, we need to relook at the progression rewards. Assuming the placement pattern is not going to see some fundamental changes, they should stop at around 1000 and the top prize should be a fraction of a 4 star cover (and 800 could be fraction of a 3 star cover). That way, it also matters less if someone somehow totally broke away, because there's nothing to shoot for after 1000.