Changes to Versus Matchmaking [Update]

anamosity

Demiurge_Will wrote:

For what it's worth, there are a number of people on the team in top 50 alliances, and I have a couple coworkers that probably qualify as the top 0.1%.

Is this why there was no Iron Man 40 fix while he was out of rotation? You can't all be doing a good job at work and be in the top 0.1% player base. There's only so much time in a day.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

acescracked wrote:

what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

"None", and "yes"

This question has been asked dozens of times recently, after the GT nerf, after the let's-buff-everything PvP test, and now after this matchmaking change. I've yet to see a compelling answer that makes me feel otherwise. I can't even recall an attempt at a compelling answer.

This is why I've been warning people about leveling for PVP - they keep krutacking up how PVP works so there's no advice you can give anymore

anamosity wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

For what it's worth, there are a number of people on the team in top 50 alliances, and I have a couple coworkers that probably qualify as the top 0.1%.

Is this why there was no Iron Man 40 fix while he was out of rotation? You can't all be doing a good job at work and be in the top 0.1% player base. There's only so much time in a day.

Why fix iron man when you can release 4* iron man who sucks for age of ultron tie in?

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

acescracked wrote:

what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

"None", and "yes"

This question has been asked dozens of times recently, after the GT nerf, after the let's-buff-everything PvP test, and now after this matchmaking change. I've yet to see a compelling answer that makes me feel otherwise. I can't even recall an attempt at a compelling answer.

If you think fighting only 2* land teams is more fun than fighting 3* teams and don't care if you ever place high enough to get a 3* cover, there was no reason to transition to 3*s BEFORE the GT nerf or this change either

LordWill

Demiurge_Will wrote:

gamar wrote:

Some of the recent discussion has revolved around the fact that (it seems like, I could be wrong) when you discount the super-casual players who aren't even trying, the ratio of 3-4 transitioners and "late stage" 3* transitioners to 2-3 transitioners is so high that they're always grabbing the top100 slots, often for covers they don't need, and prizes below that are practically worthless. I know DDQ is meant to alleviate this, but is there a particular reason that you haven't tried creating an alternate "endgame" bracket where players can compete for greater ISO, 4* covers, or some other prize that is more meaningful to veterans, while not trampling on 2-3 transitioners? It's the only thing that makes sense to me to resolve the "veterans/fresh blood" conflict to keep the game sustainable

The reason why we haven't tried that yet is just that there are meaningful technical and design challenges involved, and we haven't yet devoted the resources needed to give it a shot in game. It's a sound idea and there are a couple of different features along those lines that we've explored on paper.

I addressed this over a year ago. Choose your own reward type of system. Let us control the difficulty/reward. It meets people where they are.

Oh and also think more about end game. Single player heroics with a choose your own reward structure would be a good place to start....

cletus1985

Demiurge_Will wrote:

orionpeace wrote:

Having 3* rosters battle 3* rosters is a harder climb than 2* rosters battling 2* rosters. So, while with a significant increase in time played the 3* player can climb higher, it is now possible for a 2* player to be in the top 50 and for very few if any 3* players to even see that player.

I think you might be misremembering what life was like with 2-star characters. The average match length (in both time and turns) for higher-level teams is significantly less than lower-level teams, and the win rate is higher.

It's not likely in the new matchmaking system that a 2-star player could be in the top 50 without being visible to players with better rosters. There would have to be no 3-star players in the event and an unusually large number of unshielded players.

In Heavy Metal, people with better rosters got to any particular point score more quickly, while taking fewer losses, than players with worse rosters. Players that are saying that worse rosters give you an advantage are mistaken. It may be true that the relative advantage of a better roster is less than it was before these changes, but it's still the intention (and judging by Heavy Metal, it appears to still be the case) that better rosters are better.

I have to disagree with you here Will (unless these new changes make the HM event a fluke). I'm just recently out of the 2* phase and had been enjoying my 3 lvl 140 characters getting me top 100 finishes finally. As a 2* I saw the bar, get my 400 pts, collect my HP and my 10-pack for the season and go on my way (I could hit 500 if I wanted to, but 575 was pretty much out of reach without using shields and getting a negative HP return). In the old system I could finally get 600+ pts because why would you attack my 140's when there were easier 94's to target (Finally stopped getting stomped), I had paid my dues and made the visible progress to start competing.

Heavy Metal went like this for me, beat my seed teams, see a couple of teams with 94's on them, mostly undercovered/underleveled 3*'s like my own roster (No problem at this point), make my way to around 500 pts being attacked a few times (still good), hit that mark and "boom" I lose 100+ pts to maxed out 3 and 4*'s, I retal a few and lose more than I gain. Essentially you've just created a system where instead of me being above the bar that I worked for months to achieve, you've raised the bar and those 94's are no longer visible so my 140's are the new fodder. I watch all my "progress" go out the window and feel completely defeated.

That was my experience in HM and now in Teenage Riot I'm sitting on 800+ pts feeling validated again. So if the HM formula stands and these new changes don't fix anything I feel like PvP has just honestly become a waste of time. I read the forums and I understood 2* land was tough, but there was a light at the end of the tunnel, I grinded in PvE to earn my covers on a fair battlefield and DDQ alleviated a lot of the pain longer term players dealt with. PvP was meant to reward those that paid their dues and I was fine with that, but if all that progress leads me into a circle where having useful 3*'s keeps me in the same position as the 2* struggle I just made it through I have to ask what's the point?

I'll give this next PvP a shot and see what these new changes bring and hopefully it's not the same as HM, but if it is I can personally say I'm done until something else is done to fix this.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

acescracked wrote:

what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

"None", and "yes"

This question has been asked dozens of times recently, after the GT nerf, after the let's-buff-everything PvP test, and now after this matchmaking change. I've yet to see a compelling answer that makes me feel otherwise. I can't even recall an attempt at a compelling answer.

PVE is still easy with Xforce etc. Even high level ares etc is still easy with Xforce etc. Goons are not even a challenge period. 4Thor for PVE was cruise control, you actually have to stay awake now...the horror.

Plus, you guys realize MPQ is expecting a bunch of new players once Avengers 2 drops...Think they are maybe trying to make it a little more noob friendly...

This game has been broken for noobs ever since I started playing this past October. It's moving in the right direction. Before there was no reason to play MPQ unless you were ptw.

Moon Roach

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Moon Roach wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Hi, all,

First, we’re reducing how many points a loss costs. Previously, if you had 800 or fewer points in an event, a loss would cost you less points than your opponent gained, using this formula: [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 800. We’re changing this so that if you have 1000 or fewer points in an event, a loss costs you [points your opponent gained] * [your points] / 1000. (Above 1000 points, you’ll lose as many points as your opponent gains.)

Can you explain what will now happen with defensive wins? If I'm at 500 and see someone at 1000 for 50 points, and lose, what do I lose and what does he get?

The points formula doesn't care whether it was the attacker or defender that won - it's the same formula for defensive wins.

In your example, the score difference is so great that you'd lose ~1 point and they'd gain ~1-2 points (depends exactly how the rounding works out).

Cool, then the high point targets are worth the risk, especially at the end of the day when your team and health packs can regenerate overnight.

And this new formula explains the 0-point loss I got a couple of days ago.

Unknown

Switchman wrote:

simonsez wrote:

acescracked wrote:

what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

"None", and "yes"

This question has been asked dozens of times recently, after the GT nerf, after the let's-buff-everything PvP test, and now after this matchmaking change. I've yet to see a compelling answer that makes me feel otherwise. I can't even recall an attempt at a compelling answer.

PVE is still easy with Xforce etc. Even high level ares etc is still easy with Xforce etc. Goons are not even a challenge period. 4Thor for PVE was cruise control, you actually have to stay awake now...the horror.

Plus, you guys realize MPQ is expecting a bunch of new players once Avengers 2 drops...Think they are maybe trying to make it a little more noob friendly...

This game has been broken for noobs ever since I started playing this past October. It's moving in the right direction. Before there was no reason to play MPQ unless you were ptw.

Not everyone bought enough covers to make their 4*s viable while keeping their entire roster under lvl200, switchman.

spccrain

I have never spent money on this game (don't ban me d3!!) And I have many 166s and the best 4*s at the levels I want them at. It took alit of time and energy but yes we don't all buy our roster.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

DuckyV wrote:

I feel like the constant MMR tweaks are just band-aid fixes for a system that is inherently flawed. Instead of trying to create an even playing field that tries to make the current system fair, change the system.

I think in everything being tossed around here that this statement cuts very much to the heart of the matter. You can tweak MMR and point bubbles and points for wins/losses, but the real problem is that the system itself is, to use Ducky's spot on language, "inherently flawed". In attempting to combine competitive elements of score accumulation, brackets, ladders, and pseudo-matchmaking, you've created a bizarre Frankensystem that barely works. All you have to do is look at the shenanigans that the system forces people into to compete, from tanking to roster manipulation to shield-hopping and en masse win-trading collusion, to see how poorly this system functions across almost all ranges. It doesn't need to be modified, it needs to be detonated.

So, in all seriousness, how should it work instead?

While your question is a fair follow up, I'm not exactly sure how to answer it within a reasonable word count. I could write a couple pages on the subject but I doubt anyone really wants to read that, so I'll try to be concise (and likely fail ). Part of the problem is to redesign the system we have to have a firm set of goals in place, and I'm not really sure what those are at this point, because it seems like the current system wants to be all things to all people while being built around the core concept of squeezing money out of people via various methods along the way. Is it a hardcore competition for high end prizes? Because what happens in hardcore competition is the little fish get et. But we don't want that. We want everyone fighting within their weight class. But we don't want to have separate events. These things are in conflict, and the current workaround, some kind of weighted matchmaking, is largely unsatisfying for everyone.

Also in conflict within the current design is it's core construction. You join an event and you're placed in a group of other players with whom you will be competing directly for prizes. We've come to call these groups brackets. They're not really. Bracket in the context of competition implies some kind of head-to-head elimination style tournament. The current system is just a mass of people lumped together semi-arbitrarily based on entry time and some other arcane "sharding" criteria. It looks like a ladder, and has tiered prizes, but it's not really. Unless you get lucky and queue up someone in your "bracket", there's no way to influence the scores you're competing against. You can't beat someone's team and jump ahead of them. You can't beat them and eliminate them from your bracket. Your only hope is to go up and up and hope they don't go up higher than you. It's the most indirect form of "player vs player" ever conceived. Instead we have a scoring system where while you fight one person's team, ten other people can be fighting you, and you can lose 50 points to someone hundreds of points below you, leaving you with a 1 point retaliation. But when you get near the top of the pile you can't fight anyone worth more than 10 points because everyone above you is shielded, making the only way to win to not play for 99% of the event. These are major systemic problems that don't have simple fixes.

So, how should it work instead? It it's the world according to me, and if I'm really concerned about new players getting clowned by vets with maxed characters and rage quitting as seems to be most of the concern these new changes are addressing, I'm running separate events concurrently with some kind of limits or lock-outs for different tiers of prizes. If vets want to play in the newbie events for lols, they have to leave their best toys at the door. If newbs want to take a crack at the big leagues, they take their chances. What I'm not doing is throwing everyone into the same pool and then trying to limit how they interact artificially. If you wanted to pick one band-aid rather than go about a total system rework, that would almost certainly be the best one. But they don't seem to want to do that, so we move on.

So if we are going to tear it all down and start over, how are we designing our events? Ideally, if you really want to call these things player vs player tournaments, there should be some kind of head-to-head matchmaking where you actually play against another person rather than try to roflstomp the slightly clueless AI as fast as is humanly possible. But that's pie in the sky stuff. Let's take that off the table for now. Likewise some kind of actual elimination style bracket competition would be cool, but it's probably not reasonable (outside of maybe some kind of modified lightning round?) so we'll chuck that too.

So what are we left with? Either a score accumulation or a ladder. I'd rather not get too far away from the idea of direct competition, so I like ladder, and I like smaller "brackets" too, say a couple hundred tops. We're only going to match people against other teams on their ladder within a certain number of rungs. If you win you jump ahead, if you lose you drop as many rungs as you were trying to go up, and as you get closer to the top the number of rungs you're allowed to jump would probably have to shrink until it was just one or two at a time. We're not doing shields, but there would probably have to be some cooldown on attacking the same person, or number of attacks allowed withing a given time period, but you get the general idea. We're doing away with scores, so progression awards are going away too. We'll compensate by being more generous with placement and match victory rewards.

Now keep in mind this is mostly off the top of my head. It's not a formal design proposal and it's not fully fleshed out, and there's probably a thousand "but what about..." holes that could be poked in it here and there, but what it is is an example of a far less contrived and esoteric system that comes much closer to the spirit of player vs player competition than what we have now.

Unknown

Posted this in another thread but here is my suggestion of how to make PVP more engaging for the vets but keep the transitioners from being so thoroughly stomped on all the time.

Have two modes for each event, yes every PVP. Players can enter and play in both. Maybe don't let people offset slices to play one before the other starts or weirdness like that.

Normal Mode!
Things work like they do now, with a few changes.
No 4*s allowed, the wall is at 166 and will stay there in normal mode.
Keep placement/progression/alliance/season rewards mostly the same, tweak as desired.

Hard Mode!
Open to everyone! Seriously just don't complain when your OBW gets x-fisted
Prizes are better in hard mode. We have all the 4*s you want, and some 3*s for the wannabe hard mode players. No 2* progression rewards here (but plenty of moonstone tokens)
Hard mode has its own season! Normal mode points don't count here. Each player and alliance collects Hard Points and there is a separate season progression to go through, and this one is way better than puny normal.

Here is where we get fancy:

Link the points: If you get 1000 points in Hard Mode you get any Normal Mode progression rewards as well, as well as points towards normal season, alliance, and season progression. Points in normal do not count towards Hard Mode anything. If you want those rewards you actually have to play Hard Mode.

Link the rewards. 1st place in hard mode gets normal mode rewards in addition to hard mode rewards ~without needing to play normal mode at all~ (no you cannot double up by placing first in both, stop being greedy) If you prefer to do some of both you totally can but it will be more efficient for you to concentrate on the one you are most comfortable with and do as best you can, and then, like, farm seeds in the other for some iso. This allows the veterans to live in both worlds. They can be in the super competitive side for maximum rewards, or they can take it easy in normal and fight 3* vs 3* to earn 3*s.

The total rewards would need to be balanced, so a straight normal player might see less income, but can go try some hard to make that up. Hard mode players would ideally see higher rewards with the same level of effort as usual.

spccrain

While I like the idea of playing hard mode and getting double rewards I don't think the devs will go for it haha I do like the idea though

slidecage

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Posted this in another thread but here is my suggestion of how to make PVP more engaging for the vets but keep the transitioners from being so thoroughly stomped on all the time.

Have two modes for each event, yes every PVP. Players can enter and play in both. Maybe don't let people offset slices to play one before the other starts or weirdness like that.

Normal Mode!
Things work like they do now, with a few changes.
No 4*s allowed, the wall is at 166 and will stay there in normal mode.
Keep placement/progression/alliance/season rewards mostly the same, tweak as desired.

Hard Mode!
Open to everyone! Seriously just don't complain when your OBW gets x-fisted
Prizes are better in hard mode. We have all the 4*s you want, and some 3*s for the wannabe hard mode players. No 2* progression rewards here (but plenty of moonstone tokens)
Hard mode has its own season! Normal mode points don't count here. Each player and alliance collects Hard Points and there is a separate season progression to go through, and this one is way better than puny normal.

Here is where we get fancy:

Link the points: If you get 1000 points in Hard Mode you get any Normal Mode progression rewards as well, as well as points towards normal season, alliance, and season progression. Points in normal do not count towards Hard Mode anything. If you want those rewards you actually have to play Hard Mode.

Link the rewards. 1st place in hard mode gets normal mode rewards in addition to hard mode rewards ~without needing to play normal mode at all~ (no you cannot double up by placing first in both, stop being greedy) If you prefer to do some of both you totally can but it will be more efficient for you to concentrate on the one you are most comfortable with and do as best you can, and then, like, farm seeds in the other for some iso. This allows the veterans to live in both worlds. They can be in the super competitive side for maximum rewards, or they can take it easy in normal and fight 3* vs 3* to earn 3*s.

The total rewards would need to be balanced, so a straight normal player might see less income, but can go try some hard to make that up. Hard mode players would ideally see higher rewards with the same level of effort as usual.

i put something ike that in the suggestion box few months back. Its like the SIM PVE but PVP wise.. Easy and hard but you have to pick one you cant do both

Hit 444 in sunday PVP wonder what i get this pvp.

GrumpySmurf1002

heavy metal - 49 matches won, 4 shields used, 901 score
teenage riot - 38 won, 1 shield (1 pending hop), 951 score.

Totally same experience.

edit: one more note, did not see a single incoming attack until after I shielded in teenage riot. I don't know how many in heavy metal came in, but it was >0.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Posted this in another thread but here is my suggestion of how to make PVP more engaging for the vets but keep the transitioners from being so thoroughly stomped on all the time.

Have two modes for each event, yes every PVP. Players can enter and play in both. Maybe don't let people offset slices to play one before the other starts or weirdness like that.

Normal Mode!
Things work like they do now, with a few changes.
No 4*s allowed, the wall is at 166 and will stay there in normal mode.
Keep placement/progression/alliance/season rewards mostly the same, tweak as desired.

Hard Mode!
Open to everyone! Seriously just don't complain when your OBW gets x-fisted
Prizes are better in hard mode. We have all the 4*s you want, and some 3*s for the wannabe hard mode players. No 2* progression rewards here (but plenty of moonstone tokens)
Hard mode has its own season! Normal mode points don't count here. Each player and alliance collects Hard Points and there is a separate season progression to go through, and this one is way better than puny normal.

Here is where we get fancy:

Link the points: If you get 1000 points in Hard Mode you get any Normal Mode progression rewards as well, as well as points towards normal season, alliance, and season progression. Points in normal do not count towards Hard Mode anything. If you want those rewards you actually have to play Hard Mode.

Link the rewards. 1st place in hard mode gets normal mode rewards in addition to hard mode rewards ~without needing to play normal mode at all~ (no you cannot double up by placing first in both, stop being greedy) If you prefer to do some of both you totally can but it will be more efficient for you to concentrate on the one you are most comfortable with and do as best you can, and then, like, farm seeds in the other for some iso. This allows the veterans to live in both worlds. They can be in the super competitive side for maximum rewards, or they can take it easy in normal and fight 3* vs 3* to earn 3*s.

The total rewards would need to be balanced, so a straight normal player might see less income, but can go try some hard to make that up. Hard mode players would ideally see higher rewards with the same level of effort as usual.

I'd rather them have:

"DO YOU WANT a 3* COVER MODE?"

and

"DO YOU WANT A CHANCE AT A 4* COVER MODE?"

Unknown

Left the specifics out so they can decide what can go where and how much, etc. but yeah. I'm a dreamer.
Knowing my luck they will take the idea, make it super hard to get anything but a few bagmen and then say be sure to thank crypto for the awesome new hard mode that doesn't help anyone, also in unrelated news we are having a sale on pitchforks, tar, torches, and feathers.

DaveR4470

[A]nd you can lose 50 points to someone hundreds of points below you, leaving you with a 1 point retaliation[...]

There's the rub, and the problem: you can lose 50 points to someone hundreds of points below you regardless of the intrinsic strength of their team. If you're sitting at 1200 points with maxed X-force, Thor, and the featured and you (somehow) drop a match to someone running a loaner plus Juggernaut and Bagman.... well, you pretty much deserve to lose 50 points. But what if you've just played for 4 hours straight with a high-2/low-3 combo team to get to 800, and you lose 50 points to a team with "only" 42 points because that team's a late-joining X-force/Thor powerhouse? It's ridiculous to lose that many points to that sort of opponent... yet that's exactly how it works. The strength of your characters doesn't determine your reward, or your loss, or your matches -- it's your point total that does. And that creates an inverse incentive to compete based on how strong your team is.

Your ideas are good, Thug, and I think either of them would be an improvement. But they're ultimately just band aids. The underlying mechanics of risk/reward are broken in PvP... that's the issue that should be addressed. My fix would be trashing the current reward point system, and put a new one in with a sliding scale based on average level differential between teams. Have a fixed "base" reward for a match win -- say, 40 points. Or 50. Or even have a sliding base reward connected to the level of the opponent's team. (This would be my preference, as higher-level teams should obtain proportionately higher-level rewards for taking on higher-level opponents.) The winner gets the base reward plus (if higher) or minus (if lower) a percentage of the relative difference in average level of the team used. The loser loses the base reward minus (if higher) or plus (if lower) the average difference (with a minimum of 1 point lost), times an adjustment percentage.

Let's use a 50 base, and 25% bonus for wins, 50% adjustment for losses. A team with two 92s and a 70 featured (Team A) takes on a team of two 144s and a 94 featured (Team .

Team A average level: 85 (rounded)
Team B average level: 127 (rounded)
difference: 42

(1) Team B beats Team A.
Team B: wins 50 -(42*.25) = 50 - 11 = 39 points for the win
Team A: loses 50 - 42 = 8 * .5 = 4 points for the loss.

(2) Team A beats Team B
Team A: wins 50 + (42*.25) = 50 + 11 = 61 points for the win
Team B: loses 50 + 42 = 92 * .5 = 46 points for the loss

Retaliation nodes score in the same way. So if, in (1), A retaliates and somehow beats B, B nets an 7 point loss, and A nets a 22 point win. In (2) if B retaliates.... same result.

This is just an example.... the base values and percentage adjustments would have to be fine tuned and balanced to keep things from being skewed too far in one direction (i.e. you could make this so 2* teams are always going to win... which wouldn't be a good outcome.) But it's at least fairer than the current system, in that it reflects the strength of your characters when rewarding you, not simply your event score.

Just food for thought.

lockness

tanis3303 wrote:

This is a step in the right direction, and I applaud you folks for it, but I don' t think this solves the real problem. You're never going to be able to throw veteran players, transitioners and newbies into the same pool, for the same rewards and have it be fair for everyone. It's never gonna work out, someone is always going to get the shaft. I think the only real way to separate player tiers is to actually separate player tiers. It's been suggested numerous times in numerous posts -- what we need is a beginner, intermediate and expert version of each event, and you can only enter one of them. Make the top prizes appealing to each group of players, maybe award 2*s for most and a 3* cover for 1-3 place for the beginner event, leave the reward structure as it currently stands for the intermediate, and offer 2 4* cover for top 3 and 1 4* cover for top 10 in the expert. That makes the prizes juicy enough that 90%+ of the vets with their big scary Xforces will go after the 4* covers, and everyone will be punching at their own weight classes.

I can also see this as a solution to not nerf 4* characters.

Dauthi

acescracked wrote:

As a person gets a 270 xforce, 270 4hor, 270 fury and very developed roster of 3*s then they will what 90% of the time matched against same roster?

No, the system matches them against 3* rosters too. Now if you start the game too early, or pick a bad time slice, your selection will be limited. However they have made it so that it will dig even deeper into the easier opponents vs harder ones.

I think in the previous setup veterans were anxious to run into the PVP and test it out, thus resulting in a harder selection of points/rosters. I had no problems playing the last day of the last time slice.

This also will make pve nodes scale much higher. Then...what's the upside to get a robust and seasoned roster? Wouldn't I be smart to just stay in 2* land?

BTW, in heavy metal the climb wasn't the worst part it was the frequency of getting hit. Since you match similar rosters, I don't think the pool of advanced rosters is all that many. Especially with time slices, which I still think was a horrible idea for PvP (pve yes).

I got 4 Kamala covers for 4th place + being in a top 100 alliance thanks to my developed roster, is that worth it? My nearly finished Kamala thinks so.


We all knew there would be rage when tanking was finally scrapped, thanks for keeping your system but just fine tuning it devs. Teenage Riot will be terrible for the 2 stars (I think everyone's MMR reset, because I suddenly am beating up 2*s again), but at least it will be better in the future.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

I got 4 Kamala covers for 4th place + being in a top 100 alliance thanks to my developed roster, is that worth it? My nearly finished Kamala thinks so.


We all knew there would be rage when tanking was finally scrapped, thanks for keeping your system but just fine tuning it devs. Teenage Riot will be terrible for the 2 stars (I think everyone's MMR reset, because I suddenly am beating up 2*s again), but at least it will be better in the future.

Enjoy your moment in the sun, as those covers wont help you feel advancement and soon enough you'll probably feel like we do.