Changes to Versus Matchmaking [Update]

spccrain

Dauthi wrote:

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.

Really? I get matched with 3*? True...166 Hood with 270 Xforce. I started last day so I guess that was too early. And no one is raging about tanking. I haven't tanked since S5 so I know my MMR was tinykitty but I didn't immediately get max lvl 4*s in my que after the first seed team. That's the issue the devs put a protective bubble over the 3*s and thus made it pointless to progress. Happy for you that you got 4 covers, great job but if you're not immediately fighting max 4*s then you have no idea what's even being discussed

evil panda

thanks for the response, Will, and the continued dialogue in this thread. i think a few people owe your team an apology for accusing you of twiddling thumbs (or rushing out on holiday) while Rome was burning...i think it's clear that with the quick change to Teenage Riot and the latest revisions, you've been hard at work acting on the feedback and that's commendable regardless of whether or not we agree with what you've done.

my experience hasn't really been too far off what you have been predicting - it took me a lot longer but i didn't place too far off my average, and only because i decided i was satisfied with my progression at 900+ instead of going after my customary 1000. i don't mind an additional challenge as long as it's worth the rewards.

the one thing i'd ask you and the team to be mindful of is the time it takes to play the game for a committed player. Heavy Metal was a significantly longer grind for a lot of us, and my request is to be mindful of that on the whole - if PVP is going to take significantly more effort and time, then either (a) scale back other events, or (b) raise the reward opportunities in some way to compensate for the significantly increased total time required in the game.

thanks again!

Unknown

As a 3 to 4 star transitioner, I'm okay with changes that are supposed to help newer players. I don't feel entitled to being able to stomp 2 star players, but let's be honest.

Top players who have everything don't need to win anymore, so they can just do whatever they want. As a 4 star transitioner, the only time I'm really making progress other than participating in PVE's with new characters or putting HP in my piggy bank is when I can make 1000 in PVP. That's an incredible amount of effort. Part of what makes it bearable is that getting to 400 was fast and painless. If I have to slog through that part just to get to 600 where I'm meeting people at the same level and then 800+ where I'm fighting the 270+ wall, it makes the whole "shielding and trying to hit 1000" go from "a difficult, yet rewarding challenge" to "not really worth the effort because it's nigh impossible."

As things get easier for 2* transitioners, it also means that any effort that 3 to 4 star transitioners put into the game will vanish as they catch up and we can't really move ahead to where the top players are. I'm not saying I don't like DPDQ or a lot of the new changes, I'm just saying... it doesn't seem like 4 star transitioners are expected to really do anything other than save HP or trying to play perfectly for 1st place PVE. Just my two cents.

Spiritclaw

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 fomula: [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.)

Let me see if I understand how this math works.

Previously, if you had 300 points and were attacked by someone who gained 20 points thereby, the points you lose would equal 20*300/800, or 7.5.

Currently, under the same circumstances, you'd lose 20*300/1000, or 6 points.

If you had 500 points instead, the numbers would work out to 12.5 and 10.

If you had 800 points, it'd be 20 (the exact number the opponent gained) vs 16.

If you had 1000 points, it would be 20 either way.

OK, that seems less complicated now that I wrote it down.

Dauthi

spccrain wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

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.

Really? I get matched with 3*? True...166 Hood with 270 Xforce. I started last day so I guess that was too early. And no one is raging about tanking.

Any 3*+ who was beating up on 1*/2*s up to 400/500 was tanking, yes this is part of the discussion and the very reason why D3 is implementing these changes. He practically stated that tanking (without saying the word) was fine, but has been progressively getting worse.

I haven't tanked since S5 so I know my MMR was tinykitty but I didn't immediately get max lvl 4*s in my que after the first seed team. That's the issue the devs put a protective bubble over the 3*s and thus made it pointless to progress. Happy for you that you got 4 covers, great job but if you're not immediately fighting max 4*s then you have no idea what's even being discussed

How things worked out for me is how they intended, if you read my statement I said that it was likely a mix of players playing too early and bad time slices. They plan widen the player selection by widening it downward only (easier rosters if it can't find any). They probably didn't account for either of those problems being exacerbated by their new system.

I bolded that section for you.

Flare808

Many people have said to split vets from newbies. I'd hesitate to jump headfirst into that system because of the bracketing situation. Currently we have fluff that fills up spaces in our brackets. If you take them out, you end up with death brackets. Yes, the rewards may be better, but it'll be a bloodbath with all of the vet rosters vying for the top prize. Remember the brackets that would require 1500 just for 10th place? Those are fun once in a while, but it's draining after a while.

Here's an alternate idea I've been thinking about recently. The devs are worried that vets picking on lower rosters will turn away potential customers. What if vets just started at a higher point total based on previous performance? If you scored 1,200 points in the last PvP, your points would decay 75% to 300. That is the total you would start with for the next PvP. You skip demolishing some easy rosters and get to save some time. Win-win for the newbies and vets. You could adjust the decay rate if 75% is too much or too little. The glass ceiling for PvP now rests around 2,000 points as shown by the Crew. That would make the maximum starting point total around 500. Anyone who can get to 2,000 has no problems getting to 500. Some might complain that it's unfair to start at 500, but those points would have been earned anyway- at least we save a few lower end players lost points by starting higher.

TL:DR
Newb/vet brackets- Worried about death bracketing with all vets squeezed together.

My idea: Point decay system- You start at 25% of your previous PvP score. A roster scoring 1,000 starts at 250 for the next PvP. Percentage can be adjusted as needed (1,000 scorer starts at 333/33% instead etc.)

DrumSkank

The new changes are great. Now I'm able to actually compete. The 270 166 wall comes much later for me.... All transitioners should be happy with the new changes. Keep up the goods.

Unknown

Flare808 wrote:

My idea: Point decay system- You start at 25% of your previous PvP score. A roster scoring 1,000 starts at 250 for the next PvP. Percentage can be adjusted as needed (1,000 scorer starts at 333/33% instead etc.)

I wouldn't mind if you bump that up to 50% as long as it's capped at say, 500, to prevent some absurd cases like OpPayHarder where you'd not only win one event but then pretty much win the next one automatically too.

slidecage

first event 444 pts
2nd event 451 pts

is it any better, I say not really Yes we are scoring higher but now everyone is scoring higher meaning you will need a major score just to get into the top 100. Before the change 300 was good enough for top 100 in my low rank brackets. now its 400+ just to break into the top 100

that i kept all scores in march was around 300 to 350

59,44,74,27,8,50,37,61,65,126,5,15, (last 3 were the boosted PVPS)

off season 190 and 317

This season
444 and 451 got me 73 and 78th, so even though my pts are up my ranking is down. I was lucky to even break top 100 tonight got into the top 100 with 8 mins to go.

one nice thing about the high scores though are, Now you get to play less... My Team is only a top 250 - 500 team so we have no chance at top 100 so as soon as i hit 4000 in season i no longer have to play. (what should be the last 2 or 3 events) if the 400+ keeps up

What i do think this new Setting did was KILL late bracket jumping (what i been doing since Jan) the last 2 only got 50 to 60 people in the last hour

Both brackets jumped with hour to go had around 2xx they ended with only 50 to 60 people jumping ususally you see 100 to 200 jump in the last hour

Pylgrim

I really don't understand all this people complaining every single step under the argument that it's pointless to level up a roster and that they wish they remained in 2* land. It's completely romanticising of the olden times to make a point. But my memory is better, I remember clearly the start of my transition: Level 110 Punisher, 94 OBW and 94 Thor (my Ares was not yet good enough). The first matches in PVP were harrowing affairs against people with rosters of exactly the same strength as mine and past 300 points I started seeing some maxed 3*s (or almost maxed). Past 500 it was all 141/141/200 (the early character limits) which were almost impossible, though I lucked out sometimes.

Nowadays? Under the "normal" MMR I cruise, CRUISE to 500 points on the backs of 2* players. From 500 to 700 I see teams around my level, which thanks to Patch and/or LDaken are much more sustainable to fight against than when I battled maxed 2*s with my own. Moreover, in 3* land, there's 14-18 very playable characters (some more than others, admittedly) which also help conserve health packs. In 2* land? 5-7. Lastly, from 700 or so onwards, I start seeing all maxed 4*s which are hard but not impossible, especially thanks to my own (190) X-Force. The new MMR used in Heavy Metal saw the disappearance of the 2* teams that I used to see up to 500 points or so; now it's all 3* teams from 70 to 600. But again, battling those 3* teams with my own maxed 3*s and (and half-leveled X-Force) is much easier and more sustainable than the climb though 2*s was with my own 2*s.

So, did the overall difficulty increase for me as a top transitioner in the new MMR? Yes, but not terribly, and it was admittedly waaay to easy before. Is it anywhere as hard as it was for me back in 2* land? No way. I'm happy of having a varied, high-level roster now.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

I really don't understand all this people complaining every single step under the argument that it's pointless to level up a roster and that they wish they remained in 2* land. It's completely romanticising of the olden times to make a point. But my memory is better, I remember clearly the start of my transition: Level 110 Punisher, 94 OBW and 94 Thor (my Ares was not yet good enough). The first matches in PVP were harrowing affairs against people with rosters of exactly the same strength as mine and past 300 points I started seeing some maxed 3*s (or almost maxed). Past 500 it was all 141/141/200 (the early character limits) which were almost impossible, though I lucked out sometimes.

Nowadays? Under the "normal" MMR I cruise, CRUISE to 500 points on the backs of 2* players. From 500 to 700 I see teams around my level, which thanks to Patch and/or LDaken are much more sustainable to fight against than when I battled maxed 2*s with my own. Moreover, in 3* land, there's 14-18 very playable characters (some more than others, admittedly) which also help conserve health packs. In 2* land? 5-7. Lastly, from 700 or so onwards, I start seeing all maxed 4*s which are hard but not impossible, especially thanks to my own (190) X-Force. The MMR used in heavy metal, saw the disappearance of the 2* teams that I used to see up to 500 points or so, now it's all 3* teams from 70 to 600. But again, battling those 3* teams with my own maxed 3*s and (and half-leveled X-Force) is much easier and more sustainable than the climb though 2*s was with my own 2*s.

So, did the difficulty increased for me, as a top transitioner in the new MMR. yes, but not terribly and it was admittedly waaay to easy before. Is it anywhere as hard as it was for me back in 2* land? No way. I'm happy of have a varied, high-level roster now.

Yeah, even if I didn't have any 4*s there is no freaking way I would want to go back from a roster with LazyThor, LazyDaken, Patch, Hood, etc, where sometimes you wipe out to a single bad cascade but usually win quickly with little more than a pinprick of match damage, to slogging it out with OBW and Ares where you end every battle at 3/4 or 1/2 health. And again (and again, and again) once you get enough points to have a chance at top 100 you're swimming into the ocean so 2* rosters aren't going to be grabbing all the prizes, no way, no how

At least with PvE the people complaining about 2* rosters having it easy kind of have a point just because scaling at 350+ is so freaking brutal, but given that 2* rosters simply aren't dominating top PvE placement (nor have they ever) that's mostly blowing smoke too

Dter

Its funny they change mmr instead of just lowering the 3* reward to 400 and expanding event rewards down to 200 where level 90 noobs could reach it with the same type of effort people with leveled rosters put into placing well.

It wouldn't break anyones enjoyment of pvp, but hey why not burn everyone out so new people can enjoy it for a minute.

acescracked

gamar wrote:

...
At least with PvE the people complaining about 2* rosters having it easy kind of have a point just because scaling at 350+ is so freaking brutal, but given that 2* rosters simply aren't dominating top PvE placement (nor have they ever) that's mostly blowing smoke too

Goto the Thick as Thieves alliance ranking tab, Top ranked. Select the score of the top alliance in TaT, We are Groot, you won't find any 270 xforces or 166 3*s. Randomly select any of the top 10 alliances and look at rosters. The vast majority are all new and underdeveloped rosters. No blowing smoke, just fact.

I think its great these guys are doing so well in pve. Honestly, part of the reason you don't see the same vet alliances dominate pve leaderboards that dominate PvP is burnout. If you've been playing over 400 days the novelty of grinding for 5 days is gone. However, the 320+ leveled ares\venom\hood has more to do with it. People new to the game those grinds are fresh to them and don't suffer from MPQ burnout as much nor have as insane scaling.

OnesOwnGrief

acescracked wrote:

gamar wrote:

...
At least with PvE the people complaining about 2* rosters having it easy kind of have a point just because scaling at 350+ is so freaking brutal, but given that 2* rosters simply aren't dominating top PvE placement (nor have they ever) that's mostly blowing smoke too

Goto the Thick as Thieves alliance ranking tab, Top ranked. Select the score of the top alliance in TaT, We are Groot, you won't find any 270 xforces or 166 3*s. Randomly select any of the top 10 alliances and look at rosters. The vast majority are all new and underdeveloped rosters. No blowing smoke, just fact.

I think its great these guys are doing so well in pve. Honestly, part of the reason you don't see the same vet alliances dominate pve leaderboards that dominate PvP is burnout. If you've been playing over 400 days the novelty of grinding for 5 days is gone. However, the 320+ leveled ares\venom\hood has more to do with it. People new to the game those grinds are fresh to them and don't suffer from MPQ burnout as much nor have as insane scaling.

The game has mostly been this way for a good while. It's just "easier" for new players to hit those type of numbers because they aren't crushed by the scaling that a developed roster comes with. My personal opinion when it comes to 3* releases has been for a good while to just skip the PvE cause scaling will kick my butt and just grab the cover from top placement in PvP. That has never failed me for any PvP I decided to become active in.

Unknown

I think changing the amount of points you lose to 20% less is ultimately pointless because where losing points matters the most is when you're at the top. When I'm at 900+ points, and all I can find are sub 20 point targets, but I'm a 40 point target for those under me, if I lose any points it's pretty much over for my shield hop.

Malcrof

AznLyte wrote:

I think changing the amount of points you lose to 20% less is ultimately pointless

That's not punny! There are some serious points to the points about points being pointedly made in this point.

Doc L

Demiurge_Will wrote:

Yeah, this is a good point, and something we try to account for when we look at the data. Time spent, matches played, and shield usage are some of the proxies we use for trying to estimate effort.

Just to add my two cents as Americans might say... I think the ideas and changes are moving towards something better certainly. I know that it's harder now as a 2* going to 3* (indeed, I only completed my first 166, Daken, maybe 3-4 weeks back, though more for pve scaling than anything else) than it was when I started playing the game (about 530 days ago I'm told by the daily rewards).

I think a lot of the suggestions revolving around in the short-term, decreasing the points from losses, and in the long-term, giving players a choice of if they want to enter a 2* event with a 3* reward for the top X out of X, and maybe a 3* event for people who are aiming for that 4* in the top X from X. Perhaps as part of this, if you are worried about an intermediate reward for the 2* and 3* events, a certain amount of Hp could be the reward, allowing you to build up to a cover over several events if you aren't good enough to earn one out right, as from a lot of experience, constantly winning a 2* Captain America for being 127th is not going to get me closer to the top 100 in the next event, only getting more covers of those 3* characters will. Just a thought.

One question - I'm pretty sure that you mentioned somewhere in this thread that match times didn't increase overly for Heavy Metal from previous events, and that in general 3*/4* battles end quicker. Do you ever look at health at all of the winners? The reason I ask is that, in Heavy Metal, ignoring the guys with 270s who I was paired with over 100 points (kinks in the new system, and probably the time I was fighting), my fights versus other 166 teams led to my characters getting a hammering. I'm not averse to using health packs, and occasionally buying health packs if I can win something, but it makes my rise upto over 600 points (kinda my aiming area for now) taking a lot longer in terms of waiting for healing and so on.

Unknown

acescracked wrote:

gamar wrote:

...
At least with PvE the people complaining about 2* rosters having it easy kind of have a point just because scaling at 350+ is so freaking brutal, but given that 2* rosters simply aren't dominating top PvE placement (nor have they ever) that's mostly blowing smoke too

Goto the Thick as Thieves alliance ranking tab, Top ranked. Select the score of the top alliance in TaT, We are Groot, you won't find any 270 xforces or 166 3*s. Randomly select any of the top 10 alliances and look at rosters. The vast majority are all new and underdeveloped rosters. No blowing smoke, just fact.

I think its great these guys are doing so well in pve. Honestly, part of the reason you don't see the same vet alliances dominate pve leaderboards that dominate PvP is burnout. If you've been playing over 400 days the novelty of grinding for 5 days is gone. However, the 320+ leveled ares\venom\hood has more to do with it. People new to the game those grinds are fresh to them and don't suffer from MPQ burnout as much nor have as insane scaling.

We are Groot is a PVE-focused alliance in which every single member goes for high PVE scores. OF COURSE a few 2* rosters willing to grind can place in PvE. My point was that if 2* rosters had it so much easier in PvE, you'd see them packing the top 10 of every event. Instead, except for a couple of odd heroics, 6 or 7 of the top slots have at least a few maxed 3*s in their rosters with the other 4 slots made of transitioners and maybe one 94 roster. That simply doesn't support the case that low level rosters have an extreme advantage, they have at most a handicap.

I'm not denying that low level rosters get a boost in PvE at least, because scaling from 250 to 350 is proportionally more severe than scaling from 100 to 200, but results show the 3*s in general are still able to come out on top.

Demiurge_Will

Doc L wrote:

One question - I'm pretty sure that you mentioned somewhere in this thread that match times didn't increase overly for Heavy Metal from previous events, and that in general 3*/4* battles end quicker.

To clarify, I think I said that matches are shorter for 3-star/4-star players than 2-star players. The matchmaking in Heavy Metal did make the average match time go up, since there are fewer matches where someone is attacking someone of a much lower level.

Doc L wrote:

Do you ever look at health at all of the winners? The reason I ask is that, in Heavy Metal, ignoring the guys with 270s who I was paired with over 100 points (kinks in the new system, and probably the time I was fighting), my fights versus other 166 teams led to my characters getting a hammering. I'm not averse to using health packs, and occasionally buying health packs if I can win something, but it makes my rise upto over 600 points (kinda my aiming area for now) taking a lot longer in terms of waiting for healing and so on.

Yeah, I would expect this to happen to some degree - matches are getting harder, so people use more health packs and wait for healing more. That matches my experience playing in the event, too. The effect of this over the whole population has been smaller than I would have guessed so far. Health pack usage is up, but not by much, and the number of health packs players typically have at the end of a play session is down by 5%. But it's early to tell for sure and certain types of players may be affected more than others. I'm keeping an eye on related numbers, and I appreciate the feedback on how it feels.

morgh

Flare808 wrote:

The glass ceiling for PvP now rests around 2,000 points as shown by the Crew. )

<sarcasm>

That is such a great idea I do not know where to start!
It's obvious we should be balancing stuff around one or two alliances who start shielding 2 days 5 hours into an event and burn all the shields (including 24h) whenever they are available!
It's such a splending thought to balance around people who coordinate and do retreat-boosting - after all this has to be the way devs want us to play!

</sarcasm>