Better matchmaking if you are going to charge

LadyTL

Charging people 10 iso to skip a fight when the fights are randomly picked and have nothing to do with your actual level or average level is ridiculous. We should not be penalized for not being able to take on a roster because your game picked only ones that would crush us.

Unknown

How is the MMR ever going to know your true rating if you are mashing skip 10 times before you find a battle? To the MMR you are 1-0, but in actuality you might have been 1-9.


Also, it only charges -10 once you hit the 4th consecutive skip.

Unknown

I think MMR needs to be less based on overall wins vs. losses, and more on tournament standing and character levels. W/L can get very distorted very quickly, and is much too dependent on things completely beyond your control (like how often you get attacked).

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

How is the MMR ever going to know your true rating if you are mashing skip 10 times before you find a battle? To the MMR you are 1-0, but in actuality you might have been 1-9.


Also, it only charges -10 once you hit the 4th consecutive skip.

That part always amuses me. People presumably wins all the time but wonders why their MMR keeps on going up. Is the system supposed to assume that you're a dirty skipping player and that none of your wins are deserved so that it gives you an easier opponent after winning 15 games in a row?

The MMR hell problem is generally self inflicted. If you don't spend all your time skipping people and actually lose some fights, then your MMR might actually go down. Since people are too scared of losing, the system has no reason to assume a guy who never loses is somehow overmatched againsth is opponents.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

The MMR hell problem is generally self inflicted. If you don't spend all your time skipping people and actually lose some fights, then your MMR might actually go down. Since people are too scared of losing, the system has no reason to assume a guy who never loses is somehow overmatched againsth is opponents.

That's because of how badly the game punishes losing. It's gotten better since they reduced the points loss, but when you have to either use up at least 60% of your health packs or wait 8 hours, people have a very good reason to be afraid of losing. The health recovery situation is the biggest factor in encouraging people not to take risks.

Unknown

Ben Grimm wrote:

Phantron wrote:

The MMR hell problem is generally self inflicted. If you don't spend all your time skipping people and actually lose some fights, then your MMR might actually go down. Since people are too scared of losing, the system has no reason to assume a guy who never loses is somehow overmatched againsth is opponents.

That's because of how badly the game punishes losing. It's gotten better since they reduced the points loss, but when you have to either use up at least 60% of your health packs or wait 8 hours, people have a very good reason to be afraid of losing. The health recovery situation is the biggest factor in encouraging people not to take risks.

So how's the game supposed to know that you suck if you never lose?

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

So how's the game supposed to know that you suck if you never lose?

Like I said, roster and tournament points. Skill is, at best, probably the fifth most important thing about whether you win a match, behind roster, luck, boosts, and order of action.

Unknown

So, the game is designed to only work correctly if you are playing poorly? Can you imagine an RPG where you had to have your entire party wiped out periodically in order to be able to advance?

Unknown

donnbobhardy wrote:

So, the game is designed to only work correctly if you are playing poorly? Can you imagine an RPG where you had to have your entire party wiped out periodically in order to be able to advance?

If this was a RPG then the guys complaining about MMR hell would be the guys the dragon just had for breakfast.

Actually the way this game works out is more like a zombie apocalyse game. If you're not tough enough, the zombie pack will always get you, and everyone gets eaten by the zombies at some point. Stronger players get eaten less often, but it still happens quite a lot. After you get eaten by the zombies enough times, you'll eventually become one of them and then you'll be safe, but first you got to get eaten first. Or you can try to stay ahead of the zombie packs, but it is very, very, very hard.

Unknown

donnbobhardy wrote:

So, the game is designed to only work correctly if you are playing poorly? Can you imagine an RPG where you had to have your entire party wiped out periodically in order to be able to advance?

This is about matchmaking in a PvP setting, not a single player experience. It's totally different things.

It's no different than if you play games like chess or Scrabble in a competitive league. Your ranking is determined by your losses as well as your wins. It's a very fluid ranking.

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

donnbobhardy wrote:

So, the game is designed to only work correctly if you are playing poorly? Can you imagine an RPG where you had to have your entire party wiped out periodically in order to be able to advance?

This is about matchmaking in a PvP setting, not a single player experience. It's totally different things.

It's no different than if you play games like chess or Scrabble in a competitive league. Your ranking is determined by your losses as well as your wins. It's a very fluid ranking.

But those games have a level playing field, and skill is the most important determiner of who wins. It's about as bad a model for a game like this as you could get, where skill is frequently incidental to whether you win or not.

Unknown

I don't know why skill has to be mentioned when considering match making. You're not playing mano v mano against a human, you're playing against a flawed AI.

As you state, things like luck, boosts, roster selection, order of play, etc play a large role in determining if you win or lose. So, those that can leverage those aspects of the game into more wins SHOULD play those that can do the same. Wins happen for reasons, not just because of a flip of the coin.

--- /// --

Now, I suppose they could look at the details of the match (hp's lost, speed of win, cascades (luck)) to further determine what kind of quality of win it was. If you and I beat an opponent, and you leave unscathed, whereas I left it with one character with 10% of his HPs, that could be valuable information that could help MMR even more.

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

I don't know why skill has to be mentioned when considering match making. You're not playing mano v mano against a human, you're playing against a flawed AI.

As you state, things like luck, boosts, roster selection, order of play, etc play a large role in determining if you win or lose. So, those that can leverage those aspects of the game into more wins SHOULD play those that can do the same. Wins happen for reasons, not just because of a flip of the coin.

--- /// --

Now, I suppose they could look at the details of the match (hp's lost, speed of win, cascades (luck)) to further determine what kind of quality of win it was. If you and I beat an opponent, and you leave unscathed, whereas I left it with one character with 10% of his HPs, that could be valuable information that could help MMR even more.

Even with the rather signfiicant advantage for the player and the overall lack of balance, skill still matters a whole lot. You can see this in PvE events where the opponents are fixed and how certain people can actually beat stuff with just modern Storm that others claim are impossible.

Also, winning with a team that's hard to assault is not easy. Everyone knows Hulk is awesome on defense, but have you tried to use him on offense? It's like playing 2on3 most of the time.