Upcoming Matchmaking Changes Testing - *Delayed

Twysta

For now. Yes o/"
Hello.

OnesOwnGrief

Not a good idea to test in a Heroic. That decision was completely lacking in foresight.

loroku

"David wrote:

Moore"]Here’s word from Demiurge:

“The difference between this matchmaking system and the old one is in how we calculate your rating and the ratings of the teams you come up against. Ratings now take into account power upgrades and the ways different characters and rarities upgrade their health and damage. The hope is that the new ratings are a more accurate estimate of teams' power,

and that weird strategies like not leveling up your characters are no longer helpful.

One more example of how out of touch the devs are with their own game. This has been the main strategy for years. (It also means that getting your first 5 star means the game is suddenly unplayable.)

Kudos to them if they can undo it. But given it's taken them this long to realize how important NOT leveling your characters is to actually playing the game, my faith is low.

Marvelfamily

Let's try to do that heroic, so they can get details how the matchmaking works. I'm happy that they want to test something, means our complaining is heard and found its way to their thoughts.

Great!

stowaway

I'm not usually in the "give these guys the benefit of the doubt" camp, but my guess is they're first testing it on a Heroic because they want to keep 5* out of the equation. It's a new system, and 5* are already a poorly tested feature, so they're just trying to keep as much gum out of the works as possible.

Azoic

If testing new things, how about we double all iso in those events? See how that works out

puppychow

loroku wrote:

"David wrote:

Moore"]Here’s word from Demiurge:

“The difference between this matchmaking system and the old one is in how we calculate your rating and the ratings of the teams you come up against. Ratings now take into account power upgrades and the ways different characters and rarities upgrade their health and damage. The hope is that the new ratings are a more accurate estimate of teams' power,

and that weird strategies like not leveling up your characters are no longer helpful.

One more example of how out of touch the devs are with their own game. This has been the main strategy for years. (It also means that getting your first 5 star means the game is suddenly unplayable.)

Kudos to them if they can undo it. But given it's taken them this long to realize how important NOT leveling your characters is to actually playing the game, my faith is low.

My biggest concern is how the new/proposed pve scaling affects teams w/ one and a bunch of s. I think game devs PURPOSELY chose a heroic event IN ORDER to prevent from factoring into scaling for the test. And with out of the equation, how meaningful will the data be?

generalTsobot

I'm cautiously optimistic that this will usher in some positive changes for those of us who have rostered 1-3 cover 5* characters who are only serving as trophies that don't provide any real help in fights.

As for soft-capping, there's a fine line distinction between underleveling and being in an Iso shortage. Hopefully Demiurge's new scaling algorithms can distinguish between the two. Some soft capping should be expected because everybody is ISO starved, and frankly, some characters are a low priority to level and are only deployed when they are essentials.

In that vein, I will often roster a 2* just for an event for which they are an essential, but put no ISO into leveling them. Would the new algorithm punish that practice? Another flavor of this is underlevling characters so that they don't tank, since they are equally effective at lower levels (Loki, Hood are top examples).

Finally, I agree that Heroics are usually a bear in general, so I can understand the community's reticence for using that as a test, since many choose to not even play them. However, it looks like there is some confusion here between Venom Heroic vs. Venom Bomb. It's the latter that features Carnage and the dual feeder headaches, so at least this shouldn't be a concern.

simonsez

generalTsobot wrote:

there's a fine line distinction between underleveling and being in an Iso shortage.

Not really. If you've got 30 or 40 fully covered characters, with nothing over level 120, it's not iso...

Cymmina

simonsez wrote:

generalTsobot wrote:

there's a fine line distinction between underleveling and being in an Iso shortage.

Not really. If you've got 30 or 40 fully covered characters, with nothing over level 120, it's not iso...

I had nearly 40 fully covered 3*s when championing was added. The amount of ISO I had banked up was just enough for 11 of them to be maxed out. Without enough ISO to level (most) of them up at the same time, I'm in a worse position now with 12 166s and a bunch of 94-120s than I was with 14 120s and a bunch of 94s.

I'm not very optimistic about this update.

simonsez

Cymmina wrote:

I'm in a worse position now with 12 166s and a bunch of 94-120s than I was with 14 120s and a bunch of 94s.

"Worse", relative to the artificial advantage you've been enjoying, but "fair" if it puts you on a level playing field with other players with similarly covered rosters.

dr tinykittylove

Cymmina wrote:

simonsez wrote:

generalTsobot wrote:

there's a fine line distinction between underleveling and being in an Iso shortage.

Not really. If you've got 30 or 40 fully covered characters, with nothing over level 120, it's not iso...

I had nearly 40 fully covered 3*s when championing was added. The amount of ISO I had banked up was just enough for 11 of them to be maxed out. Without enough ISO to level (most) of them up at the same time, I'm in a worse position now with 12 166s and a bunch of 94-120s than I was with 14 120s and a bunch of 94s.

I'm not very optimistic about this update.

Keep levelling. Once you get past a certain tipping point, everything becomes much easier.

FWIW, I expect the initial testing and transition to be painful, much as it was when they originally changed MMR to stop tanking, but they managed to work out that mess. I'm glad they're putting in effort to rebalance the game and problematic characters, not just churning new ones out.

TLCstormz

puppychow wrote:

loroku wrote:

"David wrote:

Moore"]Here’s word from Demiurge:

“The difference between this matchmaking system and the old one is in how we calculate your rating and the ratings of the teams you come up against. Ratings now take into account power upgrades and the ways different characters and rarities upgrade their health and damage. The hope is that the new ratings are a more accurate estimate of teams' power,

and that weird strategies like not leveling up your characters are no longer helpful.

One more example of how out of touch the devs are with their own game. This has been the main strategy for years. (It also means that getting your first 5 star means the game is suddenly unplayable.)

Kudos to them if they can undo it. But given it's taken them this long to realize how important NOT leveling your characters is to actually playing the game, my faith is low.

My biggest concern is how the new/proposed pve scaling affects teams w/ one and a bunch of s. I think game devs PURPOSELY chose a heroic event IN ORDER to prevent from factoring into scaling for the test. And with out of the equation, how meaningful will the data be?

And this is the exact situation that myself and MANY other people are in.

WITHOUT measuring our 5*s screwing us over royally, won't it appear as the renowned "working as intended"?

LHammer

On one hand, they're trying. On the other hand, I just slotted my second five star and I'm in too much pain to see how this is going to help.

The last time there was a survey pop-up, I gave a VERY low score to "would you recommend MPQ to a friend" and when asked why, I wrote "Go six months without botching a character, patch, or event and I'll reconsider". Doesn't look like I'm going to have to do that.

XandorXerxes

Devs mention that they're going to do something the forums have been on about for a long while, and they get chewed out for it. Go figure. I'm just glad they haven't turned around and said "fine, we won't test it at all" and just never implement it.

The fact they're testing it on a heroic is irrelevant. It's a PvE event in the normal rotation - even if they tested it on a non-heroic, the heroic event would come up sooner or later and when it does anyone participating is going to want to have the new system tested on it beforehand. What good is a system that works on every non-heroic event and then turns around and makes heroics worse? Whatever system they choose will have to work on every PvE. Yes, if they *only* tested it on this one heroic, that wouldn't be representative. Last big change to how PvE works I can remember (community scaling) they tested it off and on for several PvEs - I don't really expect this one to be different.

MPQ_Daywalker

Ozark Boatswain wrote:

If you want me to playtest, pay me.

I would gladly take ISO as payment.

So either this:

Azoic wrote:

If testing new things, how about we double all iso in those events? See how that works out

Or triple ISO. Give us a nice little bonus for testing things out.

MPQ_Daywalker

XandorXerxes wrote:

Devs mention that they're going to do something the forums have been on about for a long while, and they get chewed out for it. Go figure. I'm just glad they haven't turned around and said "fine, we won't test it at all" and just never implement it.

The fact they're testing it on a heroic is irrelevant. It's a PvE event in the normal rotation - even if they tested it on a non-heroic, the heroic event would come up sooner or later and when it does anyone participating is going to want to have the new system tested on it beforehand. What good is a system that works on every non-heroic event and then turns around and makes heroics worse? Whatever system they choose will have to work on every PvE. Yes, if they *only* tested it on this one heroic, that wouldn't be representative. Last big change to how PvE works I can remember (community scaling) they tested it off and on for several PvEs - I don't really expect this one to be different.

Well put. The new scaling would be tested on a Heroic anyway, so I don't see a reason to complain about it just because they picked that one first.

I do, however, see the concern about doing the testing on the last PVP of the season. In a game that's so super-competitive it seems odd to do a test like this in an event where the high end alliances will be trying to push their scores higher and casual players may be still trying to reach season progression rewards. It would make more sense to me to do the PVP test off-season. They may not see as much player engagement since it's off-season but you can make the same argument for the Heroic testing.

ArcanaMoon

Why would you test PvE MMR on heroics? Most people seem to skip those restricted roster disasters.

I think is because of that their going to test it first in a Heroic, because the restricted roster.

If the post before yours is right about how the new MMR is going to work:

Does this mean the new matchmaking WON'T factor boost for enemy levels?

And boosted level wont be counting for the scaling, this mean an Heroic will A LOT easier than ever even with a restricted roster of the heroics. Because it will factor the base level of the characters insted of the boosted. Right now, in the hunt, i have a lvl 117 Blade, with the boost of the event because he is an esential character, he is boosted to level 211. Because of that, my last node is level 180-181, while my other 2 characters are way to under level. A level 165 (109) Captain Marvel, and a level 168 (106) Hawkeye.

With the new system, the game will take in acount the strongest character in my roster, (level 127) and will make me face enemies with those level and the boost of the esential character wont mess up the scaling in my nodes.

An heroic event, where everyone is boosted is probably the perfect scenary to test the new MMR changes.

Cymmina

simonsez wrote:

Cymmina wrote:

I'm in a worse position now with 12 166s and a bunch of 94-120s than I was with 14 120s and a bunch of 94s.

"Worse", relative to the artificial advantage you've been enjoying, but "fair" if it puts you on a level playing field with other players with similarly covered rosters.

It's not just the difficulty that's the problem, it's about having an extremely limited roster. When my characters had a smaller level difference between them, I had more options than the best 10-12. After months of building up my roster to be nice and broad, I'm back in the same position I was when I started my 3* transition: I only have a few characters I can use. Even when they're boosted, my lower leveled characters are still weaker than my unboosted, maxed-out characters.

PorkBelly

Adjusting MMR for PvE= great idea



Please adjust it during the off season. If you're worried about engagement, just throw in some good rewards in the progression- IF at 800; Rulk (or some other top tier 4*) at 1k, & throw in a SS at 2k. You'd attract plenty of players to evaluate and provide feedback for the new system.

*Edited due to mistake in PvP date.*