Upcoming Matchmaking Changes Testing - *Delayed

135

Comments

  • Feherlo
    Feherlo Posts: 4
    Cooooool! I hate that I'm being continously paird with maxed 4 stars and I have 4 maxed 3 stars... icon_e_surprised.gif
  • Twysta
    Twysta Posts: 1,597 Chairperson of the Boards
    ycwvh.jpg
  • Der_Lex
    Der_Lex Posts: 1,035 Chairperson of the Boards
    I think an offseason test would not give them the numbers they need, but I think it would have been fine to do the test on the first pvp of the new season. That way even if things don't work well, it's everbody who's off to a borked start, with plenty of events left to make up for it.
  • ArcanaMoon
    ArcanaMoon Posts: 72 Match Maker
    Guys, season ends in 7 days, i just check it... The test will be in off-season. Insted of conduct a special PVP event, they will conduct a normal VS event... also, the test can be the start of the new season
  • Twysta
    Twysta Posts: 1,597 Chairperson of the Boards
    yd7nb.jpg
  • rubix_qube
    rubix_qube Posts: 69 Match Maker
    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.

    I don't feel people are "chewing out" the devs for making what seems to be positive changes. The players are bothered that the test is being done on an heroic event. It is relevant that it's that type of event since people are less eager to play them, especially in the off season. The devs can plug in any type of event they want. We were shown that with the last minute Iron Man PVP change recently, and the Galactus Hungers PVE coming up.

    Running a heroic which eliminates 60%+ of a person's roster is not a good test. Typically the available characters are weaker or don't play well with the other available ones. I think that a gauntlet would be a good test since players enjoy those (for the most part), and the devs could get a good idea of too little scaling or still too much. It's noncompetitive and everyone can use their full rosters the way they want. If 5*'s are the issue, then they could always lock them out for the event.
  • Der_Lex
    Der_Lex Posts: 1,035 Chairperson of the Boards
    Wow, I really borked my calendar reading for that PvP test. Mea Culpa. Definitely no complaints about that. No complaints about a heroic as PvE test either, to be honest, but I've never really minded those anyway.
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,524 Chairperson of the Boards
    rubix_qube wrote:
    Running a heroic which eliminates 60%+ of a person's roster is not a good test. Typically the available characters are weaker or don't play well with the other available ones. I think that a gauntlet would be a good test since players enjoy those (for the most part), and the devs could get a good idea of too little scaling or still too much. It's noncompetitive and everyone can use their full rosters the way they want. If 5*'s are the issue, then they could always lock them out for the event.

    Its useless for us to speculate on what type of event makes or does not make a good test event. We don't know the metrics they are testing and we don't know what variables are being adjusted. I can see valid justifications to test against a limited roster and vice versa.

    The only issue we should be focused is "Whether we notice a perceived changed in the scaling of of the opponents". Specifically, because they might actually be testing to see if they can tweak the algorithm so that the MMR change is not apparent when everyone is working from the same limited roster. And that scaling only becomes apparent when the whole roster is considered.

    Basically, I just think that unless you know the actual architecture of how the game is setup, its hard to speculate on what is and isn't a useful test environment.
  • loroku
    loroku Posts: 1,014 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.
    icon_razz.gif

    To be fair, I'm only saying I don't have much faith they'll get it right - but fair enough, at least they are addressing it! Maybe several years from now they'll get to the next community problem. icon_e_wink.gif
  • jimstarooney
    jimstarooney Posts: 576 Critical Contributor
    What im reading is no more cupcaking.rejoice long time players!no more being pushed out by a player with a barely developed roster sitting at 2k+because he/she has been hitting 1/2 * teams for most of the event.
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    jimstarooney wrote:
    What im reading is no more cupcaking.rejoice long time players!no more being pushed out by a player with a barely developed roster sitting at 2k+because he/she has been hitting 1/2 * teams for most of the event.
    What's stopping you from doing the same? And don't say lack of Line, because that's bullkitty. The only thing you need to find ccs is a thumb to hit the skip button.
  • Dauthi
    Dauthi Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    simonsez wrote:
    jimstarooney wrote:
    What im reading is no more cupcaking.rejoice long time players!no more being pushed out by a player with a barely developed roster sitting at 2k+because he/she has been hitting 1/2 * teams for most of the event.
    What's stopping you from doing the same? And don't say lack of Line, because that's bullkitty. The only thing you need to find ccs is a thumb to hit the skip button.

    So because I can potentially do it too, it makes the system OK? Why should less developed rosters have the same capability as those who worked longer for theirs?
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    Dauthi wrote:
    So because I can potentially do it too, it makes the system OK? Why should less developed rosters have the same capability as those who worked longer for theirs?
    Because they don't. I would've argued that point too, but it was easier to just knock down the idea that somehow ccs are exclusive and not available to everyone. No one's getting "pushed out" of anything because ccs exist.
  • PorkBelly
    PorkBelly Posts: 535 Critical Contributor
    jimstarooney wrote:
    What im reading is no more cupcaking.rejoice long time players!no more being pushed out by a player with a barely developed roster sitting at 2k+because he/she has been hitting 1/2 * teams for most of the event.

    First, you do realize that most "cupcaking" is done by "long time players", right?

    Second, I'm not sure where you read that.

    Third, if people will complain about "cupcaking", people will complain about anything.
  • Pinko_McFly
    Pinko_McFly Posts: 282 Mover and Shaker
    I hope whatever matchmaking this is for PVP still includes the 'visible to everyone' status that you get once you reach a high enough point total, or this is really skewing to the weaker rosters.
  • carrion_pigeons
    carrion_pigeons Posts: 942 Critical Contributor
    Just a thought here, but how about if you implement a design where for each event, each player creates a "subroster" of characters they intend to use during an event, and are then restricted to those. Matchmaking can then be based off the subroster instead of their full collection of (probably irrelevant) 4* and 5*s. Not only would it mean better MMR, but it would also give people an opportunity to choose characters other than their best 5 and actually be paired against a similar team.
    Pinko McFly wrote:
    I hope whatever matchmaking this is for PVP still includes the 'visible to everyone' status that you get once you reach a high enough point total, or this is really skewing to the weaker rosters.
    Yes, that would be *such* a disaster. ::eyeroll:: What the game needs most desperately is ways for the top 1% of players to pull as far ahead of the pack as possible.

    Everyone faces teams of a similar power level to their own, except those with very high-powered rosters who get to snipe at the people barely scraping 700 points so they can hit 1700. We must definitely preserve this gameplay, it's totally fun.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Hoorayy, i am waiting this updates, because i never won at first even i had level up my char to max, while others with low level won at first rank!. Well if this serious test work!, i will congratulates to server. icon_lol.gif
  • TxMoose
    TxMoose Posts: 4,319 Chairperson of the Boards
    I look forward to seeing what the pve changes look like, but am somewhat apprehensive about the pvp changes. been in a groove for a while now - hope they don't mess stuff up.
  • Eddiemon
    Eddiemon Posts: 1,470 Chairperson of the Boards
    "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."

    Could we get that in the kind of English that everyone else uses?

    Does "Ratings now take into account power upgrades" mean that boosts are now taken into consideration (Bad), or does it mean that the number of covers you have on a character is going to be more important than their actual level? (Would potentially fix 5* issues, would also make underlevelling characters less beneficial)

    Does "the ways different characters and rarities upgrade their health and damage." mean that say Hulkbuster is going to affect my rating worse than XForce, or does it mean that a level 94 3* will have more effect on my rating than a 94 2*? Or possibly both?

    I understand that the specific methods won't be revealed because obviously the playerbase will look for new ways to get an edge, but the description is so nonspecific that it could be a blessing or a curse.
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    carrion pigeons wrote:
    Everyone faces teams of a similar power level to their own, except those with very high-powered rosters who get to snipe at the people barely scraping 700 points so they can hit 1700.
    Yes, the quickest way to hit 1700 is to hit people at 700 for 1 point at a time. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I've noticed a trend... the people who complain the most about PvP are the ones who have no idea how it works.

Categories