bken1234 said: Win % maybe -- but not score -- score is determined by how much someone plays, not necessarily how well. Also I think potential to score should be taken into account -- which is what they tried to do with mastery. Collection size, ratio of mythics and rares, something like that should matter.
theobserver said: I see people talk about Elo everytime this is raised. Do you really support a system where you lose points/rankings if an ai loses a game with your deck against another player?It sounds counter intuitive to assume players want this. Just making sure you know what you're asking for.
khurram said: bken1234 said: Win % maybe -- but not score -- score is determined by how much someone plays, not necessarily how well. Also I think potential to score should be taken into account -- which is what they tried to do with mastery. Collection size, ratio of mythics and rares, something like that should matter. I disagree that score is determined simply by how much someone plays. Not in events like HoD. You have to win and complete the objectives. People who play well score well.What is potential to score and how would you determine it. If score is determined by how much someone plays then potential to score must be determined by how much time someone has to play, and not necessarily how well.
Mburn7 said: I think a better system should be based on collection, but not based on usage (so that it can't be abused). Every card you have gives points, the higher your score the higher your tier (and add more tiers).
Mburn7 said: The matchmaking itself in matches I have always felt should be based on score in that event. You should be facing decks +/- say 10 rankings of you (so if you're in first you face only decks of the top 10 players in that event, but if you're in 100th you only face decks from players ranked 90-110). It would drastically reduce perfect scores (since perfect decks will face off against each other) and make it easier to make progression, since inconsistent decks face off against other inconsistent decks and not keep getting paired up against other OP decks.This would also remove the issues with PW leveling, since you can't sandbag in a lower level walker if there is a good chance it faces off against nothing but level 60 opponents.
Matthew said: Mburn7 said: I think a better system should be based on collection, but not based on usage (so that it can't be abused). Every card you have gives points, the higher your score the higher your tier (and add more tiers). To me, bringing collection into the ranking system sounds needlessly complex. Plus, the way you have described it would mean that people who have limited collections would be rewarded poorly, even if they are able to do very well in spite of that limited collection. Mburn7 said: The matchmaking itself in matches I have always felt should be based on score in that event. You should be facing decks +/- say 10 rankings of you (so if you're in first you face only decks of the top 10 players in that event, but if you're in 100th you only face decks from players ranked 90-110). It would drastically reduce perfect scores (since perfect decks will face off against each other) and make it easier to make progression, since inconsistent decks face off against other inconsistent decks and not keep getting paired up against other OP decks.This would also remove the issues with PW leveling, since you can't sandbag in a lower level walker if there is a good chance it faces off against nothing but level 60 opponents. I'm more inclined towards this idea. If a reset occurred for every event, it would mean that each event would develop into its own microcosm of competition, with someone (or some few) coming out on top in the end.You could even incorporate this into a broader level of competition that is spread out over "seasons", which could be weekly, monthly, quarterly, or whatever the desired length may be. That would be a cool way to drive competition, as well as keep players engaged with the game over a longer period of time. Furthermore, it would be a way to implement a reset button into the system that could serve as a way to prevent any one player from remaining dominant for too long.
Kardynal said: theobserver said: I see people talk about Elo everytime this is raised. Do you really support a system where you lose points/rankings if an ai loses a game with your deck against another player?It sounds counter intuitive to assume players want this. Just making sure you know what you're asking for. I think you're right that an absolutely strict translation of the Elo system to MTGPQ wouldn't be appropriate, and it would need to be adapted in certain ways. But I do think that the general principle of matching winners against winners, and losers against losers, as is the case in paper MTG swiss tournaments, is a good way to go.I think winning human players should play against decks which the AI Greg plays well, to give the most challenge, and make event leaderboards more meaningful.Of course, with the current state of the AI Greg, there's sometimes a marked difference in decks which play well and those which the AI Greg plays well; most notably cycling.