Ideal Matchmaking

ILikePancakes

I want to be able to choose the tier to play in for events with card restrictions. An example (could be tweaked):
Bronze: commons and uncommons
Silver: bronze plus rares
Gold: silver plus mythics (maybe limit of 2 or 3 mythics)
Platinum: anything goes

Whatever tier you choose for the event you're locked into for the duration. 

ElfNeedsFood

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.

A simple fix to the cycling problem is for the matchmaking to eliminate decks that have more than a certain number (maybe 5?) cycling cards in them as candidates for Greg to steer.

FindingHeart8

I'm of the opinion that ideal matchmaking (apart from the random selection, which I agree with the consensus above) would be an option of getting to face off against your friends or members of your coalition (for no points of course, just fun and practice)

wereotter

FindingHeart8 said:

I'm of the opinion that ideal matchmaking (apart from the random selection, which I agree with the consensus above) would be an option of getting to face off against your friends or members of your coalition (for no points of course, just fun and practice)

I think the reason this doesn't exist, along with not being able to play against your own decks, is that they don't want people being able to finely tune griefer decks to simply make the game miserable for other players. I can see why it would be nice, but because there are terrible people out there, they're going to make this a non reality for the rest.

babar3355

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 don't think anyone is talking about having any ranking of decks when someone other than the player is piloting the deck.  This might be how it is executed in some games but is not logical or necessary in MTGPQ

TheDragonHermit

(idea under construction, my phone decided it was good enough as is, currently working out a curve that behaves like N after P is passed but is much less before it)
My ideal matchmaking formula:
M=A*L+B*(S/())+D*C+E*U+F*R+G*Y
Where:
M is the matchmaking number
A, B, D, E, F, and G are weighing coefficients
L is the Planeswalker Level
S is the player's current score 
N is the number of games played (not yet used in equation)
P is progression (not yet used)
C is the number of Commons in the deck
U is the number of Uncommons in the deck
R is the number of Rares in the deck
Y is the number of Mythics and Masterpieces in the deck

FindingHeart8

TheDragonHermit said:

(idea under construction, my phone decided it was good enough as is, currently working out a curve that behaves like N after P is passed but is much less before it)
My ideal matchmaking formula:
M=A*L+B*(S/())+D*C+E*U+F*R+G*Y
Where:
M is the matchmaking number
A, B, D, E, F, and G are weighing coefficients
L is the Planeswalker Level
S is the player's current score (not yet used in equation)
N is the number of games played (not yet used in equation)
P is progression
C is the number of Commons in the deck
U is the number of Uncommons in the deck
R is the number of Rares in the deck
Y is the number of Mythics and Masterpieces in the deck

Niv Mizzet would be proud of you.

TheDragonHermit

bken1234 said:

TheDragonHermit said:

(idea under construction, my phone decided it was good enough as is, currently working out a curve that behaves like N after P is passed but is much less before it)
My ideal matchmaking formula:
M=A*L+B*(S/())+D*C+E*U+F*R+G*Y
Where:
M is the matchmaking number
A, B, D, E, F, and G are weighing coefficients
L is the Planeswalker Level
S is the player's current score (not yet used in equation)
N is the number of games played (not yet used in equation)
P is progression
C is the number of Commons in the deck
U is the number of Uncommons in the deck
R is the number of Rares in the deck
Y is the number of Mythics and Masterpieces in the deck

UNCLASP MY ???

This is me trying to get a flexibly weighable formula that satisfies many of the desired matchmaking mechanics; taking into account PW level, deck construction, scores, and win % (which will be curved to only take full effect after progression once Niv and I figure out a good formula for that)

Gilesclone

That looks good as long as it doesn’t mean we end up getting matched against the same people all the time.  I like a good mix of different styles and difficulty..