Broken MMR penalizes players for progress

PenniesForEveryone

Jwallyr said:

Wow. What a disingenuous set of selective quotes.

The actual quotes with some bolds to emphasize things you disregarded:

"I figured that surely the single champed 4star wouldn't suddenly demolish any chances I have of playing predominantly 3* teams with maybe other 3*/3*/4* teams like mine would be, right?"

"wouldn't a more reasonable expectation be that I would be getting a mix of high-3star-roster opponents and low-4star-opponents "

"shoulidn't I be blowing through the non-boosted >>>4star<<< teams with Rogue single-handed?"

That last one was a direct response to another poster, btw, saying that "[Rogue] could probably single-handedly take most of them down." I was not claiming that I actually expected to be able to use my boosted Rogue to take down weaker rosters.

Seriously dude, I have not once ever claimed that I expected to use my 4* to curb stomp weaker teams. Please quit alleging that I did. It doesn't add to the discussion.

I quoted you directly.  You are backpedaling so hard right now. 

I've already explained that MMR is giving you all the avilable teams of equal or greater strength, yet you continue to complain that it's broken.  The only possible conclusion is that you want MMR to give you weaker teams to curb stomp, and that's not a valid complaint of MMR as no one wants to be curb stomped all event.

PenniesForEveryone

Jwallyr said:

HoundofShadow said:

The OP actually started a thread asking about PvP MMR mechanics a few months back and now he's a problem with MMR. Based on what the OP wrote, his top 3 characters look something like this:

270 (Champed Rogue), 255(5*), 255(5*). If we were to add in boosted 3*, it would be ~ 260 - 270.

That explains why he's seeing champed 4* (270).

Players are usually matched with teams similar or 10-50 levels higher than theirs. 

It's not champed Rogue alone that caused the shift in his seeing of 4* champed team. It's champed Rogue plus a few 5* rostered that caused him to see champed 4*.

In simulator without 5*, his top 3 should look something like this:

270, ~185, ~185.
Average top 3 = level 213

MMR did not "punish" him for progressing, but "punished" him for jumping too far ahead (from 3* to 5*).



 

If you can point me toward the purchaseable token which would have allowed me to avoid 5stars while accumulating 4star covers, I will gladly admit to the fault being mine. 

Those are Heroics.  If you hit the "Recruit Heroes" button they are actually the first token type to pop up.  Note the blue square with the "?" in it - hit that and you'll find that they reward 4* covers, but no 5* covers.

I'm glad we can all agree that this is your fault now.

Jwallyr

I'm not backpedaling even slightly. Your definition of "equal strength" appears to include matching my 3/3/4 team against 4/4/4 teams, which doesn't pass the sniff test, while claiming that a smaller match disparity of 3/3/3 vs 3/3/4 is me wanting to "curb stomp weaker teams". Meanwhile I'm getting demolished by a solid wall of Grocket/Medusa/G4mora teams in Shield Sim. Shouldn't these players be getting matched against 4/4/4 or 4/4/5 teams so that they're "punching upward"? If the MMR is supposed to ensure that players are presented with teams of equal or greater strength, shouldn't I be hidden? Etc. etc. etc.

Regarding Heroic tokens:

1) I anticipated someone saying something, and I should have known that it would be you with your disingenuous arguments.
2) Heroic tokens are purchased with HP, which is also the sole currency with which Roster slots can be purchased. Roster slots are infinitely more valuable for a player attempting to roster new 4star characters than heroic tokens, which award 4star covers only rarely and are acquired naturally through other means.

Thanks for making it clear that you're obviously trolling. That'll save me some time in treating your comments as serious arguments.

Spudgutter

PenniesForEveryone said:

Spudgutter said:

PenniesForEveryone said:

Spudgutter said:

Sm0keyJ0e said:

Jwallyr said:

2) Even if there are "no similar players" to my roster, wouldn't a more reasonable expectation be that I would be getting a mix of high-3star-roster opponents and low-4star-opponents than that I be facing 95% full-champed-4star teams, which are no more similar to my roster than the champed-3star rosters? Does it not represent a failure of another sort for me to be clumsily rounded up from the top of one arbitrary MMR tier to another?

So you want to beat on smaller rosters and then they're going to come here and post exactly what you did to start all this...

I'd like to see the exact teams you're being faced with that are so godly you have to skip every one of them (and what score you're seeing them at). Rogue is a bad tinykitty. She could probably single-handedly take most of them down.

Lastly--you only played one event. Come on man, give it a chance. Try a few other events and try different slices and different times to climb. I know very experienced players that have a bad event here and there all the time. You have to give it more of a shot and get past Rogue's boosted week to make an informed "MMR sucks" post.

How many "mmr sucks" posts do we have to read every year?  Can we not agree that it does, because we all know it does?  

MMR doesn't suck because it won't allow me to use my shiny new boosted 4* character to club 3* rosters.  MMR sucks because I keep queuing the same 6 players over and over and over.  MMR sucks because because even though I can see the 4* roster at the top of my leaderboard, my 5* team can't queue it.  MMR sucks because it won't ever let me queue 550 rosters even when I want to hunt them.

Exactly.  It sucks for several reasons

But OP's reason isn't one of the reasons why MMR sucks.

Mutual exclusivity.  Not liking it for different reasons does not negate it altogether.

Look at wins based as an example.  

One person doesn't like that they need to get 40 wins for the 4*, because they could get to 900 comfortably with less wins.  He doesn't care about the cp at 1200 being put into placement because they weren't getting it before anyway.

Another person doesnt care about the wins, because they dont care about single 4* cover, they don't like being shut out of the cp reward, which helps you with the 5* transition. 

Disliking wins based for different reasons doesn't mean that they both weren't happy it went away.

And on the topic of looking into post history, i find it ironic that people complain about wins based, tapping, vaulting, etc. also tell OP that he is in the wrong here.  You guys sure don't mind someone having a complaint, it's just only if they agree with you...

Jwallyr

aesthetocyst said:

If he can break MMR, he can get his wish, and go seal bashing.

It's seriously that outrageous for me to expect to take a 3/3/4 team and face 3/3/4 teams, mixed with the occasional 3/4/4 and 3/3/3? That's "seal bashing", but taking that selfsame 3/3/4 team into Shield Sim and getting just demolished by an army of 4/4/4 teams is perfectly reasonable?

Like... I'm just speechless over here. Do I have to assemble a library of screenshots proving the 4/4/4 teams that have tanked me back to 1400 in Shield Sim (in one day, mind you) to substantiate that I'm not just expecting to "club seals"?

PenniesForEveryone

Jwallyr said:

I'm not backpedaling even slightly. Your definition of "equal strength" appears to include matching my 3/3/4 team against 4/4/4 teams, which doesn't pass the sniff test, while claiming that a smaller match disparity of 3/3/3 vs 3/3/4 is me wanting to "curb stomp weaker teams". Meanwhile I'm getting demolished by a solid wall of Grocket/Medusa/G4mora teams in Shield Sim. Shouldn't these players be getting matched against 4/4/4 or 4/4/5 teams so that they're "punching upward"? If the MMR is supposed to ensure that players are presented with teams of equal or greater strength, shouldn't I be hidden? Etc. etc. etc.

Now who is using selective quotes?  MMR is not going to give you weaker teams - it's going to give you equal or stronger teams.  And yes, you are largely hidden from those players that you are finding - they aren't queuing you regularly, they are queuing other 4* and tougher teams.

To aes's point - yes you can break MMR by reaching some high point threshold, and/or some weaker team reaches a threshold high enough to expose them to you, but in general we pretty much all climb against teams that are about the same or tougher than our own. 

Jwallyr said:

2) Heroic tokens are purchased with HP, which is also the sole currency with which Roster slots can be purchased. Roster slots are infinitely more valuable for a player attempting to roster new 4star characters than heroic tokens, which award 4star covers only rarely and are acquired naturally through other means.

Why don't you just bust out those iTunes gift cards you were boasting about earlier?

PenniesForEveryone

Jwallyr said:

aesthetocyst said:

If he can break MMR, he can get his wish, and go seal bashing.

It's seriously that outrageous for me to expect to take a 3/3/4 team and face 3/3/4 teams, mixed with the occasional 3/4/4 and 3/3/3? That's "seal bashing", but taking that selfsame 3/3/4 team into Shield Sim and getting just demolished by an army of 4/4/4 teams is perfectly reasonable?

Like... I'm just speechless over here. Do I have to assemble a library of screenshots proving the 4/4/4 teams that have tanked me back to 1400 in Shield Sim (in one day, mind you) to substantiate that I'm not just expecting to "club seals"?

Yes.  A 3/3/3 team is a cupcake for your champed Rogue and you shouldn't be allowed to climb off of them in sim.  Now, if a 3/3/3 team is able to climb pretty high - higher than most other 3/3/3 teams - higher than some 3/3/4 teams or maybe 3/4/4 teams MMR should probably expose them to some stronger teams.  After all it wouldn't be fair to have 4/4/4 teams to be beaten out by 3/3/3 teams for placement or season rewards just because they were hidden by MMR to really high scores......

And this is what is happening to you.  Your 3/3/4 team has passed its "float point" and is punching above its weight.  You had passed 4/4/4 teams and so they were hitting you.  You were as high or higher than all the other 3/3/4 teams and exposed to the stronger teams.  If you looked at the final scores of an event wouldn't you expect find the larger rosters at then see the rosters get weaker as the scores dropped?  The mechanic to make sure that happens is MMR exposing weaker rosters once they cross some score threshold.  

While it certainly wouldn't be fair for those 4* rosters to just beat on you all event, it's also not fair for you to be hidden from them all event and be able to outscore them by facing much much weaker opponents.  This is why MMR is structured the way it is.

It's especially gross for you right now because while everyone does go through this transition period, they don't stay there for long - and so at any given moment the number of 3/3/4 teams available is very limited - especially in a PvP where the one 4 you have is boosted.

Jwallyr

Firstly,  I can't be selectively quoting you if I don't quote you. I am however rephrasing your flawed arguments to draw the inconsistencies into greater clarity.

Secondly, your argument that "MMR is not going to give you weaker teams" is undermined by the stream of 4/4/4 teams that have destroyed my Shield Sim position. It's at best wildly inconsistent behavior of the MMR for me to be unable to find 3/3/4 teams with my 3/3/4 team while allowing my 3/3/4 team to be matched (and I'm sure trivially destroyed) by many, many 4/4/4 teams.

Thirdly, my inability to find matches that aren't wildly lopsided due to tier disparities still does not substantiate that I am looking to "club seals". I would be positively thrilled to be presented with 3/3/4 teams, and I would be pleasantly surprised to see 3/4/4 teams as a break from the monotony of constant 4/4/4 teams. I have not ever expressed an expectation that I be allowed to forever beat on 3/3/3 teams with my 3/3/4 team, despite your allegations to the contrary.

Finally, even if I were to buy HP with iTunes gift cards, roster slots remain substantially more valuable to me than heroic tokens, and for reasons that should be obvious. Until I have all characters (of all tiers) rostered and a comfortable margin for new 4stars and sufficient slots for me to accommodate dupes of farmed 2 and 3stars and slots to accommodate farmed 1stars (up until the level at which selling the covers directly becomes more profitable for ISO) I will not be spending even the 100 HP for the daily pull which is most likely to award a 2star (valuable only for champing rewards), significantly less likely to award a 3star (most valuable for champing rewards, individual gained levels are an insignificant bump to their usability at my current roster level) and only rarely likely to award a 4star, which is the tier into which I am transitioning.

Seriously, dude. Have the integrity to admit to trolling when you suggest that a 3star-to-4star transition player should be spending HP on heroic tokens instead of roster slots. It's way too ridiculous a suggestion for you to be serious.

P.S. It's "boasting" to say that I have $100 in gift cards? Really? I'm Mr. Moneybags because I got a late birthday present from a friend and I mention it in passing over my conflicting feelings about the value of spending it on a game in which I'm having a decidedly mixed experience recently? C'mon.

veny

Daiches said:

This is a temporary issue. Its just like when you transitioned from 2s to 3s. Champ a few more 4s and you'll soon be okay again. Rogue is a good character to start with. And yes, those 5s do still have an impact if your 3s aren't mostly max champed.
It may not spell it out in game, but it does say for more information, visit the forums. Consider this place the manual to the game. If you don't read the manual, you're going to run into some issues.

Hes right, it is a temporary issue... it will become much worse over time Especially after entering 5* land with some nice and useless 5* and then "waat, Gambits everywhere!"... and then, you either sell your 5*, or wait for years to get some good one(s) (hoping some better one wont be released in the meantime).

OT is damn right - PvE rewards you for better roster, PvP does...well, let sum it up:

- with better roster, you are more often victim of RNG, especially in tokens. As i said above, it is easier to build a specific combo of 2-3 3*s than 5*s. Multiple 5*s to save heals? Forget about them, come back next decade.
- better roster = higher SCL with better loot (that is positive)
- but at what cost? To be honest, i think matches take longer and have much more serious impact on your roster. During my times of 3*/4* roster, i was trying to use everything after my heals got depleted and with some 3*s i was able to fight teams with 4*s. Now? After both my 5* die, i can use 4*s, but against teams of 5*, they are pretty much useless.
- And with Supports, PvE will be much easier, and PvP will become totally unplayable after imbalance of 5* with by multiplied by imbalanced supports

So yeah, PvP needs to be more rewarding and less frustrating. If i am meant to fight players with equal or higher power, it may be point of PvP, but rest assure i wont participate. 

Sad is, PvP can be easily revamped and there are tons of ideas (and i can came up with 10 completely new ) how to do that (one of mine i will shamelessly share cuz i dont like when my time investment is completely ignored  https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/71935/pvp-revamp-idea-brand-new-system )

Or whatever, just give points for damage dealt - Better roster would help, enemy roster would not matter that much, losing wouldnt be frustrating, and tickling 5* opponents with 2*-4* team could also give you *something*.
I would LOVE this system... just imagine, you fight, and you get adequate reward. You lose? Never mind, since you dealt damage. You won? Great, here is your, dunno, 20% bonus to points you got from fight.
Better roster? More damage. Bigger roster? More grinding. Only weak characters left? No problem bro, come waster some time to farm few more points. Enemy with overpowered combo? Who cares, you deal as much damage as possible without losing your time. 

Jwallyr

PenniesForEveryone said:

Yes.  A 3/3/3 team is a cupcake for your champed Rogue and you shouldn't be allowed to climb off of them in sim.  Now, if a 3/3/3 team is able to climb pretty high - higher than most other 3/3/3 teams - higher than some 3/3/4 teams or maybe 3/4/4 teams MMR should probably expose them to some stronger teams.  After all it wouldn't be fair to have 4/4/4 teams to be beaten out by 3/3/3 teams for placement or season rewards just because they were hidden by MMR to really high scores......

And this is what is happening to you.  Your 3/3/4 team has passed its "float point" and is punching above its weight.  You had passed 4/4/4 teams and so they were hitting you.  You were as high or higher than all the other 3/3/4 teams and exposed to the stronger teams.  If you looked at the final scores of an event wouldn't you expect find the larger rosters at then see the rosters get weaker as the scores dropped?  The mechanic to make sure that happens is MMR exposing weaker rosters once they cross some score threshold.  

While it certainly wouldn't be fair for those 4* rosters to just beat on you all event, it's also not fair for you to be hidden from them all event and be able to outscore them by facing much much weaker opponents.  This is why MMR is structured the way it is.

It's especially gross for you right now because while everyone does go through this transition period, they don't stay there for long - and so at any given moment the number of 3/3/4 teams available is very limited - especially in a PvP where the one 4 you have is boosted.

So let me make sure I have this right- a 3/3/3 team is a "cupcake" for my 3/3/4 team, and I should under no circumstances ever be allowed to "climb off of them" in Sim, but my 3/3/4 team isn't a "cupcake" for 4/4/4 teams, and it's totally cool that I am suddenly presented as an appropriate target for them to "climb off of" at high Shield Sim rating?

Meanwhile, back when I was running 3/3/3 teams I saw 3/3/3 teams sprinkled with the occasional 3/3/4 and 3/4/4 , even at high (~1950) Shield Sim ranking.

Yeah dude, not buying it. Either my performance alone should be the primary factor, in which case I'd be matched against overperforming 3/3/3 teams, middling 3/3/4 teams and underperforming 4/4/4 teams (which is obviously not the case) or MMR is bracketing me with inappropriately high-level opponents, based on roster strength and not performance. The army of 4/4/4 teams that have hit the 3/3/4 "cupcake" that I present back down ~500 points in Shield Sim refutes your allegation that I have simply passed whatever arbitrary point you're describing as a "float point" and MMR is now presenting me to tougher opponents to put me back in my place.

Ducky

*Please keep things civil. Thanks!**

Phumade

aesthetocyst said:

PenniesForEveryone said: ... The only possible conclusion is that you want MMR to give you weaker teams to curb stomp, and that's not a valid complaint of MMR as no one wants to be curb stomped all event.

Is it currently possible, not technically but practically, for 4* teams to 'break' MMR (break as it is understood by pvp vets, not as it is used by whiners) ?

Or can only teams nearer the cutting edge break MMR?

Again, speaking practically, not technically. It is my understanding that, technically, in certain conditions, any player can break MMR, but that, practically, the conditions for doing so would be increasingly rare the farther down the food chain one looks.

If he can break MMR, he can get his wish, and go seal bashing.

Its probably not practical for a 4* team to break MMR  in pvp or even in LRs.  For him to do that.  All the higher level rosters have to let him take the scoring lead to break the MMR formula.

For sure though,  I've played late nigh lrs with weaker 4* teams trying to save healthpacks.  It all boils down to active mix of teams in the system to determine how easy it is to break the formula.

Daredevil217

Jwallyr said:

I'd appreciate you either quoting where I said that I want to "use my shiny new boosted 4* character to club 3* rosters" or quit accusing me of such. Being disappointed when I field a 3/3/4 team and expect to see maybe some other 3/3/4 teams but instead am matched against 90% 4/4/4 teams is not the same as hoping that I can stomp 3/3/3 teams, and I don't appreciate you repeatedly misrepresenting my intent and distracting from the issue being discussed.

You said if there is no one with a 3/3/ boosted 4* combo to match you up with you should see a mix of 3/3/3 and 4/4/4. I feel that it would be fair to assume that if you were offered that mix you would club the 3s and skip the 4s. No?

Also when we say no one in your position with a single boosted 4 and low level 3s we mean no one in your bracket, not the entirety of MPQ. 

Sm0keyJ0e

The OP never answered the basic questions: 
1. Exactly WHAT teams are you seeing in which event, and at what score? You mentioned the wall of Medusa/Gamora/Grocket at 1950 in Simulator, which by the way is over a week before end, so... yeah. You're gonna see tough teams near the 2k mark if you decide you don't want to shield. You obviously found beatable teams on your journey there.
2. You have not said what teams you are seeing in the two PVP's you have played, nor at what score. Are you seeing 4/4/4 teams (not possible) immediately after clearing seeds? Are you seeing 4/3/4 teams at 900, where everyone in the game sees them and everyone in the game can see you? Despite some popular misconception, not all awards are intended and available to everyone (see: Shield Training).

You're not giving us (or at least me) enough to go on to help deduce if what you're seeing is normal or if your MMR is truly jacked up. I have no idea, TBH.

NeonBlue

Jwallyr said:

aesthetocyst said:

If he can break MMR, he can get his wish, and go seal bashing.

It's seriously that outrageous for me to expect to take a 3/3/4 team and face 3/3/4 teams, mixed with the occasional 3/4/4 and 3/3/3? That's "seal bashing", but taking that selfsame 3/3/4 team into Shield Sim and getting just demolished by an army of 4/4/4 teams is perfectly reasonable?

Like... I'm just speechless over here. Do I have to assemble a library of screenshots proving the 4/4/4 teams that have tanked me back to 1400 in Shield Sim (in one day, mind you) to substantiate that I'm not just expecting to "club seals"?

Don't know if this has been answered yet, but what point/rank are you at in the event? MMR depends also on your current position in the event, so getting 4/4/4 teams at 0 points is very different than getting 4/4/4 teams at 500 points.

HoundofShadow

Some posters actually pointed out some good questions. At which point did you start seeing 4*? I start seeing 4* champed in PvP after ~750. You mentioned that you hit ~1969 in Simulator and hit a wall of champed 4* team. The top 20 players (~1800 to 2000 points) in Simulator are mostly made up of 4* and 5* teams. That's pretty normal and I don't see a good reason to complain. You're doing pretty well for Simulator. MMR includes points and roster levels as well.

While 5* are weak with 1 cover, but their match damage is pretty high at ~150/140/130 damage per tile. So it's between ~ 400 to 450 damage per match, whereas champed 3* and 4* matched damage are between 180 to 260 damage. 

If you think that the current PvP is garbage, what improvements do you suggest to make this PvP a bliss, but not a cakewalk? I mean the AI-controlled team is already pretty dumb.

I believe the servers can't handle live re-calculation of the players' MMRs based on * level, number of covers, roster levels etc. 

Lystrata

Jwallyr said:

TL,DR version: MMR penalizes players in Versus mode for improving their roster, while Story mode gives players control to experience higher difficulties gradually as their roster improves.


...Then I tried to play the Eye For An Eye versus match, and apparently due to having a single (one) (1) champed 4* character (Rogue) along with a number of one-cover/non-leveled 5stars has bumped my MMR up where I am CONSTANTLY being matched against full-4*-champed teams, often boosted/champed 4stars in that event. Literally 24 hours prior, I was being matched against 3star champion teams, so with no change to my activity in Versus. I have heard discussions of a hidden MMR and its effect on players, but I figured that surely the single champed 4star wouldn't suddenly demolish any chances I have of playing predominantly 3* teams with maybe other 3*/3*/4* teams like mine would be, right? HA.

It might help to think about it in terms of 'ponds'. Or groups. Whatever. 

Before, with just your 3* champed roster, you were the big fish in the small pond. There were quite likely 2* players with one 3* champed, wondering how to beat your 3/3/3* champed teams (in fact, I know there would be, since that's roughly where my second account is at now).

Then, you added a four star into the mix, and you outgrew that pond. So you got pushed into the next pond. So now you're in the position of those 2/2/3 teams facing 3/3/3 teams. Except you're 3/3/4 facing 4/4/4.

PvP doesn't 'punish' you so much for improving your roster, but move you up into the next level of difficulty. If you happen to be at the lowest rung in that level of difficulty, then yeah. It sucks. You've gone from the easy pond, where you were the big fish, into the hard pond, where you're the small fish fighting the big fish.

Basically, as your roster improves, at some point you need to stop seeing the same teams you were seeing, and start seeing other teams in the next 'pond' of difficulty. Of course this just looks like 'Hey, I was previously fighting on level teams, then I changed one character and my whole game got thrown sideways'. Sure, it sucks when you jump ponds, but it needs to happen. Otherwise 5/5/5 teams would still be able to crush 2/2/2 teams. Which would be absurd. 

We all know it's difficult when you move up in the PvP world. And really, as whiny as this place can be, it's also super helpful. People are trying to give you suggestions, explanations, feedback. They're also trying to work out exactly when your problems with matching occur, which would help to provide even more feedback and help. But you've literally said you aren't asking for help, you just want to write about how bad it is. So... great. Now you're just another complainer. Way to go.

Jrlrma

HoundofShadow said:

The OP actually started a thread asking about PvP MMR mechanics a few months back and now he's a problem with MMR. Based on what the OP wrote, his top 3 characters look something like this:

270 (Champed Rogue), 255(5*), 255(5*). If we were to add in boosted 3*, it would be ~ 260 - 270.

That explains why he's seeing champed 4* (270).

Players are usually matched with teams similar or 10-50 levels higher than theirs. 

It's not champed Rogue alone that caused the shift in his seeing of 4* champed team. It's champed Rogue plus a few 5* rostered that caused him to see champed 4*.

In simulator without 5*, his top 3 should look something like this:

270, ~185, ~185.
Average top 3 = level 213

MMR did not "punish" him for progressing, but "punished" him for jumping too far ahead (from 3* to 5*).



 

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?

Phumade

Jrlrma said:

HoundofShadow said:

The OP actually started a thread asking about PvP MMR mechanics a few months back and now he's a problem with MMR. Based on what the OP wrote, his top 3 characters look something like this:

270 (Champed Rogue), 255(5*), 255(5*). If we were to add in boosted 3*, it would be ~ 260 - 270.

That explains why he's seeing champed 4* (270).

Players are usually matched with teams similar or 10-50 levels higher than theirs. 

It's not champed Rogue alone that caused the shift in his seeing of 4* champed team. It's champed Rogue plus a few 5* rostered that caused him to see champed 4*.

In simulator without 5*, his top 3 should look something like this:

270, ~185, ~185.
Average top 3 = level 213

MMR did not "punish" him for progressing, but "punished" him for jumping too far ahead (from 3* to 5*).



 

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?p

pretty even battle really. slight edge to the 5*. The 5* has a huge advantage in match damage. but the 4* has the benefit of 5 covers in his powers. With the right boosts/tu. the 4* might actually be a slight favorite depending on the char. Honestly, the better question is 3 1 cover 255 5* vs 3 13 cover 4* at 255. In that battle, I think the 3 4* have the advantage over the 3 5*. Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that an experienced high level pvp player would have no problems beating 3 1 cover 5* with 3 synergized 13 cover 4* softcapped at 255.

NeonBlue

Phumade said:

Jrlrma said:

HoundofShadow said:

The OP actually started a thread asking about PvP MMR mechanics a few months back and now he's a problem with MMR. Based on what the OP wrote, his top 3 characters look something like this:

270 (Champed Rogue), 255(5*), 255(5*). If we were to add in boosted 3*, it would be ~ 260 - 270.

That explains why he's seeing champed 4* (270).

Players are usually matched with teams similar or 10-50 levels higher than theirs. 

It's not champed Rogue alone that caused the shift in his seeing of 4* champed team. It's champed Rogue plus a few 5* rostered that caused him to see champed 4*.

In simulator without 5*, his top 3 should look something like this:

270, ~185, ~185.
Average top 3 = level 213

MMR did not "punish" him for progressing, but "punished" him for jumping too far ahead (from 3* to 5*).



 

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?p

pretty even battle really. slight edge to the 5*. The 5* has a huge advantage in match damage. but the 4* has the benefit of 5 covers in his powers. With the right boosts/tu. the 4* might actually be a slight favorite depending on the char. Honestly, the better question is 3 1 cover 255 5* vs 3 13 cover 4* at 255. In that battle, I think the 3 4* have the advantage over the 3 5*. Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that an experienced high level pvp player would have no problems beating 3 1 cover 5* with 3 synergized 13 cover 4* softcapped at 255.

According to the game, they are equal, since the game only considers levels when factoring in MMR.

According to...impact on a team, obviously the 13-cover 4* wins.

Even a champed 3* at 166 beats a single cover 5*, since abilities and synergy account for so much of this game.