Replacing Tiers / Matchmaking

MTG_Mage

To quote myself from an old thread:

rarity___point value________tier__________score_________M_____R_____U or C
C________1______________bronze_______10-29_________0-2___1-3___5-9
U________2______________silver________30-39_________1-3___2-4___3-7
R________4_____________gold__________40-49_________2-4___3-6___0-5
M________8_____________platinum______50-low60s_____3-6___4-7___0-3

If decks had a value based on the cards in them then matchmaking would be more balanced.
In this system commons are worth 1, uncommons 2, rares 4 and mythics 8.
This gives a deck a point value between 10 and 80.
Decks with scores of 10-29 will be more common in bronze league, and typically run 0-2 mythics and 1-3 rares.
Decks with scores of 30-39 will be more common in silver league, and typically run 1-3 mythics and 2-4 rares.
Decks with scores of 40-49 will be more common in gold league, and typically run 2-4 mythics and 3-6 rares.
Decks with scores of 50-low 60s will be more common in platinum league, and typically run 3-6 mythics and 4-7 rares.
At all levels 0-5 each commons or uncommons is typical.
Note that if a deck is low in points it does not mean it is not strong, it just is low in rares and mythics. It may synergize well with the PW using a bunch of commons and uncommons and can beat much higher point decks that are not optimised.

Only thing I would add now is that masterpieces would be worth 10 points.
If players were matched against other players based on deck content, then matches would always be fair. 
Some cards are better or worse than others at the same rarity. This can change with the more a certain card sees play. Just like the much needed showing shield value on supports, the point value should be shown on each card. Variances can be up to +/-3, so a card can have a 0 or negative value.
This can open up new event ideas, such as pauper or specific point ranges. Also you should get more rewards for doing well in an event with a low point deck.

As for the mastery system, it needs to be re-established at the release of each set, which is fine moves you from one level to a lower one at set release. Also mastery needs to be considered separately for standard and legacy.
If the card point system is put into effect, then mastery can provide a bonus/penalty to what your paired up with (so the higher the mastery the more extra points your deck score gets so you will be facing more difficult opponents).

DBJones

I would love deck-based matchmaking! I'm not sure about the low rarity decks getting you bonus points idea though, that seems like it might encourage smurfing type strategies.

Shecky

I like the deck-based matchmaking, but with a modification.  Someone with a complete set, who uses only 2 mythics in a deck is not likely to be on an equal footing with someone with 1,200 cards who uses 2 mythics.  The former has a wide range of the top cards to choose from and can use the 2 most deadly cards that fit the colors and concept.  The latter must try to shoehorn whatever more powerful cards they have into their decks.  We all know that not all mythics are equal and that goes with rares as well.  I guess there should be some modification of this system with strength of cards owned, perhaps using a similar point system to grade the strength of the collection to modify the strength of the deck.

Mburn7

Shecky said:

I like the deck-based matchmaking, but with a modification.  Someone with a complete set, who uses only 2 mythics in a deck is not likely to be on an equal footing with someone with 1,200 cards who uses 2 mythics.  The former has a wide range of the top cards to choose from and can use the 2 most deadly cards that fit the colors and concept.  The latter must try to shoehorn whatever more powerful cards they have into their decks.  We all know that not all mythics are equal and that goes with rares as well.  I guess there should be some modification of this system with strength of cards owned, perhaps using a similar point system to grade the strength of the collection to modify the strength of the deck.

The issue with that is how subjective it is.  Certain cards and combinations that some people think are bad are overpowered when used properly (Rashimi is always my go-to example of this, but there are many others).

Creating an arbitrary ranking system of which cards are better than others would not help anything, and defining it based on which cards get used would probably be too complicated and chaotic to implement

James13

Giant glaring issue is the ability to change decks after an opponent is supplied.

Shecky

Mburn7 said:

Shecky said:

I like the deck-based matchmaking, but with a modification.  Someone with a complete set, who uses only 2 mythics in a deck is not likely to be on an equal footing with someone with 1,200 cards who uses 2 mythics.  The former has a wide range of the top cards to choose from and can use the 2 most deadly cards that fit the colors and concept.  The latter must try to shoehorn whatever more powerful cards they have into their decks.  We all know that not all mythics are equal and that goes with rares as well.  I guess there should be some modification of this system with strength of cards owned, perhaps using a similar point system to grade the strength of the collection to modify the strength of the deck.

The issue with that is how subjective it is.  Certain cards and combinations that some people think are bad are overpowered when used properly (Rashimi is always my go-to example of this, but there are many others).

Creating an arbitrary ranking system of which cards are better than others would not help anything, and defining it based on which cards get used would probably be too complicated and chaotic to implement

Agreed, but I didn't suggest ranking cards.  I merely suggested that the entire card collection should be considered, using the same point system.  If it is above certain levels, a modifier should be applied to the deck score.  So, for example, a person with 150 mythics, 20 masterpieces and all of the rares would not be considered equally to someone with 10 mythics, no masterpieces and 50 rares.

Furks

James13 said:

Giant glaring issue is the ability to change decks after an opponent is supplied.

I never understood why the game shows us the opponent before the game starts anyway. Don't show us who we're fighting until the game starts. 

nexus13

I think that any system should let you play up as far as you like, it should simply keep you from sandbagging.  With cycling you didn't need any mythics to make an effective deck.  I shouldn't have to put in mythics to get top rewards.

The other item is that I think if you're in the top tier you should be matched with up to lvl 60 PW's.  I don't think at the top tier you should be able to skate by with lvl 20 PW's while the majority have 60's.

Mburn7

nexus13 said:

The other item is that I think if you're in the top tier you should be matched with up to lvl 60 PW's.  I don't think at the top tier you should be able to skate by with lvl 20 PW's while the majority have 60's.

Considering how difficult (and time-consuming) it is to get runes, I don't like this.  My level 20 Karn should most definitely not face a level 60 walker in an event (its happened a couple times, and did not end well).
My level 40 Bolas would also not fare so well.  I'm sorry I can't spend 15 hours a day grinding out a few hundred thousand runes to level them, but that shouldn't cripple me in events.

bk1234

nexus13 said:

The other item is that I think if you're in the top tier you should be matched with up to lvl 60 PW's.  I don't think at the top tier you should be able to skate by with lvl 20 PW's while the majority have 60's.

I agree with this completely. 

Furks

bken1234 said:

nexus13 said:

The other item is that I think if you're in the top tier you should be matched with up to lvl 60 PW's.  I don't think at the top tier you should be able to skate by with lvl 20 PW's while the majority have 60's.

I agree with this completely. 

This wouldn't be such a problem if leveling a pw didn't take such an ungodly amount of time (runes)

I've suggested it before. Get rid of pw leveling. Leveling your first Nissa is fun. Anything past that is just a chore. Just have all pw's past Nissa start at lvl 60, alternatively just have a global 'player level' . While we're at it. Get rid of runes too. Replace all current rune rewards with orbs. Back in the days when runes were the only currency they made sense. Today this game is bloated with all kinds of currencies. It feels like a patch work of features on top of features and could do with a bit of streamlining, but that takes vision.

A lot of these issues the game is suffering from is because it lacks top-down design. Features get implemented without an overview of the full product, and without considering all the implications. It lacks coherence.

I say this as a fan who only wants the best. Been playing this game since it came out. 

Enygma6

I agree with Mburn7 on this point.  
Not all of us in Platinum have infinite runes or infinite time to grind them.  We have to pick and choose which PWs get leveled and when, and being able to play them in fair matches while in the process of building them up helps us to learn how best to use them.  
There would be no point in gradually unlocking better match bonuses or deck slots for creatures/spells/supports, or advanced levels of special abilities if we have to immediately dump a ton of runes into forcing them to level 60 as soon as we buy them.  This would be a major morale killer and strongly disincentive me from playing anything new.  
As it is, it’s not uncommon for my level 16 Bolas to get matched against level 60 opponents in TotP, at which point I feel forced to rely on cycling decks or other questionably broken mechanics in order to survive and hope I get a better matchup the next time.

Gabrosin

Furks said:

bken1234 said:

nexus13 said:

The other item is that I think if you're in the top tier you should be matched with up to lvl 60 PW's.  I don't think at the top tier you should be able to skate by with lvl 20 PW's while the majority have 60's.

I agree with this completely. 

This wouldn't be such a problem if leveling a pw didn't take such an ungodly amount of time (runes)

I've suggested it before. Get rid of pw leveling. Leveling your first Nissa is fun. Anything past that is just a chore. Just have all pw's past Nissa start at lvl 60, alternatively just have a global 'player level' . While we're at it. Get rid of runes too. Replace all current rune rewards with orbs. Back in the days when runes were the only currency they made sense. Today this game is bloated with all kinds of currencies. It feels like a patch work of features on top of features and could do with a bit of streamlining, but that takes vision.

A lot of these issues the game is suffering from is because it lacks top-down design. Features get implemented without an overview of the full product, and without considering all the implications. It lacks coherence.

I say this as a fan who only wants the best. Been playing this game since it came out. 

If we were gonna do that, I'd rather have players get to choose the level at which their PW plays, and then their opponent plays somewhere between the same level and ten levels higher.  Sometimes I don't have a lot of time.  Sometimes I want a quick game.  I can take a level 24 PW with an aggro strategy and have confidence the game will end fast one way or another.  If every PW was 60, there are fewer options for doing that.