Debate on Character Valuation

entrailbucket

Matchmaking is really, really simple -- even though it seems bizarre and it can act unpredictably, it always operates under the same simple rules.

It's a series of cascading filters.

• players in your end time who are not shielded
• players with about the same score as you
• players using a team like your roster

They get applied in order. So it always looks for points first, then roster. There are some extra filters for one-offs -- they hide 550s from most people, for example.

In terms of "like your roster," we think they look at the levels of your top 3 guys. Nobody knows for sure, but that seems to account for most of it. Note that this is compared to the levels of the defensive teams those players are using, not unused characters on their roster. So if you used 3* to beat the seed teams, 3* players would see you, but you would see 5* teams.

I don't like "MMR" as a term because it's not a rating, really (it used to be) -- matchmaking is heavily dependent on which other players are unshielded and their scores. Your roster is part of it, but not the most significant part.

For the rest of your questions: no, the game doesn't "know" that some characters are better than others. Wasp and Chasm are treated the same for matchmaking. We don't know what supports will do to matchmaking, but based on the existing rules I'd guess that they won't be factored in. Affiliations are...still sorta lame. Most of them are just small bonuses for certain characters' passives.

If you (or anybody else) has questions about matchmaking, I can probably answer them. It's weird but if you know the rules, they're applied consistently every time.

Bowgentle

@entrailbucket said:
Matchmaking is really, really simple -- even though it seems bizarre and it can act unpredictably, it always operates under the same simple rules.

It's a series of cascading filters.

• players in your end time who are not shielded
• players with about the same score as you
• players using a team like your roster

They get applied in order. So it always looks for points first, then roster. There are some extra filters for one-offs -- they hide 550s from most people, for example.

In terms of "like your roster," we think they look at the levels of your top 3 guys. Nobody knows for sure, but that seems to account for most of it. Note that this is compared to the levels of the defensive teams those players are using, not unused characters on their roster. So if you used 3* to beat the seed teams, 3* players would see you, but you would see 5* teams.

I don't like "MMR" as a term because it's not a rating, really (it used to be) -- matchmaking is heavily dependent on which other players are unshielded and their scores. Your roster is part of it, but not the most significant part.

For the rest of your questions: no, the game doesn't "know" that some characters are better than others. Wasp and Chasm are treated the same for matchmaking. We don't know what supports will do to matchmaking, but based on the existing rules I'd guess that they won't be factored in. Affiliations are...still sorta lame. Most of them are just small bonuses for certain characters' passives.

If you (or anybody else) has questions about matchmaking, I can probably answer them. It's weird but if you know the rules, they're applied consistently every time.

You know the only question most people have about matchmaking is "how can I beat up rosters that are weaker than mine to 3000 points?"
And when we explain, why this doesn't work, and they really don't want that (because they would be the weaker rosters to those above them), they get all flustered.

entrailbucket

Eh, if you don't know what it's up to, MPQ matchmaking is really weird. The one thing I keep repeating on here is the game can only give you players that actually exist. People seem to either forget that or not understand it from the beginning.

Like, there's no 4* players to match you with at 2000 points, because those players don't exist at that score.

HoundofShadow

The dev did say it works using a shifting scale in latest Q&A. And I'm sure I queued 4* players when I hit over 2k in shield sim.

Anyone remember the yearly 1v1 pvp? Okoye and Kitty went from top tier to trash tier, and guess what, Chasm will go from top tier to trash tier as well. The only meta I remember surviving this 1v1 is Apocalypse, BRB, Wanda and Colossus. I can't remember SC was in there.

The environment changes the tier of characters. A simple 1v1 pvp could already drop at least 3 meta tier to trash tier.

entrailbucket

@HoundofShadow said:
The dev did say it works using a shifting scale in latest Q&A. And I'm sure I queued 4* players when I hit over 2k in shield sim.

I don't understand what "shifting scale" refers to here. Again, the rules are very simple, applied consistently and well understood by the top PvP players. If you queued 4* players, there was a good reason for that, that is consistent with the rules.

HoundofShadow

You said no 4* players will be matched with 5* players at 2000 points. I simply pointed out that I queued 4* players after hitting over 2k in shield sim.

entrailbucket

So you're just being deliberately obtuse like usual, but in case your trolling deceives or confuses someone else, let's restate my point more generally:

"In general, one will not be matched with lower-tier players at extremely high point values, because it's hard for lower tier players to score a lot of points."

HoundofShadow

You used superlative word like "no 4* players..." And I quote you:

"Like, there's no 4* players to match you with at 2000 points, because those players don't exist at that score."

You gave a terrible example yourself, and you faulted me for that.

Bowgentle

Also, 2k in Ssim is like breaking MMR in a normal PVP.
Of course you'll see Walrii then - for 5 points.

fight4thedream

Mod note: Removed a few off-topic comments. Please keep this discussion civil and on topic. Thank you.