Matchmaking nightmare

GroundedWisdom

In fact, I would love to conduct an experiment, if it weren't for the fact that it's against ToS. Swap Accounts and see how well those Players are doing with larger Accounts. Something I'll never see, but it's interesting to think about.

K00shMaan

GroundedWisdom said:

In fact, I would love to conduct an experiment, if it weren't for the fact that it's against ToS. Swap Accounts and see how well those Players are doing with larger Accounts. Something I'll never see, but it's interesting to think about.

The thing is we have seen the reverse of this. Plenty of people with Alt accounts are finding it easier to get to GC using an account with significantly weaker champions. People who are obviously the same skill level (cuz they're literally the same person). Don't you think Kabam might be interested in someone letting them know that the things that they are charging money for to "make the game easier" are in reality doing the exact opposite? The foundation of the game relies on rewards being helpful. There is evidence that the opposite is happening for this game mode.

Graves_3

GroundedWisdom said:

There is another perspective to that, but it's not one many will agree with. I made it during the War situation.
Those Alliances who are 10x weaker are facing Matches that are in consideration to what they're bringing. So are the Matches that are 10x stronger. It's easy for the advanced Account to call them easier when taking on an Account 10x weaker would be easier for them. It's not easier for the people who are fighting those Matches.
Subsequently, the 10x stronger Accounts are also facing Matches closer to what they're bringing to the table. Not only are the Matches stronger, so are the Champs they're using. As much as it offends people to think about, their own skill is being tested as well. Just because their Accounts are bigger doesn't mean they're automatically more skilled at one particular aspect.
You have 3 Fights. Best of 3. Take down as much Health as possible while losing as little as possible.
So, I'll reiterate the same point I made then. It's entirely possible to have larger Accounts that are less skilled at BGs. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. People are working with Matches on par with the fire power they have.

What you fail to understand is that the 10x stronger account and the 10x weaker account are competing for the same rewards and the weaker accounts are getting the higher rewards without ever having to face let alone beat those 10x stronger accounts. That’s the part everyone is having problem with.

GroundedWisdom

Graves_3 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

There is another perspective to that, but it's not one many will agree with. I made it during the War situation.
Those Alliances who are 10x weaker are facing Matches that are in consideration to what they're bringing. So are the Matches that are 10x stronger. It's easy for the advanced Account to call them easier when taking on an Account 10x weaker would be easier for them. It's not easier for the people who are fighting those Matches.
Subsequently, the 10x stronger Accounts are also facing Matches closer to what they're bringing to the table. Not only are the Matches stronger, so are the Champs they're using. As much as it offends people to think about, their own skill is being tested as well. Just because their Accounts are bigger doesn't mean they're automatically more skilled at one particular aspect.
You have 3 Fights. Best of 3. Take down as much Health as possible while losing as little as possible.
So, I'll reiterate the same point I made then. It's entirely possible to have larger Accounts that are less skilled at BGs. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. People are working with Matches on par with the fire power they have.

What you fail to understand is that the 10x stronger account and the 10x weaker account are competing for the same rewards and the weaker accounts are getting the higher rewards without ever having to face let alone beat those 10x stronger accounts. That’s the part everyone is having problem with.

You're absolutely right. They're playing for the same Rewards, in the same competition, with the same metrics measuring, with Matches that are the same as what they're working with. Not how they would do against an overpowered Match that shouldn't take place. It's called fairness.

GroundedWisdom

Which is why I made the point that people need to focus on their own Matches. Not that I'm ignorant to what's being brought up. Just that the reasoning is there whether people like the idea of lower Accounts doing better than them or not. It's not that unheard of that someone might be better at one aspect of the game than others. Regardless of what they're using. Isn't that the argument for skill-based? Skill in BGs is represented by how you do in BGs. Not how you did in other areas of the game.

GroundedWisdom

This is a theoretical discussion, and I'm talking about the measure of skill in BGs. That's not the sum total of all the content you've done in the game, whether or not you're Paragon or not, whether you have all the Champs or not, etc. That has nothing to do with how you perform within a 2 minute window, with Champions that are measured relatively equal in strength to what you're working with. What you're saying is not a new argument. We've done the most, we're the highest, we are entitled to the highest Rewards.
So, I hear that, but I add that it has nothing to do with how well you performed within your 2 minutes, with the same Nodes every other Player has, and opponents that are reasonably matched. You either did better than the opponent, or you didn't. It's not a semi-automatic that has kick back that someone who is used to a cap gun wouldn't be able to handle. It's the same mechanics, same Nodes, same relatively balanced Matches, one is higher and one is lower.

Ayden_noah1

In almost every aspect of MCOC game play there are different levels of difficulties. Why doesn't Kabam use the Incursion platform for Battlegrounds. Everyone wants a fair fight and don't want matches that are over powered. Incursions have different Sectors from 1-9. Depending on your roster you can enter into 3 different sectors, but there are different rewards attached to it. Sector nine gives out the best rewards since you are facing against the toughest competition, which makes sense. Come to think of it, this is similar to AQ, monthly quest, monthly side quest and War. In AQ the higher the map the better the rewards since you are facing tougher defends and harder nodes. For monthly and side quest, there are usually at least 4 levels of difficulties with different rewards. Again the harder the quest the better the rewards. For War, the higher the ranks the tougher the competition and once more the better the rewards for it.

So for those that says the current Battleground matching making is OK. Why would prestige be the main base for match making. If you say it's a skill issue for all these big accounts not moving up and the lower accounts have more skill to get to the GC. Then I say let the flood gates open, make it an open competition of all progression level and see how well the smaller skill accounts do against the big boys. You will see more post like this one below if that was the case. This current system is punishing those that rank up their champs with high prestige. People spend money and time ranking up champs with high prestige to help their alliance get ahead with AQ but now are being punished for it.

In conclusion they need to have a different tier system with different rewards. They can have a tier 5 level for anyone who wants the best reward, tier 4 for those that don't want to face the top competition for lower rewards all the way down to tier 1 for those that just want to enjoy the game mode for less rewards. Just like in almost every aspect of the game mode, there are different levels of difficulty. I know there are great skilled players with lower accounts that can do EOP, Abyss or the Gauntlet with no or very little items. This would allow them to play BG against the bigger accounts to test their skills. They will win some but if the skills are similar and the other player has a bigger account, it will be harder for them to win.

I know there is no perfect solution cause someone will complain no matter what the solution is, but I think it's fair to have different levels for different progressions with different rewards like almost everything else in the game.

Just my two cents.

Chatterofforums

Every single discussion where lower accounts getting better rewards than bigger accounts, people always bring up how BG is supposed to be about "skill".

However, despite how many times I've asked, no one can ever tell me when Kabam has ever said this.

I, and many others, have asked kabam to please clarify what the overall "purpose" of BG is (to test skills, is it about strength, it is about strategy or a combination of the above). But they never answer so this keep the weaker players always saying that BG is supposed to be about "skill".

GroundedWisdom

If it wasn't a measure of skill, there wouldn't be Matches, or Fights, or Nodes. They would just Match and display the results of comparing Rosters.

Chatterofforums

GroundedWisdom said:

If it wasn't a measure of skill, there wouldn't be Matches, or Fights, or Nodes. They would just Match and display the results of comparing Rosters.

The exact can be said in AW and AQ, which offer great advantage leading to much better rewards to those with stronger rosters. Your statement just supports what many of us have been saying all along.

GroundedWisdom

I'm no contortionist, but I know when my words are being twisted. You asked about confirmation that it was a measure of skill. I said if it wasn't, we wouldn't be fighting with specific parameters. AQ is literally the same 5 days a week, and we choose what Map we want to run. War is not the same as this game mode, and we already have that area that panders to one specific demographic.

Greekhit

Chatterofforums said:

Every single discussion where lower accounts getting better rewards than bigger accounts, people always bring up how BG is supposed to be about "skill".

However, despite how many times I've asked, no one can ever tell me when Kabam has ever said this.

I, and many others, have asked kabam to please clarify what the overall "purpose" of BG is (to test skills, is it about strength, it is about strategy or a combination of the above). But they never answer so this keep the weaker players always saying that BG is supposed to be about "skill".

Does anyone really believes that all these small accounts in GC are genuine new player accounts?
They are mostly “big boys” alt accounts.
And even if any percentage of them, are genuinely new players accounts, does anyone really believes, that so many new UC/Cav players are way more skilled, but mostly have deeper knowledge of the game than many old Paragon accounts, so they can place so much higher than them?
Because my first hand experience with my alt, was that UC/Cavalier players were easy pray for an experienced Paragon player.
I had people using Magneto to take down OS, and people using nullify champs to take out Thing in VT, and these were happening on platinum and diamond tiers 😂
Would also like a clarification from Kabam about the purpose of BGs.
Is it to reward purely skills and sub out rosters from the equation, or they want rosters to play a role?
I doubt it is the first, for couple of reasons.
Firstly, if they wanted BGs to reward players solely for their skills, they would had locked 3*s as the highest rarity you can use, since most people have them, if not all most of them, and are easy to max out, and all will had nearly identical rosters.
Secondly, subbing out roster growth from the equation disincentives players to grow their rosters and play or pay more.
But unfortunately with Prestige matchmaking this is what’s happening. Players are discouraged to raise their Prestige, because they will get punished with harder matches at BGs.

GroundedWisdom

Greekhit said:

Chatterofforums said:

Every single discussion where lower accounts getting better rewards than bigger accounts, people always bring up how BG is supposed to be about "skill".

However, despite how many times I've asked, no one can ever tell me when Kabam has ever said this.

I, and many others, have asked kabam to please clarify what the overall "purpose" of BG is (to test skills, is it about strength, it is about strategy or a combination of the above). But they never answer so this keep the weaker players always saying that BG is supposed to be about "skill".

Does anyone really believes that all these small accounts in GC are genuine new player accounts?
They are mostly “big boys” alt accounts.
And even if any percentage of them, are genuinely new players accounts, does anyone really believes, that so many new UC/Cav players are way more skilled, but mostly have deeper knowledge of the game than many old Paragon accounts, so they can place so much higher than them?
Because my first hand experience with my alt, was that UC/Cavalier players were easy pray for an experienced Paragon player.
I had people using Magneto to take down OS, and people using nullify champs to take out Thing in VT, and these were happening on platinum and diamond tiers 😂
Would also like a clarification from Kabam about the purpose of BGs.
Is it to reward purely skills and sub out rosters from the equation, or they want rosters to play a role?
I doubt it is the first, for couple of reasons.
Firstly, if they wanted BGs to reward players solely for their skills, they would had locked 3*s as the highest rarity you can use, since most people have them, if not all most of them, and are easy to max out, and all will had nearly identical rosters.
Secondly, subbing out roster growth from the equation disincentives players to grow their rosters and play or pay more.
But unfortunately with Prestige matchmaking this is what’s happening. Players are discouraged to raise their Prestige, because they will get punished with harder matches at BGs.

I doubt BGs are going to stop people from raising their Prestige. There are two basic types of Players. Those who care about Prestige, and those who don't. Those who do will raise it either way, whether encouraged by their Ally or not.

Greekhit

GroundedWisdom said:

They don't have the same difficulty levels. BGs do. That's my point.
One side has weaker Champs, so does their opponent.
One side has stronger Champs, so does their opponent.
Same Nodes, same time to compete, same measuring metrics.

Both sides though have same rewards 🤔

GroundedWisdom

When you get right down to it, BGs are using the same measuring stick. Perhaps that's what's led to this, but here we are.

GroundedWisdom

Greekhit said:

GroundedWisdom said:

They don't have the same difficulty levels. BGs do. That's my point.
One side has weaker Champs, so does their opponent.
One side has stronger Champs, so does their opponent.
Same Nodes, same time to compete, same measuring metrics.

Both sides though have same rewards 🤔

They would if both sides were equally successful in their own Matches. Lol.

Graves_3

GroundedWisdom said:

They don't have the same difficulty levels. BGs do. That's my point.
One side has weaker Champs, so does their opponent.
One side has stronger Champs, so does their opponent.
Same Nodes, same time to compete, same measuring metrics.

And I am asking if you think it’s ok for the EQ have difficulty proportionate to the rosters with the same rewards for both TB and uncollected difficulties.

TyEdge

No.

Game.

Mode.

Should.

Ever.

Disincentivize.

Roster.

Growth.

GroundedWisdom

Graves_3 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

They don't have the same difficulty levels. BGs do. That's my point.
One side has weaker Champs, so does their opponent.
One side has stronger Champs, so does their opponent.
Same Nodes, same time to compete, same measuring metrics.

And I am asking if you think it’s ok for the EQ have difficulty proportionate to the rosters with the same rewards for both TB and uncollected difficulties.

EQ doesn't just have the same Nodes with equal power against you. It has a variation of Nodes, difficulty, and Rarity. For more or less Rewards. Not the same. Do I think that would make sense? No. That's also not what we're looking at.

DNA3000

ArkonMagnficent said:

Paragon level players vs paragon players is still much more fairly matched though.

It depends on what you mean by fair. If all that mattered was that players get matched against players of equal strength, then paragon vs paragon would be more fair. However, Battlegrounds is not just about 1v1 fights. It contains rewards that get higher the more matches you win, and in particular your ability to win matches in a row.

That means when Paragons match Paragons and Uncollected matches Uncollected, *someone* that is Uncollected has to be the best Uncollected player, and he's going to win very often by definition. He doesn't have to be the best player in the game, he certainly doesn't have to be better than the Paragons - he might in fact be a worse player, skillwise, than *all* the Paragons, Cavs, and Thronebreakers. But if he is better than all the Uncollecteds, he will skate through the Victory track scooping up rewards while players that are stronger than him in terms of roster *and* better than him in terms of skill could find themselves getting far less than him. And that's because this hypothetical best Uncollected player never has to face those players.

Is it fair that an Uncollected player could get all the VT rewards easily, while TBs and Paragons struggle to achieve the same thing, because he would never, ever, have to face anything but other Uncollected players? A lot of people think that isn't fair.

GroundedWisdom

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

Chatterofforums

GroundedWisdom said:

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.

GroundedWisdom

Chatterofforums said:

GroundedWisdom said:

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.

Actually, that's been the number one argument to using Prestige, so I'm addressing what's been mentioned countless times in these discussions.

Graves_3

GroundedWisdom said:

Chatterofforums said:

GroundedWisdom said:

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.

Actually, that's been the number one argument to using Prestige, so I'm addressing what's been mentioned countless times in these discussions.

Seriously!! People are saying roster shouldn’t matter in matchmaking. You are actually the one arguing that roster should matter in matchmaking.
If it’s really a question of skill then why do you think kabam got rid of the ability to use 4* deck and match against other people with 4* decks?

GroundedWisdom

Graves_3 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Chatterofforums said:

GroundedWisdom said:

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.

Actually, that's been the number one argument to using Prestige, so I'm addressing what's been mentioned countless times in these discussions.

Seriously!! People are saying roster shouldn’t matter in matchmaking. You are actually the one arguing that roster should matter in matchmaking.
If it’s really a question of skill then why do you think kabam got rid of the ability to use 4* deck and match against other people with 4* decks?

I actually outlined the contradiction with people saying Roster shouldn't matter, and yet it matters to them when it supports their argument. I also clarified that I'm having a discussion on the logic of it and not saying things should or shouldn't either way.
Also, if you're under the impression people were dumbing down their Roster for a good 'ol bit of fun and not to take advantage of others, then I don't know what to say to that.
People will use any plausible but untrue justification to have the ability to manipulate an outcome.

Saru2244

Could someone please explain to me again what the current status is with regard to the question of how matchmaking is carried out? Reading the comments here I would assume that the prestige of the whole rooster plays a role. But you only choose 30 champs to play with. Does the prestige of these 30 selected champs then count for matchmaking or does the prestige of the entire rooster count? So far I've assumed that the choice of champs used plays a role, because you need different champs for different buffs and can't just always take the 30 best. Is that correct or does it really just depend on the overall prestige of the whole rooster?

Pikok

GroundedWisdom said:

Graves_3 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Chatterofforums said:

GroundedWisdom said:

For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.

The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.

Actually, that's been the number one argument to using Prestige, so I'm addressing what's been mentioned countless times in these discussions.

Seriously!! People are saying roster shouldn’t matter in matchmaking. You are actually the one arguing that roster should matter in matchmaking.
If it’s really a question of skill then why do you think kabam got rid of the ability to use 4* deck and match against other people with 4* decks?

I actually outlined the contradiction with people saying Roster shouldn't matter, and yet it matters to them when it supports their argument. I also clarified that I'm having a discussion on the logic of it and not saying things should or shouldn't either way.
Also, if you're under the impression people were dumbing down their Roster for a good 'ol bit of fun and not to take advantage of others, then I don't know what to say to that.
People will use any plausible but untrue justification to have the ability to manipulate an outcome.

Roster should not matter in matchmaking. Roster should matter in your placement (you get better roster - you will be placed higher than somebody with worse roster and assuming same skills).

Funny that nobody complaining about GC matchmaking (besides cav people who did not understand why they are in GC and now they are loosing 30 games in a row), and also war matchmaking (should cav players be in masters or plat??, looks like it is not fair for them to be in silver…)

Mr_Platypus

Saru2244 said:

Could someone please explain to me again what the current status is with regard to the question of how matchmaking is carried out? Reading the comments here I would assume that the prestige of the whole rooster plays a role. But you only choose 30 champs to play with. Does the prestige of these 30 selected champs then count for matchmaking or does the prestige of the entire rooster count? So far I've assumed that the choice of champs used plays a role, because you need different champs for different buffs and can't just always take the 30 best. Is that correct or does it really just depend on the overall prestige of the whole rooster?

I think it’s assumed that it’s prestige of the account. Prestige of the selected 30 would allow sandbagging to continue as the 2*s drag down your average roster prestige.

However I’ve also seen some people say that when they ran suicides they got matched with stronger people more frequently (and as a thronebreaker using suicide masteries with 1 relatively low prestige r4, I have noticed almost every opponent is paragon).
So in reality, no one truly knows. I just know that Kabam are to blame considering we went through all of this with war matchmaking a while back

Dylan_1801

Chatterofforums said:

If your frustrated losing matches in GC, imagine how 16k prestige Paragon players feel who are stuck in gold in victory bracket still feel seeing your much smaller accounts in GC with way better rewards than them. All because of a ridiculously broken matchmaking system that rewards weaker rosters with easier path to GC.

If ur still stuck in gold at this stage with a 16k prestige account, that’s not just a matchmaking problem lol

Saru2244

Mr_Platypus said:

Saru2244 said:

Could someone please explain to me again what the current status is with regard to the question of how matchmaking is carried out? Reading the comments here I would assume that the prestige of the whole rooster plays a role. But you only choose 30 champs to play with. Does the prestige of these 30 selected champs then count for matchmaking or does the prestige of the entire rooster count? So far I've assumed that the choice of champs used plays a role, because you need different champs for different buffs and can't just always take the 30 best. Is that correct or does it really just depend on the overall prestige of the whole rooster?

I think it’s assumed that it’s prestige of the account. Prestige of the selected 30 would allow sandbagging to continue as the 2*s drag down your average roster prestige.

However I’ve also seen some people say that when they ran suicides they got matched with stronger people more frequently (and as a thronebreaker using suicide masteries with 1 relatively low prestige r4, I have noticed almost every opponent is paragon).
So in reality, no one truly knows. I just know that Kabam are to blame considering we went through all of this with war matchmaking a while back

As if that were the case, that the prestige of the overall account counts, that wouldn't make much sense to me. The best reason for this is the current season: there are a few champs that are very effective. Then there are champions, you simply can't use them with the current buffs, high prestige or not. This doesn't have much to do with skill either, because if you lose a lot of life with every hit, e.g. because you don't have an armor break or neutralization or the like, you can of course only use these champions to a limited extent. So if I now decide that I will mainly fight with 5* champs because I have the right champs and can build a reasonable rooster that is adapted to the season, then the prestige of all other 6* champs should still count , which I can't use at all? What nonsense would that be? If it really works like that, then we don't need a different season with alternative buffs to use the breadth of your rooster, because no matter which champ I field, it's always the overall prestige that counts. That can't be intentional.