@DNA3000 Most games and competitions play with the same tools and rules and skill is the deciding factor of who wins.
That's not true, you can't have 2 Lebrons one on each side, you can't have 2 Messi's one on each side.. when tournaments end they choose 1 MVP not an MVP from each side. Every competition is about gaining and advantage within the rules (otherwise you get disqualified and called a cheater of course) Its about beating your opponent, not about winning but making them feel good they put on a good performance .
Messi is a coward - too scared to get lit up by Atlanta!
Have you seen his Miami condo? It’s the opposite of tidy.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Are you not alarmed by how often you say “I’m pretty sure my points are clear”? You should be… because they seldom are.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
Who said it wasn't? I put forth the idea. I was responding to the assertion that any Match can be won by either side. Which is false. Now, if someone came outright and said, some Matches people will never win and that's how it should be, then that's a different discussion. On principle, I don't agree with such variations in both Roster sizes that they guarantee a Loss with optimal skill being used. Which is why I said it takes the skill out of it. Some disagree, which is completely fine. To say they're winnable is not accurate. We all know for a fact some Matches are not winnable by the weaker side.
@DNA3000 Most games and competitions play with the same tools and rules and skill is the deciding factor of who wins.
Only if you define "same tools and rules" very narrowly.
Let's talk organized sports. Some, like the NFL, have salary caps. But most don't. Major League Baseball does not, and as a result teams with salaries an order of magnitude higher than compete directly against each other. This is considered completely fair. The largest organized sporting leagues in the world, what we call soccer in the US and football everywhere else, do not generally have salary caps enforced on their rosters.
In sports where it is even possible for the competitors to bring different tools, there are rules for what's legal but no specific limitation on how good those tools can be. There are specific rules that limit what you can do to a NASCAR vehicle, for example, but there's no cap on how much you can spend. There's no specific limit on how much of an advantage you can build into your car, within the rules. Same is true for yacht racing.
Even individual sports where there is sporting tools and equipment there are not usually requirements that all competitors have equal tools. In golf there's no limit on how much you can spend on clubs (there are rules on how golf clubs are constructed, but they only limit the extremes, they do not standardize their performance).
Even in Chess, where the game is literally played on one board with an identical set of pieces and no extra equipment, the players are not completely equal in terms of "tools." At the professional level, Chess players prepare with coaches, seconds, advisors, and especially these days with supercomputer calculated chess lines. All these things cost money, and whoever spends more on all of them will have an advantage going into the games. You might think that it is just practice, like everyone practices, but it is more than that. A prepared supercomputer line can give you an automatic win in some situations if your opponent is not prepared for it and cannot break you out of it correctly. This has been a topic of conversation in Chess since before computers were playing it well, actually. Bobby Fischer famously said once that opening theory destroyed the game of Chess, that opening theory (where people study the first twenty moves of the game and come prepared with memorized sequences of moves from books) removed the skill from Chess completely. And this was before Chess computers could tell players *precisely* where a particular line of play would go, fifty moves into the future.
Most games are not played with the same tools. I'm not even going to discuss in detail asymmetric games, one of my favorite game theory topics, where both sides aren't even playing with the same tools at all. That would be besides the point here. But even in situations where both sides have the same opportunities to bring the same stuff, most games do not explicitly try to ensure both sides are identical in this regard. You have things like the International Race of Champions (iROC) that had stock car racers race virtually identical cars, but even there racing teams were allowed to tune the cars differently to gain an advantage. That's extremely close to "same tools" but still not exactly the same.
The idea that competitions should be purely based on skill is a romantic notion, but the problem is defining the boundaries of skill verses other factors. If an NFL quarterback practices for a thousand hours to throw a perfect spiral, that's skill right? What if he does that in a million dollar facility that uses computer aided tools to correct his throw? Still skill, or now pay to win?
In most games and competitions, it isn't skill alone that is the determining factor. It is performance that matters, of which skill is one component. Even if you wave a magic wand and gave me perfect running skill, I would never beat Usain Bolt in the hundred. You could insert a bionic shooting calculator into my brain, and I still won't outplay Lebron James.
As an aside, Chuck Yeager was once asked what single skill contributed the most to his success as a fighter pilot in World War 2, and he said "eyesight." He was blessed with something between 20/10 and 20/8 eyesight. He could see them before they could see him, and in a dogfight that's an enormous advantage. He once described an engagement where he fired a quick burst from his guns and immediately turned to engage another enemy aircraft because he saw his bullets strike the cockpit of the enemy and kill the pilot from over five hundred yards away.
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k? +/-1m? +/-2m? Other?
For the sake of the argument that is so unfair.. I got a 4.9 mill account and at least 3 million are from 1*-5* that will never be on the deck 😤
I've made that same argument, and I still stand by it today. Playing devil's advocate though, a similar delta will apply to the smaller account as well.
Odds are, a 2.9m account probably has over 1m that will never be in a deck.
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k? +/-1m? +/-2m? Other?
For the sake of the argument that is so unfair.. I got a 4.9 mill account and at least 3 million are from 1*-5* that will never be on the deck 😤
I've made that same argument, and I still stand by it today. Playing devil's advocate though, a similar delta will apply to the smaller account as well.
Odds are, a 2.9m account probably has over 1m that will never be in a deck.
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k? +/-1m? +/-2m? Other?
For the sake of the argument that is so unfair.. I got a 4.9 mill account and at least 3 million are from 1*-5* that will never be on the deck 😤
I've made that same argument, and I still stand by it today. Playing devil's advocate though, a similar delta will apply to the smaller account as well.
Odds are, a 2.9m account probably has over 1m that will never be in a deck.
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
I totally understand your point, just making sure its hypothetical, because its a terrible way to measure the size of an account. Same for prestige, max sig Silver Surfer not a top choice to put on deck on most metas.
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
People often post profiles after the fact, because after the fact you can't go back and look at deck. But I would imagine most players who feel they were vastly overmatched were not looking at account rating when they made that determination, and rather were looking at the apparent strength of deck. How many 7s, how many 6s, and on average how many thousands of rating points on average the opponent's deck was (most people cannot easily determine rank from rating directly, and uses PI as the proxy with all the accuracy issues that come with doing that).
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
People often post profiles after the fact, because after the fact you can't go back and look at deck. But I would imagine most players who feel they were vastly overmatched were not looking at account rating when they made that determination, and rather were looking at the apparent strength of deck. How many 7s, how many 6s, and on average how many thousands of rating points on average the opponent's deck was (most people cannot easily determine rank from rating directly, and uses PI as the proxy with all the accuracy issues that come with doing that).
I agree with that also, but again, I'm trying to simply establish clear, measurable baselines with our friend who always gives "clear" answers, and makes "clear" points.
So yes, I agree that it's not an exact science, but it's the closest I'm gonna get. I would argue it's a farily reasonable measure, cause I don't think there are many 2m accounts with a combination of 30 6r5 and 7r2.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
Who said it wasn't? I put forth the idea. I was responding to the assertion that any Match can be won by either side. Which is false. Now, if someone came outright and said, some Matches people will never win and that's how it should be, then that's a different discussion. On principle, I don't agree with such variations in both Roster sizes that they guarantee a Loss with optimal skill being used. Which is why I said it takes the skill out of it. Some disagree, which is completely fine. To say they're winnable is not accurate. We all know for a fact some Matches are not winnable by the weaker side.
Let me try to put it this way: once a player reaches the point that he/she is only facing matches you would consider probably “unwinnable” (say, for example, a 750K account who makes it to Diamond where opponents are routinely 2M+, also assuming matchmaking operates as advertised), what then is your solution? Do you consider that a problem? Or do you consider that 750K account has made it as far as it can go for that season and should be content?
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k? +/-1m? +/-2m? Other?
I'm not talking about my own Account. Haven't been all along. If I lose, I'm beaten. It also has very little to do with the Account Rating, and more to do with the amount of potential Damage a Champ can inflict within the span of 2 minutes appx., compared to the opponent. With a variable range, Players can "skill" their way into a Win. Some perform more skillful than others, no doubt. Factor in the various Champs, counters to Nodes, differences in Ranks, sure. There are going to be differences, and that's all part of the competition. When you're talking about the extreme cases, and there is an extremity when you have such a wide range of Players in one competition, then that potential is obliterated. I'm talking about the 7*R2s that come up against the lower Accounts, for example. My issue isn't that bigger Accounts can match with smaller Accounts. My issue is when you have it open for any possible Match, and call it justified because it's a competition, then there comes a point where it's not about skill at all in BGs. It's about an opponent that overpowers you beyond what playing with perfect skill can manage. All I've ever wanted, both in War discussions and here, is a system that stops the most extreme Matches from happening and doesn't allow people to be taken advantage of. We all know those Matches. We have a laugh, then feel bad for the other Player(s). That's not a contest at all, really. It's a slaughter, and it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without reasonable limits, you're no longer motivating people to do better, get better, keep trying. You're turning them off from trying at all.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
Who said it wasn't? I put forth the idea. I was responding to the assertion that any Match can be won by either side. Which is false. Now, if someone came outright and said, some Matches people will never win and that's how it should be, then that's a different discussion. On principle, I don't agree with such variations in both Roster sizes that they guarantee a Loss with optimal skill being used. Which is why I said it takes the skill out of it. Some disagree, which is completely fine. To say they're winnable is not accurate. We all know for a fact some Matches are not winnable by the weaker side.
Let me try to put it this way: once a player reaches the point that he/she is only facing matches you would consider probably “unwinnable” (say, for example, a 750K account who makes it to Diamond where opponents are routinely 2M+, also assuming matchmaking operates as advertised), what then is your solution? Do you consider that a problem? Or do you consider that 750K account has made it as far as it can go for that season and should be content?
Dr. Zola
Of course not, and I've taken the time to point out to them that Matches will become harder.
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k? +/-1m? +/-2m? Other?
I'm not talking about my own Account. Haven't been all along. If I lose, I'm beaten. It also has very little to do with the Account Rating, and more to do with the amount of potential Damage a Champ can inflict within the span of 2 minutes appx., compared to the opponent. With a variable range, Players can "skill" their way into a Win. Some perform more skillful than others, no doubt. Factor in the various Champs, counters to Nodes, differences in Ranks, sure. There are going to be differences, and that's all part of the competition. When you're talking about the extreme cases, and there is an extremity when you have such a wide range of Players in one competition, then that potential is obliterated. I'm talking about the 7*R2s that come up against the lower Accounts, for example. My issue isn't that bigger Accounts can match with smaller Accounts. My issue is when you have it open for any possible Match, and call it justified because it's a competition, then there comes a point where it's not about skill at all in BGs. It's about an opponent that overpowers you beyond what playing with perfect skill can manage. All I've ever wanted, both in War discussions and here, is a system that stops the most extreme Matches from happening and doesn't allow people to be taken advantage of. We all know those Matches. We have a laugh, then feel bad for the other Player(s). That's not a contest at all, really. It's a slaughter, and it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without reasonable limits, you're no longer motivating people to do better, get better, keep trying. You're turning them off from trying at all.
For the record, I wasn't trying to single out your account, so don't make it about that. I was using your account as a reference point, cause you've clearly come up against these "death matches" so I'd like to know in your experience, what's the acceptable range.
But just to be clear, as you have claimed numerous times to be, there is no definable metric the matchmaking algorithm could look at to ensure a player doesn't encounter a match that can't be overcome by skill?
Cause we already know from the sandbagging season that using deck strength can be manipulated, so that's out. And you're declining to give a clear answer to what a reasonable +/- range is for base hero rating.
I think we can also all agree that prestige wouldn't be a good metric to use either.
So what then, would you propose is a good metric, that someone wouldn't figure out a way to manipulate, to ensure folks don't come up against a "death match".
Why do you insist on turning it against my Account? I've never complained about my Matches on here. Ever. Also, I answered your question. I don't agree that total Account Rating is something that has anything to do with it.
Why do you insist on turning it against my Account? I've never complained about my Matches on here. Ever. Also, I answered your question. I don't agree that total Account Rating is something that has anything to do with it.
Are you kidding me right now? That is exactly why no one takes you seriously.
I explicitly said I'm not singling out your account. I said I'm using it as a reference cause you obviously know from your account size what feels like an unwinnable match.
And to the second bit, no, you consciously avoided the question. You said base hero rating shouldn't be a factor, but when asked specifically what should be used, you gave no answer.
Imagine for a moment, that a developer is giving you prime one-on-one time to provide solutions to your perceived problem.
What solution are you giving? Or are you going to talk in circles about what doesn't meet your skewed definition of fairness, and hope they're able to extrapolate some semblance of logic from it all?
That is singling me out. You seemed inclined to look me up, considering I don't share my IGN on here, and then assumed that I've experienced said Matches. If you're going to ignore what I say and operate under your own narrative, then I can't be bothered. I'm capable of coming up with some ideas, no question. I'm not going to bark on command. Least of which to someone going out of their way to ignore what I'm saying.
That is singling me out. You seemed inclined to look me up, considering I don't share my IGN on here, and then assumed that I've experienced said Matches. If you're going to ignore what I say and operate under your own narrative, then I can't be bothered. I'm capable of coming up with some ideas, no question. I'm not going to bark on command. Least of which to someone going out of their way to ignore what I'm saying.
Shocking. I was honestly trying to have a reasonable conversation to hear the specific points you would make regarding the system. No doubt I would have disagreed with you, but the fact that you can't even be bothered to put your thoughts out there without making yourself out to be a victim because I found your account name is infuriating. It's literally like trying to have a rational conversation with my daughter when she's in the middle of a meltdown.
Nevertheless, it's clear you don't actually have any substantive to contribute to the topic. If that ever changes I'd be interested in hearing it, but in the meantime I guess I'll be forced to read your clearly articulated requests for participation trophies.
That is singling me out. You seemed inclined to look me up, considering I don't share my IGN on here, and then assumed that I've experienced said Matches. If you're going to ignore what I say and operate under your own narrative, then I can't be bothered. I'm capable of coming up with some ideas, no question. I'm not going to bark on command. Least of which to someone going out of their way to ignore what I'm saying.
Shocking. I was honestly trying to have a reasonable conversation to hear the specific points you would make regarding the system. No doubt I would have disagreed with you, but the fact that you can't even be bothered to put your thoughts out there without making yourself out to be a victim because I found your account name is infuriating. It's literally like trying to have a rational conversation with my daughter when she's in the middle of a meltdown.
Nevertheless, it's clear you don't actually have any substantive to contribute to the topic. If that ever changes I'd be interested in hearing it, but in the meantime I guess I'll be forced to read your clearly articulated requests for participation trophies.
He is not talking about trophies for his own gain he is talking about others getting trophies. Lol
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
Who said it wasn't? I put forth the idea. I was responding to the assertion that any Match can be won by either side. Which is false. Now, if someone came outright and said, some Matches people will never win and that's how it should be, then that's a different discussion. On principle, I don't agree with such variations in both Roster sizes that they guarantee a Loss with optimal skill being used. Which is why I said it takes the skill out of it. Some disagree, which is completely fine. To say they're winnable is not accurate. We all know for a fact some Matches are not winnable by the weaker side.
Let me try to put it this way: once a player reaches the point that he/she is only facing matches you would consider probably “unwinnable” (say, for example, a 750K account who makes it to Diamond where opponents are routinely 2M+, also assuming matchmaking operates as advertised), what then is your solution? Do you consider that a problem? Or do you consider that 750K account has made it as far as it can go for that season and should be content?
Dr. Zola
Of course not, and I've taken the time to point out to them that Matches will become harder.
Then we are probably in agreement on that.
While I think Platinum may eventually need to be adjusted a little (especially if the game offered additional opportunities to earn tokens for lower accounts beating higher accounts), that’s roughly the point where matchmaking should be with next available account regardless of level.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Again, if literally no one can follow your points than they are not clear.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
So you agree that lower-level players are asking for a system that is unfair because they're entitled. Thanks.
That is singling me out. You seemed inclined to look me up, considering I don't share my IGN on here, and then assumed that I've experienced said Matches. If you're going to ignore what I say and operate under your own narrative, then I can't be bothered. I'm capable of coming up with some ideas, no question. I'm not going to bark on command. Least of which to someone going out of their way to ignore what I'm saying.
Shocking. I was honestly trying to have a reasonable conversation to hear the specific points you would make regarding the system. No doubt I would have disagreed with you, but the fact that you can't even be bothered to put your thoughts out there without making yourself out to be a victim because I found your account name is infuriating. It's literally like trying to have a rational conversation with my daughter when she's in the middle of a meltdown.
Nevertheless, it's clear you don't actually have any substantive to contribute to the topic. If that ever changes I'd be interested in hearing it, but in the meantime I guess I'll be forced to read your clearly articulated requests for participation trophies.
You should get more points if you beat a larger roster; but that has nothing to do with matchmaking. 🤔 It also has nothing to do with smaller and larger rosters, or the matchmaking shelter that allows such matchmaking 🤔
You should get more points if you beat a larger roster; but that has nothing to do with matchmaking. 🤔 It also has nothing to do with smaller and larger rosters, or the matchmaking shelter that allows such matchmaking 🤔
I while back I proposed a 3 tokes if you beat a Paragon, 2 if you beat a TB and 1 if you beat a UC/Cav system. I bet you couldn't guess who had an issue with it because "it would hold lower players back"?
Comments
I was responding to the assertion that any Match can be won by either side. Which is false.
Now, if someone came outright and said, some Matches people will never win and that's how it should be, then that's a different discussion.
On principle, I don't agree with such variations in both Roster sizes that they guarantee a Loss with optimal skill being used. Which is why I said it takes the skill out of it. Some disagree, which is completely fine.
To say they're winnable is not accurate. We all know for a fact some Matches are not winnable by the weaker side.
Let's talk organized sports. Some, like the NFL, have salary caps. But most don't. Major League Baseball does not, and as a result teams with salaries an order of magnitude higher than compete directly against each other. This is considered completely fair. The largest organized sporting leagues in the world, what we call soccer in the US and football everywhere else, do not generally have salary caps enforced on their rosters.
In sports where it is even possible for the competitors to bring different tools, there are rules for what's legal but no specific limitation on how good those tools can be. There are specific rules that limit what you can do to a NASCAR vehicle, for example, but there's no cap on how much you can spend. There's no specific limit on how much of an advantage you can build into your car, within the rules. Same is true for yacht racing.
Even individual sports where there is sporting tools and equipment there are not usually requirements that all competitors have equal tools. In golf there's no limit on how much you can spend on clubs (there are rules on how golf clubs are constructed, but they only limit the extremes, they do not standardize their performance).
Even in Chess, where the game is literally played on one board with an identical set of pieces and no extra equipment, the players are not completely equal in terms of "tools." At the professional level, Chess players prepare with coaches, seconds, advisors, and especially these days with supercomputer calculated chess lines. All these things cost money, and whoever spends more on all of them will have an advantage going into the games. You might think that it is just practice, like everyone practices, but it is more than that. A prepared supercomputer line can give you an automatic win in some situations if your opponent is not prepared for it and cannot break you out of it correctly. This has been a topic of conversation in Chess since before computers were playing it well, actually. Bobby Fischer famously said once that opening theory destroyed the game of Chess, that opening theory (where people study the first twenty moves of the game and come prepared with memorized sequences of moves from books) removed the skill from Chess completely. And this was before Chess computers could tell players *precisely* where a particular line of play would go, fifty moves into the future.
Most games are not played with the same tools. I'm not even going to discuss in detail asymmetric games, one of my favorite game theory topics, where both sides aren't even playing with the same tools at all. That would be besides the point here. But even in situations where both sides have the same opportunities to bring the same stuff, most games do not explicitly try to ensure both sides are identical in this regard. You have things like the International Race of Champions (iROC) that had stock car racers race virtually identical cars, but even there racing teams were allowed to tune the cars differently to gain an advantage. That's extremely close to "same tools" but still not exactly the same.
The idea that competitions should be purely based on skill is a romantic notion, but the problem is defining the boundaries of skill verses other factors. If an NFL quarterback practices for a thousand hours to throw a perfect spiral, that's skill right? What if he does that in a million dollar facility that uses computer aided tools to correct his throw? Still skill, or now pay to win?
In most games and competitions, it isn't skill alone that is the determining factor. It is performance that matters, of which skill is one component. Even if you wave a magic wand and gave me perfect running skill, I would never beat Usain Bolt in the hundred. You could insert a bionic shooting calculator into my brain, and I still won't outplay Lebron James.
As an aside, Chuck Yeager was once asked what single skill contributed the most to his success as a fighter pilot in World War 2, and he said "eyesight." He was blessed with something between 20/10 and 20/8 eyesight. He could see them before they could see him, and in a dogfight that's an enormous advantage. He once described an engagement where he fired a quick burst from his guns and immediately turned to engage another enemy aircraft because he saw his bullets strike the cockpit of the enemy and kill the pilot from over five hundred yards away.
For the sake of argument, what would be the high end of an opponent's hero rating that you would consider a "fair" matchup?
+/-500k?
+/-1m?
+/-2m?
Other?
I got a 4.9 mill account and at least 3 million are from 1*-5* that will never be on the deck 😤
Odds are, a 2.9m account probably has over 1m that will never be in a deck.
So for the sake of this exercise, I want to avoid hypothetical, and I think we can all agree that when people say matchmaking is unfair, they're basing it on the base hero rating of the opponent they faced.
So yes, I agree that it's not an exact science, but it's the closest I'm gonna get. I would argue it's a farily reasonable measure, cause I don't think there are many 2m accounts with a combination of 30 6r5 and 7r2.
Dr. Zola
It also has very little to do with the Account Rating, and more to do with the amount of potential Damage a Champ can inflict within the span of 2 minutes appx., compared to the opponent.
With a variable range, Players can "skill" their way into a Win. Some perform more skillful than others, no doubt.
Factor in the various Champs, counters to Nodes, differences in Ranks, sure. There are going to be differences, and that's all part of the competition.
When you're talking about the extreme cases, and there is an extremity when you have such a wide range of Players in one competition, then that potential is obliterated. I'm talking about the 7*R2s that come up against the lower Accounts, for example.
My issue isn't that bigger Accounts can match with smaller Accounts. My issue is when you have it open for any possible Match, and call it justified because it's a competition, then there comes a point where it's not about skill at all in BGs. It's about an opponent that overpowers you beyond what playing with perfect skill can manage.
All I've ever wanted, both in War discussions and here, is a system that stops the most extreme Matches from happening and doesn't allow people to be taken advantage of.
We all know those Matches. We have a laugh, then feel bad for the other Player(s). That's not a contest at all, really. It's a slaughter, and it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without reasonable limits, you're no longer motivating people to do better, get better, keep trying. You're turning them off from trying at all.
But just to be clear, as you have claimed numerous times to be, there is no definable metric the matchmaking algorithm could look at to ensure a player doesn't encounter a match that can't be overcome by skill?
Cause we already know from the sandbagging season that using deck strength can be manipulated, so that's out. And you're declining to give a clear answer to what a reasonable +/- range is for base hero rating.
I think we can also all agree that prestige wouldn't be a good metric to use either.
So what then, would you propose is a good metric, that someone wouldn't figure out a way to manipulate, to ensure folks don't come up against a "death match".
Also, I answered your question. I don't agree that total Account Rating is something that has anything to do with it.
I explicitly said I'm not singling out your account. I said I'm using it as a reference cause you obviously know from your account size what feels like an unwinnable match.
And to the second bit, no, you consciously avoided the question. You said base hero rating shouldn't be a factor, but when asked specifically what should be used, you gave no answer.
Imagine for a moment, that a developer is giving you prime one-on-one time to provide solutions to your perceived problem.
What solution are you giving? Or are you going to talk in circles about what doesn't meet your skewed definition of fairness, and hope they're able to extrapolate some semblance of logic from it all?
If you're going to ignore what I say and operate under your own narrative, then I can't be bothered.
I'm capable of coming up with some ideas, no question. I'm not going to bark on command. Least of which to someone going out of their way to ignore what I'm saying.
Nevertheless, it's clear you don't actually have any substantive to contribute to the topic. If that ever changes I'd be interested in hearing it, but in the meantime I guess I'll be forced to read your clearly articulated requests for participation trophies.
Lol
While I think Platinum may eventually need to be adjusted a little (especially if the game offered additional opportunities to earn tokens for lower accounts beating higher accounts), that’s roughly the point where matchmaking should be with next available account regardless of level.
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola
It also has nothing to do with smaller and larger rosters, or the matchmaking shelter that allows such matchmaking 🤔