**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.

Matchmaking in BG needs real examination

12346

Comments

  • MTNPLAYAMTNPLAYA Posts: 2 ★
    Current matchmaking is really skewed.. good for Kabam on cyber weekend and getting lots of buyers, but losing to higher ranked champs over and over and over is just not fun. Certainly, not spending elders marks on this version of BG.
  • mgj0630mgj0630 Posts: 989 ★★★★
    There's no basis whatsoever for people to get a head start. The very fundamental logic to a "season" is that every season starts with a clean slate for everyone participating.

    I personally have no issues at all with the formatted structure of everyone starting in Bronze 3 and climbing from there. I would say it's exactly as it should be.

    To the sandbagging issue, someone earlier in this thread offered what is probably the best solution possible, which is to simply ban champs based on where your total hero rating, similar to how they ban lower sectors of incursions from being accessible to higher level accounts.

    The devil is in the details, but something like:

    >4,000,000 you can only have 6* champs.

    3,000,000-3,999,999 you can have 5* and 6*.

    2,000,000-2,999,999 you can have 4*, 5* and 6*.

    <2,000,000 1* through 5* are allowed (no 6*).

    The matchmaking algorithm would look at the following:

    1) Same victory track bracket and hero rating first.

    2) If both criteria #1 are not met, ignore hero rating, and match someone in the same victory track bracket.

    3) If 1 and 3 cannot be met, match with someone in the next victory track bracket.

    This way, new reward systems do not need to be created because everyone is still competing for the same rewards, however lower level accounts will hit a natural wall where they are eventually forced to play those higher accounts, it will just happen later, because the higher accounts aren't sandbagging.

    I'm definitely open to hearing feedback, but aside from maybe some fine tuning of the hero rating numbers as they relate to champs allowed to be used, I can't think of any flaws.
  • ItsClobberinTimeItsClobberinTime Posts: 3,196 ★★★★★
    mgj0630 said:

    There's no basis whatsoever for people to get a head start. The very fundamental logic to a "season" is that every season starts with a clean slate for everyone participating.

    I personally have no issues at all with the formatted structure of everyone starting in Bronze 3 and climbing from there. I would say it's exactly as it should be.

    To the sandbagging issue, someone earlier in this thread offered what is probably the best solution possible, which is to simply ban champs based on where your total hero rating, similar to how they ban lower sectors of incursions from being accessible to higher level accounts.

    The devil is in the details, but something like:

    >4,000,000 you can only have 6* champs.

    3,000,000-3,999,999 you can have 5* and 6*.

    2,000,000-2,999,999 you can have 4*, 5* and 6*.

    <2,000,000 1* through 5* are allowed (no 6*).

    The matchmaking algorithm would look at the following:

    1) Same victory track bracket and hero rating first.

    2) If both criteria #1 are not met, ignore hero rating, and match someone in the same victory track bracket.

    3) If 1 and 3 cannot be met, match with someone in the next victory track bracket.

    This way, new reward systems do not need to be created because everyone is still competing for the same rewards, however lower level accounts will hit a natural wall where they are eventually forced to play those higher accounts, it will just happen later, because the higher accounts aren't sandbagging.

    I'm definitely open to hearing feedback, but aside from maybe some fine tuning of the hero rating numbers as they relate to champs allowed to be used, I can't think of any flaws.</p>

    Tbh I think stronger players should get a headstart since we're all competing for same rewards but in order to not ruin the experience for weaker players they should just make it so after every season they drop down some leagues but not all the way down to bronze. That way it would be a win-win for everyone, it's either that or reworking the reward system entirely so we all get different rewards based on our title. Otherwise they just won't be able to get rid of sandbagging, or at least it won't be fair, if they're making the game easier for us then it's only fair to give stronger players another advantage that doesn't harm weaker players.

    That change would be great and would absolutely fix sandbagging but again, I do think stronger players shouldn't have to start from bronze every season, especially those that make it to GC.
  • Just_grindingJust_grinding Posts: 115 ★
    @Kabam Zibiit has the update to matchmaking been done? Because now I’m getting matches only with the same prestige (no matter the deck strength). (Honestly sucks because if you are a paragon with 4-6 R4s, all I see if whales with maxed out rosters.) better than sandbaggers I suppose. But matchmaking is still messed up.
  • XSquadXSquad Posts: 147 ★★
    what if matchmaking was based on top 30 champs regardless if they are used in the deck
  • GoingBackGoingBack Posts: 100 ★★
    I honestly don’t think there should be any “matchmaking”. This is content that is open to everyone like AW, but vastly different as it take seasons to move between tiers sometimes where in this you do it in a few matches. I think that you should play anyone in your tier and the best move on the ones that aren’t as good stay put. What you have now is a system that benefits sandbagging.

    I have made it to Diamond tier each of the past two seasons and spent this off-season ranking up all my champs. I now cant get out of Silver with dozens of matches as I have been going against people with 5+ R4 and a full team of r3 champs. I have people in my alliance that have much weaker rosters and skills than I have and they are in Gold 1 or beyond.

    If this is a mode where we are getting stack ranked based on the entire populous of the battle realm, than there should not be any matchmaking based on strength of roster, prestige, etc. It should be every person for themselves.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    edited November 2022
    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Vergeman78 said:

    I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period

    Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
    Wrong.

    The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
    Here we have the source of the entitlement.
    Sorry, that's just how the works workd.

    The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
    I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works.
    On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
    On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
    There's only one entitled side I see.
    If you can't see both sides you clearly don't understand how the world works.
    I see both sides. There's an assumption that people expect the same Rewards. That's not the argument at all. The issue is the Matches themselves. Not the Rewards. They don't justify an unfair system.
  • GoingBackGoingBack Posts: 100 ★★
    edited November 2022
    Ironman3000 said:

    GoingBack said:

    I honestly don’t think there should be any “matchmaking”. This is content that is open to everyone like AW, but vastly different as it take seasons to move between tiers sometimes where in this you do it in a few matches. I think that you should play anyone in your tier and the best move on the ones that aren’t as good stay put. What you have now is a system that benefits sandbagging.

    I have made it to Diamond tier each of the past two seasons and spent this off-season ranking up all my champs. I now cant get out of Silver with dozens of matches as I have been going against people with 5+ R4 and a full team of r3 champs. I have people in my alliance that have much weaker rosters and skills than I have and they are in Gold 1 or beyond.

    If this is a mode where we are getting stack ranked based on the entire populous of the battle realm, than there should not be any matchmaking based on strength of roster, prestige, etc. It should be every person for themselves.

    For those crying about sandbagging, re-read this post. This current system punishes this guy for improving his roster while at the same time giving his ally mates, who have not improved an easier pass to a higher bracket. It basically forces higher players to sandbag or else try to slog through Paragon only matches in Silver, which is just BS.

    If you want to be mad that's fine but don't be mad at the players, be mad at Kabam for their terrible system.
    It is crazy that you get “punished” for having a good roster. You should be rewarded with better rewards.
  • Ironman3000Ironman3000 Posts: 1,909 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Vergeman78 said:

    I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period

    Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
    Wrong.

    The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
    Here we have the source of the entitlement.
    Sorry, that's just how the works workd.

    The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
    I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works.
    On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
    On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
    There's only one entitled side I see.
    If you can't see both sides you clearly don't understand how the world works.
    I see both sides. There's an assumption that people expect the same Rewards. That's not the argument at all. The issue is the Matches themselves. Not the Rewards. They don't justify an unfair system.
    You can't separate the rewards and the matches. You play the matches to win the rewards. Everyone is playing for the same rewards so all people should be fair to match. If you don't want the rewards, just do friendly matches.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    Mr_Platypus said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Vergeman78 said:

    I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period

    Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
    Wrong.

    The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
    Here we have the source of the entitlement.
    Sorry, that's just how the works workd.

    The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
    I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works.
    On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
    On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
    There's only one entitled side I see.
    If you can't see both sides you clearly don't understand how the world works.
    I see both sides. There's an assumption that people expect the same Rewards. That's not the argument at all. The issue is the Matches themselves. Not the Rewards. They don't justify an unfair system.
    Lock away half these rewards behind paragon or something and those on the side you’re defending would suddenly complain that it’s unfair they can’t access those rewards. They’re playing for the rewards, just like everyone else.
    That's the problem. They're not complaining about the Reward structure. They're complaining about the Matchmaking. Also, I never implied locking half the Rewards. I said create 3 Brackets and adjust the Rewards.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    edited November 2022
    Which isn't hard to do. You adjust the amount of Rewards in Milestones per Bracket, and the amount of currency earned, scaling upwards. Seems to me like people want to cheat the system and use the Rewards as an excuse.
  • rockykostonrockykoston Posts: 1,505 ★★★★
    Just played 6-7 matches today to get 3 wins and it was horrible.

    6*R4 champs and then 1*, 2* or 3* to balance them out.

    Everyone's sandbagging now, there's no option but to do the same to counter this lopsided matchmaking.

    Till yesterday, I was able to find matches where ppl weren't sandbagging. Today is just another story, guess that's how it is in higher tiers.
  • Mr_PlatypusMr_Platypus Posts: 2,779 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Vergeman78 said:

    I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period

    Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
    Wrong.

    The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
    Here we have the source of the entitlement.
    Sorry, that's just how the works workd.

    The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
    I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works.
    On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
    On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
    There's only one entitled side I see.
    If you can't see both sides you clearly don't understand how the world works.
    I see both sides. There's an assumption that people expect the same Rewards. That's not the argument at all. The issue is the Matches themselves. Not the Rewards. They don't justify an unfair system.
    Lock away half these rewards behind paragon or something and those on the side you’re defending would suddenly complain that it’s unfair they can’t access those rewards. They’re playing for the rewards, just like everyone else.
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Mr_Platypus said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Ironman3000 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Vergeman78 said:

    I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period

    Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
    Wrong.

    The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
    Here we have the source of the entitlement.
    Sorry, that's just how the works workd.

    The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
    I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works.
    On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
    On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
    There's only one entitled side I see.
    If you can't see both sides you clearly don't understand how the world works.
    I see both sides. There's an assumption that people expect the same Rewards. That's not the argument at all. The issue is the Matches themselves. Not the Rewards. They don't justify an unfair system.
    Lock away half these rewards behind paragon or something and those on the side you’re defending would suddenly complain that it’s unfair they can’t access those rewards. They’re playing for the rewards, just like everyone else.
    That's the problem. They're not complaining about the Reward structure. They're complaining about the Matchmaking. Also, I never implied locking half the Rewards. I said create 3 Brackets and adjust the Rewards.
    Forgot you take everything literally 🙄 I know your idea is 3 brackets.
    but if you give them their fair matches but at the cost of having rewards massively reduced in the 3rd bracket you’d either get complaints that they can’t get what they could potentially get now, or they’d stop playing, because the majority are playing battlegrounds for the rewards, which is ok to admit, that’s what I’m playing for.
  • Just_grindingJust_grinding Posts: 115 ★
    Has Kabam even commented on the matchmaking and if they’ve actually rolled out any fix this week? There’s no sandbagging in the gladiator circuit (just every match is full of R4s). Happy to have progressed, but it feels like gladiator circuit is based on prestige. 3 matches, all roster of pretty much R4s. Happy to win one, but the inconsistency of matchmaking across levels just feels like they need to review.
  • MagrailothosMagrailothos Posts: 5,345 ★★★★★
    Kabam Jax said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:



    Hey @Kabam Jax !

    Excited to announce that the planned changes to BG Matchmaking didn't work!

    Hey Summoners,

    So, it appears we jumped the gun with communicating the changes to matchmaking. Full transparency, everything looks like it should be working... but it's not. The team is investigating much deeper into these issues and we're hoping to have answers soon.

    Apologies.
    Surely the easiest way to avoid this is to change the draft stage - with ten or fewer low-ranking champions, most sandbaggers can easily avoid having to actually choose one.

    Change the draft phase to make it harder to avoid them:
    1 - Choose two out of three (instead of five) draft champions
    2 - No re-rolls

    Just make those two changes, and sandbagging would be a vastly less viable option.

    Or alternatively, could the Matching AI not look at the statistical distribution of your champions PI, and only match you against opponents with a similar distribution?
  • X_E_CutionerX_E_Cutioner Posts: 155 ★
    I have a pretty easy solution for this ... Make matches based on the prestige of top 10 champs in the deck of 30
    1. Sandbagging will not work
    2. It will not be disadvantageous for people who pushed for prestige and only have like 3-4 r5s and the rest of their champs are r4 and below
    3. End game players will still be able to match against mid-game players but atleast the strength gap will be very small since they'll have to use weaker champs
  • Midknight007Midknight007 Posts: 764 ★★★
    edited November 2022
    Here is the thing… some people have been playing this game for nigh 8 years. Some of those people have extensive rosters and might have spent money from time to time. Some of these people, if they use their top champs, will be stuck playing other players with full on whale accounts and even those with high level skills compared to theirs…

    Not every player with a great roster is a great player. Sandbagging might be the only way for them to get a “fair match”… and if you base matchmaking off Prestige, that is not a great solution either. Prestige is used for AQ, so people will rank up top Prestige champs to help their alliance even though their skill level isn’t anywhere near the very top players (and I would expect a lot of players do that).

    Straight map 6 with decent prestige (not all top prestige champs) can get your Alliance in the top 300-400 in ranking. Sandbagging maybe the only way for some of those players to even get a decent match. Just giving the perspective from the other side.

    I understand when you have deck of mostly R5 5* with about 10 6* R2-R3…. But realize the sandbagger sacrifices depth and counters when they place 10-15 2*s. Sure, they may have 15-20 R3-R4 6*s, but you should be able to counter those with a decent R5 5* counter.

    Not everyone sandbagging is looking for an “easy match”, some are looking for a closer match to their skill level. You probably found one of those if you won against a “sandbagger” and you run your top champs and don’t have a lot of 6*s or high ranked 6*s.

    Just give some thought to BG matchmaking and why people might sandbag. True, there will be people who do it to get “easy matches”, but look on the flip side…. What if you played for 8 years and aren’t exactly a whale or don’t have mad skills? What options do you have to also enjoy content if you are forced to play against hard matches just because you ranked up certain champs?

    We had this issue with Alliance War matchmaking and it impacted ranking where Alliances with very low prestige got into Master because they never fought tough opponents… some of you might not remember that and also might not have been playing. Kabam put a stop to that after even middle to upper middle level alliances complained after not being able to rank in Platinum in AW (not just top alliances in Master).

    There will be no perfect scenario for matchmaking…. Just my opinion.
  • MauledMauled Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    Mauled said:

    The sad reality right now is that sandbagging does work and while you're going to face other sandbaggers it's actually proving to be a real roster leveller. Most players have 15 or so top tier champions ranked up, so rather than a 30vs30 where roster becomes a more substantial factor - I can't compete with someone with 30 R4s (I assume they exist judging by KT1's recent video having 22), but it's a bit easier when there's just 15 - skill becomes the deciding factor.

    I will reiterate the point that I made right at the start of this thread, and that is that the only factor in matchmaking should be the player's bracket, and later in the Gladiator Circuit, the player's points/bracket, depending on how tight the points spread is. Everything else is going to result in three things happening:
    - The noobs get truly kerbstomped by players around my roster strength.
    - Players get an unfairly easy route to the Gladiator Circuit
    - An unofficial division within the Victory Track, just like there was in AW a year or two ago.

    I've thought about this for some time now, the gamemode is the best thing to happen to MCoC since I started playing and I really do not want it to fail. My solution would be to remove the Victory Track and restructure the rewards and points structure around the Gladiator Circuit.

    I don't pretend to be a game developer so the nuances of this would have to be refined and made more elegant. I would split up the placements like so:
    - 1 - 500 = Division 1 (Masters AW is the equivalent of 600 players)
    - 501-1000 = Division 2 (Roughly 10th P1)
    - 1001-2000 = Division 3 (Roughly 15th P2)
    - 2001-3000 = Division 4 (End of P2)
    - 3000-5000 = Division 5 (End of P3)
    - 5000-8000 = Division 6 (End of P4, ish) and so on.

    I would break up the actual end of season rewards within the divisions, especially D1 & D2, along the lines of the current structure to reflect the difficulty in placing here.

    My proposal would be that you only play other players in your division and at the end of the season, if you're in the top 10% of your division you get promoted, whilst the bottom 10% get relegated. I would propose that seasons are reduced from one month to allow for a bit more mobility between divisions as there's going to be a lot of players on the borders.

    This would allow a relatively new player to advance as far as their skills/roster would allow them and then to play players of a similar ability, and likely roster strength. If that player's skilled they can advance up the divisions, slowly strengthening their deck as they go. If they want to be casual, they can net rewards without having to play a billion masters players along the way. Likewise the masters player no longer has to only play masters players - which is pretty much all I'm facing - to earn the right to get ranked rewards. In my proposal the masters player would fight mainly masters players but they would be earning masters rewards for this privilege.

    If there was a two to three week season with a week off where it's just friendlies - with a global friendly matchmaking system in place perhaps for that week - then that would mean that a masters player who hadn't taken things too seriously wouldn't have to wait 6 months to get to the top, it'd just be a couple as they prove their abilities again, whilst a less experienced player who's just got their deck in order and is ready to push has that same flexibility, just lower down the ladder.

    As I see it, this is pretty much the only solution that allows players to match against a similar roster/skill set and have a positive experience whilst distributing the rewards in a fair manner.

    For those saying that it’ll take too long to reach the top for a skilled player - making an alliance from scratch to push masters takes a few seasons unless you’ve miraculously got a T2/3 shell to start from.
  • Saru2244Saru2244 Posts: 181 ★
    I've read a lot here about how matchmaking should actually be, what shouldn't be and what could be done differently. My question is: does anyone really know exactly how matchmaking currently works? Can someone tell me exactly how Kabam does this? And I don't mean any theories as to how it could be, but how is matchmaking really done at the moment?

  • BazzingaaaBazzingaaa Posts: 357 ★★★
    Saru2244 said:

    I've read a lot here about how matchmaking should actually be, what shouldn't be and what could be done differently. My question is: does anyone really know exactly how matchmaking currently works? Can someone tell me exactly how Kabam does this? And I don't mean any theories as to how it could be, but how is matchmaking really done at the moment?

    It's never been confirmed by Kabam.
    Half way through season 3 and nobody knows lolz
  • Ironman3000Ironman3000 Posts: 1,909 ★★★★★
    X_E_Cutioner said:

    I have a pretty easy solution for this ... Make matches based on the prestige of top 10 champs in the deck of 30
    1. Sandbagging will not work
    2. It will not be disadvantageous for people who pushed for prestige and only have like 3-4 r5s and the rest of their champs are r4 and below
    3. End game players will still be able to match against mid-game players but atleast the strength gap will be very small since they'll have to use weaker champs

    Wrong
    Wrong
    Wrong
  • JefechutaJefechuta Posts: 1,203 ★★★★
    Still easy as hell to fix this, if you play with 4* or r1 5* when you have 6* R4 and R3, you will get only the first ones till you only have the 6* remaining to pick, so damn easy (same if those ar 1 or 2 or 3*)
  • ThecurlerThecurler Posts: 839 ★★★★
    Ironman3000 said:

    GoingBack said:

    I honestly don’t think there should be any “matchmaking”. This is content that is open to everyone like AW, but vastly different as it take seasons to move between tiers sometimes where in this you do it in a few matches. I think that you should play anyone in your tier and the best move on the ones that aren’t as good stay put. What you have now is a system that benefits sandbagging.

    I have made it to Diamond tier each of the past two seasons and spent this off-season ranking up all my champs. I now cant get out of Silver with dozens of matches as I have been going against people with 5+ R4 and a full team of r3 champs. I have people in my alliance that have much weaker rosters and skills than I have and they are in Gold 1 or beyond.

    If this is a mode where we are getting stack ranked based on the entire populous of the battle realm, than there should not be any matchmaking based on strength of roster, prestige, etc. It should be every person for themselves.

    For those crying about sandbagging, re-read this post. This current system punishes this guy for improving his roster while at the same time giving his ally mates, who have not improved an easier pass to a higher bracket. It basically forces higher players to sandbag or else try to slog through Paragon only matches in Silver, which is just BS.

    If you want to be mad that's fine but don't be mad at the players, be mad at Kabam for their terrible system.
    Last season was my first playing bg with any regularity and made it to diamond 1 despite joining the season quite late.

    My prestige is 15k. My deck has x4 6* r4 and the rest made up of 6* r3.
    Even though my deck is fairly decent from a prestige and rank of champion perspective, I’m missing several of the meta battleground champs.
    Currently trying to rank up some champs and hoping to pull some of the better battleground champs.

    So far this season, I am struggling to get out of bronze 1.
    For some reason I seem to be matching much bigger accounts or similar prestige accounts but with much better battleground options.
    At the moment it feels like I’m penalised for having a decent roster despite it not being a good battleground roster.
  • ThecurlerThecurler Posts: 839 ★★★★
    Seriously man I’ve just spent 30 minutes taking the time to post on here.
    Post was valid and constructive. No criticism of Kabam, just my experience of matchmaking.
    Deleted for no reason.

    Rude and completely unreasonable.
  • Ken1378Ken1378 Posts: 279 ★★★
    Part of the problem is that everybody starts back at the same spot each season. That is dumb and shouldn’t happen. And it forces Kabam to implement goofy matchmaking algorithms so people get matched somewhat fairly. Kabam needs to take a very long look at Matchmaking, but also the climb up to the Gladiator’s Circuit. They are very much related. Maybe if you reach the Gladiator’s Circuit the previous season, you start at Gold 1 or something the next season. Or maybe Paragon’s start in Gold, Thronebreakers in Silver, Cavaliers in Bronze. I don’t know. But something needs to change.
  • rockykostonrockykoston Posts: 1,505 ★★★★
    Midknight007 said:

    Here is the thing… some people have been playing this game for nigh 8 years. Some of those people have extensive rosters and might have spent money from time to time. Some of these people, if they use their top champs, will be stuck playing other players with full on whale accounts and even those with high level skills compared to theirs…

    Or maybe they might just be playing a fellow summoner who isn't a whale, doesn't have "mad" skills and wants to have a "fair" matchup.
    Midknight007 said:

    Not every player with a great roster is a great player. Sandbagging might be the only way for them to get a “fair match”… and if you base matchmaking off Prestige, that is not a great solution either. Prestige is used for AQ, so people will rank up top Prestige champs to help their alliance even though their skill level isn’t anywhere near the very top players (and I would expect a lot of players do that).

    I think in competitive mode SKILL should be very important along with the roster, which it is, but sandbagging is neutralizing skill by roster strength. Lets say I have a 6* r2 CGR going against 6* r4 Apoc and my opponent has 6*r4 CGR going against my 6*r2 Apoc , I mean 90% of the time I'd give my opponent the chance to win. SKILL doesn't that much anymore when the the sandbagger has created such a wide gap in champ selection.
    Midknight007 said:

    I understand when you have deck of mostly R5 5* with about 10 6* R2-R3…. But realize the sandbagger sacrifices depth and counters when they place 10-15 2*s. Sure, they may have 15-20 R3-R4 6*s, but you should be able to counter those with a decent R5 5* counter.

    Not everyone sandbagging is looking for an “easy match”, some are looking for a closer match to their skill level. You probably found one of those if you won against a “sandbagger” and you run your top champs and don’t have a lot of 6*s or high ranked 6*s.

    But they are, eventually all they want is easier match so they can get consecutive wins and get to the new level. Its not fair at all based on the scenario I mentioned above. The only solution to this is everyone sandbags.
    Midknight007 said:

    Just give some thought to BG matchmaking and why people might sandbag. True, there will be people who do it to get “easy matches”, but look on the flip side…. What if you played for 8 years and aren’t exactly a whale or don’t have mad skills? What options do you have to also enjoy content if you are forced to play against hard matches just because you ranked up certain champs?

    There will be no perfect scenario for matchmaking…. Just my opinion.

    The reason is unimportant, however its impact is not. Being a Paragon myself with decent skills and facing difficulty in winning matches because I am put against 12-15 r4 champ whales, who are sandbagging. I can only imagine the torment of lower level players.
Sign In or Register to comment.