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. … 3. …
Matching on a prestige of just upper portion of your Deck would indeed stop all the lower portion of your Deck from pulling down your overall average (which seems to be what is currently being used to match, the “Average of whole deck”). Thus it wouldn’t matter what your deck has at it's bottom anymore, it wouldn’t count in determining who you match against.
Top-10 or Top-15 have been proposed in comments before by many. Although I now think that just Top-10 might be too few, because 3 of them will get banned out and are not actually part of what could be selected afterwards (leaving only next 7 for actual team, which probably is rare that you would be able to choose exactly just those next 7). So probably top 10 starting at 4th highest in deck, assuming 3 of the very top ones would get banned. Or just basically Top-13 to determine Matchmaking Deck Prestige (although top-15 seems fine too).
And to match purely on existing Player Prestige (top-5 of whole roster) would be too narrowly focused, as even very early beginner accounts (like only 200,000 Rating) can very easily have a few champs at 5*r5 or 6*r2 already, but then rest of their roster drops off very quickly after that.
Top-10 or Top-15 have been proposed in comments before by many. Although I now think that just Top-10 might be too few, because 3 of them will get banned out and are not actually part of what could be selected afterwards
Agreed, I think top 20 should be considered, because usually last 10 are being used to sandbag. Choosing 7 out of 17 top champs is a good sample to decide the matchmaking on.
I agree with this post cause in all honesty I don’t have not one single r4 yet and also not all my champs are duped, but I’m put up against Paragons with 3 or 4 r4s and more than half the deck is filled with r3s with one or two unduped. I just want the 6* shards from store but I’m fighting tooth and nail for anything in the store.
Yes, but the issue lies in the effects of that advantage. Strategy is a part of playing a game. When that strategy involves taking advantage of a system in a way that causes detriment to others, it's more exploitative than strategic.
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. … 3. …
Matching on a prestige of just upper portion of your Deck would indeed stop all the lower portion of your Deck from pulling down your overall average (which seems to be what is currently being used to match, the “Average of whole deck”). Thus it wouldn’t matter what your deck has at it's bottom anymore, it wouldn’t count in determining who you match against.
Top-10 or Top-15 have been proposed in comments before by many. Although I now think that just Top-10 might be too few, because 3 of them will get banned out and are not actually part of what could be selected afterwards (leaving only next 7 for actual team, which probably is rare that you would be able to choose exactly just those next 7). So probably top 10 starting at 4th highest in deck, assuming 3 of the very top ones would get banned. Or just basically Top-13 to determine Matchmaking Deck Prestige (although top-15 seems fine too).
And to match purely on existing Player Prestige (top-5 of whole roster) would be too narrowly focused, as even very early beginner accounts (like only 200,000 Rating) can very easily have a few champs at 5*r5 or 6*r2 already, but then rest of their roster drops off very quickly after that.
Because then people would just fill a deck full of 5-star r4’s and pick on newly Uncollected players. The whole system needs a bigger change. I’m surprised they didn’t learn anything from the AW matchmaking issues from a couple years ago. The only fair way to match people is based on their BG Tier. But that doesn’t work very well when everybody starts from the bottom each season.
Any matchmaking parameters built around roster is entirely open to 'abuse' - I went through virtually every combination of roster strengths that you could realistically think of at the start of this thread and I in every instance I can against players who were either weaker than myself, or more inexperienced.
The other thing to account for in this was that I also did this when I was around the Diamond 2 bracket when matchmaking had allegedly been fixed and I came across fresh cavalier and thronebreakers who were many brackets ahead of many of my alliance mates at the time (we're a T1 AW alliance and placed 12th in the BG event, so we take it seriously). By the end of the initial experiment I was sitting in Gold I or so fighting accounts that were still roadblocked at 6.2.6 who had somehow sneaked ahead of the competition based on this algorithm.
How is it remotely fair that some of the best players can't get through yet this little sub-division exists within the gamemode allowing for the easy passage of small accounts and, not to put too fine a point on it, noobs.
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
Untill they have a plan they cant disclose exact details. People are GUESSING some parts of it and its being abused like hell. Imagine what people would do if they KNEW EXACTLY how it works.
Comments
Matching on a prestige of just upper portion of your Deck would indeed stop all the lower portion of your Deck from pulling down your overall average (which seems to be what is currently being used to match, the “Average of whole deck”).
Thus it wouldn’t matter what your deck has at it's bottom anymore, it wouldn’t count in determining who you match against.
Top-10 or Top-15 have been proposed in comments before by many.
Although I now think that just Top-10 might be too few, because 3 of them will get banned out and are not actually part of what could be selected afterwards (leaving only next 7 for actual team, which probably is rare that you would be able to choose exactly just those next 7).
So probably top 10 starting at 4th highest in deck, assuming 3 of the very top ones would get banned. Or just basically Top-13 to determine Matchmaking Deck Prestige (although top-15 seems fine too).
And to match purely on existing Player Prestige (top-5 of whole roster) would be too narrowly focused, as even very early beginner accounts (like only 200,000 Rating) can very easily have a few champs at 5*r5 or 6*r2 already, but then rest of their roster drops off very quickly after that.
Although I now think that just Top-10 might be too few, because 3 of them will get banned out and are not actually part of what could be selected afterwards
Agreed, I think top 20 should be considered, because usually last 10 are being used to sandbag.
Choosing 7 out of 17 top champs is a good sample to decide the matchmaking on.
The other thing to account for in this was that I also did this when I was around the Diamond 2 bracket when matchmaking had allegedly been fixed and I came across fresh cavalier and thronebreakers who were many brackets ahead of many of my alliance mates at the time (we're a T1 AW alliance and placed 12th in the BG event, so we take it seriously). By the end of the initial experiment I was sitting in Gold I or so fighting accounts that were still roadblocked at 6.2.6 who had somehow sneaked ahead of the competition based on this algorithm.
How is it remotely fair that some of the best players can't get through yet this little sub-division exists within the gamemode allowing for the easy passage of small accounts and, not to put too fine a point on it, noobs.