How is stuff like this still happening?
kvirr
Member Posts: 2,110 ★★★★★
Why are matches like this still able to happen ? This guy has an account with 7.6 million rating and he’s matching to me, a 2.8m, I mean cmon kabam when are we going to fix this horrendous matchmaking situation ? I just wanna say, although this looks like a rant post ( and half of it is a rant post ) kabam really needs to look into fixing this matchmaking, I don’t know how they can do it, probably a question for @DNA3000 , but anything will work, just give us fair matches to where strong players don’t need to forfeit and lose tokens or energy, and lower players can actually have fun.
This guy has also fully done necro, and epoch, while I myself haven’t even done labyrinth.
Just adding it, this is my deck 😭 ( and yes I did play the match, and yes I did get wrecked )
This guy has also fully done necro, and epoch, while I myself haven’t even done labyrinth.
Just adding it, this is my deck 😭 ( and yes I did play the match, and yes I did get wrecked )
6
Comments
I fought (and lost) to a deck with 22 rank R3's yesterday. It happens.
Just like your opponent had to go through you before moving to the higher tiers.
At the same time motivate the whale by giving him some hope that he can advance.
...
Poor guy though he can farm vs my mini account.
#Justice4whales
Once upon a time, match making used to match players in VT roughly based on roster strength. The problem with this is that this offers a huge advantage to lower strength players and a huge penalty to higher strength ones. To see why, let's imagine four players competing in VT. Two are very low UC players and two are very high Valiant players. Imagine we used "fair matching" to match them up, so the UC players always face each other and the Valiants always face each other. And let's also imagine that one of the UC players is a bit more skilled than the other, and the same for the Valiants, because the players aren't all coincidentally exactly equal in skill. What's going to happen?
Well, most of the time the more skilled UC will win, and the more skilled Valiant will win. So the more skilled UC will promote and the more skilled Valiant will promote, but the lower skilled ones won't. In other words, the Valiant player who is less skilled than his Valiant competition will fall behind the UC player that is more skilled than his UC competition even if he is far more skilled than that player. Notice that it isn't necessarily true that the UC player that is winning is more skilled than the Valiant player that is losing. The Valiant player could be ten times more skilled than both UC players, but that doesn't matter because he never faces them.
Whenever you decide a group of players will never face another group of players, you will get situations where the players who happen to be the strongest among one group will do way better than most of the players in the other group, even if they are far weaker. And this actually happened. We saw lots of UC and Cav players easily skate into GC, while many strong Paragons got stuck in VT because even though they were far stronger than most players, they were only matching against the strongest players.
Battlegrounds is intended to be a competition. And while this is something people sometimes echo thoughtlessly, the reason why this is important is because in a competition the goal is not for the competition to be "fair" in the sense that everyone has the same chance to win. The goal of a competition is for the stronger competitors to succeed over the weaker ones. When the competition is rigged to be "fair" in the sense that every individual match offers everyone the same chance to win this gives players who should not have a 50/50 chance to win because they are far weaker than the average competitor a huge advantage.
You match against everyone that is there in your tier, because the whole point of Battlegrounds is to see how you match up against everyone else. It is not to see how you match up against everyone with the same roster. Roster strength is a part of player competitive strength. Battlegrounds does not penalize players who have stronger rosters. In a game where the progression goal is to strengthen roster, that would be a perverse penalty.
Worth noting: at one point the competitive penalty associated with roster-based matching was obvious enough there were players actually recommending to people that if you wanted to participate in Battlegrounds do not rank up your champs. This was not always a good strategy, but it had enough of a germ of truth in it that Kabam had no choice but to act to remove this obvious problem.
The Victory Track has a mechanism to "sort" players by strength so it is more likely you will face players closer to your overall competitive strength: promotion. As players promote, the stronger players (obviously) promote up, leaving the weaker players behind. If you don't win because all of your matches are against much stronger players you won't promote, but they will, and over time the players you match against will get lower in strength until eventually your competition equalizes. The stronger players leave the weaker ones behind, and that creates space for weaker players to then win and promote upward. This takes time, so the earlier in the season you play, the stronger the competition tends to be because there hasn't been enough time for them to win enough to promote away from you. This "BG gets easier as the season goes on" is a phenomenon that players have to learn and understand to manage their expectations when playing in BG. It is part of the game.
People have demonstrated that they aren't reliable when it comes to remembering this. There was a stretch of a few months when I went out of my way to investigate every single case of a player posting their match history and complaining about the match ups. In every single case, I found that their actual match ups were not as bad as they thought they were. There were matches where they thought they were heavily outmatched, but an examination of the opponent showed they were far lower in progress and far weaker in roster than they recalled. There were streaks of match ups where they recalled being outmatched ten times in a row, when it was actually only five out of ten and they lost very winnable matches in the middle.
It never feels good to feel like you can't win, and it is also natural to remember things in terms of a highlight reel and not the actual details. But in practice, match ups are never as bad as most people remember them being. It just feels that way, but that feeling is not something the game can directly address.
The ultimate cause of the feeling of being outmatched doesn't come from the match maker directly. Rather, it comes from something more subtle that is inherent in the current design of Battlegrounds: the existence of the VT itself.
In a genuinely fair competition, we wouldn't have VT. VT has one huge specific element of unfairness. No matter how much you lose, you can't demote. In GC, you can fall from the number one spot all the way down to the last spot if you lose enough times. Nothing protects you from demotion. So in GC, everyone rises or falls to their competitive strength eventually. If you got lucky and won a few, your luck will run out and you will lose a few and drop right back down again. If there was no VT and there was no VT season reset, we would all eventually end up where we belong, fighting against other players of roughly our strength. We'd be winning about 50/50, forever.
This is fair, but harsh. Imagine the experience of a player who started in Bronze, fought their way up to Gold, then slid all the way back down to Bronze and ended the season with Bronze rewards. That would be disheartening: far more disheartening I think than matching against ultra strong opponents. VT was designed to offer a much better experience. You cannot slide backward. If you manage to win enough to reach Platinum V, those rewards are locked in. Even if you lose the next twenty matches, you can't drop lower than that. Which means you can safely match over and over again, knowing there's zero risk to your rewards. In fact, VT just straight up gives you the rewards for each tier as you reach them, because why not? You can't lose them.
This improvement is extremely beneficial to newer players and lower progress players. They can play risk free. It might be sad to lose ten in a row (I've lost twenty in a row once), but it only costs you time. It never costs you rewards, unlike in GC where if you lose, you lose rewards. But this comes at a cost. Because you cannot drop down during the season, the mode must have a way to prevent people from just crawling permanently into GC, so players are reset downward at the end of the season, or before the start of the next season, so there isn't this "eventually everyone is in GC" thing happening.
The start of season reset mechanics are necessary because during the season players only ratchet upward. But it is that sudden jump downward that causes players to temporarily place lower than their true competitive strength. And because this is cumulative, players can reset lower and lower if they don't do enough to climb upward during each successive season (or take a break). So while players climb to a point where they eventually end up surrounded by (roughly) equal strength players during seasons, they can reset to much lower than that in successive seasons.
We can eliminate this entirely, by simply eliminating the season reset. But that can only happen if we also eliminate the in-season ratchet, meaning players in VT who lose can fall down to lower tiers.
To put this simply, the bad feeling players get when they match against much stronger players is the price they play to be protected from descending down to players of their strength. Either you let players rise higher than their competitive strength actually is, or you force them to fight the much stronger players they meet when they rise that high.
There's no way to avoid both: they are opposite sides of the same coin. If you don't want to face stronger opponents, let the Victory track demote you downward until you are only facing weaker opponents. But I suspect the vast majority of players don't want that.
You are the driver and your deck is the car
Both are equally important, you need to be skillful and your deck needs to be strong
I believe OP has the skills but your deck is honestly like a low budget F1 car that struggles with every match
A match is like a race, even if you lose, you can race again and again until the season ends and you get the rewards for all the races you done
If you think it's unfair bcos your car is slow den you shouldn't be racing alongside the Ferraris, Mercedes and McLarens
In nearly every case, each day, I won only 1 of the 5. There were two days where after all 5 matches, I hadn't won a single match and had to play *more* to get the points.
When I say that I can quantifiably confirm that 80-85% of my matches are against someone with all or most of those champs, I mean it, cause I started screenshotting every match I went up against and keeping a tally.