HORRIBLE MATCHMAKING
boø
Member Posts: 8 ★
over and over again i'm matched with people doubling, even tripling my account rating in battlegrounds. why, after time and time again almost 30 SEASONS deep and you guys can't figure out a balanced way to engage al of your players in a pvp mode. yet again everyone that isn't 5 Million + account rating or higher just doesn't get to have a fair match up. seeing it in 70%-80% of lower ranking players in the global chat, facebook, youtube, instagram, and even tiktok's. the game mode is horrible even for me. at 4.3M and almost 15 r3 and 1 R4. getting matched with constant decks with 5-10 R4 champions all new. end up forfeiting because who wants to stick around punching a brick wall watching someone rip through your new champions that you wanted to test out like the viltrumites on planet earth.
such an easy concept that you guys refuse to implement. this games matchmaking is far worse than Call of duty or even rainbow six siege.
such an easy concept that you guys refuse to implement. this games matchmaking is far worse than Call of duty or even rainbow six siege.
5
Comments
not even in uru 3 not in uru 2 not in uru 1 not in gamma 5 but gamma 4.
4 whole entire rank places above me and i'm getting matched with him.
The short version is that the whole point of BG is for players to climb ladders. To advance upward, you have to beat the players above you. There are fundamentally two, and only two ways to do that. The first one is the "zero reset" method. Everyone participates, and they get rated based on their performance. Eventually, everyone settles to approximately their nominal strength, and from that point onward you will tend to win about half your matches. That's the definition of "fair match making." Which means, on average, you won't go up, you won't go down, you'll just stay there. If all of BG was just one big Gladiator Circuit with no season resets, that's what BG would evolve to being. It would also mean the newest players with the weakest rosters, players such as yourself, would be stuck at the bottom forever. You wouldn't get tough matches, but you also would have no chance to actually go anywhere either. And your rewards would also be stuck at the bottom forever.
The alternative is how BG basically operates now. To encourage participation, we have a Victory Track and a Gladiator Track. In the Victory Track, you can only move upward. You can't drop downward. So even weaker players that win half the time or even less than half the time can still move upward slowly. Uncollected players can easily make it to, say, Platinum or even Diamond. Platinum and Diamond are not the bottom of BG, they are more than half way through VT, and players in the bottom 20% of all players of the game can still get there. VT also has additional incentives: the 2/1 medal system makes it possible for even players who do not win half their matches - which means they are substantially weaker than their competition - to still promote upward. All of this allows lower players to get a lot of rewards from BG that they would otherwise have zero chance to get in a purely competitive BG with "fair matchmaking."
If BG was absolutely fair, then weaker players would not run into stronger players, but that's because a fair BG would trap them at the very bottom of the game mode only matching against each other and fighting over scraps. BG is unfair because it *helps* weaker players a ton. In doing so those players end up advancing to the point of facing much stronger players. We can't simultaneously give them those hand outs AND ALSO let them beat each other up all the way to the top. At some point they have to fight the real competition, or BG becomes highly unfair to the players who are actually stronger.
You want a fair BG? Imagine you, and everyone like you, trapped in Bronze 17 fighting for 3* shards. That's a fair BG. Making a fair BG is easy. All we have to do is just not care about players like you, and give you what you keep asking for and calling the game stupid for not giving it to you. And I truly wish there was a way to give everyone who asked for "fair BG" exactly that, without hurting all the other players who want nothing to do with that. If there was such a way, I would throw the Big Red Switch and give it to them myself personally, then break off the handle so no one could ever switch it back.
I’ve had to face literal champion designers in the circuit when their account blew mine out of the water. That’s how competitive games work.
One thing that I think was missed, however, was that while the devs discovered that Battlegrounds turned out to be a fairly niche game mode, maybe the reason that that is the case is because the mode can be extremely arduous for beginner and intermediate players. Yes, it's a competitive mode, and you would not expect beginner and intermediate players to dominate the leaderboards. But I do think that, if Battlegrounds is not intended to be an exclusive club for elite players, there does need to be a sense of progression whereby even players with underwhelming decks are not immediately confronted with obviously superior opponents in either circuit. I don't see how balanced matchmaking that becomes progressively more challenging with each win "traps" players any more than having to face opponents whose decks would trounce theirs 99 out of 100 times.
And while I know the intention with rewards is to make radiance available elsewhere in the game so players can enjoy however they want, the result of having it in only in Battlegrounds right now creates a snowball dynamic where beginning and intermediate players who would really love to advance and compete are getting chewed up by heavyweights who have huge incentives to rack up easy wins and push their rosters into the upper echelons of competition.
I've said this before, but when I am facing an opponent with a comparable deck, or even one that's simply not overwhelmingly superior to mine, Battlegrounds is easily my favorite game mode. But when I can tell from the first row that I'm going to be a punching bag, it's honestly depressing. Challenge is great; hopelessness is not.
You are in top ladder,
Ofc you'll have to fight top accounts.
Players at a particular progression tier are not all uniform in skill or even roster/deck strength. If we segregate players by progression, or even by roster strength, we will still have players stronger and weaker in each bucket. Right now, the stronger Cavs are beating the weaker TBs and Paragons and advancing past them. With progression brackets those players will never get that chance. They will just beat other Cavs and get Cav rewards.
Basically, progression tiered VT doesn’t help all lower players. It helps the weaker ones in each progression tier at the expense of penalizing the stronger ones in each tier. Which is a perverse thing to do in a competitive game mode.
The easier this sounds to fix, the less you probably understand about how the mode works.
The game forced me to play this match too. League difference, deck size, deck strength, global points, all aside. Even in the draft, the AI was against me.
Additionally, whenever I try to reach a milestone, the AI either pits me against a much stronger opponent or puts me at a disadvantage in the draft.
The thing with the "AI" disadvantaging you at milestone matches is all in your head, all of my fights for the 100 point barriers were incredibly easy, does that mean kabam overlords likes me? no ofc not, its random...
We don't get 100+ point difference in normal matchmaking.
He don't play a lot BG' or he has skill issues.
I mean if great accounts wants farmer they just play on lower levels of VT, I have faced several times accounts with 6 endgame defenders at rank 4 and even that they loose, so you play maybe you win or you die but in this way you learn how to play against those defenders.
Lets just get into this now. Uniformity between skill or roster/deck strength is never going to happen. I don't know why you even brought that up since it isn't what people are asking for. Thats point blank manipulation if anything. Its like telling your significant other that a perfect relationship is impossible after they brought up the problems they have with how things have been going. The point isn't that players want a perfecly fair system, they want a fair opportunity to play someone who is feasibly on their level. The gap between two random players at cav is theoretically much more reasonable than the gap between the average tb and the average cav. Even when it isn't, a cav player can look at another cav player and feasibly reach those heights even WITHOUT having to move up in progression or jump up to the next weight class. Thats the closest thing to achieving a comparatively fair match experience in the victory track without diving into exacts on decks, masteries, and roster size.
There's a large difference in a player's opportunity of where they can play or what they can buy when it comes to earning what they need to expand their roster when moving up the progression ladder, thats the point of progressions. Gating competition, in a mode that revolves around roster size, based on the opportunity each player has in expanding their roster just makes sense on a logical level. It also works in practice, because regardless of your cherry-picked example of stronger cavs beating weaker thronebreakers, what do they get out of that win? They don't earn more points for beating someone in a higher weight class. They get the same rewards they did for if they beat someone of their same weight class. They are literally playing up for the same cav rewards, since the store is progression based............
So why not allow cavs to play cavs? Why not allow TB to play TB? Paragon vs Paragon? Valiant vs Valiant? Its just the victory track. I said a progression based victory track, with seeding into the open pool for GC. Its the closest thing to a win win of giving players a fair and reasonable opportunity to play against those who have the same opportunities as them, earn relevant rewards curtailed to their level, and STILL have the chance to test their mettle in the GC against stronger accounts, and actually earn rewards above their level through GC ranked rewards and Radiance, unlike now where even the most skilled player at those weight classes sacrifices fair matchmaking in favor of struggling against unfair opponents just to inevitably end up hardstuck with nothing extra from the experience.
Current VT helps noone. Its just wasting everyone's time. Stronger players get a handout that none of them actually value, middling players are stuck between a rock and a hard place, either they're the stronger fish or they're the weaker one, and weaker players are just there to be stepping-stones to get everyone else moving forward. The average player isnt there to fight any semblance of a fair fight or compete, they're just there to take as many beatings as they can stomach until they are satisfied with the rewards they have eventually lucked their way into. If you want to talk about perverting competition, look no further than current battlegrounds victory track. Still, why are you bringing up all this emphasis and value on competitive experience (experience that those players get 0 benefits out of) when Crashed just explained that the data says "noone takes it seriously" and "BGs is niche." The one thing you can point to as a benefit of the current system isn't even valuable.
So 'penalizing' stronger players in each tier by removing the chance for them to earn nothing more from struggling through a gauntlet of unfair mismatches is a problem but leaving the rest of the playerbase to rot in an unbalanced and unfair mode isnt. Nice. Honestly, thats just a complement saying that we understand less about the current model. Its like Kanye telling us we don't see the vision.
And even if it wasn't, you make it sound like if Kabam decided to restructure BGs, they wouldn't or couldn't make changes to the stores as well. In fact, if they did completely overhaul bgs, I would expect them to track how changes like what I propose could affect plans they are currently implementing like radiance. Thats the whole point of pushing these ideas and having discussions.
If things were actually easy, some random knowitall loudmouth on the forums drops an idea and it somehow solves everything, they would have been fixed already, but that doesn't mean we just give up and accept the mode as it is. We keep giving ideas, we adapt them to problems, and hopefully kabam can implement something that can appease as many people as possible. Hell, they're the ones being paid to figure it out. Our community ideas are supposed to be full of holes and miss obvious problems when we're the ones stuck guessing based on observations and feelings while they have all the hard data.
In short, Hell Yeah. At least then they're actually earning something for competing in mismatches, and thats after they climbed a ladder against reasonable competition in the victory track, rather than what happens now.
FrostDzNz said: Graves_3 said: FrostDzNz said: Graves_3 said:
I am glad you brought up the radiance store. In one paragraph you say the store is progression based and progression based matchmaking doesn’t mean they earn more rewards because store is progression locked. Yet, in the next paragraph you say this gives them a chance to earn radiance. Radiance store is not progression locked. So any radiance a cavalier earns without facing anyone higher than a cavalier will give them things like t7b, t4a, titan shards, and a bunch of other premium items which they really don’t need at their level. How do you account for that?
The Radiance store IS progression locked. Cavs can't do anything but trade it in for tokens. Nice try tho.
And even if it wasn't, you make it sound like if Kabam decided to restructure BGs, they wouldn't or couldn't make changes to the stores as well. In fact, if they did completely overhaul bgs, I would expect them to track how changes like what I propose could affect plans they are currently implementing like radiance. Thats the whole point of pushing these ideas and having discussions.
If things were actually easy, some random knowitall loudmouth on the forums drops an idea and it somehow solves everything, they would have been fixed already, but that doesn't mean we just give up and accept the mode as it is. We keep giving ideas, we adapt them to problems, and hopefully kabam can implement something that can appease as many people as possible. Hell, they're the ones being paid to figure it out. Our community ideas are supposed to be full of holes and miss obvious problems when we're the ones stuck guessing based on observations and feelings while they have all the hard data.
Well alright buddy. I was mistaken about cavaliers. But TB and above can access the full radiance store. So you are ok with thronebreaker not facing anyone higher than them and getting the benefits from the radiance store?
My idea only guarantees they face TB only for victory track. Once they hit GC, its an open seeded pool. So imagine what we have now for the victory track but applied to gladiator circuit instead. To earn radiance, they would need to either earn enough points early on to gain the pittance given from objectives, or they would need to end the season with a high enough points placement to earn the chunk given from GC rewards. In either case, that means they would need to win out against their fellow talented TBs who made it to GC, then would need to win out against any Paragon players who made it to GC, then would need to win out against any Valiant players who made it to GC. If they can run that gauntlet, they deserve whatever they end up receiving.
In short, Hell Yeah. At least then they're actually earning something for competing in mismatches, and thats after they climbed a ladder against reasonable competition in the victory track, rather than what happens now.
You forgot the main issue in this kabam dont want uncollected and cavs in gc they have said this multiple times part of the reason why they got rid of the last match making system