Clarity on Win/Loss record in matchmaking?
I've heard a lot of people talking about win/loss ratio being taken into account in matchmaking for future Grand Arena events. Can anyone point me in the direction of where this information came from?
Below are all the mentions of matchmaking I could find in developer posts and they all reference win/loss ratio being used following the first round within a three round group of 8 event. None of them mention this record being carried over to help in matchmaking for the next event.
Also, at some point I was under the impression matchmaking was intended to be more sophisticated than straight GP, however, looking back at these posts (and the obvious evidence from the two exhibition events) it appears not. Does anyone recall any posts indicating the contrary?
Thanks in advance for any info or confirmation you can find.
Below are all the mentions of matchmaking I could find in developer posts and they all reference win/loss ratio being used following the first round within a three round group of 8 event. None of them mention this record being carried over to help in matchmaking for the next event.
Also, at some point I was under the impression matchmaking was intended to be more sophisticated than straight GP, however, looking back at these posts (and the obvious evidence from the two exhibition events) it appears not. Does anyone recall any posts indicating the contrary?
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/187131/the-road-ahead-11-09-2018/p1At the beginning of the Grand Arena Event, you’ll be matched with 7 other players from across the game who have a Galactic Power score very similar to your own. In the first round, you’ll be matched up against a random player from your group to essentially fight a mini-Territory War [...] At the end of the battle, whoever has earned the most banners will be the winner.
Each round, you’ll be matched with other players who have the same win/loss record as you, and you’ll never fight the same opponent twice in a Grand Arena event.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/189068/title-update-14-12-4-2018Matchmaking: Leveraging the new Matchmaking changes, players are placed into a group of 8 opponents that have similar collections so that all players have fun and challenging fights throughout the entire Grand Arena. Once players are in a group, matchmaking pairs players with a similar number of wins rising the highest skill players to the top of the group.
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/1709925#Comment_1709925CG_SBCrumb wrote: »Your group of 8 will be based on GP and then who you face (after the first round) is determined by your win/loss record within that group. For example, everyone in your group has around 1mil GP but you lose your first round, you will then mostly go up against other players who lost their first round.
Thanks in advance for any info or confirmation you can find.
1
- 61.6K General Discussion
- -35 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.7K Arena and Character Strategy
- 3.2K Individual Events
- 5.5K Guild Events
- 4.7K PVP and Rivalry
- 51K Guild Recruitment
- 751 Art and Media
- 4.2K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
I had some confusion on this too, so i may be wrong.
I am hoping the w/l are implemented with match making. Even if not now, something they can tweak on in the future.
I’m still holding all judgement until I play it in full swing. TW rewards are done right so I’m hoping that GA will continue the trend.
The reason - it will put all the good players vs good players and bad players vs bad players. This means the winning bad player (vs all bad players) will get better rewards than the losing good player (vs all good players). That doesn't seem fair to me. The best players should get better rewards for competing against other good players - however that reward system doesn't exist and would be too complicated to implement.
Odds are that your wins will be counted just like arena and fleet and node battle wins on your profile. However, those wins/losses will not be factors in match making for the reason stated above.
It needs to be somewhat random with a mix of good, medium, and bad players in every set of 8 in order for good players to get the best rewards. Otherwise, the good players (aka whales, krakens, who pay so we can play) will lose vs other good players and get less rewards than bad players winning against bad players. (All within their respected GP brackets.)
This mode seems to really weed out players with padded gp like myself. It’s the same in tw but this is just all on you.
What I’m really seeing is that players want to be competitive and that’s great. That’s what really drives pvp and drives parts of this game.
It’s expensive to have 7 teams in all fighting shape or it takes a lot of self control and resource management. That’s the whole point of this game.
I’m more of a pve-guy but happy for those players that really love pvp and want to take it to the next level.
So you're in a pod with a certain number of other players (in this case, 8) and everyone is matched randomly in the first round, at the end of which you have four players at 1-0, and four players at 0-1. In round 2, the 1-0s are paired off against one another, while the 0-1s are paired off as well, and at the end of the round you have two players at 2-0, four players at 1-1, and two players at 0-2. The third, and final, round the two 2-0s face each other (the winner gets 1st place, loser 2nd), the two 0-2s face each other (7th and 8th), and then.... It depends. PROBABLY, the two 1-1s who won in round one and lost in round 2 face off (for 3rd and 4th) and then the other two 1-1s face off (5th and 6th).
I say that's what probably happens because the 1-1s need a tiebreaker of some sort to determine who faces whom. In a straight win/loss style tournament (think any CCG) then the players who won the first round would get the tiebreaker because their loss came to a "better" opponent than compared with the people whose loss came in the first round. But since victories here track Banners, it's possible that like other professional sports that track things like runs or goal differentials or whatever, the tiebreaker will be whoever has the most aggregate banners.
So, basically, there are two meanings of "matchmaking" being used--
The initial matchmaking would be making groupings of 8 or 5 players taking players at random from the big pools of players who fit "of comparable rosters" description, but irrespective of win/losses (otherwise people would be incentivised to tank the first few Grand Arenas so that later Grand Arenas would be easier). Then, once the Grand Arena event starts, that's when win/loss records within that specific event matter.
What proof do I have of this? Absolutely none whatsoever. But that's how the tournaments I ran back in the day worked (For the old Vs ccg), and I don't see any particular reason to change that for this. The thing they need to be careful about is what criteria define who gets placed in which pools from which the initial pods are created. That's where you'll get your potential mismatches, not from the win/losses within the Grand Arena events.
Win/loss is only used during each grand arena event match making.
Why punish your opponent they didnt create the match up.
Aggregate banners would also mean that occasionally the 2-0 player that loses to the other 2-0 player will sometimes not come in second place. Although, personally, I like that--it gives people who lose that first round some hope that if they just do REALLY, REALLY well in the subsequent rounds that they'll be able to get a better final rank from tiebreakers.
Cool story. Must be nice to have such poor sportsmanship.
But also keep in mind that in future events you're going to have three rounds, so not deploying anything will shoot yourself in the foot if it turns out that ties are broken by aggregate banners (which is another argument in favor, now that I think about it). It'll also mean that if you get stomped by a mismatch in the first round you'll likely face off against another player who lost in the first round that will probably have a more similar roster to you.
Then you’re the very worst kind of player.
So if you can't win, you won't even try? And try to "punish" someone you don't know?
Would you also set no defense if you were the stronger player of the match, in support all the underdog players? And also not attack a weaker opponent if your match was the other way? I'm not sure I follow your logic.
As long as the players who perform the best rise through the ranks, and get matched with each other in the long run, this doesn’t have to be a problem. As long as the losing player in a higher bracket receives rewards that are at least comparable with the winning rewards in the next lower bracket, there’s always an incentive to build a more competetive roster for GA. And for the players who are less interested in building competetive rosters for GA (because they have a collector focus, or whatever), in the long run, they’ll get matched with each other and player for lowernrewards than the more competetive players. To me, this sounds like what everybody really wants, except maybe the devs, for whatever reason.
TL; DR. In the long run, this mode is only going to work if pairings are able to take into account the player’s prior records.
So you're telling me that players who spend tons of money to play are "good"? Also, if you spend that much money on the game, do you really need the best rewards? Are you also telling me that you want whales that you call "good" to go up against a f2p (which I assume is your "bad player") for an easy win? So much for fairness.
I don’t think Wolffe is saying what he wants. I think he’s stating the philosophy behind the devs’ decision not to implement a matchmaking system based on players’ prior performance.
Honestly, you probably wouldn’t see this very often if the pairing algorithm reliably matched players who pose a challenge for each other.
I agree that it’s poor sportsmanship, and as such, I posted a defense in my previous matchup, in which I stood no chance of victory. But it’s hard to fault somebody who glances at the matchup, determines they have no legitimate shot at victory, and refuses to engage for that reason. Particularly when the only person who will benefit from their defensive squads is their opponent.
Fix the matchmaking, and you won’t have this problem. I more or less agree with Mercalla. It’s essentially a legitimate form of civil disobedience in protest of the lousy pairing algorithm.
Or you and him could play the game as it's designed instead of expecting it to be tailored to a collecting mentality......
I don’t have much use for anybody, whatever their ideology, who tells me I’m playing the game wrong. People have different motivations, but this mode can and should be fun for all of them.
That's precisely my point... People have different motivations.... If you are motivated to collect then collect, there is nothing WRONG with that..... Just don't expect CG to tailor every game mode to the way you want to play it when there are others, such as myself that play it differently.....
I don't expect to get extra GP points in TB, why should you expect to do well to n GA?
Also, even if you’ve focused on PVP, you’re still getting lousy matchups in this mode. Nobody is actually benefiting from he bad matchmaking. The rewards are garbage, and many of the matchups are uncompetitive. Why is this something that you want so badly to defend?
I don’t expect to “do well” in GA. I expect to play reasonably competetive matches for lower rewards than somebody who has a roster optimized for PVP.
It’s like if I show up at a chess tournament. I’ll have fun playing for the $100 prize in the 1200-1400 division. I’ll have an absolutely lousy time playing for the $2000 prize in the 1800-2000 division.
There wouldn’t be shard chats in this game if all the players were selfish and unwilling to help each other get the best arena rewards they can.
You don’t know yet if your opponent set any defense either. If they don’t set defense and you do, then you win. Assuming they don’t or can’t beat your defense.