Baaad bad matchmaking

+
Baaad bad matchmaking

So I've played around 15 games so far, whereas I've won only 2 of them.
The Cards I got from the Tutorial didn't help that much so my Decks are still the starter ones.
The Opponents I play against have ~3-4 Gold cards in their decks, lots of silver ones
- overall better cards. (and already tactis!!!) Sometimes I got close to winning, but most of the games I get crushed.

I guess the matchmaking works around the level the player is so if people buy kegs early this can be exploited.

It's rly no fun playing like this, sadly :(
 
Nope the matchmaking does not work Based on Level (as you said can be exploited ) but on a defined MMR (it was confirmed). But i don't know how the system treats a new (unranked) player. Took me around 20 30 or so games till it became more fair.
 
I agree, matchmaking is horrible. With a starter deck you struggle to find other starters and mostly play against people who already have lots of stronger cards.
 
Thanks for the quick reply, thats at least a bit of a relief!
But getting through 20-30 games till you find "even" matched games is quite stressful.
 
So I've played around 15 games so far, whereas I've won only 2 of them.
The Cards I got from the Tutorial didn't help that much so my Decks are still the starter ones.
The Opponents I play against have ~3-4 Gold cards in their decks, lots of silver ones
- overall better cards. (and already tactis!!!) Sometimes I got close to winning, but most of the games I get crushed.

I guess the matchmaking works around the level the player is so if people buy kegs early this can be exploited.

It's rly no fun playing like this, sadly :(

Matchmaking takes time to calibrate, the more you play the better match-ups you should find :)
 
Matchmaking takes time to calibrate, the more you play the better match-ups you should find :)

If the calibration is taking 20-30 matches to start getting reasonable results, that's a big problem, I think.

If each match takes around 15 minutes, a new player, currently, have to endure at least 5 hours of frustration to start having a good gaming experience.
I'm not sure of how many casual players would grind through it, especially because they don't know if it will get better any time soon. If they keep losing and getting no reward for playing for 3-4 hours, they might think the game is not worthy of their time.

Most games have an "easy" start with low rewards, then, progressively, gets harder with bigger rewards. That's a gaming model that works for a reason, it's friendly to new players, it doesn't scare them away.

I don't know how to do it, but it must be a way to make the game more enjoyable for new players.
 
If the calibration is taking 20-30 matches to start getting reasonable results, that's a big problem, I think.

If each match takes around 15 minutes, a new player, currently, have to endure at least 5 hours of frustration to start having a good gaming experience.
I'm not sure of how many casual players would grind through it, especially because they don't know if it will get better any time soon. If they keep losing and getting no reward for playing for 3-4 hours, they might think the game is not worthy of their time.

Most games have an "easy" start with low rewards, then, progressively, gets harder with bigger rewards. That's a gaming model that works for a reason, it's friendly to new players, it doesn't scare them away.

I don't know how to do it, but it must be a way to make the game more enjoyable for new players.

From the data we see it is enjoyable for new players.

I'm sorry certain people are having a bad experience, but once ranked mode is introduced a lot of higher skilled players will migrate to only playing there.

Also having proper matchmaking after such a short period isn't realistic. The game has just started and there's no such defined high, medium or low MMR.. because that is being defined by players. We can't set arbitrary numbers that would defeat the point of what we're trying to accomplish :)
 
I haven't had any issues with the matchmaking so far. I'm F2P and haven't played against anyone that's obviously outclassed me in card quality.
 
There is matchmaking, really ? I thought I read somewhere that the current beta version just randomly chose an available opponent and that matchmaking would be introduced later...

Because it felt pretty random to me, I am a pretty awful player but I seem to oscillate between ending up against players who annihilate without any challenge me and others who seem to have even less of a clue what they are doing than I do :)
 
To me it seems to work pretty well. Yes, I loose maybe most of my matches, but around 50% of those have been lost like 50 vs 49 points. Some I have lost because I made pretty stupid and huge mistakes myself or opponent just managed to crush my one and only strategy from the beginning.

I have also won like 50 vs 49 points, annihilated my opponent etc or just won with pure luck. Sadly I have also won few matches because my opponent made a mistake or just didn't know how the cards work. I felt so bad for them, so my sympathies if you see this :( Trust me, I know how it feels to scorch away your own cards instead one of your opponents card. Been there, done that... (many times)

I bought some kegs just out of curiosity, but didn't got anything special that could change the world. My best cards I have gotten from kegs bought with game currency. I crafted one or two bronze cards... I haven't yet seen my opponents using any "super cards". Mostly they have just the same cards as I do.

Most educational moments for me in this game have been those where opponent just came and crushed me like a bug :D "Oh, so THAT'S how it works..."
 
From the data we see it is enjoyable for new players.

I'm sorry certain people are having a bad experience, but once ranked mode is introduced a lot of higher skilled players will migrate to only playing there.

Also having proper matchmaking after such a short period isn't realistic. The game has just started and there's no such defined high, medium or low MMR.. because that is being defined by players. We can't set arbitrary numbers that would defeat the point of what we're trying to accomplish :)

Well, I don't have access to the data and you (CD PROJEKT RED) are the most interested on making the game better and sustainable.

I'm just arguing over the complaints I've seen and, If you're saying those are very isolated cases from a few players with bad luck, I'll just take your word on it and ignore similar threads in the forum.

As long as a new player, who never heard of Gwent, will be able to join the game full of experienced players already and still have a good time, I have nothing else to say on the matter.
 
Matchmaking is broken. Lost 5 games in a row. In all of them I had no chance to win. Overwhelming cards. I guess I just give up them at the beginning. I won't lose my time and maybe even play against beginners.
 
From the data we see it is enjoyable for new players.

I'm sorry certain people are having a bad experience, but once ranked mode is introduced a lot of higher skilled players will migrate to only playing there.

Also having proper matchmaking after such a short period isn't realistic. The game has just started and there's no such defined high, medium or low MMR.. because that is being defined by players. We can't set arbitrary numbers that would defeat the point of what we're trying to accomplish :)

Thanks Rethas, can't wait for ranked ! It will indeed solve a lots of problems !
 
I wonder if, maybe, having Levels 1-3 match by level (and then that data can help MMR) would be possible. We already have milling locked by level, so making sure new Level 1-3 players played against other new level 1-3 players so they have time to adapt to the game might help (assuming it's even possible from a programming standpoint).

Though, I'd guess that such a system would rely on a reasonably steady influx of new players to allow for those match-ups to continue. Unless it just first checked for a Level 1-3 pairing before opening to an MMR pairing.
 
Level 1-3 players are not restricted from buying kegs...

My two cents about bad matchmaking: I hate long streaks of the same faction. I can play like 5-6 games in a row against Monsters and then 5-6 games in a row against NR. Even if players aren't using other decks and there's 50/50 Monster/NR ratio, I'd prefer to have next game with a different faction. I'd also rather play with the same Scoiatael player after a game or two with other factions than face different Monster players with the same strategy. It's getting boring very quickly especially considering the fact that I often can't play more than 5-6 games in a row.
 
Treamayne;n6870550 said:
so making sure new Level 1-3 players played against other new level 1-3 players so they have time to adapt to the game might help (assuming it's even possible from a programming standpoint).

This is a clever standpoint. I would indeed limit a lot the stomp on new players. But not above this point. As:

Level =/= Cards you have =/= player decision making & experience

--- Updated 03-11-16, 22:04 ---

Wasteland_Ghost;n6870710 said:
My two cents about bad matchmaking: I hate long streaks of the same faction. I can play like 5-6 games in a row against Monsters and then 5-6 games in a row against NR. Even if players aren't using other decks and there's 50/50 Monster/NR ratio, I'd prefer to have next game with a different faction. I'd also rather play with the same Scoiatael player after a game or two with other factions than face different Monster players with the same strategy. It's getting boring very quickly especially considering the fact that I often can't play more than 5-6 games in a row.



I'm not even sure there would be enough Skellige & Sco to do a round robin system.

And the issue of a system like that. Is that by adding this variable to match making the process of find an opponent can become enormous.
 
Last edited:
bre3zer;n6871100 said:
This is a clever standpoint. I would indeed limit a lot the stomp on new players. But not above this point. As: Level =/= Cards you have =/= player decision making & experience

Absolutely correct. However:

1) I think the cases where a new player drops cash on 10+ kegs before they reach level three will probably be slim.

2) even if a level 1 plays a level 1 that dropped cash on 10+ kegs; the difference between that and the same level 1 playing a level 20 with no cash, but all the Kegs getting to level 20 got is still huge.

If the idea is to curve the play experience of a new player* then this is a possible solution. It may not be perfect but may still be better than straight MMR, when we know MMR needs aggregate data to begin pairing well.




*Note: I'm calling new players level 1-3 just for an objective definable reference - by level 4 you have played at least 20 games - likely more with losses
 
Treamayne;n6871210 said:
1) I think the cases where a new player drops cash on 10+ kegs before they reach level three will probably be slim.

Yeah that the exactly the idea of "not above".

 
zkenpachiz;n6680642 said:
If the calibration is taking 20-30 matches to start getting reasonable results, that's a big problem, I think.

If each match takes around 15 minutes, a new player, currently, have to endure at least 5 hours of frustration to start having a good gaming experience.
I'm not sure of how many casual players would grind through it, especially because they don't know if it will get better any time soon. If they keep losing and getting no reward for playing for 3-4 hours, they might think the game is not worthy of their time.

Most games have an "easy" start with low rewards, then, progressively, gets harder with bigger rewards. That's a gaming model that works for a reason, it's friendly to new players, it doesn't scare them away.

I don't know how to do it, but it must be a way to make the game more enjoyable for new players.

I came to the forum for exactly this thread's complaint, and this poster's logic. I was invited into the Beta a few days ago, and got in last night. I played... 7 games, I think? Maybe 8? My first game was a close fight that I barely won. Every match after that has been an utter ROFLstomp.

People turning their cards gold, with other cards that get stronger because of it. Getting to Round 3, running out of cards when my opponent was ahead and Skipping, only to have him continue to play, turning his 10-point lead into a 150-point lead. And my "favorite," the game where I ended Turn 1 with a 10-point lead, as the Tutorial suggests, only to have my opponent play five cards, not only stomping me for turn 1, but carrying forward more than 50 points of power, which I can't even hope to compete against (that one got a Concede instead of a Pass). And don't get me started about the card (Torrential Rain) that's supposed to turn all the non-Gold Melee characters to 1 Strength, and have it do nothing (seems to hit the Artillery rows instead?).

I came here because some friends raved about Gwent when they heard it was being made into its own game. I can see that it's a very different approach to CCG gaming. But I can't see why I should continue being pummeled into a humiliatingly crushing defeat when it seems that everyone is so far ahead of me, it'll take hundreds of games to get the kind of combo deals they've got - maybe.

Out of my starting cards, I've got one particularly useful combo - Prize Winning Cow + Holger Blackhand = drop two opposing units by two and switch the Cow into a 9-Strength monster. And that's weak-sauce compared to the decks I've been facing.

So what have I got to look forward to? Hours upon hours of losing time after time, in hopes that I can maybe eventually be able to make some power combos? That's not fun. And if it's not fun, it's not worth throwing money at to shorten the pain, either.
 
Nekojin;n6871400 said:
only to have him continue to play, turning his 10-point lead into a 150-point lead.
[...]

So what have I got to look forward to? Hours upon hours of losing time after time, in hopes that I can maybe eventually be able to make some power combos? That's not fun. And if it's not fun, it's not worth throwing money at to shorten the pain, either.
If a player keeps playing his cards in round 3 when it's clear that he has won and you passed, hit the "Esc" really fast and don't click the "GG" button to tell them what you think of their "benevolent education" - some people apparently think everyone loves to see their entire hand and that's the reason why they do that. If that is not the case for you, and you consider it as a case of "bad mannered twat is gloating", then show them.

What are you looking forward to... well. There are decent and cheap decks that work even against guys with super rare cards. You need to find those synergies, need to have some luck at the draw, the opponent needs a bit of bad luck at the draw, and it helps if the opponent makes some mistakes. I myself run a deck that does have its rares, because I got i.e. Yen, Decoy and Ciaran from a keg and crafted Ciri and Ida. But in fact, I do sometimes win matches in which I pulled just the cheap bronze cards (on which I spent some scraps, admittedly).

Maybe look at GwentDB.com to get some inspirations.


There is also that two-edged tip to try all factions a bit, and if you discover that you just hate one or two of them, to mill their cards and use the scraps to improve the decks of your favourite faction. That probably helps. But don't go overboard, because after a few days, boredom sets in and then it's nice if you can play the other factions sometimes, too.

I didn't do that, even though I really hate Northern by now - but I only started 2 days late instead of more than 1 week late.
 
Top Bottom