Matchmaking still flawed?

[Gvapo]

First of all, rank 2 is already pretty good and you don't get there by luck alone. I also have to disagree with your statement that things are the same in rank 2 and 10, unless you are talking about the same RNG, with the same kind of matchmaking. The law of averages applies here. That is, sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you do not, but in the end, you should have a positive win count solely based on skill. I think you also had some bad luck in the lower ranks, but because you've faced off against weaker opponents, the impact of the RNG wasn't as noticeable.



Quick note, bots have nothing to do with "rigged" matchmaking or any matchmaking. Now, onward to the main question, one that no one has ever answered. So, I dare you. Why are you so special that all the opponents get precedence over you for easy wins? Why you? There is no logical explanation for this. There is no reason for the game to give you a bad hand on purpose or to match you against perfect counters; the latter is not even realistically possible to implement because the game cannot accurately predict what perfect counters are.

I have played over 5000 matches and I have made it to pro-rank in beta. And never have I faced a losing streak because of bad luck or RNG. Sometimes I draw all Witchers in my hand and sometimes I don't draw any of them. It happens. A while ago, I was trying out a new deck and the first opponent I faced has the perfect answers. I tried again and went on a winning streak.

Of course I talked about same RNG because bad luck will happen in rank 20 or rank 1 and thats ok and of course I had bad luck and misplays on rank 10 as well, especially when some females are around me and I cant focus.....

Exactly that, there is no logical explanation but that doesn't mean it is not true and again I don't talk about ''sometimes'' when simple bad luck happens which is again totally ok, I talking about pattern and long runs.....

But as I said if ''game give'' me bad hands in 2-3 out 4 matches then something is very wrong, wittchers or any other cards same thing.....
I mentioned before, what are odds that for example 3 matches in a row I facing factions where I need lock cards and all 4 of them are simple ''locked'' in my deck and not see even one in those 3 matches ?
If I face SC 4 lock cards in hand, if I switch to any other deck becasuse I facing same faction 7-8 times in a row ''voala'' perfect counter deck is next, and this is not once or twice, this not one day or two, this week after week.....

I know we will never agree because I would say exactly what you did '' Why you '' and would go with pure logic, but on the other hand I know what happening and what I see for a long time.....

 

[Shabman]

Glad more people are noticing this stuff.

I called out ages ago that matchmaking was deck-based and everyone thought I was bonkers lol

 

[iz.podpolja]

Glad more people are noticing this stuff.

I called out ages ago that matchmaking was deck-based and everyone thought I was bonkers lol

What would be the incentive for the devs to implement a ridiculously expensive matchmaking algorithm (both in terms of comp. complexity & development - it'd have to be driven by ML to even be in any way accurate), that would be welcomed by well no one? I know, I know, everyone loves their conspiracy theories, but they have to at least make some sense.

 

[Shabman]

What would be the incentive for the devs to implement a ridiculously expensive matchmaking algorithm (both in terms of comp. complexity & development - it'd have to be driven by ML to even be in any way accurate), that would be welcomed by well no one? I know, I know, everyone loves their conspiracy theories, but they have to at least make some sense.

Just a few quick points:

- no need for machine learning, it's basic programming
- the incentive is to increase engagement rates by providing players with stiff competition in most cases (preventing as much as possible some players from steamrolling over everyone they face)
- when you test for something over and over and over and get the expected results, it's not a conspiracy anymore. You can believe what you want, but don't be fooled into thinking I'm pulling this out of my a**.


You can check out my previous posts on the matter if you are truly interested - I'm not going over it all again.

 

[iz.podpolja]

Just a few quick points:

- no need for machine learning, it's basic programming
- the incentive is to increase engagement rates by providing players with stiff competition in most cases (preventing as much as possible some players from steamrolling over everyone they face)
- when you test for something over and over and over and get the expected results, it's not a conspiracy anymore. You can believe what you want, but don't be fooled into thinking I'm pulling this out of my a**.


You can check out my previous posts on the matter if you are truly interested - I'm not going over it all again.

Let's focus on the "motive" here:
- "the incentive is to increase engagement rates by providing players with stiff competition in most cases" - well even if such solution would lead to this effect (and that's debatable on its own), "normal" as in rating based matchmaking gives you ultimately the same 50/50 balance, without the hassle and the system being self-regulating, so again why, where's the gain, 'cause to my mind there are only costs & potential PR risks attached?

 

[4RM3D]

1. no need for machine learning, it's basic programming
2. the incentive is to increase engagement rates by providing players with stiff competition in most cases (preventing as much as possible some players from steamrolling over everyone they face)
3. when you test for something over and over and over and get the expected results, it's not a conspiracy anymore. You can believe what you want, but don't be fooled into thinking I'm pulling this out of my a**.

1. The basic programming is the matchmaking algorithm. The game cannot decide which deck is better, beyond a few simple comparisons which are too unreliable to use. If you want to go further than that, you do indeed need machine learning. And this is coming for a software engineer with knowledge of machine learning. Of course, this is besides putting all the good cards at the bottom, which requires no special algorithm. But using the latter makes no sense, design-wise.

2. That's not the best way to do it. Matching players based on win-rate is far easier to implement and feels fairer than the other shenanigans.

3. A few players is still a minority. Even if you notice something, that doesn't automatically mean it's statistically significant.

 

[Gvapo]

1. The basic programming is the matchmaking algorithm. The game cannot decide which deck is better, beyond a few simple comparisons which are too unreliable to use. If you want to go further than that, you do indeed need machine learning. And this is coming for a software engineer with knowledge of machine learning. Of course, this is besides putting all the good cards at the bottom, which requires no special algorithm. But using the latter makes no sense, design-wise.

2. That's not the best way to do it. Matching players based on win-rate is far easier to implement and feels fairer than the other shenanigans.

3. A few players is still a minority. Even if you notice something, that doesn't automatically mean it's statistically significant.

Hmmmm let's focus on your third part of the post....

There is no '' even if '' but yes it is a case and happening.....
Why few players are not worth by your logic and again by your logic why (if something fishy) happening to the minority is ok until not affect others and most of the player base ?

That is double standards on the menu and why something is only significiant if affects you or others ? What our ''minority'' money worth less and we need to be silent ?

Also about ''few'' and ''minority'' case, a lot of players not talk and write due to many reasons and be sure that this problem is not seen only by us ''few and minority'' who said something and moreover compared to complete Gwent players out there, those who post here on forum are then also part of '' few and minority '' right ?

So if we stick to that logic why then one minority group here calling other group minority ?

 

[nedders]

I think it's pretty obvious there's something in it. For a number of reasons, too.

- Earn CDPR money by encouraging players to create new cards
- Make sure there's no "perfect deck"
- Encourage players to use more balanced decks, which improves gameplay
- Potentially reduce META usage

It's definitely there and I think it has to be. I've chosen to focus on the positive reasons, though, rather than it just be a "it's just not FAIR" post!

 

[4RM3D]

Hmmmm let's focus on your third part of the post....

That's not what I said. Players are claiming the game is rigged based on their personal (and sometimes clouded) experience. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I do know that a few players claiming something is not enough to make it statistically significant, which is the argument I've used to counter their claim. Because they cannot get these numbers, it's actually not fair to use the statistics against them, I know. However, the opposite also applies. Against all reasoning, they still feel the need to prove it, like it's a fact; like their own experience is the only truth. I rather have an open mind and look at it from both sides and determine the logic behind such algorithms, rather than just going by personal experience.

 

[Gvapo]

That's not what I said. Players are claiming the game is rigged based on their personal (and sometimes clouded) experience. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I do know that a few players claiming something is not enough to make it statistically significant, which is the argument I've used to counter their claim. Because they cannot get these numbers, it's actually not fair to use the statistics against them, I know. However, the opposite also applies. Against all reasoning, they still feel the need to prove it, like it's a fact; like their own experience is the only truth. I rather have an open mind and look at it from both sides and determine the logic behind such algorithms, rather than just going by personal experience.

That is exactly what you said but another thing is '' what you thought and wanted to say ''....
Also I not feel and need to prove anything because I will trust to what I see and experience for months, not what you saying is or not.....
From the moment when I made first post in these thread I talked in normal way without making some assumptions towards you or anyone else while I got back '' clouded, minority, tripping, why just you, If, proof and etc '' and I could also use similar words for you or anyone else who is being so ignorant right ?
I am old bastard and really respect straight talks so if you think that I talking about all this just because I am bored feel free to call me lier without any problem but don't say I or anyone else who saying similar things are blind idiots and tripping just because you don't want to believe for no matter what reasons....

One of the simple examples that I am right again is gwent open today, did you saw any key and staple cards like locks or letho in deck game after game ?
Of course you didn't but hey what I know....

 

[4RM3D]

Also I not feel and need to prove anything because I will trust to what I see and experience for months

ne of the simple examples that I am right again is gwent open today [ ...]

You are stating it once again like it's a fact; saying things like "I am right" and having the need to validate your claims. Because it happened to you, it must also be true for everyone else (up to a point to make it statistically significant). You simply cannot make this statement and you cannot prove it.

If you want to share your experience, go ahead. And if you think something is off with the matchmaking, feel free to discuss it. But, please, stop saying it like it's the truth. I do not dispute your experience, but rather the significance thereof.

 

[Gvapo]

You are stating it once again like it's a fact; saying things like "I am right" and having the need to validate your claims. Because it happened to you, it must also be true for everyone else (up to a point to make it statistically significant). You simply cannot make this statement and you cannot prove it.

If you want to share your experience, go ahead. And if you think something is off with the matchmaking, feel free to discuss it. But, please, stop saying it like it's the truth. I do not dispute your experience, but rather the significance thereof.

Exactly, if you check my first post here I said there '' I will talk only from my experience '' so I didn't talked like that is absolute and everyone else ''truth'' but IT IS my truth and for sure I will say what I see for a long time here, not what you or someone else want to hear.....
So you again made mistake and put your words what I never said ''it is everyone else truth ''......

It is not my problem because you don't want to believe but you can't defend something for what you don't have proof as well, you can't telling peoples ''it is just theory and etc'' just because you think different, I could also say hey do you defending your side of story so much because you know we are right ?

As you refusing to believe me or others I can do the same and refuse to believe you and could say as well, stop denying because you know it's a truth, does that will change anything and make difference-nope....

 

[4RM3D]

Exactly, if you check my first post here I said there '' I will talk only from my experience '' so I didn't talked like that is absolute and everyone else ''truth'' but IT IS my truth and for sure I will say what I see for a long time here

You did mention that you were talking from your experience once and then you threw that statement out of the window and seemingly forgot you've said it in your subsequent discussion. Anyhow, now you have explicitly mentioned it again. I'll yield this point. You are talking from your experience and sharing your thoughts on this matter. Okay, fine, let's move on...

As you refusing to believe me

In my previous post, I literally said: "I do not dispute your experience, but rather the significance thereof". Ergo, I believe what you have experienced, I just question the conclusion you draw from it. Regardless, you've drawn your own conclusions from your experience and that's fine.

On a closing note (because it's time to put this discussion to rest), the first post of mine you've quoted, was not addressed to you. Rather, I was talking about the difficulties of creating a proper matchmaking algorithm and how it could be perceived by some. It was a general statement, yet you quoted me, presumably because you felt challenged by some of the points I've made.

 

[4RM3D]

Another thing that hasn't explicitly been discussed is what the definition "rigged" really means. Yes, we can Google it: "to manipulate in a fraudulent manner, esp for profit". But does that give us an objective answer? No.

Hypothetically, even if CDPR decides to reveal the matchmaking algorithm, it's still based on opinion whether or not the matchmaking is fair. The algorithm is just there to match players as close together as possible. Even if that system is flawed, that doesn't mean it's (purposely) rigged.

The only exception where one could make a strong case the game is rigged is if the algorithm affects the RNG of the draw, either by match fixing or handicapping players by giving them a bad hand. The former is not is not possible to reliably implement nor is it logical and the latter has even less reason to exist.

I take the side of logic and reasoning (and I believe in CDPR), until either the numbers prove me wrong or the (revealed) algorithm does, neither of which is going to happen any time soon.

 

[Guest 4339135]

I don't know if other players have the same problem, but in retrospect of the last 2-3 months it isn't a normal thing anymore how often I have got bad luck in Gwent. It starts with the coin flipp. So many times in a row that I had lost the coin flipp, especially in games where it is essential to go second. The next point is my starting hand, often I don't get my thinning cards, instead of them I draw my good cards for the last round and so I can't push in round 1. When my opponents play SK, most of the time they get their discard cards in round 1 and so they can perfectly thin out and get what they need. And when I play SK, every match is a hard fight to get my discard pieces and I have to hope that I don't brick in round 3.
After round 1, I draw constantly my bronzes again and again. so that I end up with 4-5 gold cards in the rest of my deck. To lose just because you draw bad in a constant way is such a frustrating feeling. I spend many time in this game and it is normal that not every day is the same, but if this progresses, sometime a point is reached where I have to stop because it's not ok anymore.
I think I'm not the only one with this feeling, what are your experiences?

 

[4RM3D]

I think I'm not the only one with this feeling, what are your experiences?

It appears that way when reading some of the posts made in this thread I've merged your post into (because we're not going to have another separate thread discussing it).

 

[WhiteWolf1010]

Theres definetly something fishi in the casual matchmaking for me.... i have over 400hrs in gwent (since homecoming), im never faced a scorh,igni or yirden, never, not one match.... yesterday i wanted to try out this immune mourntart deck, played 5 match, one of them mourntart got scorched, the other one is igni, the i thought it would be so funny, if the next match i get yirdened, boom, suddenly bran discard plays yirden... so can someone explain me this?

 

[Shabman]

Another thing that hasn't explicitly been discussed is what the definition "rigged" really means. Yes, we can Google it: "to manipulate in a fraudulent manner, esp for profit". But does that give us an objective answer? No.

Hypothetically, even if CDPR decides to reveal the matchmaking algorithm, it's still based on opinion whether or not the matchmaking is fair. The algorithm is just there to match players as close together as possible. Even if that system is flawed, that doesn't mean it's (purposely) rigged.

The only exception where one could make a strong case the game is rigged is if the algorithm affects the RNG of the draw, either by match fixing or handicapping players by giving them a bad hand. The former is not is not possible to reliably implement nor is it logical and the latter has even less reason to exist.

I take the side of logic and reasoning (and I believe in CDPR), until either the numbers prove me wrong or the (revealed) algorithm does, neither of which is going to happen any time soon.

I do not have a stake in this, as I don't play the game anymore (although all these dryad cards coming out are kind of tempting me, but... I don't know) - but I think it worth it to clarify my position, and give you a thorough explanation of what I think is going on here.

- unlike other posters, I do not believe this is some conspiracy of greed set up by CDPR to give paying customers advantage over players playing for free. I mean, it's not impossible either - but I personally haven't seen evidence for that. What I think this "rigging" is, is a way to even the playing field between players and limit the effect of deck superiority as much as possible, in order to offer everyone a fair challenge and a reason to stay engaged with the game. CDPR is aware that there will be a major discrepancy between decks (because us beta players obviously have more scraps to build whatever we want, because some people pay and can also build what they want, because some people are better deck builders than others, etc etc etc), so I feel they are trying to avoid cases in which certain players would crush others with no oppositions, or cases in which your losing streaks would be so bad you'd get sick of playing. It's all about player engagement.

- there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that matchmaking takes deck composition into account, and it really does not take machine learning to make it work. There aren't that many cards in this game, and the devs obviously know them pretty well, including their strength and weaknesses. Each card can be assigned an identity, and be made to "point" to its antidote or antidotes (and vice versa). Pretty sure you can program the matchmaking thingy to compare all decks currently waiting to be matched and identify decks with higher numbers of reciprocal counter cards, then giving preference to those matchups.


Not very complicated IMHO, and nothing conspiratorial either.

 

[4RM3D]

It's all about player engagement.

We know the end goal, but we don't know which road(s) CDPR has chosen to reach that goal; the rocky and difficult one or the interstate for some easy progress. Some players are seemingly stuck on the rocky road, while others are cruising on the interstate. It seems that both of these groups complain about the game being unbalanced (either in favor or against). If player engagement is the reason for creating a more "special" algorithm, then CDPR is doing a poor job. Ironically, that's one of the reasons I don't believe in the game being rigged. Because, if that were the case, I would have actually expected less complaining, not more.

There aren't that many cards in this game, and the devs obviously know them pretty well, including their strength and weaknesses. Each card can be assigned an identity, and be made to "point" to its antidote or antidotes (and vice versa).

This is not about counting cards and assigning a value to each of them. It's way more complex than that. Even if CDPR could devise an algorithm, it would only work in some cases, which actually increases the variance and will have an opposite effect in the long run.

In a much more abstract way, CDPR could divide the decks into rock-paper-scissors based on the accumulation of all cards in the deck and their approximate type. However, this would become too obvious and in my +5000 games I have encounter no such pattern.

On a side note, the devs don't know the cards that well, looking at the many iterations of changes and nerfs. That may sound negative, but the point is that balancing a game like this is just incredibly complex and requires a lot of trial and error.

 

[Gvapo]

1-I know peoples these days not read too carefully and I really don't like when someone put their own words in my mouth, so one more time I DIDN'T said Cdpr doing that but I said how I played many games where '' RNG '' is based on amount of money....

2-Last 2 days I made Foltest deck and playing in rank 1 and please at least give me that I know what is perfect draw and what is not....
3-When you saw exactly 2 bad and same cards come back round after round few matches in a row ?
4-When you saw Ves not being in hand last 10 matches in a row ?
5-Do I need to mention perfect draws for opponent while half of my good cards are '' locked '' in deck ?
6-When you saw same faction 9 matches in a row ?
7-If I need to battle half time against perfect draws then it is huge disadvantage and wasting time....
8-How so my opponents don't have not even close bad draws ?
9-Again I talking about me not because of conspiracy but because I see it with my own eyes...
10-If anyone here think that you need NASA equipment and IQ700 to manipulate with matches he is so wrong....
11-I can spam this board with 20-30 ss every day but I doubt some will believe even then....

Rng exist in every card game and that's fine but when '' Rng '' here decide that opponent have amazing draw and my several good cards '' locked '' in deck while I getting same cards back ( some days favorite dimetrium bomb and you will always get it in last round no matter what) then I have problem with it, because I want opponent outplay me not Cdpr and their rng....

All these seems legit and all of us who saw things and complain just tripping, no not fishy at all hah.....

PS -I played 4 more matcher and that means 14 Matches in a row I didn't saw Vex, I want to see who will here tell me that is normal and common thing....