And I totally understanding you not wanting to play with an inferior deck... and that just supports my argument tha very few people would spend their time "farming" with an inferior deck
You didn't take account of the "system" i was refering to earlier to match same deck quality, i would be willing to do it, if that allow me to rush my dailys in even less time.
So no. I'm not willing, since it isn't the case. If it was the case i would be willing to do it with an arrange "starter deck".
The idea is not to make the game perfectly fair, but to make it the best it can be. Giving up on tests and improvements, under the excuse of "nothing is fair in the world", is just lazy and it doesn't justify at all.
If we are talking fair, you'r missing the point, where playing under those circunstances would the "best" there is still an exploit in it. therefor is also unfair on top of forcing people with little time to play this way to achive their Dailys wich is imo. Yeah a bigger hole.
If they have an algorithm in place for testing purposes, you are not in a favorable position of judging it, by any stretch of imagination. You probably wouldn't even notice its existence, since your are not a beginner and you're also not playing with a beginner's deck. The chances of you running into an opponent with a far different experience or deck level than yours is very thin, compared to a beginner, which 95% (or more) of their opponents have way more experience and better cards.
That's why I suggested the test.
I can only aggre with that.
But still i have the feeling i'm facing the same overall quality deck as mine. While i spent a lot of time(What are the odd of people playing as much as me ?).
And it even reflect in the drop of my winrate. We can still argue that it's only my case. But either way. I face stronger opponent. So there might be something. but only might.
How is it a bigger hole?! In fact, your are missing the point, I think.
The thread was never about this "fear over an hypothetical farming devil", it's about creating a solution to provide fair matches in the game. And, like I said before, I don't agree with segregation between f2p and p2w players, but a fair matchmaking system is essential, even for for the game's survival in the market. Without new players every day, no game can survive.
Just to make my point clearer...
Current state:
- Beginner have a 95% chance or more to face a OP opponent, maybe 80%, giving a big concession that 15% are bad players with lots of money or just f2p too lucky opening KEGs;
Matching by deck level (number of legendary/epic/rare cards in the deck):
- Everyone have almost the same deck potential, the only major difference is the knowledge and experience.
Matching by deck level would make the game more like chess, for example, in which the thinking part (strategy) prevails over the having part (cards).
And I repeat what I just said... it's a great way to help beginners, since they will be playing other beginners like them and, fairly frequently, they will face experienced players too (the few farming thirsty monsters), when they can learn from watching a better/experienced strategist playing.
Assuming it wouldn't be broken. It could be good. But the facts are a little different.
Some decks steamroll like nobody buisness with little rarity. And matching those agaisnt same quality, would(probably) broke the match making even more.
Take Scoia'teal for exemple. Those are the most expensive to make. If you play only with Common rare and 1 epic. You will loose 70% of your game. as they tend to need expensive setting to work. So basicly that's the hole i was talking about.
It also apply the other way around. A NR low rarity would probably have an enormous amount of win rate. Because of the cheap mechanics that need higher tier cards to answer.
That's why what you are suggesting, would be broken. And wouldn't lead to better matchmaking. tell me if i'm missing something.
It doesn't matter how the players got their cards, with money or not. If they wanna play in the "minor league", they can build a beginner deck and play. If they wanna play in the "major league", they can build a full deck, with lots of legendary and epic cards, and play.
It matter only on the side of experience, and having better cards doesnt mean you are a better player. It increase the odd. But only in this exemple. I'm talking matching 2 new players. So a player who got shitty Kegs, would have a smoother overall experience and learning curve, while the lucky one would get to face higher experience player & decks. Most likely get stomp by unlucky players.
I don't think you want that kind of cleavage for your players as game designer. And let's face it. Who doesn't like to oblitare someone time to time ? It's part of the fun. One sided. But fun.
A developer can't NEVER think like that.
I'm not a dev. So i don't see why my opinion isn't valide and therfore maybe false by your statement ? And it's also a prouve fact that you always hear more the complainers than the people who are fine.
Having a couple of people getting frustrated and talking about it left & right, throwing <<dev are doing a bad job.>> Are lunatic. Espacially when it comes to CD Projekt.
What would be the sample of the complain vs the people who either don't think of it that way, or don't care ?
Becareful I'm not saying it's fine.
I'm saying that if it was such a big deal this post would have already 10 pages of rage post. Belive me i tend to be on a lot of forum on when it comes to competitive gameplay. And it's nowhere near some of the rage and imballance i saw else where.
So, should the devs spend all their time adressing an issue dispite by a couple of peoples who are again, Frustrated how it goes. Or spend their precious time on bug fixing, and adding content ? They should of course do both.
But it's not possible.
MatchMaking in casual is trival. That's why ranked exsiste. Pretty much everybody who is complaning in this post will be fine once ranked come out. Just because of winrate. So why should the dev spend time on something that has already a solution, and on top of that for casual matchmaking.
I do think it's madness. Not even to mention, that if you implemente that kind of system in casual when Ranked get out you will probably experience sever waitting time in casual. So should they really spend time in developping something that they will most likely have to fix, tune, then throw by the window at the end ?
I don't know much about ranked matches, but it seems a good solution also.
If you ask me it's by far the best. in every single way. just of the way it work. It resolve the multiple factor on top of that:
Experience * Cards * Deck * Player. because of the huge unknow value there is in those.
Give 10 player the same deck same. You would be surprise of the differences of results.
And rank system are pretty simple. You win you progress toward the place number 1 or gain MMR (MatchMaking Ranking)
You loose you retrograde with the same system as above.
Rank are usualy a shit show when they launch. But give it a weekend and everything start to be just fine.
Just adding to the "minor league", "major league" idea... the EXP Reward System could be changed a little to avoid the "farming devil", if that's a real concern.
Considering that the matchmaking follows the deck level parameters suggested above, the developers could make the EXP Reward System like this, for example:
Level 15 or lower with a Minor League Deck - normal XP for each win;
Level 16 or higher with a Minor League Deck - HALF XP for each win;
Level 15 or lower with a Major League Deck - normal XP for each win;
Level 16 or higher with a Major League Deck - normal XP for each win;
This would be a way to stimulate the experienced players to stay on the "major league" ( with their full built decks), mitigating the "farming" exploit and giving the beginners a chance to learn the basics of the game, before they have to face more advanced strategies and combos.
I just realized that players with bad luck while opening KEGs, but that have a 16 or higher level would be punished, with the half XP rule.
And I think the solution for this is to have a Card Collection Rank. If the player have enough cards to make a "major league deck", he would be punished with HALF XP. If the player doesn't have enough cards in his Collection to make a "major league deck", he would still get normal XP for each win.
Having a great card pool doesnt mean you can make a good deck. You could have 1 legendary in each faction that doesnt make a deck good. Where another player would have for exemple only 2 but that goes in a deck. It's too situationel as some deck work perfectly with low rarity, and other need very high end cards to work.
I'm not event talking about someone who could mill 1 faction and be in the minor whille having a perfect and complete deck.
No matter how you look at this it's a bad idea.
If anything you idea would have to be faction + neutral base. But how do you define equal in asymetrical gameplay ? You can balance it the best as you can. But making it fair ?
I don't know a single competive game that does a matchmaking tunning this precise. And the reasons are simple:
1) It's too much work.
2) And even when you do it. It doesn't mean it would change a thing. I would probably be broken, from the get go, and you then need to adjsut it every time new cards come out. While again Ranked resolve this issue perfectly and his fair.
Hopefully you will come to the same conclusion as me, it's getting really time consuming haha.
Edit: Typo, misleading phrasing.
Edit 2:
MMR is also probably the best by far. as you get point accordingly of you opponent MMR Loose agaisnt an higher loose less. Win agaisnt an Higher win more.
And it's really easy to use those value for Casual matchmaking Either by having;
An "hidden" MMR in casual as i suspect it's right now. Wich also resolve the problem of people getting frustrated. If you display a number in casual people would go ape.
Or use the ranked mmr as reference for matchmaking in Casual. But is less fair.
