PDA

View Full Version : Ranks & matchmaking



Aldri
04-25-2014, 05:01 AM
First of all, I'm a little new to the game, I played a few games in alpha (but they never ended), so I decided to wait for beta and here it is.
One thing I find missing is the auto matchmaking based on "rank" when I try to find human opponents.
The idea is based on Hearthstone: you win a game, you gain 1 rank, you loose one game and .. well you loose one rank.
From that when you click "find game", it will try to find someone with the closest rank, and you can hope that the game will be balanced.
As a newbie I find myself playing against players way more experienced with goods decks and I can't compete with my starter deck (unless I get a lot of luck).
And it would be nice to say: hey I'm rank **** I roxx ! :)
It would also be fun to try to progress and get a better rank.

Is it something that you would considerate adding to the game ?

Westane
04-25-2014, 09:01 AM
Proving Grounds is the local card shop where you can sit down and play a game against anyone, Tournaments are are for competitive play. I don't this is the kind of game that should have a ranked play button.

That said I'm all for DCI style player ratings, I just don't think they should be deterministic in matchmaking. Splitting proving grounds into non-automated Casual/Competitive rooms is one idea, but if you've never been part of the evergoing Tournament Practice vs Casual in MTGO, well... welcome to that.

TL;DR - Yes to ratings, no to MMR based matchmaking.

Turtlewing
04-25-2014, 10:43 AM
I think ratings are planned; though they're more likely to use a more proven ratting system as the issue or raking player skill in a game with random elements and not inadvertently encouraging snobbery is fairly complex (losing due to manna screw can't tank your rating to much or the best players will be tok afraid to play).

Right now, in beta where games frequently hang due to server load, turning on the ratting system is a bit premature.

Also if you read the tournament info on the web sigh it looks like invitational tournaments that you need to qualify for by winning tournaments are already on the drawing board.

Saeijou
04-25-2014, 12:40 PM
Is a MMR really possible in TCG? I mean the MMR would be bound to the deck, not to the person playing it...
I think that would be really hard.

Hearthstone is not as complex as HEX... but I think MMR is a weird thing there as well!

wigglez721
04-25-2014, 01:36 PM
Is a MMR really possible in TCG? I mean the MMR would be bound to the deck, not to the person playing it...
I think that would be really hard.

Hearthstone is not as complex as HEX... but I think MMR is a weird thing there as well!

I think rating has always been tied to a more player based thing. Look at all multiplayer games with a rating system. In Starcraft 2, you can switch races, but still be in the same league. In Dota2 or LoL, you can play a different hero/champion, but you still have the same rating. Rating wouldn't be tied to that champion or hero.

Axle
04-26-2014, 11:47 PM
I believe something similar to MMR is a piece in the goal to be successful for that "1 million players" Cory wants. Competitive video games need MMR. HEX is not just a card game, but also a video game so it should embrace both sides rather than sticking to MTGO.

MTGO actually isn't a good program and is only popular because MTG is popular and it is the only way to legitimately play MTG online. I expect the PVP side of HEX to stray away from being like MTGO as the game develops and expands. A lot of people in HEX come from only a card game background so I understand the "fuzzy picture" of MMR they have but it's overall if done properly a very fair system that works and keeps people playing for that drive to see their name at the top of the ladder shown on the front page or so. It brings "Prestige" to you which a lot of people enjoy playing to reach.

Proper MMR would be one that rewards players based on how much more they win than they lose, rather than how much they play the game (a lot of games give you more mmr/elo for a win than a loss). Assuming that the MMR is done right, there is skill in being in the top of it too. The top players will be ones that can play well during the entire format, adapt to the most popular decks and properly counter what they expect to see with the best matchup.

Not having ranked matchmaking also means players need to spend money for tournaments to use their decks competitively which is very unfair. If they can only use them in something like the proving ground, they will often end up facing "test decks" and just waste their time against the casual decks and get bored quickly. It would feel playing for nothing. A section of proving grounds for "competitive decks" is also flawed because you're playing the top decks but you will never be sure if you're playing a top player which is a part of the challenge in the game and what MMR would solve.

Kami
04-27-2014, 07:30 AM
Proper MMR would be one that rewards players based on how much more they win than they lose, rather than how much they play the game (a lot of games give you more mmr/elo for a win than a loss). Assuming that the MMR is done right, there is skill in being in the top of it too. The top players will be ones that can play well during the entire format, adapt to the most popular decks and properly counter what they expect to see with the best matchup.

I don't agree with this. This essentially means that if a player improves over time, they could potentially be stuck at a lower ranking because of how rankings work. It's significantly harder to move up rankings than it is to drop down especially if you're basing it off a ratio of wins:losses. That means that even if they improve, they would never have the opportunity to earn more rewards and be classed as a lower-tiered player.


Not having ranked matchmaking also means players need to spend money for tournaments to use their decks competitively which is very unfair. If they can only use them in something like the proving ground, they will often end up facing "test decks" and just waste their time against the casual decks and get bored quickly. It would feel playing for nothing. A section of proving grounds for "competitive decks" is also flawed because you're playing the top decks but you will never be sure if you're playing a top player which is a part of the challenge in the game and what MMR would solve.

The mindset of competitive players wouldn't care about playing with easy wins. The whole point of being a competitive player is to win - for them winning is having fun.

If you look at the majority of streamers for MTGO (as an example), they all mock and laugh at less-than-'good' players and cheer at easy wins.

Xenavire
04-27-2014, 07:38 AM
The mindset of competitive players wouldn't care about playing with easy wins. The whole point of being a competitive player is to win - for them winning is having fun.

If you look at the majority of streamers for MTGO (as an example), they all mock and laugh at less-than-'good' players and cheer at easy wins.

There are different kinds of competitive though. Those in it for wins/glory, and those who are in it for the fun/thrill. I absolutely count myself as being competitive, but not in the terms of anyone who will happily take a bye and get free ranking points. I would rather play and lose, and learn from those mistakes. And when I lose due to something outside my control, I can be quite upset, but I rarely lose my cool over it.

So I think the difference is ladder junkies versus sportsmen. Both are competitive, but one group is a lot less pleasant.

Kami
04-27-2014, 07:44 AM
There are different kinds of competitive though. Those in it for wins/glory, and those who are in it for the fun/thrill. I absolutely count myself as being competitive, but not in the terms of anyone who will happily take a bye and get free ranking points. I would rather play and lose, and learn from those mistakes. And when I lose due to something outside my control, I can be quite upset, but I rarely lose my cool over it.

So I think the difference is ladder junkies versus sportsmen. Both are competitive, but one group is a lot less pleasant.

I agree. My competitive philosophy (from my CS days) was to never go easy on other players. Even if it is 'easy', if you go easy, you're disrespecting their skill, however much it is.

I don't dislike playing against lower skilled players though as it reminds me of when I first started and gives me a glimpse to the 'next' generation of competitive players. It's like watching young'uns grow up and hoping they learn something from playing together. :)

But currently the state of competitive play is generally to go for the kill. Sportsmanship and classy conduct has kinda fallen by the wayside with all these eSports things. Look at LoL, SC2 scandals, etc. It's not infrequent, in fact, it is very common! And this is at some of the highest levels of play!

Heck even normal sports and competitions are like that - even if we disgregard eSports. This is the natural human mindset when you have no empathy and are just in it for yourself to win.

Xenavire
04-27-2014, 07:54 AM
I just want to give an honourable mention to all the football(soccer) floppers out there. May you keep being pussies and making me laugh, keeping games lighthearted and fun.

But yeah, I miss traditional sportsmanship. I always saw that in the local card store, even when the better players smashed the weaker ones - it was about teaching by doing, rather than being pricks.

Kami
04-27-2014, 07:59 AM
But yeah, I miss traditional sportsmanship. I always saw that in the local card store, even when the better players smashed the weaker ones - it was about teaching by doing, rather than being pricks.

It's because it's not anonymous when it's face-to-face. :)

Axle
04-27-2014, 08:18 AM
I don't agree with this. This essentially means that if a player improves over time, they could potentially be stuck at a lower ranking because of how rankings work. It's significantly harder to move up rankings than it is to drop down especially if you're basing it off a ratio of wins:losses. That means that even if they improve, they would never have the opportunity to earn more rewards and be classed as a lower-tiered player.

Well a simple "+25 if you win, -25 if you lose" system would work, rewarding players with the most wins over losses rather than ratio. Players with many games played wouldn't feel they had a disadvantage against new accounts then. Some systems also reward players with more points if they have win streaks occuring. You also have to remember that rating gets reset after a set period (a "season"). In the extreme cases where players put themselves in such a dump that bouncing back takes a significant amount of time that they aren't willing to put in, they can wait until the next reset. DuelingNetwork, a free browser yugioh program that concurrently has 5-10k players on at all times treats a season as each banlist in the game (which has recently become every 4 months). Hearthstone currently has each ladder as 1 month long but that might slow down after the system is more refined. HEX could try to time it with certain set releases or could just say every 1/3rd of a year the ladders will reset and players will be rewarded based on their position during that time.

The MTGO players who laugh at bad plays are in a constructed tournaments right? They get rewarded for easy wins in those. I'm talking about ways to play your cards competitively without having to spend $3 and under the assumption you can't go infinite. In ladder play you would probably laugh at easy wins too because there is also a reward, however eventually you would ideally be mostly unable to get free wins after you reach a certain point.

Aldri
04-28-2014, 12:19 AM
Nice discussion going on here.
I'm not sure if we would have the same "you sucker" style in Hex because the community seems very friendly, but maybe it's a kickstarter effect and it will fade as new player come in (after close beta and such), but I hope not.
Sometime all it takes is a good start and then all players keep getting friendly because it's the way it is (the same way everyone if an asshole in LoL for example).

The pros for a ranked free competition :
- gives you a purpose to try and play good games (not leaving if you have a bad draw for example)
- gives you a purpose to play pvp if you don't want to spend money in the store for tournaments
- lets you try your decks against players of your level
- lets you play against players of your level and lets you improve
- would boost the HV economic because players would have a point in having the best deck
- is fun !

The cons :
- players might prefer this kind of competitive play and give less money to cryptozoic by not buying tournaments fees / packs
- players might become less friendly (but I'm not sure it would change that much)
- ?

Dropbear
04-28-2014, 12:23 AM
Just do a ELO/MMR queue which matches players up with players of similar strength and give the player the option of showing their MMR on their profile or keeping it private. You get no prizes except maybe some sleeves for being first in ranking, in order to go into the big leagues you need to join competitions.

Done.

Unhurtable
04-28-2014, 05:04 AM
I think rating has always been tied to a more player based thing. Look at all multiplayer games with a rating system. In Starcraft 2, you can switch races, but still be in the same league. In Dota2 or LoL, you can play a different hero/champion, but you still have the same rating. Rating wouldn't be tied to that champion or hero.

Starcraft is kind of a bad example though because you should have different ratings based on what race you play because they are played fundamentally different.

Dota2 and LoL do not work in the same way because you do not lock in a character as you lock in a race in starcraft. There is a draft stage that determines what heroes are playable and what heroes aren't. Its essentially a rating based on how well you can draft heroes and play them effectively.

Personally I'm kind of torn when it comes to TCGs. Lets compare it to Starcraft 2.
Assume that I play Terran for about a month, climbing from Silver to Gold. I start to notice that Zergs build more roaches in the early game and so I adapt my playstyle to counter this by training more marauders in the earlygame. My skill level has not changed, I'm meerly adapting my current strategy to what I'm playing against.

Now lets transfer this to Hex, assume that I play Burn Ruby for about a month, climbing from rating X to Y. I start to notice that Y rating contains lots of Mill Sapphire decks, so I switch out some of my cards for Cosmic Totems. If ratings were based on decks, would I now have to start over, even though I'm only adapting to the environment and proving that my actual rating might even be above Y?

At the same time I would like to have a seperate rating for playing with Ruby and with Sapphire, due to them being played fundamentally different just like the races in Starcraft :(


Nice discussion going on here.
I'm not sure if we would have the same "you sucker" style in Hex because the community seems very friendly, but maybe it's a kickstarter effect and it will fade as new player come in (after close beta and such), but I hope not.
Sometime all it takes is a good start and then all players keep getting friendly because it's the way it is (the same way everyone if an asshole in LoL for example).

The pros for a ranked free competition :
- gives you a purpose to try and play good games (not leaving if you have a bad draw for example)
- gives you a purpose to play pvp if you don't want to spend money in the store for tournaments
- lets you try your decks against players of your level
- lets you play against players of your level and lets you improve
- would boost the HV economic because players would have a point in having the best deck
- is fun !

The cons :
- players might prefer this kind of competitive play and give less money to cryptozoic by not buying tournaments fees / packs
- players might become less friendly (but I'm not sure it would change that much)
- ?

I'm not certain the community would become more unfriendly just because a competitive mode is implemented. Those people are unfriendly before the mode is implemented.

As long as rewards and competitive invitations are based on tournaments or "not competitive matchmaking" then I don't see any problem with it being implemented. Its always a good idea to allow people to play with likeminded individuals, now as this is a 1v1 game its not as important as it is in a teamgame, but I would personally prefer to have a queue where I'm essentially guaranteed to have the enemy try their hardest to bring me down with the strongest decks they can construct.