PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions for a PvP Matchmaking System



Lasershark
06-25-2015, 07:59 AM
I would like to start off by saying I have had a very enjoyable experience playing this game so far. The purpose of this thread is to provide suggestions that I believe would help this game grow and become even better. From what I have read online the developers would like the PvE experience to be free to play and the PvP experience to require cards to be purchased in order to be competitive. I have based my suggestions off of this idea.I appreciate the addition of draft and constructed tournament formats early in the beta and I assume there are already plans for other forms of PvP. So let me get right to it and explain how I would have it all go down.

Ladder System:
A competitive matchmaking format that allows players to enter a queue and quickly be matched up against an opponent of similar skill. As players improve their skill they can climb the ladder and earn higher ranks. Ideally, I would like the ladder format to be a best of 3 with have no limit on the quality of cards in the player's deck. This would allow players to use the Reserves feature and remove the luck factor of queuing into a bad match up for any given deck.

Seasons:
Having seasons for the ladder is important. It gives all players an equal chance to compete for ranks despite how long they have been competing on the ladder. My suggestion is to have seasons last around 3 months.

The Rewards:
Since PvP is not meant to be free to play I believe it is appropriate to not award gold or platinum from playing in this mode. Instead, a good incentive for players is to earn different ranks and be rewarded with sleeves to represent the ranks earned.

Alternate Formats:
It is also important for there to be a formats which have limits on the rarities of cards in a player's deck. This would help new players ease into PvP and it would also make matches more fair for players that have not collected all of the cards yet.

My suggestion is to have one format that only allows commons plus a restricted number of uncommons. Additionally, there would be a format that only allows commons and uncommons plus a restricuted number of rares. Having a ladder or rewards for these alternate formats is probably up for debate.

Yoss
06-25-2015, 10:41 AM
Sounds reasonable to me. Nice first post.

Poetic
06-25-2015, 10:47 AM
Seems to be something alot of people want. We have to wait and see what their plans are though. We have no details yet on the 100k tourney series.

It could be similar to MTGO's mocs series where you earn points each month to compete in a season finale type tourney to possible earn a spot in the big 100k tournament.

They're adding gauntlet mode in the next patch and hopefully still doing the 1v1 bo3 100 plat queue that I'm excited for.

The_Lannisters
06-25-2015, 11:45 AM
I'm all for a ladder / ranking system but CZE would not even comment on this. #meh

N3rd4Christ
06-25-2015, 11:47 AM
Yeah this is long overdo

Rehab
06-25-2015, 12:18 PM
It would be nice if rankings were given on a deck by deck basis. This way i could have my "good deck" with a high rank and still be able to experiment with other decks without worrying about ruining my ranking.

Lasershark
06-25-2015, 05:08 PM
I am still fairly new to this game so I learned about the gauntlet announcement after reading your comments. This will be a great addition to the game but it also concerns me.

This is a Beta!!! What I mean is that this is a period meant for players to really test the game. Having every single PvP mode come with an "entry fee" really limits the number of games played and how much players will test the game. I understand that there is the match vs random opponent queue, but let's be honest, it is no good in its current state.

There seems to be no priority for improved matchmaking or PvP game modes without an "entry fee". I think it is extremely important for a digital tcg to have a matchmaking ladder where players can jump into a game, compete, and progress. The ladder system has proven to be extremely effective with pretty much any competitive online game and it makes a lot of sense for it to be the focus for constructed play in PvP.

Even though PvP is not meant to be free to play, having queues without entry fees does not go against this philosophy. To be competitive in a PvP ladder you would need buy a lot of cards and there doesn't need to be any sort of gold/plat reward for playing the mode (only rank and maybe sleeves). Also, there are no downsides for having the option to compete with "budget" decks like I mentioned at the end of my original post. In fact, I believe having budget deck modes will encourage new players to learn the game and eventually want to buy more cards (rare and legendary).

Summary:
This game is awesome and has a lot of potential. The huge concern is with matchmaking, potential ladder system, and lack of PvP modes without entry fees. If the developers have a plan for these features this game could be absolutely amazing. I haven't talked about PvE because I think they are already going in a good direction with it. I would also like to mention the rewards for PvE are very reasonable at the moment. If you are able to clear the arena consistently you can make tons of decks to test out with commons and uncommons. In order to have a decks with a lot of rare and legendary cards you definitely need to purchase some plat or farm arena for an extremely long time, which I agree with. I would 100% be willing to buy a lot more cards once a solid PvP matchmaking system is implemented. I think it's fun to have the tournament style entry fee formats, but the other formats are just as important, if not more important!

Xenavire
06-25-2015, 05:28 PM
Lasershark - account contents will never be wiped. Everything you do now carries into the final version. This is why entry fees are needed, because otherwise card value would tank.

We have a few free options to bridge the gap until we get ladder, and plenty of community tournaments/events.

Yoss
06-25-2015, 05:31 PM
Lasershark - account contents will never be wiped. Everything you do now carries into the final version. This is why entry fees are needed, because otherwise card value would tank.
This makes no sense to me.

Lasershark
06-25-2015, 05:40 PM
Xenavire - I know that accounts will never be wiped and I understand the purpose of "money sinks" in games. The examples of this are the 5% reduction of 10p or higher sales on the AH and the entry fees for the tournament formats. I was not stating that I think the entry fees should be removed from the current game modes. I was arguing that there should have been a high priority for PvP game modes to already exist that do not require entry fees. Having SOME modes without entry fees does not affect the value of cards in any way. In fact, the focus of PvP constructed SHOULD NOT be a mode with any sort of entry fee (a matchmaking ladder system).

edit: I also specifically stated that the PvP matchmaking system I had in mind would not reward any sort of cards, gold, or platinum. Instead, you would earn ranks (maybe sleeves) and the goal would be competition over everything else. So it would not affect the value of cards in any way.

Poetic
06-25-2015, 05:44 PM
Eh, the closest game to compare this one to has various format styles that all require entry fees.

Chadatog
06-25-2015, 05:48 PM
There is a matchmaking system already in place for the random opponent queue.

Zarien
06-25-2015, 06:00 PM
I really want a ladder system with a rank grading system attached to it. It would set this game even more apart from Magic.

Xenavire
06-25-2015, 06:15 PM
This makes no sense to me.

I meant that if there were free constructed queues with booster pack payouts, card value would not be unchanged. The paid events are paid events for a reason - and we have some free stuff (although not much) to tide us over until we get a ladder. Not sure what was confusing about what I said, maybe I just wasn't clear enough. (I made the point because it was implied that free tournaments would make finding bugs easier.)

Lasershark
06-25-2015, 06:15 PM
Poetic- This game does not have to follow the path similar games have taken. Let's look at some examples. Magic players love attending drafts and tournament style events and gatherings. Magic has a lot of success because the game mechanics are solid and people love the social aspect of these events. Hearthstone players love how quick and easy it is to jump into the game and feel satisfied no matter how much time is available. Its huge ONLINE success thrives on this. Hex is a ONLINE tcg and it is not limited to either format. There are no negatives to having both the entry fee tournament formats and the quick matchmaking formats. I think it would be a huge mistake to leave one out. There is no reason for this game to restrict itself and lose out on a huge potential population that prefers one format over the other.

Chadatog- I mentioned this in my posts and the random opponent queue is very poor at the moment. There is very little reason to play this mode at the moment.

Lasershark
06-25-2015, 06:17 PM
I meant that if there were free constructed queues with booster pack payouts, card value would not be unchanged. The paid events are paid events for a reason - and we have some free stuff (although not much) to tide us over until we get a ladder. Not sure what was confusing about what I said, maybe I just wasn't clear enough. (I made the point because it was implied that free tournaments would make finding bugs easier.)

The reason your post doesn't make sense is because no one said they wanted booster pack payouts from constructed queues. I have repeated this many times.

Poetic
06-25-2015, 06:17 PM
I've never been opposed to a ladder system as long as the rewards are minimal. Maybe sleeves or something at the end of a season.

Xenavire
06-25-2015, 06:19 PM
The reason your post doesn't make sense is because no one said they wanted booster pack payouts from constructed queues. I have repeated this many times.

It sounded like one of the 'options' was to remove entry fees into constructed tournaments somehow. If that wasn't the intention then I retract my statements about it. :)

Lasershark
06-25-2015, 06:23 PM
"The Rewards:
Since PvP is not meant to be free to play I believe it is appropriate to not award gold or platinum from playing in this mode. Instead, a good incentive for players is to earn different ranks and be rewarded with sleeves to represent the ranks earned."

I thought that was pretty clear xD

"Having a ladder or rewards for these alternate formats is probably up for debate."

I should have been more clear at the end. I'm not a strong writer =(
I was thinking more along the lines of the sleeve reward that I suggested for the ranked queue. I don't think there should be any sort of gold, platinum, or booster pack rewards from matchmaking.

With this system in place earlier more players would be able to play more games and give more feedback during its beta phase. There are no downsides to this. It would also make the ladder system better for release. The ladder should be the focus of constructed PvP for the average player. This is more important than the tournament setting initially because it affects more people and the time they would spend in game.

The_Lannisters
06-26-2015, 03:02 AM
There is a matchmaking system already in place for the random opponent queue.

Have you understood the purpose of this thread in the slightest?

Proving grounds is a joke for anyone who'd like to compete/improve/test PVP decks. We need to see the ranks, we need to see that number that separates the Dota2 1000 MMR players from 5000 MMR players. We need the ladder to be based on best of 3 matches.

We certainly do not need to be muted by CZE whenever this subject pops up! :mad:

tyra
06-26-2015, 03:34 AM
in my opinion, a no entry cost ranked queue, similar to League of Legends, would be awesome. Small, cosmetic, non-sellable prices like sleeves would be great, but most important we need a ladder and a number/rank to see yourself improve.

zadies
06-27-2015, 09:22 AM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

Fyren
06-27-2015, 09:50 AM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

...Help me out here: I'm no statistician, but what I'm reading into that article is "Here is a rating system that has substantial imperfections," and your conclusion seems to be "Thus, all matchmaking systems are useless."

Is that what you're saying?

TOOT
06-27-2015, 10:42 AM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

How is that logic for ladders/rankings any different than tournaments? The variance is no different, yet people surely enjoy playing tournaments. Guess we are all just wasting our time enjoying our short term results. We should all just flip coins instead in our spare time and get our resolution in 1/1000th of the time and it's also infinitely cheaper!

Fortunately, we can just play AuctionHouse-TheGame, so not all is lost. :cool:

The_Lannisters
06-27-2015, 11:42 AM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

As long as there is skill in a game it's worth to have a ranking, be competitive, etc. DUCY?

wolzarg
06-27-2015, 12:11 PM
As long as there is skill in a game it's worth to have a ranking, be competitiLook c. DUCY?
And you can do that its even free and pays out prizes. Pure insanity If you ask me but who am i to judge. Look up fiveshards cups.

The_Lannisters
06-27-2015, 04:20 PM
And you can do that its even free and pays out prizes. Pure insanity If you ask me but who am i to judge. Look up fiveshards cups.

As awesome as those cups are they require an incredible time investment.

wolzarg
06-27-2015, 06:30 PM
As awesome as those cups are they require an incredible time investment.
More like lump of free time since a normal ladder tend to be grindy. But you are correct hopefully constructed gauntlet will give out qualifier points to help on that front.

Biz
06-27-2015, 06:36 PM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

elo is just 1 rating algorithm
there are hundreds of others that can be used for ratings in a high-variance game

Crimguy
06-27-2015, 09:58 PM
elo is just 1 rating algorithm
there are hundreds of others that can be used for ratings in a high-variance game

According to some of the guys at Infinity Wars, ELO will be an integral part of their mm system. We can see how well it does there I suppose. One thing is clear from Hearthstone is that whatever rating system they employ still results in extremely imbalanced play on their ranked matches. ELO also becomes more precise the more games are played. It's a good if imperfect system.

I don't think it's a very fair comparison between scrabble and a card game where the deck is constructed by a player. While RNG is huge in both, it is mitigated a lot by good deck design.

Lasershark
06-27-2015, 11:17 PM
Ladders don't work in high variance games... elo doesn't even work in a game like Scrabble where you are drawing from the same "deck" let alone a game like this where the two decks are different... there is just too much variance to account for. Until you can provide an accurate statistical model calling for a ranking system is really just asking for them to put a check mark in a box with a broken system.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nicholsa/scr/ratings.html

The above example proves that elo fails to predict even scrabble outcomes with 7 years of data.... do you have any idea how many decades of playing you would need to actually get an accurate rating for a game like this? Just because you want to have some sort of e-peen like number if it isn't accurate it is worthless even from the idea of improving yourself. Other games have moved to a grind to get ranking because they understand that statistically it is impossible to provide an accurate ladder, and a grind ladder such as Hearthstone is a joke as well.

I honestly don't think you even read anything in this thread because you completely missed the point.

The purpose of this thread is to express a need for a PvP matchmaking queue without an entry fee for both ranked and non ranked games. The entry fees, as well as the wait times, for the "tournament" formats (which make up ALL of PvP at the moment) make it so you can't just log into Hex and play a few quick ones. It is also very important for a huge player base to be able to test out constructed decks at their own pace whether the player enjoys grinding games all day or playing a few here and there.
Some people actually enjoy playing the game at their own pace (whoa crazy!) instead of only having the option to buy into mini tournaments with huge downtime in-between games. Also, not everyone wants to play competitively. The matchmaking system needs to be better for non competitive players that enjoy constructed as well. This is why I also gave the suggestion for queue's that involve game modes with limits on the card rarities in decks.

Your entire argument is completely pointless. The reason for rankings in a ladder, along with the matchmaking queue, is to provide better game play for players by matching them up against opponents of similar skill. No one is claiming that ladder rankings are 100% accurate, and they don't need to be. Any gamer knows to not take online ladder rankings LITERALLY. There is also not a better alternative if you REALLY want to rank people. Also, a proper ladder will give people a much better sense of competition than any tournament would. I'm not against tournaments at all but annoyed at blind hate for a ladder that would only bring positives to the game. The game format for both a ladder and a tournament can be exactly the same. The difference is the scheduled opponents that come with a ladder and the random opponents from a matchmaking system for the ladder. In fact, there is much more potential for opponents in a tournament to have gotten a few lucky wins and eventually match up vs someone much better than them. In a ladder, after playing hundreds of games, better players will win more often and get matched up consistently vs other players of similar skill. Not sure if you realize this but the ladder matchmaking queue can have a bo3, bo5, bo7 format... whatever it needs to be!

Voormas
06-28-2015, 01:37 AM
Considering that DataDragon seems to be hoarding everything about us we could have a really complicated match-making score based on our performance against every opponent (and THEIR rating at the time) and weighting things based on more recent results / up or down based on format / etc

Along with this you could have some kind of seasonal score / etc as well so there is some kind of ladder you can climb - really the only reason they couldn't implement a lot of different things all at the same time is how long it would take to develop, I'm sure whatever system we get will have a lot of thought put into it already (and I would love to read an article about it!)

Zarien
07-20-2015, 08:31 AM
I really feel this topic needs to not die until we get some form of feedback from CZE. We've discussed this topic at great length over the last year with little input from higher up. In the end, we can all agree that we want a matchmaking/ladder type system, for the most part.

I think having a matchmaking system with a ranking ladder attached would be incredibly healthy for the game's growth in the long run. Providing a free outlet for pve and pvp players alike to funnel their time into would increase player participation and growth, along with sales. Heck, look at hearthstone, their ranking system isn't even "seasonal", but instead monthly, and people pour in a ton of money into the shop to better their decks for the ladder. Provide tiers, a ladder, and give people a non monetary reward at the end of the season, like a sleeve, that displays ranks or something, and you've got a system in place to jumpstart the community.

Right now, people blindly pump in time into constructed, and we all want to see something for our time invested. Tournaments are great, as a Pro-backer, i'm a huge tournament guy. But we use those tournaments to build up our decks, and considering that we have a huge opportunity here to have access to every hex tcg player through a digital interface, it would be a waste and a shame to not have grading system/matchmaking to test our skills against the world.