Hi! Im a new player, playing about a month or so. I enjoy game. Believe that mp matchup system is a bit unfair for new players. Here from my point of view I get paired to much stronger players quit often ( that's even tolerable), I got blitzed very very often because GM players up my rating, then I either have option to waste my time and fight like crazy just for my standing not to go down(2 stars) wich often I simply cant get, or to ignore standing and increase my waiting times till up to redicilous numbers. so conclusion: Im constantly being panished by game - my crime: being a new player... other way of looking at it: game doesn't want me to play mp .. either way I think its quit unfair system and if you want to make sure noone drops rating deliberately should find other way to do so, not hurting all players because of it..
Max queue times are not tied to standing. They are tied to: How many wins you have completed on the MP reward track that day; increasing a small bit with each win. There is a queue penalty if you lose "too fast." This is to discourage instant/non-attempt resigns, or attempting to lose as fast as possible (which are both against the rules). This is not tied to the number of stars earned by either player. With #2, the expectation is that if you queue for a match that you are going to play to win that match to the best of your ability. The whole point of playing a match is to try to win the match - and if you're legitimately trying to do that, it should be a rare occasion when you get a queue penalty. Hope that helps.
Ok I didn't know that. I have to add up to "#2". The point of playing a match is to try win the match, but reason I play match is to get those chests open, and if it's quit obvious I can't win why would I waste my time? matches take long enough already. Well the problem is, there's tons of matches that I obviously can't win. I usually have to play 14-15 matches to get 6 chests open(that's how many I usually go for) 15* 15 min(guessed average) + waiting times .. That's a lot time for busy life, don't you think?
You want chests, other players play for the fun of the game. (Ultimately I suspect at some level you do too, if there was a version of this game that didn't have matches, and just said press this button to open a chest over and over again, it wouldn't take long before you'd be board and not "play.") So here's the problem you're trying to maximize your benefit, but failing to think about the fact that two people play each match. The game developers have to think about both. And since (at some level) playing the matches is what keeps people around and enjoying the game, they don't want people throwing away matches. What about the player who's been queuing for 5 minutes to try out a new build they have created and then when they finally get a match, the person just quits on them. Then they have to start queuing all over again. As an individual player, you don't have to spend time thinking about the overall satisfaction for all players, but the devs do. So you're free to look at this in a self-interest only way and see the rules as negative, but at least now you know the reasons for them, whether you agree/like them or not.
It's not I didn't try. Yesterday I went to try to get first 3 chest and lost 3 battles in a row, went on playing 4th was obvious I would lose as well, I couldn't get stars on those matches. I can also see profiles of those people, they've played 1000+ matches compared to me( playing this game for about a month). Result: time wasted + standing going down. I don't expect to win every match but constant losing gets frustrating, and I got to blame ranking and matchup and ranking system, anyway I'm just sharing my opinion in effort to helps devs to make game better, devs can't read players minds to know why they join battles, that's what forum is for I guess.s
Elescobar, I was a new player not that long ago, and I understand your frustrations. Most new players hover around 45-50% winrate when they first start because their collection, experience, and playstyle just hasn't matured yet. And yes, you do get matched up to people of higher ELO quite often, simply because there isn't many players with ELOs around or below your level when you first start! However, rather than thinking that the system is broken, I have a few suggestions: 1.) If your goal is to get as many chests as possible, try playing rush builds such as 3 warriors with Dash, Teams (or sprint, teams) or aggressive 2 warrior/1 priest builds. This is what players such as Juliuszju did for the first couple months of playing before they started playing serious builds to increase ELO ratings. He was able to put in a few hours a day, get 20 chests , and add significant amounts to his collection daily, to the point where he was able to compete at the highest guild levels in a couple of months. In my personal experience, I also went through a phase of playing 3 warrior rush builds soon after I started the game, and it's actually how I broke 1400-1500 ELO for the first time, using cheap builds that win or lose in 5-10 minutes. *Note, 1 wizard, 2 warrior builds are also considered aggressive, but since in general, wizards are harder to build without legendaries, I recommend 2 warrior 1 priest or 3 warriors. 2.) If you are not sure how to build a 3 warrior team, try searching for "peasant" builds on the forums that require only commons/uncommons that you can buy from regular shops. You can also private message experienced, higher ELO players for their opinions on how to build a budget 3 warrior team. Personally, I'm happy to help you with improving your team composition and deckbuilding, and to make it easier, it's possible to copy and paste/share builds quickly on forums (see this link). Meanwhile, start buying good common/uncommon items in shops like Kyburz Market or Goblin Bazaar (here's a good partial list). 3.) I don't recommend immediately quitting matches that you feel you are unable to win, even versus players with higher ELO than yourself. I have a few reasons for this: -Using my example, I regularly lose to players 400-500 ELO or even more below me. This is because they often have builds that are hard for me to predict, and I can sometimes get overconfident against players who have a much lower ELO. How can you use this to your advantage? If you are playing aggressive builds, you can try to bait one of their characters into overextending, and use a Dash, team to 2v1 or 3v1 that character and increase your chances of winning.
Out of curiosity, how much of the Campaign have you completed? There are great ideas on the forums for how to get the most chests. There are also great ideas for builds. I highly suggest beating all available campaign and as many of the quests as you can to advance your skill before doing multiplayer.
Continued post--- Previous post was too long: -You can learn a lot from players who consistently beat you. Study their playstyle a bit. Do they use chokepoints well? Do they rotate damage between their characters? Do they save an ace card like Delegate or Bless that is hard for you to adjust to? Do they bait with a character who has extra movement and cause you to overcommit? Do they heal so much that your team isn't able to significantly damage them? What items compositions do they use (don't assume they are just using a ton of epics and legendaries that you don't have)? Are there any card synergies they use that you can try later (fire attachments with inquisitor strike? Cold attachments with control? Flank moves with linear electric attacks or punish bolts? Entangling roots with heavy melee attacks or brutal/rocket charge?) 4.) Yes, it may be frustrating to be matched up to players with 10 times your collection in the beginning, but having a large collection isn't everything. To give an example, experienced players who start new accounts (and don't buy extra chests) are able to get to 1500, 1600, or even 1700+ using common/uncommon items within a few weeks of starting. It's more about how you play/deckbuild with the items you have and how you react to your opponents than it is about how many legendaries and epics you are using. The key is to keep positive, even when you lose, and continually try to improve your build, learn from your losses, and try to get a veteran mentor. When I first started, I asked questions almost everyday, to 1700+ players like macizo, gurel, and MathuranF. They were able to help me build competitive decks from what little items I had, and sometimes were able to spectate my games and give helpful pointers. Without their help, I never would have been able to become strong enough to earn my "purple crowns" a few months after I started. It's also interesting for your perspective to note that some of the best players in Cardhunter only have a 60-70% winrate and rarely above. For example, Sucre, the person who broke the record for the highest rating ever this month, is hovering at around (only!?) 80% winrate for the season. So even people with high ELO struggle a lot and lose all the time, and that's just how playing other determined players should be. It's difficult, but don't give up... and I wish you good luck with your journey in Cardhunter!
thank you sasoo8 very helpful replay I'll try you'r suggestions, thx for understanding as well. And tolkien I've completed all campaign other then CoC and done some quest.
Another issue is matching system vs guild contribution. Today I lost 4of6 battles, but my rating almost didn't change in total while my guild contribution went from positive that was around 10(carefully and patiently build for days) to -1 in a single day, and considering my rating didn't change much it's going down even further. Very unfair tbh. https://ibb.co/fbUtbb
I don't think the ELO and guild contribution system is at fault here. It's entirely possible to lose a ton of guild points and not lose much ELO at all. The opposite can also happen: it's also entirely possible to lose a ton of ELO and not lose many guild points. And both situations are normal. Why does this happen? The reason is that the guild points system and the ELO points system are measuring two entirely different metrics that are almost completely independent. I'll give you three examples. On one extreme, you can lose to guilds that are lower ranked but have high ELO players that play only a few games per season. You would then lose a lot of guild points and not lose much ELO. A good example is if you were against Abbus, Spionecefalide, and Mitsuaki from PizzaAndCoffee. You would lose a fair amount of guild points, but lose only a few points of ELO to those 1700+ players. If you were to get blitzed versus such players, you would lose double the normal guild points but see very little decrease in your ELO. On the other extreme, you can lose to guilds that are higher ranked but also have a few low ELO players that you match against. You would then lose few guild points but a lot of ELO if you were to lose. A good example would be, in some seasons, Sorcererers guild. They can be in the top 5 due to strong players like 3beaner, theIvyX, and Gandalf, but they also have quite a few casual players with lower ELO. There's also the case of playing players that are not in a guild. It's possible to lose a lot of ELO to non-guild players and not lose very much guild points at all, since those games have minimal impact on guild rating. So as you can see, it's not that the system is broken, it's just that the results can depend drastically based on what opponents you face, and that's a natural outcome of having two point-counting systems that are almost entirely independent of each other. P.S. In the future, try to have a sample size of larger than 6 games if you are going to imply that something is unfair or unbalanced in the game
