Ranked Game Matchmaking - AIs or Humans?

If they were to do this, I'd be easy points for any players; I'd simply join and then resign as soon as I saw it wasn't AI. Then simply repeat, continually losing immediately until my rating was below 500 again.

Why not just let players turn off the ranking part, and play AI only?

 

I'd be cool with that, so long as playing the AI didn't get you bonus chests.

 

What Keyser is saying seems to be getting ignored:

Bonus chests aren't there to give you items.

Bonus chests ARE there to give MP enjoying players human opponents. And hopefully in the process convince more people to enjoy MP (against humans).

 

I miss your point. I enjoy the single player campaign, hate PvP but MP rewards are just too usefull to skip (and opening a gold chest is so rewarding, this is a game for collectors!). I guess I'm not the only one doing MP only for loot. So why don't let people like me to enjoy duels (and rewards) vs the AI? Of course playing in this way is much easier than vs a human opponent, but what's the problem? I will not use those object vs other players anyway.

 

I think PvP-adverse players deserve a completely different experience, specifically crafted towards their needs.

I can see doing a few vs. AI matches as a past-time, or maybe as an environment to give a new deck-build a quick try. But grinding it to death? Boring.

Not even mentioning acquiring bonus chests via vs. AI matches would seriously break the items ecosystem for the MP community. You can bet people would exploit the hell out of it.

Now think about a random quests generator, akin to a very long dungeon of sorts.

• You can't change items/cards while in the dungeon.
• As you delve deeper into dungeon, the difficulty ramps up considerably.
• Loot lies at the end of each level obviously. Just like with the MP, getting to the next gold chest involves winning more levels then for the one before.
• Before entering the next level, you are offered the option to return to the surface with your loot. If you happen to die while in the dungeon though, you lose all previously acquired loot.
• The choice is up to you: go home with your hard earned items, or risk another level for a potentially richer bounty?

Now, that's what I mean with a game mode catered to SP-oriented people. You see stuff like this in all sort of games, and I think it could work very well for CH too.
Or you could come up with your own ideas.
Point is, vs. AI matches to obtain loot would be just lame. AI works well for PvE. PvP is only enjoyable when playing against a real person.

 

Not a huge fan of PvP myself. I only EVER engage in it when there are rewards to help me in the SP portion of the game.

But that is exactly why this system cannot afford to give you an option to ONLY face the AI and still get chests. Because people need "forced" into PvP to ensure there are opponents available for those who do enjoy it. Many people will still be quite good at MP even though they are only there for the items.

Maybe if the "Only fight AI" option gave you 1/5 credit toward your next bonus chest, then it would be an option for those willing to grind like mad, but still not preferable for those willing to be sent to PvP if it means finding yummy items.

 

I'm already at the point where I usually just immediately resign if my opponent isn't AI. Give me a permanent rating of zero, I don't care. I will NEVER want to play against a human opponent.

How about separate leagues then? AI only and PvP only? You're suggesting "forcing" people to play what they don't want to, so that those who enjoy PvP will have someone to play with. How about they compete against those players that prefer it?

 

It isn't about the rating, it is about the raw population numbers. And it is not "forcing" it is "baiting."

There may be a large enough population in some games that so many people who want to play in PvP at that precise moment are of roughly equal skill level, so no incentives are needed to lure extra opponents in. But this is not one of those games. With no item incentive to play PvP, people would only do so for the rating (which means nothing) or when they personally want to for the sake of competition alone. Which means each one has to rely on someone else happening to want to play PvP at that exact same moment in order for them to have anyone to play against.

After only a couple of times of having nobody available to play against for 15+ minutes, the few people who were trying to PvP would stop trying, further reducing the opponent pool, further increasing wait times, further destroying the size of the community. The people who go to PvP just to play against other humans would NOT be satiated with an AI opponent being assigned against them after X minutes.

You can pass SP without ever touching MP. If you do not enjoy MP, just stop going there. Ignore those chests. Life goes on.

 

You don't play MP for ranking. The ranking is there only for the system to tray and match you vs. people on your same skill level. After you play a bunch of MP games, the system should be able to offer you fair matches (this means you'll still lose, at times).

In all honesty, c'mon! Playing vs other humans is incredibly fun. I guess a lot of people doesn't feel comfortable because they feel like they're in for some sort of competition. It's not! Imagine you're having a game of chess with a friend of yours. But you do get bonus chests if you win

In the meantime, you can buy chests for gold/pizza. Just saying. It's no different than buying Magic the Gathering booster packs really.

Otherwise, you can replay the SP campaign. You won't get as much goodies (because no golden chests), but you can still get a lucky drop every once in a while.

I know it's not optimal. That's all I can suggest right now to those who want to hunt more cards but don't like to play vs. humans.

Again, it's not like I don't think less PvP-oriented people don't deserve an alternative which better suits their needs (read my previous post). But in all honesty, vs AI matches to get loot wouldn't work. In order to avoid exploits, you would have to make rewards for winning vs. the AI far worse than those for normal, making the whole thing not worth your time really.

 

I read your prior post, I liked it after all. XD

It's not that I'm against PvP to any large degree, but I am in this more for the collecting aspect SwampHunter mentions than the player interaction. I know that sounds incredibly bad, but I can get all the interaction I want from other players on these forums until (if ever implemented) co-op multiplayer happens.

 

Co-op multiplayer would definitely rock. It's cool that the devs have mentioned being interested on working in that.

I don't think like I should try and force people into MP, but I still try and advocate how engaging and fun playing other human beings is. To me, it's the awesomest (shut up spell-checker, that's definitely a word ) aspect of the game. A lot of people simply gets intimidated by the idea of taking a fight they might lose. Also, surprisingly many people simply don't like the idea of losing. While, in reality, MP PvP is just a way to enjoy the game at its finest, and winning/losing is of secondary importance (imho). The bonus chests are just a welcome addition and a bit of an incentive.

Again, not trying to cover MP in many layers of sugar. I love the MP portion of CH and I'd like as many people as possible to do the same.

Hopefully enough, the Blue Manchu's guys will eventually release more content and new game modes specifically for those who don't want competition in their way to collecting more items. Those guys are just this awesome

 

I want to throw my two cents in for having co-op multiplayer. I would love that. I was a little hesitant to dive into MP when I first started playing but in many ways, MP is more enjoyable than SP. I still think the matchups can be skewed a bit (I think I was matched up with someone around 200 pts higher than me once) but I have really only had one or two games where I've felt completely overmatched.

 

I don't know how CH the matchmaking algorithm works, but a difference of 200 pts in ranking seems pretty reasonable to me. Especially if you haven't been playing MP a lot.

It's pretty common for MM algorithms to pit you against people with a ranking higher than yours. You see, the ranking is not really an estimation of how good you are, but rather a measure of your progress. I know, something seems off in that statement, but there's a big difference.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the MM algorithm evaluated a second metric (invisible to the player and distinct from the rating) to do its thing. If I had to make a guess, I would say a moving average is evaluated and looked upon to decide if two players shall be matched. This is pretty common in most MM algorithms too: The Starcraft 2 match making system, for instance, works in a similar fashion (and silver players will at times be put against gold or diamond players, seemingly without a good reason).

In short, match making algorithms usually aren't as naive as one might think. The fact you at times play vs. people whose ranking is much higher (or lower) than yours probably is an intended behavior.

 

I fully expect to be matched up against a player of a higher ranking than me, but the real question I'm essentially asking is "how high?" Does the range get wider the higher you go up because your pool of available players is smaller? Does it even take that into account? I feel the same way when I get matched up against someone 200 points below me but in the opposite direction. I think I've even remarked in chat in such a matchup, "Wow, that's harsh," to my opponent.

Hey, it is what it is. And this is the first game I've ever played where I'm even assigned a ranking. It's foreign territory for me as a game player.

 

200 hundred points seem like a lot, but it's not really. Keep in mind I have no specific knowledge of CH's match making algorithm. All of this only comes to my knowledge about how good MM algos are usually implemented these days.

You see, maybe you have a somewhat low rank, say, 500ish. But you won your last 5 matches, most of which vs people higher than you in rank. The system looks at your rank, true,but he also notices you're win-rate is somewhat on a growing trend. This might mean your current rank score might be underestimating your effective ability, so it tries to match you vs. even better people.

While it's true you might lose the next match vs. someone with a rank noticeably higher than yours, keep in mind your rank would go down only by very little. If the winner's rank is much higher than the loser, the winner only gets a few rank points just as much the loser only loses a few. On the other hand, if the lower ranked player wins, she gains lots of points, while the loser loses equally as much.

You see, a good MM algorithm's goal is to match people of similar skill. Unluckily, computers are not very good at judging how good someone is at something. All it can do is looking at metrics. So what the MM algo would do is rather try and keep the win/lose ratio of a player as close as possible to 50%.

That's why if you happen to win lots and lots of games, you'll sooner or later notice the algo matches you against people whose rank higher and higher than yours. The same holds true in the opposite instance: you lose many games in a row, you'll be matched with people whose rank is significantly lower than yours.

 

For me it has nothing to do with the idea of losing. I've lost plenty of fights in the campaign. It's pacing. I feel rushed when another person is sitting there. In fact, I'd love my AI only version of the arena to do away with the timer entirely. I play this like chess; if I want to take 5 minutes or more per move, so what?

 

I'm the kind of player who will think about his next move for quite some time (and consequently lose many games due to time out ).

The timer is not there to irk the players though. It's a necessary measure to prevent your opponent from winning by just never passing you the hand, until you just quit the match.

After all, they do have timers in amateur and pro chess games and tournaments too.

 

After about four losses today due to the same stuff over and over (move me away from the VP squares), I can see what people are talking about. My score was above 1100, now I think I'm barely over 1k (not that I mind really). This sort of thing isn't fun and being pseudo forced into doing it for the chests because the SP has no gold chests left to offer at the higher levels is pretty disheartening. If this is how all my opponents I beat felt, I don't blame so many for surrendering and the other half not talking in anything but pissed off tones. There's been a few nice people, but it's seemingly getting to be more of a daily chore than the fun I had when I started playing SP just a week ago or so.

 

wow some ppl here just want to PVP with the IE
...if u get too emo when getting owned by someone why not just play custom game with the IE
and why would rating be hidden Jesus ..what would be the point of ranked PVP ?

 

People want to hunt for cards. Once you complete campaign, replaying missions is sub-optimal as long as card-hunting goes.

I think the problem at heart lies in the fact that collector-type players are being struck with a game which (at the moment) is designed more towards the PvP oriented kind of game. I don't have that kind of problem, but I can definitely sympathize with them.

Sooner or later, Blue Manchu will release a new expansion campaign, and those players will have something else to enjoy which caters their play-style more. Only to find themselves struck with the same problem again (and even more cards to hunt!). Or Blue Manchu mangaes to come up with a game mode which satisfies the single-players needs while not completely breaking the competitive environment (it's a very hard problem to tackle).

In the meantime, I'll continue advocating how awesome PvP is and, hopefully, more people will start enjoying the awesomeness which is playing vs. another human being.