Ranked Game Matchmaking - AIs or Humans?

erm, is the AI going to be part of ranked MP post release ? I was under the impression that it was meant for beta testing only and to be shifted to casual arena post-release. As it is, player ratings are bloated due to the AI. Melvin's dwarves kill themselves half the time, Gary's hybrids aren't particularly spectacular and Amy's wizards are victory square shy....shrugs.

 

Being matched against a human, no matter the rating, will do two things at the moment:

1) Give the highest ranked players a set of newbies to chew on
2) A lot of newbies hating MP as a consequence.

If you're playing your first games in MP, you certainly don't want to come up against someone who's playing 10 or 20 MP games a day. Playing three cards then being annihilated the next turn is no fun for anyone, I feel, and is not a learning experience.

The AI gives you a chance to get to grips with MP, at least. I'd much prefer that there's a set of decent AI at lowish levels and after a certain threshold, you are more likely to get a human opponent.

Post release when there's hundreds of players, then moving the AI to Casual Arena is a valid plan as you will have a much better chance of playing within your boundaries in ranked MP.

 

Recently, the AI that has done me in far more times than my human opponents. This is due to the shear number of matches I play against the AI (and the probability that I will eventually loose if I play enough games). Additionally, I find that most players avoid me due to my high ranking. I by no means want to, "chew on" newbies, or run anyone off from enjoying MP. Although, I do enjoy playing against the AI, it doesn't challenge me the way a human would.

I do feel that the rank of some of my opponents has been a bit to low. This is evident by the fact that some of my matches against humans recently have earned me a meager 3 point boost to my rank. Unfortunately, I feel that the system should match players closer to their rank, even if that means I am, for the time being, forced to play against Melvin, Amy, Gary, Professor Oak, and the other members of The Elite Four. My suggestion is players within say 200 rank + or -.

 

My initial suggestion was to hide the rating so players don't get put off by the values. It is only human to avoid good players, whichever the game.

The matchmaking algorithm should not be using a static value. Otherwise, players coming into MP for the 1st time will find no one to play against.

 

Hiding the ranking won't make a difference if you're randomly matched with a human player, the MP grognards will still be able to one-shot a significant proportion of new players. I don't mind getting beat in a hard fought match, but constantly getting killed in one turn teaches me only to avoid the process.

I don't see how a band of +/- 200 rank would stop new players, as they'd be matched against players with <200 rank, i.e. the very same group they should be playing against, IMHO.

 

Its a psychological effect ingrained into human instinct. If the ratings are hidden, there is less aversion and pressure. Players can see from icon and know how good the lobby is but the effect of "oh, the room is full of 1300+. I'm going to get owned" is diminished. Its the same impact of having everyone's exam scores read out loud in a class.

 

Version A
"You are faced with a darkened alley, you see that there are shapes in the distance. The flickering street lamp reflects from multiple shiny blades and axes, onto the scarred faces of stone cold killers. You decide that you'll go the long way home tonight."

Version B
"You are faced with a darkened alley, you see that there are shapes in the distance. The flickering street lamp reflects from multiple shiny blades and axes, onto the faces of warriors, who all look as nervous as you. You grip the hilt of your sword and stride into the alley. A figure approaches you and after an enjoyable fight, you emerge from the alley, victorious, with gold in your pocket and a bit more experience walking down dark alleys. "

Version C
"You are faced with a darkened alley, you see that there are shapes in the distance. The street lamp is broken, hiding all details. You take the short cut, thinking 'what's the worst that can happen, after all, I'm armed'. A figure moves out of the gloom and before you can get your penknife out of your scabbard, you're sliced to pieces and the bloodied chunks set alight. You hear laughter echoing around the alley..."

I am belabouring the point slightly, but how many times will someone walk down Alley C?

I would look at the Lobby and see who's there and if it's full of 1300+ I would certainly not be volunteering to be matched against them in MP as I know that they will have much more games under their belt and as a consequence much, much better gear. Anyone who's played dozens of games per day will be farming the MP chests for higher and better rewards. I do not want to meet those players in the proverbial dark alley.

 

I'd expect it to be more discouraging to lose repeatedly to better players if you couldn't see the ratings than when you can see them.

If I lose five games in a row against players I know are way above my level - "Well, that was to be expected."
If I lose five games in a row against players with unknown rating - "Gee, I clearly suck at MP, better stay away from it."

 

Let us consider hiding the ratings and the effect that would have. Even if we removed the numeric values from being viewed by other players, is not the leaderborad a necessary component of MP? If that is indeed the case, do we keep the icons and use those to indicate relative rating, or do we completely do away with them? Also, could not players simple check the leaderboard to see the rating of any particular player, or do we do away with that as well?

I will agree that a static value my not be the best solution, but I feel that a 200 point sway is the optimal range of "suitable" opponents.

 

Why not have both which I would will result in 2 options/buttons:
1) I want to play against a human player, up to X point range.
(this function would match a player with a lower point player compared to themselves,
but never one that wasn't searching for a higher point player within their X point range,
and matched with players up to that players X point range.
X is chosen by the player, and could be a setting that only changed, when changed actively)

2) I like to play against the AI. (maybe an option to choose AI difficulty. Better AI relatively more points are earned to fit)

 

As an incredibly casual player of, erm, multiplayer, I am very happy to draw an AI opponent as often as possible. I'm just there for the free rare(s) on days when I have some spare time to grab them. Once the game is large enough that the MP lobby is flooded with humans, I probably won't even bother with that anymore. It's not the challenge or the difference in deck quality, I just don't want the hassle of putting up with other actual people muddying up my game experience.

So, you know... I'm all for making it more likely to pull an AI opponent, but at the same time my opinion isn't particularly important.

 

Play against the AI is good for new players, to improve their skills and their knowledge of the game, on the MP part.
How about a "safe zone" (maybe the first 200 points, maybe more), when a new player can't be matched against a player?
And of course a less waiting time for the new players before battle the AI.
Then a matchmaking based on icons: you have 2 stars on a blue ribbon? You'll be matched against another 2 stars on a blue ribbon player, otherwise you'll play against the AI.

 

will AIs stay at release?

 

I only proposed to remove the player ratings from lobby, not leader board. Fanatics can still view numbers and icons via leaderboard or as when they've entered a game. Icons stay in lobby to show relative strength, they are cool. The point here is to provide a stress free playing experience. I do not think that the ranked lobby should only be built for competitive players.

This is a great suggestion. Since the AI's are rated around 800ish, I'd push it to 500 (instead of 200) and at least 50 games. Would reduce chance of alts pwning noobs and chest farming.

 

Theoretically that would mean you support my suggestion

 

The current philosophy of "I guess you'll fight whichever human player is there" is just not acceptable.

I've had days where I was forced to fight only players 400+ rating above me, who had equipment so good that even gary could whoop my ass with it. I had zero chance of winning and it wasn't fun whatsoever.

I propose that you change matchmaking so that if no one within +- 10-15% of a player's rating is available, he gets matched against bots outright. Getting ****ed up over and over and over just because only unbeatable players are in the lobby is zero fun, and thus, inacceptable in a game where decent AI opponents exist.

 

I really think the rating gaps are too wide currently and i would like it to rather match both people against ai then make them fight at many hundred rating difference. That said its important that you don't take it too far and people need to be within 30 rating to fight each other but at 500 difference its really not fair to either party.

 

I feel that 100 is too small of a margin. That would grant me a total of 2 possible human opponents! Although, recently I've been getting matched up against players who have rating scores more than 500 point discrepancy. I do feel the need to alter the current match making system.

 

I think the sweet spot is somewhere between 2-400 difference maximum but no less.