Unfair Match Ups

Right now my ELO is 1330. I just finished match against a 1093.
Earlier today, while I Was at at a slightly lower ELO than I am now, I went up against GuyWithTime, whose ELO was 415 points higher than mine.
These is not the first time that I've encountered such a gross difference in rating in my games since the system was changed, either in my favor or against and I'm not alone in thinking that these match ups are unfair.

Please fix the match up system.

 

I understand these matches are frustrating. But you'll very rarely be matched up that much higher, and you only lose about 5 ELO if you lose.
The flipside is, players with high rankings have to wait a LONG time for a matchup without this. So I think it's a good system.

 

I've had it happen at least twice a day for the past week and a half. That's not what I would call "Rarely"

 

I wouldn't be making a post about it if this was a rare occurrence for me.

 

Didn't happen to me yet. In any case I don't think it's that bad. It gives you a preview of what's to come when you climb ranks. It makes the transition easier and you don't suddenly reach a point where all decks you fight are completely unknown to you.

It also keeps the high level players on their toes, as they can't just tweak their decks against the 2-3 strategies that dominate their ranks. Some strategies are very effective in the mid-range, just seldomly make it to the top.

 

I sometimes stamp my feet in despair when I match up a few hundred points, but whatever. I'd rather that than a boring AI match, and it's interesting to play against strong opponents.

 

While I can definitely relate to your experience and like the topic in general I voted no. The reason was because I don't think there is anything inherently with the matchmaking system. I think instead the key to the problem is reducing the equipment power to the point that it still gives an advantage but not to the degree in which it happens now.

I think Martin and Farbs have a good point, if you are doing well it might be ok to be thrown at a very high level from time to time to see how you compare. It is a problem though if the experience leaves you feeling frustrated at the game. The alternative is worse though as it means even longer wait times at high levels (and that is already a real problem from what I can tell).

 

I voted "No", mostly because of the reasons Farbs already mentioned. I find it funny that the community was asking for rating gap to be increased, and now that it has happened, we are asking for the total opposite. I would imagine there are at least a couple of BM devs banging their heads on a wall right now

I don't see rating difference as "unfair" because win/loss amount is adjusted accordingly. I mean that is the whole point of ELO system. Of course there should be some kind of limit. Matches where one person has a rating of 1700 and the other 700, should never happen. But a difference of something like 300 is not that big of a deal imo.

One time I remember my 20-something win-streak being cut short by someone who was almost 400+ below me in the ratings. He had what I would describe as a "weird" build, but for some reason it was a very good counter against mine (control wizards). It was a very cool fight for both of us. For him it was cool because he beat someone who had a higher rating, for me it was cool because I found it ironic that my win-streak was stopped by someone I "should have beaten", especially since it was a time when nobody yet knew what cards/strategy control wizards have, and I was beating higher ranked players left and right.

That's just one example of how large rating gap can lead to an interesting match. Or course usually it goes the other way around, which I guess can be frustrating. But losing against a higher ranked player doesn't affect your rating that much, and you will probably learn a lot in the process, so I really don't see what the problem is.

 

erm, elo rating does not necessarily correlate to a player's experience. There are very many good beta players who play very infrequently now. Mostly because they've played a heck of it during beta. I've done 9 months worth and clocked 500+ games myself (iirc). I feel its more impt to let those who haven't played get their fill. The matchmaker needs to be adjusted as the playerbase changes. Its not top-heavy for the moment but when it does, I'd expect some more changes as we go along.

erm, sorry to break your bubble... control wizards were tested during beta as were firestorm, wws, drains, mills, draw, discards builds etc. So you might have been matched with a returning beta player. Shrugs... There were a couple of pvp guides in wiki way before game was released. I still recall Thunderblast owning my arse ! T.T

 

Whoa. That's not a card, that's a FU I WIN button.

 

Even if Thunderblast is not in the game anymore, that card art needs to be used somewhere!

 

I was of course talking about these control wizards. There were a million other control wizard decks but not one quite like that. I had a huge advantage at first because nobody knew I had cards like Toughness and volcanoes. For example I saw countless times how my opponents wasted their best attacks on my wizard with Toughness, or how they used all their movements and got owned by lava. While the cards themselves of course were nothing new, the combination was. Things like that rarely happen now because everyone knows what the build is and how to avoid the biggest mistakes.

And it wasn't a case of retuning beta player somehow magically guessing my build and strategy, and winning by pure godly skill. It was just one of those matches where everything just clicked in place for him, like drawing that one Smoke Bomb (that counter I talked about) he had at the exact right moment. He probably would have lost the rematch because he didn't have a deck that could have consistently beaten my deck.

 

Gotcha ! Tho it does sound to me like its a beta player. Smoke Bomb is a counter that beginners (I assumed) would have trouble understanding its use right off, shrugs... Having Volcanoes while starting is a real advantage until players find out about team moves, bless etc. Nicely played...

 

I think I beat you once out of like 3 games with 3 priest too, and that was running my card draw engine with 3 team moves and slipperies on each priest, if I recall correctly (You have screenshots I think from your streak). It was pure luck of the draw

 

I almost think that that the ELO matching system is one of the best and most balanced that I've seen in most games. I usually get matched very well and quickly with the limited amount of players that the game has.

 

The gap between ranks really doesn't mean much, to a point. Mostly it's to do with who has more time. At some point it becomes about running one of the 2 viable builds and these builds require some rare items, but that's all. Creating a more diverse mix of possible builds would solve a lot of the stagnation.

 

I just went up against someone ranked 200 ahead of me and playing with three wizards. Even the second part of that seems unfair to me. There is no way to build a deck to account for that kind of an opponent and a "regular" one at the same time.

 

Incorrect, though rares and epics definitely help. What's your Elo out of curiosity and what do you "regular"ly face? Trying to be helpful

 

I went up against one of the top players with a rating 300 points higher than me... and managed to win (due in no small part to some good luck). It was a game that I will remember for a long time, especially since the other player was a terrific sport and very complimentary overall.

So sure, you lose most of those matchups, but occasionally you win one and it's a great feeling when it happens.