Is this "fair" matchmaking?

I like how you continuously ignore my post and answer the one that is incredibly easy to answer. :3

And you would be wrong actually, skill comes into play in clash royale, I'm a level 10 around 4200 trophies, yes, I can no longer move up because I mostly only face level 11s and 12s there, some 10s that are just as good here and there, but that's it. I don't crash down to 3800 all the time where I start facing many level 10s, I stay around 4000-4200, or even go above sometimes while facing people who are stronger, level wise, than I am. But of course, that's 1 on 1, so its different, this is where the infamy change would put up people who are playing better, over the ones that aren't. That's the difference.

Meh, I dont even think I care anymore really, too much thinking for a game

 

People who are better simply should have w/rs higher than 55%. There are higher skill players and lower skill ones.

The higher skill ones should be >55.

 

I'm not talking about tanking. I'm saying the random player who is trying to win will always end up around 50% win rate no matter their skill level. I think that's a problem for this game and something that differentiates it from other games.

The inherent difference is those games have other metrics to gauge skill. Win % doesn't matter because players rankings are based on more than that one number.

In Battle Bay, we are ranked solely on Infamy. And Infamy is only gained (equally) if you win a match. And if 99% of the players win about 50% of the time, then rankings will mostly be based on activity; that is whoever plays more and has a win % around 55% will be at the top. There is absolutely no indication of skill in infamy ratings.

Again, I have no problem with people being around a 50% win rate. And I understand 100% how MM is done. I have no problem with it.

I merely have a problem with HOW we are ranked - because Infamy is not a good indicator of ones' skill. Comparing infamy to a players' level and weapons IS a good indicator, but the game doesn't reward you or rank you accordingly.

This is why I believe that IF they are going to keep infamy as the way players are ranked, then it should be a progressive scoring system per game. IF they don't want to change the scoring system (i.e., + or - 24 points for everyone each game), then they should look to come up with an algorithm to account for other variables in the game (e.g., damage done, boats killed, time alive, a fixers' HP given to teammates, firing accuracy, % capturing the flag, etc...).

 

You say there is no magical 50% that the MM is trying to force on us, but in reality there is. If our infamy is too high compared to what "we should have," we face tougher opponents and drop infamy. If our infamy is too low compared to "what we should have," we face easier opponents. Isn't that the matchmaker assuring us of all being close to 50%?

I think it's just the competitor in me that would rather go against similar boat and weapon stats than similar infamy scores. At least with the former, individual skill could shine. Because in that instance, you can see who is good or bad with the exact same setup. The way it is now, I lose when my ship is way outclassed and win when it's even or better.

Again, you've just admitted that the the MM is trying to keep you around 50%. It's obviously the case, and that's fine.

I guess my point is that a game based on skill shouldn't have MM be totally about "meeting your match," because me meeting my match doesn't really exist. Either I play people with similar or worse boats and weapons and win easily or I play against people way higher and get smoked. There is no sweet spot right now because there is no ranking system on skill.

Basically, with everyone being close to 50%, you can nearly guess anyone's infamy score by simply knowing the # of games they've played.

Wouldn't it more fun and competitive to have you matched against players with similar boats and weapons and have a progressive scoring and (more progressive) rewards system? This way, higher skilled pilots will be incentivized to continually do well. And in this case, the the infamy score can play a part in MM.

For example, if I have an MK2 speeder with level 10 weapons, I should go against boats with similar specs. This way, pilot skill will come in to play more. Then, if I'm constantly winning and my infamy gets sky high, I can be bumped into the next "tier" of pilots, perhaps the worst pilots who have mk4s, etc. I will still level out eventually, but my skill is more rewarded with better end of game rewards and winning, etc.

I'm far more inclined to spend money on the game (via purchasing weapons or a better boat) because I know my skill is matched with better players, but I need the weapons and boat to compete.

If infamy was truly a measure of a "players capability to help their team win," then why does everyone get the same infamy in a win or loss? Surely you can easily show how someone contributed more or less to a given match and award them infamy accordingly. The current systems says that everyone on the winning team contributed equally and everyone on the losing team did the same.

And you and others have already acknowledged that people are gaming the system now by "farming." People will always try to game the system by equipping setups or winning or losing the right amount in order to give themselves the best chance at what they consider success. That's true of every game no matter the type of scoring system.

That's why a scoring system should be a unique algorithm based on numerous factors like I outlined in my previous post. Things like damage done compared to your setup, accuracy, etc. can all play a roll. You can design a system that in essence ranks you based on how well you do against your expected outcomes.

I hope that makes sense.

Look, you're clearly a dev of the game - or something similar. I don't purport to be an expert in any of this. Clearly you are. I'm merely trying to give advice as someone who has been gaming for 30+ years and enjoys spending money on iOS games that are challenging, addicting, and that reward skill. So far, I feel like this game does the first two points really well; and with some minor tweaks, could do the third as well.

Thanks for dealing with me.

Cheers-

 

You sir, are 100 percent correct. Good on you!

 

Um, why couldn't match making be decided by your win ratio and your infamy?

 

It basically is. Except they mix "equal" imfamy to keep everyone near 50%. It's not "equal" in that it's 10 players all with the same infamy score. It's "equal" total infamy between the two teams.

So, each team has two players at 1,000, two players at 800, and one at 600. The ones at 1,000 likely have a lower winning % and need a bump up to get to close to 50%. Those at 600 are better than average, so they go against tougher opponents to ensure they don't win too much.

 

i personally dont see the big fuss about this non-issue.
yes, i have 50% win ratio (53% actually ), but i am still moving up in trophies at a slow pace. once i reach my wall, that just means my gear is not strong enough and i should upgrade or change my strategy.
i give it my all every match and try to do my job no matter what team am stuck with. every game is different and unless you have ridiculous skill, bitchin weapons and foolproof teammates, you cant win them all. mistakes happen.
you win some, you lose some. try collect as much gold as possible throughout the day (as there is never enough), and slowly progress with what you have, but most importantly have fun while doing it

 

You both have the right idea.

 

Having a 50% win rate means you NEVER progress or digress which definitely isn't true in games like Clash Royal. Besides, not everyone can always be winning. There is always a losing team. There will always be a wall too. If "everyone has a 55% win rate" a mk1 shooter could theoretically get to the top of the leader boards just by playing a lot.

 

Nope. Once you start playing better opponents, you just will get pushed back. It doesn't matter how good you are- it just will.

 

Yeah, well the only real difference is that if clash royale was like battle bay, I'd be stuck at 3900-4000 trophies along with the other players who are actually quite bad. Being at 4200 is purely due to me playing good, but here, it doesn't matter as much, because a team of 2 good players and 3 bad players will likely lose to a team of 5 average or a little above average players. And the good players, and the bad, will get slapped back the same amount. I guess its not that important but it will likely make the decent players, who are somewhat competitive, who don't wanna spend out their bootyhole not really wanna play much. But I mean it really isn't a game breaking thing or anything, but I don't think it would hurt to have say, an afker or someone who did almost nothing lose 24, the average guy 20, the exceptionally good guy on the losing team 16. At least if you consistently play well you'll still gain infamy in the long run.

Anyway, why is the win ratio even shown? If its not a depiction of skill, it has no purpose, right?

 

Good lord you guys, what have you done to my post lol. This was supposed to be about infamy difference, not winrates. But if we're discussing this, I might as well put in my 2 cents. Win rate doesn't matter. We're not paired up in matchmaking by winrates. They aren't a true measure of skill. Clash royale is nothing like battle bay except that you get points added to your score for a win, and points deducted for a loss. How can you even begin to compare a 1v1 game and a 5v5 game?

 

Hi Miika,

I get the logic, I like the logic, but I think if team spirit is the key of the game there is a big flaw: the communication system is terrible. I am not saying an in-battle chat would be good, but some more advanced commands. Like "stay covered" or "Don't go into the middle" or "Wait for the team". Sometimes I can tell miles away we are all going to die before the battle even starts, but I have no way to articulate something the team is doing is wrong.

 

exactly lol that is why communism doesn't work

 

I have seen many players flaming about how easy rich people are climbing up and getting all the high tier epic and legendary weapons, but you all have to deal with it... it is just how this game is built.
Clash Royale also works the same way... skill matters but how much each players spent limits their trophy and arena. So I wouldn't complain about that part.... If you are highest infamy player in your team and other lower infamy guys are so much stronger to the point where you can't overcome with your skills, you just have to accept the limit of your ships and items.
However, I rlly think each players should lose or gain different amount of infamy based on each of their performance. There are so many guys who just choose to AFK(Floating), or charge in 5v1.
If I get one of those players in my team, it is likely to become a ruined and unbalanced 4v5 game. The worst part is that even if other 4 guys try their best and get a miracle win, that 1 troll guy also gains the same amount of infamy as reward. If other 4 lose after putting up a great fight, they lose same infamy as that troll guy. Performance based infamy system will motivate these troll guys to play hard and try their best. To discourage those troll players from keep afking, I hope there are some punishment for it... In league of legends, if a player constantly afk, his account get banned for days, which is pretty fair for running other 9 player's game and time.

 

haha what a joke. enough player are playing. main problems are elsewhere. this algorithm has a too simple construct.