iThat's quite a bit more than I expected tbh.
If someone has more than 1000 seasonal points than their opponent and wins, they only gain 1 point.
If you lose and they had 300+ more points than you, you only lose 1 point
Whatcha think about it? Waiting to see how it actually impacts next season?
Very little, but should be slightly easier for everyone and take an extra day or two at most for those breezing through.
The change in points lost/gained "should" be the less important change IF they actually succeed in making those matchups a lot less frequent.
wow, I like this idea
The change in points lost/gained "should" be the less important change IF they actually succeed in making those matchups a lot less frequent.
They were never frequent...
It's actually hurting me more than I thought... lots of +8 doesn't seem like much but over the last week I get 7s and 8s every day... adds
... adds up
The truncation drives me nuts....
They were never frequent...
It's actually hurting me more than I thought... lots of +8 doesn't seem like much but over the last week I get 7s and 8s every day... adds
Plarium identified it as a problem that they needed to fix with LA, so they had to be frequent enough to be throwing off what they wanted or they would not have adressed it at all.
I can't say that I am paying any attention at all to the "underdog" system and scoring changes. I do my 10/day and try for 5 wins, and that is it. I'll take the freebies off the Season Milestones, but overall, LA Seasons is meaningless to me, and I refuse to do enough fights to chase the top milestones.
The time commitment of this game has gotten so extreme that I have to skip things.
Polling in your cluster, who are in the top 100 clans, who consist of entirely end-game account spenders? Gosh, well that's a prefectly representative sampling. :P
I'm not really sure how else to say it: Having 5 matches where you get brutally stomped and having 5 matches where the other guy gets brutally stomped isn't good matchmaking, even though the win/loss trends towards 50/50
For most players who don't have end-game accounts with multiple +4 6* blessed champs, they aren't trying to get pvp rewards without effort. They don't *care* about the pvp rewards, they don't want to do it in the first place. But opting out means not being able to complete the daily assignments; means losing out on 180 energy per day
You've actually hit on a good idea by trying to make the opposite point though. Try the carrot instead of the stick: If every live arena LOSS still gave some area bonus medals, say 10% of a win, you'd probably see participation go up.
Oh, and in the interest of accuracy, a minor update since my post from the other day: 1 person in my cluster has pulled 3 mythics, one has an astounding 4.
Also, a day or two after I did my poll, ONE guy said he enjoys live arena. so that changes the total to 1 out of ~120 instead of 0
My cluster has many that despise live arena and have same invalid complaints :)
My polling was just to validate that the seasonal rating and matchmaking is WAI, many in my cluster don't like it. The pvp enthusiasts don't care one way or the other.
Conflating the seasonal rewards with just doing the daily win one seems to be where we are at? I mean with bot wins u can get 3 of 10 and be done quickly. Or just 1 win and move on. I see the level of complaining escalating only due to the seasonal rewards obtainability. If your 119 of 120 can't be bothered to get the 1 win for the daily... then that is why I posted that screenshot 😆.
As for live matchmaking... i think my assertion that 95% (minimum) of battles fall in a reasonable range of seasonal rating. Polling in my cluster discord leans towards 1 bad matchup every 3 days or so. These are people doing 10 or 15 per day.
So the only argument for a problem is that other factors should be included. The only reasonable suggestion I've seen is that the season should start with staggered scores based on prior finish to separate out the big dogs from the get go. I think this is fair to all, but really will have no significant impact after the first few days. That said, those differences could be enough to snag an extra reward or two for many.
The only other viable solution imo, is to split gold into two brackets for seasons with the lower having worse rewards. This would cause more uproar though, as fair matchmaking isn't the real issue. Obtaining pvp rewards without putting effort into pvp is the objective.
Polling in your cluster, who are in the top 100 clans, who consist of entirely end-game account spenders? Gosh, well that's a prefectly representative sampling. :P
I'm not really sure how else to say it: Having 5 matches where you get brutally stomped and having 5 matches where the other guy gets brutally stomped isn't good matchmaking, even though the win/loss trends towards 50/50
For most players who don't have end-game accounts with multiple +4 6* blessed champs, they aren't trying to get pvp rewards without effort. They don't *care* about the pvp rewards, they don't want to do it in the first place. But opting out means not being able to complete the daily assignments; means losing out on 180 energy per day
You've actually hit on a good idea by trying to make the opposite point though. Try the carrot instead of the stick: If every live arena LOSS still gave some area bonus medals, say 10% of a win, you'd probably see participation go up.
Oh, and in the interest of accuracy, a minor update since my post from the other day: 1 person in my cluster has pulled 3 mythics, one has an astounding 4.
Also, a day or two after I did my poll, ONE guy said he enjoys live arena. so that changes the total to 1 out of ~120 instead of 0
some reflections on live arena after two seasons:
i
iS1 I started with about 3 weeks left, S2 2 weeks (which got a bit annoying at the end, but also I think helped the winrate by several % due to weaker matches)
some overall takes as a player (not mod, pls don't eat me) and this is before the Nell nonsense that's going on:
1) Armanz is still getting first picked by folks way, way too often. Wand, Cage, resistance, etc. is just hurting him a lot. If you have Horse and any reasonable way to get around Armanz or other good options, definitely do that.
2) Fabian > Armanz most of the time and subsequently is much more important to ban in this meta
Fabian is straight up amazing right now.
3) Sheep is nowhere near as good as it used to be (looking at Armanz A3) due to wand, though that'll probably change with Nell rampaging because you won't always be able to ban her (also she's going to be obnoxious in siege now)
4) generally speaking even if your roster is limited, unless you're going multiple bombers pls stop first picking arbiter
5) bombers are fantastic last picks to try and keep your other critical champs, especially rat since that's such a great affinity situation
6) run more of your champs in supersonic
As for matchmaking I think it's mostly fine except for start of season. I did have a few matchups where I'm like ok, they have 1k+ more points than me and are running +2 or higher mythics + other oppressive stuff, I'm cooked.
What is going on with Nell? She is certainly a powerful Arena toon, but if there is some new way to use her I must've missed it entirely. I have not seen her in any fights the last few days.
That new poison amplifying relic from FW is gonna give Kalvalax a boost in pick rate.
I never knew what was going on before, so little change for me :)
Trying to learn how to use embrys now. Spent an hour Sunday in 3v3 g4. He is fun, but i am lost using mythicals lol
Got mine mastered and booked but haven't taken the time to gear him yet.
He has destroyed me a few times.
The guy in Ash's video who's name I can't be bothered to look up made a good point about competitiveness:
For seasons, they should limit the number of matches per day that count towards seasonal score to 20 or 30. After that it counts for your all-time rating, but win or loss stops counting for season when you hit a daily cut-off.
Maybe give people a chance who don't have a staff playing on thier behalf 12 hours a day.
judging by wait times for matchups it seems participation drop has absolutely been a thing.
Significant participation drop is why I think we are back to seeing more frequent repeat opponents again. The shiny newness of LA Seasons wore off quickly, and peeps are not spending the time on it because there is already too much to do in the game. Please tell Plarium that we do not need mroe content right now. We need more ways to complete the repitive content faster....like IT/DT auto-complete.
As far as I know, only one person in my clan engaged enough to go to 1320 for S2. At least only one of the people that talk regularly. No idea what the silent ones do.
I didn't bother. I did my five wins per day and threw most of the rest.
I'm not sure what your point is about this one.
Could you elaborate, please?
It supports both your claim that accounts like ours are way better than most battling in Live Seasons and my assertion that matching is "fair".
I concede we have clear differences in what is fair lol. My point is that if we are all in one big group (as currently designed) going for the same rewards then the LoE to get those should scale accordingly from "level":
1. Account above, non pvp level 100. Will have win rate of 35% to 40% or so.
2. Xxx
3. Xxx
5. Me (win rate 60%) 10 to 15 battles per day
6. Next 1000 to 2000? Only need 10
7. Top 100 to 200 (irrelevant lol)
I think to get top rewards at 50% win rate would require 15 battles (10 gems per day) = 45pts
20 @ 45% = 51 pts/day
20 @ 40% = 36 pts/day (not enough)
I doubt anyone under 50% wants to do more than battles 😆 especially with slow bots...
Splitting into two groups (based on prior season? Total live rating?), assuming less rewards in easy groups would be terrible for me but balance the competition significantly.
iRandom screenshot from classic today. This is probably a "late game" account in the 50th percentile? 75th? Idk tbh. But if you think someone like this should be maxing live arena Rewards... and I've seen full clans of 90% this in last 4 sieges.
I'm not sure what your point is about this one.
Could you elaborate, please?
iRandom screenshot from classic today. This is probably a "late game" account in the 50th percentile? 75th? Idk tbh. But if you think someone like this should be maxing live arena Rewards... and I've seen full clans of 90% this in last 4 sieges.
My win rate was under 60%, my builds are likely on par with yours.
I'm all for having new accounts progress faster, I think plarium is as well. New accounts won't get close to 1300 points in a season regardless.
I don't deserve anything, I have zero sense of entitlement.
I think having a beginner live arena would be great, not sure where you draw the line.
I just find it laughable (condescending intentionally) that matchmaking is considered a problem at all for live arena let alone the #1 problem.
I mean if 9 of 10 battles are fair, you only complain about the 1??? Really? That's the important piece of data ....
I will concede that anyone bringing arbiter and 4 brimstone champs to battle will be unfairly matched up more frequently than not.
I don't think this is the number 1 issue nor have I seen where anyone said so... shortening the battles and fixing afk situations are up there too. Matchmaking is a issue, a 10% bad matchup rate is high tho honestly I'd say with other factors it's higher. I'd still like to see a rebalance to how Champion Power is valued and then have a minimum/maximum for matchups to tone down the brute-force nonsense.
We've already established and confirmed that much stronger accounts and players with higher win rates get matched to easy opponents in the name of "shorter wait times" for matchmaking. Also I'm still unclear how/why previous season ratings should not matter in the first week of a new season.
Lastly, I don't think Arbiter should be a first pick but I'm also unclear why bringing her at all is considered such a failure... her pick rate is 30% and ban rate is 34% in Gold IV on HH.
None of this speaks to my real question at this point and that is: Why do you push back against this so hard? Is there some idea that the Devs are gonna spend 100s of hours working on a non-issue? If enough people are saying there's a problem, then it should at least be addressed or responded to in some form... like a simple Raid News update that just goes "We've evaluated matchmaking and feel the current system is fine" or something similar. If people think they aren't being heard then that's only going to lead to more and more of this feedback
TBF, I've repeatedly said matchmaking is the #1 problem. I'm not saying it's the only problem, or that there aren't other improvements which should ALSO be made, but I've been pretty clear in like half my posts that I think matchmaking is the biggest issue with Live
:P
TBF, I've repeatedly said matchmaking is the #1 problem. I'm not saying it's the only problem, or that there aren't other improvements which should ALSO be made, but I've been pretty clear in like half my posts that I think matchmaking is the biggest issue with Live
:P
😆
Yes you have. We at some point may need to agree to disagree on that one
I don't think this is the number 1 issue nor have I seen where anyone said so... shortening the battles and fixing afk situations are up there too. Matchmaking is a issue, a 10% bad matchup rate is high tho honestly I'd say with other factors it's higher. I'd still like to see a rebalance to how Champion Power is valued and then have a minimum/maximum for matchups to tone down the brute-force nonsense.
We've already established and confirmed that much stronger accounts and players with higher win rates get matched to easy opponents in the name of "shorter wait times" for matchmaking. Also I'm still unclear how/why previous season ratings should not matter in the first week of a new season.
Lastly, I don't think Arbiter should be a first pick but I'm also unclear why bringing her at all is considered such a failure... her pick rate is 30% and ban rate is 34% in Gold IV on HH.
None of this speaks to my real question at this point and that is: Why do you push back against this so hard? Is there some idea that the Devs are gonna spend 100s of hours working on a non-issue? If enough people are saying there's a problem, then it should at least be addressed or responded to in some form... like a simple Raid News update that just goes "We've evaluated matchmaking and feel the current system is fine" or something similar. If people think they aren't being heard then that's only going to lead to more and more of this feedback
Ok. You are not as delusional as MoreRats (attempt at humor, no offense intended).
How is 10% too high? If that cuts wait time in half. There has to be some acceptable "failure" rate.
Your idea of staggering starting point totals for the season based on prior makes perfect sense. I am on board with that.
Arbiter is not bad (not great either). Brimstone is. Correlation is very high :) I pick Arbiter last occasionally and I hope she gets banned.
And you are correct again, devs will spend 0 hours on a non issue. This entire conjecture from both sides is just us pissing into the wind 😆.
Can we all agree #1 is make bots faster... or #2 for MooredRat ;)
