Matchmaking Problem

Play Mode Discussion
It now takes me on average more than 5 minutes to find a game in Wild Casual (my main play mode). And I think I can now see the vicious cycle.

Whenever I face an opponent that couldn't possibly win against me with their deck or even when they just play bad I concede because they probably need the gold more than me. I just don't really care so much for winning, but as I heard there is a "hidden MMR" or so that tries to "maintain an overall 50% winrate". For me that means that in general I will get matched with worse and worse opponents I would rather concede to which in turn makes me face more opponents I don't even want to win against. A vicious cycle.

I'm not expecting anything here, I just wanted to get that out. I'm just glad that I started to play more with my friends. But when those are not online I don't want to wait like 5 minutes. In Standard it's not so bad yet, but I think that's only because I didn't played much there. In time this will also become a problem for me I think.

I also have to say I don't really know a good solution for this. But the matchmaking relating to the winrate is rather bad for the aforementioned. In Casual you should only play for fun and if that is winning for you that's okay, but there are people that don't care so much about that. Even though I might be in the minority, I think it's not a good idea to base the matchmaking on winrate because not everyone makes winning a priority.

Maybe there should be no specific matchmaking at all and you just get matched with the next random person. I think that would be the best. What do you think?
The whole (wild) format needs more support to introduce new blood, sadly reports like yours fall on deaf ears. Its not just casual, but ranked as well that sees this (mainly at high ranks) yet Blizzard, in their infinite wisdom, do very little to actually encourage players to participate in the format, and from what I've seen in the last 6-8 months its only getting worse (but that is subjective)
So... you prefer to pity concede against "bad" players and now you are stuck being matched only against people you feel compelled to concede to, and this is somehow Blizzard's fault?

The simple solution is to play to your actual level. That's on you, not on Blizzard.
I'm still flabbergasted of how some people still don't understand how MMR system works (and Bowser, sorry, but you're projecting in the wrong thread). There is no magical 50% winrate trying to maintain/force system, it's just a natural process of how MMR system works. In a MOBA game, or some FPS game, you have no problem with MM matching players with similar rank/MMR, do you? (gold against gold, sergeant against sergeant, I don't know). The more you win, MM matches you with better players. The more you lose, MM matches you with worse player. It's as simple as that.
02/05/2019 11:18 PMPosted by sky3union
(and Bowser, sorry, but you're projecting in the wrong thread).


Incorrect, its the right thread for me to be "projecting" in. Why? Because its about long queue times in wild, therefore its the perfect thread for me to express my opinions of the cause of those long queue times in. Or do you think its fine that seasonal legend players of the format actively avoid hitting legend until the season is 1/3rd (10 days in) over 'cos they dont want to be sitting in queue for near 10 minutes when they hit play?
02/05/2019 11:41 PMPosted by Bowser
Incorrect, its the right thread for me to be "projecting" in. Why? Because its about long queue times in wild, therefore its the perfect thread for me to express my opinions of the cause of those long queue times in. Or do you think its fine that seasonal legend players of the format actively avoid hitting legend until the season is 1/3rd (10 days in) over 'cos they dont want to be sitting in queue for near 10 minutes when they hit play?
Not really. OP thinks there is a problem with the current MM because he has sinked into dumpster MMR, cause by his own action, where few players reside. Reminds me of a person couple of weeks ago. He was pointing fingers at Blizz, GM for what happened to him cause by his action (practically similar issue. sinked too low and he gets bots everytime).
02/05/2019 11:51 PMPosted by sky3union
02/05/2019 11:41 PMPosted by Bowser
Incorrect, its the right thread for me to be "projecting" in. Why? Because its about long queue times in wild, therefore its the perfect thread for me to express my opinions of the cause of those long queue times in. Or do you think its fine that seasonal legend players of the format actively avoid hitting legend until the season is 1/3rd (10 days in) over 'cos they dont want to be sitting in queue for near 10 minutes when they hit play?
Not really. OP thinks there is a problem with the current MM because he has sinked into dumpster MMR, cause by his own action, where few players reside. Reminds me of a person couple of weeks ago. He was pointing fingers at Blizz, GM for what happened to him cause by his action (practically similar issue. sinked too low and he gets bots everytime).


That's your interpretation, which I can understand, but it's not mine. The way I read it is the underlying issue of queue times is the main complaint, which I can agree with based on my experience.

So, yes, I can project in this thread, or do you really want someone like me creating threads to project in? Hailfalls got nothing on me on topics I'm passionate about!
02/05/2019 10:33 PMPosted by Slickriptide
So... you prefer to pity concede against "bad" players and now you are stuck being matched only against people you feel compelled to concede to, and this is somehow Blizzard's fault?

The simple solution is to play to your actual level. That's on you, not on Blizzard.


Well, yes of course. (Duh!) But as I said I don't care much about winning. And now? Of course it's their "fault". Although I wouldn't say it that way because it's not a flaw for people that play to win.

I think Casual should be the place to have fun and the problem is that some people don't care about winning when it comes to fun. Therefore it seems better if there wouldn't be this "MMR" in place.

02/05/2019 11:18 PMPosted by sky3union
I'm still flabbergasted of how some people still don't understand how MMR system works (and Bowser, sorry, but you're projecting in the wrong thread). There is no magical 50% winrate trying to maintain/force system, it's just a natural process of how MMR system works. In a MOBA game, or some FPS game, you have no problem with MM matching players with similar rank/MMR, do you? (gold against gold, sergeant against sergeant, I don't know). The more you win, MM matches you with better players. The more you lose, MM matches you with worse player. It's as simple as that.


I don't know exactly how this works, but as you said that's the "natural process" of how that works and that's what I meant. The problem here is the assumption that people will always do everything to win. I don't. See?

It might seem weird to you, but as someone who doesn't care much about winning this system is pretty bad for the reasons stated in my initial post. For me it would be better with no matchmaking and just facing a random opponent.
I've been having unusually long waiting times in both ranked and casual standard. I never concede and I lose a normal amount, so I'm not sure what is going on.
02/07/2019 09:20 AMPosted by Rubinlibelle
02/05/2019 11:18 PMPosted by sky3union
I'm still flabbergasted of how some people still don't understand how MMR system works (and Bowser, sorry, but you're projecting in the wrong thread). There is no magical 50% winrate trying to maintain/force system, it's just a natural process of how MMR system works. In a MOBA game, or some FPS game, you have no problem with MM matching players with similar rank/MMR, do you? (gold against gold, sergeant against sergeant, I don't know). The more you win, MM matches you with better players. The more you lose, MM matches you with worse player. It's as simple as that.


I don't know exactly how this works, but as you said that's the "natural process" of how that works and that's what I meant. The problem here is the assumption that people will always do everything to win. I don't. See?

It might seem weird to you, but as someone who doesn't care much about winning this system is pretty bad for the reasons stated in my initial post. For me it would be better with no matchmaking and just facing a random opponent.
MMR stands for matchmaking rating. As the name suggests, it's basically just an indication of a number. You win, you gain points, your number goes up. You lose, you lose points, your number goes down. What you're suggesting is to let 500 MMR player get matched with a 3000 MMR player. Or, to put it more simply, how's [30 wins, 120 lose] player vs. [1000 wins, 600 lose] player, sound like?

MMR system is in place to prevent such case. It matches players who have similar rating with each other, like [500 wins, 300 lose] player vs. [900 wins, 550 lose] player.
(all of this is just hypothetical numbers. A player can have high MMR without having many wins; win% matters more than simply win number)

And what I mean by 'natural process' of 50% winrate is, 60% winrate player will often get matched with other 60% winrate player. One will win, one will lose. This process will go back and forth among many players. As a player gets closer to his 'skill level', his winrate will converge to 50% winrate (as, more he wins, he will get matched with more skillful player, this time more likely to lose. more he loses, he will get matched with less skilled player, this time more likely to win). That's the natural process of MMR (with enough sample size/games, a player will get to 50% winrate).

So if you want to face more worthy opponent, win through them and get your MMR up. Or simply just go ranked and climb to certain rank floor. Unless you really do want a system where 30% winrate player gets matched with a 70% winrate player (where a 30% winrate player who wants to win will have a harder time winning), it was your decision to concede recklessly that caused this whole issue.
02/07/2019 10:53 AMPosted by sky3union
02/07/2019 09:20 AMPosted by Rubinlibelle
...

I don't know exactly how this works, but as you said that's the "natural process" of how that works and that's what I meant. The problem here is the assumption that people will always do everything to win. I don't. See?

It might seem weird to you, but as someone who doesn't care much about winning this system is pretty bad for the reasons stated in my initial post. For me it would be better with no matchmaking and just facing a random opponent.
MMR stands for matchmaking rating. As the name suggests, it's basically just an indication of a number. You win, you gain points, your number goes up. You lose, you lose points, your number goes down. What you're suggesting is to let 500 MMR player get matched with a 3000 MMR player. Or, to put it more simply, how's [30 wins, 120 lose] player vs. [1000 wins, 600 lose] player, sound like?

MMR system is in place to prevent such case. It matches players who have similar rating with each other, like [500 wins, 300 lose] player vs. [900 wins, 550 lose] player.
(all of this is just hypothetical numbers. A player can have high MMR without having many wins; win% matters more than simply win number)

And what I mean by 'natural process' of 50% winrate is, 60% winrate player will often get matched with other 60% winrate player. One will win, one will lose. This process will go back and forth among many players. As a player gets closer to his 'skill level', his winrate will converge to 50% winrate (as, more he wins, he will get matched with more skillful player, this time more likely to lose. more he loses, he will get matched with less skilled player, this time more likely to win). That's the natural process of MMR (with enough sample size/games, a player will get to 50% winrate).

So if you want to face more worthy opponent, win through them and get your MMR up. Or simply just go ranked and climb to certain rank floor. Unless you really do want a system where 30% winrate player gets matched with a 70% winrate player (where a 30% winrate player who wants to win will have a harder time winning), it was your decision to concede recklessly that caused this whole issue.


That's about how I thought it worked. And no, I don't want to face a more "worthy" opponent. And yes, it was decision to concede recklessly. But you don't seem to understand my point.

This system is great for people that want to win, but bad for those who don't and just want to have fun.

For example my favorite deck at the moment is a Shudderwock deck with Yogg and other cool battlecries and the only point of it is to have fun playing Shudderwock. Recently I even started not attacking my opponent. And in the end I mostly concede because I don't care about that and my opponent might enjoy the gold more since I pay real money for the rest to a complete collection already anyways so a few more or less gold doesn't make much of a difference for me.

As I said it's good for competitive play, but when it comes to having fun it seems rather bad. I understand though that I'm here in the minority. But I still think there should be a mode like Casual where it's only about fun. And in such a mode it wouldn't matter as much if you're facing a better or worse player since it's all just about having fun.
02/07/2019 06:30 PMPosted by Rubinlibelle
That's about how I thought it worked. And no, I don't want to face a more "worthy" opponent. And yes, it was decision to concede recklessly. But you don't seem to understand my point.

This system is great for people that want to win, but bad for those who don't and just want to have fun.

For example my favorite deck at the moment is a Shudderwock deck with Yogg and other cool battlecries and the only point of it is to have fun playing Shudderwock. Recently I even started not attacking my opponent. And in the end I mostly concede because I don't care about that and my opponent might enjoy the gold more since I pay real money for the rest to a complete collection already anyways so a few more or less gold doesn't make much of a difference for me.

As I said it's good for competitive play, but when it comes to having fun it seems rather bad. I understand though that I'm here in the minority. But I still think there should be a mode like Casual where it's only about fun. And in such a mode it wouldn't matter as much if you're facing a better or worse player since it's all just about having fun.
Actually, you don't seem to understand what you're suggesting. If you want a play mode where you can goof off, that should've been your main point. Instead, you want to change Casual mode into a mode where a player with low collection, lacks skill, who wants to win, often getting matched with an opponent he simply can't win.

No, you can't have a MM system where it follows your suggestion but is lenient to newbies. This is a machine/programming code we're talking about. It doesn't have the flexibility, decision making depending on situation, like humans do, nor it can read a player behind the screen's intention. It follows a specific rule it was told to do. So yeah, that is the system you're proposing. And I am against that.
Yes. Low MMR has too long wait time. Just win some games :)
02/07/2019 10:26 PMPosted by sky3union
02/07/2019 06:30 PMPosted by Rubinlibelle
That's about how I thought it worked. And no, I don't want to face a more "worthy" opponent. And yes, it was decision to concede recklessly. But you don't seem to understand my point.

This system is great for people that want to win, but bad for those who don't and just want to have fun.

For example my favorite deck at the moment is a Shudderwock deck with Yogg and other cool battlecries and the only point of it is to have fun playing Shudderwock. Recently I even started not attacking my opponent. And in the end I mostly concede because I don't care about that and my opponent might enjoy the gold more since I pay real money for the rest to a complete collection already anyways so a few more or less gold doesn't make much of a difference for me.

As I said it's good for competitive play, but when it comes to having fun it seems rather bad. I understand though that I'm here in the minority. But I still think there should be a mode like Casual where it's only about fun. And in such a mode it wouldn't matter as much if you're facing a better or worse player since it's all just about having fun.
Actually, you don't seem to understand what you're suggesting. If you want a play mode where you can goof off, that should've been your main point. Instead, you want to change Casual mode into a mode where a player with low collection, lacks skill, who wants to win, often getting matched with an opponent he simply can't win.

No, you can't have a MM system where it follows your suggestion but is lenient to newbies. This is a machine/programming code we're talking about. It doesn't have the flexibility, decision making depending on situation, like humans do, nor it can read a player behind the screen's intention. It follows a specific rule it was told to do. So yeah, that is the system you're proposing. And I am against that.


How in the world did you read that from my posts? That was my main point. That I want a game mode to "goof around" and that should be Casual. Maybe there should be a third "Fun" game mode or so, it's just that I don't really care about all this competitive BS. Do you think those "tryhards" need Casual for testing decks or whatever? If yes, then sure, they should make a third game mode just for fun instead. (Not sure how you did get me wrong there.)
02/08/2019 07:48 AMPosted by Rubinlibelle
Maybe there should be a third "Fun" game mode or so, it's just that I don't really care about all this competitive BS.

There are already two "fun" modes: adventures with Innkeeper and friendly duels. Aren't these enough for you?
02/07/2019 06:30 PMPosted by Rubinlibelle
This system is great for people that want to win, but bad for those who don't and just want to have fun.

That's why they made Casual.
So you can play if you want to have fun, but don't care about winning.

Don't blame the design of "Ranked" to be centered around wanting to win, when the whole point of being ranked is to compete against other people.
@Rubinlibelle
(forum is bugging out on me again, so no quote box)

I got your intention/suggestion right. Don't know why you're trying to say I'm misunderstanding even an ounce of it. But as I said, it's just you didn't fully comprehend what your suggestion meant, what it concludes. See my previous post.

-------

Players can do whatever they like as far as I'm concern (as long as it's not against ToS of course). People prefer winning. If they want to play netdecks or try-hard in Casual mode, let them. MMR system is in place, they will get matched with similar players as them. So yes, you should've focused on suggesting a third mode, not suggest Casual mode to work the way you think.

Note, this is not the first time similar topic has come up before. No, none of the others suggested removing MMR system. But they share the same view as you. They think 'Casual' should be a mode where you play 'fun (subjective btw)' decks, no try-harding. Counter argument is that, Casual should really be named Unranked, and that, generally, there is nothing wrong with players playing whatever they want (in a mode where it still rewards winning no less).

So, a new "casual" mode, and in order for try-hards or netdecks to not be present in the new mode, they should remove gold progression system altogether (like friend duel, no reward for winning). Argument didn't go as far as whether to count in quest progression, but that's another debate point. Mind you, some people who find their joy from trolling, griefing will still go play in that mode. But it will be much more freestyle (as there is no incentive for winning).

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum