I'm wondering if this has been implemented and if anyone has noticed the changes. Also wondering what the intended goals are of this new algorithm. Since one of the elements that people were upset about was match times I'm guessing that's a major focus area. Are there any others like possibly trying to match teams more evenly?

If we had some information in that regard it would be helpful in offering feedback on whether this actually worked. So far I haven't noticed any chances myself. Match times seeem similar, though we did have our longest match time yet at about 45 minutes. It ended up settling on a team that we overmatched by a fair amount always disappointing.

Off of that match we got a fast match and are now overmatched the other direction facing the team that just declared victory over AMAB. So it seems like this hasn't been implemented yet. Or if it has, closer matchups may not be something it's trying to address. Just wondering and hoping we could get some more information from others and maybe SP themselves even. We are ranked and we got 14th ranked Untamable so i hope its not implemented yet: As is, SP has to deal with the tension between catering for the majority of teams who feel it unfair to be matched with a far stronger team resolution, tighten the range of matchable teams vs the desires of the top teams for shorter match times and not wanting continual hard wars resolution, widen the range of matchable teams.

One possibility - rather than one leaderboard table and a single group of War Teams, make several separate leagues with their own leaderboards, based on Team Score. So teams are grouped by comparative strength, with weaker teams separated completely from stronger teams because they are in different leagues. Players will compete to be a top team in their League. Perhaps use promotion and relegation monthly. Give rewards to the top teams say, monthly and give a reward to teams when they are promoted from one league to the next. I really hope that any algorithm change addresses matchmaking first and foremost.

This is the much bigger issue, affecting hundreds of teams. It would be very unfortunate if they made changes that would mostly benefit a handful of teams that dislike fair matchups. If a team takes this game so seriously that they cannot have an even matchup without going crazy with spending that's on them. The answer is not to make things more unfair. As for long matchmaking times, under our current system that would mean the top 15 or whatever teams would all have to roll at around the same time.

I like the idea of a tier system with regular tournaments bracket style. KungFuHamster said in New matchmaking algorithm:. I don't think you appreciate the full extent of the problem experienced by the top teams. Recently we searched for 17 hours. While we were searching, SeeDs searched and matched Backdoor Intrusion. That is, the algorithm determined that SeeDs a top 5 team was a better match for B1 than for us ranked 1.

The problem is certainly compounded by the fact that many teams go into hiding when our wars finish until they get an all clear. For some of us, it isn't about finding an easier war. It is about finding any war. Yeah, definitely need to break this out somehow. But I'm guessing that it's impossible to address long match times and constantly difficult wars among the very top teams because they've put themselves into this selective category.

You could compensate for this my making the rewards more significant but that's just gonna give more incentive to be hyper competitve. So I'm not sure these top teams would like how that system plays out either. To me the system should cater to the needs of the many vs the needs of a few by default. But I imagine that the majority of SP's complaints come from a small group of the most dedicated players, ones that don't represent the interest of all that many C0ntr1v3d Yeah, people being scared to get fair matchups and being afraid to lose is a problem IMO.

Right now one guy on my team is telling me not to roll off of the butt whipping cracks laid on us because we might get them or you guys. We roll without fear though, forget all that. This system is broken, but not afraid to take our lumps. Unlike a lot of teams way stronger than us apparently. And that's disappointing to me, and I am very opposed to catering to the desires of teams that behave like that. We have matched 3 wars in a row against teams that are not that close to our ranks and runes. We are working out how the books fit with our team and clearly like any team, a war where you avoid spending gems is a good one, I can see that this is still an issue that is yet to be resolved.

C0ntr1v3d said in New matchmaking algorithm:. To me it seems like the biggest issue with matchmaking is that there are not enough teams rolling at the same time to give satisfactory matches.

There are rather large gaps in teams' ability to compete across the various tiers of teams. At the low end teams win mostly on how many active players there are. Once you start getting in to the top or so teams, you start to expect teams having similar numbers of used attacks each war and actual monster strength comes in to play. At the very top, say top teams, they are another step ahead of everyone else where even a top 50 team stands no chance at even keeping the war close.

Now, teams rolling at any given time within a 48 hour period distributes those teams so that there are likely only a few even sorta, kinda close matches at any particular time. For the top teams, it's multiple times smaller a window when more than a few of them will start war search at the same time, which leads to long wait times.

One easy solution I think could help is creating time "bins" so that wars start every 4 hours 12am, 4am, 8am, etc or 8 hours or whatever is needed to create enough diversity in rolling teams to get closer matches. It would also create consistent war start times which to me would be a plus. Prep day would probably need to be shortened by an hour or two so that roster changes can be made between wars. For the elite teams even 8 hour bins might not be large enough to get them all rolling together, maybe change it to once a day to get a bigger pool.

The league concept could be introduced alongside a change like this with whatever incentives SP feels is appropriate. Coming for a mid team the only thing I have ever seen in common with matchmaking is amount of coins earned. Not to say this has anything to do with it, but I bet the teams which are lower that get matched against teams that slaughter them rank about the same in coins earned last 90 days.

I don't believe all the complaints about unfair matching come from top level players. I for one have complained being on a team previously ranked being matched against a team that is ranked in the top Where not one of us had a monster over or runes with most players over 6 or 7.

We have been lambs sent to slaughter. And it is not the once in awhile mismatch. It has been on a regular basis. Two normal battles, where we were evenly matched and then 4 mismatched.

Recent Comments

Some of the issue is team being created by teams creating new teams because the wars got to hard and they want easy coins, or for those who are creating teams for the team race events. This throws everything off. I watched a team go from Ranking and something to being ranked in a day during a team race. I am one who has complained repeatedly about the mismatching. It is not fun to lose all the time because we are matched against a team 10 times stronger then us and we didn't have a chance in snowballs to win.

There has to be a better way that everyone is matched accordingly. I have seen level teams with runes and monsters that should be competing in the top not in level Just my two cents worth.

Riot matchmaking system?

I've seen conflicting reports on what is the biggest contributing criteria for matchmaking. It seems to me to be based more on war coins earned vs MP, and both of those ways have large flaws. With their change to MP calculations though maybe they are able to better determine team strength via monsters and runes, which seems much better than war coins earned.

One is the "non-elite" player base who don't feel like it's fair to get matched up with top 20 teams where they have zero chance to keep up with. There's also some within this group myself included that don't like getting mismatched so that they are lopsided victors too, as that's not a fun war. The other is those top teams that have to wait hours to get a match, but at the same time some of those but not all don't always want to match against each other, because it's too expensive. I think having to wait so long for matches is definitely an issue.

Complaining that they shouldn't match teams of similar strength regularly because it costs too much to keep changing runes I think is a terrible reason to change matchmaking though. The game doesn't force teams to change runes each war, and asking to not match fairly in order to avoid that doesn't seem right.

Not on war coins earned which is the only thing I have seen it based on. Suzznee If match making should be based on people's average runes level, I will never buy, craft or equip any runes, since that will force my opponents to be un-runed as well. Why would anyone ever want to increase their runes level if the enemy will scale up their runes levels as well?

How about the match making ensure the other team must have the same activity level? Why should one team with 30 active members be matched against another team with only 5 active members? Isn't that the most unbalanced match making? If a team has an average 60 loggins per day by all its members, it should not be matched against other teams with only 10 loggins per day. For those inactive teams, those match makings are as hopeless as the top teams seems to see when they are matched against top So why are those matches not being considered as massively mismatched, and needs to be balanced?

David-Mei said in New matchmaking algorithm:. Well the same arguement can be said for ranked monsters then ,why would anyone want ranked monsters if that means they will likely fight other players with ranked monsters. I think we are so caught up on players and teams getting mismatched, we don't focus on the bigger issue, the lack of incentives to compete for a higher ranking. Players dodge and avoid having harder wars because the cost far exceeds the benefit of winning a tough war.

Granted its not a perfect solution, but it seems a bit futile trying to gauge the strength of a team by just looking at mp, wc earned, and their rune strengths.

The scoring system should be revolved around ranking teams based on the teams they beat. C0ntr1v3d I understand matchmaking time problems with the top teams. I haven't seen an online group where this issue wasn't front and center.

Matchmaking Guide - GARENA LOL SUPPORT

It's been made crystal clear I just don't think it's widespread enough be in the front of the line. After matchmaking is made fair and teams are placed in their correct pool to ensure even matchups, then they can fix your matchmaking time issue. If it is not fixed in the correct order we'll go from a few teams wasting hours waiting for a match to many teams wasting days on a lopsided war. David-Mei I didn't say it should be based on people's average rune level, but matching a team up that has monsters with all level 10 speed runes to a team that the highest member has a monster with level 6 or 7 speed runes and their average member has level monsters with level speed runes isn't a very fair match.

Recent Posts

And MP doesn't cut it. I know many teams that only accept members with low MP to keep their wars on the easier side. They prefer a player with a high level and low MP. MP to me doesn't tell me anything accept the person has collected a bunch of monsters and has a bunch ranked to a specific level.


  1. Social Point Forums?
  2. Easy Fix for Unfair Matchmaking!.
  3. longview wa hookup!
  4. dating journal!
  5. Riot matchmaking system? :: League of Legends (LoL) Forum on MOBAFire.
  6. dating two guys at once yahoo.

It doesn't tell me what runes they have or what strategy they have or if they are even active. I think activity level may be ok but that is even difficult to match considering teams are always losing a few members and adding new members. It is hard to predict if a team is active or not. I know there are a lot of inactive teams or dead teams.

Maybe cleaning those up first would be a good place to start. The new tweaks are horrible. We matched a team that just got stomped by brutal verdict to about nothing. The gap between verdict and us is substantial. Gap between us and this team even more substantial.

This team should not be drawing matchups like this and any system that allows it is totally unfair to the majority. And I hate matching teams like this. That doesn't recognize there's a gigantic gap between tiers in that I feel would fall into your gold tier. You need this many tiers just to handle the top alone. The number 10 team matching the 50 team is an unfair matchup that the number 50 has absolutely no chance of winning. There should be a bracket in this game with about 20 teams. Which is why it's virtually impossible to have both fair matchups, with top teams getting short match times.

You could bucket it like karryt has suggested so those match times would be predictable since they always happen at once. But it's still not going to be some short back to back affair. Any system that allows these top teams to match anything but about 20 teams is unfair to the majority.

Still these match ups take place. You cannot expect Agassi to only play Pete Sampras. It would be exhausting, and to be fair, become quite boring. I do not have any desire to smash down low level teams. Brackets of 64 or and at some point we have a winner and one team that lost everything and goes to a lower bracket. Ekto-Gamat Your example is not lopsided enough. The more accurate comparison would be for Agassi to play against a 10 year old. Zero chance for an upset and a huge waste of time. Ekto-Gamat said in New matchmaking algorithm:.

It's Mentally and emotionally draining. Our team is feeling the fatigue of so many impossible wars. Since they can't seem to figure out an algorithm to make matches fair without a crazy wait, why not have set server-wide start times? Designate times per day that wars will start, and let all ready teams jump in the pool when they're ready. It's not a flawless system, but would consistently yield far better matchups than what we have now.

And for some flair, give each war time a unique name for clarity's sake. Regarding matching the same team multiple times, I think there is one good thing this game has going and that is the war rules changes for every war so even if you match the same team it won't necessarily be the same result over and over. Have leagues, with the higher leagues earning more war coins. Teams can choose which league to enter, but will only qualify for a few based on their MP and war coins won. There are loads of different methods of doing this that would be better than the current system, and logistically shouldn't be so difficult to implement.

That may be a little much but I'd say Floyd mayweather vs the number 20 contender is realistic. There's often a giant gap between the champ in boxing and the number one contender. And then maybe a couple guys in that range and a similar gap. And the champ doesn't fight guys several tiers below because there's the outcome is entirely evident and no one would pay to watch it.

This is pretty similar to what happens here. The gap is so big between 10 and 50 the match simply shouldn't occur. There is no doubt the instant the match happens what the outcome will be, and that's ridiculous for all parties involved. That anyone would endorse this shows me they lack little concern for the gaming experience of others. I have never seen such a demolition in my life. This game was unbelievably unfair, I can't even put it into words. More than twice as much Personal Rating than my team. But there is a simple fix. This needs to change! At least something useful will be done with these values.

Maybe the best way to implement skill based matchmaking is to put players into leagues. Also its easier for newbies to get into the game because a player with pr can learn from someone with Share your thoughts on this with me, please! Global Offensive and match players based on their current skill-level instead of putting them into teams randomly. How will you learn, if you wish to do so, if you always have to play against people with same experience levels?

You can learn from your own and other players mistakes. In this game I didn't do anything wrong, I simply got wrecked by 7 tanks at once. Therefore I didn't learn anything. If people like you really want to join matches with enemies twice your rank Wargaming should at least give an option to players before joining a battle:.

Everyone has his or her own tactics so you can even learn from players with lower PR. No, you really can learn things from these sort of battles! My point is you say this is an unfair battle when you have plenty to learn from this battle, everyone in this game is constantly learning new weak spots, better angles etc I have been on both ends of epic wins and shocking fail team looses.. I have made some totally embarrassing moves causing my instant doom I am pretty sure you have probably had some epic wins to You win some you loose some.

There was not enough time and too few situationsituations to get good, penetrating shots on the enemies. From all players of my team I was the one doing the most damage. It was an unfair battle because the enemy team had players with twice the theoretical experience which has been proven with the statistics. This match was freaking terrible. We won but the game was unfair as hell. I didn't enjoy it at all. I don't get why you guys would even defend this imbalanced system. DerpyMcderp, on 02 March - As I have stated in my previous answer 2 players with the same skill rating dont necessarily play the same way.

Each individual is different and can learn from the other one. Also this would have only taken effect in a 1v1 situation, but he completely forgot about his team. At one point you have to face potent enemies, no matter what happens. This is the same as grinding a nation tree to fast, it has no sense to play tier IX with games.

When you arrive at the point at which you face more potent enemies your personal rating will not rise as fast as before. If the said player really fits your description he is one of a few players that I would be willing to accept. I will not deny the existence of said type of player. But this is a slightly different story. If a player happens to fit your description his PR would be much lower than yours.

I can guess what he have learned from that battle I had have a lot of those battles in both sides:. Hypersuper, on 02 March - Hobbyo, on 02 March - In regards to getting bum rushed by the entire team I do understand how in most circumstances you really cannot do a lot to take out the entire team by yourself My opinion still stands the same though, I do no think the current system is unfair, it should be random.


  • im bad at online dating?
  • Report this Ad.
  • Thanks for your feedback..
  • If the Mighty Jingles does not think it should change then I highly doubt it ever would as he is a huge voice in the WG community amongst players. I personally am happy with the current system, as I said before, I win some I loose some and I am fine with that. Lets say they did change the system Also in regards to the black sheep comment You need people worse and better than you, its the way of the world and it is the way people learn.

    Sorry but its a battle game Same as every other walk in life I defend the current system because its my personal opinion that its fine as it is and with such a change it would be further floored, it is not perfect no and it can be very frustrating but it is certainly entertaining! If match making would be skill based then the high rated players would get a disadvantage, as they would always have a bunch of low rated hangarounds on their team, and the low rated players would always have a bunch of higher rated persons to protect them.

    The matches would be more even, but you would be punished for having a better rating as the other team will be 'buffed' to compensate. I don't like this idea one bit. Based on your screenshot I monitored personal ratings in some games. Most games comprised of players with a total amount of rating points per team. From this I alone had points, so other team members share around points, per player. Nobody was afk or had connection issues. I didn't have a very huge impact on the outcome of the battle because my teammates were "out of my league" this time.

    And I really didn't enjoy that battle at all.