Sorry, haven't had the time to sit down and really write things down -- I've been playing some mobile on the go...
I did, however, take screenshots of some disproportionately mismatched hands. I can post them if necessary.
The latest one:
Fights Extended, 2986 players
My deck is all 2*
Opponent's hand: Hugo, Sekutor, Deebler, Liam
So, 8*s vs 15*
The lowest star count that deck could possibly have is 23, vs my 16... A difference of 7.
An observation: Things actually seem a little less crazy in the Standard room, even though it has 1/10th or less of the players that Extended has.
Ghelas do the stats mate...
cant claim "it seems less crazy" that is perception... lets get numbers
less powerhouse cards in extended may account for less "craziness" though.
no point Cherry picking examples. we need to see how often this is breaking. Cause others can post 10000 screen shots of the thing working.
6 can happen. 7 shouldnt happen in theory
there must be something the min/max matchup in the matchmaking... the other things like win rates and amount of time to find a match might be overriding the thing.
Definitely planning on sitting down and writing a good streak of playtime down, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
From where I'm standing, though, even a 4* difference between decks seems like a bit much -- it means that your opponent has pretty good odds of outdrawing you almost no matter how those extra stars are spread around. There are 3* cards that almost no 2* cards can touch, there are 4* cards that almost no 3* cards can touch, etc... Getting outdrawn definitely doesn't mean defeat, but for two players of equal skill, it's very likely to be a deciding factor.
What's even worse, it really seems like there are ways to game the system at this point. We should eventually try to test more deck setups than just 8 cards of equal star count. For example, what happens if you have 4 5* cards and 4 2* cards? What kind of decks will you be matched up against most of the time? It should be possible to build a deck where your 5*s 2HKO with your 5*, and I'm wondering if you'll end up playing 25* decks most of the time... And your odds of drawing 2 5* cards will be much better than theirs.
A bit off topic.... facing higher star counts was always the way to do well in DTs
16-20 star decks were created to feast on 25 star decks
26-28 star decks were created to feast on 40 star decks
now having 25 star decks on winning streaks facing higher star decks on losing streaks... believe me the serious dt players are not complaining about that change
That's the issue, though. If you want to do good, you try to build the deck that will face higher stars but crappier players. Now that the brackets are all meshed together, there's even more opportunity for that.
Maybe I'm a bit biased because I wasn't too involved in DTs until fairly recently, and they were always broken in a pretty big way, so the changes I'm complaining about are less significant than I feel... But it really bothers me that DTs are more about meta than skill. A genius player who wins 100% of his games can still do much worse than a mediocre player that builds his deck to get the most advantageous matchups, plays to get the most bonus points possible, and just plays fast. I don't understand why someone with a 100% win rate for 10 games should be rewarded less than someone with a 75% win rate for 12 games.
Skill involves meta.... the most skillful players will do better regardless of format or meta.
notice how top DT or ELO players never really complain about bans formats timers etc... they just get on with it. Complaints generally come from those that are a tier or two below in terms of skill... they believe that somehow the format/rules are hindering their ability to show their true skills.
ie. timers... dropping the time they feel will benefit them. reality - they benefit everyone and the better skilled (with a better understanding of the meta) will maximise their gain on it.
anyway lets not hijack this thread with this. post stats
I disagree ELO and survivor are where you go if you want to do well for having the highest win rate and really thinking through your moves.
THe DT strategy is about maximising your points even if you are going to lose the match, by winning the right rounds you can do well, and it rewards fast thought (IE the quick players) thats my opinion anyway. At the moment there are too many monster cards about and the oponent selector is broken. Yes you get a bigger reward for taking down higher star decks but there is a limit to how much chance you have against these. 1 of my opponents had Elvis, Kostner, Spyke and Ambre against that with my low star hand I could do nothing which is not fun.
You say lets not Cherry pick results and there are lots of examples of it working but you are wrong. To prove it is broken you need 1 example to show this and ghelas has provided this as have others in other threads. So it doesn't work the rest is just numbers. You would not buy a car with steering or breaks that usually worked! so why should we put up with an opponent selector that works some of the time.
The simple fact is the opponent selector is broke and needs to be fixed, if UR doesn't do this more people will leave (Note this is not me overreacting and saying if I don't get my way I will do xyz I am simply stating what will happen)
More numbers I'm using a 25 star deck in Extended
1- 17 win
2 - 12 win
3 - 11 win (opponent had Lyse Terria)
4 - 12 win
5 - 18 Draw (Bezerk Mono)
6 - 16 loss
7 - 12 win
8 - 15 win
9 - 17 win
10 - 16 loss (Elvis, Kostner, Spyke, Ambre)
So opponents average hand was 14.6, giving a theoretical average deck size of 29.2 stars or more than 4 stars higher than my own and this was with some opponents with low star decks early on, as soon as I was doing well in came the high star opponents again. Its getting rather dull!
Here's a summary of about 25 minutes of playing, I was running a 26 star deck. Listed first are the 4 values of each of my cards, second, my opponents:
A. 4332 v 3333 win
B. 5433 v 2424 win *
C. 3223 v 5543 win TO*
D. 4322 v 5543 win
E. 5432 v 5543 win TO*
F. 4432 v 3323 lose
G. 4223 v 5442 lose
H. 4432 v 4433 win TO
I. 4442 v 3435 lose
J. 4223 v 4333 lose
The three that are asterisked were against the same player. These were all during a Tourney in Standard mode, with 785 players in the room.
@ Waster: Sorry, but I have to respond to this -- I feel it's too important a point to pass by, I will be good after this and try to post stats tonight...
"Skill involves meta.... the most skillful players will do better regardless of format or meta.
notice how top DT or ELO players never really complain about bans formats timers etc... they just get on with it. Complaints generally come from those that are a tier or two below in terms of skill... they believe that somehow the format/rules are hindering their ability to show their true skills."
I think this is a very destructive philosophy that only leads to terrible game design. If this was some avant-garde game, or the hit movie Inception, then I could totally accept several hidden layers of game play. But this is neither of those things.
UR is about winning your matches.
It's bad enough that of any two players in a DT, the one that plays faster has a much higher chance of scoring better -- never mind their win rates.
It's simply terrible when you add a bunch of arcane rules about bonuses, and force the players to figure out non-transparent systems to create the most advantageous match-ups, etc.
It favors "expert" players with way too much time on their hands, and works to make the game less casual friendly, and trivializes the ability to win.
The reason the matching system etc. bug me so much is that they just contribute to this lousy, convoluted system. We could work around them, but we shouldn't have to.