@zoidberg in response to
You post a thread to see if something is broken and when its proven to be so you don't want to accept it,
wrong. please reread posts iv made or responses ive made to you
we are posting all these mismatches... yes A FEW are obviously broken... some are probably broken but we are uncertain.
the math doesnt fit mate... not all decks should be getting overwhelmed.... if 24 star decks are averaging 26-28 star opponents... are 26-28 star decks averaging 24 star opponents??? the average have to balance out to what people are actually using.
i am thinking there is a massive overpopulation of decks in the 32-40 star deck range....
those guys are ending up playing each other and they are seeing the balance. (some 32 star guy im sure is having issues about facing 40s i bet...)
the guys running mid star counts are getting pulled into matches vs. slightly higher starred decks.
the guys running really low star decks are facing each other and pulling down some of the mid star decks.
the mid star decks are low on opponents and end up drawing from the high star pool more often
the above is more than likely what is going on.... UR would have the stats, i wish they shared it a bit
the most affected by this is are people running 24-25 star decks. since they are now getting clobbered more often. the guys running 26 stars are having a big laugh about it since, winning matches is easier than it was in the previous system
anyway.. regarding DT Zoid... you know there is a sticky in this forum right? all those "arcane" rules are in there.... everything would be 2 clicks away from that sticky.
Well as the problem is no better here are todays numbers, I upped my deck to 26 stars to stop being over starred as much its a nothing special Sackrohm / Pussy cats deck with NOOOOO massive power cards like Guru Gaxx or Charlie.
13 - win
12 - win
17 - win
16 - win
18 (Mono La Junta including Bryon and Emeth) loss
18 - loss
18 - (Aigwon, Corvus, Dwan, Thomas) win
18 - (Bridget, Amanie, Gretchen, Rosen) loss
17 - (Gaia Noel, Hikiyousan, Lucia, Stanly) win
14 - (Dorian, Jackie Cr, Oxen, Samantha) win
17 - (Hikiyousan, Kirk, Oraya, Wee Lee) Win
18 - (Gordon, Buck, Miss Lullabee, Stanly) Win T.O.
17 - (Bloodh, Scubb, Selma, Tyd) loss
16 (Jauyta, Petra, Stella, Uranus) Loss
12 - win
17 - (Loma Noju, Sigard,Lianah Ld, Stanly) Win
17 (mono Rescue) win
15 (Inc Ambre) win
18 - (Glenn, Hefty, Herman, Oxen) Draw
18 - (Fabio, Tino, Kolos, George) Loss
18 - (inc Hugo, Askai) Loss
So my opponents averaged 16.3 stars per hand or 32.63 (Nearly 7 more than my own deck in a course of 22 matches)
So can't see a problem there the high star decks were all weak like Glenn, Hefty, Herman, and Oxen or Hikiyousan, Kirk, Oraya and Wee Lee or Bloodh, Scubb, Selma and Tyd with some of these players having win percentages above my own.
Again IT NEEDS FIXING, I don't get what is hard to understand in this scenario it doesn't work and needs to be sorted! Come on 8 opponents in 22 fights draw 18 star hands against me when I only have a 26 star medicore deck!
I still don't get what you are hoping to achieve from this thread, we have seen plenty of evidence that the opponent selector doesn't work and more than enough to speculate what is wrong with it, all of which has been posted on the verious board in contacts to UR support etc.
If anything the oppoents selector is worse than ever, its time to either tell us what you are doing with this thread to get the opponent selector fixed or admit that you are just messing us around and wasting our time for no reason what so ever.
At no point have I said that everyone is facing higher star opponents and where you got that from is beyond me. By default there is an average deck size and this will be what people face. My issue is not and never has been facing decks 1-3 stars higher than mine (Especially if my deck is slightly "Stronger". the issue is facing blatently well over starred decks where your opponent is 4+ stars higher than you, and more specifically more tan the supposed 6 maximum
. As Ghelas has pointed out their is more than enough evidence to show this is the case. Yes some people are continuously playing lower star decks just as I am playing continuously higher star decks and this also needs sorting.
26 star decks are having it easy Yeah right see above! Shows how accurate that comment was
Where is this information saying that you shouldn't run a 24-25 star deck unless you want to play people over 32 stars all the time I have never seen that
I really want to see these stats you claim to have on the deck sizes of what people are running, its obviously another flaw with the new system that you get mismatched for playing middle stars.
Again what are you doing with this thread?
Why did you even bother to start it, has anything even been put forward to anyone off the back of the issues its brought up?
OK 1 last post on this as I am borred of going through the same few simple concepts that are being ignored
FACT 1: 6 stars is not the maximum difference you should face against a similar opponent (That is about 2 stars as posted by Fraggle). 6 stars is the maximum you should face if one player is great with an awesome deck and the other is aweful with a rubbish deck. There is a colosal difference
FACT 2: facing 18 star hands with a "mid star deck" is happening far to often for it to be a best 4 cards hand with lower star cards in the unseen part of the deck. Chance of drawing best 4 cards about 1 in 70. Chance of this happening 8 times in 22 matches is statistically irrelevant. Hence this is not the case and Mid star decks are therefore facing strong decks of 34-36 stars on a regular basis, which we were told would not happen. Hence the opponent selector does not work
FACT 3: we are told (By Fraggle) that the opponent selector works on values that need to be within about 0.25 to make a valid match. This is nothing like what wasteroftime keeps trying to say happens of it puts you against overpowered decks as it can't find one in the same range as you. These are completely different systems and Wasteroftime should not be trying to distract people from the problem by suggesting this is what is happening.
FACT 4: Very few people play DT's in an attempt to win them and not many people (as a % of those who enter a DT) are even trying to get into the top 150.
All those not rying to get these top 150 places do not want to be in a situation where they are "Laughing" as every opponent has a huge star mismatch to them, I would suggest they want to have matches against roughly equal standard opponents with equal standard decks to them, whilst maybe working on the odd mission and earning a credit, just like the person who you refussed to accept wanted to play elo in DT times to take advantage of the free credit.
FACT 5: Despite my repeated requests both on this thread and in response to wasteroftimes pm's to me there is still no explanation as to what Wasteroftime is going to do with this data or how the systaem is going to be amde better. For that reason it is my opinion (Note this is opinion the fact was before the opinion) that this is just as his name would suggest a waste of time!
1) The purpose of a chair is to provide a place to sit. A chair that does not fulfill this function at random can be said to be broken. If you have a chair that you usually can't sit in, it is a broken chair, you should fix it.
2) The purpose of an umbrella is to keep the rain off your head. If your umbrella has holes in it, and so, provides the function of an umbrella only over certain parts of your head, it is a broken umbrella. You should fix it.
3) The purpose of the UR match selector is to create fair, enjoyable matches the vast majority of the time. If it does not provide that function, the math behind it is not relevant. It is broken, you should fix it.
4) The purpose of a forum moderator is to facilitate the debates, to keep them fair and civil. A moderator who uses his power and prestige to provoke senseless arguments, while largely ignoring the input of every other person on the forum, is not providing the function of a moderator. Draw your own conclusions from this.
I will be posting in one of the threads that the admins have responded to from now on in an effort to get an answer as to whether there are plans to fix the broken match selector or not.