40enThu, 10 May 2012 19:54:01 GMTThu, 10 May 2012 19:54:01 GMT
If only everyone could be as right in all their points as you are!

That is extreamly well put in my opinion]]>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:08:15 GMT
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.]]>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:20:51 GMT
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!]]>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:14:56 GMT
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.]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:09:54 GMT
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?]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:07:40 GMT
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]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 21:15:45 GMTCharlie.

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 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!]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 21:09:27 GMT 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.]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 19:39:03 GMT
Yes also another non stat related post.

I like both yourself and waster and have to say that I think at times all three of us come off as rather overly zelous and extreamist (Dare I say a bit arrogant in our views) maybe I am the only one of us that sometimes does it on purpose. And in defence of Wasteroftime he is the only mod/ur staff member that can be bothered to post regulary and respond to what people have to say, yes maybe some of it could be better phrased but the same could be said of our posts, and I say this with a huge amount of respect and generally agreement of what you have said Ghelas, I hope you keep posting your views and that UR actually responds.

As you say I think we have seen more than enough on here to see that the opponent selector is broken with a high degree of certainty]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 19:29:43 GMT
As stated in previously in other threads and this one I have contacted UR to try to get them to fix it, I have even offered to check their math free of charge despite all my qualifications, I have also posted numerous times that this problem exists but so far no fix has come about from UR or even an update on what is being done to fix it, hence the reason why people are leaving.

@Ghaelas

I agree with you on that there should be clear rules on the DT points system, there used to be something half decent about but I can't find it anymore an you need to cross reference to the banned charecter list. BUt you can work on two principles you win more points for winning a fight with a low star deck than a high star deck, and you get more points per round won for beating higher star cards with your lower star cards. Hence it used to be interesting to run tiny bits decks in the old rooms as you expected to fight higher star decks and could set your deck up for this, it was also a good pay off in trying to get the points you did get for winning fights against win rates. But the new format has killed this]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 19:17:06 GMT
You post a thread to see if something is broken and when its proven to be so you don't want to accept it, again the numbers are an AVERAGE and therefore some opponents decks will be LESS than the 5 star average difference and some (and this is the important bit as you need to concentrate on this) will be MORE thant the 5 star average which would imply the broken part.

You also seem determined to take things selectively to suit what ever you are saying as I have pointed out before your player score is made up of three elements

1 your average deck score
2 your win rate (We don't know over how many games)
3 your decks "Global win rate"

now as stated before and my stats show the decks I am using do not have a 100% win rate and neither do I so I should not be facing as much as a six star difference.
If the difference is large then the opponent and their decks should have a very low win rate now lets take my last fight I am running a reasonable Sackrohm Pussycats 25 star deck, please note this doesn't contain Gaxx/ Charlie or any or the other top power house cards. My opponent ran a mono La Junta deck and drew 18 Stars in their hand including Emeth and Byron, they have a decent 57% win rate at level 47. So neither they or their deck have low win rates or in other words this is not a deck I should be facing under the system that is run. Yes they could have just 8 stars but its strange I never face any of these 8 star hands]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 04:42:34 GMT Two separate runs in Standard
300 people during run 1, 286 during 2
Running a mission deck with all 3*s, win rate is roughly 50-60%

11*
15*
12*
14*
15*
15*
15*
14*
15*
11*
13*
14*
14*
14*
13*
13*
12*

Even with a bad win rate, it looks like I end up fighting higher star decks way more often than not. I haven't seen a 6 or 7* difference in Standard yet, but even this is somewhat undesirable IMO -- it's bad for new players trying to compete, and great for veteran players who are farming DTs.

@Waster:
I really think you should check your attitude. Do you realize that you come off as a bit arrogant?
Why do you assume that because I don't like something about UR, I must not understand it?
These are two totally unrelated things. I think I understand DTs just fine.

When I tried to fiddle with them after Standard came, I made top 100 or better every time I had about an hour to spend on it. I wrote a post on my guild's message board about how to achieve those results through use of cards that were disproportionately powerful in Standard DTs, as well as a basic DT strategy guide... After that, I had a few guys approach me and say, "thanks, I made top 100 for the first time using your technique."

I know how you feel about perception, but when you perceive things over and over again and you've gathered enough data to consistently be able to use it to your advantage, the word for it is "fact."]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 01:41:15 GMT i think you need to play more DTs to understand it mate. once you understand DT more... please have a look at your proposal again. trust me... there is something glaring thing about it (actually there are several)... i know exactly what deck id use to win DTs under your proposed changes. experienced DT players will see it too within 3 seconds or less of reading it. those who cant... well they'll find a reason to hate on it im sure. i can also see the list of gripes people will have under your proposed system. mate grind some DTs, trust me it will be good for you. and you will see that DTs are actually quite newbie friendly for those wanting to get rich. top 150 DT is definitely much easier for a noob than lets say 1200 ELO for a noob.
no point comparing it to other tourneys.. its not the same. cause i could easily come up with something like... shots on goal in a hockey or football game, or speed dating... yes 50% can beat 100%

posting only stats or answers to questions on this thread from now on]]>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:38:37 GMT
All I am saying is that this game should not degenerate into a contest of who's been here longer. If it does, the game will be unattractive to new players for obvious reasons, and old players will leave sooner or later. I hope you can understand that this is not a good approach.

You're completely right -- there are several ways to win DTs. That's because some people are playing chess and some people are playing dodge ball! Not everyone has the same information, and just the fact that someone with a 50% win rate can "beat" someone with a 100% win rate is a good indicator of how uneven things are. Have you ever heard of any other tournament setting where that can be true?

I am not suggesting any kind of lottery. I am suggesting that UR should ideally focus more on skill (that is, being able to win a match against an opponent with a deck that has a similar star count, because you made better strategic decisions) and less on seniority (that is, winning because you drew your Jackie Cr and your opponent does not own a Jackie Cr, or because you've been here long enough to figure out some obscure game rule that isn't introduced to you when you start playing.)]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 21:07:42 GMT the rules for DT are out there... .they are not hard to find. a genius player should have no problem finding them and playing to them.

sorry i dont see a system that rewards casual players equally as devoted players.... i dont get that at all.... that would be a broken system. we might as well just lottery everything out... not good for long term health of any game.

if " mediocre player that builds his deck to get the most advantageous matchups" was so simple... then everyone would be winning DTs.... but they dont. Its amazing when good DT players publish DT decks and it gets copied by tons of people with no clue how to use it....

You do realize there are several approaches to winning DTs right???? each one plays at a different speed (some are faster than others) and each one needs to be aiming for a certain win rate (some need to be close to 100%, some can get away with just above 50%).

DT is a race... it doesnt matter if i have better technique than Usain Bolt... but in UR, at least any newb can actually beat the "Usain Bolts' of UR for a step or two... but will still lose (and should still lose) the race given the discrepancy in skill.

truth.. whether or not we like to hear it or not]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 20:50:26 GMT
the repeated matches is likely the matchmaker not being able to find suitable opponents... ive had the same opponent 3 times out of 10 matches before in small DTs.

@zoid....
sorry its not a car man... car breaks you die. UR breaks... you can come up with something to improve it.... world and life continues.

i think we are way beyond the simple broken or not broken question zoid. we have a few examples of it breaking for sure... and a lot of examples where it is likely broken (but we are not sure). so we have a few options, 1) quit 2) say its broken and throw it at UR and say fix it or 3) do something productive and figure out when and how it is breaking and point it out to UR

your 12 star to 14.5 star difference is well within the realm of the matchmaking rules, especially if you are winning.

and if you are seeing that with 12 star average you keep running into 14 stars.... then run 14 star average and see if you run into higher starred decks. It is an impossibility that everyone would be running into higher star decks on average... someone is obviously playing against the low star decks.

there is a distinct possibility that DTs are heavily loaded with high star decks.... with all the unpenalized power cards out there this is a real possibility. UR should have these stats.... If there is a overpopulation of high star decks out there... then it is no surprise that lower star decks are more likely to get overwhelmed by them more often. I am starting to think that this is what is happening.

Keep the numbers coming in .]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 20:36:56 GMT
Maybe the best fix to what I've been complaining about regarding the general DT philosophy would just be to put all of the bonus stats somewhere easily accessible? If the end-game summary screen could do a good job of breaking down where the points come from, win or lose, using that data to your advantage would be fair. A mode that rewards quick thinking is great, a mode that rewards the few players who can follow a magical set of clues to wherever it is on the site that all of the DT bonus stuff is explained, is not great.]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 20:23:11 GMT I never had any complaints regarding ELO, other than "don't ruin it by imposing Standard upon it." That mode has always managed to be fair, IMO. There were no game-breaking bans, there were no ridiculous rules that you had to search the entire site over to figure out how they might affect your score (okay, not counting the daily ELO penalty for not playing...)

I guess I don't really understand what motivates the developers to try to steer players towards less balanced modes of play.]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 20:11:03 GMT
"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.]]>Mon, 07 May 2012 15:24:02 GMT
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.]]>