After the (chaotic) release of the Standard mode and the first feedbacks, we have taken decisions on several things we want to let your know. We think you will be satisfied with the future improvements we will add first.
• Improvement of the quickbattle system in DTs.
We already made corrections, it seems that the small decks vs big decks problem is far less met. We will keep on working on it until the partition T1/T2 is not a problem any more.
• Penalties on some characters in DTs.
The first 2 points penalties per character are already operational and you can find the list here: http://www.urban-rivals.com/help/?category=9-0
Except for Leader, for the moment there are no penalized Standard characters. It may change, we give ourselves time to analyse DTs.
• DTs divided in two.
Finally we won’t alternate DT’s. We will let you have two DTs at the same time, 1 Standard, 1 Extended. With two different rankings.
• Length of a DT shorten but increase of its frequency.
DTs length will decrease from 1 hour to 45 minutes with a 15 minutes break between each tournament and then you can play again. It means there will be 24 Standard DTs and 24 Extended DTs per day.
To prevent abuses, a limitation of 8 DT credits per day and player will be added (you will receive all other rewards if you play more than 8 DTs).
• Survivor Standard and Deathmatch Standard rooms.
They will be open soon, we are working on an update of the flash game.
Questions you may want to ask:
• The number of CR remain at 5. It might change in the future.
• A PM will be sent to you each evening if you made a top 150 during the day so as to inform you if you have won a collector (or not).
• The timer will be reduced from 60 to 50 seconds again.
Those that are complaining that the opponent selector isn't working are literally only looking at half the data. @Meelosh's deck is a good example of Fraggle's comment about 'unbalanced' decks. The screen shot depicts the worst case scenario we have all faced where our four lowest starred cards happen to be drawn. The deck is called 25s allstar/upper so therefore I assume 9 stars were drawn and 16 were not (this assumes an 8-card deck). That means either best case the remaining were four 4* and the odds are 1 in 70 you draw 9 stars or worst case the remaining were two 5*, one 4*, and one 2* and the odds are 1 in 17.5. The same applies to @Gangstabard's deck. The four highest could have been drawn with similar odds or higher given that Fraggle reports there could still be a 5-6* difference in total stars/deck. With the thousands of matches per DT, the chances someone will be unhappy with a particular match are guaranteed even with a perfectly operating opponent selector. @wasteoftime if you have a means to be heard by UR admins I would suggest that a simple solution to helping people feel better about the opponent selector is to report the factors (avg stars, win rate, deck rate) in the battle history.
If you have the time, I (along with a lot of other players) would love an update on the matchmaker situation.
There have been numerous threads to discuss it, and a few players have made an effort to gather some data. There is a lot of concern that players with any kind of decent winrate are usually facing decks with a higher star count. In some cases, the star difference between decks is definitely greater than 6. There has also been some concern regarding what this does to DTs -- from what you've said, for example, one can assume that making a new deck for a DT would put strong players at an advantage. As your winrate there would be 0 for a number of games, you would presumably have a better chance to be matched against weaker players.
Furthermore, regardless of the math behind it, quite a few players feel that the current system is creating frustrating, un-enjoyable matches rather often.
It would be good to hear whether our complaints are being heard or not, and whether there are any plans to make changes. Thanks in advance!
@collectem_BzT and for general reference, reposting this from the other thread:
"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."
Please consider the fact that when I say "The lowest star count that deck could possibly have..." I am referring to the very unlikely situation that this deck has 4 2* cards that didn't get drawn. Most likely that deck has 25* or more, against my 16 star deck.
Here's a theory that I have... Because there are more bad and average players than great ones, and the match selector gives a fair bit of sway to things like win/loss ratio, a great player will eventually start running into worse players armed with MUCH stronger cards to compensate for their lack of skill. Instead of creating genuinely fair matches, this system creates "handicapped" matches, which are frustrating for players.
Back in the other thread, Waster mentioned that the math doesn't make sense, that it's impossible for "everyone" to be fighting higher * decks. I think the most likely explanation, given the data that we have, is that you only get matched with lower * decks regularly if your win rate pretty abysmal -- based on my observations, I'm guessing significantly below 50%.
I agree that the situation you post equates to at least a 7* difference best case. Fraggle says the max/min difference is 'around' 5-6* not capped at 6*. But I disagree with 'very unlikely situation' sentiment. I was merely pointing out that the odds of drawing highest or lowest starred set of four in an eight card deck is 1 in 70. So to get an apparently disproportionate draw is not that uncommon especially if the decks have many 5* and 2* cards. The odds of drawing the highest starred 4 cards vs the opponent's lowest starred 4 cards is at worst 1 in 4900 which will happen every DT. It's just not that apparent nor uncommon if decks have more 3* and 4* cards.
Also, keep in mind Fraggle points out that the winrate and deckrate variables could be as wide as 0.5. Which equates to an additional 4 star spread in deck totals each. In top of that the entire equation has a tolerance of 'say 0.25' which adds another 2 star deck spread. It seems that means that the avg stars could be as wide as 1.25 have a winrate of -0.5 have a deckrate of -0.5 for a total of 0.25. 1.25 spread is a 10 star spread for 8 cards.
I would rather wait a few extra seconds to make all the tolerances tighter and keep the avg star in each deck as close as possible and ditch the winrate and deckrate variables altogether.
In the meantime, posting the data on battle history would ensure that we felt we had an equal opportunity in each match to compete and would document these wide spreads.
People play two star decks because they give you more points for winning. It's not about the challenge, it's about exploiting the flawed system. I think that it's funny that they ban and penalize cards and drastically change the match-maker, but they don't dare think about retooling the point system.
Ugh am I the only one who can't play any deck lower stared deck that contains any half of uppers, montana, nightmare, junks or roots in extended DT without running into Survivor T2 kind of decks? And to add insult to injury, not only do I get to face 18 star hands VS my 12 stars hand, I also get penalties on the characters that had to side in to have any shot at balancing the odds to my side.
I stopped playing ELO after the changes killed the decks I used to run. Now DTs force em to play 40 star decks if I want to run certain clans, unless I want to be at a disadvantage. Please don't screw DMs or I won't be having any game mode were I can actually play for fun without being frustrated about never having a chance to win nor having the stress of knowing that if I lose the first round of a game I might as well just press the quit match button and all the work I spent the last 30 minutes building up is completely lost
I miss the times when UR used to be fun...
Firstly the 5-6 maximum difference means this is a cap. But lets say it has been changed. Now as I have poineted out in other threads there are three parts to this selector. THe first is your deck size which has been quoted by fraggle as allowing upto about a 2 star difference. The rest is on the players and decks win rates which means that in reality the maximum difference should not be met as no one and no decks have a 100% win rate over any period of time whichshould if UR developers have done their math correctly come to the 5-6 stars, although it doesn't look like it in the play.
If we look at the math of this match selector, I only look at my opponents hand as my star count is irrelavent as I know my total deck star count. On Wednesday I ran a 26 star deck. Over the course of 22 fights I faced 16 opponents with 16 stars or more (8 hadd 18 star hands) in their hand, with the lowest hand I faced being 12 stars (So none of these 4 cards at 2 stars that we here about) The chances that they all drew their best hand is pretty much non existant.
If you doubled my opponents average hand star count to get an average deck size it was more than 6 more than my own. As for deck wn rates, I don't have any of the real monsters or cards like ambre in my deck whilst I faced decks hands such as:
Bloodh, Scubb,Selma, Tyd
Hikiyousan, Kirk, Oraya, Wee Lee
Fabio, Tino, Kolos, George
Hugo, Askai, Greow, Scotty
Glenn, Hefty, Herman, Oxen
Not week decks!
I then looked at my opponents win rates in this run and most were good enough to be not to far from my own.
So from this we can see that the chances of a best hand scenario making the real gap as low as six is so close to zero that we can ignore it
That from player and observation of what my opponents drew that I cannot have a big lead over them in either win rate catagory and therefore the actual difference should be nearer to 2 stars maximum rather than 6 anyway.
From this we can easly see that my friend Ghelas, and the many other posters on this and many other threads are correct and the deck selector is very broke.