New Updates PVP Algorithm


#41

Just to show how HH’s own algorithm works


10* Panzer Plat 3Stripes & 5* Keel Gold, makes a difference 11,8k(!) Strength, punishment 12,2K


10* Panzer Plat 3 Stripes & 5* Keel Silver, makes a difference 12,3k(!) Strength, punishment 11,3K (!)


10* Hardscope, Ryker, Maven Plat 3Stripes & 3* Steele Bronze 1 Stripe, makes a difference 14k(!) Strength, punishment 23K (!)


#42


#43

@Guest - While I normally feel your suggestions are very well-reasoned, I don’t think this is a good solution.

By addressing in this manner the individual value of each hero, you would be acknowledging (and therefore accepting) that some heroes are simply more beneficial than others. In this way, you’re making the implicit declaration that the game does not need to be balanced.

Ideally, every hero should be equally viable in their own role. By punishing heroes with a high usage rate, you’re defeating that fact. Furthermore, your suggestion ignores the fact that team-building is a huge part of the game. By changing a heroes value based on the other heroes in the squad, you’re taking away this integral piece of strategy in the game. The end result of what you’re describing would be that picking 5 completely random heroes from your lineup would be exactly as effective as carefully choosing 5 heroes that synergize well and complement each other.

The solution to the matchmaking mess should not be to address symptoms; it needs to address the root cause. Just my two cents.


#44

Thanks @Papa_Marsh, I admit there are quite a few drawbacks to the idea I put forward there.
I agree that I would be accepting that hero A is more or less useful than hero B and that’s a bummer because it means, for campaign and non-PvP, there is little reason to upgrade hero B vs hero A. Strike against the idea on that grounds. For PvP, however, I don’t think this particular issue applies. Specifically, because the power values would now reflect the actual value of the hero, hero B would actually be more viable than previously. If you have a 5th slot open, you could put the ‘better’ of two heroes (hero A) as you currently would, when they have the same power value, or you could put the weaker of the two because it has a far lower hit to your overall team power and you might be able to use that hero better than the average player.
As for team composition, I think I may have been unclear. The power value of a hero does not change based on the team they are on. At its simplest version, the proposal is simply a monthly calibration of hero value based on how often a hero is used (regardless of team comp).

Again, I admit the solution is probably not terribly ideal as is but it was an attempt to shift the large amount of manual work required in seeing which heros and skills need buffs and, crucially, whether they need a buff at each star level or only at the low/med/high end. Even if that work were to be done, the reality is that, in a vacuum, it’s near impossible to tell whether a hero/skill is under/over powered and by how much, which is why it would be such a perfect candidate for a market-based solution since Efficient Market Hypothesis provides such a strong mechanism for identifying value.


#45


punished


#46

What’s wrong with this…? You’re both using horribly unbalanced teams. His is a bit more unbalanced so he is punished a bit more. If you’re trying to suggest that this is some form of flawed matchmaking, you’re doing an absolutely awful job by using this example.


#47

so my 2.4k deference is the same as 5k deference? because i dont get it explain it to me


#48

@darkside87

I’m curious if maybe in this case, it’s just an issue of reading comprehension? It’s been stated multiple times in various forums posts that power is not the only metric for matchmaking. You are being punished for running an imbalanced team. He is being punished ~5% MORE than you, since his team is even more imbalanced.

I don’t know what more there is to explain… When you’re coming across as someone bitter about losing and blame-shifting onto a third party, then there’s not much we can say to get through to you. You were gifted a 5% power advantage over his team and despite ALSO taking advantage of an imbalanced team, you lost. Big deal - get over it and move on. Take responsibility for the loss and stop trying to unfairly blame the system.

There are lots of cases where the matchmaking system fails. This is not one of them.


#49

maybe instead of insulting me and say bitter or whatever just explain as you did thats appreciated i havent been here and i am new to the forum so take it easy because i truly dont understand how the pvp matchmaking realy works. i saw different posts with different opinions some say its stars some say its power and others say its gold plat ranks so everyone says different stuff have me confused


#50

I’m glad my explanation helped clear things up. And if you were offended by my response to the tone you’ve carried in this thread, then I apologize.

Try to keep in mind also that there is going to be natural variability in the algorithm as well since there are a limited a number of people available to match with. Even with everyone running a perfectly balanced team, some matchups will favor you and some will not; that’s simple statistics. Try to avoid using one single example as a way to make your point, since it could simply be natural statistic fluctuation.


#51

thanks for the info that does clear things up and the tone i had in this thread because all assume that i know and just say its perfectly fine no explination why or how it works untill now you explained it perfectly so
much appreciated :+1:


#52

Cheers - My apologies again if that was the case.


#53

Just a reminder that match making is still a big issue that needs to be addressed.


#54