I have a real problem with the matchmaking. I have spent some money on the game but consider myself an average player. I am currently rank 20 but am consistently placed in matches against level 45-50 players with made decks I can only very rarely beat. Now, I understand these are the people paying big money for the game and need to be appeased, but there needs to be a better way than throwing us at them. Perhaps you don't lose stars if your opponent is more than 10 levels about you? Otherwise, I can't see a reason to spend more money on the game. I didn't come to play a Hearthstone clone.

No I am not. I am rather suggesting that your problem occours because lvl 50 is so inflated because you cannot loose any ranks if you have a bad streak. They tried to fixed that by making the timeframe to reach 50 smaller but its actually still very inflated in taco and ultimate.This * up matchmaking, makes taco feel worse than it should because everyone and their unlce is 50 and so on and so forth.What I am trying to tell you is that if they wanted to adjust the matchmaking a VAST amounf of Ultimate and taco had to be redistributed over rank 30 and up (or something like that) and everything thats now 30+ has to move down 10 ranks flat.This would set the Brickwall you hit with a lower skill level much lower and the outcome is almost the same. you are low 15 (which would be slightly harder to reach than it is now, to be fair) and face a lvl 28 who was previously 40-ish. So unless we get a much larger amount of players with different skill levels it makes no sense at all to come up with a complicated way to fix matchmaking. I am still in favor of it because I feel like lvl 40 should feel like an accomplishment as well and be more than just a filter for lvl 50 for the guys that cannot invest the time (which it currently is)

AHA! the "unfair matchmaking" thread quickly evolved into "ban cliquepeas". Thats not the topic here. At all. We have a WAY to long thread about that one. Go there if you want to rant about cliquepeas.also; you cannot be STUCK in UL. Its the GOAL. LITERALY ULTIMATE.about your balancing concerns... as I mentioned pretty often by now; zombies are significantly harder to LEARN and to executre flawlessly. I give you guys that Plants are easier to play. But thats a matter of how straight forward the gameplay is. Not how broken the Plants are overall (I should mention that I agree that cliquepeas are a problem but Zombies sure have problematic cards as well).It is incredible how childish and extreme the measurements are Zombie players come up with just to make their game easier.ban cliquepease, counterplay for freeze, combo is way to good now that plants have the dominant combo (regarding heartichoke which doesn´t seem to much of a concern anymore, I guess?))suggestions like that are not constructive AT ALL because they are not viable at all.if you are at the "gain a star, loose a star"-state you are probably EXACTLY where you are supposed to be in ranked. The uneven distribution of plant and zombie players are not only because plants are "op". as mentioned before they are easier to learn so probably more appealing to a casual player. Plants are also the "good guys" so there is some appeal, too. On top of all that Plants have currently a /slightly/ stronger metagame.....Which is fine. perfect balance is not a thing and is incredibly boring in the first place. That all accumulates to a point where Plants are generally more popular.As a reference. Plants were also more popular when Valk prof was the dominant deck and back then most plant players cried their eyes out and the deck slowly dissappeared without much change to the cards. naturally. so please don´t be so nuclear about a card that will loose the focus of the meta at one point anyway. It might need a slight nerf but banning it is just downright childish.

Player pool always shift based on meta. Current meta is favored plant (heal loop, flower synergy, clique peas), so many players will play as plants. The current zombie players now are dominated by 'hardcore' and 'challenging' players, because they fight most of the strong meta from plants. i personally agree that current situation really not suitable for new players because they lack most of strong cards that many old players have.

I don't know that I would remove the loss penalty, as that would just be even more incentive to Concede right away. Maybe instead there should be a win bonus if you beat someone far higher than you? Like, if you beat someone in a higher league, you get an extra star for each league higher than you they are? That may incentivize people to keep playing against higher opponents!

@Gromi7 wrote:That's another good point. When a lower ranked played matches up against a player a class or more above them, they have little incentive to play especially if they are only one or two stars into their current rank. I suspect many people concede in an effort to find a more even match. If the algorithm chooses to match such players the lower ranked player should not be penalized for a loss.While I hated playing players many leagues or levels above me, it gave me insight into how they were playing. Often painful, it gives you valuable experience if you pay attention.BPRD

Unfair matchmaking | EA Forums

29 Replies

Anonymous
8 years ago
Approved
Player pool always shift based on meta. Current meta is favored plant (heal loop, flower synergy, clique peas), so many players will play as plants. The current zombie players now are dominated by 'hardcore' and 'challenging' players, because they fight most of the strong meta from plants. i personally agree that current situation really not suitable for new players because they lack most of strong cards that many old players have.
daalnnii
8 years ago
Hmmm... You could start a new account in hearthstone and tell us how far you get without paying money...
Gromi7
8 years ago
Daalnnii, I think you misread my post.
Azombioso
8 years ago
I agree with zdarcon. It is really noticeable the lack of players on the Zombie side. I also think that most of the best and old players play on that side so you generally find tougher opponents there.

I guess that if EA made the zombie side more attractive, lots of players would start playing there, giving the rest of the plant players more diversity in the opponents they face.
BPRDHB
Hero (Retired)
8 years ago
I find there is better (equal level) match making when I play a zombie. Plants, its a crapshot to play equal, way lower, way higher.
BPRD
Gromi7
8 years ago
I suppose I just find it odd the game has such difficulty finding similarly matched players. Of course, I don't know the player base. It feels like my suggestion would allow for a greater disparity in player decks without unfairly penalizing the lower level players.
Anonymous
8 years ago
Approved
In ranked it should first match badges then rank imo.
I've got a diamond league badge and am currently at level 31 in diamond league. Every opponent I come up against has either a taco or ultimate badge.
Now I could make it close taco with some of the decks I've got if I'm up against other diamond leaguers, I even beat taco and ultimates regularly (though not enough) but to be consistently put up against players with far superior decks really sucks.
I even feel sorry for the lower ranked players who I go up against, often not taking a single hit.
Unless I'm 3 stars into a rank I often concede depending on the hero.
Gromi7
8 years ago
That's another good point. When a lower ranked played matches up against a player a class or more above them, they have little incentive to play especially if they are only one or two stars into their current rank. I suspect many people concede in an effort to find a more even match. If the algorithm chooses to match such players the lower ranked player should not be penalized for a loss.
jj48car
8 years ago
I don't know that I would remove the loss penalty, as that would just be even more incentive to Concede right away. Maybe instead there should be a win bonus if you beat someone far higher than you? Like, if you beat someone in a higher league, you get an extra star for each league higher than you they are? That may incentivize people to keep playing against higher opponents!
AphidOfDeath
8 years ago
@jj48car wrote:
...Maybe instead there should be a win bonus if you beat someone far higher than you? ...That may incentivize people to keep playing against higher opponents!
Totally agree. It's really hard to sell people on "you learn by playing, even moreso when you're losing", so offering an actually tangible reward is a carrot PopCap/EA should adopt.