Skill rating change
Having had recent bad luck with the match making system, I’ve ended up going from Aurodium 1 down to 4. I’m a little under 6M GP, and every player I’ve gone up against in the last 2 events has been 7....
Forum Discussion
The numbers going down sequentially for matches I think is just an artifact of the models they tried to copy in making the new system. If you think of convergence in a Bayesian model estimation or even just estimation procedures for some other computer adaptive algorithm, you will see changes in rating start to get smaller and smaller as the estimate converges on the "true" SR. I can't actually say why they have the numbers they picked, or why it's so static for everybody if this is indeed the case, but there you are.
One thing I DID come to realize about this system is that it helps prevent rematches. If you beat an opponent in one round, and then you lose the next while your previous opponent wins, you will still not have the same SR. So in order to get a rematch with an opponent, you need to have a specific sequence of wins and losses for both of you, or else just some how wind up in a very small pool of SR ranges.
As for having SR adjusted based on power differences, the measurement nerd in me would be fascinated by trying to come up with a latent variable model that would take into account GP differences-- but there are so many other variables to include, such as participation and mods. You could say something like mods is an artifact of skill, but roster management skill can also be said to be different from (albeit correlated with) battle skill. So now maybe you are thinking of having two skill ratings, and are looking at multidimensional models just to try and disentangle some of these variables you are using. But ultimately, setting up some of these models (because they would have to be estimated from observed data first) might prove to be beyond the scope of what the company wants to do for this. It would be a model specific to this one game, and thus probably not appealing enough to commit resources to.
Whatever GP-based model they MAY want to implement might just end up with some drawbacks that are similar in magnitude to those of the current system. Namely, one issue with using a raw GP difference is that not all of your GP is used due to the limitations on teams. I have relic toons that don't see the light of day in GAC even with full clears on my part. So GP is an imperfect measurement of the difficulty of a battle. It's one of the reasons why when GP WAS being used for matchmaking, it was only a selection of the top units based on division. Maybe you could say the SR adjustment could also be based on top 80 or whatever, but again, they would still have to do the research into how that affects the shuffling of rosters. Whatever they have going on now (aside from shrinking K1) seems to be mostly what they want. I've found that my own longterm win-loss ratios seem to fall within a reasonable range of the touted 50%.
The game mode DOES reward you more banners for undersized wins, so in a sense, you could say it already does reward you for taking down your opponent while using less GP. Underdogging IS rewarded, it is just at the individual battle level, and not the whole-roster level.
One thing I DID come to realize about this system is that it helps prevent rematches. If you beat an opponent in one round, and then you lose the next while your previous opponent wins, you will still not have the same SR. So in order to get a rematch with an opponent, you need to have a specific sequence of wins and losses for both of you, or else just some how wind up in a very small pool of SR ranges.
As for having SR adjusted based on power differences, the measurement nerd in me would be fascinated by trying to come up with a latent variable model that would take into account GP differences-- but there are so many other variables to include, such as participation and mods. You could say something like mods is an artifact of skill, but roster management skill can also be said to be different from (albeit correlated with) battle skill. So now maybe you are thinking of having two skill ratings, and are looking at multidimensional models just to try and disentangle some of these variables you are using. But ultimately, setting up some of these models (because they would have to be estimated from observed data first) might prove to be beyond the scope of what the company wants to do for this. It would be a model specific to this one game, and thus probably not appealing enough to commit resources to.
Whatever GP-based model they MAY want to implement might just end up with some drawbacks that are similar in magnitude to those of the current system. Namely, one issue with using a raw GP difference is that not all of your GP is used due to the limitations on teams. I have relic toons that don't see the light of day in GAC even with full clears on my part. So GP is an imperfect measurement of the difficulty of a battle. It's one of the reasons why when GP WAS being used for matchmaking, it was only a selection of the top units based on division. Maybe you could say the SR adjustment could also be based on top 80 or whatever, but again, they would still have to do the research into how that affects the shuffling of rosters. Whatever they have going on now (aside from shrinking K1) seems to be mostly what they want. I've found that my own longterm win-loss ratios seem to fall within a reasonable range of the touted 50%.
The game mode DOES reward you more banners for undersized wins, so in a sense, you could say it already does reward you for taking down your opponent while using less GP. Underdogging IS rewarded, it is just at the individual battle level, and not the whole-roster level.
