|
|
Post by Tuism on Jan 3, 2012 16:12:12 GMT -5
Wow it's SO irritating coming up against decks like your own. I wonder if this is some crazy experiment Ubisoft is doing to make the matchups more "fair".
Sometimes my Borgia Tower/Art Gallery deck runs into regular blue weenies. Most times they run into Pan/RI boredom decks.
I just built a Forgotten Temple deck for kicks, and managed to pull one off. Run a Quick Study and lo and behold it's a Forgotten Temple deck.
It kinda forces you to build to beat yourself, I guess that's one way of training players up. But can we not have it EVERY game? Popular decks are just getting mirrors everywhere (I imagine thieves are ONLY playing thieves, cos I got to play some even though I don't have a single thief. It's spill over)
I guess it also forces you to make less common deck builds...
|
|
|
|
Post by Raphael Majere on Jan 3, 2012 23:33:02 GMT -5
i think it's true.
The system tries to match up mirror decks or at least, to the closest degree.
Flawed system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jan 4, 2012 2:09:09 GMT -5
By gods I think I cracked it - it's not an exact matching system! Bear with me - it didn't make sense to me for it to be an exact matching system, because this is how the online auto-matching works: 1) first you wait for someone to play 2) then you pick your decks 3) then you pick your starting hand So at best, it matches you with someone who's been playing the same deck as you did, probably the last time. That means if you pick another deck, you'll possibly play the same deck (or closest match) that you played last time!! We think it's always the same deck cos we always play the same deck continuously. I still am testing the theory out, if anyone else care to test it out?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jan 4, 2012 2:29:48 GMT -5
I dont feel tis like that. I face blue decks everytime, just the spalsh color is different. And it doesnt matter what color I play.
Pan/RI is ok. At a tourney, it would not win the competition, but eliminate any deck that cant kill in 2 days or counter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jan 4, 2012 2:58:20 GMT -5
Then maybe the auto-matching matches you with people with similar deck setup - which is, I guess, an indication of your strength. Then it tries to match someone who played the same deck as you last time. Then it's just up to you picking your deck That's been my experience so far, I alternate between two decks, and up to 60% of the time my theory works. Out of like 7 matches so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jan 4, 2012 3:11:49 GMT -5
I think it a perfect random cause I see absolutely no reason to have such a matchmaking mecanism. Specially when this matchmaking is the one from Gamecenter and not the one from Ubisoft. You're just facing Blue decks because everybody plays blue. When I play my non-blue decks, I'm paired against blue decks anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jan 4, 2012 5:15:16 GMT -5
I've played so many Borgia art decks when I play my own one, and when I switched to forgotten temple (first time try) I got matched with another. The coincidence is too great! I think the game center matchmaking is not entirely independent of Ubi... I think they're experimenting with some kind of matchmaking system that is not simply based on games played (current leader board) and if understood correctly, should encourage a blogger variety of decks. But hey let me keep experimenting |
|
|
|
Post by crazygambit on Jan 5, 2012 8:41:57 GMT -5
I think it a perfect random cause I see absolutely no reason to have such a matchmaking mecanism. Specially when this matchmaking is the one from Gamecenter and not the one from Ubisoft. You're just facing Blue decks because everybody plays blue. When I play my non-blue decks, I'm paired against blue decks anyway. It depends on when you're playing and if there are enough players to have an exact copy of your deck. In new year's day I played a lot and since there were a lot of other people online, the system found eerily close decks everytime. EVERYTIME and I was changing decks every 2 or 3 matches. So the delay theory is not true, or wasn't that day. This things are fluid, since I don't think it's been this way since the start. If you play at 3am there are a lot less decks to find a mirror from so sometimes they won't even match your 2 colors. It's very rare that I get the message that my opponent is selecting a sequence, but it does happen occasionally. Not sure why. I think today it's less agressive than it was on January 1st. It's probably a parameter they can tweak server side, so trying to find a pattern might prove useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jan 5, 2012 13:19:10 GMT -5
I just don't see a good reason why it should be like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jan 5, 2012 13:40:18 GMT -5
Something is definatly weird. When I play my blue deck i meet ppl with counters slow decks and agent destruction.
When I play a romulus site deck, I meet decks with many anti site card *really alot* The ppl are allways left with allmost no card in hand, so I know they dont have an agent destruction then.
If I play mass nobles, enemies have mass agent destruction. Its really odd.
And wow just meet pontificial deck. Didnt see them at all with my blue deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jan 5, 2012 13:42:13 GMT -5
Hah! You just faced me. Luck of the draw. I typically carry about 3-5 anti site and 5-7 anti agent. I drew only anti-site, no anti-agent. You won anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazygambit on Jan 5, 2012 13:50:48 GMT -5
I just don't see a good reason why it should be like that. They could be testing a system that measures the strenght of your deck and use it to match people with each other that way. It actually might be a better system than ELO if implemented correctly. The problem with ELO in a CCG is that my performance level greatly depends on the deck I'm using (unlike chess, where starting pieces are always the same). So attempting to pair people based on the relative strenght of their deck might be a really good idea, IF they can get it to work properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jan 5, 2012 13:55:22 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it is a trick of the mind. To have the scores we do we play a lot of games, and I mean a LOT of games. We notice the unusual and forget the normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazygambit on Jan 5, 2012 14:20:51 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it is a trick of the mind. To have the scores we do we play a lot of games, and I mean a LOT of games. We notice the unusual and forget the normal. No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. At least on January 1st I'm absolutely, positively sure it happened 100% of the time, since I took special note of it. And then started changing through all my decks to see if I'd get a mirror. If you've looked at the beginner's thread with the statistical analysis on your chances on getting templar cards being 50/50 or not, you'll know that getting a mirror 100% of the time in about 20 games can be easily ruled out as being chance. There's definitely something going on, though I don't think it looks for exact mirrors anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jan 5, 2012 14:31:09 GMT -5
Maybe they stopped testing? I just haven't run into it, though I was on the road Jan 1.
It certainly wasn't the case for rancord vs me, unless the draw engine is tied into it somehow, which just doesn't make sense.
|
|
