KI could develop an algorithm that monitors a person's win/loss activity against different ranks and levels, using that information to help improve future matchups. PvP algorithm basically just links whether you win or lose to player attributes such as
the spells you currently have
your current level
your win/loss record
the opponent's win/loss record (e.g., long ranking down streak)
what abilities you have access to (e.g., critical, critical block, shadow magic)
An algorithm that considers these datapoints would automatically make a pointed inquiries like whether the PvP matchup involved abilities that characters did not share (e.g., critical rating vs. no critical, shadow magic vs. no shadow magic), then record the win/loss data linked to player attributes.
In English, this means that if your wizard is a grandmaster level and tends to lose to players 30 levels higher who use shadow magic, a resulting database records your loss with regard to that type of player specifically, and makes it less likely you will face them again.
KI suffers from the same "Big Data" problem as the rest of the world, and algorithms like this help to sort out the madness. It would have several potential benefits:
Match-ups become more tailored to an array of characteristics your wizard possesses vs. those he/she does not.
Players might get 2 or 3 unfair matches before finding their perfect fit, but then the algorithm "learns" not to make outrageous matchups again.
Such an algorithm can be resistant to tactics like ranking down, as long as streaks of quick, intentional losses are considered in the algorithm. (Then people who rank down are still paired with the cohort they're supposed to be facing anyway, making down-ranking a lose-only strategy.)
Since it isn't a grand, unrealistic overhaul of PvP like some suggest, but rather an improvement of what already exists, it shouldn't cost as much to code or implement. In all likelihood, it would still cost multiple thousands of dollars for senior coding staff. Then again, that is fairly cheap compared to profits KI can pull down from a fairer, fully functioning, respectable PvP interface.
KI could develop an algorithm that monitors a person's win/loss activity against different ranks and levels, using that information to help improve future matchups. PvP algorithm basically just links whether you win or lose to player attributes such as
the spells you currently have
your current level
your win/loss record
the opponent's win/loss record (e.g., long ranking down streak)
what abilities you have access to (e.g., critical, critical block, shadow magic)
An algorithm that considers these datapoints would automatically make a pointed inquiries like whether the PvP matchup involved abilities that characters did not share (e.g., critical rating vs. no critical, shadow magic vs. no shadow magic), then record the win/loss data linked to player attributes.
In English, this means that if your wizard is a grandmaster level and tends to lose to players 30 levels higher who use shadow magic, a resulting database records your loss with regard to that type of player specifically, and makes it less likely you will face them again.
KI suffers from the same "Big Data" problem as the rest of the world, and algorithms like this help to sort out the madness. It would have several potential benefits:
Match-ups become more tailored to an array of characteristics your wizard possesses vs. those he/she does not.
Players might get 2 or 3 unfair matches before finding their perfect fit, but then the algorithm "learns" not to make outrageous matchups again.
Such an algorithm can be resistant to tactics like ranking down, as long as streaks of quick, intentional losses are considered in the algorithm. (Then people who rank down are still paired with the cohort they're supposed to be facing anyway, making down-ranking a lose-only strategy.)
Since it isn't a grand, unrealistic overhaul of PvP like some suggest, but rather an improvement of what already exists, it shouldn't cost as much to code or implement. In all likelihood, it would still cost multiple thousands of dollars for senior coding staff. Then again, that is fairly cheap compared to profits KI can pull down from a fairer, fully functioning, respectable PvP interface.
This... well this actually would work really well if it went off without a hitch. And you're right, modifying existing code wouldn't take as long or cost as much as completely making new code. The only thing that I could see going wrong with this is the debugging process and even then that would only be a matter of time until they got things going right to test it out in the test realm. Heck this would even get me to try PVP again. I was even about to make a suggestion to improve it then realized you'd already addressed it(nearly missed that you had said less likely instead of never). All in all this is a fantastic idea and I hope it gets implemented.
Totally not needed and makes no sense why you want would it. You want to win matches by only getting matched to only people that are easy to beat. That's just pointless.
Totally not needed and makes no sense why you want would it. You want to win matches by only getting matched to only people that are easy to beat. That's just pointless.
Not needed? Debatable.
Makes no sense? No, the rationale is clearly stated and echoed in a high percentage of recent PvP forum posts: people need to have their matchups improved. Here's a possible way to do it.
Want to win easy matches? Who doesn't? But that's not the aim of the algorithm. The aim is to reduce the frequency of unfair matchups, of which the current breadth of examples is nauseating.
Makes no sense? No, the rationale is clearly stated and echoed in a high percentage of recent PvP forum posts: people need to have their matchups improved. Here's a possible way to do it.
Want to win easy matches? Who doesn't? But that's not the aim of the algorithm. The aim is to reduce the frequency of unfair matchups, of which the current breadth of examples is nauseating.
By only matching you with people who have worse records than you? That makes it fair? The current matches are a lot more fair than your supposed "fix". The game should never tailor matchups to what a player wins or loses against. That's just stupid. That's fixing the outcome, also it cannot work. You'd wait forever for this so-called "fair" matchup that somehow magically matches BOTH players preferred winning/losing streak data.
By only matching you with people who have worse records than you? That makes it fair? The current matches are a lot more fair than your supposed "fix". The game should never tailor matchups to what a player wins or loses against. That's just stupid. That's fixing the outcome, also it cannot work. You'd wait forever for this so-called "fair" matchup that somehow magically matches BOTH players preferred winning/losing streak data.
You're the one reading "worse records" into this. That's never what I suggested. What I suggested is that PvP stop patently allowing unfair matchups with players who have large ability gaps due to spells, levels, etc. It can all be set to parameter. The resulting matchup isn't someone who is worse than you. It is someone who doesn't possess those same advantages over you (e.g., Shadow Magic, 550 critical rating, etc.).
The game already tailors matchups to what a player wins or loses against. It just does it badly. What I am proposing is a more articulated system. My projection is that it would be far more popular and would 1) be interesting for new joiners, 2) encourage disillusioned players to return, 3) cause minimal adverse impact to players who have already advanced in the PvP system.
You're the one reading "worse records" into this. That's never what I suggested. What I suggested is that PvP stop patently allowing unfair matchups with players who have large ability gaps due to spells, levels, etc. It can all be set to parameter. The resulting matchup isn't someone who is worse than you. It is someone who doesn't possess those same advantages over you (e.g., Shadow Magic, 550 critical rating, etc.).
The game already tailors matchups to what a player wins or loses against. It just does it badly. What I am proposing is a more articulated system. My projection is that it would be far more popular and would 1) be interesting for new joiners, 2) encourage disillusioned players to return, 3) cause minimal adverse impact to players who have already advanced in the PvP system.
"In English, this means that if your wizard is a grandmaster level and tends to lose to players 30 levels higher who use shadow magic, a resulting database records your loss with regard to that type of player specifically, and makes it less likely you will face them again."
How is it that I'm reading into this? You flat out SAID it. If you lose to certain factors, you will be less likely to face them. That is tailoring it to try to make you win. It's STUPID. What you call unfair matches, other people call sour grapes from you losing. The matching system already does set matches based on rank and level. Low level pvp players just seem to think it's "fair" for them to coast without fighting high level low rank players. Your "solution" isn't a solution to any real problem it's just an excuse to give low level pvp ranks easy matches.
