Skip to content

Lady Lilith#11462

← Customer Feedback for Wizards of the Coast

My feedback

5 results found

  1. Algorithm Improvement

    951 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1120 comments  ·  MTG Arena Bugs & Product Suggestions » Product Suggestion  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lady Lilith#11462 commented  · 

    I agree completely. Matchmaking needs to be either completely random OR (and this is more likely a better compromise) a MMR (i.e. Glicko-2 rating) based system exclusively with rankings actually tied directly to that rating (so, therefore, no longer kept hidden of players or even generalized. We need to see our MMR at a glance to know where we stand in competitive games) AND allow us to choose a deck AFTER being matched based on that rating.

    If deck weighting doesn't happen in ranked like it is implied, then there should be zero problem doing that to prove it. Considering we largely think deck-weighting still happens in ranked queues and we generally feel that it's none of the computer's business what decks we are playing with nor the other players (until we start throwing down... then its the other guy's business), choosing a deck after being matched makes more sense. Keep the MMR thing because skill-based matchmaking isn't inherently bad. But! Deck-weighting is only acceptable in non-ranked/Non-competitive queues for the benefit for newer players to the game who really shouldn't be playing in competitive queues if they want to win games while they learn the finer details of MTG. Competitive is for people who actually know what they are doing and, as elitist as it sounds, it DOES pragmatically make sense.

    You encourage more buying to get the cards you need to make decks for competitive queues while not necessarily punishing inexperienced players as long as they utilize the algorithmic training wheels offered by the unranked queue's different matchmaking parameters. It's better for the players, makes the game healthier and fairer, and it's better from a business point of view, too. You DEFINATELY don't wanna punish experienced competitive players for winning, though, and the way the system is working now, it REALLY feels like it is. Winning feels good, but when you start seeing decks which stymie your strategy, even when you change decks because the algorithm currently cares what you are packing and makes a decision of who to pair you with based on what's in the deck, it becomes a punishment. If it isn't happening really (or isn't supposed to at least), then prove it by letting us pick a deck after being matched.

    My personal experience which led me to conclude the game's algorithm reads your deck in ranked had ALOT to do with an incident in my first Mythic rank achievement. While I was in Diamond Rank, I had been using a Lurrus Dimir Rogues mill deck and had been VERY successful with it. I lost enough games due to variance and this was totally acceptable and normal until about Diamond rank. the vat majority of my games consistantly began running Gaea's Blessing (which is a strong anti-mill safeguard card that pretty much defeats mill decks outright). I started getting angry with this because I was losing my momentum and started to suspect something wasn't right. That's when I added Tormod's Crypt to the deck which then allowed me to exile the graveyard so that Gaea's Blessing couldn't undo my milling once it was milled. The algorithm apparently didn't have an answer for it and I started winning again and hit Mythic for the first time.

    If ranked queues don't have deck weighting and biases toward counters for certain tactics, why was I running into a hard-stop counter to my most successful strategy in higher ranks? That wasn't random. Gaea's Blessing is a very situational card and NOT something I'd expect to see that commonly, which it would have to be if there was no algorithmic shenanigans going on. I am still convinced to this day that the game favours certain decks to counter your success with a particular strategy after a while, essentially learning what you are doing and pitting you against something that will make it harder to continue a winning streak deliberately.

    Its unfair to defeat the purpose of modifying our decks to counter counters and answer difficult strategies if the types of decks we run into change because we changed the weight value of the deck in the course of fine tuning it. Granted, this didn't happen with my mill deck, but I also think Tormod's Crypt didn't change the weight of the deck much due to being an uncommon 0-drop. However, you change a few rares/mythics and the game will notice and react accordingly. THAT needs to stop... hardcore-stop, hence why we need to pick decks after matching so it CAN'T match based on deck weight.

    Key takeaways:

    1. IN RANKED, let us choose a deck after being matched based on MMR alone.
    2. Let us always have at-a-glance access to our MMR at all times.
    3. Base the ranking system progression and rewards directly on MMR and perhaps number of games played with additional incentives for a significant increase in MMR during a season, not the current arbitrary progression thing. We want to ACTUALLY know who is who and where we actually stand. Please stop hiding that number.

    4! This has NOTHING to do with the shuffler, mind you.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lady Lilith#11462 commented  · 

    I've noticed this, too. I agree that we need to take a stand and not buy into Arena anymore until they let us choose our decks in Ranked queues AFTER being matched. Simple fix which will no longer defeat the purpose of wanting to play a more organic-feeling game of MtG. I am specifying "ranked" queues because that's where deck-based matchmaking really has no valid place whatsoever.

    Lady Lilith#11462 supported this idea  · 

  2. Re-add ratings and rank data to logs

    103 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    12 comments  ·  MTG Arena Bugs & Product Suggestions » Gameplay  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lady Lilith#11462 commented  · 

    Aaaaaah! So now, by this act of concealing rating data, Wizards admits that there are indeed shenanigans with matchmaking! Perhaps they don't want us to be able to monitor our own rating changes as we play? They just want to control who gets to win and when, I suppose. If I am wrong, then prove it by restoring the ratings to the logs, making them visible plainly at all times in the system's UI, AND let us choose our decks AFTER being matched with someone in "ranked" queues... because, you know, otherwise you'll be caught in a lie when you guys said deck-strength isn't taken into account in Ranked, which is demonstrably false. So, here's a chance to make good and defeat the purpose of deck-strength influence on matchmaking in Ranked just to make sure. If you weren't lying, then it'll make no difference regardless of when we get to pick our decks other than to put our minds at ease that we aren't being set up to lose based on what strategy we decide to use in a given game as well as the fact that when we lose, we can rest assured that learning from our losses will be rewarded rather than simply having different decks appear in response to tweaking our decks to keep the losing streak going. Refusal simply adds legitimacy to what I'm calling you out for.

    Do you want people to ditch this platform when they realize it is technically pointless to 'compete' in a game with fixed matches and eventually get ****** off? Granted, this will happen organically on its own at this rate and has been, but those of us who are utterly appalled by and ****** off with this **** are rather tempted to make it worse by discouraging new business and encouraging existing business to leave. If you want to preserve your business, you'll do what your customers tell you to do. You clearly DO NOT know what is best for the MtG community. Alchemy proved that!

    Lady Lilith#11462 supported this idea  · 

  3. Mono white lifegain/matchmaking

    11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  MTG Arena Bugs & Product Suggestions » Gameplay  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lady Lilith#11462 commented  · 

    I have an answer for that. Tainted Remedy! Either digitize it and allow it to be bought with wildcards like many other cards we can't get in booster packs or reprint it in standard with the next set. That'll end life gain decks overnight and make people reliant on that strategy to adjust.

  4. Quitting punishment for ranked matches

    9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  MTG Arena Bugs & Product Suggestions » Gameplay  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    Lady Lilith#11462 supported this idea  · 

  5. Product Suggestion Leave Historic Alone

    2,455 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    652 comments  ·  MTG Arena Bugs & Product Suggestions » Gameplay  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    Lady Lilith#11462 supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)