Matchup should be based on deck power range, not by rank

Still encountering an unfair matchup. Why am I being teamed or matched up with or against players who have so much deck power advantage. I am using val and I am just at gold 1. But here are my opponents for 2 consecutive opponent search:

1 Like

Matches are tough after the reset. People who have reached challenger for example, get set back to diamond 1 and so forth. So if they’re playing a deck they haven’t ranked back up yet, you’re going to be matched with players with higher deck power. Once everyone gets back to where they should be, you’ll probably see an improvement in this.

What i am saying is that matchup should be done based on their deck power not by its rank. You may be lurking below gold rank but in fact you have so powerful deck and you should be on the diamond rank! Just like what happened to me twice. It seems like i become just a stepping stone of those who cant beat their own size.


That’s true

I strongly disagree with this thread. Matchups should be fair, and that means they should be based on a metric that evaluates skill level and win potential. That metric does exists and it is the ELO system (used infinite amount of times before at games such as eSports or even chess). We have the medal system here, which is fairly better than just use deck power.

You may think it is unfair to be matched against people with higher deck power than yours, but that means youre more skilled than him and you stand a chance even with your lower deck power. At least thats what I’ve been thinking for myself since I started playing the game.



image image image Yea I agree I’ve won like 2 of the last 25 matches… and the problem affects the event matchups too. This is getting ridiculous!

1 Like

Strategy only applies when both players are equally yoked. When one has a drastic power advantage there is no stopping them. My nukes can’t event take out a commander most times. It’s a joke, deck power range is the simplest and most effective solution. But they don’t wanna do it I bet because then they would need more bots which means more programming which means more work which costs more money. All of which take time. So I’m hoping in the next week or two an update comes out that fixes everything. Hopefully before that cuz idk if I can keep losing over and over until the enjoyment is completely sucked out

1 Like

I think the proper metric to measure how fair is a match is the chance of winning, not the deck power. Chance of winning is calibrated after every game by losing or earning medals (or ELO historically). Obviously the chance of winning depends both in skill and deck power: you cannot win with skill alone, and you cannot win with deck power alone. It is a balance between these two, and 2 commander levels above isn’t neither negligible nor decisive.

If you watch the leaderboard you can see people with lvl15 being already challenger, while some people have lvl17 and are yet diamond.

However, lets suppose youre right and you are losing 23 of your last 25 games: then you will lose medals, decrease your rank and get matched against people with lower deck power. Eventually it gets fair game after game.

If you, however, want a higher rank with lower units the that would be unfair for people at higher ranks that had to work to improve their units more than you.

1 Like

And I would agree with all of that… but only if their matchmaking by rank actually worked… I mean look at this. My units are all level 11 and my rogue is only gold 3 and I go against diamond players with level 15 everything? Even in the event… the enemy units are 2-3 levels above all of mine and it feels like the bots take less time for energy than I do it just doesn’t

make sense to me and it makes the game less enjoyable. Idk if this is a new thing but it felt more fair before the update and before I spent a bunch of money

2v2 is a thing here. I am still not really sure the game actually improved 2v2 matchmarking. It may be unfair at the moment.

I am quite sure though that win potential is the proper metric for 1v1. It has to be A metric for 2v2 as well, but maybe not the only one. What is usually used is not only the win potential (ELO, medals…) but also the same deviation for both teams (difference in ranks). Is that possible with the current playerbase? I am not sure.

However what is true is that win potential is clearly the metric that makes the matchmarking fair. You don’t want to play against people with same deck power; you want to play against people you have a 50% chance of winning. Of course there are winning streaks and losing streaks, bur in long term you should he winning 50% of your games (or above if you are improving)


So to be clear…you’re against an even matchup. You’re all good with being mashed to a pulp by guys with units 2-4 levels higher than you as punishment because you’re really good in a fair fight. Most of us are here for a fair fight, not what the system chooses for us to win or lose, in spite of our best play and deck building strategies. You understand how stupid this current system that you’re defending is? It’s like saying a 5 year old winning a shoving match at the school playground should now go a few rounds with Holyfield so we can even out that kid’s win ratio. Hey here’s a novel concept; if you’re good at deck building and playing strategically, then you deserve to win. If you suck, lose until you learn to play better.

The current system based in “medals” has been used before in many succesful and fair games like Dota, League of Legends and even Chess (with little differences). I am pretty sure it is a strong matchmarking system, but another different topic is the use of bots to “fill” this system that requires a very high playerbase but it is inherently fair.

Instead you can think of it like: what do i expect when i search for a game? Do i expect to win more than i lose (for example playing against people new to the game) or i expect a matchup that is not decided before playing (50% win rate)?

I expect to win exactly what I can carve out. I don’t expect a rigged system to hand me a win that I didn’t earn or steal a win from me that I didn’t lose. Until professional MMA, boxing, tennis, golf, and feel free to name any other head to head sporting event starts using this system, then I’m going to plant my flag on the hill that proclaims this system inferior. This system is geared towards the snowflake mentality of “everyone’s a winner!” That isn’t what PvP is about. PvP is supposed to be more Darwinistic.

1 Like

The thing is, we are learning how we can take advantage of cards at hand to counteract the opponent. Say for example, we all know that when i throw a frag grenade on a drone swarm, it’ll die. But surprisingly, they didn’t. What’s next? I might have my next set of troops to drop thinking that those drone swarm are out of the picture but they are still there. I again need to rethink just because my frag grenade is not strong enough to kill a swarm. Yes, people are more skillful than others, so what? Its their personal characteristic. What ‘not so skillful’ should learn is how to use their troops properly, not being matched up against opponents they can win easily without thinking their every move. If there are people that don’t learn to play the game, then the troops’ advantage and disadvantage doesn’t matter. Coz strong will always be strong and weak will always be weak.

1 Like

Now tell me this is a fair matchup. Definitely the opponents deck power is so high:
image image image image image image

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.