By contrast, in a persistent online campaign, there can be all kinds of experimentation. A player witha very powerful Demigod might end up in a game with 3 or 4 opponents (the match making system is based on putting together a very even game) and I know I would find that fun.
See bolded. This is the key. If the matchmaking system is effective, I have no worries that the games will be good, challenging, rewarding, etc.
Not sure how points will be assigned if its all or nothing, slow progressions, or spikes. I play alot of COD4 on Gamebattles. Ranking is determined by experience points which are gained as you play other clans. If you win, you get points. If you lose, they are taken away. Winning against higher ranked teams yields more points and likewise winning against lower ranked teams yield less. Losing against higher ranked teams losses less points, while losing against low ranked teams will take away more xp points.
Not implying the same system (win = get points, lose = lose points) should be used. I am curious as to what models are being considered. Are points given based on the final outcome (team destroyed the opposing base), individual performance (hero kills, feats, etc) or some combination of both? Are you ever penalized in your overall progression for losing or dying? Does the losing team still recieve some benefit for playing the match?
Just trying to get a handle on a system that may not even exit yet. Any info would be appreciated, thanks.