Rating Gain/Loss based on closeness of match?

This is a discussion. I just want closer games to happen more often because they are fun as heck.

I think when a close game is valued the same as a complete stomp...there's a problem and it can be discouraging.At the same time, people play some really close games...only to lose so much...also discouraging.

Right now the ratings gain/loss is based on ratings...and that's fine. But a Legendary is only getting +6 for good close games then losing -18 for really close games...recovering is hard. So, some of them just play off hours to pad stats a bit and recover.

Maybe a "bonus" calculation needs to be added to rating adjustment? This would essentially make closer games more valuable than having everything count the same and discourage off-hours farming. Plus, ideally, this would more accurately place people in ratings.

Just examples (assume the default gain/loss is 10 for both):

1-50 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly more (+15)Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

• Both sides played a good and close game, showing that they were equally matched. Rematch?

51-150 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly more (+12)Losers: Lose the default (-10)

• Both sides played an occasionally good game, but crucial mistakes were made on one side. The better team reigned supreme. Better luck next time.

151-249 point gap:Winners: Gain the default (+10)Losers: Lose the default (-10)

• Zone of Git Gud.

250-349 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

• Clown fiesta. Don't think one team can compete at this level yet.

350-500 point gap:Winners: Gain significantly less (+5)Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

• Matchmaker clearly failed. Error. Try again later. Wtf.

You want teams that play better to receive less points?

@Crius.5487 said:You want teams that play better to receive less points?

I want close games to be more valuable than stomps (which is because of terrible matchmaking). Games which aren't full stomps (151-249) would award the same as it is now; games which are borderline stomps (250-349) would give slightly less than default.

Your suggested changes will cause bad matches to be drawn out and add some serious trolling. If Red Team is mopping the floor with Blue Team, why would the end the match with a 300-400 point lead? Instead they'll let Blue Team catch up a bit then slap them around, let them catch up more then slap them around some more, insults flooding map chat the entire time. Some on Blue Team just want the match to end, others want to lose less points, it's just a mess.

Your solution creates way more problems than it solves.

@Shaogin.2679 said:Your suggested changes will cause bad matches to be drawn out and add some serious trolling. If Red Team is mopping the floor with Blue Team, why would the end the match with a 300-400 point lead? Instead they'll let Blue Team catch up a bit then slap them around, let them catch up more then slap them around some more, insults flooding map chat the entire time. Some on Blue Team just want the match to end, others want to lose less points, it's just a mess.

Your solution creates way more problems than it solves.

True.But...

• That's assuming both sides actually agree on the plan. Currently, one side rarely agrees on anything amongst themselves.
• AFK trolls would be less effective in tanking opponents ratings (especially cases of match-manipulation off-hours). Wouldn't have to play 3 games to come back from a game that a thief decided to AFK because he decapped too late.
• Plus, there is still a match timer in play. Would take some serious coordination to abuse the system...whereas in the current system it is stupidly easy to abuse the system because everything is valued the same.

all very nice as why should get that much point good team against bad when this gap is really large and more revarding lesser gap to also not punish for lose with high amount of pointsbut why 250-349 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

is that punishing losers? if this gap is counting just as: enemiesr are really good against players with problems with cooperate

@Vertep.2498 said:all very nice as why should get that much point good team against bad when this gap is really large and more revarding lesser gap to also not punish for lose with high amount of pointsbut why 250-349 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

is that punishing losers? if this gap is counting just as: enemiesr are really good against players with problems with cooperate

Yeah, I'm assuming something of the match. Maybe the losers were incorrectly placed and actually versing people at that rating...rather than the matchmaker just picking whoever is queuing after 4minutes of trying.

What about giving more points for kills and less for dancing in circles?

@Morwath.9817 said:What about giving more points for kills and less for dancing in circles?

I remember a suggestion like this before...essentially it would trust the "Top Stats" system in that case. Would have to value each "top stat" differently/justly (ex. Is Kills as valuable as Offense?).

@LUST.7241 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:What about giving more points for kills and less for dancing in circles?

...but "top stats" doesn't matter, for anything but pip farming, right?

Also, good solution could be reducing points to 250, and playing best of 3.

Edit: Quaggan wanted to edit his post, but he instead quoted himself. Fishy hands are fishy, foooooo.

I dont want to write it again so i ll just copy it but what you suggest would be a tweak to glickos score variable.

Glicko and GW2-Scoring

If we look at the formula there is a variable s that is dependent on the score/match outcome. It will become 0 if you lose, 1 if you win and 0,5 if it is a draw. And while this works in a chess environment we will met a problem in GW2.A draw is very rare in guildwars so we just have 0 or 1 available for s. This will cause that games with score 15-500, 350-500 and 499-500 will be treated as equal loses, which i think can be said are not (assuming no other differences except game outcome).This problem could be reduced by letting s scale depending on score. In the following picture are some graphs that let s scale depending on score difference.

• Yellow:It could be a simple linear graph. Get more points, get a better rating.

• Pink:Maybe we want to weight points more if the score difference is close to encourage fighting harder in close matches. You gain more rating the closer you can keep your score to the opposite team, while in matches with huge differences in score wouldn't change much.A devastating game with 15-500 and a game with 70-500 would roughly be treated the same.

• Blue:The opposite of pink. Points are worth more in the extremes. This could encourage to still fight in games where the outcome is clear instead to afk.

• Green:This is a combination of Pink and Blue. Points are worth more in the extremes and in close range.

• Red:This is still a combination of Pink and Blue, but instead of weighting points more on the winning side the more extreme they win it is worth less if you win by a even more margin. You are still winning by a landslide. Simultaneously it encourages the losing team to fight hard because their points are worth more, if it is a one-sided match.

These quick doodles just show a few examples i could come up with. Which one is choosen depends what you want to achieve, but i think it would be good to implement a system that cares for the score.

How about, if you get stomped, you lose a massive amount of rating.

If you stomp, you gain a massive amount of rating.

If its close, you gain/lose a moderate amount.

@shadowpass.4236 said:How about, if you get stomped, you lose a massive amount of rating.

If you stomp, you gain a massive amount of rating.

If its close, you gain/lose a moderate amount.

Then your rating would be based on which maps you won and on which you've lost, which would be silly since some maps snowball harder... so Quaggan disagrees.

@Morwath.9817 said:

@LUST.7241 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:What about giving more points for kills and less for dancing in circles?

Yep. That's how it is now...it could give a single point bonus, but anything more would be pushing it. Honestly though, some are very easy to acquire (during stomps) so it to affect rating be a problem.

@Morwath.9817 said:Also, good solution could be reducing points to 250, and playing best of 3.

Edit: Quaggan wanted to edit his post, but he instead quoted himself. Fishy hands are fishy, foooooo.

Would be interesting to play a game like that, vary the active point (first round close/home, second round far, final round mid).

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEAYou want to know why? I am sure you do.

I came to this forum today to start a list of all of the ... not so nice people that quit playing after 1 minute because they think everyone except themselves are trash.You know what I'm talking about. People that rant for losing a point or for dying within a minute and then stand still the rest of the match hoping that it makes them feel as if the loss isn't because of them.

But if this was implemented that the more points you have the less points you lose I doubt you'd have this situation pop up as much! :+1:

RIGHT!?

The point system is fine as is. All their energy should be put into making better matches. That is what needs fixing. People that are 400-500 rating points different shouldn't be on the same team period.

@Faux Play.6104 said:The point system is fine as is. All their energy should be put into making better matches. That is what needs fixing. People that are 400-500 rating points different shouldn't be on the same team period.

The problem with this approach is the the pvp population isn't large enough to support good queue times. It will probably be fine in lower rated matches, but as you climb ranks, the queue times will become much longer. I will say that I prefer this approach as well, but there are significant trade-offs.

@Crius.5487 said:You want teams that play better to receive less points?

Roflstomping teams of stacked baddies has little to do with skill and being good :D

@blarghhrrkblah.3412 said:

@Faux Play.6104 said:The point system is fine as is. All their energy should be put into making better matches. That is what needs fixing. People that are 400-500 rating points different shouldn't be on the same team period.

I'm pretty sure most top 250 players would be willing to wait more than 2 minutes to not have gold 2 people on their team.

Got a similar topicI think we have to suggest some workarounds for Anet because they don't want to fix MM.

@Faux Play.6104 said:

@blarghhrrkblah.3412 said:

@Faux Play.6104 said:The point system is fine as is. All their energy should be put into making better matches. That is what needs fixing. People that are 400-500 rating points different shouldn't be on the same team period.

But how much longer? It's all well and good if the matchmaker can find a "good" match in less than 5 minutes, but given the current population, I'd wager that the queue times would be closer to 15 minutes. Again, I'd generally agree that the quality of the match should take priority over the speed of finding any match, but either approach will negatively impact player experience at no fault of the matchmaker itself. The real issue is that there just isn't the population to support "good" matchmaking.

Edit: I suppose it would be worthwhile to look at how League of Legends handles queues as well. From what I remember from streams, etc., their matchmaker prioritizes match quality over matchmaking speed. The end result is that many of these streamers who are high rank sometimes wait for 15 to 20 minutes before they are able to find games. If a game with as large of a population as LoL's is having these kind of issues, I don't think it's reasonable to expect ANet to be able to solve this problem with a population as small as PvP's.

@LUST.7241 said:This is a discussion. I just want closer games to happen more often because they are fun as heck.

I think when a close game is valued the same as a complete stomp...there's a problem and it can be discouraging.At the same time, people play some really close games...only to lose so much...also discouraging.

Right now the ratings gain/loss is based on ratings...and that's fine. But a Legendary is only getting +6 for good close games then losing -18 for really close games...recovering is hard. So, some of them just play off hours to pad stats a bit and recover.

Maybe a "bonus" calculation needs to be added to rating adjustment? This would essentially make closer games more valuable than having everything count the same and discourage off-hours farming. Plus, ideally, this would more accurately place people in ratings.

Just examples (assume the default gain/loss is 10 for both):

1-50 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly more (+15)Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

• Both sides played a good and close game, showing that they were equally matched. Rematch?

51-150 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly more (+12)Losers: Lose the default (-10)

• Both sides played an occasionally good game, but crucial mistakes were made on one side. The better team reigned supreme. Better luck next time.

151-249 point gap:Winners: Gain the default (+10)Losers: Lose the default (-10)

• Zone of Git Gud.

250-349 point gap:Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

• Clown fiesta. Don't think one team can compete at this level yet.

350-500 point gap:Winners: Gain significantly less (+5)Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

• Matchmaker clearly failed. Error. Try again later. kitten.

totally flawed system... this will end in : let the losser get some extra points and all get more rewarded. correct system(asuming that system can make the correct calculations) is the S1 system: invisible goals(based on expected match outcome) : you fall in a match that you are suposed to be tottaly stomped and manage to get x points a loss reduction, and equal for wining team: you are suposed to totally dominate the match but rivals finally get a close match... your win will be pure marginal