@Namless.4028 said: @rwolf.9571 in gold3/plat1 your impact on your matches is very low since you get matched regulary with plat3/legend tier players
What do you mean by "impact"? As in less of a statistic?
I get matched with gold 3 or lower more than those in Plat 1 or higher. I had a player thinking I was speed hacking the other day on my Sword Weaver the other day, until I linked 4 of my high mobility skills too him.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
I should probably be able to understand what this means, but it's not making a whole lot of sense to me.
Average skill rating difference between teams being the average of the ratings of the 5 person on one team being a 20 point difference between the other team?
Deviation difference between teams? Not sure what this is.
Rating difference in a match between the lowest rated player and the highest? Is this on the same team or just everyone in both teams? Either way that's a pretty huge difference.
Percent of games with average skill rating difference? Not sure what this is either, but it's weird that it jumps from .4% to 7.5% just in one season? I know that's still less than 10% but it's huge in comparison to the previous. This might not mean anything given that I'm not entirely sure what it is to begin with. lol
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
I should probably be able to understand what this means, but it's not making a whole lot of sense to me.
Average skill rating difference between teams being the average of the ratings of the 5 person on one team being a 20 point difference between the other team?
Yeah. Average skill rating of team A is within 20 points of the average skill rating of team B. On average.
Deviation difference between teams? Not sure what this is.
Standard deviation is the average of how far is each team member away from the average skill rating. We want the standard deviation from the mean rating for team A to be close to that of Team B. Generally, it should mean that they have a similar spread of skill ratings on each team.
Rating difference in a match between the lowest rated player and the highest? Is this on the same team or just everyone in both teams? Either way that's a pretty huge difference.
Yeah, it's a high number at high ratings. However, as evidenced by the previous data, both team are generally dealing with the same type of spread. So it's usually an even match, from a skill rating stand point.
Edit: also keep in mind that the 280 variance number was obtained when only looking at matches where the rating difference was over 200. This was to show that even though the variance between the lowest and highest player in the match was high, the teams are still usually evenly matched.
@Rufo.3716 said:
I've pretty much come down to ranked as being a farm fest and having fun. I seriously just got out of 2 matches as a silver player (been high gold for pretty much ever) got 8 points and 10 points.
Another question I have is, is MMR and ranked rating the same, or are there 2 different rating for ranked and unranked matchmaking. I seem like I play with higher level players in unranked vs. ranked.
Is there a possiblity to have it looked at. Every description matches my experiences with PvP, getting worse and worse every season.
I just barely made it out a 6 match loosing streak, loosing 25+ rating per match.. it seems that they are all unfair balanced, as matches i lost end with a score of <250 vs 500
getting teammates getting steamrolled outside spawn, or simply dieing the moment they touch the point. the player rating differences are too high. i feel like get stuck in a team of bronze/silver players, while we have matches against teams with plat rating.
as many state: i am not a great pvp player, but i know i am good enough to fight plat matches, as long as i don't have 4 different team mates that aren't capable of doing so.,,
I've been playing now for about 20 ranked matches and lost 17(!). While you could always argue about my personal skill etc. It's simply impossible that in 17 matches the other team can be constantly better. I've a friend with the same problem. She won last season easily and now had no chance at all. When we joined the queue together we always had someone afk or playing Leeroy Jenkins. I don't wanna say that I'm a very good player like a friend..... But still I should've won statistically at least one game in the last 17 matches. I won the 3 first matches when I couldnt even play my profession good as now. Then I lose 17(?).
It's my impression that because of the fact that we just start "now" in this season - that we get paired up with people that dont even try to read. Everytime I try to talk about strategy or other things there's simply no response.
Now that's nothing that Anet can fix concerning not talking players; though it would be nice if Anet could fix the algorityhm. I've read in the past in the forum that Anet employee's can see the amount of matches I've lost on my account.
Me and my Guildmate don't seem to be the only ones with that problem. I think it has to do with the fact that we started later this season and now somehow get paired up with people that go afk don't talk etc. What I mean: Due to the advanced time in the season we've worst starting conditions.
Rating difference in a match between the lowest rated player and the highest? Is this on the same team or just everyone in both teams? Either way that's a pretty huge difference.
Yeah, it's a high number at high ratings. However, as evidenced by the previous data, both team are generally dealing with the same type of spread. So it's usually an even match, from a skill rating stand point.
Edit: also keep in mind that the 280 variance number was obtained when only looking at matches where the rating difference was over 200. This was to show that even though the variance between the lowest and highest player in the match was high, the teams are still usually evenly matched.
I'd like to highlight here, that while NUMERICALLY the spread is relatively even, the idea that "both teams are dealing with the same type of spread" is akin to "both teams have to deal with the same enormous problem, so we think that's ok." I'm sorry but that is just confirmation for me that there is NO INTENT to improve the problem from the foundation up but simply bandaid it relentlessly. That's lazy in my eyes. This is probably the only game on the market that I can think of that specifically targets the players that are most invested in the game mode, and punishes them for it. That's unreasonable.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
Edit: also keep in mind that the 280 variance number was obtained when only looking at matches where the rating difference was over 200. This was to show that even though the variance between the lowest and highest player in the match was high, the teams are still usually evenly matched.
Ok Ben, I believe this statement right here sheds a bit of light on one of the bigger roots of this problem. I'm sure you devs have heard me explain this numerous times in different threads but I am going to do it again:
10 mmr is high - 1 mmr is low
10x players and only 10x players sitting in a que, they have mmrs of - 10, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
System attempts a perfect average party vs. average party being RED 10, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 18 vs. BLUE 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 18
Looks perfect on paper but is completely unfair in actual conquest application
What happens here is that the elevated base mmr & rating of the highest player has fished in every lower 2 player to put on his team, to weight him against a team of averages. The problem here is that the high mmr player can viciously defend every node he is at, kill everyone, and never die, but while he is doing that, his 2s are being crunched on the other two nodes by enemy 4s and 3s. Since the game is about winning by holding 2 nodes, not winning from a single player's performance on 1 node, this situation generally ends up as a swift GG loss for the higher rated player.
This is where forum stories come from about "my teammates are exploding on contact and the other team is clearly better than my team, I cannot carry matches like this." <- this is happening in matches that could be labeled as "perfect average party rating vs. average party rating." This is because only balancing average party vs. average party is not adequate. It needs to be balancing for both average party vs. average party, and lessening the marginal difference in ratings between team mates so the above example doesn't happen so often. This is also where forum stories come from that depict examples of "how much lower my team rating was than the opposing team" when in fact, it was a perfectly averaged rating vs. rating. It just felt like it was a 200 rating difference because the 10 can't carry his 2s against 4s, and was only ever able to hold 1 node his color, the entire match. <- That is a broken algorithm function and I understand the critical importance behind keeping que times as low as possible but it may be time to consider elongating the que times in interests of better match making so the above example isn't happening so often. Most veteran players who are the pumping heart & blood of the spvp community, would rather wait and have 2 or 3 actually balanced matches a day, rather than have 20 super random matches that aren't balanced at all.
But all of the above still however, does not explain how or why some given 1500 plat player will be given 10x matches in a row where he is plat1/gold3/gold3/gold2/gold2 vs. plat3/plat2/plat1/plat1/plat1 or some otherwise clearly lopsided split, and for those 10 games, never once be put on the high team favored to win, despite there clearly being other plat 1s out there who are. This IS happening and it happens too often to be a coincidence. For those of us who play in the top 250, it is easy to see when it is happening because everyone in the game is on the leaderboards and you can easily view their ratings. It is very visible when some algorithm function is directing you towards a lose streak, when game after game on a fresh streak, a player takes screenshots and/or add contacts to view ratings afterwards, and can see that most of or even none of their teammates are on the leaderboards, but then every player on the enemy team is playing between plat 3 and plat 1, sometimes maybe even 1800+. I mean, can you explain what is happening there? This kind of strange streak happens to me personally about two or three times a season, every season, like clockwork. It isn't random, it's very predictable. It always happens when I'm approaching around 65% or 70% win rate then BAM a lose streak that always lasts long enough to make sure I go back down to around 49% or 51% win rate. Then it lets up and it lets me play normally again. Then I start hitting around 65% win and BAM it begins happening again, with the type of matches I was describing, clearly lopsided splits where my team is being funneled to lose for many matches in a row.
I wanted you to know, incase my posts come off in the wrong way, that I am sincerely just trying to give productive feedback. You know, I had decided to walk away from gaming for awhile in interests of other activities, but for the purposes of this thread, I may come back to play 50 -100 matches with screenshots/player rating evidence of them all to post. With all the assumed lack of evidence going on around here, I think it may help.
@Crinn.7864 said:
The rating systems distributes across a curve with a mean of 1200. Gold starts at 1200, so a player that is placing Gold is merely slightly above average. Your rating placement is done with the exact same glicko2 algorithm that rates you after placements. Placements is merely a mechanic for hiding your rating change for the first 10 matches, the reason the first ten are hidden is because glicko2 has enormously high deviation in early matches, and devs don't want players flipping out over the rating swings during early matches.
Thank you for quoting the rating algorithm but I still don't understand how (and if) individual skill and game performance are calculated when defining a player's rating.
@Cal Cohen.3527 said:
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
That explains why I 've been getting teammates with absolutely no clue of the mode.
@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
Ok Ben, I believe this statement right here sheds a bit of light on one of the bigger roots of this problem. I'm sure you devs have heard me explain this numerous times in different threads but I am going to do it again:
10 mmr is high - 1 mmr is low
10x players and only 10x players sitting in a que, they have mmrs of - 10, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
System attempts a perfect average party vs. average party being RED 10, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 18 vs. BLUE 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 18
Looks perfect on paper but is completely unfair in actual conquest application
What happens here is that the elevated base mmr & rating of the highest player has fished in every lower 2 player to put on his team, to weight him against a team of averages. The problem here is that the high mmr player can viciously defend every node he is at, kill everyone, and never die, but while he is doing that, his 2s are being crunched on the other two nodes by enemy 4s and 3s. Since the game is about winning by holding 2 nodes, not winning from a single player's performance on 1 node, this situation generally ends up as a swift GG loss for the higher rated player.
And the above explains what happens in reality and nicely describes the 'blowout matches' which are the most annoying given that you normally expect a decently balanced fight.
10x players and only 10x players sitting in a que, they have mmrs of - 10, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
System attempts a perfect average party vs. average party being RED 10, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 18 vs. BLUE 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 18
Looks perfect on paper but is completely unfair in actual conquest application
What happens here is that the elevated base mmr & rating of the highest player has fished in every lower 2 player to put on his team, to weight him against a team of averages. The problem here is that the high mmr player can viciously defend every node he is at, kill everyone, and never die, but while he is doing that, his 2s are being crunched on the other two nodes by enemy 4s and 3s. Since the game is about winning by holding 2 nodes, not winning from a single player's performance on 1 node, this situation generally ends up as a swift GG loss for the higher rated player.
Based on your logic, the top100 players must be completely random as matchmaking is random and people are getting uncarriable games.
For some reason though, you can see the same names in each and every season (more or less) in top100. How would you explain that? Always getting lucky?
@Trevor Boyer.6524
That's precisely it, I kept seeing the same posts of yours through the forums but everyone just ignores them.
I find it hard to believe that pvp devs are really incapable of understanding this concept that a single pro player cannot carry a game with 3 objectives spread out over the map.
This is precisely the reason why so many matches are steamrolls.
Either that or as ben said, we just need to stop "tilting".
@Nappa.1904 said: @Trevor Boyer.6524
That's precisely it, I kept seeing the same posts of yours through the forums but everyone just ignores them.
Because most people understand how the matchmaking works.
I find it hard to believe that pvp devs are really incapable of understanding this concept that a single pro player cannot carry a game with 3 objectives spread out over the map.
Untrue. While there are unwinnable games, the numbers of these are simply low. Most pro players can do it, that's why they are always on top (logical).
This is precisely the reason why so many matches are steamrolls.
As it has been explained by devs like a million times, steamrolls are not the reason of matchmaking working badly. You can have 10 players of exactly the same rating, and the match could still end up 500-50. There are so many variables you have to take into account, how can you not understand this? (team composition, maps, carried players and soooo on)
Personally I've been low plat t3 constantly for the last few seasons regardless of the meta. I was placed in silver, gold, platinum, everywhere by placement matches, but regardless of that I quickly easily carried the games until plat t1.
This is also true from the other side, I got placed once very high plat t3, and quickly dropped to high t2. So I have a feeling that's exactly my skill level, seems to be working for me.
Also, there are people who open threads every season about how impossible it is to climb and carry in lower divisions, even though it means they are just not good enough (not counting the rare examples like we have seen in the statistics). It's the sad truth. If you are good enough, you will climb. You will lose unwinnable games here and there, but eventually you will get to your level
Standard deviation is the average of how far is each team member away from the average skill rating. We want the standard deviation from the mean rating for team A to be close to that of Team B. Generally, it should mean that they have a similar spread of skill ratings on each team.
your rating spread statement shouldn't be applicable in the first place.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
Edit: also keep in mind that the 280 variance number was obtained when only looking at matches where the rating difference was over 200. This was to show that even though the variance between the lowest and highest player in the match was high, the teams are still usually evenly matched.
Ok Ben, I believe this statement right here sheds a bit of light on one of the bigger roots of this problem. I'm sure you devs have heard me explain this numerous times in different threads but I am going to do it again:
10 mmr is high - 1 mmr is low
10x players and only 10x players sitting in a que, they have mmrs of - 10, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
System attempts a perfect average party vs. average party being RED 10, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 18 vs. BLUE 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 18
Looks perfect on paper but is completely unfair in actual conquest application
Which is why there's also a standard deviation.
Red:
Mean: 3.6
S.D: 2.6
Blue:
Mean: 3.6
S.D: 0.5
That's over 5 times a difference in standard deviation.
@Exatherion.3075 said:
I've been playing now for about 20 ranked matches and lost 17(!). While you could always argue about my personal skill etc. It's simply impossible that in 17 matches the other team can be constantly better. I've a friend with the same problem. She won last season easily and now had no chance at all. When we joined the queue together we always had someone afk or playing Leeroy Jenkins. I don't wanna say that I'm a very good player like a friend..... But still I should've won statistically at least one game in the last 17 matches. I won the 3 first matches when I couldnt even play my profession good as now. Then I lose 17(?).
It's my impression that because of the fact that we just start "now" in this season - that we get paired up with people that dont even try to read. Everytime I try to talk about strategy or other things there's simply no response.
Now that's nothing that Anet can fix concerning not talking players; though it would be nice if Anet could fix the algorityhm. I've read in the past in the forum that Anet employee's can see the amount of matches I've lost on my account.
Me and my Guildmate don't seem to be the only ones with that problem. I think it has to do with the fact that we started later this season and now somehow get paired up with people that go afk don't talk etc. What I mean: Due to the advanced time in the season we've worst starting conditions.
The first three matches are those that have the most impact on your rating (+80 to +50 rating in one match as gw2 efficiency shows) since you won those games you might be higher ratet as you deserve.
Also you got probably tilted after such a loosing streak and took more risks than you would do normally (so you probably played worse than in the first 3 games)
I wont deny that bad teammates are also a factor, but not the only reason for your loosing streak.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
Thanks for the response, i was genuinely curious. I dont doubt the balance of the games. The only problem i really have with the games is that sometimes your influence in the game feels meaningless since regardless of how well you do your team can still kitten you over by losing while outnumbering heavily.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
Thanks for the response, i was genuinely curious. I dont doubt the balance of the games. The only problem i really have with the games is that sometimes your influence in the game feels meaningless since regardless of how well you do your team can still kitten you over by losing while outnumbering heavily.
Yeah, I think (as in pure hypothetical) the main problem isn't with the matchmaker, it's with the fact that you can considerably screw over your team with very small mistakes. And there's no way to carry your team out of that by compensating by playing better. The problem with PvP in GW2 is more that carrying pretty much isn't possible and playing at your best is very possible. Which means you can't compensate those mistakes that will inevitably happen.
As in in one wrong movement and you can put your whole team in a bad position. vs as one player you can't really undo or even compensate that mistake. All you can do is try to play best as a team, and never giving up on trying to play the best possible way in the hopes the other team makes a wrong move instead.
@rank eleven monk.9502 said:
Have you actually read the whole post or you just got instantly triggered (like many others) by seeing a high rating difference?
When you have such big differences in rating it is very natural for unbalanced games to occur, because it is not 1v1 or even 2v2 but 5v5. An experienced player will almost always identify the weak link of the enemy and perma having him out of the game resulting in a 4v5 at best - if your team happens to have more than one of these 'low rating players' it could become even 3v5 and so on. It's not rocket science, such big differences are not healthy for the game balance.
@Exatherion.3075 said:
I've been playing now for about 20 ranked matches and lost 17(!). While you could always argue about my personal skill etc. It's simply impossible that in 17 matches the other team can be constantly better. I've a friend with the same problem. She won last season easily and now had no chance at all. When we joined the queue together we always had someone afk or playing Leeroy Jenkins. I don't wanna say that I'm a very good player like a friend..... But still I should've won statistically at least one game in the last 17 matches. I won the 3 first matches when I couldnt even play my profession good as now. Then I lose 17(?).
It's my impression that because of the fact that we just start "now" in this season - that we get paired up with people that dont even try to read. Everytime I try to talk about strategy or other things there's simply no response.
Now that's nothing that Anet can fix concerning not talking players; though it would be nice if Anet could fix the algorityhm. I've read in the past in the forum that Anet employee's can see the amount of matches I've lost on my account.
Me and my Guildmate don't seem to be the only ones with that problem. I think it has to do with the fact that we started later this season and now somehow get paired up with people that go afk don't talk etc. What I mean: Due to the advanced time in the season we've worst starting conditions.
I feel you x100. It's frustrating man... I have had many many games where I am explaining what people should do and they completely ignore my requests and get steamrolled somewhere. So many people just throw games on purpose and because of that, you end up losing. Since no one else cares about winning and I lose all the time, I am starting to feel the same way and I don't care as much anymore. I don't even try to tell people what to do because they literally don't listen. Why even try in a match if many of your teammates just die over and over and don't even run away from fights they cannot win. At this point, because of the low population and the thrown matches, I am like everyone else who doesn't care and I just go for the rewards and don't try as hard as I used too. Sooooo many games I play teams who actually have teamwork and the team I am on is like a bunch of chickens with their head cut off.
It's like people don't understand how to play spvp at all... no rotations, no teamwork, afkers, people who dont care and throw games on purpose, and not to mention.... This Necro/Mesmer meta this season has ruined it for me and hundreds of other people playing ranked. It's not fair..... Why did ANET think creating the Scourge with massive AOES in a point capture game was fair? They are tanky, do insane damage, steal life from you, and also provide barriers or extra health to nearby teammates... like kitten?
I have hope for the Alliance WvW patch and after this season and getting my ascended gear in ranked spvp I have no interest in playing much of season 12. Oh and the toxcity... hahahaahah that's another thing that is horrible in ranked pvp. Heck in many games a person was literally yelling at people and saying stupid stuff to teammates and we won the game!!! Like wow bro... I can't be as good as you.... Bow to your godlike gaming abilities oh mighty one
But this is the issue: People don't care anymore. ANET needs to create a tutorial of some sort for SPvP to explain proper rotations and how the mode works in general with everything. A wall of text won't work because people don't want to read it. You need to make a video for new people or anyone to watch so people understand the gamemode.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
Thanks for the response, i was genuinely curious. I dont doubt the balance of the games. The only problem i really have with the games is that sometimes your influence in the game feels meaningless since regardless of how well you do your team can still kitten you over by losing while outnumbering heavily.
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
in my modest opinion, this is not a fault of system being rigged, the fault is the system is not rigged enought. let me explain:
in this game mode not all classes roles have the same impact on game. imagine this escenario:
-2 teams of average 1500, all two teams have the same composition 1600, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1400
-mirror comps
-supose the mmr is acurate to "real skill"
-team A their 1600 is a roamer thief and their 1400 a suport firebrand team B their 1400 is the roamer thief and 1600 their suport firebrand
A thief will destroy B thief in the 90% of fights making team A dominant in rotations/side objectives and having some time to +1 in bigger fights, the impact of superior skills of suporting character are less than the impact of superior skills of the roamer and this little advantage on big figths will be nullified by +1 .
this macht will end with a victory by a wide margin for team A
@Delweyn.1309 said:
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
Fine let's see how that works with Standard Deviation(S.D.):
Team 1
Mean: 1420
S.D.: 144
Team 2:
Mean: 1440
S.D.: 48
That's nearly a difference of 100 opposed to the 13 on average and 39 in the higher tiers. But let's say you said 1600 or 1500 instead of the probably exaggerated 1700 order to make a point in team 1 (also to show how S.D. behaves when you're starting to make up random team ratings)
With 1600 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1400
S.D.: 120
With 1500 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1380
S.D.: 96
None of that matches up with what the devs have told us.
@Crinn.7864 said:
The rating systems distributes across a curve with a mean of 1200. Gold starts at 1200, so a player that is placing Gold is merely slightly above average. Your rating placement is done with the exact same glicko2 algorithm that rates you after placements. Placements is merely a mechanic for hiding your rating change for the first 10 matches, the reason the first ten are hidden is because glicko2 has enormously high deviation in early matches, and devs don't want players flipping out over the rating swings during early matches.
Thank you for quoting the rating algorithm but I still don't understand how (and if) individual skill and game performance are calculated when defining a player's rating.
It does not use individual performance. Glicko is a outcome based algorithm.
@Delweyn.1309 said:
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
Fine let's see how that works with Standard Deviation(S.D.):
Team 1
Mean: 1420
S.D.: 144
Team 2:
Mean: 1440
S.D.: 48
That's nearly a difference of 100 opposed to the 13 on average and 39 in the higher tiers. But let's say you said 1600 or 1500 instead of the probably exaggerated 1700 order to make a point in team 1 (also to show how S.D. behaves when you're starting to make up random team ratings)
With 1600 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1400
S.D.: 120
With 1500 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1380
S.D.: 96
None of that matches up with what the devs have told us.
Well, when you know that Sindrener got teamed with a silver player you know that I didn't exagerated the numbers.
And I would add that the numbers given are average. So if 90% of matches have a SD difference of -30, but 10% have SD difference of +100 then the global average number for SD would seems not so bad isn't it ?
@Delweyn.1309 said:
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
Fine let's see how that works with Standard Deviation(S.D.):
Team 1
Mean: 1420
S.D.: 144
Team 2:
Mean: 1440
S.D.: 48
That's nearly a difference of 100 opposed to the 13 on average and 39 in the higher tiers. But let's say you said 1600 or 1500 instead of the probably exaggerated 1700 order to make a point in team 1 (also to show how S.D. behaves when you're starting to make up random team ratings)
With 1600 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1400
S.D.: 120
With 1500 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1380
S.D.: 96
None of that matches up with what the devs have told us.
And that's why people are all over enabling ratings shown at the end of the match, because these kind of enormous deviation splits are happening very frequently or at least it feels like it, contrary to what the devs are saying. Again, when you play the top 250 and can see easily see where players you are facing or are with are rated, is when you start to notice something isn't quite right with what we're being told or maybe what people are assuming about the numbers we are being given.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
So, if you like these numbers, why don't you show real numbers before/after match? If everything works as intended, it should not hurt anyone.
Because he posted the average over thousands of games. Single games can be catastrophal. Like I am gold division and in enemy team was a God of PvP from r55 guild.
We won and I got a lot more MMR than usual for a win, but that single god of pvp kept one shotting everyone with OP chrono build.
@Crinn.7864 said:
The rating systems distributes across a curve with a mean of 1200. Gold starts at 1200, so a player that is placing Gold is merely slightly above average. Your rating placement is done with the exact same glicko2 algorithm that rates you after placements. Placements is merely a mechanic for hiding your rating change for the first 10 matches, the reason the first ten are hidden is because glicko2 has enormously high deviation in early matches, and devs don't want players flipping out over the rating swings during early matches.
Thank you for quoting the rating algorithm but I still don't understand how (and if) individual skill and game performance are calculated when defining a player's rating.
It does not use individual performance. Glicko is a outcome based algorithm.
Thanks again for the good information. This is so interesting.
So carrying hard or being carried in a match weighs almost the same for the rating engine.
@Delweyn.1309 said:
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
Fine let's see how that works with Standard Deviation(S.D.):
Team 1
Mean: 1420
S.D.: 144
Team 2:
Mean: 1440
S.D.: 48
That's nearly a difference of 100 opposed to the 13 on average and 39 in the higher tiers. But let's say you said 1600 or 1500 instead of the probably exaggerated 1700 order to make a point in team 1 (also to show how S.D. behaves when you're starting to make up random team ratings)
With 1600 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1400
S.D.: 120
With 1500 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1380
S.D.: 96
None of that matches up with what the devs have told us.
Well, when you know that Sindrener got teamed with a silver player you know that I didn't exagerated the numbers.
And I would add that the numbers given are average. So if 90% of matches have a SD difference of -30, but 10% have SD difference of +100 then the global average number for SD would seems not so bad isn't it ?
Im sorry, but there's no such thing as a negative difference. And SD values (being an average of differences) is also never negative
But you're right that there will always be singular cases where you can point out the match maker doesnt function optimally. Especially in the higher rating regions.
Though even in this case, What you can say is that with teams with high standard deviations (like is the case wigh sindrerer and someone in silver) you have a team with players in very differing skill levels being matched up with a team also very differing in skill level. But the difference between standard deviations can be close to nothing while obviously having wildly differing teams. Someone earlier made a similar comment on that earlier btw.
Just so you know, I'm in no way claiming that there's no problems btw. Im just showing how standard deviation works. Even with matching standard deviation and matching average skill rating you dont automatically have an system that balances matches perfectly. (although its a good start.)
I skipped all non-dev posts (except OP), sorry guys.
I haven't played most of the last 2 seasons, because lack of time and disappointed with balance patches. But here's my 10cents:
First you can isolate the OP's complaints into 2 problems:
a) Matchmaker created team comps that seriously disadvantaged one of the teams;
b) Matchmaker is unable to place everyone into well balanced, same rank teams.
Problem b) is caused by a conjunction of problem a) and a few more factors. As in the game doesn't have enough players playing sPvP for the matchmaker to produce proper results. This comes from a lot of factors, one of them being poor balance and one having to relog to be able to pick counter-plays, which only a slim margin of players will do, and it's up to Arena Net to work to change that (if it's at all possible to revitalize sPvP at this point).
Problem a) on the other hand is entirely fixable with a new approach to sPvP that allows for players to draft pick their classes after being matched solely by rank, which allows players to counter each other's picks, and leads to - hopefully - more balanced team comps. A lot of people's complains about sPvP, like teams relogging to pick full necro/firebrand comps or necro/warrior comps now, and other issues with team comps, people asking for class-based MMR, etc all this could be fixed with a draft pick.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
Thanks for the response, i was genuinely curious. I dont doubt the balance of the games. The only problem i really have with the games is that sometimes your influence in the game feels meaningless since regardless of how well you do your team can still kitten you over by losing while outnumbering heavily.
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
What you are saying does not even make sense. You are trying to generalize a situation that has a million variables.
But following your logic I can turn it around: The 1700 rating player shouldn't take 1v1s then, just go for teamfights, erase the lot worse players, then +1 anyone till respawn -> repeat.
You can't judge a matchmaking system on theoretical anecdotes.
Just lost a match, yet again, with a 100 point lead. People not defending caps. Downing a necro and then being bombared by a Mesmer who I get to 10%, and our team thief STILL dies to the Mesmer.
I'm just over it.
I want my placements to be reset or to be manually adjusted to bronze at this point. I'm done with even thinking I have the slightest chance of getting back to where I should be at this point because matchmaking is perpetually putting me with people who have no situational awareness. Two scourge dying to 1 because they apparently do not know how to transfer conditions back.
Just all of it. I'm done with it and would like to just be placed in the lowest possible division because that is where the matchmaking is taking me. I'm tired of the 10-12 game losing streaks over careless errors only to be followed with 2 or 3 wins.
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person. "told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, incident;
More - urban myth/legend;
"amusing anecdotes"
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
Pointing at something and saying it is an "anecdote" is intrinsically just another anecdotal claim, without the evidence to support that it is or is not truth. In other words, one can claim something is anecdotal in nature, but they cannot point and say it is anecdotal in nature, without some form of evidence that it is indeed anecdotal. Sorry man, with as many times as you are using the word to debunk all claims in this thread, someone needed to point that out.
The sheer inflection in your posts would imply that no human being outside of the Arenanet staff, would possibly be capable of understanding or noticing how the algorithm's patterns work, especially not the players who take the time to post personal feedback. I don't know man, it seems unreasonable.
A-net could remove most doubts about the matchmaking by showing the MMRs of everyone in a match. Until they do I have no reason to 100% believe them. It doesn't have to be they are lieing either they could be mistaken themselves about there own code or it is sometimes acting in ways they don't fully understand. Smarter people then there coders make mistakes all the time. Blind faith is for little children. As for the evidence being anecdotal well they refuse to give us the full information that would prove themselves 100% correct so that's all I can say about that. I feel like when the playerbase makes a request devs should fullfill that request if it is reasonable. It would take little time to add a pvp window with both teams average MMR and the MMR of every player in the match without the names attached and possibly even the win probabilty they have calculated. More information is always better.
Same experience here. Also this season I had one team mate 1 minute afk during placement matches. The game was counted as a normal loss. Nice Anet. Very nice....
You need to improve that matchmaking. There is no incentive to play solo this way.
You will continue to lose your player base. Not only are you denying players their rightful spot with your algorithm you also deny the scene its growth.
If you get more challenging matches with players smiliar in skill you will slowly see an increase in overall match quality. Right now the system let's you play with a handycap. Instead of facing more challenging opponents you try to force balance on the leaderboards by giving the players that are clearly better than their division a heavier burden to overcome. Why is it that players like me always have the same experience. We always have to carry the entire game to win. And by carrying I mean killing the entire enemy team multiple times taking all of our team mates jobs, never dying and winning every match up....
Let me paraphrase what is going on with your algorithm: It's like watching an Olympic relay run with one team consisting of Usain Bolt and 3 toddlers vs a full team of USA runners.
Your system is not working and your arrogance in denying this is annoying.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
Try to make the same math on lower rated entry ... ( bronze, silver, and also part of gold ) and u will see , i belive, i completely different situation. How many players are between legendary and plat 3 and how many are between gold and bronze ? how are the matches for the bigger part of the playerbase ?
@zoopop.5630 said:
it'll NEVER be balance unless match making can read class/elite spec being used.
Can't have team A with Fb/scoruge/mesmer /thief and warrior on a team vs Team B with double scoruge , thief, engi, warrior.
match ups like that with "rating" being equal to each other just won't mean jack if team A running more of a meta/proper team comp then team B.
Since I cant make out if you are advocating such a system from you post alone, so im giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't.
Cause that - unfortunately - is simply impossible to implement.
Players understand & accept the presence of hiccups and general flaws in the match making that could never reasonably be fixed. They aren't complaining about that. They are complaining about elongated streaks of very unreasonable match making. When some guy reaches plat 1 for his first time, then instantly goes on an elongated lose streak for 10 games or so, that is where the heat is fueled to take the time to come into this forum, and tell a story about it.
With how many claims are stacking up in just this thread alone, that agree on experiencing the exact same pattern, I'd say it's worth looking into if not changing behavior in the algorithm. I mean at the end of the day, what's important is that players aren't getting pissed off and leaving the game because lose streaks are making them feel like the system is choosing when they win or lose.
@zoopop.5630 said:
it'll NEVER be balance unless match making can read class/elite spec being used.
Can't have team A with Fb/scoruge/mesmer /thief and warrior on a team vs Team B with double scoruge , thief, engi, warrior.
match ups like that with "rating" being equal to each other just won't mean jack if team A running more of a meta/proper team comp then team B.
Since I cant make out if you are advocating such a system from you post alone, so im giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't.
Cause that - unfortunately - is simply impossible to implement.
and that's a reason why this game is always going to have unbalance match up.
Shows how long this has been going on. Maybe with the Glicko algorithm it cannot be fixed and Arenanet just does the best that they can with it. It also serves to demonstrate how "anecdotal" stories from 3 or 4 years ago can end up being 100% true. Pay attention to the last page in particular.
Shows how long this has been going on. Maybe with the Glicko algorithm it cannot be fixed and Arenanet just does the best that they can with it. It also serves to demonstrate how "anecdotal" stories from 3 or 4 years ago can end up being 100% true. Pay attention to the last page in particular.
Wow, you are actually persistently using the same argument for 3 years. Hats off.
During this time you could have just learned to play PvP properly.
By the way, the matchmaking algorythm has been changed multiple times since 2015.
The simple fact is that people have good days and bad days for a variety of reasons. Your opponents are only a small part. Build changes, mental and physical state, network stability etc are all big factors in the type of day you have.
Odds are if you're losing a bunch of games in a row it's probably NOT the matches that are causing it. It COULD be win trading or hacking or alt accounts, though.
I think one thing I don't understand is why the matches need to be progressively harder the longer the win streak.
Eventually you will run into a bunch of people higher skill than you and you will lose, so does there need to be a system that makes it increasingly harder to beat people that may be of equal skill just because the system feels that you've exceeded your personal rating?
Of course it's going to be difficult in a mode like this where your "skill level" is depending on the rest of your team and sometimes strategy more than combat ability, i.e. knowing which point to rotate to in order to keep the points flowing in, but it still seems a bit unnecessary.
Is it fear of people getting too high? Because I'll admit there are plenty of people I know without a doubt would beat me everytime, like Valen the thief who seemed to be speed hacking but I guess is just extremely good and well known for it.
I just think there are enough challenges with random team draw to be stacking odds for or against someone based on a number system that may put you in a less favorable team.
You can tell people to "learn pvp" and "git good" but in the end the mode itself boils down to you and 4 other people controlling 3 points and side objectives and strategizing where to be which sometimes involves actively avoiding other players in "pvp."
Kinda silly.
And I'm not sure attacking Trevor who, even if adamantly voicing an opinion you don't agree with, or simplifying and attempting to invalidate someone's opinion with something as simple as "learn pvp" is really doing much to add to the discussion.
Anyway, that's my latest 2 cents to the discussion. Why? I guess I don't understand how the current system benefits anyone if teams truly do get more difficult to face the higher your rating instead of keeping the rating as close as possible and ensuring that it's always an even rating between both? Or why I in gold 3 would face a duo that's currently in plat 3. In what way is this a fair match-up? We had maybe one MAYBE two tier 3 plat on our team as well, but then you're expecting the ones on my team to carry me against their plat 3. How is that fair to them? Is this just an issue of low population?
@mortrialus.3062 said:
Hasn't there been statements by developers stating that that average distance in player score between highest and lowest players per game is less than 50?
No. The average skill rating between teams is less than 50. The deviation is higher than that. Don't have the number off the top of my head though.
We do our best to get the standard deviation as close as we can though.
And no, I say it often, we don't rig matches to end loss or win streaks. But many people will never believe it.
I sincerely think that you should end streaks. Extended loss streaks discourage players ( like me, my personal record is approximately 68 and I've heard reports as high as 100 straight losses. This is on my alt account on which I did finally get my Ascension backpack. The grinding had me in tears at times. )
After all, ANET had no compunction in setting up deliberately tilted matches in season 2 and 3.. it was even touted as "competitive."
I suspect that those two seasons of openly tilted matches are a big part of why many people now believe the match making is rigged. I have to admit.. I don't have much confidence in the MM myself. I think it is set up to benefit high rated players at the expense of low rated.
Three needless losses yet again. Including a thief that camps mid all match while I'm running around as apparently the only person that can even down somebody just trying to keep caps.
Why do I never get put in matches with people that carry me? This same thief was on the opposite team and just ran around temple the entire time, with somebody on my team chasing them the majority of the time.
Why should I have to be in three different places or show up and kill the scourge that's somehow wiping everybody at the same time?
This is stupid. I have 179 losses and 176 wins. So clearly from what I've learned from this and other posts is that I need to play less because the more I play the more I am expected to carry people making stupid carless decisions.
I'm not even good. I don't know why I'm expected to be the only one who cares about points the majority of the time or seemingly the only one that can even down people instead of just endlessly swinging at people, respawning, and letting the one or two that are downed get ressed every single time.
I'm sure I make a lot of mistakes, but I keep getting groups where I literally have to be the one that does everything. Capping and killing.
So next season I should just limit my games to... what? 20? Or is it too late now and I should pick up an alt account?
People far worse than me with a lot higher rating. So something isn't working or they are getting carried or paying for wins constantly.
@cptaylor.2670 said:
People far worse than me with a lot higher rating.
Maybe this seems far-fetched and really unbelievable.. But, WHAT IF they are actually better than you, that's why they are on a lot higher rating, while you are just being biased and overrating yourself, leading to blame the system instead?
@cptaylor.2670 said:
People far worse than me with a lot higher rating.
Maybe this seems far-fetched and really unbelievable.. But, WHAT IF they are actually better than you, that's why they are on a lot higher rating, while you are just being biased and overrating yourself, leading to blame the system instead?
Just wondering.
The problem is how you define someone is " actually better ". Most of top100 players are good so i won't argue about these, but you have many players in gold 3/platinum that are good at playing scourge or mesmer, but have litterally no idea about some capture points basics. Alternatively, you have players in gold 1 that are playing a non-meta build but have good knowledge of map awareness.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 the problem is not the algorithm, but the dead population. I can not remember the last time I actually had a real teamcomp in ranked. I am losing 500-22 to spirit weapon guardians who don't know how to play the game, because it is not possible to play the game in this matchmaking and won the next game 500-17 just now. Every single game is a complete stomp for either side on plat 2 and higher because you can't build fair teams with the players available. Only fix is to remove solo q ranked. A cardgame like Hearthstone includes less rng than gw2 ranked.
Also playing certain roles like support is a compeltely unviable strategy on plat 3+, since the game can't pair you with players on your level and the game literally turns into: who farms the noobs the fastest. Everyone runs burst builds and you cant support dead players.
Also often times teams lack roamers or duelists, causing bad matchups and ruin all type of team play. I have never seen any other game with less teamplay involved than GW2. The only time you get to play as a team is the monthly tournament, but who on earth would practise as a team to play 1 game per month ?
as you see here https://picload.org/view/dogpgawl/gw135.jpg.html I only had 1 somewhat playable ranked game that wasnt a spawncamp out of 5 games today. This happened the whole previous week while I was streaming. This system HAS to go and needs to be replaced.
Comments
What do you mean by "impact"? As in less of a statistic?
I get matched with gold 3 or lower more than those in Plat 1 or higher. I had a player thinking I was speed hacking the other day on my Sword Weaver the other day, until I linked 4 of my high mobility skills too him.
Random Guild Wars 2 Misadventures
Yeah. Average skill rating of team A is within 20 points of the average skill rating of team B. On average.
Standard deviation is the average of how far is each team member away from the average skill rating. We want the standard deviation from the mean rating for team A to be close to that of Team B. Generally, it should mean that they have a similar spread of skill ratings on each team.
Yeah, it's a high number at high ratings. However, as evidenced by the previous data, both team are generally dealing with the same type of spread. So it's usually an even match, from a skill rating stand point.
Edit: also keep in mind that the 280 variance number was obtained when only looking at matches where the rating difference was over 200. This was to show that even though the variance between the lowest and highest player in the match was high, the teams are still usually evenly matched.
Ben Phongluangtham
Senior Game Designer
Your unranked and ranked ratings are different.
Ben Phongluangtham
Senior Game Designer
Is there a possiblity to have it looked at. Every description matches my experiences with PvP, getting worse and worse every season.
I just barely made it out a 6 match loosing streak, loosing 25+ rating per match.. it seems that they are all unfair balanced, as matches i lost end with a score of <250 vs 500
getting teammates getting steamrolled outside spawn, or simply dieing the moment they touch the point. the player rating differences are too high. i feel like get stuck in a team of bronze/silver players, while we have matches against teams with plat rating.
as many state: i am not a great pvp player, but i know i am good enough to fight plat matches, as long as i don't have 4 different team mates that aren't capable of doing so.,,
I've been playing now for about 20 ranked matches and lost 17(!). While you could always argue about my personal skill etc. It's simply impossible that in 17 matches the other team can be constantly better. I've a friend with the same problem. She won last season easily and now had no chance at all. When we joined the queue together we always had someone afk or playing Leeroy Jenkins. I don't wanna say that I'm a very good player like a friend..... But still I should've won statistically at least one game in the last 17 matches. I won the 3 first matches when I couldnt even play my profession good as now. Then I lose 17(?).
It's my impression that because of the fact that we just start "now" in this season - that we get paired up with people that dont even try to read. Everytime I try to talk about strategy or other things there's simply no response.
Now that's nothing that Anet can fix concerning not talking players; though it would be nice if Anet could fix the algorityhm. I've read in the past in the forum that Anet employee's can see the amount of matches I've lost on my account.
Me and my Guildmate don't seem to be the only ones with that problem. I think it has to do with the fact that we started later this season and now somehow get paired up with people that go afk don't talk etc. What I mean: Due to the advanced time in the season we've worst starting conditions.
I'd like to highlight here, that while NUMERICALLY the spread is relatively even, the idea that "both teams are dealing with the same type of spread" is akin to "both teams have to deal with the same enormous problem, so we think that's ok." I'm sorry but that is just confirmation for me that there is NO INTENT to improve the problem from the foundation up but simply bandaid it relentlessly. That's lazy in my eyes. This is probably the only game on the market that I can think of that specifically targets the players that are most invested in the game mode, and punishes them for it. That's unreasonable.
Ok Ben, I believe this statement right here sheds a bit of light on one of the bigger roots of this problem. I'm sure you devs have heard me explain this numerous times in different threads but I am going to do it again:
But all of the above still however, does not explain how or why some given 1500 plat player will be given 10x matches in a row where he is plat1/gold3/gold3/gold2/gold2 vs. plat3/plat2/plat1/plat1/plat1 or some otherwise clearly lopsided split, and for those 10 games, never once be put on the high team favored to win, despite there clearly being other plat 1s out there who are. This IS happening and it happens too often to be a coincidence. For those of us who play in the top 250, it is easy to see when it is happening because everyone in the game is on the leaderboards and you can easily view their ratings. It is very visible when some algorithm function is directing you towards a lose streak, when game after game on a fresh streak, a player takes screenshots and/or add contacts to view ratings afterwards, and can see that most of or even none of their teammates are on the leaderboards, but then every player on the enemy team is playing between plat 3 and plat 1, sometimes maybe even 1800+. I mean, can you explain what is happening there? This kind of strange streak happens to me personally about two or three times a season, every season, like clockwork. It isn't random, it's very predictable. It always happens when I'm approaching around 65% or 70% win rate then BAM a lose streak that always lasts long enough to make sure I go back down to around 49% or 51% win rate. Then it lets up and it lets me play normally again. Then I start hitting around 65% win and BAM it begins happening again, with the type of matches I was describing, clearly lopsided splits where my team is being funneled to lose for many matches in a row.
I wanted you to know, incase my posts come off in the wrong way, that I am sincerely just trying to give productive feedback. You know, I had decided to walk away from gaming for awhile in interests of other activities, but for the purposes of this thread, I may come back to play 50 -100 matches with screenshots/player rating evidence of them all to post. With all the assumed lack of evidence going on around here, I think it may help.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
Thank you for quoting the rating algorithm but I still don't understand how (and if) individual skill and game performance are calculated when defining a player's rating.
That explains why I 've been getting teammates with absolutely no clue of the mode.
And the above explains what happens in reality and nicely describes the 'blowout matches' which are the most annoying given that you normally expect a decently balanced fight.
Have you actually read the whole post or you just got instantly triggered (like many others) by seeing a high rating difference?
Based on your logic, the top100 players must be completely random as matchmaking is random and people are getting uncarriable games.
For some reason though, you can see the same names in each and every season (more or less) in top100. How would you explain that? Always getting lucky?
@Trevor Boyer.6524
That's precisely it, I kept seeing the same posts of yours through the forums but everyone just ignores them.
I find it hard to believe that pvp devs are really incapable of understanding this concept that a single pro player cannot carry a game with 3 objectives spread out over the map.
This is precisely the reason why so many matches are steamrolls.
Either that or as ben said, we just need to stop "tilting".
Because most people understand how the matchmaking works.
Untrue. While there are unwinnable games, the numbers of these are simply low. Most pro players can do it, that's why they are always on top (logical).
As it has been explained by devs like a million times, steamrolls are not the reason of matchmaking working badly. You can have 10 players of exactly the same rating, and the match could still end up 500-50. There are so many variables you have to take into account, how can you not understand this? (team composition, maps, carried players and soooo on)
Personally I've been low plat t3 constantly for the last few seasons regardless of the meta. I was placed in silver, gold, platinum, everywhere by placement matches, but regardless of that I quickly easily carried the games until plat t1.
This is also true from the other side, I got placed once very high plat t3, and quickly dropped to high t2. So I have a feeling that's exactly my skill level, seems to be working for me.
Also, there are people who open threads every season about how impossible it is to climb and carry in lower divisions, even though it means they are just not good enough (not counting the rare examples like we have seen in the statistics). It's the sad truth. If you are good enough, you will climb. You will lose unwinnable games here and there, but eventually you will get to your level
@Trevor Boyer.6524 except, if this is true:
your rating spread statement shouldn't be applicable in the first place.
Which is why there's also a standard deviation.
Red:
Mean: 3.6
S.D: 2.6
Blue:
Mean: 3.6
S.D: 0.5
That's over 5 times a difference in standard deviation.
The first three matches are those that have the most impact on your rating (+80 to +50 rating in one match as gw2 efficiency shows) since you won those games you might be higher ratet as you deserve.
Also you got probably tilted after such a loosing streak and took more risks than you would do normally (so you probably played worse than in the first 3 games)
I wont deny that bad teammates are also a factor, but not the only reason for your loosing streak.
Thanks for the response, i was genuinely curious. I dont doubt the balance of the games. The only problem i really have with the games is that sometimes your influence in the game feels meaningless since regardless of how well you do your team can still kitten you over by losing while outnumbering heavily.
Frostball - twitch.tv/frostball99
Yeah, I think (as in pure hypothetical) the main problem isn't with the matchmaker, it's with the fact that you can considerably screw over your team with very small mistakes. And there's no way to carry your team out of that by compensating by playing better. The problem with PvP in GW2 is more that carrying pretty much isn't possible and playing at your best is very possible. Which means you can't compensate those mistakes that will inevitably happen.
As in in one wrong movement and you can put your whole team in a bad position. vs as one player you can't really undo or even compensate that mistake. All you can do is try to play best as a team, and never giving up on trying to play the best possible way in the hopes the other team makes a wrong move instead.
When you have such big differences in rating it is very natural for unbalanced games to occur, because it is not 1v1 or even 2v2 but 5v5. An experienced player will almost always identify the weak link of the enemy and perma having him out of the game resulting in a 4v5 at best - if your team happens to have more than one of these 'low rating players' it could become even 3v5 and so on. It's not rocket science, such big differences are not healthy for the game balance.
I feel you x100. It's frustrating man... I have had many many games where I am explaining what people should do and they completely ignore my requests and get steamrolled somewhere. So many people just throw games on purpose and because of that, you end up losing. Since no one else cares about winning and I lose all the time, I am starting to feel the same way and I don't care as much anymore. I don't even try to tell people what to do because they literally don't listen. Why even try in a match if many of your teammates just die over and over and don't even run away from fights they cannot win. At this point, because of the low population and the thrown matches, I am like everyone else who doesn't care and I just go for the rewards and don't try as hard as I used too. Sooooo many games I play teams who actually have teamwork and the team I am on is like a bunch of chickens with their head cut off.
It's like people don't understand how to play spvp at all... no rotations, no teamwork, afkers, people who dont care and throw games on purpose, and not to mention.... This Necro/Mesmer meta this season has ruined it for me and hundreds of other people playing ranked. It's not fair..... Why did ANET think creating the Scourge with massive AOES in a point capture game was fair? They are tanky, do insane damage, steal life from you, and also provide barriers or extra health to nearby teammates... like kitten?
I have hope for the Alliance WvW patch and after this season and getting my ascended gear in ranked spvp I have no interest in playing much of season 12. Oh and the toxcity... hahahaahah that's another thing that is horrible in ranked pvp. Heck in many games a person was literally yelling at people and saying stupid stuff to teammates and we won the game!!! Like wow bro... I can't be as good as you.... Bow to your godlike gaming abilities oh mighty one
But this is the issue: People don't care anymore. ANET needs to create a tutorial of some sort for SPvP to explain proper rotations and how the mode works in general with everything. A wall of text won't work because people don't want to read it. You need to make a video for new people or anyone to watch so people understand the gamemode.
The problem is the "carry" philosophy of the game. Dev think that a good or very good player can carry a group of numerous (2 ot 3 ) much lower players.
So an average team of 1420 with (1700 + 1500 + 1300 + 1300 + 1300) can face a 1440 with (1500 + 1500 + 1400 + 1400 + 1400).
But not, the average lvl of team 2 will dominate most encounters against team 1, even if the 1700 player can kill any player of team 2 in 1v1. So it ends that team 2 will clean team 1 and then will jump at 3 v 1 vs the 1700 player of team 1.
But in the Anet stats, 1420 is ok vs a 1440. Systrem is working fine. Just 20 point of difference in this match. It's OK.
in my modest opinion, this is not a fault of system being rigged, the fault is the system is not rigged enought. let me explain:
in this game mode not all classes roles have the same impact on game. imagine this escenario:
-2 teams of average 1500, all two teams have the same composition 1600, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1400
-mirror comps
-supose the mmr is acurate to "real skill"
-team A their 1600 is a roamer thief and their 1400 a suport firebrand team B their 1400 is the roamer thief and 1600 their suport firebrand
A thief will destroy B thief in the 90% of fights making team A dominant in rotations/side objectives and having some time to +1 in bigger fights, the impact of superior skills of suporting character are less than the impact of superior skills of the roamer and this little advantage on big figths will be nullified by +1 .
this macht will end with a victory by a wide margin for team A
Fine let's see how that works with Standard Deviation(S.D.):
Team 1
Mean: 1420
S.D.: 144
Team 2:
Mean: 1440
S.D.: 48
That's nearly a difference of 100 opposed to the 13 on average and 39 in the higher tiers. But let's say you said 1600 or 1500 instead of the probably exaggerated 1700 order to make a point in team 1 (also to show how S.D. behaves when you're starting to make up random team ratings)
With 1600 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1400
S.D.: 120
With 1500 instead of 1700:
Mean: 1380
S.D.: 96
None of that matches up with what the devs have told us.
It does not use individual performance. Glicko is a outcome based algorithm.
Sanity is for the weak minded
YouTube
Well, when you know that Sindrener got teamed with a silver player you know that I didn't exagerated the numbers.
And I would add that the numbers given are average. So if 90% of matches have a SD difference of -30, but 10% have SD difference of +100 then the global average number for SD would seems not so bad isn't it ?
And that's why people are all over enabling ratings shown at the end of the match, because these kind of enormous deviation splits are happening very frequently or at least it feels like it, contrary to what the devs are saying. Again, when you play the top 250 and can see easily see where players you are facing or are with are rated, is when you start to notice something isn't quite right with what we're being told or maybe what people are assuming about the numbers we are being given.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
Because he posted the average over thousands of games. Single games can be catastrophal. Like I am gold division and in enemy team was a God of PvP from r55 guild.
We won and I got a lot more MMR than usual for a win, but that single god of pvp kept one shotting everyone with OP chrono build.
Thanks again for the good information. This is so interesting.
So carrying hard or being carried in a match weighs almost the same for the rating engine.
Im sorry, but there's no such thing as a negative difference. And SD values (being an average of differences) is also never negative
But you're right that there will always be singular cases where you can point out the match maker doesnt function optimally. Especially in the higher rating regions.
Though even in this case, What you can say is that with teams with high standard deviations (like is the case wigh sindrerer and someone in silver) you have a team with players in very differing skill levels being matched up with a team also very differing in skill level. But the difference between standard deviations can be close to nothing while obviously having wildly differing teams. Someone earlier made a similar comment on that earlier btw.
Just so you know, I'm in no way claiming that there's no problems btw. Im just showing how standard deviation works. Even with matching standard deviation and matching average skill rating you dont automatically have an system that balances matches perfectly. (although its a good start.)
I skipped all non-dev posts (except OP), sorry guys.
I haven't played most of the last 2 seasons, because lack of time and disappointed with balance patches. But here's my 10cents:
First you can isolate the OP's complaints into 2 problems:
a) Matchmaker created team comps that seriously disadvantaged one of the teams;
b) Matchmaker is unable to place everyone into well balanced, same rank teams.
Problem b) is caused by a conjunction of problem a) and a few more factors. As in the game doesn't have enough players playing sPvP for the matchmaker to produce proper results. This comes from a lot of factors, one of them being poor balance and one having to relog to be able to pick counter-plays, which only a slim margin of players will do, and it's up to Arena Net to work to change that (if it's at all possible to revitalize sPvP at this point).
Problem a) on the other hand is entirely fixable with a new approach to sPvP that allows for players to draft pick their classes after being matched solely by rank, which allows players to counter each other's picks, and leads to - hopefully - more balanced team comps. A lot of people's complains about sPvP, like teams relogging to pick full necro/firebrand comps or necro/warrior comps now, and other issues with team comps, people asking for class-based MMR, etc all this could be fixed with a draft pick.
What you are saying does not even make sense. You are trying to generalize a situation that has a million variables.
But following your logic I can turn it around: The 1700 rating player shouldn't take 1v1s then, just go for teamfights, erase the lot worse players, then +1 anyone till respawn -> repeat.
You can't judge a matchmaking system on theoretical anecdotes.
Just lost a match, yet again, with a 100 point lead. People not defending caps. Downing a necro and then being bombared by a Mesmer who I get to 10%, and our team thief STILL dies to the Mesmer.
I'm just over it.
I want my placements to be reset or to be manually adjusted to bronze at this point. I'm done with even thinking I have the slightest chance of getting back to where I should be at this point because matchmaking is perpetually putting me with people who have no situational awareness. Two scourge dying to 1 because they apparently do not know how to transfer conditions back.
Just all of it. I'm done with it and would like to just be placed in the lowest possible division because that is where the matchmaking is taking me. I'm tired of the 10-12 game losing streaks over careless errors only to be followed with 2 or 3 wins.
@rank eleven monk.9502
Anecdote means this:
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, incident;
More - urban myth/legend;
"amusing anecdotes"
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
Pointing at something and saying it is an "anecdote" is intrinsically just another anecdotal claim, without the evidence to support that it is or is not truth. In other words, one can claim something is anecdotal in nature, but they cannot point and say it is anecdotal in nature, without some form of evidence that it is indeed anecdotal. Sorry man, with as many times as you are using the word to debunk all claims in this thread, someone needed to point that out.
The sheer inflection in your posts would imply that no human being outside of the Arenanet staff, would possibly be capable of understanding or noticing how the algorithm's patterns work, especially not the players who take the time to post personal feedback. I don't know man, it seems unreasonable.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
A-net could remove most doubts about the matchmaking by showing the MMRs of everyone in a match. Until they do I have no reason to 100% believe them. It doesn't have to be they are lieing either they could be mistaken themselves about there own code or it is sometimes acting in ways they don't fully understand. Smarter people then there coders make mistakes all the time. Blind faith is for little children. As for the evidence being anecdotal well they refuse to give us the full information that would prove themselves 100% correct so that's all I can say about that. I feel like when the playerbase makes a request devs should fullfill that request if it is reasonable. It would take little time to add a pvp window with both teams average MMR and the MMR of every player in the match without the names attached and possibly even the win probabilty they have calculated. More information is always better.
Same experience here. Also this season I had one team mate 1 minute afk during placement matches. The game was counted as a normal loss. Nice Anet. Very nice....
You need to improve that matchmaking. There is no incentive to play solo this way.
You will continue to lose your player base. Not only are you denying players their rightful spot with your algorithm you also deny the scene its growth.
If you get more challenging matches with players smiliar in skill you will slowly see an increase in overall match quality. Right now the system let's you play with a handycap. Instead of facing more challenging opponents you try to force balance on the leaderboards by giving the players that are clearly better than their division a heavier burden to overcome. Why is it that players like me always have the same experience. We always have to carry the entire game to win. And by carrying I mean killing the entire enemy team multiple times taking all of our team mates jobs, never dying and winning every match up....
Let me paraphrase what is going on with your algorithm: It's like watching an Olympic relay run with one team consisting of Usain Bolt and 3 toddlers vs a full team of USA runners.
Your system is not working and your arrogance in denying this is annoying.
it'll NEVER be balance unless match making can read class/elite spec being used.
Can't have team A with Fb/scoruge/mesmer /thief and warrior on a team vs Team B with double scoruge , thief, engi, warrior.
match ups like that with "rating" being equal to each other just won't mean jack if team A running more of a meta/proper team comp then team B.
Try to make the same math on lower rated entry ... ( bronze, silver, and also part of gold ) and u will see , i belive, i completely different situation. How many players are between legendary and plat 3 and how many are between gold and bronze ? how are the matches for the bigger part of the playerbase ?
Since I cant make out if you are advocating such a system from you post alone, so im giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't.
Cause that - unfortunately - is simply impossible to implement.
Important for someone to say this:
Players understand & accept the presence of hiccups and general flaws in the match making that could never reasonably be fixed. They aren't complaining about that. They are complaining about elongated streaks of very unreasonable match making. When some guy reaches plat 1 for his first time, then instantly goes on an elongated lose streak for 10 games or so, that is where the heat is fueled to take the time to come into this forum, and tell a story about it.
With how many claims are stacking up in just this thread alone, that agree on experiencing the exact same pattern, I'd say it's worth looking into if not changing behavior in the algorithm. I mean at the end of the day, what's important is that players aren't getting pissed off and leaving the game because lose streaks are making them feel like the system is choosing when they win or lose.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
and that's a reason why this game is always going to have unbalance match up.
Here is a good old read: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/High-MMR-is-punished-for-solo-que/page/1
Shows how long this has been going on. Maybe with the Glicko algorithm it cannot be fixed and Arenanet just does the best that they can with it. It also serves to demonstrate how "anecdotal" stories from 3 or 4 years ago can end up being 100% true. Pay attention to the last page in particular.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
Wow, you are actually persistently using the same argument for 3 years. Hats off.
During this time you could have just learned to play PvP properly.
By the way, the matchmaking algorythm has been changed multiple times since 2015.
You know, the strength of a resolve can only be gauged by the villainy that challenges it.
A Comprehensive Tutorial For Guild Wars 2 Spvp Conquest
The simple fact is that people have good days and bad days for a variety of reasons. Your opponents are only a small part. Build changes, mental and physical state, network stability etc are all big factors in the type of day you have.
Odds are if you're losing a bunch of games in a row it's probably NOT the matches that are causing it. It COULD be win trading or hacking or alt accounts, though.
I think one thing I don't understand is why the matches need to be progressively harder the longer the win streak.
Eventually you will run into a bunch of people higher skill than you and you will lose, so does there need to be a system that makes it increasingly harder to beat people that may be of equal skill just because the system feels that you've exceeded your personal rating?
Of course it's going to be difficult in a mode like this where your "skill level" is depending on the rest of your team and sometimes strategy more than combat ability, i.e. knowing which point to rotate to in order to keep the points flowing in, but it still seems a bit unnecessary.
Is it fear of people getting too high? Because I'll admit there are plenty of people I know without a doubt would beat me everytime, like Valen the thief who seemed to be speed hacking but I guess is just extremely good and well known for it.
I just think there are enough challenges with random team draw to be stacking odds for or against someone based on a number system that may put you in a less favorable team.
You can tell people to "learn pvp" and "git good" but in the end the mode itself boils down to you and 4 other people controlling 3 points and side objectives and strategizing where to be which sometimes involves actively avoiding other players in "pvp."
Kinda silly.
And I'm not sure attacking Trevor who, even if adamantly voicing an opinion you don't agree with, or simplifying and attempting to invalidate someone's opinion with something as simple as "learn pvp" is really doing much to add to the discussion.
Anyway, that's my latest 2 cents to the discussion. Why? I guess I don't understand how the current system benefits anyone if teams truly do get more difficult to face the higher your rating instead of keeping the rating as close as possible and ensuring that it's always an even rating between both? Or why I in gold 3 would face a duo that's currently in plat 3. In what way is this a fair match-up? We had maybe one MAYBE two tier 3 plat on our team as well, but then you're expecting the ones on my team to carry me against their plat 3. How is that fair to them? Is this just an issue of low population?
I sincerely think that you should end streaks. Extended loss streaks discourage players ( like me, my personal record is approximately 68 and I've heard reports as high as 100 straight losses. This is on my alt account on which I did finally get my Ascension backpack. The grinding had me in tears at times. )
After all, ANET had no compunction in setting up deliberately tilted matches in season 2 and 3.. it was even touted as "competitive."
I suspect that those two seasons of openly tilted matches are a big part of why many people now believe the match making is rigged. I have to admit.. I don't have much confidence in the MM myself. I think it is set up to benefit high rated players at the expense of low rated.
Mesmerizing Girl
Three needless losses yet again. Including a thief that camps mid all match while I'm running around as apparently the only person that can even down somebody just trying to keep caps.
Why do I never get put in matches with people that carry me? This same thief was on the opposite team and just ran around temple the entire time, with somebody on my team chasing them the majority of the time.
Why should I have to be in three different places or show up and kill the scourge that's somehow wiping everybody at the same time?
This is stupid. I have 179 losses and 176 wins. So clearly from what I've learned from this and other posts is that I need to play less because the more I play the more I am expected to carry people making stupid carless decisions.
I'm not even good. I don't know why I'm expected to be the only one who cares about points the majority of the time or seemingly the only one that can even down people instead of just endlessly swinging at people, respawning, and letting the one or two that are downed get ressed every single time.
I'm sure I make a lot of mistakes, but I keep getting groups where I literally have to be the one that does everything. Capping and killing.
So next season I should just limit my games to... what? 20? Or is it too late now and I should pick up an alt account?
People far worse than me with a lot higher rating. So something isn't working or they are getting carried or paying for wins constantly.
Maybe this seems far-fetched and really unbelievable.. But, WHAT IF they are actually better than you, that's why they are on a lot higher rating, while you are just being biased and overrating yourself, leading to blame the system instead?
Just wondering.
it is clear that you do not explain what the algorithm really does or do not know exactly how it works.
I have two accounts in one I am in Platinum 2, in a game of Platinum 3.
and in the other I am in gold 2, gold 3 all the time in a loop of losses won during 5 days.
my skill is the same, my characters the same. The pairings weighed.
I in platinum 2 do not see the games with 2 necros + 2 guard + 1 mesmers and up to 3 equal classes.
please, the scoring system is not adequate.
The problem is how you define someone is " actually better ". Most of top100 players are good so i won't argue about these, but you have many players in gold 3/platinum that are good at playing scourge or mesmer, but have litterally no idea about some capture points basics. Alternatively, you have players in gold 1 that are playing a non-meta build but have good knowledge of map awareness.
@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 the problem is not the algorithm, but the dead population. I can not remember the last time I actually had a real teamcomp in ranked. I am losing 500-22 to spirit weapon guardians who don't know how to play the game, because it is not possible to play the game in this matchmaking and won the next game 500-17 just now. Every single game is a complete stomp for either side on plat 2 and higher because you can't build fair teams with the players available. Only fix is to remove solo q ranked. A cardgame like Hearthstone includes less rng than gw2 ranked.
Also playing certain roles like support is a compeltely unviable strategy on plat 3+, since the game can't pair you with players on your level and the game literally turns into: who farms the noobs the fastest. Everyone runs burst builds and you cant support dead players.
Also often times teams lack roamers or duelists, causing bad matchups and ruin all type of team play. I have never seen any other game with less teamplay involved than GW2. The only time you get to play as a team is the monthly tournament, but who on earth would practise as a team to play 1 game per month ?
as you see here https://picload.org/view/dogpgawl/gw135.jpg.html I only had 1 somewhat playable ranked game that wasnt a spawncamp out of 5 games today. This happened the whole previous week while I was streaming. This system HAS to go and needs to be replaced.
Please just bring team ques back. Solo que only made so many people quit the game and it's making ranked an absolutely terrible experience.
Solo que also killed off the formation of new teams... something that is very important to the health of a PvP game.