Lost 2 placement matches in a row to same player deliberately throwing — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Lost 2 placement matches in a row to same player deliberately throwing

Sinful.2165Sinful.2165 Member ✭✭✭

Why anet? Just. Why.

Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?

IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

Comments

  • Hoodie.1045Hoodie.1045 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?

    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    You can always block the player who was throwing on purpose. That way you'll know when they're playing PvP and you can avoid playing with them. People who throw matches suck and blocking them to know when they're online playing PvP is the only way to fix the problem of win traders aside from reporting them for match manipulation.

    Karras

  • mortrialus.3062mortrialus.3062 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It sucks, but think of it this way; in the long run this will be less than 2% of your matches if you play the minimum matches required for the season.

    The Psychomancer: Mesmer Elite Specialization Suggestion

  • LazySummer.2568LazySummer.2568 Member ✭✭✭

    It probably happens a lot more in placement matches because kids are still wintrading in a dead mode as if their ranking means something, and placement is definitely the easiest time to get your rating very high.

  • Abraxxus.8971Abraxxus.8971 Member ✭✭✭

    Lost my first 5 placement matches due to dc'ers and afk'ers.

    Bring back Ceara

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    I was Plat-something (decayed) last season and lost my first 5 played placement matches to what felt like AFK'ers and win-traders. Interestingly, my wife who was Bronze 3 on her main account last season also lost the first 6 placement matches she played. I've asked around in-game and losing all of your placement matches seems to be a phenomena that's cropping up this season with quite a few veteran accounts across the ranking spectrum. Broken MMR? More rampant win-trading? More people purposely losing placements for easy point climb? Something has happened.

  • Crab Fear.1624Crab Fear.1624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I always have my tinfoil hat on so bad matches never get me.

    Soon™ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Because you can't use technology to solve "people" problems, like someone being too thick to understand that the MMR system is very, very fast to correct for errors.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?
    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    Even if all 10 placement matches were thrown like this, play 10 "real" matches and you will have the correct MMR. In fact, the only difference between a placement match and a real match is ... during placement they don't tell you what your MMR is. Everything else is identical. ;)

  • Devilman.1532Devilman.1532 Member ✭✭✭

    welcome to ranked pvp in GW2.... :(

  • Shadowzerk.4715Shadowzerk.4715 Member ✭✭✭

    i just lost 5 match in a a row, cos we got 1~2 ppl dont know how to play and wanna to get their "dailies" done...... anet need to remove dailies from "ranked" match :/

  • Buran.3796Buran.3796 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Still not resign/surrender button? After a couple of minutes waiting to log and another one in countdown usually only takes 2-3 minutes to known which side is going to win, so is easy to understand why some fellows give up for a fast 50-500 instead of the agony of a much longer match strugling which anyway will end in a 100-500.

  • Namless.4028Namless.4028 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Because you can't use technology to solve "people" problems, like someone being too thick to understand that the MMR system is very, very fast to correct for errors.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?
    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    Even if all 10 placement matches were thrown like this, play 10 "real" matches and you will have the correct MMR. In fact, the only difference between a placement match and a real match is ... during placement they don't tell you what your MMR is. Everything else is identical. ;)

    During the first matches you gain/loose more mmr than in the later games.
    When you look into gw2efficiency youll see that the first placement match can mean eiter gain 80 raiting or loose the same ammount

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    See, this is where I think a lot of people fail to realize that your placement matches matter more than any other match played. If placement matches are giving +80 per win, then if you win all 10 placement matches (+800) then your effective rating is 1200+800; 2000 or #1 on the current leaderboards. Now no one in NA is above 1750-ish, so I do not think anyone in NA has won all 10 placement matches. As you play more and more matches, eventually your rating will normalize. This happens to everyone. If you notice right now on the NA leaderboards, almost everyone is sitting at a 60%-50% wins to losses. Eventually everyone gets normalized down to a 50% at the end of a season, gaining or losing +1; if you've played enough matches that is. When you hit 50%, that means your played matches don't matter anymore. Now, if you get lucky and get a match against a "better" team and win, of course you can get a big boost in rating; however, the match maker is set-up to match like-skilled opponents. The match maker is actually biased against proving you opportunities to beat a "better" team; most matches are usually rating X versus rating X; the endless cycle of Win 1 and Lose 1. 50-50. Essentially, your first 10 placement matches are the ones that matter the most - if-not the only ones that really matter. Maybe the next 20 matches matter slightly and slightly affect your rating. After 30 matches, essentially there's little impact on your rating (unless you try to game the decay system.)

    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

  • Namless.4028Namless.4028 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2018

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    See, this is where I think a lot of people fail to realize that your placement matches matter more than any other match played. If placement matches are giving +80 per win, then if you win all 10 placement matches (+800) then your effective rating is 1200+800; 2000 or #1 on the current leaderboards. Now no one in NA is above 1750-ish, so I do not think anyone in NA has won all 10 placement matches. As you play more and more matches, eventually your rating will normalize. This happens to everyone. If you notice right now on the NA leaderboards, almost everyone is sitting at a 60%-50% wins to losses. Eventually everyone gets normalized down to a 50% at the end of a season, gaining or losing +1; if you've played enough matches that is. When you hit 50%, that means your played matches don't matter anymore. Now, if you get lucky and get a match against a "better" team and win, of course you can get a big boost in rating; however, the match maker is set-up to match like-skilled opponents. The match maker is actually biased against proving you opportunities to beat a "better" team; most matches are usually rating X versus rating X; the endless cycle of Win 1 and Lose 1. 50-50. Essentially, your first 10 placement matches are the ones that matter the most - if-not the only ones that really matter. Maybe the next 20 matches matter slightly and slightly affect your rating. After 30 matches, essentially there's little impact on your rating (unless you try to game the decay system.)

    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Only your first 2
    Then every game means less rating.
    Also there is only a soft reset.
    So youll have a higher rating @ the begin of a new season if you had high rating the season before

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2018

    @Namless.4028 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Because you can't use technology to solve "people" problems, like someone being too thick to understand that the MMR system is very, very fast to correct for errors.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?
    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    Even if all 10 placement matches were thrown like this, play 10 "real" matches and you will have the correct MMR. In fact, the only difference between a placement match and a real match is ... during placement they don't tell you what your MMR is. Everything else is identical. ;)

    During the first matches you gain/loose more mmr than in the later games.
    When you look into gw2efficiency youll see that the first placement match can mean eiter gain 80 raiting or loose the same ammount

    Absolutely, and that is why the values are hidden. As long as the confidence estimate stays low, these large movements will continue, and repeatedly getting unexpected results (which being placed too low, or too high, causes) will keep confidence low. Once you are in the right region the magnitude of change will decrease, and you will move more slowly as the system homes in on the correct MMR.

    There is no magic about the first ten matches, they have have a completely arbitrary starting point -- since it is irrelevant -- and low confidence values.

    The MMR system is designed to quickly home in on a good approximation of real skill, regardless of noise in the system. All deliberately thrown matches cause is a bit more noise, drawing out the process a little longer.

    This is equally true of the players on the other side, who "won" two matches because someone was throwing them: they may start higher than their real skill, but then they will go ahead and lose a bunch and end up dropping to the real level they deserve based on skill.

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @Namless.4028 said:

    Only your first 2
    Then every game means less rating.

    I over-simplified a bit much to express the point, yea. The first 10 matches really are what sets your rating for the season - every match after that is carrot-stick tricking people into playing thinking they might actually improve their rating or climb a lot. This is why eventually everyone gets stuck in a tier purgatory with the Win 1 Lose 1 loop. Honestly, the way rating and match making is set-up breaks the usage of Glicko; but I think Anet is okay with that because this is how they catch the win-traders in the end. Knowing the top ranked player gets stuck about 1750ish and all players end-up with about 50-60% wins; anyone with more than 60% wins obviously win-traded. That's honestly the only way to truly climb in rating and get better than a 60% win rate - win-trade.

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Namless.4028 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Because you can't use technology to solve "people" problems, like someone being too thick to understand that the MMR system is very, very fast to correct for errors.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?
    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    Even if all 10 placement matches were thrown like this, play 10 "real" matches and you will have the correct MMR. In fact, the only difference between a placement match and a real match is ... during placement they don't tell you what your MMR is. Everything else is identical. ;)

    During the first matches you gain/loose more mmr than in the later games.
    When you look into gw2efficiency youll see that the first placement match can mean eiter gain 80 raiting or loose the same ammount

    Absolutely, and that is why the values are hidden. As long as the confidence estimate stays low, these large movements will continue, and repeatedly getting unexpected results (which being placed too low, or too high, causes) will keep confidence low. Once you are in the right region the magnitude of change will decrease, and you will move more slowly as the system homes in on the correct MMR.

    There is no magic about the first ten matches, they have have a completely arbitrary starting point -- since it is irrelevant -- and low confidence values.

    The MMR system is designed to quickly home in on a good approximation of real skill, regardless of noise in the system. All deliberately thrown matches cause is a bit more noise, drawing out the process a little longer.

    This is equally true of the players on the other side, who "won" two matches because someone was throwing them: they may start higher than their real skill, but then they will go ahead and lose a bunch and end up dropping to the real level they deserve based on skill.

    Assuming the win-trading and throwing stops at X matches. Which it doesn't. That's the point - the cause - of why manipulation is becoming so rampant now, especially during placement matches. Win your first 10, then win the next X, the confidence/MMR is gamed. The "noise" is not noise anymore. Even if people are win-trading "smart" and purposely losing matches so they don't stand-out; the result ends-up being the same.

    And to have your MMR rectified, you would have to lose your 10 "real" matches after throwing the first 10. All of the assumptions of the MMR are based upon the assumed derivation from natural, real variables - not artificial. If you always purposely throw/win-trade 70% wins and purposely truly lose 30% real losses - your MMR is still going to reflect 70% wins regardless of "skill."

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bandlero.6312 said:

    @Namless.4028 said:

    Only your first 2
    Then every game means less rating.

    I over-simplified a bit much to express the point, yea. The first 10 matches really are what sets your rating for the season

    This is really, absolutely, two hundred percent not true. I'm certainly you genuinely and sincerely believe this, but you are incorrect to believe that.

    every match after that is carrot-stick tricking people into playing thinking they might actually improve their rating or climb a lot. This is why eventually everyone gets stuck in a tier purgatory with the Win 1 Lose 1 loop.

    That would be the MMR system having an accurate assessment of your MMR. It never stops changing, it just bounces around the actual value, a little up, a little down, delivering as close to balanced matches as possible.

    So, that isn't exactly "a tier purgatory", but rather, "your skill level purgatory"; even if you believe you should be rated higher, the MMR doesn't agree, and I'm inclined to trust the unemotional machine over your personal impressions, I gotta say.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bandlero.6312 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Namless.4028 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Because you can't use technology to solve "people" problems, like someone being too thick to understand that the MMR system is very, very fast to correct for errors.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?
    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    Even if all 10 placement matches were thrown like this, play 10 "real" matches and you will have the correct MMR. In fact, the only difference between a placement match and a real match is ... during placement they don't tell you what your MMR is. Everything else is identical. ;)

    During the first matches you gain/loose more mmr than in the later games.
    When you look into gw2efficiency youll see that the first placement match can mean eiter gain 80 raiting or loose the same ammount

    Absolutely, and that is why the values are hidden. As long as the confidence estimate stays low, these large movements will continue, and repeatedly getting unexpected results (which being placed too low, or too high, causes) will keep confidence low. Once you are in the right region the magnitude of change will decrease, and you will move more slowly as the system homes in on the correct MMR.

    There is no magic about the first ten matches, they have have a completely arbitrary starting point -- since it is irrelevant -- and low confidence values.

    The MMR system is designed to quickly home in on a good approximation of real skill, regardless of noise in the system. All deliberately thrown matches cause is a bit more noise, drawing out the process a little longer.

    This is equally true of the players on the other side, who "won" two matches because someone was throwing them: they may start higher than their real skill, but then they will go ahead and lose a bunch and end up dropping to the real level they deserve based on skill.

    Assuming the win-trading and throwing stops at X matches. Which it doesn't. That's the point - the cause - of why manipulation is becoming so rampant now, especially during placement matches. Win your first 10, then win the next X, the confidence/MMR is gamed. The "noise" is not noise anymore. Even if people are win-trading "smart" and purposely losing matches so they don't stand-out; the result ends-up being the same.

    You are completely right here: if every single game played is deliberately manipulated, the results will not reflect actual skill. This is not exactly news, and anyone with any familiarity with, IDK, like, anything, would be well aware that if you cheat in a game literally all the time, the outcome isn't reflective of skill or chance.

    Are you genuinely asserting that all PvP games in GW2 are deliberately and purposefully manipulated at all times? Because if so, I'm happy to say that given your assumption, your conclusion is correct, and walk away: I have no idea how to respond to that claim. O_o

    And to have your MMR rectified, you would have to lose your 10 "real" matches after throwing the first 10. All of the assumptions of the MMR are based upon the assumed derivation from natural, real variables - not artificial. If you always purposely throw/win-trade 70% wins and purposely truly lose 30% real losses - your MMR is still going to reflect 70% wins regardless of "skill."

    It sounds like you think MMR directly reflects the win-rate, which isn't true, but even leaving that aside, the situation you outline requires that the hypothetical player is good enough to win 7 out of 10 matches, full stop. So, their MMR will rise, naturally, until they stop being able to win that frequently. They can drop it back down again, to a lower MMR, by throwing matches, but then they will naturally climb again ... to the point the stop being able to win that frequently.

    If the drop is far enough, that'd be seven wins. If it isn't, it'd be however many wins are required to climb back to the point that MMR stops growing because they reach their natural skill level.

    You can't simple "lose N, win M" repeatedly and have an infinitely increasing MMR, unless you could also have simple "win M + N" matches, and had an even higher MMR at the end. That's ... just how the system works. If you can win, your MMR increases. If you can't win, it decreases. The amount is dictated by what the system expects, but it ultimately wiggles along at basically your "real" MMR.

    Again, though, if literally every match you ever play is fully manipulated, none of this can apply, because ... every single match you ever played was manipulated. With that assumption, none of this discussion is worth having, because who among us could do anything in the face of someone with the ability to play only matches they are completely in control of the outcome of?

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    That would be the MMR system having an accurate assessment of your MMR. It never stops changing, it just bounces around the actual value, a little up, a little down, delivering as close to balanced matches as possible.

    So, that isn't exactly "a tier purgatory", but rather, "your skill level purgatory"; even if you believe you should be rated higher, the MMR doesn't agree, and I'm inclined to trust the unemotional machine over your personal impressions, I gotta say.

    Of course totally ignoring that your rating is not actually based upon your actual solo, individual skill rating, but upon the performance rating of sets of compiled teams of "like skilled" players, drawn together "at random." Your rating is actually a measurement of the performance of the teams you've been on. An improper assumption to make is that, because you've been on every team, you are the (sole) cause of your rating.

  • phokus.8934phokus.8934 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Your rating is directly related to last seasons rating. Placement doesn't mean a whole lot and there's not a lot of volatility with them.

  • Master Ketsu.4569Master Ketsu.4569 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:

    @Namless.4028 said:

    Only your first 2
    Then every game means less rating.

    I over-simplified a bit much to express the point, yea. The first 10 matches really are what sets your rating for the season

    This is really, absolutely, two hundred percent not true. I'm certainly you genuinely and sincerely believe this, but you are incorrect to believe that.

    The unfortunate reality is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not, because a lot of players believe placements matter the most. And thus wintrading at the start of a season is at an alltime high.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2018

    If only you could avoid this somehow, like, i don't know, bringing teams back...
    Here's how you handle toxicity in GW2: You don't...
    You hide in a corner and hope it goes away! Or do what i did and stop forcing yourself through that terrible experience. There's simply no tools to prevent people from spoiling your game, because Arena Net cares only the bare minimum to make an appearance that it cares about PvP.
    In other games you can accurately report people, and see reports actioned, you can block people and not be placed with them on your team, you can make your own team by inviting friends or random players.
    All this allows you to be able to enjoy the game despite the inherent Toxicity of PvP modes.
    In GW2, Arena Net is still convinced they have the "best community in the world", which is true, for the most part, in PvE, but PvP? I play League of Legends a lot, and that game is infamous for it's toxic community, and yet i enjoy myself much more there, and it's incredibly rare for me to get upset from my team's behaviour, while until i quit GW2's PvP, it rarely came a day that someone wasn't throwing matches left and right, or just complaining about inane stuff. Or simply being frustrated because the game has no balance.

    @phokus.8934 said:
    Your rating is directly related to last seasons rating. Placement doesn't mean a whole lot and there's not a lot of volatility with them.

    Actually, no, according to @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 the matchmaker "soft-resets" everyone's rating to a average score, i think around low gold, iirc, that varies a bit depending on your previous standing, but it doesn't influence your standing as much as, say in LoL, and other games.

  • Bandlero.6312Bandlero.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @phokus.8934 said:
    Your rating is directly related to last seasons rating. Placement doesn't mean a whole lot and there's not a lot of volatility with them.

    Actually, no, according to @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 the matchmaker "soft-resets" everyone's rating to a average score, i think around low gold, iirc, that varies a bit depending on your previous standing, but it doesn't influence your standing as much as, say in LoL, and other games.

    I was trying to find the actual post to link, but can't seem to find it - maybe somewhere in this thread (https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19539/pvp-discussion-matchmaking-and-leagues/p3). He mentions that "average" rating is 1200. But yea, previous seasons' ratings do add a little to your current starting rating, but its very minimal like 50 or less I think Ben said. I can't remember exact specifics or find the post.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bandlero.6312 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    That would be the MMR system having an accurate assessment of your MMR. It never stops changing, it just bounces around the actual value, a little up, a little down, delivering as close to balanced matches as possible.

    So, that isn't exactly "a tier purgatory", but rather, "your skill level purgatory"; even if you believe you should be rated higher, the MMR doesn't agree, and I'm inclined to trust the unemotional machine over your personal impressions, I gotta say.

    Of course totally ignoring that your rating is not actually based upon your actual solo, individual skill rating, but upon the performance rating of sets of compiled teams of "like skilled" players, drawn together "at random." Your rating is actually a measurement of the performance of the teams you've been on. An improper assumption to make is that, because you've been on every team, you are the (sole) cause of your rating.

    Eh, the bias from random grouping is in your favor: if your skill is higher than your MMR, you will on average be placed on a team with four average and one good player, against five average players. It's a small advantage, but a real one, and will lead to -- yes -- your individual skill causing your MMR to rise, along with the average players who are placed with you.

    Is GLEIKO perfect for this? Nope. It'll take longer than would be desirable to correct if you get extremely unlucky, but on average that'll still be around ten to, worst case, fifteen games before you are in the right region for your MMR.

    I appreciate that you sincerely believe that the MMR is inaccurate, and you are being given a lower rating than you deserve through flaws in the system, rather than it being an accurate reflection of your skill, but the math doesn't favor that claim.

  • Rufo.3716Rufo.3716 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't even know why they call them placement matches. It's not as if everybody starts off at the same point and gets placed from there.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 14, 2018

    @Rufo.3716 said:
    I don't even know why they call them placement matches. It's not as if everybody starts off at the same point and gets placed from there.

    Actually they kinda do, read above...

    And even if they didn't (like in all other games), you're still being placed in a league, according to your past MMR and your outcome of the 10 placement matches.

  • phokus.8934phokus.8934 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    If only you could avoid this somehow, like, i don't know, bringing teams back...
    Here's how you handle toxicity in GW2: You don't...
    You hide in a corner and hope it goes away! Or do what i did and stop forcing yourself through that terrible experience. There's simply no tools to prevent people from spoiling your game, because Arena Net cares only the bare minimum to make an appearance that it cares about PvP.
    In other games you can accurately report people, and see reports actioned, you can block people and not be placed with them on your team, you can make your own team by inviting friends or random players.
    All this allows you to be able to enjoy the game despite the inherent Toxicity of PvP modes.
    In GW2, Arena Net is still convinced they have the "best community in the world", which is true, for the most part, in PvE, but PvP? I play League of Legends a lot, and that game is infamous for it's toxic community, and yet i enjoy myself much more there, and it's incredibly rare for me to get upset from my team's behaviour, while until i quit GW2's PvP, it rarely came a day that someone wasn't throwing matches left and right, or just complaining about inane stuff. Or simply being frustrated because the game has no balance.

    @phokus.8934 said:
    Your rating is directly related to last seasons rating. Placement doesn't mean a whole lot and there's not a lot of volatility with them.

    Actually, no, according to @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 the matchmaker "soft-resets" everyone's rating to a average score, i think around low gold, iirc, that varies a bit depending on your previous standing, but it doesn't influence your standing as much as, say in LoL, and other games.

    Yeah that's the thing, placements don't really mean much in this game. When I finish in Plat last season and start in G3 after placements (going 7/3) and winning two games after granting me 28 points per win, placements are kind of useless.

  • I'll say it again for all you people who think this system can calculate a single players MMR from 1/10 player pool, rating can not, will not, ever be accurate. It is a horrible estimate based on random factors; tilted players, dc's, toxic players, low player pop @ certain rating levels, MMR mismatch within teams due to low pop @ high ratings, you being only 1 of 5 players on your team (2 if you're below plat), class swapping, class stacking, win traders.... do I have to go on?

    The closest way to estimate a players skill using GW2's modified Glicko system would be based on team queues of 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5.

  • SweetPotato.7456SweetPotato.7456 Member ✭✭✭

    @Hoodie.1045 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?

    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    You can always block the player who was throwing on purpose. That way you'll know when they're playing PvP and you can avoid playing with them. People who throw matches suck and blocking them to know when they're online playing PvP is the only way to fix the problem of win traders aside from reporting them for match manipulation.

    that is no a good solution at all. why do we need to avoide these trolls, they should be the one not allow to play

  • Ithilwen.1529Ithilwen.1529 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The advice I was given was: Wait a week-or-so to play placements. That gives time for things to settle down.

    Mesmerizing Girl

  • FyzE.3472FyzE.3472 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Shadowzerk.4715 said:
    i just lost 5 match in a a row, cos we got 1~2 ppl dont know how to play and wanna to get their "dailies" done...... anet need to remove dailies from "ranked" match :/

    Who the f does dailies in ranked? IF that's the only goal, just do them in unranked! You can even play a troll build there! I don't understand... Feel bad for you man..

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    They are quick to remove posts that tell ppl to get good, but not so much that actually affect their paying player's in-game experience and those breaking their rules (despite those who have proof via screenshots and video)

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:
    I'll say it again for all you people who think this system can calculate a single players MMR from 1/10 player pool, rating can not, will not, ever be accurate. It is a horrible estimate based on random factors; tilted players, dc's, toxic players, low player pop @ certain rating levels, MMR mismatch within teams due to low pop @ high ratings, you being only 1 of 5 players on your team (2 if you're below plat), class swapping, class stacking, win traders.... do I have to go on?

    ...and yet, after a little while, it tends to settle out into a fairly small range of movement for all the players involved, as if it were circling around a specific value. How could that happen, if it is so dominated by these random confounding factors?

    The closest way to estimate a players skill using GW2's modified Glicko system would be based on team queues of 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5.

    You mean, estimating the specific team composition skill, and only for 5v5, with premades on both sides, right? Because otherwise those exact same confounding factors remain present: 2 people queue together, plus three random, bam. 5 person premade vs random team, bam. etc.

  • @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:
    I'll say it again for all you people who think this system can calculate a single players MMR from 1/10 player pool, rating can not, will not, ever be accurate. It is a horrible estimate based on random factors; tilted players, dc's, toxic players, low player pop @ certain rating levels, MMR mismatch within teams due to low pop @ high ratings, you being only 1 of 5 players on your team (2 if you're below plat), class swapping, class stacking, win traders.... do I have to go on?

    ...and yet, after a little while, it tends to settle out into a fairly small range of movement for all the players involved, as if it were circling around a specific value. How could that happen, if it is so dominated by these random confounding factors?

    The closest way to estimate a players skill using GW2's modified Glicko system would be based on team queues of 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5.

    You mean, estimating the specific team composition skill, and only for 5v5, with premades on both sides, right? Because otherwise those exact same confounding factors remain present: 2 people queue together, plus three random, bam. 5 person premade vs random team, bam. etc.

    In terms of queuing together, you misunderstood my second statement. I mean only 4 players in the map for 2v2, only 6 for a 3v3, and so on. Only full teams are allowed to queue in those ranked categories. Of course it is not perfect but it is far more accurate than what we have now as you eliminate the majority of random factors due to queuing with unknown players.

    By the nature of the game and it's mechanics, the rating will never be accurate. Team queue only for ranked would be simply be the best option in terms of accuracy. We all know the player population wouldn't be able to support this model however, thus we are forever at the mercy of RNG.

  • Sinful.2165Sinful.2165 Member ✭✭✭

    I agree that team queues would represent a much more accurate rating of individual skill rating. Nevermind that your comp might be hard countered by another enemy comp, you all have the option of changing classes during the ready phase. It would always come down to each player's skill level comprised as part of a team.

    Bring back team queues IMO! ;) but then that would encourage community and discourage the immensely toxic environment that sPvP currently is. No, that doesn't make sense at all.. cough cough hint hint @Ben Phongluangtham.1065

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:
    I'll say it again for all you people who think this system can calculate a single players MMR from 1/10 player pool, rating can not, will not, ever be accurate. It is a horrible estimate based on random factors; tilted players, dc's, toxic players, low player pop @ certain rating levels, MMR mismatch within teams due to low pop @ high ratings, you being only 1 of 5 players on your team (2 if you're below plat), class swapping, class stacking, win traders.... do I have to go on?

    ...and yet, after a little while, it tends to settle out into a fairly small range of movement for all the players involved, as if it were circling around a specific value. How could that happen, if it is so dominated by these random confounding factors?

    The closest way to estimate a players skill using GW2's modified Glicko system would be based on team queues of 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5.

    You mean, estimating the specific team composition skill, and only for 5v5, with premades on both sides, right? Because otherwise those exact same confounding factors remain present: 2 people queue together, plus three random, bam. 5 person premade vs random team, bam. etc.

    In terms of queuing together, you misunderstood my second statement. I mean only 4 players in the map for 2v2, only 6 for a 3v3, and so on. Only full teams are allowed to queue in those ranked categories. Of course it is not perfect but it is far more accurate than what we have now as you eliminate the majority of random factors due to queuing with unknown players.

    Oh. Yes, that would eliminate the problem, though it would also bring in more challenges around balancing all vs all in terms of specs: the less people in the team, the less chance that you will cover any gap in any individual spec. I don't have the skill to know where that trade-off stops being worth it.

    By the nature of the game and it's mechanics, the rating will never be accurate. Team queue only for ranked would be simply be the best option in terms of accuracy. We all know the player population wouldn't be able to support this model however, thus we are forever at the mercy of RNG.

    It is true, MMR remains an estimate, and there will always be some degree of randomness in it, even in the most controlled of settings. (Because a Comcast outage in CA could drop someone from your team, leading to a loss, ouchies, and that is ... well, random enough, I guess.)

    I'm two hundred percent behind the idea of a better system than GLICKO-2 being (a) possible, and (b) desirable. I'm honestly disappointed every time I go poke around for this stuff and find that neither academia or engineering have delivered anything that seems to be an improvement on the state of the art -- which is either GLICKO-2 or Microsoft's TrueSkill, a question which currently has no clear winner.

    I'm even open to the idea that while all the evidence people cite here about MMR problems seems to show that GLICKO-2 is doing what it does, and basically working correctly, there is a systematic problem with GW2 PvP. I just want, personally, a higher standard of proof than we have so far.

    If you are really concerned, and it seems you are, one way to combat this would be to use the GW2 API which can give you the stats for your last ten matches, and use that to see if you can identify a systematic discrepancy. If, over a few hundred matches, there are significantly more "unexpected loss" or significantly less "unexpected win" results than their counterparts, you have a very good case for asking ANet why this is happening.

    Do that across more than one person, and you have an even better case for their being systematic bias, and getting it eliminated. ANet (and I) can ignore opinions if things "look right", but nobody can argue that someone showing solid statistics, with a robust measure of how they determined them, and a mechanism to replicate the results, isn't on solid ground.

    (I know, it's hard work to do that. I suspect someone with a bit of enthusiasm and JavaScript could get it running in a Google Sheets / Scripts environment pretty quickly, and capture the raw data though...)

  • AegisFLCL.7623AegisFLCL.7623 Member ✭✭
    edited June 15, 2018

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:
    I'll say it again for all you people who think this system can calculate a single players MMR from 1/10 player pool, rating can not, will not, ever be accurate. It is a horrible estimate based on random factors; tilted players, dc's, toxic players, low player pop @ certain rating levels, MMR mismatch within teams due to low pop @ high ratings, you being only 1 of 5 players on your team (2 if you're below plat), class swapping, class stacking, win traders.... do I have to go on?

    ...and yet, after a little while, it tends to settle out into a fairly small range of movement for all the players involved, as if it were circling around a specific value. How could that happen, if it is so dominated by these random confounding factors?

    The closest way to estimate a players skill using GW2's modified Glicko system would be based on team queues of 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5.

    You mean, estimating the specific team composition skill, and only for 5v5, with premades on both sides, right? Because otherwise those exact same confounding factors remain present: 2 people queue together, plus three random, bam. 5 person premade vs random team, bam. etc.

    In terms of queuing together, you misunderstood my second statement. I mean only 4 players in the map for 2v2, only 6 for a 3v3, and so on. Only full teams are allowed to queue in those ranked categories. Of course it is not perfect but it is far more accurate than what we have now as you eliminate the majority of random factors due to queuing with unknown players.

    Oh. Yes, that would eliminate the problem, though it would also bring in more challenges around balancing all vs all in terms of specs: the less people in the team, the less chance that you will cover any gap in any individual spec. I don't have the skill to know where that trade-off stops being worth it.

    By the nature of the game and it's mechanics, the rating will never be accurate. Team queue only for ranked would be simply be the best option in terms of accuracy. We all know the player population wouldn't be able to support this model however, thus we are forever at the mercy of RNG.

    It is true, MMR remains an estimate, and there will always be some degree of randomness in it, even in the most controlled of settings. (Because a Comcast outage in CA could drop someone from your team, leading to a loss, ouchies, and that is ... well, random enough, I guess.)

    I'm two hundred percent behind the idea of a better system than GLICKO-2 being (a) possible, and (b) desirable. I'm honestly disappointed every time I go poke around for this stuff and find that neither academia or engineering have delivered anything that seems to be an improvement on the state of the art -- which is either GLICKO-2 or Microsoft's TrueSkill, a question which currently has no clear winner.

    I'm even open to the idea that while all the evidence people cite here about MMR problems seems to show that GLICKO-2 is doing what it does, and basically working correctly, there is a systematic problem with GW2 PvP. I just want, personally, a higher standard of proof than we have so far.

    If you are really concerned, and it seems you are, one way to combat this would be to use the GW2 API which can give you the stats for your last ten matches, and use that to see if you can identify a systematic discrepancy. If, over a few hundred matches, there are significantly more "unexpected loss" or significantly less "unexpected win" results than their counterparts, you have a very good case for asking ANet why this is happening.

    Do that across more than one person, and you have an even better case for their being systematic bias, and getting it eliminated. ANet (and I) can ignore opinions if things "look right", but nobody can argue that someone showing solid statistics, with a robust measure of how they determined them, and a mechanism to replicate the results, isn't on solid ground.

    (I know, it's hard work to do that. I suspect someone with a bit of enthusiasm and JavaScript could get it running in a Google Sheets / Scripts environment pretty quickly, and capture the raw data though...)

    Until ANET decides to be entirely transparent, and release public data on complete mmr history for players, it is nearly impossible to prove right or wrong. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but after several discussions with ANET input on the topic or similar topics, they know there are problems but a) don't think it's worth investing the time and or b) don't realize their design choices are deliberately hurting the way the Glicko system "should" work.

    ANET has proven time and time again they have a poor track record of consistency for any game content in GW2, which directly relates to their poor internal management. I have zero faith they will do anything beneficial for PvP and or WvW at this point in the games age. Improving PvP, with it's ever dwindling population and toxic environment, is 100% not worth it from a business standpoint, let alone having a small team of 3-5 people to balance the entire game and address PvP concerns.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the game and genuinely agree with the majority of yours and other players discussions on the PvP system, the chances of improvements are just slim to none. Ranked is a mess and I primarily see it as a means for pve, pvp, and wvw players to farm gold through pips with very little concern for the ranked systems actual purpose.

  • omgdracula.6345omgdracula.6345 Member ✭✭✭

    @Hoodie.1045 said:

    @Sinful.2165 said:
    Why anet? Just. Why.

    Why would you give a loss in a placement match when a player sits in a corner and does absolutely nothing?

    IMO upgrade your algorithm to give the person throwing the match all 5 losses and let everyone else try again on a more level playing field. frustrated

    You can always block the player who was throwing on purpose. That way you'll know when they're playing PvP and you can avoid playing with them. People who throw matches suck and blocking them to know when they're online playing PvP is the only way to fix the problem of win traders aside from reporting them for match manipulation.

    That is just giving people who throw all the power. So OP is supposed to hop on and go? Welp Jerky McJerkface is playing so can't play pvp today! Cool! That is just not a good solution for anyone.

  • Sinful.2165Sinful.2165 Member ✭✭✭

    I did not really agree that there was a small PvP population but this season has been very enlightening. I consistently see the same people in unranked all day. In ranked I also run in to the same small pool of players from match to match even climbing all the way from gold 1 to plat 1 it is still the same names.

    Being top 250 in upper gold seems like a joke right now, I won't even enable my PvP badge while gold. People are getting placed near plat 1 straight out of the gate. I get that it's only a few days in to the season but this is currently one of the best options available for both MMORPGs and PvP in general. GW2 doesn't have much in terms of competition at the moment. Where the heck is everyone?

    Fix your PvP anet, pretty pretty please?

  • Megametzler.5729Megametzler.5729 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The season is out for like four days... relax, mate. ;)

    It is true, of course, you will probably recognise some people over time. That does not trouble me though.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @AegisFLCL.7623 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:
    If you are really concerned, and it seems you are, one way to combat this would be to use the GW2 API which can give you the stats for your last ten matches, and use that to see if you can identify a systematic discrepancy. If, over a few hundred matches, there are significantly more "unexpected loss" or significantly less "unexpected win" results than their counterparts, you have a very good case for asking ANet why this is happening.

    Do that across more than one person, and you have an even better case for their being systematic bias, and getting it eliminated. ANet (and I) can ignore opinions if things "look right", but nobody can argue that someone showing solid statistics, with a robust measure of how they determined them, and a mechanism to replicate the results, isn't on solid ground.

    (I know, it's hard work to do that. I suspect someone with a bit of enthusiasm and JavaScript could get it running in a Google Sheets / Scripts environment pretty quickly, and capture the raw data though...)

    Until ANET decides to be entirely transparent, and release public data on complete mmr history for players, it is nearly impossible to prove right or wrong. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but after several discussions with ANET input on the topic or similar topics, they know there are problems but a) don't think it's worth investing the time and or b) don't realize their design choices are deliberately hurting the way the Glicko system "should" work.

    That's why I suggested the polling of the API; you can collect and store the data yourself. I don't think you can run through ten complete PvP matches in the five minutes the API caches data for, so you shouldn't miss out on anything. ;)

    Don't get me wrong, I love the game and genuinely agree with the majority of yours and other players discussions on the PvP system, the chances of improvements are just slim to none. Ranked is a mess and I primarily see it as a means for pve, pvp, and wvw players to farm gold through pips with very little concern for the ranked systems actual purpose.

    nod I, also, would love to see problems resolved. We don't necessarily agree on what they are, but I think your efforts to improve things are absolutely valid, reasonable, and worth celebrating. If you are right, and I'm wrong, I'll be just as happy when things get fixed. :)

  • Thais.4639Thais.4639 Member ✭✭

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    Last season I started late and only had one or two placement matches with blatant manipulators. So far this season every single one has had match manipulators (sometimes my team, sometimes enemy). It sucks nine ways from Sunday, because my rank and my skill are only tenuously connected. At this point I'm only playing ranked for rewards - I can have more fun and get better matches in Unranked usually.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    That is true, but ... isn't that exactly what should be happening? If you are winning exactly half the time, you are playing balanced matches. (or, at least, a balance of matches where you win or lose equally often.)

    This sounds like a complaint that an effective MMR system is effective, to me, and I can't tell why you think that is an issue?

  • Thais.4639Thais.4639 Member ✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    That is true, but ... isn't that exactly what should be happening? If you are winning exactly half the time, you are playing balanced matches. (or, at least, a balance of matches where you win or lose equally often.)

    This sounds like a complaint that an effective MMR system is effective, to me, and I can't tell why you think that is an issue?

    Re-read my comment please. The point is that placement matches are by far the most important matches you play, because they set you up for the seasonal MMR, and so the consequences of placement being gamed are far higher than meets the eye.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    That is true, but ... isn't that exactly what should be happening? If you are winning exactly half the time, you are playing balanced matches. (or, at least, a balance of matches where you win or lose equally often.)

    This sounds like a complaint that an effective MMR system is effective, to me, and I can't tell why you think that is an issue?

    Re-read my comment please. The point is that placement matches are by far the most important matches you play, because they set you up for the seasonal MMR, and so the consequences of placement being gamed are far higher than meets the eye.

    I have done so, and I don't see anything in there the second time that contradicts what I saw the first time: a working MMR system will keep your rank stable with a 50 percent winrate. This is correct and intended behaviour.

    To the comment above yours, which you were responding to, two players with the same win/loss counts, but different ranks is perfectly reasonable: a "1400 MMR" player and a "1700 MMR" player should stay equally distant if they both have the exact same win/loss count. (and expected win/loss count, and confidence, of course)

    You should see significant change in MMR when it doesn't reflect skill. Absolute win/loss count is irrelevant, as the MMR system in GW2 (and, honestly, everywhere) is in no way a measure of the count of victories or losses, but rather, of player skill. An estimate, sure, one that can be wrong, absolutely, but none of that makes "placement matches" in any way significant.

    A "1400 MMR" player who, through happenstance, places at 1700 when they exit will not maintain a 20:12 win:loss ratio, as their skill will contribute to the team losing, and their MMR will consequently drop until they reach their level. If they do maintain that ratio, vs a someone placed at 1400, then they have demonstrated the skill to maintain that level.

    I'm certainly open to you offering additional information that might change this situation, but I do not see anything in your comment that changes this on a second reading.

  • Thais.4639Thais.4639 Member ✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    That is true, but ... isn't that exactly what should be happening? If you are winning exactly half the time, you are playing balanced matches. (or, at least, a balance of matches where you win or lose equally often.)

    This sounds like a complaint that an effective MMR system is effective, to me, and I can't tell why you think that is an issue?

    Re-read my comment please. The point is that placement matches are by far the most important matches you play, because they set you up for the seasonal MMR, and so the consequences of placement being gamed are far higher than meets the eye.

    I have done so, and I don't see anything in there the second time that contradicts what I saw the first time: a working MMR system will keep your rank stable with a 50 percent winrate. This is correct and intended behaviour.

    To the comment above yours, which you were responding to, two players with the same win/loss counts, but different ranks is perfectly reasonable: a "1400 MMR" player and a "1700 MMR" player should stay equally distant if they both have the exact same win/loss count. (and expected win/loss count, and confidence, of course)

    You should see significant change in MMR when it doesn't reflect skill. Absolute win/loss count is irrelevant, as the MMR system in GW2 (and, honestly, everywhere) is in no way a measure of the count of victories or losses, but rather, of player skill. An estimate, sure, one that can be wrong, absolutely, but none of that makes "placement matches" in any way significant.

    A "1400 MMR" player who, through happenstance, places at 1700 when they exit will not maintain a 20:12 win:loss ratio, as their skill will contribute to the team losing, and their MMR will consequently drop until they reach their level. If they do maintain that ratio, vs a someone placed at 1400, then they have demonstrated the skill to maintain that level.

    I'm certainly open to you offering additional information that might change this situation, but I do not see anything in your comment that changes this on a second reading.

    It seems to me your source of confusion is thinking we're talking about the same thing. We aren't. We are talking about two different things.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    That is true, but ... isn't that exactly what should be happening? If you are winning exactly half the time, you are playing balanced matches. (or, at least, a balance of matches where you win or lose equally often.)

    This sounds like a complaint that an effective MMR system is effective, to me, and I can't tell why you think that is an issue?

    Re-read my comment please. The point is that placement matches are by far the most important matches you play, because they set you up for the seasonal MMR, and so the consequences of placement being gamed are far higher than meets the eye.

    I have done so, and I don't see anything in there the second time that contradicts what I saw the first time: a working MMR system will keep your rank stable with a 50 percent winrate. This is correct and intended behaviour.

    To the comment above yours, which you were responding to, two players with the same win/loss counts, but different ranks is perfectly reasonable: a "1400 MMR" player and a "1700 MMR" player should stay equally distant if they both have the exact same win/loss count. (and expected win/loss count, and confidence, of course)

    You should see significant change in MMR when it doesn't reflect skill. Absolute win/loss count is irrelevant, as the MMR system in GW2 (and, honestly, everywhere) is in no way a measure of the count of victories or losses, but rather, of player skill. An estimate, sure, one that can be wrong, absolutely, but none of that makes "placement matches" in any way significant.

    A "1400 MMR" player who, through happenstance, places at 1700 when they exit will not maintain a 20:12 win:loss ratio, as their skill will contribute to the team losing, and their MMR will consequently drop until they reach their level. If they do maintain that ratio, vs a someone placed at 1400, then they have demonstrated the skill to maintain that level.

    I'm certainly open to you offering additional information that might change this situation, but I do not see anything in your comment that changes this on a second reading.

    It seems to me your source of confusion is thinking we're talking about the same thing. We aren't. We are talking about two different things.

    That would certainly do it. I'm sorry to have misunderstood your point. I'm fine if you don't want to, but I'd be interested if you could try restating it in a different way, so perhaps I can actually understand what you are saying? Obviously, up to you, and I hold no grudge if you don't want to invest that time.

  • Sampson.2403Sampson.2403 Member ✭✭✭

    @Thais.4639 said:

    @Bandlero.6312 said:
    tldr; Your placement matches matter the most. In-fact, your placement matches might be the only matches that matter. That's why in the leaderboards you can see people with rating 1400 at 20 wins and 10 losses and people with rating 1700 with 20 wins and 10 losses. What's the difference? The rating 1700 players won more placement matches. This is why placement matches have become so rife with manipulation and trading.

    Every ranked online game which uses MMR that I'm aware of does this with placement. Your placement matches are by FAR the most important ones you will play if you care about your rank - in fact with a strict 50% winrate after placement, your rank should barely fluctuate all season. (if you don't care about rank, then the farm aspect of Ranked PvP suggests that you want to drive your rank down as far as possible to make the pip farm easier).

    Last season I started late and only had one or two placement matches with blatant manipulators. So far this season every single one has had match manipulators (sometimes my team, sometimes enemy). It sucks nine ways from Sunday, because my rank and my skill are only tenuously connected. At this point I'm only playing ranked for rewards - I can have more fun and get better matches in Unranked usually.

    Bah, save the watch (lifts his arm up for air as the room is overflowing with BS).

    1. Placement games don't matter. If you get unlucky and lose a lot during placement and are truly placed at a rank lower than your skill level then by the end of the season your MMR will have corrected itself and you'll be at where you belong. There is no arguing this, its a str8t up fact, and your failing to see this.

    Still not convinced? Try flipping the angle then - If you get lucky and win all your games during placement, that luck will run out and by the end of the season you'll drop to the SAME MMR that you would have climbed to from an unlucky placement.

    The end result is the same regardless of placement matches.

    1. Every single one of your placement matches did not have match manipulation, its all in your head.

    2. This style of thinking is what's keeping you and a lot of other people from climbing rank/improving their game in general. There's a reason that you're not improving in rank. Its the same reason i hit a wall in rank or the top 10 players hit a wall in climbing rank.

    What you need to do is analyze your game and see whats preventing you from climbing to the next tier. Once you address this correcrly you will climb and hit another wall and you will need to play more n play smarter to climb past that wall. Rinse n repeat.

    Here's the thing though, if you're convinced that the reason that you're losing games is because your team sucks, the systems broken and your constantly unlucky, then you will fail to ever have the self awareness that's required to self assess, improve and climb.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.