Why no one likes playing ranked for rating. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why no one likes playing ranked for rating.

Poelala.2830Poelala.2830 Member ✭✭✭
edited June 15, 2018 in PVP

Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players at best, and enforcing a gambler's fallacy at worse (and most common). When the scenario of a loss's absolute value being greater than or equal to the value of two wins, this means that a 66% win rate is discouraged and the only way to move up the ladder is with at LEAST a 75% win rate. These numbers are arrived by 2 wins (which can have the value of 8, in my case) do just as much good as one loss (equaling -16 in my case) does. This is 2 wins out of 3, or a 66% win rate. If you win 3 times out of four (75%), this is the ONLY way to rise up on the board.

This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this. When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

How can you ban and dishonor win-traders when you are creating an environment where their existence is almost necessitated?

Comments

  • Eddbopkins.2630Eddbopkins.2630 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2018

    All i want to do is play it for rating. But with afkers and people who dont really care cuz thear there for the pips and rewards for players to just spam games, it just ruins my rating experience.

  • zoopop.5630zoopop.5630 Member ✭✭✭✭

    i stated this months ago, the issue becomes when you are anywhere in the 1650-1700s queing up gonna be 100% one sided matches/hard to carry games.

    I played 3 games last night on this account won 2 out of the 3 however only gaining 14-16 points per win but then losing 48 ....on my third match, at that moment i just called it a night and logged off. This happens to me ALL the time after the season is out and thats because of 2 issues.

    1: NOT enough high rated players queuing up
    2: Low low low population in the Plat division.

    On my alt account i was able to get easier games/high win chance when it was a freshly new account because it didn't know where to place me in terms of "mmr" however even now i'm running into the same issue as my main and thats strictly because of the 2 reasons listed above. A system like that makes it un-enjoyable for any plat 2+ player to spam games/keep "grinding" to get to the top. After getting every title besides the top 10 rewards i just stop focusing on the rating level over all and just follow my own rules when playing rank...

    1:Play 2 rank games a day(if you win both keep playing till you lose once)
    2: If your in the top 25 Play 2 rank games every 3 days to hold/camp a spot on the leaderboard
    3: Keep track of your total games played/ win and lose ratio

    everyone has their own set of rules but I usually do that and i end up somewhere in the leader-board on my main or alt account with 0 issues.

  • ArthurDent.9538ArthurDent.9538 Member ✭✭✭✭

    People need to stop thinking about the rating number as meaning anything, it really is just arbitrary, the cutoff's for the divisions are also arbitrary, bronze silver gold plat leg mean nothing. What matters is the order in which player ratings are they could make the new cutoff for silver 2000 so that everyone is bronze which while kinda dumb would have no impact on the leader board. Why I bring this up is that people solidly in the top 250 are disappointed that they need to win 60-70% of their matches just to maintain their rating, the thing is that everyone else around them is also winning 60-70% of their matches. They may be out performing the people they are going against in their games, however they are not necessarily doing any better than everyone around them on the leader board. Keep in mind that if you do the math, to get the 120 games required for leader board, one needs only spend about 2% of their time during the season playing ranked, so if we assume people don't play too much more than the minimum then on average there will only be 2-3 top 100 players playing at a given time. The rest of the spots in their matches will necessarily be filled with people from lower ratings, there is no getting around that. So the rating gain per win / rating loss per loss ratio is appropriate for these people. While -48 rating for that loss is harsh, the season is still extremely early, so volatility is still high, if you deserve the higher rating you will get back to it.

    The one complaint I do have with the rating system is that late season volatility stays too high. Even once you have reached the 120+ games played for the season, you still typically gain 8-12 points per win and lose 12-20 points per loss. So playing your last game of the season you could gain 12 points or lose 20 resulting in an approximate 32 point spread on what your final rating could be, which makes a huge difference in potential leader board ranking. Just looking off of last season on NA, the rating difference between the rank 10 person and the rank 25 person was only 25 point. In theory someone in the top 15 at the end of the season could have potentially played 1 more game and either hit top 10 if they won or dropped out of top 25 entirely for a loss. It simply gives too much importance to the late season games as a nice late season win streak can boost your rank a few dozen spots while a late season slump will knock you down dozens of spots as well. I would propose cutting back late season volatility so that by the end of the season a top 250 range player will only be gaining 2-3 rating per win but also only losing 3-5 so that your leader board ranking isn't changing by a dozen spots with every single game at the end of the season.

  • Kathul.1280Kathul.1280 Member ✭✭

    I was going to to start a new post this morning about this but you beat me to it.

    My last placement match was a loss, -33 points. Next match another loss -33 points. Yet another Afk'r loss after that -18 points. From gold back to silver just like that. Very discouraging to keep playing ranked to have good matches, just to lose so much rating. This really made me just think that pip farming is the only reason to play ranked now, instead of for competition or even for FUN.

  • Gwaihir.1745Gwaihir.1745 Member ✭✭✭

    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    Shield of Wrath: Reduced the cooldown of this skill from 36 seconds to 35 seconds.

    Quality balance changes^TM

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

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level and then you're expected to cover for all their mistakes while winning your fights

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • Poelala.2830Poelala.2830 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2018

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    This would make a lot more sense if I have EVER experienced a win that gave me more points than my median loss in points. Wins are always a lower value than the absolute value of losses.
    Edit: Guess what? I WAS the one that caused said popular streamer to lose that match. You can check twitch. I only gained 12 rating from that game.

  • Poelala.2830Poelala.2830 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 I have screenshots of games where I lost 500-77 and lost 17 points right next to games I lost 500-470 and lost 17 points. I clearly had the better team in the second one. Why did this not affect how much I lost?

  • zoopop.5630zoopop.5630 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2018

    @Poelala.2830 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    This would make a lot more sense if I have EVER experienced a win that gave me more points than my median loss in points. Wins are always a lower value than the absolute value of losses.
    Edit: Guess what? I WAS the one that caused said popular streamer to lose that match. You can check twitch. I only gained 12 rating from that game.

    Because Like i stated above once your in the 1600s+ no mater what side of the team you are in....you are usually the highest player on both sides, which ends up with you losing a high amount of rating if you lose. It doesn't matter which team.....i been on winning streaks of 14+ games in plat 2 and highest i gotten after 30 games total played was usually around 12-14 rating, and after that long nice win streak i started losing 8 games back to back with 18-24 rating per game lost. Your telling me out of those 8 loses straight i was suppose to win each and every one of those games lol? How does the system not recognize a player losing streak/rating level after such a major lost?

    Majority of these post are from solid rated players who been through enough struggles to warn everyone/anet about the major issue with why the rating system isn't good for high level players..... why do you think everyone at the end of the season starts to win trade ? Even high end top tier "pro" players struggle/been caught cheating in some sort of way to increase there rating....

    P.s Not directing any insult or anything toward you just speaking in general about this topic /last few comments that were made in this post.

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

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level

    Their MMR should be quite close to yours; it is tested the same way that yours is. Would you say that your being placed on the team represented someone of "untested skill level" being added, forcing the other four players to cover for your mistakes?

    If not, and I bet you wouldn't, then it seems a little unfair to characterize only other players that way since, I'd guess, you are not the one-and-only competent player. :)

  • Poelala.2830Poelala.2830 Member ✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level

    Their MMR should be quite close to yours; it is tested the same way that yours is. Would you say that your being placed on the team represented someone of "untested skill level" being added, forcing the other four players to cover for your mistakes?

    If not, and I bet you wouldn't, then it seems a little unfair to characterize only other players that way since, I'd guess, you are not the one-and-only competent player. :)

    One game I was salty enough after a 500-<100 game and I actually added them all and waited to see what their MMR was. Out of all of them, there was only one person with an MMR higher than gold 1. I was plat 2.

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

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    @SlippyCheeze.5483 I have screenshots of games where I lost 500-77 and lost 17 points right next to games I lost 500-470 and lost 17 points. I clearly had the better team in the second one. Why did this not affect how much I lost?

    Because GLICKO2 doesn't take into account how close the game was, just the expectation (eg: are you predicted to win or lose) and the boolean "win/lose" result. That, in turn, comes from the ELO heritage of the system, which comes from real world work on the systems by people who are experts in the area, who I guess determined that the degree of win or loss wasn't ultimately necessary to account for in order to get good results.

    I am not arguing that GLICKO2 is the best possible system, even though it is close to the best publicly documented system available at this time, but rather, that it is not as bad as some of the claims made here indicate. Microsoft have their system which is apparently better at handling random group matches, though I'm unable to find much work published studying how effective it actually is.

    I am absolutely confident that there is plenty of fame, and glory, and a PhD thesis waiting out there for someone who studies in the area. Probably plenty of high pay jobs at game studios shortly to follow, because I'm sure ANet would love to do better ... as long as there is as rigorous a definition of what better is, and how it works, as their current system. :)

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

    @Poelala.2830 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level

    Their MMR should be quite close to yours; it is tested the same way that yours is. Would you say that your being placed on the team represented someone of "untested skill level" being added, forcing the other four players to cover for your mistakes?

    If not, and I bet you wouldn't, then it seems a little unfair to characterize only other players that way since, I'd guess, you are not the one-and-only competent player. :)

    One game I was salty enough after a 500-<100 game and I actually added them all and waited to see what their MMR was. Out of all of them, there was only one person with an MMR higher than gold 1. I was plat 2.

    The matchmaker will accept worse compositions in order to keep a reasonable upper bound on queue time. Was that both sides in gold1, or just yours? It'll also consider "one great player, four ok players" on each side a reasonable-ish choice. Not ideal, but better than the other choices that might be available, when it can't get an ideal match.

    The other thing to remember is that this is a statistical system, just like a whole bunch of other things. Any individual match could be completely stupid; the goal is that as you play 10, or 20, or 30 matches the final result of all of them is something close to the correct MMR. Individual outliers don't have that strong an effect in the overall picture.

    Just like you can probably flip 10 heads in a row much faster than you think, but 100 is gonna be ... challenging. :)

  • I completely agree this is a huge problem. The system league of legends and Starcraft 2 have is great for encouraging players to queue as often as they would like to. This would be ideal but I dunno if Anet wants to spend the time and money to implement such a system.

    At the very least the elo should be changed based on population. The population affects total amount of games played which affects the average elo across the board.

    I'm not 100% sure about this but I believe as a player and the player base plays more and more games the less you need a 75% win rate to climb and the more you just need a 66% win rate to climb. Even after a long time that 66% needed win rate declines to 65%, 64%, etc. Because 2 wins will begin to give you more points than 1 loss. I don't know if this will ever happen with the population as low as it is in NA which is why maybe the ELO algorythm could be slightly adjusted to not scale in this manner. Which may result in far too many legendary players but at least there will be legendary rank players and a less discouraging elo system.

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

    I am not sure if I got this right, but: Please don't introduce a system where you get ranked higher the more you play. Didn't we hate that in the first seasons?

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

    @Phantaram.4816 said:
    I completely agree this is a huge problem. The system league of legends and Starcraft 2 have is great for encouraging players to queue as often as they would like to. This would be ideal but I dunno if Anet wants to spend the time and money to implement such a system.

    So, fun fact time:

    • LoL uses ELO, the predecessor to GLICKO-2, which doesn't account for uncertainty, so is prone to even broader swings than GW2 is.
    • Starcraft 2 uses something akin to GLICKO-2, which is the same thing that GW2 does.

    At the very least the elo should be changed based on population. The population affects total amount of games played which affects the average elo across the board.

    ELO is an algorithm for adjusting the MMR of players, not a score in and of itself. It seems like you meant the MMR -- the outcome of using the ELO (or GLICKO-2) algorithm to compute per-player scores -- from the way you discuss it, and any further comment is based on that understanding.

    I'm not 100% sure about this but I believe as a player and the player base plays more and more games the less you need a 75% win rate to climb and the more you just need a 66% win rate to climb. Even after a long time that 66% needed win rate declines to 65%, 64%, etc. Because 2 wins will begin to give you more points than 1 loss.

    All the algorithms mentioned require a 51 percent win rate to climb. (Actually, a 50 point 1 percent, but the rate of climb is rather slow at that point. Anyway, point is, you stay absolutely still with a 50 percent win rate, climb if it is at all above that, and drop if it is at all below that.)

    The cited 75, 66, etc, percent win rates are based on people observing and counting unexpected losses and expected wins as the only types of match they are involved in. If that assumption is true, then yes, win rates substantially higher than 50 percent are required. To date, though, we have plenty of assertion, and nobody who has, for example, provided the long history showing a bias toward those two types compared to the (expected) balance of them all.

    Unfortunately, while the technology exists to get access to this data, nothing out there seems to do so in a way that could be used to determine if there is a bias. The API only returns the last ten matches, so it needs to be quite frequently polled, and to be able to produce statistically significant results, to have access to many accounts -- ideally thousands, but at least a few hundred.

  • ArthurDent.9538ArthurDent.9538 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Another thing that people almost never bring up but is certainly a part of why people feel they lose more rating per loss than they gain per win is how 4v5's are handled. As it currently stands the winning team gains as much rating as they would in a clean 5v5 while the losing team does not lose rating (aside from the player that dc'd). This means that everytime a 4v5 occurs, significantly more rating is gained on average than is lost, in theory a clean 5v5 game would on average have as much rating gained by the winning team as lost by the losing team, however if this was the case when 4v5's are factored in this would result in a global rating inflation since games will either be adding net rating per player (4v5) or keeping a steady flow (5v5). The system attempts to keep players ratings in a bell-curve with a specific average value most likely somewhere around low gold or high silver, to keep this value there cannot be rating inflation which means the rating per loss in clean 5v5's must be greater than the gain on average to make up for the excess rating generated by 4v5's.

  • zoopop.5630zoopop.5630 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Phantaram.4816 said:
    I completely agree this is a huge problem. The system league of legends and Starcraft 2 have is great for encouraging players to queue as often as they would like to. This would be ideal but I dunno if Anet wants to spend the time and money to implement such a system.

    So, fun fact time:

    • LoL uses ELO, the predecessor to GLICKO-2, which doesn't account for uncertainty, so is prone to even broader swings than GW2 is.
    • Starcraft 2 uses something akin to GLICKO-2, which is the same thing that GW2 does.

    At the very least the elo should be changed based on population. The population affects total amount of games played which affects the average elo across the board.

    ELO is an algorithm for adjusting the MMR of players, not a score in and of itself. It seems like you meant the MMR -- the outcome of using the ELO (or GLICKO-2) algorithm to compute per-player scores -- from the way you discuss it, and any further comment is based on that understanding.

    I'm not 100% sure about this but I believe as a player and the player base plays more and more games the less you need a 75% win rate to climb and the more you just need a 66% win rate to climb. Even after a long time that 66% needed win rate declines to 65%, 64%, etc. Because 2 wins will begin to give you more points than 1 loss.

    All the algorithms mentioned require a 51 percent win rate to climb. (Actually, a 50 point 1 percent, but the rate of climb is rather slow at that point. Anyway, point is, you stay absolutely still with a 50 percent win rate, climb if it is at all above that, and drop if it is at all below that.)

    The cited 75, 66, etc, percent win rates are based on people observing and counting unexpected losses and expected wins as the only types of match they are involved in. If that assumption is true, then yes, win rates substantially higher than 50 percent are required. To date, though, we have plenty of assertion, and nobody who has, for example, provided the long history showing a bias toward those two types compared to the (expected) balance of them all.

    Unfortunately, while the technology exists to get access to this data, nothing out there seems to do so in a way that could be used to determine if there is a bias. The API only returns the last ten matches, so it needs to be quite frequently polled, and to be able to produce statistically significant results, to have access to many accounts -- ideally thousands, but at least a few hundred.

    Issue with the TWO games you mention compared to Gw2 is 1 major factor....

    Major Fact:
    1: Gw2 DOES not have the amount of players LoL or Starcraft has when it comes to queing up for RANK matches.

    Plat division is WAY to SMALL and because of that glicko isn't the BEST for top tier players. With almost everything you mention i agree to extent.

  • Deimos.4263Deimos.4263 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd be happy if my teammates actually had ratings. One game late last season (I had played about 150 matches), did not go well and the ranting and raving commenced. It came out that two of our teammates were not yet even finished placement -- they had played three games. I guess in that case rating is based on the previous season but that seems...wrong.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2018

    @Eddbopkins.2630 said:
    All i want to do is play it for rating. But with afkers and people who dont really care cuz thear there for the pips and rewards for players to just spam games, it just ruins my rating experience.

    The other side of this is:

    All i want to do is play it for PIPS. But with ragers and people who really care cuz thear there for the ranks and rewards for players to just spam games, it just ruins my fun experience.


    I think we can all agree this is a silly system to mash everyone together like this, as I said in another thread it's like signing up to a motocross event in pairs to win but your friend shows up on a push bike because it's more fun.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion

  • Chuck.2864Chuck.2864 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2018

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

  • SlippyCheeze.5483SlippyCheeze.5483 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2018

    @zoopop.5630 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Phantaram.4816 said:
    I completely agree this is a huge problem. The system league of legends and Starcraft 2 have is great for encouraging players to queue as often as they would like to. This would be ideal but I dunno if Anet wants to spend the time and money to implement such a system.

    So, fun fact time:

    • LoL uses ELO, the predecessor to GLICKO-2, which doesn't account for uncertainty, so is prone to even broader swings than GW2 is.
    • Starcraft 2 uses something akin to GLICKO-2, which is the same thing that GW2 does.

    At the very least the elo should be changed based on population. The population affects total amount of games played which affects the average elo across the board.

    ELO is an algorithm for adjusting the MMR of players, not a score in and of itself. It seems like you meant the MMR -- the outcome of using the ELO (or GLICKO-2) algorithm to compute per-player scores -- from the way you discuss it, and any further comment is based on that understanding.

    I'm not 100% sure about this but I believe as a player and the player base plays more and more games the less you need a 75% win rate to climb and the more you just need a 66% win rate to climb. Even after a long time that 66% needed win rate declines to 65%, 64%, etc. Because 2 wins will begin to give you more points than 1 loss.

    All the algorithms mentioned require a 51 percent win rate to climb. (Actually, a 50 point 1 percent, but the rate of climb is rather slow at that point. Anyway, point is, you stay absolutely still with a 50 percent win rate, climb if it is at all above that, and drop if it is at all below that.)

    The cited 75, 66, etc, percent win rates are based on people observing and counting unexpected losses and expected wins as the only types of match they are involved in. If that assumption is true, then yes, win rates substantially higher than 50 percent are required. To date, though, we have plenty of assertion, and nobody who has, for example, provided the long history showing a bias toward those two types compared to the (expected) balance of them all.

    Unfortunately, while the technology exists to get access to this data, nothing out there seems to do so in a way that could be used to determine if there is a bias. The API only returns the last ten matches, so it needs to be quite frequently polled, and to be able to produce statistically significant results, to have access to many accounts -- ideally thousands, but at least a few hundred.

    Issue with the TWO games you mention compared to Gw2 is 1 major factor....

    Major Fact:
    1: Gw2 DOES not have the amount of players LoL or Starcraft has when it comes to queing up for RANK matches.
    Plat division is WAY to SMALL and because of that glicko isn't the BEST for top tier players. With almost everything you mention i agree to extent.

    Hey, could be, but ... what would be better? Like, I'm genuinely interested if there is a better option out there for small player count games. In my poking around, I have not found one, and since GLICKO-2 and ELO both scale down to, like, 60-ish player chess clubs and stuff like that, I figured it wouldn't be a big deal, but I don't know for sure.

    PS: @Phantaram.4816 was the one who brought them up, I was just responding to them describing the MMR in those games as using a better algorithm, when it is basically the exact same algorithm that GW2 does...

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

    @Deimos.4263 said:
    I'd be happy if my teammates actually had ratings. One game late last season (I had played about 150 matches), did not go well and the ranting and raving commenced. It came out that two of our teammates were not yet even finished placement -- they had played three games. I guess in that case rating is based on the previous season but that seems...wrong.

    Yeah, personally I'd be in favor of just resetting all the MMRs to either zero, or something like 800 / 1000. It really won't slow down the migration to the correct location by very much at all, but shrug if they were good last season, which the GW2 policy means would have a high MMR during placement, it is a surprise they are not equally good this time around.

    Maybe that ban wave for shared accounts really did count for something. ;)

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

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

  • Gwaihir.1745Gwaihir.1745 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    You can't call kitten on my experience on the sole grounds that your experience is different. I usually skip a season and play every other season which effectively removes my mmr history. So I usually place silver 2-3 and have climbed to gold 3 in under 100 games every season I play, peaking at ~1500-50sr when I care to play well.

    Shield of Wrath: Reduced the cooldown of this skill from 36 seconds to 35 seconds.

    Quality balance changes^TM

  • Kathul.1280Kathul.1280 Member ✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

  • Kathul.1280Kathul.1280 Member ✭✭

    IF wins and losses had the same positive or negative point loss then more wins would result in a higher rating.

    YET losing typically results in more points lost than a win can gain overall with this glicko algorithm. I have never gained 33 points for a win. A Static point system for wins or losses would make for a more competitive and easier to understand system of rating. 1 win = 5 points. 1 loss= -5 points. More wins = more points, etc.

    The NHL has a TEAM, and SOLO point system for an entire season that they can rate the TEAMS and Individual players on. Using a STATIC point system for both. Which by the way is collated by humans, and not and old Chess tournament system setup for 1v1 stats. (Elo, btw that is a persons last name) .

    The math and systems for a competitive 5v5 system are in place, WORLDWIDE and used in the OLYMPICS !!

    No individual player loses more than 2 points per game , win or loss. Based off of individual performance, which the game keeps track of ( i.e. most kills, most defense, most offense etc)

    You want competition and ratings in a "competitive " environment well, we ALL have several examples. Anet needs to have a pint and a discussion.

  • Jalal.6783Jalal.6783 Member ✭✭✭

    the ranking system balance is a joke, plat 3 gets put with golds and once you cross plat 2, your rating earned gets reduced by 20%-50%and your points lost increase by 50%. Aint nobody got time for that

  • Marxx.5021Marxx.5021 Member ✭✭✭

    Placement matches are a joke. Playing plat 1 last season I end up in low gold. Basically all matches have been decided by afk player in the end.

  • Jalal.6783Jalal.6783 Member ✭✭✭

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players at best, and enforcing a gambler's fallacy at worse (and most common). When the scenario of a loss's absolute value being greater than or equal to the value of two wins, this means that a 66% win rate is discouraged and the only way to move up the ladder is with at LEAST a 75% win rate. These numbers are arrived by 2 wins (which can have the value of 8, in my case) do just as much good as one loss (equaling -16 in my case) does. This is 2 wins out of 3, or a 66% win rate. If you win 3 times out of four (75%), this is the ONLY way to rise up on the board.

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this. When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    How can you ban and dishonor win-traders when you are creating an environment where their existence is almost necessitated?

    I'm in the same boat, i constantly hover between plat 1 and 2 because of this punishing system. Getting to plat 2 is easy enough and wins and losses and pretty much even rating gained/lost but as soon as 1600 comes by and with each successive win, the matchmaking system severely punishes me for a loss and barely rewards me with a win. It feels as though once you reach plat 2, the system puts you in a position that says,"Hey, you're plat 2 right? We expect to hard carry players much lower than you and if you cant, then you just aren't cut out for this division." It's rage inducing and has caused me to limit my playtime much more than i would like. I love this game and would love to play 15-20 matches a day but when it feels like i'm being punished for it, i usually end up playing around half as much before i get tilted off by the system.

  • Chuck.2864Chuck.2864 Member ✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2018

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

    What exactly is "Platinum level" though? That's exactly my point. In 2 seasons I was able to stay in Plat 1 without any issue (where according to you I can't play at "that level", and so if the MM is perfectly fine I should have fell down), but suddenly 2 weeks later I'm a Gold 2 player rather than a "Plat player"? Maybe I'm not even a G3 player anymore because I sometimes dip back into G2 when on a loss streak?

    I mean this is what I'm saying. "Platinum level" is meaningless and arbitrary because I'm playing with people in Plat 1 anyway because this is what MM can do with the low population, so if Plat 1 is indeed my ceiling I have no way to actually get back to it because I happened to have DC"s and otherwise bad games in my placements, so gg. Wherever you place is mostly where you will stay unless you were either incredibly lucky\boosted or incredibly unlucky and ended up in Silver when you should be Plat. If it's fine margins though, i.e G3-Plat 1, you will find it super difficult to make that climb. It's time ANet recognize these divisions are arbitrary and almost meaningless with the current population and cut it down to maybe 3 divisions.

    Answer me this - do you actually consider someone with 1530 rating to be playing at a different level to someone with 1470 rating because one is in Gold and the other in Plat? Even the MM system doesn't believe that, but the latter player might never break that 1500 barrier whilst consistently being matchmade with the former player

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level

    Their MMR should be quite close to yours; it is tested the same way that yours is. Would you say that your being placed on the team represented someone of "untested skill level" being added, forcing the other four players to cover for your mistakes?

    If not, and I bet you wouldn't, then it seems a little unfair to characterize only other players that way since, I'd guess, you are not the one-and-only competent player. :)

    Unless we all agree that real MMR hidden than your statement is wrong at 200%, I normally get people doing their placement matches..they have no visible rating

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2018

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    @SlippyCheeze.5483 I have screenshots of games where I lost 500-77 and lost 17 points right next to games I lost 500-470 and lost 17 points. I clearly had the better team in the second one. Why did this not affect how much I lost?

    Because GLICKO2 doesn't take into account how close the game was, just the expectation (eg: are you predicted to win or lose) and the boolean "win/lose" result. That, in turn, comes from the ELO heritage of the system, which comes from real world work on the systems by people who are experts in the area, who I guess determined that the degree of win or loss wasn't ultimately necessary to account for in order to get good results.

    I am not arguing that GLICKO2 is the best possible system, even though it is close to the best publicly documented system available at this time, but rather, that it is not as bad as some of the claims made here indicate. Microsoft have their system which is apparently better at handling random group matches, though I'm unable to find much work published studying how effective it actually is.

    I am absolutely confident that there is plenty of fame, and glory, and a PhD thesis waiting out there for someone who studies in the area. Probably plenty of high pay jobs at game studios shortly to follow, because I'm sure ANet would love to do better ... as long as there is as rigorous a definition of what better is, and how it works, as their current system. :)

    Elo, Glicko, Trueskill, all of that is actually widely and highly documented as completely ineffective for team based games. They work fantastic in 1v1 rankings but the system just doesn't make any sense for something like a solo/duo only GW2 ranked season.

    As far as what can be done better? Well, something like a solo/duo only season with an algorithm judging individual skill based on raw win/loss rate within a 5 vs. 5 setting is something that just doesn't work. Not only does it not work, but it highly encourages gaming the system, which just ends up making the system feel even worse than it did when players were actually playing legitimately. All argument aside, the Glicko system or anything like this that was based off the 1v1 Elo, will completely fall apart in a game like 5 vs. 5 conquest. The answer is real simple, regardless of whatever Anet's reasoning is as to why they won't do this -> 5 man leagues, sign your team in, always play with the same people = block wintrading and get accurate positions on the ladder rankings. I'm sure there are 101 reasons concerning low population and player votes "yada yada" as to why this isn't happening, but if we want an actual functional ladder rating system, this is the only way and it literally solves every single problem within what is making Glicko not work.

    I mean, just put back solo que and team que, even during ranked season. This way the solo ques can solo que and the people who want to avoid the kitten can just play in teams. People always bring up the wait times on ques as an argument against this or how it will split player population, which I don't believe to be true at all. Most players will play both ques anyway and wait times really aren't a big issue when you can go into wvw or go work on a map complete while waiting for your que.

    I'd just love to have a team league again like during S1 and S2. Then I can look at the final standings and say "Yup, we did that with the same 5 guys all season and that is an accurate placing for our team." <- Notice the idea here is that it is a TEAM ranking, not an individual ranking.

    Just gonna drop this here again:

    The 10 Commandments Of Conquest
    Abide by the commandments or God shalt deliver unto thee a packet of salt as often as thou did break them
    -> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/38081/the-10-commandments-of-conquest#1

  • Abazigal.3679Abazigal.3679 Member ✭✭✭

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    @SlippyCheeze.5483 I have screenshots of games where I lost 500-77 and lost 17 points right next to games I lost 500-470 and lost 17 points. I clearly had the better team in the second one. Why did this not affect how much I lost?

    Because GLICKO2 doesn't take into account how close the game was, just the expectation (eg: are you predicted to win or lose) and the boolean "win/lose" result. That, in turn, comes from the ELO heritage of the system, which comes from real world work on the systems by people who are experts in the area, who I guess determined that the degree of win or loss wasn't ultimately necessary to account for in order to get good results.

    I am not arguing that GLICKO2 is the best possible system, even though it is close to the best publicly documented system available at this time, but rather, that it is not as bad as some of the claims made here indicate. Microsoft have their system which is apparently better at handling random group matches, though I'm unable to find much work published studying how effective it actually is.

    I am absolutely confident that there is plenty of fame, and glory, and a PhD thesis waiting out there for someone who studies in the area. Probably plenty of high pay jobs at game studios shortly to follow, because I'm sure ANet would love to do better ... as long as there is as rigorous a definition of what better is, and how it works, as their current system. :)

    Elo, Glicko, Trueskill, all of that is actually widely and highly documented as completely ineffective for team based games. They work fantastic in 1v1 rankings but the system just doesn't make any sense for something like a solo/duo only GW2 ranked season.

    This. Fact is every single game nowadays uses glicko, but every single game has the same complaints. Coupling it with a season system is good at giving seasonal fun, but keeps splitting the population between " average " and " top players " . Let's be honest, most plat 2 pugs do get facerolled 500-100 by top teams. From this observation, you can believe the ranked system doesnt really hold value..

    The game is theorically good if everyone plays as much during each season. Experience showed however than you have anyone at any rank between 1100 and 1600 because players do minimal games requirement in order to avoid usual kitten happening lately.

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

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

    What exactly is "Platinum level" though?

    An arbitrary point in the range of MMR that ANet picked and assigned the label to.

    That's exactly my point. In 2 seasons I was able to stay in Plat 1 without any issue (where according to you I can't play at "that level", and so if the MM is perfectly fine I should have fell down), but suddenly 2 weeks later I'm a Gold 2 player rather than a "Plat player"? Maybe I'm not even a G3 player anymore because I sometimes dip back into G2 when on a loss streak?

    So .... uh, yes? MMR is an estimate of your skill compared to all other players, so it can change even if your actual skill doesn't change in that time.

    Answer me this - do you actually consider someone with 1530 rating to be playing at a different level to someone with 1470 rating because one is in Gold and the other in Plat? Even the MM system doesn't believe that, but the latter player might never break that 1500 barrier whilst consistently being matchmade with the former player

    Nope. I think that the MMR system is generally correct -- at least to the same level as other competitive games that use it, which is to say, widely complained about, considered "broken" on the forums, and delivering the expected results, which are appropriately challenging matches, by the developers who closely watch the results.

    The fairly arbitrary ranking system slapped onto MMR on top of that is just that: arbitrary. The reason I used it in the comments above is because it is a commonly used trope in these discussions, and it's good enough. The reality is, as you say, that those two players are pretty close in skill, and so are expected to perform roughly equivalently, so yeah, they form fair and challenging matches when grouped together because of that similarity.

    I could have just said "the problem is more likely that you can't play at a 1501 MMR level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall", and the statement would be identical. Exactly as you say. :)

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

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    Balance aside, because that's a whole different post, the fact of rating loss and gain discrepancy being so egregious is directly discouraging players

    Losses are going to result in a large MMR drop if, and only if, you were predicted to win. A predicted loss will give a small MMR drop.

    The scenario you describe: mostly winning matches you were predicted to win (small gain) and occasionally losing matches you were predicted to win (big loss) suggests you are at around the appropriate MMR, nothing more. (Though, ideally, it should be small in both directions, but ... it's early in the season, MMR hasn't settled yet, so you probably encounter better players working up to their own appropriate MMR more often than you will next week.)

    This isn't impossible, but highly improbable. Out of the three days this season has been out, I've seen at least 20 players in the top 5 lose rating as they play more. One of my friends were #1 and TWO LOSSES brought him down 70 rating. A popular twitch streamer lost 44 points in one game, and has a less than 75% win rate in the past 9 games and has lost rating because of this.

    In both cases, these players were expected to win that fight. They didn't, so they lost big, and their opponents gained big. The system adjusted expectations of them appropriately for the skill they, and their opponents, demonstrated.

    When an unrealistic standard is enforced for god knows what reason, where it seems like playing LESS games is the most beneficial for you, guess what the player base will do? Play less games. The most awful fact of this is the fact that a 50% win rate will result in you being in bronze.

    It really doesn't. It ends up sitting you at your MMR. The real one, not the one you imagine you deserve.

    The expectations vastly outstrip reality in most cases, you're placed in a system with 4 other players of untested skill level

    Their MMR should be quite close to yours; it is tested the same way that yours is. Would you say that your being placed on the team represented someone of "untested skill level" being added, forcing the other four players to cover for your mistakes?

    If not, and I bet you wouldn't, then it seems a little unfair to characterize only other players that way since, I'd guess, you are not the one-and-only competent player. :)

    Unless we all agree that real MMR hidden than your statement is wrong at 200%, I normally get people doing their placement matches..they have no visible rating

    ...it is hidden during placement?

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

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Poelala.2830 said:
    @SlippyCheeze.5483 I have screenshots of games where I lost 500-77 and lost 17 points right next to games I lost 500-470 and lost 17 points. I clearly had the better team in the second one. Why did this not affect how much I lost?

    Because GLICKO2 doesn't take into account how close the game was, just the expectation (eg: are you predicted to win or lose) and the boolean "win/lose" result. That, in turn, comes from the ELO heritage of the system, which comes from real world work on the systems by people who are experts in the area, who I guess determined that the degree of win or loss wasn't ultimately necessary to account for in order to get good results.

    I am not arguing that GLICKO2 is the best possible system, even though it is close to the best publicly documented system available at this time, but rather, that it is not as bad as some of the claims made here indicate. Microsoft have their system which is apparently better at handling random group matches, though I'm unable to find much work published studying how effective it actually is.

    I am absolutely confident that there is plenty of fame, and glory, and a PhD thesis waiting out there for someone who studies in the area. Probably plenty of high pay jobs at game studios shortly to follow, because I'm sure ANet would love to do better ... as long as there is as rigorous a definition of what better is, and how it works, as their current system. :)

    Elo, Glicko, Trueskill, all of that is actually widely and highly documented as completely ineffective for team based games. They work fantastic in 1v1 rankings but the system just doesn't make any sense for something like a solo/duo only GW2 ranked season.

    You know TrueSkill is designed to work better than Glicko exactly in the situation that a GW2 ranked season produces, right? Like, it is basically Glicko plus trying to improve the accuracy of estimation when you play ranked games in a "randomly" assigned group? I'm checking because your comment seems to suggest that none of these were intended for that use...

    Just gonna drop this here again:

    Do you have a written summary of the content of that? I'm otherwise not going to spend the time to respond to a video.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

    What exactly is "Platinum level" though?

    An arbitrary point in the range of MMR that ANet picked and assigned the label to.

    That's exactly my point. In 2 seasons I was able to stay in Plat 1 without any issue (where according to you I can't play at "that level", and so if the MM is perfectly fine I should have fell down), but suddenly 2 weeks later I'm a Gold 2 player rather than a "Plat player"? Maybe I'm not even a G3 player anymore because I sometimes dip back into G2 when on a loss streak?

    So .... uh, yes? MMR is an estimate of your skill compared to all other players, so it can change even if your actual skill doesn't change in that time.

    Answer me this - do you actually consider someone with 1530 rating to be playing at a different level to someone with 1470 rating because one is in Gold and the other in Plat? Even the MM system doesn't believe that, but the latter player might never break that 1500 barrier whilst consistently being matchmade with the former player

    Nope. I think that the MMR system is generally correct -- at least to the same level as other competitive games that use it, which is to say, widely complained about, considered "broken" on the forums, and delivering the expected results, which are appropriately challenging matches, by the developers who closely watch the results.

    The fairly arbitrary ranking system slapped onto MMR on top of that is just that: arbitrary. The reason I used it in the comments above is because it is a commonly used trope in these discussions, and it's good enough. The reality is, as you say, that those two players are pretty close in skill, and so are expected to perform roughly equivalently, so yeah, they form fair and challenging matches when grouped together because of that similarity.

    I could have just said "the problem is more likely that you can't play at a 1501 MMR level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall", and the statement would be identical. Exactly as you say. :)

    You keep saying at what level people should play...like the outcome of the match depends solely on them and the game doesn't account only for w/l..

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • Faux Play.6104Faux Play.6104 Member ✭✭✭

    if you match players with the same rating on a team, glicko will work well. The problem is we have huge skill gaps on a team. This causes everyone to have a very volatile rating. There is no reason for doing the soft reset at the start of the season. There already is history of what someone should be rated at. All it does is create chaos at the start of the season. I had 3 placement matches where the team we beat scored less than 50 pts. None of them had 4 on their team until people afk'd because the match was way out of hand.

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

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

    @Chuck.2864 said:

    @Gwaihir.1745 said:
    Actually I like people who ruin my placement games. Climbing to plat 1 again is easy, fast rewards gain before the fight to climb begins. Bronze - plat 1 is very easy to climb.

    I call kitten. The more I play PvP over the seasons, the more I begin to realize the importance of the placement matches, they are literally the 10 most important games you will play all season because getting significantly higher from where you were placed is incredibly difficult unless you were literally boosted and ended up with like 200 rating more than you really should have, then you will probably fall quickly down the divisions.

    This is probably because with the small population of PvP whether you're high Gold 2 or Plat 1 doesn't really matter, you'll end up in the same matchmaking pool. So as far as the MM system is concerned, a G2 player playing with Plat 1 players is playing within his skill level, ergo he will maintain ~50% winrate which you cannot climb with. For reference I placed in Plat 1-2 and stayed there the past two seasons with a ~50% winrate (positive). This season I had terrible placements including DC's, afkers, some meme builds, went 5-5 and was placed in Gold 2. Guess what? It's a 50% winrate again with around 65-70 matches already played this season and it's basically impossible to climb back to Plat. Every time I make gains I get hit with a 5 game loss streak.

    A 50 percent expected win and loss rate will keep your MMR stable, not cause it to move, as long as you actually deliver the results. Even a streak of five expected losses in a row will fairly quickly bring you back up to where you should be once you get back to winning.

    The only case you need a substantially higher win rate is where you frequently lose matches that you should have been able to win. If your experience is that you can't climb to platinum if you dip too low, the problem is more likely that you can't play at platinum level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall.

    PS: placement matches use the same MMR adjustment method as normal games.

    What exactly is "Platinum level" though?

    An arbitrary point in the range of MMR that ANet picked and assigned the label to.

    That's exactly my point. In 2 seasons I was able to stay in Plat 1 without any issue (where according to you I can't play at "that level", and so if the MM is perfectly fine I should have fell down), but suddenly 2 weeks later I'm a Gold 2 player rather than a "Plat player"? Maybe I'm not even a G3 player anymore because I sometimes dip back into G2 when on a loss streak?

    So .... uh, yes? MMR is an estimate of your skill compared to all other players, so it can change even if your actual skill doesn't change in that time.

    Answer me this - do you actually consider someone with 1530 rating to be playing at a different level to someone with 1470 rating because one is in Gold and the other in Plat? Even the MM system doesn't believe that, but the latter player might never break that 1500 barrier whilst consistently being matchmade with the former player

    Nope. I think that the MMR system is generally correct -- at least to the same level as other competitive games that use it, which is to say, widely complained about, considered "broken" on the forums, and delivering the expected results, which are appropriately challenging matches, by the developers who closely watch the results.

    The fairly arbitrary ranking system slapped onto MMR on top of that is just that: arbitrary. The reason I used it in the comments above is because it is a commonly used trope in these discussions, and it's good enough. The reality is, as you say, that those two players are pretty close in skill, and so are expected to perform roughly equivalently, so yeah, they form fair and challenging matches when grouped together because of that similarity.

    I could have just said "the problem is more likely that you can't play at a 1501 MMR level, not that the initial placement is the most significant thing overall", and the statement would be identical. Exactly as you say. :)

    You keep saying at what level people should play...like the outcome of the match depends solely on them and the game doesn't account only for w/l..

    For any individual game, yeah, that's true, it doesn't depend solely on them. Over many games, statistically, GLICKO-2 and friends show the desired behaviour: people move to an approximation of their skill when grouped with different random people. Your point would be much more significant if, for example, sPvP was 5v5 teams, but team assignment was random AND FIXED THE SEASON.

    Otherwise, on average, it works out, over the order of ten to twenty games. At least to the satisfaction of pretty much every large company that makes money explicitly from providing interesting matches with long term replay value, let alone all the ones like GW2 that it is a sideline in.

©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.