Never seen ranked this bad

[Hollow.5382]

I'm back from a long absence. Been solo queueing in ranked, currently Gold 1. I'm frequently placed in matches against players who are Plat +.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to climb when I'm already being matched against some of the best players. I'd honestly prefer longer queues if it meant I got to play against people at my skill level.

[JTGuevara.9018]

@"Julius Seizure.4985" said:This is what eventually happens when you tailor a game mode for the vocal elite. The developers and many of the top-tier players have alienated the fat part of the upper bell curve— mid/high gold to low platinum players. This is why there are long match times and the mode feels like it is moribund.

The developers have allowed unbalanced duo-queue teams to farm solo-queue players for rank and rewards. Hackers, botters, and exploiters repeatedly go unpunished. Match manipulators are never properly addressed. Balance patches are few and far between, and the MMR algorithm should be adjusted far more often. Low skilled duos are consistently overweighted while high skill duos are underweighted.

Many top tier players smurph on alt accounts, manipulate the queues with other top tier players, and generally kill the enjoyment of competition while chasing rewards and titles. This universally comes at the expense of mid-high gold and low platinum solo queue players, which have left the game mode in droves and spiked queue times.

Yup! That mid/high gold and low plat group is GONE. Those people were the ones propping up this stupid system. They're the ones that took the brunt of the MMR loads for their teams....now they're gone. Of course, when the company caters to the "elite gamers" and the social media hordes, THAT'S when your game dies. This happens in every game.

[Hot Boy.7138]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

[Fueki.4753]

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

If all the win rates are 50/50, it's because the game actively pits you against better players to keep your win rate from going too far above 50%.It's similar from the other side of 50% as well.

It's obvious from the team compositions that the game decided beforehand who is supposed to win.Of course that doesn't always work, because win trading, switching characters before the match and other match manipulations exist.But it's clear as tap water that the game does not even try to pit people with similar ratings against each other.

[Hot Boy.7138]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

If all the win rates are 50/50, it's because the game actively pits you against better players to keep your win rate from going too far above 50%.It's similar from the other side of 50% as well.

It's

obvious

from the team compositions that the game decided beforehand who is supposed to win.Of course that doesn't

always

work, because win trading, switching characters before the match and other match manipulations exist.But it's clear as tap water that

the game does not even try

to pit people with similar ratings against each other.

Yeah, it's true that the system will pit you against better players the more y ou win. That makes sense. If you are dominating all your matches then you should face stronger opponents. If you begin to lose then you go down a rank to players who are more yoru speed. Or back up to players that are more your speed. It's a balancing act. Not to mention, balance changes and players naturally improving as they play will shift their placement.

[Shiyo.3578]

I was put against the rank1 player on EU, who was 400 rating above me, while giving me silver teammates. 500-0 score. Very good matchmaking.

[shadowpass.4236]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

If all the win rates are 50/50, it's because the game actively pits you against better players to keep your win rate from going too far above 50%.It's similar from the other side of 50% as well.

It's

obvious

from the team compositions that the game decided beforehand who is supposed to win.Of course that doesn't

always

work, because win trading, switching characters before the match and other match manipulations exist.But it's clear as tap water that

the game does not even try

to pit people with similar ratings against each other.

Rather than forced wins/losses, a 50/50 win ratio can occur when the matchmaker consistently puts you against players EQUAL to your skill level. This makes it so both sides have a fair chance at winning and games are decided by who plays better.

[Dantheman.3589]

Lol its all seems so off topic sry. But Healthy game modeS let average to ok players have a 50/50 win rate, some even let challengers have that if they are against other challengers, but forcing someone to have a 80% to be in ok territory = not ok. Maybe I’m over reacting but yeah

[Curennos.9307]

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

If all the win rates are 50/50, it's because the game actively pits you against better players to keep your win rate from going too far above 50%.It's similar from the other side of 50% as well.

It's

obvious

from the team compositions that the game decided beforehand who is supposed to win.Of course that doesn't

always

work, because win trading, switching characters before the match and other match manipulations exist.But it's clear as tap water that

the game does not even try

to pit people with similar ratings against each other.

Yeah, it's true that the system will pit you against better players the more y ou win. That makes sense. If you are dominating all your matches then you should face stronger opponents. If you begin to lose then you go down a rank to players who are more yoru speed. Or back up to players that are more your speed. It's a balancing act. Not to mention, balance changes and players naturally improving as they play will shift their placement.

A few things kinda blow this out of the water. For one, the massive winrate discrepancy - the current #1 spot in NA has 97 wins and 14 losses.

Second, the massive point discrepancy in wins/losses. I can count the number of 'good' games I've had this season on two hands - maybe three. As in, were not one sided matches. I've played 140 games this season. There's no really acceptable - as a customer, anyway, I'm sure it can be easily explained why that's happening - reason why most of my games are 1-sided matches. I win 500-400? Okay, that's pretty acceptable. 500-350 or 300? Eh, okay. Iunno. I imagine others have different viewpoints on the point difference between the winning and losing team.

I can get a 50% winrate going up against only bronze and legend players. Doesn't mean things are working well.

[Fueki.4753]

@shadowpass.4236 said:Rather than forced wins/losses, a 50/50 win ratio can occur when the matchmaker consistently puts you against players EQUAL to your skill level. This makes it so both sides have a fair chance at winning and games are decided by who plays better.

If the matches were oh-so-equal, how come 80% of the matches are just one team dominating the other?If the matchmaker would aim for equal teams, the amount of close matches should be vastly higher than said dominations, yet they are not.

[Leonidrex.5649]

I think im getting +10 and losing -13 on eu ( plat 2 )so its server issue, and by server I mean lack of players.No players = bad matchmaking.bad matchmaking = players get tilted and quitpeople get tilted and quit = less playersless players = mm gets worseits how it is bruh, when game loses population its hard to recover

edit, looked through my history.1630 eu, wins give me +12

[voltaicbore.8012]

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

GW2 is an 8 year old game (its birthday being late August) and it has only ever seen one new PvP mode and one new WvW map. Granted, neither of these things were well received, for good reason...but that didn't mean ANet had to just completely ditch them. They could have tried to iterate on them, improve them, rework them. Just in general actually try to make them better, but instead they just elected to go about solving an issue with their game the way that they usually do...drop it and try to do something else or never do anything ever again. Its how they have approached practically everything they have added to this game since launch.

Dungeons? Rather than improve on a piece of content with a ton of potential, they ditched them and just threw Fractals out there.Raids? Rather than improve upon the formula they established and implement things that the hardcore scene wanted, the very group they made Raids to appeal to, they instead add Strikes as "intro" Raids. Now they have released just as many Strike Missions in the last year as they have released Raids in the last five years.Ranked sPvP? Rather than try and improve it they've just added Automated Tournaments, which are not in a much better state than Ranked and they are also time gated to specific times during the day/week/month, and Swiss which are not much better either.

Point being...ANet has a horrible habit of seeing something they make get negative feedback and criticism and so their response is, rather than go "okay, so what can we do to improve this system/mechanic/mode then?" they instead essentially just ditch it and try to do something else entirely.

This... this is exactly it, and I've said it before, and will applaud it whenever I see it. I believe this is exactly why GW2 is forever falling short of its potential. ANet just doesn't commit to things after release, and seem content to just drop them and pretend like they don't exist after they're poorly received.

Some other games (I won't name them here, unless someone really wants to know) revisit game systems and steadily improve them over time. GW2 moves in the opposite direction - as time passes, the game just accumulates more and more failed and abandoned content. It just hurts to watch - those other games started out as run-down shacks out in the woods, but over time have been steadily improved into something livable. GW2 was built as this awesome mansion, but it's been allowed to fall into disrepair. Instead of fixing a leak in the roof on one side of the house, they just ignore it and build an extension on the other side. At some point people are going to stop coming over.

[Hot Boy.7138]

@Curennos.9307 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Hot Boy.7138 said:i've done over 10,000 matches. my win rate is just over 50%. the mmr system is as good as it gets.

Match making is never good, if it's deciding the winning side before the match even starts.And that's exactly what the Match making in GW2 does.

That's inaccurate. Every season my win rate is about 50%. Even if I start the season when a very high win rate, by the end of the season after hundreds of matches i'm always back around 50% win rate. With an ideal mmr, everyone should be winning half of their matches and losing half of their matches. I understand the frustrations with the game and the devs, but I can't cosign say people saying mmr system doesn't work. Cause it does. The issue is that the player base is shrinking so unbalanced matches are made sometimes to alleviate queue times. After the great amount of matches i've done in this game, the one thing i am sure of is that mmr certainly works. The system is good. The class balance, lack of consistent game modes, and dev's inability to retain non-cheating human players is the issue.

If all the win rates are 50/50, it's because the game actively pits you against better players to keep your win rate from going too far above 50%.It's similar from the other side of 50% as well.

It's

obvious

from the team compositions that the game decided beforehand who is supposed to win.Of course that doesn't

always

work, because win trading, switching characters before the match and other match manipulations exist.But it's clear as tap water that

the game does not even try

to pit people with similar ratings against each other.

Yeah, it's true that the system will pit you against better players the more y ou win. That makes sense. If you are dominating all your matches then you should face stronger opponents. If you begin to lose then you go down a rank to players who are more yoru speed. Or back up to players that are more your speed. It's a balancing act. Not to mention, balance changes and players naturally improving as they play will shift their placement.

A few things kinda blow this out of the water. For one, the massive winrate discrepancy - the current #1 spot in NA has 97 wins and 14 losses.

Second, the massive point discrepancy in wins/losses. I can count the number of 'good' games I've had this season on two hands - maybe three. As in, were not one sided matches. I've played 140 games this season. There's no really acceptable - as a customer, anyway, I'm sure it can be easily explained why that's happening - reason why most of my games are 1-sided matches. I win 500-400? Okay, that's pretty acceptable. 500-350 or 300? Eh, okay. Iunno. I imagine others have different viewpoints on the point difference between the winning and losing team.

I can get a 50% winrate going up against only bronze and legend players. Doesn't mean things are working well.

A few posts up i mention that the top echelon is plagued with cheaters. The lowest of rank deals with bots. Everyone has blow out wins, and everyone has blow out losses. It's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. Sometimes things go too well, and sometimes things go wrong and the team just can't gain any ground after that for whatever reason.

[Majy.6792]

Removing duo queue would be a good start. Top players duo together, and since match making is uneven this results in a lot of games with 2 excellent players up against a team of average to bad players which creates very lopsided games regularly.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

@Majy.6792 said:Removing duo queue would be a good start. Top players duo together, and since match making is uneven this results in a lot of games with 2 excellent players up against a team of average to bad players which creates very lopsided games regularly.

Sad thing is, this is more and more unlikely to happen due to the diminishing player base.

[Brimstone Jack.3462]

If your win/loss rate is about 50/50, +/- 5-10, matchmaking is working as intended. Get better.

[shadowpass.4236]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@shadowpass.4236 said:Rather than forced wins/losses, a 50/50 win ratio can occur when the matchmaker consistently puts you against players EQUAL to your skill level. This makes it so both sides have a fair chance at winning and games are decided by who plays better.

If the matches were oh-so-equal, how come 80% of the matches are just one team dominating the other?If the matchmaker would aim for equal teams, the amount of close matches should be vastly higher than said dominations, yet they are not.

It's called a snowball. Best way to carry in ranked is to stagger the enemy team and keep killing them off respawn. This can happen to any team, regardless of how skilled they are.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:GW2 is an 8 year old game (its birthday being late August) and it has only ever seen one new PvP mode and one new WvW map. Granted, neither of these things were well received, for good reason...but that didn't mean ANet had to just completely ditch them.

no. pvp got 3 new modes, wvw got 2 new maps.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:GW2 is an

8 year old game

(its birthday being late August) and it has only ever seen

one

new PvP mode and

one

new WvW map. Granted, neither of these things were well received, for good reason...but that didn't mean ANet had to just completely ditch them.

no. pvp got 3 new modes, wvw got 2 new maps.

Fair, my numbers were off. I wasn't counting EOTM because that is literally how dead it is and how badly ANet has ditched it.

As for the new modes...2v2 and 3v3 deathmatch? Those are recent, sure, but they are not persistent and we have currently only been able to queue for them during Ranked off-seasons. They are nice, but ultimately...probably getting ditched or won't have their presence taken advantage of by ANet by creating separate, persistent, modes to actually queue for in a Ranked capacity.

[Shiyo.3578]

I'm getting multiple bots per match as Platinum on EU. I don't think many people are playing anymore.

[Majy.6792]

@"Brimstone Jack.3462" said:If your win/loss rate is about 50/50, +/- 5-10, matchmaking is working as intended. Get better.

I don't think that's really an indicator of a good system though. Nobody can carry in a 5 person game at a certain level alone, so the matchmaking system is really important in terms of getting people to their appropriate skill level. If the system just says "everybody needs to be 50/50", then from wherever you place it's just going to ping pong you forever by forcibly placing you with shittier players in the hopes you lose because you have been winning too much. And frankly, this may be how it actually works, and why pvp is so streaky and so many people report going on 10-15 game win streaks follows by 10-15 game loss streaks. I've actually NEVER had a time period that feels 50/50 like "oh yea, I'm at my level", it's always win or loss trains. I've won many games against top 10 players, and many 1v1's against them, but I ping pong between 1350 and 1500 back and forth. Win streaks inevitably get broken, more often than not by bots or an afk, and then the loss streak begins where all of a sudden the players I'm matched with are of a totally different caliber.

I don't know how the matchmaking system works, but it's definitely not a good system. All the top players are forced to duo to remain at the top, that alone says a lot about how fair it is to an individual player.

[Shiyo.3578]

I'm personally completely horrible at carrying but the matchmaking randomly thinks I'm supposed to carry silver/gold players against A plat, silver/golds, which I can never do. It's just really unfun even if it's "fair" and not something I'm personally capable of doing.

When I get games full of players at my skill level or above, I have no problems contributing enough to win and have 100% win rate in plat 2-3 games.

[Brimstone Jack.3462]

@Majy.6792 said:

@"Brimstone Jack.3462" said:If your win/loss rate is about 50/50, +/- 5-10, matchmaking is working as intended. Get better.

I don't think that's really an indicator of a good system though. Nobody can carry in a 5 person game at a certain level alone, so the matchmaking system is really important in terms of getting people to their appropriate skill level. If the system just says "everybody needs to be 50/50", then from wherever you place it's just going to ping pong you forever by forcibly placing you with kitten players in the hopes you lose because you have been winning too much. And frankly, this may be how it actually works, and why pvp is so streaky and so many people report going on 10-15 game win streaks follows by 10-15 game loss streaks. I've actually NEVER had a time period that feels 50/50 like "oh yea, I'm at my level", it's always win or loss trains. I've won many games against top 10 players, and many 1v1's against them, but I ping pong between 1350 and 1500 back and forth. Win streaks inevitably get broken, more often than not by bots or an afk, and then the loss streak begins where all of a sudden the players I'm matched with are of a totally different caliber.

I don't know how the matchmaking system works, but it's definitely not a good system. All the top players are forced to duo to remain at the top, that alone says a lot about how fair it is to an individual player.

50/50 is literally the main indicator of perfect placement. I'm sorry you thought this was an arguable opinion.

[Majy.6792]

50/50 is literally the main indicator of perfect placement. I'm sorry you thought this was an arguable opinion.

You can keep a top 10 player 50/50 at bronze with the right algorithm. You didn't even read what I wrote, why are you bothering to post? Cool guy.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:GW2 is an

8 year old game

(its birthday being late August) and it has only ever seen

one

new PvP mode and

one

new WvW map. Granted, neither of these things were well received, for good reason...but that didn't mean ANet had to just completely ditch them.

no. pvp got 3 new modes, wvw got 2 new maps.

Fair, my numbers were off. I wasn't counting EOTM because that is literally how dead it is and how badly ANet has ditched it.

As for the new modes...2v2 and 3v3 deathmatch? Those are recent, sure, but they are not persistent and we have currently only been able to queue for them during Ranked off-seasons. They are nice, but ultimately...probably getting ditched or won't have their presence taken advantage of by ANet by creating separate, persistent, modes to actually queue for in a Ranked capacity.

they introduced stronghold and team deathmatch with 0 support which could have panned out to be great modes with a tiny bit of investment. i remember when they first cam onto the scene, there were some great matches despite the horrible implementation.