One sided Matches

[Rose.2593]

Lately the matches seem so one sided sometimes...like the teams are separated by divisions and not equal ranking etc.

My last several matches have been won or lost by 200 - 300 points sometimes!

[RedAvenged.5217]

If I duo q for ez rating matches are either 500-0 or everyone but me and my duo plays insanely bad and somehow becomes 500-350.(haven’t lost any matches this season duo qd- like 30-0 rest solo q, also elo is plat3+ which would be top 10 on both regions)

[Naqam a.6521]

Don't worry , those players that make those huge differences will drop below gold soon .Maybe , they aim for the rewards

[Shiyo.3578]

@Naqam a.6521 said:Don't worry , those players that make those huge differences will drop below gold soon .Maybe , they aim for the rewards

Except they won't because they play bunker builds.

[haenz.9578]

@John.8507 said:Lately the matches seem so one sided sometimes...like the teams are separated by divisions and not equal ranking etc.

My last several matches have been won or lost by 200 - 300 points sometimes!

This is the problem of pvp at the moment in my opinion. Believe me or not, but the whole season I lose every second game 100:500 with teams you cant carry. Impossible. Usually I play P1 but this is the first season I cant leave gold. After a 500:50 there is always a 100:500. I find this very frustrating to be true.

[Shiyo.3578]

@haenz.9578 said:

@John.8507 said:Lately the matches seem so one sided sometimes...like the teams are separated by divisions and not equal ranking etc.

My last several matches have been won or lost by 200 - 300 points sometimes!

This is the problem of pvp at the moment in my opinion. Believe me or not, but the whole season I lose every second game 100:500 with teams you cant carry. Impossible. Usually I play P1 but this is the first season I cant leave gold. After a 500:50 there is always a 100:500. I find this very frustrating to be true.

The matchmaker assumes that if you're 1450 you're higher skilled than 1800 rank1 player. I know this for a FACT - I consistently face naru/Hisa and have worse teammates than them despite them being +300-400 rating to me.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

So years ago in the old forum, we had the programmer who worked on the algorithm explain this to us:

The algorithm does not simply try to balance RED team average rating vs. BLUE team average rating. It actually has two phases where during phase 1 it gives you a match that you should be winning or that is balanced so to say. But if you win that match and are outperforming your current MMR, it then does phase 2 where it gives you a match that is difficult, that is against rating margins that are higher than you would normally go against, to give you a chance to climb MMR. And it toggles these phases back and forth until a player finds where they get stuck at.

In years past with higher population, it resulted in matches that felt more like this:

• RED 1600 - 1550 - You1500 - 1490 - 1480 vs. BLUE 1600 - 1550 - 1500 - 1490 - 1480, which is a completely balanced match outside of differences in team compositions. During this phase 1, it's taking all the players in queue who are supposed to be getting a normal match and putting them against each other, to find who the people are that are outperforming their current MMRs. Then it will put those people into a harder match in phase 2.
• and then your hard match = RED You1515 - 1500 - 1490 - 1480 - 1470 vs. BLUE 1560 - 1515 - 1505 - 1490 - 1485, which is a phase 2 match where it has put you on a team of slightly lower rated guys who have been outperforming their MMRs, who are now against slightly higher MMRs of guys who have actually been underperforming at their current MMRs, so they have a chance to be challenged by guys who may be able to surpass them.

But now with low population where there is a large skew of MMRs/Ratings being placed together, we get wonky stuff like this going on:

• RED Naru & Helios - You1500 - 1390 - 1350 vs. BLUE 1600 - 1550 - 1400 - 1380 - 1360, where in this situation the BLUE team is having their phase 2. Then if you win this match that you are supposed to be winning, it turns right around and phase 2s you against all of those higher MMRs.

So what's happening is that it IS actually stacking sides for wins and in a low population it definitely makes for obvious lopsided wins and lopsided loses. It's time they get someone to go back into the algorithm and remove that function that toggles the phase1 and phase2. It just needs to organically sort out who is doing well and who isn't, through sheerly matching average party rating vs. average party rating as close as it can get each round, with no buffer for who is being granted an expected win. That function DOES NOT work anymore in low population.

[Tayga.3192]

200-500 is one thing but I wouldn't consider 300-500 to be a one sided match at all

[Shiyo.3578]

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:So what's happening is that it IS actually stacking sides for wins and in a low population it definitely makes for obvious lopsided wins and lopsided loses. It's time they get someone to go back into the algorithm and remove that function that toggles the phase1 and phase2. It just needs to organically sort out who is doing well and who isn't, through sheerly matching average party rating vs. average party rating as close as it can get each round, with no buffer for who is being granted an expected win. That function DOES NOT work anymore in low population.

I thought heroes of the storms matchmaking was bad...but it doesn't even compare to GW2's. If I get put against anyone in the top5(I get them pretty often) my team is always worse than theirs, AND the top5 player is +300-400 rating to me. How does that make ANY sense whatsoever? If they are going to put me against someone so high rated, why would they give them such good teammates?

It feels like it intentionally makes easy wins for anyone in the top10 100% of the time(this is reflected by the 95%+ win rates in the top5 10 at all times) because their MMR is so high it breaks the algorithm and doesn't know how to match them at all.

I think that anyone above 1700 should simply NOT get queue pops at all at certain times of the day. Not enough people within 100 MMR of you queueing? Tough luck, try again later. Instead the the matchmaker gives them games that are(boring) free wins and ruins the matchmaking for 8-9 other people. Real cool that 10-20% of the people in the match get catered to while the other 80-90% eat dirt.

Why would a system completely cater to the top 1% and make everyone else suffer? That's literally how you KILL your PvP by making the new/lower skilled(if you even want to call gold3-mid plat1 lower skill lol) experience completely awful. What is the purpose of such a system?

The system is not good.

[Metzie.3451]

@"Shiyo.3578" said:What is the purpose of such a system?

What the reason is, I can tell you. The current circumstances or the outdated PvP system is supposed to make you stop playing PvP, rather sooner than later (maybe the other way). In the meantime the goal is frustration, before (so to say - In the past, when the system was adapted to the circumstances & was working) "having fun competing each other" was the goal.

The system is not good.

The system (ranked) still works (as intended), just not to the changed circumstances (without going into further detail). And therefore yes, it is bad. :)Probably not much will change, because: "Never change a running system". Little cynical joke on the side!

Will anything change? In short: Most likely not! :)

Let's say it that way: In the past, the game (modes) was developed and improved, but nowadays it is mainly and to 2/3 (related to the modes) administrated. Here and there a few small minor changes (except the Swiss system), that's it.

[Bazsi.2734]

I kind of stopped ranked this season... but I noticed this trend in unranked aswell.

Hearing how now it's the becoming the same in ranked, I feel even less motivated to "return". If I man up to play a build I'm confident with, communicate and tryhard, I expect matchmaking to serve us winnable, not won or lost matches.

[dtox.8397]

@"Bazsi.2734" said:I kind of stopped ranked this season... but I noticed this trend in unranked aswell.

Hearing how now it's the becoming the same in ranked, I feel even less motivated to "return". If I man up to play a build I'm confident with, communicate and tryhard, I expect matchmaking to serve us winnable, not won or lost matches.

In my experience ranked is veery different than unranked. I've faced so many newbies (literally, ppl that just started playing the game) that i cant even try out new builds meant for ranked, since even meme builds will work against those players. The good thing is that theres way less toxicity there.

In ranked you see ppl that are better mechanically and are often mad at ppl cuz they think that they know what they are doing. So you got ppl that usually knows how to fight but not when to fight or where to fight - which leads to a loss and they will hate on someone other than themselves.

As MANY have pointed out, the issue is the low PvP poppulation, due to lack of balance patches.

[Rose.2593]

Well last seasons 5 vs 5 matches were alot closer than this, but this is my last 10 matchs, and the scores are pretty big differences sometimes

loose - 500 - 191Win - 500 - 136Win 500 - 471Win 500 - 173Loose - 503 - 255Loose 500 - 274Win 500 - 162loose 551 - 196win 500 - 376loose - 500 291

Apart from a couple of matches they are pretty all one sided.

Just It wasn't like this last season so wondered if something had changed? Or is it just low population, the queue times are pretty long as well.

[felix.2386]

weekend q matches were always bad for some reason, idk why, is it because wintrades or w/e

todays afternoon all matches were completely one sided like 10 matches in a roll

[otto.5684]

My experience in sPvP is that 8 out of 10 matches have a pre determined outcome. No matter how well you do your team will lose or how bad you do your team will win. 2 out of 10 matches you can impact the outcome. These are what count. Oh, you want to play semi competitive games and have fun? Good luck with that.

@Tayga.3192 said:200-500 is one thing but I wouldn't consider 300-500 to be a one sided match at all

This is very one sided. If the difference is beyond 100 point clearly one team is much stronger. 300 point difference is a major failure in match making.

[Tayga.3192]

@otto.5684 said:

@Tayga.3192 said:200-500 is one thing but I wouldn't consider 300-500 to be a one sided match at allThis is very one sided. If the difference is beyond 100 point clearly one team is much stronger. 300 point difference is a major failure in match making.

300-500 in this game means pretty good matchmaking, you can see scores like this in MOTA and mAT etc where almost equal teams fight.

[otto.5684]

@Tayga.3192 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Tayga.3192 said:200-500 is one thing but I wouldn't consider 300-500 to be a one sided match at allThis is very one sided. If the difference is beyond 100 point clearly one team is much stronger. 300 point difference is a major failure in match making.

300-500 in this game means pretty good matchmaking, you can see scores like this in MOTA and mAT etc where almost equal teams fight.

Even then, clearly one team was noticeably stronger. I can see 100-150 difference as still reasonably competitive, but 200 points is way too far. I do not recall I ever played a game that was competitive which I won or lost with 200 points difference.

[Tayga.3192]

@"otto.5684" said:Even then, clearly one team was noticeably stronger. I can see 100-150 difference as still reasonably competitive, but 200 points is way too far. I do not recall I ever played a game that was competitive which I won or lost with 200 points difference.

I meant 300-500 as something like "losing with 150-200 points".

Getting 300 points means you held 1 cap + got some kills for at least for 7-8 minutes.

Depending on the length of the game, that's pretty impressive if the teams weren't at least close in skill level.

[Shiyo.3578]

300-500 generally feels pretty one sided.

[NotFound.7813]

@Tayga.3192 said:

@"otto.5684" said:Even then, clearly one team was noticeably stronger. I can see 100-150 difference as still reasonably competitive, but 200 points is way too far. I do not recall I ever played a game that was competitive which I won or lost with 200 points difference.

I meant 300-500 as something like "losing with 150-200 points".

Getting 300 points means you held 1 cap + got some kills for at least for 7-8 minutes.

Depending on the length of the game, that's pretty impressive if the teams weren't at least close in skill level.

By one player failure u can lose 100-200 points so i would agree 300-500 was a reasonable balanced game where any team could have won