Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Matchmaking algorithm too rigged,


Bast.7253

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Etheri.5406 said:

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?

Care to tell us what we're looking at? :)

Click the link....

I did. Provide context because unless you expect us to go ingame, add all these players and research their ratings we have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Imagine you at least tell us who's "super high" and "super low" rated here - or something.Can you read???????????

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams? EZ -15 for a game im not sure how im supposed to win. You're telling me this is the best it could come up with?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:Hasn't there been statements by developers stating that that average distance in player score between highest and lowest players per game is less than 50?

No. The average skill rating between teams is less than 50. The deviation is higher than that. Don't have the number off the top of my head though.

We do our best to get the standard deviation as close as we can though.

And no, I say it often, we don't rig matches to end loss or win streaks. But many people will never believe it.

Notice he didn't say anything about starting the streaks or prolonging them. We have our evidence it is rigged!!

! /sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vicariuz.1605 said:

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?

Care to tell us what we're looking at? :)

Click the link....

I did. Provide context because unless you expect us to go ingame, add all these players and research their ratings we have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Imagine you at least tell us who's "super high" and "super low" rated here - or something.Can you read???????????

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams? EZ -15 for a game im not sure how im supposed to win. You're telling me this is the best it could come up with?"

I see a screenshot of 10 players in a match, without ratings, without knowing what it means... Am I supposed to know all these players? Again, I didn't say this was an appropriate comp even. I asked you to provide context so we have the slightest clue of what you're on about. A picture of 10 players without knowing who these players are says absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cal Cohen.3527 said:

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:

Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)

One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.

Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever

The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55Average rating difference in a match: 189.71Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%

There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.

As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67Average rating difference in a match: 279.42Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%

While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.

I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.

Hello,

Thank you for sharing these results.

I'm curious if there has been any thought about making a hard limit on rating difference/search range of a match? like 150'ish?(1 whole division up and down) And if there are not enough players in that range just showing a message that "there are not enough players in your range, queue again later," or something?

Alternatively, have you thought about just hiding MMR, and showing player "skill" simply through badges? Perhaps only showing MMR once the season is ended? That way people won't focus so much on their specific MMR and more on the skill-level they are at?

There would probably need to be a few more badges thrown into the mix though. One for each 100 MMR range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is1800 + 1200 = 1800 + 1200.So the average is good, but the problem is why 1800 with 1200 ? (even if it is 1700 + 1300 the range is too far)

And a 1800 support is not the same as a 1800 dps. Because support can't heal low player who will die anyway. But the dps will just wipe everyone in other team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Etheri.5406 said:

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?

Care to tell us what we're looking at? :)

Click the link....

I did. Provide context because unless you expect us to go ingame, add all these players and research their ratings we have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Imagine you at least tell us who's "super high" and "super low" rated here - or something.Can you read???????????

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams? EZ -15 for a game im not sure how im supposed to win. You're telling me this is the best it could come up with?"

I see a screenshot of 10 players in a match, without ratings, without knowing what it means... Am I supposed to know all these players? Again, I didn't say this was an appropriate comp even. I asked you to provide context so we have the slightest clue of what you're on about. A picture of 10 players without knowing who these players are says absolutely nothing.

HOLY SHIT, ITS ABOUT THE TEAM COMP NOT THE RATINGS HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO QUOTE IT FOR YOU?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?"

IS THAT ENOUGH? JESUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS this forum is a literal zoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vicariuz.1605 said:

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?

Care to tell us what we're looking at? :)

Click the link....

I did. Provide context because unless you expect us to go ingame, add all these players and research their ratings we have no idea what this is supposed to mean.Imagine you at least tell us who's "super high" and "super low" rated here - or something.Can you read???????????

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams? EZ -15 for a game im not sure how im supposed to win. You're telling me this is the best it could come up with?"

I see a screenshot of 10 players in a match, without ratings, without knowing what it means... Am I supposed to know all these players? Again, I didn't say this was an appropriate comp even. I asked you to provide context so we have the slightest clue of what you're on about. A picture of 10 players without knowing who these players are says absolutely nothing.

HOLY kitten, ITS ABOUT THE TEAM COMP NOT THE RATINGS HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO QUOTE IT FOR YOU?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

"Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?""Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?" "Care to tell me why the matchmaker decided this was an appropriate comp for both teams?"

IS THAT ENOUGH? JESUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS this forum is a literal zoo.

Lul, someone thinking matchmaking cares about making you a nice comp. You can reroll. You can't demand matchmaking to fix your comp. The only thing it should do; and it does; is try to avoid heavy class-stacking.

You have 1.30 to fix your comp. What do you want anet to do, establish set comps AND enforce them? That's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:Hasn't there been statements by developers stating that that average distance in player score between highest and lowest players per game is less than 50?

No. The average skill rating between teams is less than 50. The deviation is higher than that. Don't have the number off the top of my head though.

We do our best to get the standard deviation as close as we can though.

And no, I say it often, we don't rig matches to end loss or win streaks. But many people will never believe it.

I wonder why?ANET's track record isn't the best these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done with pvp in this game. I just went 0 for 15 after winning 9 out of last 10. Do not tell me matchmaking isn't rigged to be streaky because this streakiness has happened several times. THERE ARE NEVER ANY CLOSE GAMES. This is why spvp is dying out and there are less and less people playing every season. Anet just go full PVE. I mean you pretty much do anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you know st is up and you get a ton of weird excuses with a lot of passion to refute your assumptions, youre probably on to st. my guess is, some high ranked people want an easy pool to handle and avoid competition. they probably pay for a mod ui which also grants them access to the matchmaking system. ive witnessed manipulated matchmaking, ive witnessed people silly enough.

just ask yourself, would silly people pay for that ? think about that, then what kind of people, nice self confident people who are fun to play with ? or maybe people who can barely spell with a whole bunch of other issues ? then whats your experience with platinum people, whats the vibe ?

and why are you even wondering after everything that has been leaked so far ? i mean after 1k+ games you did look into it i suppose ?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:@"cptaylor.2670"

I've been posting about the same thing for years now. There is definitely some kind of rigging in the system that isn't being talked about by anet. I don't mean match manipulations, occasional lose streaks or a player thinking he's better than he actually is. No, I mean obviously rigged match making. let me guess:

  • Match making feels somewhat balanced, aside from match manipulations and players using hack programs. You're winning or losing by margins of 50 to 100 points normally, sometimes get balanced matches looking like 490 to 500. This goes on until you reach some clearly identified marker within the rating system.
  • When you reach that identified marker, suddenly all match making goes straight to hell. It isn't even some slight increase in difficulty no, you just start getting the worst possible matches that the system could take effort towards creating. Teams of legendary and mid plat players vs. teams of: plat 1/gold 3/ gold 2/gold 2/gold 1. Let me guess, you sit and wonder to yourself -> "Why in the hell would the system not put a couple of golds from my team on the enemy team and give us a couple plats?" Even then, the enemy team would still have a higher average party MMR and be favored to win but at least it would be some better skew. So why would it literally put every strongest player on one side and the weaker players on the other?
  • Then you notice this starts happening for multiple matches in a row, sometimes 10 or more. You notice that during these matches it isn't you just fumbling plays and being a bad player, no you notice that your teammates are exploding on contact in every combat engagement. You notice there is nothing even relatively fair about your matches because the teams you are being put on are completely incapable of providing the enemy team the slightest bit of a challenge. The games start to look like loses all 500 to 150 or worse. Furthermore, you begin noticing the reality that no matter how good of a player you are, even if you were an old pro, that it would be impossible to carry such kitten matches for one big reason: 1 powerful player could survive all match and kill everyone in his path and defend every node he is at. But his kitten players are being crunched on the other 2 nodes where he is not at. Since the 1 powerful can only ever be on 1 node at a time, GG. Moral of the story is that 1 legendary player with a team of bronzes is not going to beat an enemy team consisting of all gold 3s.
  • You notice these "lose streaks" aren't random. They happen like clockwork as if there were some automated schedule within the algorithm. They happen immediately as soon as you're within about 10 points of ranking up and they don't stop until you hit that same exact bottomed out rating that it wants to make sure you return to. Then lo and behold, suddenly it stops and lets you have normal matches again, until you reach that exact threshold once again, and then the automated schedule kicks in.
  • You come to post in the forums about it because you are recognizing that the match making is deciding when you lose and for how long you lose and how far it resets your rating. You receive snarky cliché responses like: "git gud" "it's a l2p issue" "you've reached your peak, that is where you belong" "learn to 2 carry bro" "oh it's just low population" <- these are all cop-out responses to the completely obvious problem that the community should be in a rage to investigate. And you become frustrated because it's as if these players are not experiencing the same thing that you are. It's also frustrating because you identify that even if you were twice as good of a player as you are now, it would still be impossible to carry the kitten matches that the system is giving you. due to the bolded point above. So what in the hell is going on here?

I asked myself that for years. I've paid close attention to not only my records for each season but also the records of players that I know within the community. I have 6 years invested into guild wars 2 spvp and over 12,000 games. I can tell you this, there are a lot of guys out there who are stuck in gold who should be playing plat and a lot of guys in plat who should be stuck in gold. I've sat and watched old professional players go on a bad day and drop from 1700+ rating down to 1400ish in one fell swoop, which makes absolutely no sense, which is why most of them have left the game now. Then I'll sit and watch someone "that I know for a fact is an intermediate at best player, from playing scrims and ATs with them" go from some 1450 rating up to 1700+ on the leaderboards and these are people who I know are not match manipulating, and this doesn't make any sense either. The flashing red hot spot of interest here, is that this always happens on win streaks or lose streaks. So we're being told that there is a system in place for us that is creating "balanced" matches. This is a system where, when you are reaching your peak rating, your matches should start looking more like: win 1, lose 1, win 1, lose 1, rating is down a bit now so, win 1, win 1, lose 1, win 1, win 1, back to peak rating again, lose 1, win 1, lose 1, win 1, rating down again, win 1, win 1, back peak rating, so on and so forth. <- that would make sense. But instead, you reach that peak rating and then BAM lose, lose, lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. back down to where you started and it happens EVERY TIME you hit the peak rating, like clockwork. Then you watch another player "who you know is intermediate at best", log in one day and win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win and completely surpass his old benchmark of gold 2, and somehow transcend into the world of plat 2 on a win streak, in about 3 hours of play. So.....to get a win streak or lose streak in a system that actually works the way their notes says it does..... would be a complete mathematical anomaly. For it to happen so often..... isn't a coincidence.... it's clearly a design.

I have come to the conclusion after many years and many matches played, that the system has a hidden placement that puts players within a region of allowance for how high they can climb and for how low they can go, despite actual skill level. What the motive is behind this, I have no idea and I don't care at this point. My biggest question has always been: "What decides who is allowed to play in a particular region?"

All in all, this very bizarre and not fun match making behavior, mixed with terrible class balance, is why I had to quit Guild Wars 2 and walk away. I'll always keep my eye on this game, to see if anything gets fixed, but boy I'm a happier gamer, gaming in other places right now.

This is exactly how I observed it as well im very details. That's why I don't intend to play the game for rank anymore but for rewards instead. Heck I dont want to win any matches anymore either. Too bad it will take me longer to achieve the rewards. But it will lessen my stress from frustrations in trying to give my efforts only to face above match making system. Honestly and sincerely from the bottom of my heart, the match making really scks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:Hasn't there been statements by developers stating that that average distance in player score between highest and lowest players per game is less than 50?

No. The average skill rating between teams is less than 50. The deviation is higher than that. Don't have the number off the top of my head though.

We do our best to get the standard deviation as close as we can though.

And no, I say it often, we don't rig matches to end loss or win streaks. But many people will never believe it.

Many players' experiences and consistencies in the detailed observation tells otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some notes and hopefully some changes.

1) Ratings are on a bell curve. The player skill difference between 1600 and 1700 mmr is much higher than it is between 1100 and 1200. Thus the "average rating difference" kind of means very little.

2) The current Glicko2 system of weighted rating for players works great if matchmaking is random / there is no matchmaking.

Issues arise because of the blend of matchmaking with the weighted rating for players after a match.

Players farther out from the middle are "punished/rewarded" twice. First with matchmaking where they are given "worse" allies to make an "even" match with an opposing team, and secondly after the match where they gain less and lose more (or the other way around for players with low rating.)

Either go to complete random arena with no matchmaking and retain weighted player rating, or remove weighted rating and give every player in the team the same mmr gains and losses and retain matchmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sabatier.9634" said:Just my two cents why i think the matchmaking is useless: https://ibb.co/zQg8v5MI know the pic is a bit older but the reason why i post it is the fact that its a ranked game with two duos on one side while my team does not have even one duo.

Honestly the fact that it is 496 - 500 despite the fact they had two duos might actually mean it is working pretty well since it managed to balance out individual skill-rating with duo-skill-rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@apharma.3741 said:There is another thing many might not be considering.

You may be at the rating you should be at.

That doesn’t mean you won’t get loss streaks, some days you won’t be playing at your best, some days you will, you may need time to get into the flow, you may lose focus. The algorithm will do its best to match you but it cannot account for a 1800 rating player being tired, it can’t account for a 1600 rating player playing their best or being a pro at rotation but lacking in combat. It can’t account for you playing a different class or an off meta build.

There will always be an element of random chance, you’re playing with 9 other strangers in the match and people aren’t robots who play the most optimal thing possible at maximum effectiveness all the time.

Difficult to believe that when the leaderboard is 60-4 w/l

Randomness alone should prevent that kind of ratio, especially with a match maker that tries for even games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alatar.7364 said:

@"Sabatier.9634" said:Just my two cents why i think the matchmaking is useless:
I know the pic is a bit older but the reason why i post it is the fact that its a ranked game with two duos on one side while my team does not have even one duo.

Honestly the fact that it is 496 - 500 despite the fact they had two duos might actually mean it is working pretty well since it managed to balance out individual skill-rating with duo-skill-rating.

Yeah, i think your kind of right about that. Would be interesting to know how much the skillrating is raised trough a duo. Or maybe it is not?Also its quite strange that the matchmaking has to do something like this. Would have been better to divide the duos, right? Unless the Skill rating-difference of one or two players were just way to big. So the question should be why these players even had to play in that rating-"class".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sabatier.9634" said:Just my two cents why i think the matchmaking is useless: https://ibb.co/zQg8v5MI know the pic is a bit older but the reason why i post it is the fact that its a ranked game with two duos on one side while my team does not have even one duo.

This is as close as a game can get, I'm not sure what's your problem other than losing and looking for a scapegoat.

Usually matchmaking gives duos a hard time, pitting them against solo player of way higher rating to compensate. The number of duos on a team aren't automatically going to make them stronger unless it's a very high rated game with good communication and comp synergy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@witcher.3197 said:

@"Sabatier.9634" said:Just my two cents why i think the matchmaking is useless:
I know the pic is a bit older but the reason why i post it is the fact that its a ranked game with two duos on one side while my team does not have even one duo.

This is as close as a game can get, I'm not sure what's your problem other than losing and looking for a scapegoat.

Usually matchmaking gives duos a hard time, pitting them against solo player of way higher rating to compensate. The number of duos on a team aren't automatically going to make them stronger unless it's a very high rated game with good communication and comp synergy.

First of all, i dont have a problem. I just think that the matchmaking is useless.

Its still a Teamgame right? So communication and tactics are an import part. But there is another point, how is the matchmaking able to determine the tactical-skillrating of two individuals?

Are you sure that duo players getting matched with better opponents to get even? How the matchmaking is calculating the teamplayer- and communication- aspect of that in terms of the skillrating? In my example you even have to double that blindspot because of the two duos on one side.

Its about the functionality of the matchmaking. It should not depend on high or low rated games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with OP. This happens every time I am on a winning streak or close to changing rank tier. At this point I can almost tell before when the matchmaking is going to match me with bad players. Or bad.. It's even worse. Thay are AFKers, griefers etc.. You know when a random pattern repeats often enough it's not random any more. I have seen this behaviour in other games to but not so aggressive as this. This algorithm is actually punishing you if you win. I also find it strange that a Anet dev comes to this thread only to deny this without any explanation as to how it works... It's almost as if they want pvp to die. They are succeding with that for sure..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ArenaNet Staff

@Sabatier.9634 said:

@Sabatier.9634 said:Just my two cents why i think the matchmaking is useless:
I know the pic is a bit older but the reason why i post it is the fact that its a ranked game with two duos on one side while my team does not have even one duo.

Honestly the fact that it is 496 - 500 despite the fact they had two duos might actually mean it is working pretty well since it managed to balance out individual skill-rating with duo-skill-rating.

Yeah, i think your kind of right about that. Would be interesting to know how much the skillrating is raised trough a duo. Or maybe it is not?Also its quite strange that the matchmaking has to do something like this. Would have been better to divide the duos, right? Unless the Skill rating-difference of one or two players were just way to big. So the question should be why these players even had to play in that rating-"class".

The matchmaker used to work harder to spread out duo's. However, based on our data, skill rating is generally a better indicator of potential performance than whether someone queued up in a duo. So the matchmaker puts the greatest priority on making sure the average skill rating on each team is as even as possible. It also tries a bit to make sure the standard deviation of skill rating of each team is pretty close. In addition to these, the matchmaker will also do it's best not to put any more than +1 of a class on a team. Though, players can work around that themselves with character swapping. Something we've decided to leave in, based on community vote and because we think it's ok if players/teams who are skilled or knowledgeable enough to recognize bad compositions can resolve that themselves.

I've said it many times and I'm sure people still won't believe it, but the match maker has no idea if you have won or lost your previous match. All it knows is your current skill rating, your class, and whether you're in a duo queue or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Evo.7408 said:

@mortrialus.3062 said:Hasn't there been statements by developers stating that that average distance in player score between highest and lowest players per game is less than 50?

No. The average skill rating between teams is less than 50. The deviation is higher than that. Don't have the number off the top of my head though.

We do our best to get the standard deviation as close as we can though.

And no, I say it often, we don't rig matches to end loss or win streaks. But many people will never believe it.

Many players' experiences and consistencies in the detailed observation tells otherwise.

or maybe after 6 strait wins the match maker decided to put you against better players?I dunno... seems like a logical lay out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"cptaylor.2670" said:There is either too far of a gap between points and skill level, too few players, or the system is incredibly rigged when it wants you to lose.

Everytime I get close to moving up a tier, I get put in a team comp that is the absolute worst against the other. In this case, a necro and two warriors, against my team that has a rev, thief, and a condi Mesmer. Not only is the comp impossible to beat, but the players are mostly high first tier to middle tier platinum players. My team is 2nd tier gold.

If someone would be kind enough to teach me how to solo a map with a 3 point capping system while avoiding getting gang banged, please feel free. Because matchmaking clearly wants me to be able to make up for my teammates dying every time they spawn.

I'm by far not a great player, but to intentionally create a system that punishes players by placing them against people of either higher skill (sometimes top 20) or a comp that is more favorable knowing that players may not switch to what is needed is a horrible way of keeping people involved in this pvp system.

Not only is the current balance an issue, but nobody is going to want to suffer through a pvp season knowing that after any certain number of wins they're going to be automatically placed against a team with either marginally or significantly higher chances of winning and feeling discouraged when they don't know what they could possibly do to even begin to win the match.

I guess the current system just decides where you should be and is designed specifically to keep you in that position? Even if it means placing you in a team with two zerker staff elementalists and a dagger/pistol thief?

At least it's good for the easy 20 gold, but beyond that it's honestly no surprise I'm seeing the same seemingly 20 people in matches on a daily basis. (Except when I get close to moving back up and seeing some random team of people who beat us 500 to 0 and are clearly of a much higher rank.)

Another thing I've noticed about this system is that if I have a bad match with particular people and choose to not queue for 15 minutes, I still somehow wind up with them on my team. I don't think this is coincidence because the queue time is significantly longer when it wants you to lose. I assume it's intentionally waiting for those other people to get out of the match. Not sure if this is because it wants you to improve with those particular people or because it knows you work poorly together and is assuring that it is a loss. Sometimes after said breaks, even if they're only 5 minutes or so which you would still think would be long enough, you queue up and it instantly pops, because it those people you were avoiding were waiting in queue this entire time and it was just waiting for you before it would generate the match making sure that you're on the same team.

I'm sure this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but those of us playing ranked have to have had similar experiences with some of this. Especially with attempting to avoid certain people and against all odds still winding up with them on your team again even after taking what would seem like a very long break.

I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of things I could do differently and I'm pretty terrible at pvp like pretty much everything else in life, but the old argument that you have to "carry" your team in a 3 point capture game has never made any sense to me even for the absolute best person. Unless you just have to be good enough to solo 5 people like some highly skilled wvw roamer.

Some things are unavoidable. I know the system wants to keep you at a 50/50 win percentage. That much is clear.Add in a low population and the imbalances in PvP increase.

The rest, eh, I dunno. But it sure seems fishy when I get put into a match where there are, lets say 2 core rangers on one team and 2 Soulbeasts on the other.Why weren't they split between the teams?Why have double of any class on one team?Sure you can change classes before the Game begins, but let's be real, MOST people don't do that.If Anet wanted something a little closer to balance, they wouldn't let anyone change.

Or why is it one team has a Full Meta Team (FB/Holo/Scourge/Revenant etc) and my team is nearly all core classes? smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MarshallLaw.9260" said:With all due respect, most of the "evidence" quoted in this thread is just a collection of stories/experiences. These are usually susceptible to exaggeration and we have seen very little collective evidence - eg tracking graphs of all matches from a sample of 3-4k players for a whole season. This would be closer to evidence than tales of "oh I was on a 98 match winning streak and then ANet punished me for being so good by making me lose the next 50 matches in a row" (anyone has the right to exaggerate).I don't believe ANet would have a good enough reason to bother doing this - do you really think they pick out people to "lock" into certain tiers intentionally?

It's much simpler, and more logical to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. As for the "1000 players" posting about losing streaks - well that's not proof - I've had a few such streaks now and then, some weeks none. On the whole I think the matchmaking isn't too bad when you take into account the low population the system has to work with - but unlike those posting about "100x losing streaks" - this is the first time I'm posting against it. Volume of comments/posts for an idea shouldn't be taken as evidence that it's the most prevalent. There could be 1,000 players who think MM is rigged versus 20,000 who don't - but are just not vocal about it.

-

Lastly, people who claim to have left the game, for some reason, seem to have quite a lot to say about its current state. I in no way think that those people should stop posting but bear in mind if you finish your statements with " ....that's why I've left the game and am greatly enjoying playing other MMOs for some time..." then why should anybody consider your comments relevant? Make your mind up - you've either left and have nothing to do with the game, or you've pretended to leave and are up-to-date.

With as little respect as I can muster for deniers, your disbelief bears as much weight as the op's belief.

There is no Gold Standard Double Blind Placebo study.No one has the numbers.

There could be 20,000 players that don't think the system is Rigged versus 1000 who don't.

I would say the top 400 are very vocal about it.That group has the most to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...