The way players recieve or lose rating points makes them want to play less.

[Bazsi.2734]

6 minutes ago, Morwath.9817 said:

 

You fail to see basic thing you can't fly too far away from average MMR, because if you do, the more rating you "farm" above it, the more unfair and unwinnable matches you will get: e.g. matchmaking will consider team made of you and mix of bronze-silver players is fair vs 5 gold-plat players.

Unless what you can read here is lies: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm ,

the matchmaking does not allow for this. There is a limit to padding your rating, and there is a limit to how great rating differences can be. With ELO inflation you'll inevitably grow too far apart for the top of the ladder to consider the bottom.
Unless you turn all these failsafes off, but at that point we're just putting extra stress on the reactor after deliberately removing the coolant, and nothing we're doing makes sense anymore.

39 minutes ago, Morwath.9817 said:

Even if average MMR would be bigger as season is progressing, whats wrong with it? Do you think ELO isn't inflated over time in chess, or that it wouldn't if players could spam rating games like players can in GW2?

Ah yes, chess. I could hardly think of anything more irrelevant.
Anyway I already explained why MMR doing a Venezuela is bad, but just as a final statement here is a summary:
My ideal version of a competetive ladder objectively measures player skill. My top players are the skilled ones, with high winrates.
Your version of the ladder turns rating into something farmable. Your top players are the nolifers.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

The way Bazsi explained the rating system is how Elo works. 
 

In essence the entire “structure” of the algorithm is completely relative, again because it fits participants in the system to a bell curve. That’s the primary assumption for what the algo is fundamentally based on and that’s why trying to change how points are awarded means absolutely nothing…and if anything further dilutes the usefulness of the system.

 

The problem lies with how it works in fundamentality. 
 

most people here including baszi are confused by how this algo works because it was in fact designed for chess in a 1v1 environment. Again if you guys study the algorithm, you will note how this algo treats players in 5v5 rando ques…something it wasn’t initially designed for.

 

like mentioned previously, there is no real way to change Elo, other then to simply replace it or add more on top of it (which is what Glicko does) 

also like mentioned previously the best solution in my opinion is a more exact theory of skill, not based on a single parameter (Elo rating) alone. A more precise theory of skill is necessary to delineate a ladder (not just a rating.) 

Edited December 6, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Morwath.9817]

6 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Unless what you can read here is lies: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm ,

the matchmaking does not allow for this. There is a limit to padding your rating, and there is a limit to how great rating differences can be. With ELO inflation you'll inevitably grow too far apart for the top of the ladder to consider the bottom.
Unless you turn all these failsafes off, but at that point we're just putting extra stress on the reactor after deliberately removing the coolant, and nothing we're doing makes sense anymore.

Ah yes, chess. I could hardly think of anything more irrelevant.
Anyway I already explained why MMR doing a Venezuela is bad, but just as a final statement here is a summary:
My ideal version of a competetive ladder objectively measures player skill. My top players are the skilled ones, with high winrates.
Your version of the ladder turns rating into something farmable. Your top players are the nolifers.

It already allows over 300 point spread. Idk why you believe it's farmable, if Matchmaking balances both teams, so AVERAGE rating is even or close to even so your base points for a match is (+/- 13 + personal performance +/- how close was final score) you should look at it two ways matchmaking could work:

 

a) Player X has inflated rating and matchmaking doesn't creates teams with equal average rating in "favor" of player X. As a result it's not baseline +13 for win, but less for player X. He will as well lose more than 13 points per loss. Of course his performance can slightly mitigate it, so can final score, but he will still lose much more than he can gain. Thus not much changes compared to current system;

 

b) Player X has inflated rating and matchmaking forces equal average rating teams, thus his team mates are much weaker than enemy team, he has baseline +/-13 per win and now if it will hurts his rating is based on his performance.

 

While you may think either is grindable, it's not true. You said previous post, that player like Boyce who play 120 games (side note: Boyce played like around 400 games this season) would be overgrinded by low plats who play 400 games.... but do you really think that after passing certain deviation from average threshold low plat duo can win in games like : low plat duo + silver + silver + gold vs 4 plat + gold or even get anyhow close scoring? Probably doable for top players like Zan+Boyce, but not for grinders who are much weaker players.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Morwath.9817

[Bazsi.2734]

7 hours ago, Morwath.9817 said:

It already allows over 300 point spread. Idk why you believe it's farmable, if Matchmaking balances both teams, so AVERAGE rating is even or close to even so your base points for a match is (+/- 13 + personal performance +/- how close was final score) you should look at it two ways matchmaking could work:

 

a) Player X has inflated rating and matchmaking doesn't creates teams with equal average rating in "favor" of player X. As a result it's not baseline +13 for win, but less for player X. He will as well lose more than 13 points per loss. Of course his performance can slightly mitigate it, so can final score, but he will still lose much more than he can gain. Thus not much changes compared to current system;

 

b) Player X has inflated rating and matchmaking forces equal average rating teams, thus his team mates are much weaker than enemy team, he has baseline +/-13 per win and now if it will hurts his rating is based on his performance.

 

While you may think either is grindable, it's not true. You said previous post, that player like Boyce who play 120 games (side note: Boyce played like around 400 games this season) would be overgrinded by low plats who play 400 games.... but do you really think that after passing certain deviation from average threshold low plat duo can win in games like : low plat duo + silver + silver + gold vs 4 plat + gold or even get anyhow close scoring? Probably doable for top players like Zan+Boyce, but not for grinders who are much weaker players.

And now we're just going to go in circles for eternity?
Just 2 comments prior you hinted that MMR inflation is not a bad thing, and now you're making arguments that presuppose it does not exist in your system.
Padding losses/boosting wins results in net gain of average rating of the players who participated in a match. So a group of players who are alway online at the same time and matchmake into each other can climb togheter. You know, farming rating. 
But again already explained this stuff, I start to feel like I'm just mocking myself by repeating it hoping it gets through. I'm done with this conversation.