Rating change often feels frustrating and nonsensical, makes me not want to queue

[Poobah.6254]

This is something that's bothered me for a long time in PvP but it came in to sharp focus for me today after a series of 3v3 matches:

 

I won 5 in a row, my rating changes were +9, +8, +11, +7, +7. I then lost a single match, my rating change was -18. What?? It always feels like you lose more rating for a loss than you gain for a win, which itself feels punitive and frustrating given that the matchmarker in theory tries to create even matches which should average out to a 50/50 W:L if it's working properly (it mostly isn't, the active population is far too small for the skill ranges of players, plus the amount of afkers and ragers who quit after one death in conquest is high and contributes to high variance) but to lose so much relative to how much I gain for a win is incredibly discouraging.

 

Also while I'm on the subject it's very irritating the degree to which wins and losses at the start of the season contribute massively more to your rating then ones later on so performance (or more likely given how volatile pvp is - luck) at the start of the season is disproportionately important in determining your rating so if I lose a few matches after placement I already feel like my whole season is down the toilet.

 

When I PvP I pretty much exclusively soloqueue and watching my rating plummet despite my best efforts and keeping my win rate above 50% is usually why I quit seasons or don't bother taking part at all. There's so many instances where I get in to a match and rapidly realise that no matter what I do - I think I'm a decent player, but I'm nowhere close to a top tier pvper who can put a team on their back and carry - I'm going to be eating a loss, and that would be fine and balanced out by the equal number of times where I get in to a match and the other team is having that problem... except for the issues above where losses, and especially losses early in the season drag you down far more than wins.

[Crab Fear.8623]

The idea of a 50/50 matchmaker, where the mm tries to give everyone a 50% chance to win is completely non-sensical, and yet it is applied in so many games.

Just games though, not real competitive ventures.

In theory, the best would till rise to the top, the absolute trash would almost never win, but the devs don't won't players to experience a losing experience, so their match maker creates scenarios (as best as it can) to try to give them the most fair chance to win.

It doesn't incentivize the need to improve, because you will always be a 50/50 player, and to escape this system requires gaming the system to create unfair matches for yourself in the advantage, and that is where throws, afk alts, low rated smurf duo queues, win trading, and off hour queues come into play.

It proves that it is a stupid system. 

Likely, most players, and I'll include myself, are trash tier, and probably at best bronze to low silver.

Some of the plats and plat 2 running around are not much better than gold, and that is why we see now that they have ruthless legend titles, yet are in the low golds.

Without creating an unfair advantage for yourself, you don't go beyond 50/50 by much or below it by much.

The system forces people into the average, and even the way points are awarded for proximity in rank, versus actual rank of opponents defeated is also bogus.

The matchmaker shouldn't even be a thing.

Yes losers who never improve need to be dumpstered to bottom level bronze, and the absolute best can crush anyone.

It feels like players are confused the the Golden State Warriors could slaughter a high school team, but this is the way.

 

50/50 needs to go, and using a modified glicko, which iirc, is for single 1 v 1 scenarios, it doesn't make things any better.

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Crab Fear.8623

[Hotride.2187]

I play unranked, the ranks are too stressful and honestly unranked games are overall way more fun. More builds, less supports, no stress over losing.

Of course it all goes in the shitter during 2v2 and 3v3 seasons cause all the 5v5 players are in unranked with their meta garbage. But oh well.

[Bast.7253]

Unranked has been more fun now that conquest season is over but I still get quite a few matches late at night that have duos of high elo players. It’s weird because it’s like I win and it places me with higher and higher players in unranked. Probably just coincidence and timing though.

 

But yeah, I’d probably just do unranked. Idk who would want to deal with 3v3’s right now. 

[Exedore.6320]

4 hours ago, Poobah.6254 said:

I won 5 in a row, my rating changes were +9, +8, +11, +7, +7. I then lost a single match, my rating change was -18. What?? It always feels like you lose more rating for a loss than you gain for a win, which itself feels punitive and frustrating given that the matchmarker in theory tries to create even matches which should average out to a 50/50 W:L if it's working properly

 

IIRC, the rating change for a perfect match (everyone has the exact same rating) is ±12. If you're gaining less than that in a win, but losing more in a loss, then you're at the high extreme of the currently queuing population. +7 is 5 off the base; -18 is 6 off the base. That's consistent with matching you against a string of lower rated teams which you're expected to beat. One just happened to be better or run a comp which countered yours. Overall, you still increased in rating.

 

4 hours ago, Poobah.6254 said:

Also while I'm on the subject it's very irritating the degree to which wins and losses at the start of the season contribute massively more to your rating then ones later on so performance (or more likely given how volatile pvp is - luck) at the start of the season is disproportionately important in determining your rating so if I lose a few matches after placement I already feel like my whole season is down the toilet.

At the start of a season, everyone's rating, deviation, and volatility are reset. The former is set to 1200; the latter two are maximized, leading to larger rating changes. Your volatility and deviation decrease as you approach your proper rating. Losing a few early matches matches is only a temporary set-back. Volatility is high if you lose many games in a row or win many games in row. As long as volatility is high, your rating change will remain higher than if you were placed at your "correct" rating. So the setback to a few early losses is only that you need to play a few extra games in order to reach your "correct" rating. However, because everyone is reset, it takes a week or two for players to spread out in rating enough that rating is accurate. This gives the illusion that you can't climb when the reality is that everyone above the average is climbing slowly.
 

[Exedore.6320]

3 hours ago, Crab Fear.8623 said:

The idea of a 50/50 matchmaker, where the mm tries to give everyone a 50% chance to win is completely non-sensical, and yet it is applied in so many games.

You have it backwards. The matchmaker puts you with and against people of relatively equal rating. When you play against people with equal rating, you're expected to win 50% of the time. It's used in so many games because it works and makes sense.

 

3 hours ago, Crab Fear.8623 said:

In theory, the best would till rise to the top, the absolute trash would almost never win, but the devs don't won't players to experience a losing experience, so their match maker creates scenarios (as best as it can) to try to give them the most fair chance to win.

This is grade A 🐮 💩 .
 

------------

 

The problem with any rating system in video games is almost entirely psychological:
* Players expect themselves to remain at a given rating number. Your current rating is only a best approximation, and your true rating is somewhere within a range. Your current rating on any given day should fall within that range. In GW2, I would estimate the rating window at ±50.
* Your skill level varies day to day, as you may be more attentive one day and tired the next.

* Players expect to always win against those of lower rating and always win against those of higher rating. This will never happen as rating is not 100% accurate. Not everyone plays at the same time or day, which contributes to some inaccuracy.

* Some team compositions or strong players in certain roles can counter other specific compositions. Even if general skill is equal, these strengths and weaknesses in design will affect the result.

* A single large loss is remembered more than several smaller wins. Even if they balance out, the large change is more memorable.

 

As a comparison, look at any sports league. The top teams don't always win, and the bottom teams don't always lose. The teams in the bottom can beat the teams in the top, though that result is less likely than the top teams winning.

 

One aspect where the game actually hampers the rating system is in the ez-mode design of newer specs and accompanying buffs. Mistakes and ability to capitalize on them matter far less due to higher damage, more evades and defenses, lower cooldowns etc., so there is less room for player skill to differentiate itself from mashing buttons. If player skill is less of a factor, then rating based on skill will be less accurate.

[Crab Fear.8623]

25 minutes ago, Exedore.6320 said:

You have it backwards. The matchmaker puts you with and against people of relatively equal rating. When you play against people with equal rating, you're expected to win 50% of the time. It's used in so many games because it works and makes sense.

 

This is grade A 🐮 💩 .
 

------------

 

The problem with any rating system in video games is almost entirely psychological:
* Players expect themselves to remain at a given rating number. Your current rating is only a best approximation, and your true rating is somewhere within a range. Your current rating on any given day should fall within that range. In GW2, I would estimate the rating window at ±50.
* Your skill level varies day to day, as you may be more attentive one day and tired the next.

* Players expect to always win against those of lower rating and always win against those of higher rating. This will never happen as rating is not 100% accurate. Not everyone plays at the same time or day, which contributes to some inaccuracy.

* Some team compositions or strong players in certain roles can counter other specific compositions. Even if general skill is equal, these strengths and weaknesses in design will affect the result.

* A single large loss is remembered more than several smaller wins. Even if they balance out, the large change is more memorable.

 

As a comparison, look at any sports league. The top teams don't always win, and the bottom teams don't always lose. The teams in the bottom can beat the teams in the top, though that result is less likely than the top teams winning.

 

One aspect where the game actually hampers the rating system is in the ez-mode design of newer specs and accompanying buffs. Mistakes and ability to capitalize on them matter far less due to higher damage, more evades and defenses, lower cooldowns etc., so there is less room for player skill to differentiate itself from mashing buttons. If player skill is less of a factor, then rating based on skill will be less accurate.

 

Look at sports leagues, the worst teams are on the bottom of the board, or unrated, and while top teams don't always win, they are rated accordingly, based on strength of schedule.

The schedule isn't catered to their strength level either.

So underdogs "CAN" rise, but often don't, and that is why top teams are recognized and often have dynasties of winning, while lesser teams are fodder.

 

The fact that you basically reworded what I said doesn't change what I said.

I said the game tries to make matches where you have 50% chance of winning, and you said the match maker puts you with people of equal skill....basically a 50% chance of winning....50/50...lmao.

 

 

It is righteous that losers stay in bronze and that winners climb, it is not bullcrap, it is reality.

For video games, to make money so players don't feel bad, that is why this system exist.

Grandmaster chess players do face off against players of lower caliber often, and can be challenged, but it doesn't change the likely outcome.

 

The current system is MOST CERTAINLY being gamed by those who know that it will FORCE a win rate.

 

[Sereath.1428]

7 hours ago, Crab Fear.8623 said:

The idea of a 50/50 matchmaker, where the mm tries to give everyone a 50% chance to win is completely non-sensical, and yet it is applied in so many games.

Just games though, not real competitive ventures.

In theory, the best would till rise to the top, the absolute trash would almost never win, but the devs don't won't players to experience a losing experience, so their match maker creates scenarios (as best as it can) to try to give them the most fair chance to win.

It doesn't incentivize the need to improve, because you will always be a 50/50 player, and to escape this system requires gaming the system to create unfair matches for yourself in the advantage, and that is where throws, afk alts, low rated smurf duo queues, win trading, and off hour queues come into play.

It proves that it is a stupid system. 

Likely, most players, and I'll include myself, are trash tier, and probably at best bronze to low silver.

Some of the plats and plat 2 running around are not much better than gold, and that is why we see now that they have ruthless legend titles, yet are in the low golds.

Without creating an unfair advantage for yourself, you don't go beyond 50/50 by much or below it by much.

The system forces people into the average, and even the way points are awarded for proximity in rank, versus actual rank of opponents defeated is also bogus.

The matchmaker shouldn't even be a thing.

Yes losers who never improve need to be dumpstered to bottom level bronze, and the absolute best can crush anyone.

It feels like players are confused the the Golden State Warriors could slaughter a high school team, but this is the way.

 

50/50 needs to go, and using a modified glicko, which iirc, is for single 1 v 1 scenarios, it doesn't make things any better.

 

Yup

This has been a plague in gaming for years now. A matchmaking that enforces 50/50 winratios for everyone.
And it's that way just so bad players don't ever feel bad for not wanting to ever get good at Player vs Player.

It is an industry standard right now, just for the sake of maximum player retention.

---
 

This is from a r/Halo discussion (see point number two):

https://imgur.com/a/xSQB2pX

And that's how matchmaking works for the vast majority of games nowadays.

Edited September 19, 2022 by XxsdgxX.8109

[Knote.2904]

If it makes you feel better, I got +8/9 for a few wins then literally -22/-22/-24 for the next 3 losses. 🙂

Also love how you lose the most when getting farmed by higher ranked peeps.