Please Make a Proper Matchmaking System

[Endorphin.9147]

2 hours ago, ccccc.4963 said:

Who pays these people to defend gw2s matchmaker I just played with 3 supports and a core thief 

Yeah i had a match the other day. Played blade cause was tired of meming. Did 36% of team dmg. One guy on the enemy team was watching and cheering on his team in say chat for them outnumbering me. I died once out of the entire time I was outnunbered. All because I had to hold a 1v4 on capricorn bell that ended up being our lose condition.

Even with a partial 5v4, nothing can save these poor souls.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Endorphin.9147
the 48% i originally said was a diff game I lost.

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, shion.2084 said:

Ie.  I could run a completely unfair game that you have no chance of winning at.  But if there's no down side to losing, and participation garners you 10,000 dollars a game... Im betting you're going to play.  Hence participation in GW2 PvP is not solely impacted by the concept of ZPD but rather incentivization as well.

For what reason would anyone play then? Money you can never get is a demotivator instead of a motivator. Even Deathgame fiction has a tangible price that makes it worth it, and the participants never have a choice.

You could promise someone a googol money and they would never do it if they had no chance of getting the googol. To create an incentive in people you have to give them something they can get and/or threaten them sufficiently.

[shion.2084]

Just now, Malus.2184 said:

For what reason would anyone play then? Money you can never get is a demotivator instead of a motivator. Even Deathgame fiction has a tangible price that makes it worth it, and the participants never have a choice.

You could promise someone a googol money and they would never do it if they had no chance of getting the googol. To create an incentive in people you have to give them something they can get and/or threaten them sufficiently.

You misread... whatever the outcome you get 10k

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, shion.2084 said:

Also as a side note... this is limited thinking...
"Following Vygotsky, some educators believe that the role of education is to give children experiences that are within their zones of proximal development, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning such as skills and strategies."

As there can clearly be benefit from also giving children experiences that are within the category of things they can do unaided.  Because something I can do unaided I might still get better at and learn from my having done it.   As well it might naturally increase my my scope of things I can do un-aided.  Just because I have the capability to do something unaided if I start trying, does not mean I know how to do it before I try.  It means I can work it out unaided... and that process of working it out is perhaps the best instruction.

The theory seems.... insufficient.

It's Wiki, it's the TLDR version. If I quoted from a textbook that went in-depth you would have a low chance of understanding it unless you had sufficient C, B, and A-level knowledge and it would be an essay and a half. Literally, the last paper I wrote that used the ZPD as one of the supporting theories I used half a page of small font just describing it superficially.

[shion.2084]

9 minutes ago, Malus.2184 said:

It's Wiki, it's the TLDR version. If I quoted from a textbook that went in-depth you would have a low chance of understanding it unless you had sufficient C, B, and A-level knowledge and it would be an essay and a half. Literally, the last paper I wrote that used the ZPD as one of the supporting theories I used half a page of small font just describing it superficially.

Fair enough, I just took the reference at face value.   I do stand by my argument that if the conclusion is that educators should aim at tasks in the ZPD, they are overlooking the value of learning that can derive from tasks which are in the unaided category.  those can be of equal value and perhaps more in instilling intrinsic self confidence and a sense of self reliance.

[Saiyan.1704]

On 7/26/2023 at 4:25 PM, Bunbury.8472 said:

with only 100 plat accounts in NA, and a decent amount of them alts it means that once you leave gold rank you will wait hours to get a game. because 9 of those plat players have to log on and queue up, and with there being less than 100 plat players that is unlikely. may as well just ban people when they reach plat 1, same outcome pretty much.

it's an omegalul that new accounts are gold1, considering legend is dead and it's the second highest bracket. new players are queued with the best player this dead mode has to offer to ensure they have as bad of an experience in ranked as possible lol.

NA Plat1+ is basically Legendary and G3 is basically Plat. Saying that there are only 100 plat accounts in NA, isn't exactly accurate.

The 300 - 500 players who are actually decent at PvP are saturated with the absurd amount of Bronze and Silvers... there's almost never a game filled with your skill rating if you are Gold 1 through Gold3... and just forget about any kind of fair matchmaking balance if you are Plat1 - Plat3+ trying to queue with other Plats (never happens unless they make new accounts... once went up against a full team of Plat3+ players all on alt accounts. We basically went up against a full team that won Monthly in Ranked queue).

 

Ranked has become a game of "farm or troll the lowest rating players better than the other team" gamemode, with an absurd amount of match manipulation in Plat3+, and has been for a long while.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Saiyan.1704

[Kozumi.5816]

I quit PvP due to terrible matchmaking 3 years ago.

As you get higher rated, you get worse matches. That's the opposite of what is supposed to happen.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Kozumi.5816

[Sereath.1428]

Removing the bots from sPvP actually made things alot worse, funny thing.

[Bazsi.2734]

I love how my question (I asked like 3 times, what the f*ck do you actually want changed) wasn't answered. I got linked some theory on how to incentivise learning, a speech about the importance of good matchmaking, then silence.

So at this point I have to assume OP has no idea, you're just frustrated with bad quality games you're getting.

Here is the problem once again: NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS. 

14 hours ago, ccccc.4963 said:

Who pays these people to defend gw2s matchmaker I just played with 3 supports and a core thief 

Again, for those in the back: NOT. ENOUGH. PLAYERS. If you still think this is to be fixed through changes to the matchmaker... man I'm so sorry. Now I feel dumb for thinking I might get to hear new ideas. Of course you don't have any.

[ccccc.4963]

57 minutes ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Now I feel dumb for thinking I might get to hear new ideas. Of course you don't have any.

Roles, class specific mmr, unranked removed/spvp lego easier to acquire

 

You feel dumb for playing deadeye btw

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by ccccc.4963

[Bazsi.2734]

34 minutes ago, ccccc.4963 said:

Roles, class specific mmr, unranked removed/spvp lego easier to acquire

 

You feel dumb for playing deadeye btw

 

Roles LMAO.
I wonder, if I'm playing my "dumb" deadeye, and decide to play for far the entire game, am I a roamer or a bruiser? This game is very loose on roles, do we just rework everything and return to the 2004-ish holy trinity?
Class specific MMR - only needs the remake the entire system if you want this, as you either have account based ladder or this - mutually exclusive. How would it work though, do I get to be on the ladder 5 times with each oneshot build I like to meme with? Will the top 100 be just 6 people with different classes/builds?
Easy to acquire legendary - I like "easy" and "legendary" in the same sentence. It's not like they are polar opposites... no, this makes sense. It just does.

Like the class specific insults too, It just goes well with the quality of ideas you present. They are very good, I like them and I'm sure they will be patched in by next tuesday.

[Shagie.7612]

33 minutes ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Class specific MMR - only needs the remake the entire system if you want this, as you either have account based ladder or this - mutually exclusive. How would it work though, do I get to be on the ladder 5 times with each oneshot build I like to meme with? Will the top 100 be just 6 people with different classes/builds?

I dunno, I think it's pretty cool what wow's solo shuffle did for this.
If there's 60 trillion [whatever is currently busted] in the top 50, but one guy playing core engi or something, I think that guy deserves some recognition.
If the average core engi is silver, but this guy's in plat, that's pretty cool. Toss him something, whether that's a title, gold, rewards, whatever.

Obv you'd need to either make a separate ladder, or track core/elite spec ratings separately from main rating, or something else, all of which are very unlikely to happen, but I think it'd be pretty cool to let people see who's succeeding on underrepresented stuff.

Anyways as far as matchmaking goes, there's some stuff you can do to ease frustrations but it's only so effective because of the lack of population. Happens in almost all underpopulated games (Battlerite for example, same problem despite more strict matchmaking criteria and less rating spread).

[wasss.1208]

6 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Class specific MMR - only needs the remake the entire system if you want this, as you either have account based ladder or this - mutually exclusive. How would it work though, do I get to be on the ladder 5 times with each oneshot build I like to meme with? Will the top 100 be just 6 people with different classes/builds?

Not only that, but it won't really work in this game. Like, I hop on Druid. Am I a sidenoder, with a power, or condi build? Am I a healer, with the new Lingering Light grandmaster? They are completely different playstyle and role, yet, in this system, I would be put in the same match, because I'm just playing Druid, and my Druid would have "X" MMR. Same goes for the Roles section as well. It works in WoW/FF, and other games, where a single spec can only fill one role/playstyle, but it won't work here.

[SlayerXX.7138]

8 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

I love how my question (I asked like 3 times, what the f*ck do you actually want changed) wasn't answered. I got linked some theory on how to incentivise learning, a speech about the importance of good matchmaking, then silence.

Decrease the range. Op just provided a psychology focused explanation. If the problem is uneven matches and the range is 1200 the solution is obvious. DuoQ should go too.

8 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Here is the problem once again: NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS. 

Correct. Letting that matchmaker reach that hard, just leaks even more players. If you have other realistic simples solutions I'm all ears.

[Bazsi.2734]

23 minutes ago, SlayerXX.7138 said:

Decrease the range. Op just provided a psychology focused explanation. If the problem is uneven matches and the range is 1200 the solution is obvious. DuoQ should go too.

Correct. Letting that matchmaker reach that hard, just leaks even more players. If you have other realistic simples solutions I'm all ears.

Yes. Do nothing.

[shion.2084]

3 minutes ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Yes. Do nothing.

I outlined like 9 steps.  A temporary fix for duo Q that is immediately doable, is to consider both players as having  the higher player's MMR when match making.  This will close at least one window for match manipulation.

[shion.2084]

On 7/27/2023 at 11:59 AM, shion.2084 said:

Now if you want to Fix PvP you need to increase player base.  I've already specified numerous things that would make this more likely.

1) Different mechanics for different tiers of skill.   At noob levels have things like stability given after a CC to avoid loss of agency.  Have things like deaths be rewarded with a time limited buff on respawn so they aren't infinitely farmed.  Add mechanics to hand hold contribution.

2) Allow agency over match making.  Allow users to specify what ranger of MMR they are willing to play against and to state they'd rather not have a match if this can't be satisfied.

3) Allow players to choose if they would like to compete in a match where their opponents are in a pre-made group larger than they are in.  Ie. allow any size of group to do PvP but for players to be able to state whether they are interested in being matched against a group that's bigger than theirs.

3.5) Separate leader boards by pre-made size.

4) Encourage people to play .... Pip loss should scale based on relative result of match.  If you lost by 6 points out of 500 you shouldn't lose 14 mmr as you would normally for a match loss.

5) Reward individual contribution better .... eg. 4 top scores should negate rank loss.

6) Premade groups should use the highest MMR as each player in that groups rating in ranked... not average (avoid gaming the system by having purposefully tanked players)

7) to deal with broken classes, allow for only one class of each type to be in a game in ranked.  Or at least have a category players can select where that's the rule.

😎 Fix balance 🙂. Things like port, invuln, stealth, should come with a damage debuff so that people using them do less condi/phys damage for a short time after.  It will make these strategic choices for placement and positioning rather than a port from the other side of a wall to a 1 shot kill.  

9) Increase agency.... have less agency stealing effects, or at least clearly have indication these are going to be used and allow counters to counter.  ie. Make blocks block (but have less blocks).  Perhaps make blocks have so many charges so they can be worn down by coordinated effort.

9)  Standard Effect Models.  In a similar manner to standard character models, have a mode in PvP where actions are clearly indicated visually and straightforwardly.  If an attack is unblockable then it shows a certain common effect across all classes.  If someone has reflect up, a visual identifier indicates this. Etc.   I shouldn't have to memorise everyones individual animation down to the angle an attack is animated two swing at to understand what they are doing.

 

Since you keep asking @Bazsi.2734 the above are implementatble things.

[SlayerXX.7138]

9 minutes ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Yes. Do nothing.

Have fun farming silvers in 2024 I guess.

[Bazsi.2734]

12 minutes ago, SlayerXX.7138 said:

Have fun farming silvers in 2024 I guess.

There are things we could be doing, but I'm so fed up with obviously harmful suggestions at this point that I'm basicly trolling. But even though I am, my suggestion is still better than yours. Also I don't know where you get this idea that gold players would just suddenly leave... average players got farmed by top players since this game-mode was invented, but suddenly after like 11 years they all disappear like it's the rapture. Solid people, solid ideas.

22 minutes ago, shion.2084 said:

Now if you want to Fix PvP you need to increase player base.  I've already specified numerous things that would make this more likely.

1) Different mechanics for different tiers of skill.   At noob levels have things like stability given after a CC to avoid loss of agency.  Have things like deaths be rewarded with a time limited buff on respawn so they aren't infinitely farmed.  Add mechanics to hand hold contribution.

2) Allow agency over match making.  Allow users to specify what ranger of MMR they are willing to play against and to state they'd rather not have a match if this can't be satisfied.

3) Allow players to choose if they would like to compete in a match where their opponents are in a pre-made group larger than they are in.  Ie. allow any size of group to do PvP but for players to be able to state whether they are interested in being matched against a group that's bigger than theirs.

3.5) Separate leader boards by pre-made size.

4) Encourage people to play .... Pip loss should scale based on relative result of match.  If you lost by 6 points out of 500 you shouldn't lose 14 mmr as you would normally for a match loss.

5) Reward individual contribution better .... eg. 4 top scores should negate rank loss.

6) Premade groups should use the highest MMR as each player in that groups rating in ranked... not average (avoid gaming the system by having purposefully tanked players)

7) to deal with broken classes, allow for only one class of each type to be in a game in ranked.  Or at least have a category players can select where that's the rule.

😎 Fix balance 🙂. Things like port, invuln, stealth, should come with a damage debuff so that people using them do less condi/phys damage for a short time after.  It will make these strategic choices for placement and positioning rather than a port from the other side of a wall to a 1 shot kill.  

9) Increase agency.... have less agency stealing effects, or at least clearly have indication these are going to be used and allow counters to counter.  ie. Make blocks block (but have less blocks).  Perhaps make blocks have so many charges so they can be worn down by coordinated effort.

9)  Standard Effect Models.  In a similar manner to standard character models, have a mode in PvP where actions are clearly indicated visually and straightforwardly.  If an attack is unblockable then it shows a certain common effect across all classes.  If someone has reflect up, a visual identifier indicates this. Etc.   I shouldn't have to memorise everyones individual animation down to the angle an attack is animated two swing at to understand what they are doing.

Just to show I'm not rejecting everything for the fun of it: 6 and 7 are decent ideas.
The rest however... sorry but hard pass. All of them would make PvP considerably worse.

[shion.2084]

Just now, Bazsi.2734 said:

There are things we could be doing, but I'm so fed up with obviously harmful suggestions at this point that I'm basicly trolling. But even though I am, my suggestion is still better than yours. Also I don't know where you get this idea that gold players would just suddenly leave... average players got farmed by top players since this game-mode was invented, but suddenly after like 11 years they all disappear like it's the rapture. Solid people, solid ideas.

Just to show I'm not rejecting everything for the fun of it: 6 and 7 are decent ideas.
The rest however... sorry but hard pass. All of them would make PvP considerably worse.

Out of interest what would be your problem with having a standard effect model setting?  Do you also think standard character models should be removed as an option?   I mean how would giving people a more friendly way to consume the game data as an option make the game way worse???

[Bazsi.2734]

1 minute ago, shion.2084 said:

Out of interest what would be your problem with having a standard effect model setting?  Do you also think standard character models should be removed as an option?   I mean how would giving people a more friendly way to consume the game data as an option make the game way worse???

Standard character models is good because for some reason the game devs thought that making radically different sized races playable was a good idea. Even with just "vanilla" GW2 with relatively few and distinct animations, you couldn't tell what weapon an asura was wielding once the battle was 2v2 or anything larger. And I could agree that some animations nowadays just aren't distinct enough, while others are so flashy and large that they drown out everything else, I'd love to see most of these things (mostly PoF and EoD additions) reworked. Mechanics too sometimes, but mostly just the animations themselves.
However "standard effect model setting" could only mean to color-code the models doing a certain thing. It would dumb down the game to "enemy blue, use unblockable", basicly the same what they dumbed the raid encounters down to: every time you see a color, you react accordingly.
It would definitely help the newbies to dumb down all of pvp to 3-4 different colors, but I'm completely against it. It would feel kind of insulting, last time I played match&color I was like 3 years old.

[Malus.2184]

On 7/27/2023 at 10:22 PM, shion.2084 said:

Fair enough, I just took the reference at face value.   I do stand by my argument that if the conclusion is that educators should aim at tasks in the ZPD, they are overlooking the value of learning that can derive from tasks which are in the unaided category.  those can be of equal value and perhaps more in instilling intrinsic self confidence and a sense of self reliance.

There's a section called "references," that has all the precise sources that the abstract is cobbled together from. Using Wiki as a primary source is a hard no, using the references to a Wiki article is a hard yes as that's extremely good information gathering.

On 7/28/2023 at 8:51 AM, Bazsi.2734 said:

I love how my question (I asked like 3 times, what the f*ck do you actually want changed) wasn't answered. I got linked some theory on how to incentivise learning, a speech about the importance of good matchmaking, then silence.

So at this point I have to assume OP has no idea, you're just frustrated with bad quality games you're getting.

Here is the problem once again: NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS. 

Again, for those in the back: NOT. ENOUGH. PLAYERS. If you still think this is to be fixed through changes to the matchmaker... man I'm so sorry. Now I feel dumb for thinking I might get to hear new ideas. Of course you don't have any.

I already gave you an answer, you obviously disliked it and then chose to ignore it.

The issue of "not enough people is caused in part by the matchmaker and in part by the BS that the system throws in your face in the form of what it allows. No one and I mean literally no one in this case, no hyperbole, no nothing, wants to participate in a contest they feel is massively rigged against them. No amount of compensation will ever be able to convince them unless the compensation for them feeling that they've wasted their time is so high that it feels worthwhile, and even then they're just gonna do the minimum amount of effort to get that price. In this case, just afk in the starter area, which would mean that those who actually made an effort would feel bad. This can be solved by giving people two options:

1: Match me within or close to my rating (warning, this may result in long wait times).

2. Match me against anyone (warning, this may create extremely lopsided fights).

Unless people were seriously strapped for time they would choose the first option. And since the system is a kind of elimination with how the personal rating works they would eventually get filtered up to the higher ratings who get more playtime as well. This is a process that takes time and your desire for a solution now is one that will fail since it can never be implemented in a satisfactory way.

The other part is how skill work and how some of them are just plain unfair. This warrants a post of its own since it's an extensive topic.

[Bazsi.2734]

5 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

There's a section called "references," that has all the precise sources that the abstract is cobbled together from. Using Wiki as a primary source is a hard no, using the references to a Wiki article is a hard yes as that's extremely good information gathering.

I already gave you an answer, you obviously disliked it and then chose to ignore it.

The issue of "not enough people is caused in part by the matchmaker and in part by the BS that the system throws in your face in the form of what it allows. No one and I mean literally no one in this case, no hyperbole, no nothing, wants to participate in a contest they feel is massively rigged against them. No amount of compensation will ever be able to convince them unless the compensation for them feeling that they've wasted their time is so high that it feels worthwhile, and even then they're just gonna do the minimum amount of effort to get that price. In this case, just afk in the starter area, which would mean that those who actually made an effort would feel bad. This can be solved by giving people two options:

1: Match me within or close to my rating (warning, this may result in long wait times).

2. Match me against anyone (warning, this may create extremely lopsided fights).

Unless people were seriously strapped for time they would choose the first option. And since the system is a kind of elimination with how the personal rating works they would eventually get filtered up to the higher ratings who get more playtime as well. This is a process that takes time and your desire for a solution now is one that will fail since it can never be implemented in a satisfactory way.

The other part is how skill work and how some of them are just plain unfair. This warrants a post of its own since it's an extensive topic.

Oh you actually did answer this time. And it's a rather creative rehash of the terrible idea I've seen several time over the last few months. The "choose why your gaming experience should s*ck" popup with 2 choices is really creative. At that point it's not A-nets fault anymore, because "you choose this".
Since I don't feel like repeating the other 10 reasons why this idea would be the final nail in the coffin for PvP, I'm coming up with a new one on the spot!

Balfour selected option one, he played against platinum players all season, allthough he barely got games and is just barely on the leaderboard even after spending most of his free nights in the game.
Christobel selected option two, he played against mostly lower rated players, has a way higher winrate, several hundred more games compared to our Balfour, but rated about the same because winning aganist gold/silver nets less rating.
Question, why are these two on the same ladder? They clearly belong on separate ones as they are playing a different game. But they still get mixed with each other during games sometimes... so what gives, how do  we present a ladder with players who are semi-separated? Good luck making rankings make sense in that world!

Again, thank you for actually answering after like the 4th time, now I can mute the topic and be at peace. Good day!

[Malus.2184]

10 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Oh you actually did answer this time. And it's a rather creative rehash of the terrible idea I've seen several time over the last few months. The "choose why your gaming experience should s*ck" popup with 2 choices is really creative. At that point it's not A-nets fault anymore, because "you choose this".
Since I don't feel like repeating the other 10 reasons why this idea would be the final nail in the coffin for PvP, I'm coming up with a new one on the spot!

Balfour selected option one, he played against platinum players all season, allthough he barely got games and is just barely on the leaderboard even after spending most of his free nights in the game.
Christobel selected option two, he played against mostly lower rated players, has a way higher winrate, several hundred more games compared to our Balfour, but rated about the same because winning aganist gold/silver nets less rating.
Question, why are these two on the same ladder? They clearly belong on separate ones as they are playing a different game. But they still get mixed with each other during games sometimes... so what gives, how do  we present a ladder with players who are semi-separated? Good luck making rankings make sense in that world!

Again, thank you for actually answering after like the 4th time, now I can mute the topic and be at peace. Good day!

I see you've interpreted it in the most terrible and dishonest way. First of all, "terrible" is a subjective judgment, what can be terrible for you can be fantastic for me. Secondly, you assume that people who choose option two will be placed against those who choose option one. While I grant that I should have been more explicit in saying it I was expecting that it would be apparent in the wording of the text since their being forced to play against people with a vastly higher rating would be mutually exclusive with their being placed against opponents with a similar rating.