Losing Streaks

[Dadnir.5038]

Ultimately, there is a need for a losing team to have a winning team.

[FenrirLokison.9146]

@Dadnir.5038 said:Ultimately, there is a need for a losing team to have a winning team.

There is a difference between winning and watching either a team cream your team within the first 2 - 3 minutes, or suddenly after playing crappy for most of the round, comeback and cream you. There is a difference between in watching a downed character continually getting hit and then watching them miraculously rise again. Or, you have you out number 1 character 3:1 and they kick EVERYONE's tail. I have witnessed all of this.

Don't get me wrong...I am sure I have been teamed up with some VERY poor strategists and tacticians (don't get me started on trying to get people to play Foefire correctly (which is taking out the lord))...But, I can't believe I can be fighting along side group of scrubs.

[SeikeNz.3526]

on ranked every time i win a game the next game turn into1 afk to my teamorsomeone that leave at the startor3 home at startora team that never pick sides nodes and if you leave mid to pick it they die and you get outnumberedora team that can't focus on team battles and die without killing anyoneora team that can't finish kills and let they ress after your hard work killing someone

so its always 50/50 win lose ratio

i found out that unranked players play better than ranked players

[Psycoprophet.8107]

The game has turned into condi wars 2. Every match the nodes look like a mini zerg in wvw, constant stacks of every condi just continually being spammed. Cleanse and repeat. Good times, no wonder the gw2 pvp population is dying so fast. One big mistake the design team made is allowing aoe condi dps to dot and burst as much as a single target condi skill. Skills like weaver sword should cause burning on the target not the surrounding area, all skills similar to this should be single target only save for a few select specs that should have some weaker aoe condi's that do way less dot dps but hit more players. In gw2 theirs no drawbacks to anything anymore it's just spam condi's everywhere in between cleansing urself which probably isnt going to lead to a healthy population if there is even one in a few months.

[Xhalvia.5029]

@ksanaks.2380 said:You just need to get good and learn to carry, stop blaming the algorithm or your team mates.

I'm sorry no.People like you need to open your eyes.This is not the only game that uses an MMR/elo based matchmaking system, far from it.

And each and every game that uses this system is criticised in the exact same way, at some point you have to admit that there is some truth behind the criticism.

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.Another criticism is the better you do worse your team get, this is shared throughout every single game that uses this system.So stop lying to yourself and ask if it's actually real in face of the evidence or that it's one hell of a coincidence.

Yes, a very small % of players do go above this 50%, but they are either incredibly talented and they usually duo or they are rigging themselves by match manipulation.

[Zenix.6198]

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

[SeikeNz.3526]

@Zenix.6198 said:

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

your skills matters but your team need to know how to play, so it's all about lucky, one person can't really carry the game, you need at least other 3 people to know how to play and when they match they will win, so the luck factor is here

[Xhalvia.5029]

@Zenix.6198 said:

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself.

[Zenix.6198]

@SeikeNz.3526 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

your skills matters but your team need to know how to play, so it's all about lucky, one person can't really carry the game, you need at least other 3 people to know how to play and when they match they will win, so the luck factor is here

Sure, there is a luck-component involved.But to base an argument on "luck being the most important factor" in determining their rating, is pretty disingenuous and, frankly, a slap in the face for the people that consistently do well in the rating department.

....and yes, I am aware that there are people that play the system to their favor. Point still stands tho.

[Zenix.6198]

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself.

Thats reasoning can be described as correlation at best. Calling it "proof" is nothing short of make-believe.One sided matches can have multiple causes. The very snowball-y meta we currently have (where comebacks are very, very hard to make) could serve as one possible explanation.

[Xhalvia.5029]

@Zenix.6198 said:

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself.

Thats reasoning can be described as correlation at best. Calling it "proof" is nothing short of make-believe.One sided matches can have multiple causes. The very snowball-y meta we currently have (where comebacks are very, very hard to make) could serve as one possible explanation.

At least a gathering of observations made across a multitude of games from countless players that use the same system while they all follow the same pattern is better than the feeble and tired response of "nothing is wrong with the system" while telling people who are witnesses and victims to these systems to "your team is not to blame, learn to carry' git gud scrub"

[SeikeNz.3526]

@Zenix.6198 said:

@SeikeNz.3526 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

your skills matters but your team need to know how to play, so it's all about lucky, one person can't really carry the game, you need at least other 3 people to know how to play and when they match they will win, so the luck factor is here

Sure, there is a luck-component involved.But to base an argument on "luck being the most important factor" in determining their rating, is pretty disingenuous and, frankly, a slap in the face for the people that consistently do well in the rating department.

....and yes, I am aware that there are people that play the system to their favor. Point still stands tho.

the problem is that you can get stuck in a rank even if you play way better than it, you can climb but the climb is slow as hell, you need to play alot of unfun games with bad team mates and always pray before the match start, the "you should carry" argument is a lie, to win you need to play to not be a heavy burden for the team, if you have someone very heavy or an afk it's 99% sure that you going to lose even if you outplayed everyone, this happens because of the mechanic of this game that you need to conquest and get points, you cant be in 3 nodes at same time so you need your team to take it.

lets say that everytime you are at a node you help your team win, but theres other 2 nodes and your team keep losing it, so what you can do? nothing

[Zenix.6198]

@SeikeNz.3526 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@SeikeNz.3526 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@"Xhalvia.5029" said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

your skills matters but your team need to know how to play, so it's all about lucky, one person can't really carry the game, you need at least other 3 people to know how to play and when they match they will win, so the luck factor is here

Sure, there is a luck-component involved.But to base an argument on "luck being the most important factor" in determining their rating, is pretty disingenuous and, frankly, a slap in the face for the people that consistently do well in the rating department.

....and yes, I am aware that there are people that play the system to their favor. Point still stands tho.

the problem is that you can get stuck in a rank even if you play way better than it, you can climb but the climb is slow as hell, you need to play alot of unfun games with bad team mates and always pray before the match start, the "you should carry" argument is a lie, to win you need to play to not be a heavy burden for the team, if you have someone very heavy or an afk it's 99% sure that you going to lose even if you outplayed everyone, this happens because of the mechanic of this game that you need to conquest and get points, you cant be in 3 nodes at same time so you need your team to take it.

lets say that everytime you are at a node you help your team win, but theres other 2 nodes and your team keep losing it, so what you can do? nothing

Sure, it can definitely be a tedious process, if your winrate is just barely above 50%.(With a 51% winrate for instance you'd need to play a 100 games to climb ~25 rating; assuming rating gain/loss is pretty constant at ~12-13 pts).But if you have close to a 50% winrate the matchmaker is doing its job pretty well.

Not because it is rigging the matches against you, but because of the following:If we assume that skill actually can be expressed via numeric values, that means that any given player will eventually (after a significant enough match-size) reach their actual skill rating. And it's unreasonable to assume that said player will maintain his >50% winrate once he reaches that threshold.

I mean ...I get the sentiment of your argument.But from a purely statistical PoV, if a player indeed plays at a higher rating than his actual rating suggests, that means that your team should be favored (even if just by a small margin), since its 4 lower rated players + 1 better player vs. 5 lower rated players. Even if the advantage is small (like 5%)....over a wide enough number of matches, that player will climb eventually.....tedious but undeniably.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

At one point in time I cared about winning and loss streaks.

But then I realized that I just want good, engaging games... and which usually means that both teams are competent.

The last good game(s) I had was over 4 or 5 seasons ago, when I was in plat 2/3 before blinding powder was gutted. One game in particular was so intense I was on the edge of my seat. Can’t remember if we won or lost but it was super close game and I felt like I was being pushed to my very limits of my capability as a player.

Nowadays, good games just don’t exist. Like you point out, people just explode over and over again, and it’s just really hard to have good games when you are either roflstomping their team, or you are in a perpetual 1v5 across the map.

So ya that was almost a year ago since I stopped playing spvp.

[Xhalvia.5029]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:At one point in time I cared about winning and loss streaks.

But then I realized that I just want good, engaging games... and which usually means that both teams are competent.

The last good game(s) I had was over 4 or 5 seasons ago, when I was in plat 2/3 before blinding powder was gutted. One game in particular was so intense I was on the edge of my seat. Can’t remember if we won or lost but it was super close game and I felt like I was being pushed to my very limits of my capability as a player.

Nowadays, good games just don’t exist. Like you point out, people just explode over and over again, and it’s just really hard to have good games when you are either roflstomping their team, or you are in a perpetual 1v5 across the map.

So ya that was almost a year ago since I stopped playing spvp.

This is all I have ever wanted as well.I've not played sphp much but played many many other games and I too remember a time when pvp was actually fun.

[Xhalvia.5029]

@"Zenix.6198" said:Sure, it can definitely be a tedious process, if your winrate is just barely above 50%.(With a 51% winrate for instance you'd need to play a 100 games to climb ~25 rating; assuming rating gain/loss is pretty constant at ~12-13 pts).But if you have close to a 50% winrate the matchmaker is doing its job pretty well.

This is a deceptive fallacy.In an ideal scenario, a 50% winrate does deceptively indicate that it's doing a good job.But it's not, when you consider the sheer quality of matches especially in recent years it all falls appart revealing an obvious attempt to force the 50%.

Not because it is rigging the matches against you

This is exactly what it's doing.At this point in the life of MMR/ELO systems which spans over a decade long is that there is no doubt that the system does rig matches.

But from a purely statistical PoV, if a player indeed plays at a higher rating than his actual rating suggests, that means that your team should be favored (even if just by a small margin), since its 4 lower rated players + 1 better player vs. 5 lower rated players. Even if the advantage is small (like 5%)....over a wide enough number of matches, that player will climb eventually.....tedious but undeniably.

Saying that's its from a "purely statistical pov" does not make what you say credible.Using fallatious statistics it's the most common form of deceit.

When I say that though I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you of being deceitful. I just think you have heard this lie so many times you believe it to be true and that's how this falsehood spreads.

[Zenix.6198]

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

@"Zenix.6198" said:Sure, it can definitely be a tedious process, if your winrate is just barely above 50%.(With a 51% winrate for instance you'd need to play a 100 games to climb ~25 rating; assuming rating gain/loss is pretty constant at ~12-13 pts).But if you have close to a 50% winrate the matchmaker is doing its job pretty well.

This is a deceptive fallacy.In an ideal scenario, a 50% winrate does deceptively indicate that it's doing a good job.But it's not, when you consider the sheer quality of matches especially in recent years it all falls appart revealing an obvious attempt to force the 50%.

Not because it is rigging the matches against you

This is exactly what it's doing.At this point in the life of MMR/ELO systems which spans over a decade long is that there is no doubt that the system does rig matches.

But from a purely statistical PoV, if a player indeed plays at a higher rating than his actual rating suggests, that means that your team should be favored (even if just by a small margin), since its 4 lower rated players + 1 better player vs. 5 lower rated players. Even if the advantage is small (like 5%)....over a wide enough number of matches, that player will climb eventually.....tedious but undeniably.

Saying that's its from a "purely statistical pov" does not make what you say credible.Using fallatious statistics it's the most common form of deceit.

When I say that though I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you of being deceitful. I just think you have heard this lie so many times you believe it to be true and that's how this falsehood spreads.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.But all I'm really doing is trying to put up strong foundation for my argument with logic and examples.There really is not point in having a discussion if both parties just shout subjective feelings and anecdotal impressions at each other.

You: Due to subjective impressions, I think that the MMR system is sabotaging players to prevent them from climbing .Me: Due to subjective impressions, I think that the MMR system is NOT sabotaging players to prevent them from climbing .

See how neither of us has any basis on which they could disprove the other person or give valid cause for their own thinking?

[Xhalvia.5029]

@"Zenix.6198" said:See how neither of us has any basis on which they could disprove the other person or give valid cause for their own thinking?

Not really.You see, I can present a decade worth of observational evidence over a multitude of games which all share the same system and all share the same observations.No matter what, you can't possibly dismiss that. In fact say there there is no basis is a little insulting, not to me but to anyone who has brought this up.(And that's a lot of people, I can literally point at google and search for any game with the same system and find the same responce)

And your side of the argument can't really produce anything other than statistical fallacies which only work in a optimal environment or by citing that the top 1% of players can climb so everyone else can...

So I can't really agree to "agree to disagree".I must say though, you have been the most rational of the deniers in some aspects.

[Khalisto.5780]

@Ok I Did It.2854 said:How do you deal with loss streaks, do you just walk away and leave it for the day or continue to try and get back on the winning run,

I totally get it that sometimes you are just out played by better teams/players, but

Tonight i lost 6 matches, and the first 2 matches where close and decent games, 4 of them where total shockers, 2 thieves who wouldnt decap, 2 core guardians who just exploded the minute an enemy looked at them, i then had a match where the mesmer asked the 2 guards to go home, and they didnt, so the mesmer stood at spawn for the entire match, just calling them out non stop, they didnt partake in the match at all, so the game was a white wash.

Now im aware that i could always get better etc, i do tend to win my 1v1's and the occasional 2v1's but there is nothing i can do from AFK players, or players who refuse to decap/cap, or players who explode before event casting a skill.

Has PVP really just turned into PiP farming for rewards now with no effort to actually play? I swear its almost like red resign day from GW1 all over again.

I have a personal rule to take at least an 1 hour break, after losing 2 in row

It helps reseting my emotions and not being matched with the same ppl over and overAfter losing 2 you'll prolly getting angry/frustated and this will most likely affect your gameplay quality

And if you think about it, the only thing in common in all those 6 matches was your presence, which kinda confirms that you're tilted after losing matches in sequence

[Abraxxus.8971]

Just look at it as "Oh, well." Your teammates are random, your rating is based on what your team does as a whole, not on what you do personally in the match, so it's really just a number that means nothing. PvP in this game has become total garbage thanks to poor balancing. Play to have fun, hope for a win, and don't get angry if you get a loss. .

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

The quality of your teammates seems to vary even more than last season, particularly more so if you compare it to multiple seasons ago. It's not uncommon (for me at least) to run into teams that are impossible to carry as a thief, going 16-0 or not. The only 'good' players seem to be AT's 4-man practising(?) in unranked at night times.

Unfortunately, while these provide a game for me, my allies often get ruthlessly stomped.

As for the actual question posed by OP; I tend to quit ranked after 2 or 3 losses in a row. It won't get better, it never does.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

@Zenix.6198 said:

@Xhalvia.5029 said:

Matchmaking usually creates very 1 sided matchups and It conveniently keeps players at a near perfect 50%. When you consider frequency of the 1 sided matchups it becomes very clear something is rigged.

Absolutely nothing "convenient" about that observation.If a player hits their skill-limit, a 50% winrate seems like the only logical conclusion.Or do you think it reasonable for any one person to climb indefinitely beyond their actual skill-level?

If you believe that you are delusional.Cause what you suggest is that you would be matched with and against equal to your skill level and it's pretty obvious that is not the case. The sheer amount of 1 sided games that happen across multiple games because it favours low wait times at the expense of game quality is proof in itself.

Thats reasoning can be described as correlation at best. Calling it "proof" is nothing short of make-believe.One sided matches can have multiple causes. The very snowball-y meta we currently have (where comebacks are very, very hard to make) could serve as one possible explanation.

At least a gathering of observations made across a multitude of games from countless players that use the same system while they all follow the same pattern is better than the feeble and tired response of "nothing is wrong with the system" while telling people who are witnesses and victims to these systems to "your team is not to blame, learn to carry' git gud scrub"

Isnt that how life(in general works?)

[Gavin of Ravenhurst.8546]

I quit for the day after two in a row. But I usually only play three ranked matches a day.

About ten percent of my matches this season have been edge of the seat, intense and close competitions. Another 20-40% are decent competitions that aren't mismatched but usually don't go down to the wire. A few times, I have accidentally queued with my 10 year old daughter (forgot to leave party first and she clicks yes right away) and she is a couple of tiers below me, which handicaps my team even though she plays well for her age and by my estimate a little above her rank.

People who lose their connection/log out don't frustrate me as much as the ones who give up partway through and camp in the start area because they cost you rank points even if reported. That sort of morale failure is also very emotionally immature and those people really don't belong in a team competition, especially with pickup teams. I see playing until the bitter end/500th point against a better team or being outnumbered as an opportunity to hone my skills in desperate situations for matches where that edge can make a difference in match outcome and surprise complacent opponents.

[Nilkemia.8507]

Remember, PvP is only good for reward tracks, pip tracks, dailies, and nothing else. This will help ease the suffering somewhat. Okay, probably not.

[Ralkuth.1456]

@"Ok I Did It.2854"Yes lose streaks happen; my anecdotal, hardstuck Plat-1 pleb experience (I’ve climbed all over from 1180 to 1580) is that you can actually go through 10-game loss streaks or more; but you don’t necessarily have to.

I actually wrote a giant wall of text detailing what silver/gold/hardstuck gold/low plat players are like, but I think all the options you need to start managing your loss streaks are these:(1) Only queue 3 games a day, no matter the outcome;(2) Stop for the day at 2 consecutive losses, and you can try to dodge your current cohort by waiting until they get in a match to queue;(3) When far below your usual rating, keep queuing into wins, and stop immediately at a loss;(4) Use Unranked to warm-up or wind down after losses;(5) Utilise the Duo option, get a regular partner and achieve stable rating. While it can be seen as “unfair”, it is in the game, it can be used legally, and it gives you an advantage/puts you on equal grounds. If you want to play to win, you consider all your options.http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

Just be aware of your tilt; your decision-making will be affected by you being upset (and not realising) and you tend to take more risks.

And in the end, if we belong in a higher tier, we should have no problem adapting class, build and playstyle to smash through the lower tiers. If that’s not the case, then it’s time to think and work out problems in our play.

Last season (S18), I had a friend who was at 1550, and because of many reasons he tanked all the way into 1280. He dropped his Necro when he found out it didn’t work in lower tiers, and proceeded to bloodbath his way back into the 1500s with a generic Power Mirage. It definitely was not meta, but it was what he was most at home with, plus he was great at it and added tremendous value to his team by forcing snowballs all by himself (he had to, only way to ensure wins, lol).

@Gavin of Ravenhurst.8546That is a healthy mindset to have!

I’ve had to have it beaten into me throughout the years of being mediocre at PvP games.Show spirit and fight until the end. There is much to gain from not mentally running away and making excuses.

Off-topic, I do believe there are always small goals to accomplish in any competitive game, and it’s just not appropriate to put so much emotional burden on winning.We win when we have the toolset to satisfy the winning conditions. We get there when we get there, and ironically when we choose to move focus away from the outcome.

Always playing for the win and remaining unfazed by disadvantage allows for, at best the most cathartic of comebacks (it feels amazing), at worst clear analysis of failure so we can improve (clear goals, emotionally stable).

It’s like sports psychology - having the confidence to deal with the now, and doing away with useless expectations that don’t help the present and water down your success.