Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Discussion About "What Is Killing Our SPvP Community?" And What Can We Do About It?


Recommended Posts

Most people would just say "Toxicity!" or "Bad Balance!" Let me explain what I believe to be the reason why all of it is happening. I believe it has nothing to do with general toxicity and very little to do with general balance issues. I believe the root and bulk of the problem begins with how the algorithm functions on a core foundational level:

  • 1700 does a duo with a 1500
  • Algorithm counts them as a 1600 duo "averaged out"
  • The algorithm attempts to place the 1600 duo against other 1600 opponents.
  • So RED Team has (1700 1500) 1600 1600 1600 vs. BLUE Team 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
  • So now if the 1700 loses that match, he is losing to all 1600s and gets his rating torn from his wazoo more than likely something like -20 or more, but if he wins he gets like +5. But even stranger and more non-sensical yet, is that the 1500 will receive something like -8 or -9 on a loss, but like +14 or +15 on a win. So somehow, even though the 1500 is being carried AF by his duo partner he is rewarded the most, and even though he is clearly the weak link amongst 1700 an 1600 players and probably responsible for most of the loses they accrue, he is somehow penalized the least.
  • Everything about this feels bad when playing and it spiderwebs into many social issues.

Let me explain why I believe these Glicko mechanics ^ are bad for a team based competitive mode's function & community health.

In terms of the algorithm itself and why it is inept at what it is supposed to do:

  • Lower skilled players get drawn up the leaderboards in ways that they shouldn't be getting drawn up the leaderboards. This results in effects such as a player who normally plays at 1400, getting carried by a plat 2+ friend on some alt up into 1500+. Then when the normally 1400 goes to solo que again, the system is placing him with his inflated rating, expecting him to perform at that level, when he can't. Then he draws his entire team's rating down when he can't perform, essentially leaving his team 4v5.
  • High rated players losing games and dropping rating in chunks of -25 or more, due to stupid things they cannot control that are not their fault. Like having some guy in their team that is aiming at getting his wings so he's playing on classes that he's never played before. Ect ect.. there are dozens of examples I could give of these "gambits" that are in play each and every time we hit the que button. But the point being is that it is ridiculous when I look at the leaderboards and see the strongest players in the game bouncing around from bottom 1500 range, back and forth up to 1700 and back down again and then back up. That is some serious volatility going on with the accuracy of the algorithm gauging their true skill level. It would be better if the algorithm displayed a player's lowest rating and highest rating achieved. This way we could all get a better feel for what kind of low/high margins everyone plays at. Because right now, people just wait till a good streak, and then they sit on a high rating instead of playing games. This is just bad for the activity of the game mode.
  • A bit more about gambits: You have things like this going on: Some guy trying to get his wings, playing on classes he's never played before, but still being placed at the rating of his main. People just plain having a bad day, maybe a bit hung over, maybe a bit distracted from work, but still trying to que ranked competitively. We have A LOT of general smurfing going on, people with several alt accounts to help duo their buddies into higher positions or to que snipe other high rated players down the leaderboards. Then of course we have a small community of players who run win trade circles. Sometimes a person genuinely DCs. Sometimes a person has to AFK to answer the door because a pizza arrived. Sometimes we roll a team of FB Necro Necro Ele vs. 2x DPS Soulbeasts Holo and good Rev, just some absurd counter situation where we aren't going to win the match unless a miracle happens and the opponents have a DC or they're just all terrible players. Ect ect ect, the point being is that having an individual rating in a solo/duo only que that is a 5v5 game mode designed for 5 man team ques, with all of these gambits in play, is just fucking inaccurate. All players who play within the top 50 know what I mean what I say: "Playing high in the leaderboards is about a lot more than going into the game and being good at conquest." There is all of this social stigma involved in playing high. We have to make the right friends and avoid pissing off the wrong people. We have to know who to que dodge, what ALTs they're playing that season so we can que dodge those. We have to do things like identify players who seem to sincerely have bad ping and DC often, que dodge them. We have to que dodge players who are just that bad. We have to disappoint friends who want to que with us, because we know they can't quite keep up. Sometimes we know the friend can keep up, but he is currently placed at 1450 or something, after queing with his low rated buddies, which means we can't afford to que with him when we're sitting at 1700. <- All this is toxic and leads to the next points.

In terms of what Glicko does to the community over the course of time:

  • You have a group of friends who begin as a guild group together. It all starts with not giving AF while playing unranked and everyone is having fun.
  • Some of them start getting good and want to seriously try in the ranked season.
  • Now they have to be picky with who they play with. Friends that were once friends that they played with every night, they start going offline to avoid. They don't want to disappoint these people by telling them they don't want to que with them. They do this because those players can't keep up with them or because their current ratings are just too much of a gambit to que with. They also have to que dodge those people so the people don't see them in a match.
  • Eventually people find out what they are doing and it pisses everyone off and they lose friends.
  • Those good players hover into a new group of players who currently play at their skill level and play at very similar rating margins. For awhile it always works out. For awhile it's always good.
  • Then during a particular season, a few of those players didn't paly so often and didn't adapt as strongly to some current meta. Now their friends have to dodge them or flat out tell them as nicely as they can, which always pisses people off: "Sorry man, I don't think you're keeping up as well as you did last season" or "Your rating is just too low to que with right now, regardless of how good you are." Now bridges are getting burnt again. Best case scenario, there is a 1 out of a 100 player who understands and who stays your friend but hey, you're still not playing with that friend in ranked or ATs.
  • Over the course of years this goes on and on. When population gets smaller, now we're left with few new friends to meet, and everyone already knows each other, and everyone has some kind of judgmental bias towards each other in terms of if they would or wouldn't play together. And most of it is because of how the algorithm has made us have to do so. You seriously couldn't devise a system that was better at destroying a community's cohesion over time, than using the Glicko algorithm for individual ratings in a 5 man team based game mode, and then turning that 5 man game mode into a solo/duo only que. No insult intended, Arenant. Just pointing out that this stuff has driven away many players who would normally been the type to stay & play for a decade or more, if there wasn't something going on that they truly felt was unfair, that was removing their incentive to even meet new friends to begin with.

There are a couple other threads to mention where others are recently identifying with these same aspects that are tearing apart the community. These are worth reading the OP's complete statements & responses, as well as all of the users who have contributed. These users are amongst the veteran player base that is now looking back and identifying what happened with our game mode:

-> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/73601/why-do-you-lose-more-rating-the-worse-your-teammates-are-the-lower-elo-they-are

@"incisorr.9502" said:if this is a tactic to get people to quit gw2 so they can announce gw3 or something i can understand but if they honestly think this is doing anything positive to the game then they're very deluded and wrong

-> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/73251/removal-of-free-tourney-format-ruined-the-game

@Eurantien.4632 said:TL;DR: leaderboards Make it so there is too much to lose now for little gain. Max duo queue means no way to form new bonds anymore. [Edit: Free tourneys incentivized teams and allowed them to spam games together and not have to wait ages for ATs]. There is little reason to try new things besides to counter meta now because it just triggers teammates. This combo is a complete 180 from the community of free tourney days And it's leading to a toxic community.

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" The social effects of individual Glicko ratings over time when applied to solo/duo only Conquest, is interesting indeed. My point in creating this thread was not to harp at Arenanet, but rather to stir healthy thought & discussion. I fully understand that Glicko is what we are working with. I was however, hoping that maybe someone had an idea for a quick & easy fix, something that might steer the sociology of the community back towards something cohesive, in terms of incentive to play together rather than avoid each other like the plague. I won't claim to have a "miracle suggestion", but I do know that it's the smallest things within a system that dictates how players conduct themselves within and around that system. I believe my initial statement in this thread about "the core of the social problem" to be absolutely true. There has to be something, some small tweak, that could be done to at least lighten the load of this social problem. Possibly something within or added to the algorithm, or something to alter with the que system.

If anyone has any well thought out and sensical suggestions, shoot. I'll try to sort out a few myself. Think small and be reasonable, don't ask for big game overhauls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just brainstorming ideas, they could be good or bad.

  1. Limit duo queue to have to be within a certain rating of one another.
  2. Base points gained/lost primarily off of individual performance. (This would be hard to do for various reasons I'm aware)
  3. Add an "Avoid player" option.
  4. Add/change content on a more regular cadence to bring in more players.
  5. Add some version of a "Preferred role" when queuing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a vicious cycle:

low population --> subpar matchmaking --> not fun --> low population

First, particularly at the high end, I think separate queues and leader board for solo and teams would address many of the shenanigans enabled by them cohabitating now.

Next, wins versus losses is too simplistic a measure of individual performance in a team-mode. It requires too large a sample of both players and matches (both of which are currently lacking) to work.

A different or additional measure is needed, such as factoring in top stats. However, top stats themselves are not perfect and favor certain builds and roles. So maybe use the "percent of team" stats instead of top stats. The key is shifting the emphasis from match outcomes (which usually depend more on each team's overall effectiveness than on any one person's skill) to how much we contribute individually, win or lose.

Then, adjust based on the "team percent of game" stats to account for bad matchups. The more one-sided a specific team stat, the less weight it will have on the individual ratings for that stat, for that match. We should neither reward nor punish people for the results of a blowout.

Maybe the current system already does things like this, I don't know. But if not, they seem feasible since these suggestions only use existing stats. It's just a matter of shifting ratings away from match outcomes, which are team-dependant, to individual performance, regardless of outcome. (The reward chests can still serve as motivation to actually win.)

As individuals get rated and ranked more accurately, matchmaking will improve. With better matchmaking, and outcomes that aren't so RNG based on which team you're on, the mode should feel more competitive and fun. A big reason people give up is feeling they have little to no control over outcomes. Shifting the measure of success to individual performance will help alleviate this. With attitudes shifting from "I can only climb if my team doesn't suck" to "I can climb if I get better," and reality reflecting this, fewer newcomers will be turned off, more will stick around, and a healthy population can be reached.

Somehow, someway, we need to break the cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I surely have said this before but as long as the game itself is fun, people don't just stop because of a couple bad matches. Bad matches happen everywhere, yet games like LoL and dota2 remain very successful. People quit because they don't enjoy the gameplay experience, which might be related to balance but is not necessarily the same. After coming back to the game from a longer break, I thought that many builds (actually most meta builds) are simply obnoxious which makes playing and especially losing against them a very frustrating experience. I might be alone with this opinion but I doubt it, especially since a friend of mine (who had taken a break from pvp but not the game itself) kept complaining how unfun the pvp is even when we were winning.

That the power gap between what's meta and what's not is so big that winning is literally impossible to win 1v1s/2v2s makes this even worse (e.g. dh vs soul beast, heck even core ranger feels nigh unbeatable as a dh). While this doesn't matter at the very top where everyone is just focused on playing the most effective builds, it does matter at lower levels where people like to play classes that they like. If pvp at lower levels is discouraging unless you are willing to reroll flavor of the month, thepopulation will shrink as many new players will be deterred from entering pvp, this there won't be enough replacements for leaving veterans.

The last thing might apply to toxicity in some extend too, but it is less dramatic as the game provides you with the option to work around that (disable team chat/ignore list).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Zexanima.7851" said:Just brainstorming ideas, they could be good or bad.

  1. Limit duo queue to have to be within a certain rating of one another.
  2. Base points gained/lost primarily off of individual performance. (This would be hard to do for various reasons I'm aware)
  3. Add an "Avoid player" option.
  4. Add/change content on a more regular cadence to bring in more players.
  5. Add some version of a "Preferred role" when queuing.
  1. I think that's a generally good idea.
  2. Yeah, as you said, implementation would be the hard part with this.
  3. Not a good idea with the population as small as it is now. This might result in matches never even happening.
  4. Yes
  5. I like that.

Some suggestions of my own:

  1. Limit "rating" to an account's class rather than the whole account and stop class swapping once a match is found (ranked only). This will help reduce some of the gambit for people playing different classes for things like wings, while also reducing smurfing.
  2. Reporting users needs to mean something. Toxic players need some actual repercussions for their words/actions.
  3. Eliminate DuoQ entirely. There should only be SoloQ or Full TeamQ, no in-betweens. The DuoQ dilutes the meaning of the Glicko rating.
  4. Add new game modes (and support for them!) that encourage more divergent playstyles. 5v5 conquest is very limiting. 5v5 everything can be very limiting.
  5. Add a /resign function for matches that are clearly lost causes. All players on the team (and not DC'ed) must unanimously type this in for it to act. Thus if a player DC's or gives up, at least you can end the match quicker.
  6. Add a notification to the queue up button -- If you win, you could gain X points. If you lose you could lose X points.
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

  • So now if the 1700 loses that match, he is losing to all 1600s and gets his rating torn from his wazoo more than likely something like -20 or more, but if he wins he gets like +5. But even stranger and more non-sensical yet, is that the 1500 will receive something like -8 or -9 on a loss, but like +14 or +15 on a win.

Absolutely agreed on all points here. Quote is imo the crux.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Twilight Tempest.7584 said:

A different or additional measure is needed, such as factoring in top stats. [...] So maybe use the "percent of team" stats instead of top stats.

No and no.To the OP: Yes, ranked duo queue was a mistake.

Thank you for this insightful response. Truly a remarkable contribution.

To elaborate: you can't improve duo queue without removing it entirely or at the very least forcing the number of duos in both teams to be equal.To elaborate on your point: the last thing PvP needs is a new artificial system to play instead of playing the game to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest solution is just to remove DuoQ as it makes the issue of rank gain/rank disparity substantially worse than it is with Solos. The social option for playing ranked should be TeamQ in a split lb and queue to SoloQ. Or maybe even 2v2 as a separate Arena, while keeping it as a seasonal AT.

@"Zexanima.7851" said:

  1. Base points gained/lost primarily off of individual performance. (This would be hard to do for various reasons I'm aware)

This is also a really good idea.

It encourages people to play and do their best, and It somewhat counters the terrible rank disparity DuoQs can create, which ultimately negatively affects rank gain/loss at the end of a match. Even if DuoQ gets removed completely, this would even make poorly matched Solo games better and worth trying in.

Sure, it might be tough to implement into a game like Gw2, but it's certainly not impossible by any stretch as many other smaller games already use this in determining how much rating you gain/lose at the end of a ranked match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are 2 main factors as to why the PvP population seem to be declining;

  • The difference in power between the least effective "decent" builds compared to the most effective "meta" builds is nearly insurmountable. On one end of the spectrum you have elementalists in general and many HoT speccs, and on the other you have soulbeast/holo/spellbreaker/mirage/sw.d thief/shiro/scrapper. People like to play what they play in all other modes, and although not everyone wants to be the most efficient, they try to be as effective as they can within the builds they like. Of course, when you are forced to go through meta-checks builds, it drives people away.  
  • A leaderboard that rewards abusing the system. Ranked depends on the human instinct of competition. 4 billion years of evolution that depended on us out-competing everyone around us, if you made it to this day, you have to thank your ancestors for winning, and it is your duty to compete once again if you want to leave someone after yourself. Leaderboard is about competing, however, when you add an extra layer of being at a disadvantage if you dont duoQ with others, it now becomes more than just YOUR contribution, while the leaderboard does not reflect this at all. I know plenty of people who quit for good and I havent seen them back in PvP since dynamicQ, and they were very active in PvP, and they still log in, their reasoning is similar to mine; " i wont become farm for these people".

   Overall, games with PvP are dependent on their game-mode to be fun itself, the play-loop has to be fun. PvE succeeded, HoT meta did too, all other PvP games like LoL or OW have too, despite having little variation in maps/modes/characters to play. You have to have to like your options. Everything boils down to that; "Is it fun?". If it isnt succeeding, then you gotta as yourself; is it because it is not fun? Then what isnt?

**- Is playing against frustrating sidenoders like spellbreaker/scrapper/mirage fun?

  • Is playing a class you dont like just because it is strong, rather than the one you want to play, fun on the long run?
  • Do you care more about winning, or playing what you like because it is fun?
  • Do you find it fun to play agaisnt people who organize their builds and have voicechat to coordinate plays, when nobody in your team has it?**
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Airdive.2613 said:

A different or additional measure is needed, such as factoring in top stats. [...] So maybe use the "percent of team" stats instead of top stats.

No and no.To the OP: Yes, ranked duo queue was a mistake.

Thank you for this insightful response. Truly a remarkable contribution.

To elaborate: you can't improve duo queue without removing it entirely or at the very least forcing the number of duos in both teams to be equal.To elaborate on your point: the last thing PvP needs is a new artificial system to play instead of playing the game to win.

Thank you for elaborating. Now that I know why you disagree, we can actually discuss.

First, like almost everyone who's posted in this discussion so far, I agree that solo and duo queue need to be separated. I said right at the beginning:

@Twilight Tempest.7584 said:First, particularly at the high end, I think separate queues and leader board for solo and teams would address many of the shenanigans enabled by them cohabitating now.

As for implementing a different measure, most of my post was basically aimed at addressing point 2 here:

@"Zexanima.7851" said:

  1. Base points gained/lost primarily off of individual performance. (This would be hard to do for various reasons I'm aware)

while keeping within OP's parameters, which I think are good:

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:There has to be something, some small tweak, that could be done to at least lighten the load of this social problem. Possibly something within or added to the algorithm, or something to alter with the que system.

If anyone has any well thought out and sensical suggestions, shoot. I'll try to sort out a few myself. Think small and be reasonable, don't ask for big game overhauls.

The smaller, and more feasible, the more realistic. So I proposed a system, based on existing stats, that could achieve Zexanima's suggestion. Note that I said different OR additional:

@Twilight Tempest.7584 said:A different or additional measure is needed, such as factoring in top stats. However, top stats themselves are not perfect and favor certain builds and roles. So maybe use the "percent of team" stats instead of top stats. The key is shifting the emphasis from match outcomes (which usually depend more on each team's overall effectiveness than on any one person's skill) to how much we contribute individually, win or lose.

I also said "The reward chests can still serve as motivation to actually win." But that's somewhat irrelevant. No one actually plays to lose. Almost everyone plays to win.

It's simple: If we want to base rank gain and loss more on individual performance, as Zexanima proposed, then it can't be based solely on match outcome (win/loss ratio). That's because outcomes in a team-based competitive mode, are--surprise, surprise--mostly determined by team performance. Team performance is not something we individually have much control over, and when people lose or hit a wall because of it, it isn't fun, and people quit.

No system is perfect, but instead of simply saying "no", how about proposing better (realistic) solutions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Twilight Tempest.7584" said:

Next, wins versus losses is too simplistic a measure of individual performance in a team-mode.

A different or additional measure is needed, such as factoring in top stats. However, top stats themselves are not perfect and favor certain builds and roles.

Then, adjust based on the "team percent of game" stats to account for bad matchups.

It's just a matter of shifting ratings away from match outcomes, which are team-dependant, to individual performance, regardless of outcome.

As individuals get rated and ranked more accurately, matchmaking will improve.

I'm very happy someone else noticed this! Smart =)

@"Trevor Boyer.6524"

Over the past few months, I've been trying to promote this thread: New Scoreboard. I believe the system I proposed would greatly improve the quality of matchmaking if it were to be implemented. It's simple, but very effective. And, it boils Conquest down to do's and don'ts while providing clear incentives and guidelines as to what helps your team win and what doesn't. It punishes AFKing and griefing, and rewards trying hard till the very end.

In essence, if you consistently perform well, you will receive a small rating buffer. For example, for someone with a high Total Value average, instead of gaining/losing 10 rating per match, they'd gain 11 and lose 9. For someone with a low Total Value average, they'd lose 11 and gain 9. So, after 50 matches played, that would result in an additional 50 rating that can be gained or lost.

  • Players with high Total Value averages will receive +1 rating for wins, and +1 rating for losses. They will be recognized on the leaderboards for consistently helping their team win as their Total Value averages will be displayed for everyone to see.
  • Players with low Total Value averages will receive -1 rating for wins, and -1 rating for losses. If someone gets carried, griefs, AFKs (or any other negative behaviors that don't help their team win), they will slowly but surely drop down in the ranks.
  • Players with an normal Total Value averages will not be affected by the rating buffer.

Over a short period of time, this system would allow matchmaking to be able to more accurately rate individuals. And, match quality would improve significantly as matches filled with people who have similar Total Value averages will be a lot more competitive than the ones in the current system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@"Zexanima.7851" said:Just brainstorming ideas, they could be good or bad.
  1. Limit duo queue to have to be within a certain rating of one another.
  2. Base points gained/lost primarily off of individual performance. (This would be hard to do for various reasons I'm aware)
  3. Add an "Avoid player" option.
  4. Add/change content on a more regular cadence to bring in more players.
  5. Add some version of a "Preferred role" when queuing.
  1. I think that's a generally good idea.
  2. Yeah, as you said, implementation would be the hard part with this.
  3. Not a good idea with the population as small as it is now. This might result in matches never even happening.
  4. Yes
  5. I like that.

Some suggestions of my own:
  1. Limit "rating" to an account's class rather than the whole account and stop class swapping once a match is found (ranked only). This will help reduce some of the gambit for people playing different classes for things like wings, while also reducing smurfing.
  2. Reporting users needs to mean something. Toxic players need some actual repercussions for their words/actions.
  3. Eliminate DuoQ entirely. There should only be SoloQ or Full TeamQ, no in-betweens. The DuoQ dilutes the meaning of the Glicko rating.
  4. Add new game modes (and support for them!) that encourage more divergent playstyles. 5v5 conquest is very limiting. 5v5 everything can be very limiting.
  5. Add a /resign function for matches that are clearly lost causes. All players on the team (and not DC'ed) must unanimously type this in for it to act. Thus if a player DC's or gives up, at least you can end the match quicker.
  6. Add a notification to the queue up button -- If you win, you could gain X points. If you lose you could lose X points.

Like a political candidate's promises, these all sound good, but the likelihood of them actually happening is a different matter. Unless Anet's interest in this game mode has suddenly surged overnight, I don't see how even a fraction of these things are likely to happen any time soon, if ever. That's not a knock against these ideas, but a reality check, which I think @Trevor Boyer.6524 emphasized in the last sentence of the OP.

One thing I would like cleared up, if anyone knows, because I'm seeing conflicting information throughout the forum: What is the effective rating of duos? Some say it used to be based on the lower player, which allowed people to game the system. Trevor's saying it's an average. And others have said it's now based on the higher player, to combat the manipulation.

I think separating solo and duoQ, or simply removing duoQ, is feasible, since it has been that way before.

Taking reports more seriously is a matter of internal policy. It could change overnight or not, depending on their priorities.

Everything else honestly sounds like a pipe dream at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@shadowpass.4236 said:@Twilight Tempest.7584

Duos use the higher-rated player's rating during matchmaking.

Are we sure that it still works that way? I know it did for awhile, but I almost certainly remember an Arenanet dev recently responding in a thread and stating that the matchmaker uses the average of a duo's ratings. I tried to go back and review Arenanet response threads from the last 30 pages but I can't seem to find any answers. The notes on the algorithm functions say nothing either. Not trying to argue with you guys, just trying to figure out exactly how this works. This season I have been running ques with quite seriously anyone who asks, and I am noticing this:

  • If I am solo que and am around 1600 range, I normally am getting around +10 or +11 on wins, and around -13 or -14 on losses.
  • If I am duo que with someone around my range, give or take about 25-50 points higher or lower from my 1600, the gains are somewhat the same.
  • However, if I am 1600 range and duo que with someone who is only around 1400, I notice that Vallun and Kronos are not constantly in my matches, and I begin getting like +7 and +8 on wins and like -18 or -19 on losses. This is no sheer coincidence or issue with the time of day. It is happening each time I que with someone 200 rating or so lower than me, even during eastern prime time on NA server.

I assumed it was averaging a 1600 and a 1400 into a 1500 rated duo for the purposes of who was against us, but still giving us gains & loses to our individual ratings, depending on the ratings of the opponents in the match, who were set against us in accordance to a 1500 duo, meaning the opponents were all lower rated than I was. That would certainly explain the rating gain/loss that I was experiencing. But hey, I certainly could be wrong.

It would be awesome if Arenanet could give an answer to this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@shadowpass.4236 said:@"Twilight Tempest.7584"

Duos use the higher-rated player's rating during matchmaking.

Are we sure that it still works that way?Duos use average. Been that way for at least a year.

I did an experiment with a friend who was in silver while I was in platinum. When we won, he got a ton of rating and I hardly got any (indicative of me being expected to win easily and him being expected to lose horribly). The "ton" and "hardly any" are relative to what I got solo queuing. It was also readily apparent that our opponents had absolutely no clue what they were doing compared to the average platinum player. If matchmaking used max rating, then my gains on a win would be the same as if I had solo queued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duo queue and how it doesn't fit the leaderboards. A seperate leaderboard for duoq will be better if we have to live with it

Cheese builds like Condi Mirage. These should not even be viable.

Very high sustain only requires even more power to deal with it and makes fights extremely boring. Scrapper has gone way over the top. Needs fixing.

Minimum match count for leaderboard is discouraging players. We need to encourage players to play more.

PvE community harrassment needs to stop. It's ok for people to learn. And it's ok for them to play ranked. That's why we have divisions and tiers.

Rage and afk behaviour needs to be dealt with property and promptly. Name and shame please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With current state of PvP and it's community bringing back TeamQ (and removing DuoQ, separating TeamQ and SoloQ), would be at least "something", it might not solve anything, but like I said; at this point something has to be done/tried out, after all it would be a stir up that many many people asked for, for a very long time.

Link to post
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...