Pvp System

[liberte.9648]

Hello, after a few bans for swearing and afk, I see that there will be no changes any time sooner to this mode, in my experience (800+- games) I would say mostly 30-40 of all the games were balanced like you really felt like every point matter, the rest 760 games, you either lose 500-20/30, or win 500-20/30. There is no shuffle between teams and games, just played 3 games in a row with a warrior that just discovered fire (this is the reason I'm making this forum post right now). I don't know what needs to be done to balance them, but aside this problem, the number of people running wrong and weak build its outrageous, some people should never be allowed to choose, one solution would be less build variants and more pvp oriented, or make a report section for people running wrong builds. And problem number 3, pvp rank 20 for ranked games, In my last ban (for afk) I made another account for playing in hope I can gather some gold for the main account (got discovered and banned for "ban evasion") the fact is, in less than 2 days with moderate playing time I managed to obtain pvp rank 12, yea I'll let you do the maths, one solution for this would be higher rank needed for entering ranked pvp, a lot higher, I guess this can be a solution for the 1st problem too, if they play more they'll learn more, in theory sounds good, but people can always disappoint. Wishing you all the best. Im gonna return to loosing games in a row for a while. Cya

[Xhalvia.5029]

MMR/ELO matchmaking in a nutshell.It's to literally try to force you into a 50% win rate.

The warrior you speak of is what system tries to give you in an attempt of artificial difficulty.Mix this with players who just don't care and are farming pips to get money from chests.

[liberte.9648]

Surely something can be done to fix this, I don't know if my solutions are so viable but its better than nothing . This need to be fixed. End of story, you can't be the biggest mmorpg game in history and let that happen.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@liberte.9648 said:Surely something can be done to fix this, I don't know if my solutions are so viable but its better than nothing . This need to be fixed. End of story, you can't be the biggest mmorpg game in history and let that happen.

The solution you proposed wouldn’t fix the issue. I would go into detail why, but I want to cut straight to the actual issue.

The real issue is the matchmaker.

For example, there are good players in gold 2 and terrible players in gold 2. Players that land in plat 1 that are on the way down to gold 1 are mixed in with players that are climbing from gold 1 to plat 1

If you stop and analyze the distribution of, you’ll notice that this distribution is a bell curve, where good players on the rise and bad players dropping down meet in the middle of the curve. This by no accident coincides with the average distribution of players that occupy the matchmaking pool.

But that’s not even the real issue, the real issue is that as a player goes up or down, so does the team. So as you approach either end of this bell curve, your chances of returning to the middle of this curve is proportional to the amount of good and bad players going up or down.

An example is that if you have 2good players and 3 bad players on your team, you have a 3/2 “chance” of returning to the center of this bell curve, compare this to a team that has 4 good players and 1 bad player which has a 1/5 chance of returning to the middle of this curve.

This basically flattens the curve and it’s why they believe it to be balanced, when in fact it’s the opposite (a team of 5 good players in gold 2 vs 5 bad players in gold 2, then one team has a 100% chance to move away from the center of the bell, while the other has 100% chance to move closer to the bell.)

So the real issue comes down to what exactly is an identifier of a good player and a bad player, given that the ranking bell curve doesn’t actually give an indication of who’s good and who’s bad? That’s why identifiers of individual skill level would solve this issue

Identifiers of individual skill such a kill count or Rez count aren’t exactly meaningful standalone identifiers of winning a game that revolves around something that’s based on working as a team. That’s why it’s so hard to actually fix the matchmaker.

In order to solve the issues, better individual identifiers need to be in place, and those identifiers need to solely define your rank rather than based on the performance of your team as a whole.

IMO, a point system that reflects all your actions would be a start. You get +1 per kill, +1 for neutralizing a point, +1 for taking a point and so on... add the points and then weight that against all players currently on this bell curve, and that will give you an relative identifier for individual skill level. The more identifiers they can create that correlate with winning matches, the more they can accurately judge individual skill level, and they would use that value to determine matchmaking rather than the current rating system.

[liberte.9648]

Any devs that actually give a damn about this game here? How is it possible to get matched against plat 3, in simple ranked games. Im gold 2 and had gold and silver in my team, this is really out of hand. Do something already

[Riptide.5617]

Wanna tell you guys, what happened to me:Worked hard for plat rank and I did it. Had some very good games (solo) in the low plat1 rank. Close and intense games. Some wins and some defeats. The defeats didn't feel bad, cause almost every game both teams did very well. So, I stayed in the plat rank cause I won and lost same points. I was very happy that I could compete with good players. Then it happened: I got strange teammates. 2 went close and died 2v1, 2 scourges in my team, everyone ran around like chicken...no cap, no help, no survive. And the best is, I lost -18 -19 -20 and a win was +7. Dropped out of plat rank. Idk what to do...that gameplay was max. silver level. I would understand if there is a bad game every now and then, but this is to much. 5-6 games in row around 100-500. And the plat games before were so n1. I am frustrated a lot now :(

[FyzE.3472]

They were probably bots my man. Hey did you see the new gem store stuff btw? You should buy some!

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:IMO, a point system that reflects all your actions would be a start. You get +1 per kill, +1 for neutralizing a point, +1 for taking a point and so on... add the points and then weight that against all players currently on this bell curve, and that will give you an relative identifier for individual skill level. The more identifiers they can create that correlate with winning matches, the more they can accurately judge individual skill level, and they would use that value to determine matchmaking rather than the current rating system.

wow I've finally read a mm fix that makes sense. this team mmr only works if there are actual teams.

[Mbelch.9028]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:IMO, a point system that reflects all your actions would be a start. You get +1 per kill, +1 for neutralizing a point, +1 for taking a point and so on... add the points and then weight that against all players currently on this bell curve, and that will give you an relative identifier for individual skill level. The more identifiers they can create that correlate with winning matches, the more they can accurately judge individual skill level, and they would use that value to determine matchmaking rather than the current rating system.

wow I've finally read a mm fix that makes sense. this team mmr only works if there are actual

teams.

Yeah, there's definitely still issues here. You only need 1 person to cap or neut a point. So if there is conditional logic in the algorithm, it might work, as in "Player 1 steps on point to decap it. No enemy is around. Player 1 is slated to get + 1 point. Player 2 comes to join on decap for no good reason. No enemy is around. Player 2 steps on point, and gets -1 point due to negative team play." Conversely, the same scenario with enemy players around, player 2 would either get a +1 or stay flat depending on the situation.

It's too difficult to write all the scenarios in my mind, and even then, there will be serious loopholes. Like how do you award points to players like Reckless who can literally play mind games with you to outplay you, and they may not even have to step on a point? Conversely, how many points would newbies rack up by just back capping and recapping, inflating their scores while their teammates get farmed, or they get farmed.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@"Mbelch.9028" said:Yeah, there's definitely still issues here. You only need 1 person to cap or neut a point. So if there is conditional logic in the algorithm, it might work, as in "Player 1 steps on point to decap it. No enemy is around. Player 1 is slated to get + 1 point. Player 2 comes to join on decap for no good reason. No enemy is around. Player 2 steps on point, and gets -1 point due to negative team play." Conversely, the same scenario with enemy players around, player 2 would either get a +1 or stay flat depending on the situation.

It's too difficult to write all the scenarios in my mind, and even then, there will be serious loopholes. Like how do you award points to players like Reckless who can literally play mind games with you to outplay you, and they may not even have to step on a point? Conversely, how many points would newbies rack up by just back capping and recapping, inflating their scores while their teammates get farmed, or they get farmed.

err yeah, you've got a point. I was dazzled.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Mbelch.9028 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:IMO, a point system that reflects all your actions would be a start. You get +1 per kill, +1 for neutralizing a point, +1 for taking a point and so on... add the points and then weight that against all players currently on this bell curve, and that will give you an relative identifier for individual skill level. The more identifiers they can create that correlate with winning matches, the more they can accurately judge individual skill level, and they would use that value to determine matchmaking rather than the current rating system.

wow I've finally read a mm fix that makes sense. this team mmr only works if there are actual

teams.

Yeah, there's definitely still issues here. You only need 1 person to cap or neut a point. So if there is conditional logic in the algorithm, it might work, as in "Player 1 steps on point to decap it. No enemy is around. Player 1 is slated to get + 1 point. Player 2 comes to join on decap for no good reason. No enemy is around. Player 2 steps on point, and gets -1 point due to negative team play." Conversely, the same scenario with enemy players around, player 2 would either get a +1 or stay flat depending on the situation.

It's too difficult to write all the scenarios in my mind, and even then, there will be serious loopholes. Like how do you award points to players like Reckless who can literally play mind games with you to outplay you, and they may not even have to step on a point? Conversely, how many points would newbies rack up by just back capping and recapping, inflating their scores while their teammates get farmed, or they get farmed.

Ya. I was thinking of a few situations on the way back from work where such a point system would fail, and how hard it would be to create a fair identifier for winning conditions.

The conclusion I came to was that you can create a system for any situation, so long as you can conceptualize it to be accurate enough of a measurement for winning conditions.

Edit: so I wrote a whole comment on how to solve those issues, but I ended up not liking them, nor like the way I articulated them... anyway like I pointed out earlier, it is definitely not an easy problem to solve, and that my own solution is “just a start” and is too simplistic. The framework has to be rigorously built and pretty formal to actually solve outlier issues like the ones you’ve mentioned. But I do still believe that they can be solved in theory

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Question is, how would you identify this type of behavior and separate it from actual competitive behavior in a game, or design the system to avoid it.

for that specific scenario only thing I can think of would be to have a timer that starts right after a point is captured and if you recap within that time frame you would get for example half points. if the timer was just right then there could still be if there was fair play a battle on the point in which the timer would expire. only a few scenarios would fair play get punished, and a couple of those it would be cheap to award points anyways, but maybe i'm wrong.

what would be all the way to score points in this system? decap, full cap what else? maybe a scaling point bonus for positive kdr?