Is -20 supposed to happen after 200 games+ played and less then 3 min q pop timer

[Lighter.5631]

why is -20 happening that's not shortly after placement.my rating isnt even that high, is this game dead and why is this not capped

my team was full of bots and enemy players at least know how to press skills..am i supposed to be Q'ed into this i supposed gold 1 game with less then 3 min Q pop time.i think the system is broken.i think there supposed to be rating range cap

[Leonidrex.5649]

not even -40 and complains lul.queued into top 1 and top 2 duo while in gold 3, lost 19 points XDmatchmaker in this game is fucked, and people abuse it

[Crozame.4098]

Just FYI, your screen shots do not prove that you got a -20 after 218 games...

[Leonidrex.5649]

@Crozame.4098 said:Just FYI, your screen shots do not prove that you got a -20 after 218 games...

he is afraid to show he gets + 20 for wins too ;p

[Abyssisis.3971]

The question I want answering is how come you have 10 unread messages? Lol

[Lighter.5631]

@Abyssisis.3971 said:The question I want answering is how come you have 10 unread messages? Lol

it's a new character that i just power leveled with unread dungeon invitations :#

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

I just wrote a whole post responding to this thread and it got removed mysteriously for no reason.

Anyway, @Lighter.5631 you have every right to complain. I've experienced the same problems.

At one point during this season I was above a 70% win rate but had only 1525 rating.

I won't even go into discussion about win trading, throwing, and bots, because w/e is going on feels like a separate problem than that. It feels like the algorithm is actually not calculating gains and losses correctly. I've noticed that I'll go into a game in NA prime time against a duo that I know is higher rated than me. I'll win and get +11 but in the next game I get vs. them again and I lose, and somehow I get a -16 from it. This is happening vs. duos who are nearly p2 when I am bottom p1.

I dunno you explain to me what's going on there. All I know is that from previous seasons, if I were bottom p1 and was playing games vs. nearly p2 players, my gains and losses should be at least equal +15 -15, not lopsided +10s and -15s. Something doesn't feel right there suddenly this season.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

All I see is that you have a winrate of 52%. Which is higher then 50% obviously.

A big NO NO for the matchmaker.

You were doomed to loose the next matches until you reach 50% again.

Which makes even more painful because it gave you - 20 on top of giving you a losing matchup on purpose.

[Lighter.5631]

winrate isnt related to the point tho, the fact that i got -20 -17 with a only 2 min Q pop is something wrong.like i get it if i get these numbers with 5+ min to 10 min Q time, but not with 2-3 min Qtime...

[Hogwarts Zebra.8597]

those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

@"Hogwarts Zebra.8597" said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

No it's not normal when you "know" that you are solo queue against a team that has players who are nearly 100 rating higher than you.

[Nightcore.5621]

The gamemode is dead Thats way

[Shao.7236]

Too many conspiracies. An algorithm doesn't know anything about players, it only knows statistics. The latter results are the effects from not having enough players to fill in the system properly.

Humans players just like Bot players are bound to a set of so many random events of which to call out on, it's ridiculous to even consider anything put out there by the algorithm be a proper prediction that it knows will happen.

Nothing can 100% accurately predict the outcome of a match. Let alone 50%.

50% winrate is the result too many variable to just blame the system on.

[Lighter.5631]

@"Hogwarts Zebra.8597" said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

[Hogwarts Zebra.8597]

@Lighter.5631 said:

@"Hogwarts Zebra.8597" said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

based on my experience/observations, you lose more rating if enemy team has a lower average rating than yours (and yours only--your team's average rating doesn't matter).So if ur p1 but get a full team of g2s, and enemy is full team of g3s, u lose a crap ton of rating for a loss while your teammates lose a trivial amount. This was evident when I duo-qed with someone ~200 rating lower than me. for loss i get -18, he gets -8

[Hogwarts Zebra.8597]

dammit accidentally replied to myself, ignore this post pls

[Lighter.5631]

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

based on my experience/observations, you lose more rating if enemy team has a lower AVERAGE rating than yours (and yours only--your team's average rating doesn't matter).So if ur p1 but get a full team of g2s, and enemy is full team of g3s, u lose a kitten ton of rating for a loss while your teammates lose a trivial amount. This was evident when I duo-qed with someone ~200 rating lower than me. for loss i get -18, he gets -8

The experience was that, with less then 2 min Q time means, there's more people of your rating playing at the time, if there's less people the Q time gets longer and the threshold gets wider, that's when you get bigger rating lose, clearly this isnt the case here.

[Hogwarts Zebra.8597]

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

based on my experience/observations, you lose more rating if enemy team has a lower AVERAGE rating than yours (and yours only--your team's average rating doesn't matter).So if ur p1 but get a full team of g2s, and enemy is full team of g3s, u lose a kitten ton of rating for a loss while your teammates lose a trivial amount. This was evident when I duo-qed with someone ~200 rating lower than me. for loss i get -18, he gets -8

The experience was that, with less then 2 min Q time means, there's more people of your rating playing at the time, if there's less people the Q time gets longer and the threshold gets wider, that's when you get bigger rating lose, clearly this isnt the case here.

yeah well ideally i'd like MM to work like this too, but we just have scuffed matchmaking/population so there's nothing we can do about it

[Lighter.5631]

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

based on my experience/observations, you lose more rating if enemy team has a lower AVERAGE rating than yours (and yours only--your team's average rating doesn't matter).So if ur p1 but get a full team of g2s, and enemy is full team of g3s, u lose a kitten ton of rating for a loss while your teammates lose a trivial amount. This was evident when I duo-qed with someone ~200 rating lower than me. for loss i get -18, he gets -8

The experience was that, with less then 2 min Q time means, there's more people of your rating playing at the time, if there's less people the Q time gets longer and the threshold gets wider, that's when you get bigger rating lose, clearly this isnt the case here.

yeah well ideally i'd like MM to work like this too, but we just have scuffed matchmaking/population so there's nothing we can do about it

it has been worked like this for ages. that's why i made the thread because suddenly it's not.it has nothing to do with low population, as low population will just result in longer Q time in the past years.either they changed threshold as population fast decreasing or w/e but they definitely changed something IMO.

before i see a long Q time, i know nobody is playing around my rating and ill lose big rating, so i stop playing and come back when theres more people.but now there's no indication, and I basically have no incentive to play at all at any time.

[Vancho.8750]

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:

@Lighter.5631 said:

@Hogwarts Zebra.8597 said:those numbers are normal for plat+-16 for loss, +8 for win :weary:

it's not normal for -20 with less then 3 min Q time tho

also ill post SS again since the last SS post got deleted for making fun of mr. Leonardrex for being such a funny and intelligent individual.

-20 with less then 3 min Q time, -17 with less then 2 min Q time, should be reasonable with 5 mins+ Q time tho, as i would know not many players of the same rating are playing at the moment, but not with sub 3 min Q time.-20 is understandable if i see long Q time that i know nobody is playing, but such short Q time, how.

based on my experience/observations, you lose more rating if enemy team has a lower AVERAGE rating than yours (and yours only--your team's average rating doesn't matter).So if ur p1 but get a full team of g2s, and enemy is full team of g3s, u lose a kitten ton of rating for a loss while your teammates lose a trivial amount. This was evident when I duo-qed with someone ~200 rating lower than me. for loss i get -18, he gets -8

The experience was that, with less then 2 min Q time means, there's more people of your rating playing at the time, if there's less people the Q time gets longer and the threshold gets wider, that's when you get bigger rating lose, clearly this isnt the case here.

yeah well ideally i'd like MM to work like this too, but we just have scuffed matchmaking/population so there's nothing we can do about it

it has been worked like this for ages. that's why i made the thread because suddenly it's not.it has nothing to do with low population, as low population will just result in longer Q time in the past years.either they changed threshold as population fast decreasing or w/e but they definitely changed something IMO.

before i see a long Q time, i know nobody is playing around my rating and ill lose big rating, so i stop playing and come back when theres more people.but now there's no indication, and I basically have no incentive to play at all at any time.Two words Spaghetti code. Do not try to make sense of it Arenanet has been piling code over and over without maintaining it for years. Like for example that Earth basic attack on ele that hit from anywhere even though they didn't touch anything on ele that patch. If something is fucked with MM or the rating system good luck proving it since the system is fucked up by default cause it was always volatile with arbitrary conditions, like you played x games now you get bonus hidden rating .By the looks of it you still get close games 5 out of 10 is great, I'm sitting one 1 out of 10 the, 9 are steamroll win or lose.

[Vancho.8750]

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:I just wrote a whole post responding to this thread and it got removed mysteriously for no reason.

Anyway, @Lighter.5631 you have every right to complain. I've experienced the same problems.

At one point during this season I was above a 70% win rate but had only 1525 rating.

I won't even go into discussion about win trading, throwing, and bots, because w/e is going on feels like a separate problem than that. It feels like the algorithm is actually not calculating gains and losses correctly. I've noticed that I'll go into a game in NA prime time against a duo that I know is higher rated than me. I'll win and get +11 but in the next game I get vs. them again and I lose, and somehow I get a -16 from it. This is happening vs. duos who are nearly p2 when I am bottom p1.

I dunno you explain to me what's going on there. All I know is that from previous seasons, if I were bottom p1 and was playing games vs. nearly p2 players, my gains and losses should be at least equal +15 -15, not lopsided +10s and -15s. Something doesn't feel right there suddenly this season.Your win rate doesn't matter if your first games were garbage, your hidden rating also shits your MM, everything is set to drag you to Gold 2, good luck to the silver players dragged to G2 when the game forces you to smurf and 1v3 kill their poor asses.I think at some point it would be better to bin the main account and run Alt, at least it would not be cursed for a while.

[Leonidrex.5649]

@Lighter.5631 said:winrate isnt related to the point tho, the fact that i got -20 -17 with a only 2 min Q pop is something wrong.like i get it if i get these numbers with 5+ min to 10 min Q time, but not with 2-3 min Qtime...

it is somewhat related.if you get to X rank on a winstreak, and then start losing hard, your MMR will get tanked, HARD.you will start a spiral with unwinnable games, and big loses untill broken system decides its good enough.this is how the system works in team games like this, the more players over all the less noticable it is, and since this game is half-dead this is isnt all that bad here.play 50-100 games and it will normalize.I had the same issue and now im getting about even gains/loses while at 1550 rankI understand that when you give a crap about ranking, win 6 games, lose 4 and lose ranking... it kinda fucking sucks lol

[voltaicbore.8012]

I could be reading the matchmaking algorithm on the wiki entirely wrong, but I think it actually allows for teams that are rated up to 1200 points apart to end up in a match against each other. I am not sure if that "roster rating" variable is on the same scale as our personal MMRs, but that seems to be the case. That's... that's an absolutely enormous score difference. So that might explain why the matchmaker is so quick to pop poorly matched games for you - it just doesn't take that long to patch together a team that's within 1200 points of yours.

This is mostly (educated) guesswork on my part from reading the wiki post on the matchmaker. If someone knows I'm wrong about this, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"voltaicbore.8012" said:I could be reading the matchmaking algorithm on the wiki entirely wrong, but I think it actually allows for teams that are rated up to 1200 points apart to end up in a match against each other. I am not sure if that "roster rating" variable is on the same scale as our personal MMRs, but that seems to be the case. That's... that's an absolutely enormous score difference. So that might explain why the matchmaker is so quick to pop poorly matched games for you - it just doesn't take that long to patch together a team that's within 1200 points of yours.

This is mostly (educated) guesswork on my part from reading the wiki post on the matchmaker. If someone knows I'm wrong about this, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.

Ya that's exactly correct.

The population is dropping, more games are being padded for longer periods of time, and you get wider and wider spreads in the matchmaker's search for players with similar rank then yours. The system is designed to give players matches when the game is essentially dead with only a handful of people playing (1200 rating padding)

Now does padding explain bigger drops in rating upon a loss? It's not supposed to. Technically if the padding is working correctly, then both team's MMR's, even if they are padded to hell, should have a close average team MMR, which is made to reduce the volatility in rating gain and loss.

Something real fishy is going on, and i can't quit put my hand on it...but my guess is that there is a statistical reason for why we are receiving higher yielding losses in these lower rating ranges.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"voltaicbore.8012" said:I could be reading the matchmaking algorithm on the wiki entirely wrong, but I think it actually allows for teams that are rated up to 1200 points apart to end up in a match against each other. I am not sure if that "roster rating" variable is on the same scale as our personal MMRs, but that seems to be the case. That's... that's an absolutely enormous score difference. So that might explain why the matchmaker is so quick to pop poorly matched games for you - it just doesn't take that long to patch together a team that's within 1200 points of yours.

This is mostly (educated) guesswork on my part from reading

the wiki post on the matchmaker

. If someone knows I'm wrong about this, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.Something real fishy is going on, and i can't quit put my hand on it...but my guess is that there is a statistical reason for why we are receiving higher yielding losses in these lower rating ranges.

You've got that right, and I'll be reeeeal careful what I say here, but something seems.. unfair vs. certain accounts. Whether it's an accident like some kind of bug or just old outdated functions within the algorithm like "how invisible MMR effects your match making under rating and how total matches played effects MMR directly", something is wrong with it.

Now you guys will probably all take this the wrong way when I say it, but I am being serious so hear me out on it. If you were to watch my stream and follow the AT footage, you'd see that I consistently win 1v1s on side nodes vs. some of the best players in NA, regardless of class vs. class counters. There are legit only about 10 guys in NA regardless of class played, that I even feel threatened by when approaching a 1v1 situation. But yet somehow, these other players will have 70% win rates and be like 1650-1700+ rating, whereas when I had 70% win rate this season at around 60 games played last week at some point, I was only 1525 rating. Somehow these other players at 70% win rates are riding p2-3 but my 70% rates I am riding constantly top g3 bottom p1. I mean.... what? Please explain this to me. Because a lot of those players actually do go out of their way to queue dodge other good players and they only play against lower players so they can farm. Their gains should be smaller than mine and their losses heavier. So how in the hell are they achieving 1700 ratings with 70% win rate vs. low rated kids but my 70% win rate vs. NA prime time platinum players yields a 1525 rating? What? Please explain the secret of what's going on here. <- I am being serious, what the hell is that?

Tbh I should stream a session of me playing ranked to show the match quality and gains/losses that I get on this old year 1 day 1 created account with 20,000 games played. I'm telling you something isn't right with it. As much is visible when I go on an alt account and easily play into p2 margins with less than half the kind of monkey business going on that I see on my main.