Guild Wars 2

Solo queue ranking should be based entirely on how the individual performs.

I can definitely agree there. It should be based on each individuals contribution to the game.

Justin ODell.9517:

Thedenofsin.7340:

snip

I’m sorry you’ve gotten matches you don’t enjoy. We’re working on addressing the skill gap on multiple fronts.

In the mean time, have you tried Team Arena? You may find it more your speed.

Tried that, and this is what I got. Triple thief team.

Any other suggestions?

and this was the very next match

not only was it a 5v4, but the other team had 5 bunkers. 5!

yes, all engis, all necros and all ranger are always bunker. Yes Sir.

dont play teamQ as solo player

most anoying thing you can do – teamQ is total broken

Lupanic.6502:

yes, all engis, all necros and all ranger are always bunker. Yes Sir.

Did you play that match? No, you didn’t. I did. They were all bunkers. Spirit ranger, mm necro and bunker engies.

The other day I thought about trying team queue pugging, so I did. My team got beat 501 to 0 the very first match. My team was constantly running into points solo and just getting wrecked. As a bunker, I really couldn’t do much other than try to push people off the points. Every once in a while I would get a neutral, but the opposing team was not going to let me cap the point solo.

Just saying, telling people to go team queue if you are dedicated means nothing if the team you get put on is not. Sadly, I feel I have a better, chance Solo Q’ing. Instead of getting put on a team with four people who don’t know what they are doing, maybe I will get on a team with only 3 and not get Zero’ed.

Justin ODell.9517:

Thedenofsin.7340:

snip

I’m sorry you’ve gotten matches you don’t enjoy. We’re working on addressing the skill gap on multiple fronts.

In the mean time, have you tried Team Arena? You may find it more your speed.

I have tried TPvP with some friends from guild. We’re ranging from rank 5-20. We got matched up with 5 guys rank 30-40. If that’s what you call balance… , you need a new system for SPvP.

Sirendor.1394:

Justin ODell.9517:

Thedenofsin.7340:

snip

I’m sorry you’ve gotten matches you don’t enjoy. We’re working on addressing the skill gap on multiple fronts.

In the mean time, have you tried Team Arena? You may find it more your speed.

I have tried TPvP with some friends from guild. We’re ranging from rank 5-20. We got matched up with 5 guys rank 30-40. If that’s what you call balance… , you need a new system for SPvP.

rank
does
NOT
count

it just indicates time invested, no match grouping around rank, no skill indication

/facepalm

this may be to blame the ‘entry-mmr’, but srsly neither matchmaking nor balance nor is it anets fault if people play some classes.

why does everybody seem to be too narrow minded to figure that out?

Because people always find reasons to justify their failures…

Thedenofsin.7340:

Corian.4068:

If you had two people standing next to you at the treb, were you really helping the situation by remaining there?

You can blame your team all you want, but you’re a major part of that team, and if you sat there arguing about how you should take the treb with them you didn’t help any.

And if they truly didn’t know how to play, then help them figure it out. This again is on you. You make this community hostile and inaccessible, then new people won’t come to it, and you won’t have people to play with. You make them feel welcome, they’ll tend to stick around.

I’m just saying, if you’re gonna go around assigning responsibility to everyone, assign some to yourself as well. We all need to be taking responsibility for the shortcomings of GW2’s PvP, because the players are a major part of that too.

That’s an extremely presumptuous statement, considering you know nothing of the games I have played, the situational context, what I did to support the team or what direction I provided.

That’s beside the point. The second part of the post is what really matters. The more noob’s the more players imo. Do you just want to play against the same people over and over again? I think if the PvP community is getting bigger than more noob’s is good. Not to negate the fact that I dislike losing a match because I was the only one on the team that knew how to play it well but when I click that solo q button or team q button and I get an instant match every time cause we have a lot of people playing instead of waiting 10+ min for a match its a lot more fun than only getting a couple matches every hour. I think that in this point in time you gotta look at the good before they implement the new leaderboard system that will fix all of this cause its going to be fixed and enjoy playing more matches consequtively than before. Just my train of thought =\. Communicate with them respectfully and tell them how to play.

I’d rather play the same people over and over again and have the new players face each other until they get 20+ hours of game time in.

Suggestion: Disable leaderboards until 4v5 since 0th minute has been dealth with.
edit: nvm playing 5v4 now. thanks anet!

kito.1827:

rank
does
NOT
count

it just indicates time invested, no match grouping around rank, no skill indication

/facepalm

this may be to blame the ‘entry-mmr’, but srsly neither matchmaking nor balance nor is it anets fault if people play some classes.

why does everybody seem to be too narrow minded to figure that out?

The problem is that, with such a rank system ( huge gaps the higher you go), time invested should be reflected. Unfortunately, it’s not really the case in leaderboards, and that’s why there are so many posts about it

I’m pretty sure that even a ’ bad player ’ with 200 tournaments played would literally dominate 95% of players truly belonging to stats such as 15 wins 2 loses( and that is right now in top100)

kito.1827:

Sirendor.1394:

Justin ODell.9517:

Thedenofsin.7340:

snip

I’m sorry you’ve gotten matches you don’t enjoy. We’re working on addressing the skill gap on multiple fronts.

In the mean time, have you tried Team Arena? You may find it more your speed.

I have tried TPvP with some friends from guild. We’re ranging from rank 5-20. We got matched up with 5 guys rank 30-40. If that’s what you call balance… , you need a new system for SPvP.

rank
does
NOT
count

it just indicates time invested, no match grouping around rank, no skill indication

/facepalm

this may be to blame the ‘entry-mmr’, but srsly neither matchmaking nor balance nor is it anets fault if people play some classes.

why does everybody seem to be too narrow minded to figure that out?

Probably because you don’t realize that you are wrong. Rank correlates to skill. How well it correlates is dependent on several factors, including the player’s innate skill.

If you were to draw plots of skills versus rank for many different people, you would see that the curves started out similarly and then would greatly diversmge after some rank.

Using that information, you could establish the cut off point where players below a certain rank could be logically grouped together and have comparable levels of skill.

Somebody’s not a poker player.

Here’s the deal with Solo Q:

You are the only X factor. Any discrepancies you experience in terms of quality of teammates (luck of the draw) should balance out over time (enough games played), because those same bad players or AFKs can land on the other team just as often (actually more often, since you take up a spot on your own team).

Had a bad run of luck? That can happen, and it can be frustrating, but if you play a ton of games you still should have more wins than losses. If you don’t have more wins than losses, guess what the X factor was?

Don’t want ANY variance in the quality of your team because any luck, one way or the other, makes you flip the table over? Team Q is the answer.

You now have 100% of the responsibility for your long term sPvP success in Solo Q and a viable option if you want to eliminate luck over short term period (like single games).

The power is yours!

kito.1827:

Sirendor.1394:

Justin ODell.9517:

Thedenofsin.7340:

snip

I’m sorry you’ve gotten matches you don’t enjoy. We’re working on addressing the skill gap on multiple fronts.

In the mean time, have you tried Team Arena? You may find it more your speed.

I have tried TPvP with some friends from guild. We’re ranging from rank 5-20. We got matched up with 5 guys rank 30-40. If that’s what you call balance… , you need a new system for SPvP.

rank
does
NOT
count

it just indicates time invested, no match grouping around rank, no skill indication

/facepalm

this may be to blame the ‘entry-mmr’, but srsly neither matchmaking nor balance nor is it anets fault if people play some classes.

why does everybody seem to be too narrow minded to figure that out?

Because at the end of the game what the game shows about other players is the rank, not their position in the leaderboards .

Ludus Rex.1562:

Somebody’s not a poker player.

Here’s the deal with Solo Q:

You are the only X factor. Any discrepancies you experience in terms of quality of teammates (luck of the draw) should balance out over time (enough games played), because those same bad players or AFKs can land on the other team just as often (actually more often, since you take up a spot on your own team).

Had a bad run of luck? That can happen, and it can be frustrating, but if you play a ton of games you still should have more wins than losses. If you don’t have more wins than losses, guess what the X factor was?

Don’t want ANY variance in the quality of your team because any luck, one way or the other, makes you flip the table over? Team Q is the answer.

You now have 100% of the responsibility for your long term sPvP success in Solo Q and a viable option if you want to eliminate luck over short term period (like single games).

The power is yours!

Your post is completely wrong in pretty much every way.

In short: this is not poker. It is a team game. If you put together football teams with a random mix of offensive, defensive and special teams players, not Even Tom Brady would be able to influence the outcome.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Somebody’s not a poker player.

Here’s the deal with Solo Q:

You are the only X factor. Any discrepancies you experience in terms of quality of teammates (luck of the draw) should balance out over time (enough games played), because those same bad players or AFKs can land on the other team just as often (actually more often, since you take up a spot on your own team).

Had a bad run of luck? That can happen, and it can be frustrating, but if you play a ton of games you still should have more wins than losses. If you don’t have more wins than losses, guess what the X factor was?

Don’t want ANY variance in the quality of your team because any luck, one way or the other, makes you flip the table over? Team Q is the answer.

You now have 100% of the responsibility for your long term sPvP success in Solo Q and a viable option if you want to eliminate luck over short term period (like single games).

The power is yours!

Your post is completely wrong in pretty much every way.

In short: this is not poker. It is a team game. If you put together football teams with a random mix of offensive, defensive and special teams players, not Even Tom Brady would be able to influence the outcome.

Ha

OBVIOUSLY it’s a team game. Thanks for that ingenious input. Guess what? It’s also a team game for the other team.

Your team has 4 random players, plus you. Enemy team has 5 random players. Your team is less subject to the variance of bad random players and AFKs than the enemy team. If you can’t win more games than you lose (over time, there’s obviously short term variance), then the fault is yours. The X Factor is you.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Somebody’s not a poker player.

Here’s the deal with Solo Q:

You are the only X factor. Any discrepancies you experience in terms of quality of teammates (luck of the draw) should balance out over time (enough games played), because those same bad players or AFKs can land on the other team just as often (actually more often, since you take up a spot on your own team).

Had a bad run of luck? That can happen, and it can be frustrating, but if you play a ton of games you still should have more wins than losses. If you don’t have more wins than losses, guess what the X factor was?

Don’t want ANY variance in the quality of your team because any luck, one way or the other, makes you flip the table over? Team Q is the answer.

You now have 100% of the responsibility for your long term sPvP success in Solo Q and a viable option if you want to eliminate luck over short term period (like single games).

The power is yours!

Your post is completely wrong in pretty much every way.

In short: this is not poker. It is a team game. If you put together football teams with a random mix of offensive, defensive and special teams players, not Even Tom Brady would be able to influence the outcome.

Ha

OBVIOUSLY it’s a team game. Thanks for that ingenious input. Guess what? It’s also a team game for the other team.

Your team has 4 random players, plus you. Enemy team has 5 random players. Your team is less subject to the variance of bad random players and AFKs than the enemy team. If you can’t win more games than you lose (over time, there’s obviously short term variance), then the fault is yours. The X Factor is you.

You can get grouped with 4 other players who are good, but that doesn’t mean that one synergizes with them well. As you mentioned its completely random. So in that regard saying that you have to win more than you lose is irrelevant, since you have no direct control over the team composition.

Thedenofsin.7340:

sigh. I guess you proved the old adage, " you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think"

You provided absolutely nothing to think about. You just came to whine because you had some bad teams in a few matches.

My posts are based on math. All other things being equal, the other team will be assigned 5 random players who (coin toss) let’s say are “good” or “bad”. Your team will be assigned 4 (coin toss) players who are “good” or “bad”, plus you.

Over the long term, if you’re not winning more games then you’re losing, guess which category you’re in?

It’s almost exactly like poker, in this way. There’s luck involved (teammates) and there’s skill involved (you), and if you put them together you get a single outcome. Because of the luck, anybody can win or lose a match, but it requires skill to win over the long term. Bad poker players delude themselves into thinking they’re very unlucky. They use the luck factor like a shield to never accept any responsibility for the quality of their plays.

I’m arguing with you right now because I know, from being a poker player, that your logic is flawed and silly. You’re not behind because you’re super unlucky and catch nothing but bad beats, bro.

Also, your point involving Tom Brady? Terrible. If you put Brady and 4 completely random people into a pickup game at the park against 5 random people, and you do this 100 times, Brady’s going to lose some, but his team will be way ahead in the long run.

Maybe you should work on getting ahead in the long run.

…but that horse thing you said, I guess that’s a super valid point also…

Aza.2105:

You can get grouped with 4 other players who are good, but that doesn’t mean that one synergizes with them well. As you mentioned its completely random. So in that regard saying that you have to win more than you lose is irrelevant, since you have no direct control over the team composition.

Right, I’ll give you additional variance for composition, but again, the other team has the exact same issue. Their team also may or may not mesh well, based on chance. The only controllable variable is STILL your level of player skill and effectiveness when it comes to the game’s objectives.

The only way for this not to be the only X factor, IE, the only thing that matters over the long term, is by making the claim that a players skill is 100% irrelevant to how they perform in a match, and thus 100% irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Is that your argument? That skill is 100% irrelevant? Because if it’s not, then it’s the only X factor, and it’s what determines long term success or failure.

Let’s look at an extreme example: We could build the ideal team, with the ideal specs, calculated perfectly for group synergy and each with a specific job in the game, then give those characters to a group of 5, six year olds, and then we could have that team play against 5 totally random classes and builds, all in the hands of very good players who know what they’re doing. Guess where I’m putting my money?

Okay, so player skill matters in some regard, right? Can we agree on that? Okay, so your personal player skill is the only variable in Solo Q. It doesn’t mean you’ll win every game, or even the majority of games over a short period of time, but over enough games and enough time, your win/loss ratio is determined entirely by your player skill.

But hey, better to run around screaming at ANET because we got a couple bad match-ups in a row, right? Good times.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

You can get grouped with 4 other players who are good, but that doesn’t mean that one synergizes with them well. As you mentioned its completely random. So in that regard saying that you have to win more than you lose is irrelevant, since you have no direct control over the team composition.

Right, I’ll give you additional variance for composition, but again, the other team has the exact same issue. Their team also may or may not mesh well, based on chance. The only controllable variable is STILL your level of player skill and effectiveness when it comes to the game’s objectives.

The only way for this not to be the only X factor, IE, the only thing that matters over the long term, is by making the claim that a players skill is 100% irrelevant to how they perform in a match, and thus 100% irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Is that your argument? That skill is 100% irrelevant? Because if it’s not, then it’s the only X factor, and it’s what determines long term success or failure.

Let’s look at an extreme example: We could build the ideal team, with the ideal specs, calculated perfectly for group synergy and each with a specific job in the game, then give those characters to a group of 5, six year olds, and then we could have that team play against 5 totally random classes and builds, all in the hands of very good players who know what they’re doing. Guess where I’m putting my money?

Okay, so player skill matters in some regard, right? Can we agree on that? Okay, so your personal player skill is the only variable in Solo Q. It doesn’t mean you’ll win every game, or even the majority of games over a short period of time, but over enough games and enough time, your win/loss ratio is determined entirely by your player skill.

But hey, better to run around screaming at ANET because we got a couple bad match-ups in a row, right? Good times.

Your example is ok because its not realistic, furthermore you are basing your entire idea from a very linear perspective. Which essentially tries to determine predictions based upon mathematical results. For somethings this is good, but for a human being this is not. Factoring in each individual then outside influences such as lag, playstyle, build, class and so forth. There becomes so many variables that you can not possibly try to illustrate it through a completely logical thought process.

Its impossible to gauge the skill level of a soloq player. The system tallies team wins, which in soloq is simply put accidental. So in that respect you say that each players win/lose and current ranking in soloq is completely accidental. It would be better if individual stats were tracked instead of generic win/loss ratio.

Aza.2105:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

You can get grouped with 4 other players who are good, but that doesn’t mean that one synergizes with them well. As you mentioned its completely random. So in that regard saying that you have to win more than you lose is irrelevant, since you have no direct control over the team composition.

Right, I’ll give you additional variance for composition, but again, the other team has the exact same issue. Their team also may or may not mesh well, based on chance. The only controllable variable is STILL your level of player skill and effectiveness when it comes to the game’s objectives.

The only way for this not to be the only X factor, IE, the only thing that matters over the long term, is by making the claim that a players skill is 100% irrelevant to how they perform in a match, and thus 100% irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Is that your argument? That skill is 100% irrelevant? Because if it’s not, then it’s the only X factor, and it’s what determines long term success or failure.

Let’s look at an extreme example: We could build the ideal team, with the ideal specs, calculated perfectly for group synergy and each with a specific job in the game, then give those characters to a group of 5, six year olds, and then we could have that team play against 5 totally random classes and builds, all in the hands of very good players who know what they’re doing. Guess where I’m putting my money?

Okay, so player skill matters in some regard, right? Can we agree on that? Okay, so your personal player skill is the only variable in Solo Q. It doesn’t mean you’ll win every game, or even the majority of games over a short period of time, but over enough games and enough time, your win/loss ratio is determined entirely by your player skill.

But hey, better to run around screaming at ANET because we got a couple bad match-ups in a row, right? Good times.

Your example is ok because its not realistic, furthermore you are basing your entire idea from a very linear perspective. Which essentially tries to determine predictions based upon mathematical results. For somethings this is good, but for a human being this is not. Factoring in each individual then outside influences such as lag, playstyle, build, class and so forth. There becomes so many variables that you can not possibly try to illustrate it through a completely logical thought process.

Its impossible to gauge the skill level of a soloq player. The system tallies team wins, which in soloq is simply put accidental. So in that respect you say that each players win/lose and current ranking in soloq is completely accidental. It would be better if individual stats were tracked instead of generic win/loss ratio.

I don’t see where he said anything was accidental at all. You’re own rank (long term) is all based upon you and how good you are. And basing it on personal score is a horrid concept. That would make everyone not act as a team and just be tagging players with a single attack while someone else would take them down and just cap a zone and leave to go decap or cap another zone without trying to win the actual game because they would be more worried about their individual score rather than the teams score. No thank you.

Thedenofsin.7340:

What math? You have provided 0 mathematical evidence. None.

So I guess you don’t understand that 4 players of variable skill level, plus you, is less variance in total than 5 players of variable skill (the opposing team)?

Even if player skill was only 50% of the game, and the other 50% was the quality of the team composition, the enemy team would be in the exact same boat regarding variance in the quality of composition.

So if team composition quality ranges from 1 to 50 (arbitrary scale that we’ll use since I’m now humoring you and pretending that composition is as high as 50% of the determining factor), and each unknown player has a random skill level of 1 to 10 (you initiated this thread be complaining about bad players, so presumably you think there’s a skill level factor and some player have too little skill to be useful), then your team should still win more than it loses, if your level of skill, the non-changing factor, is a 10. You’ll end up with more wins than losses over time.

Player skill influences fights, and fights impact the outcome of the game. You can’t sherk responsibility for your ratio unless you make the claim that there’s no skill involved at all. The fact that a game has luck, does not mean that it’s entirely luck based. Again, this is what bad players tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

This type of self delusion is also what makes poker more popular than chess, because when you lose at chess, you know it’s your fault, but when you lose at poker, you just got unlucky, right? And everytime you’ve lost a match ever, your team just wasn’t any good and you got unlucky, right? Have a tissue.

Cush.4063:

Aza.2105:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

You can get grouped with 4 other players who are good, but that doesn’t mean that one synergizes with them well. As you mentioned its completely random. So in that regard saying that you have to win more than you lose is irrelevant, since you have no direct control over the team composition.

Right, I’ll give you additional variance for composition, but again, the other team has the exact same issue. Their team also may or may not mesh well, based on chance. The only controllable variable is STILL your level of player skill and effectiveness when it comes to the game’s objectives.

The only way for this not to be the only X factor, IE, the only thing that matters over the long term, is by making the claim that a players skill is 100% irrelevant to how they perform in a match, and thus 100% irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Is that your argument? That skill is 100% irrelevant? Because if it’s not, then it’s the only X factor, and it’s what determines long term success or failure.

Let’s look at an extreme example: We could build the ideal team, with the ideal specs, calculated perfectly for group synergy and each with a specific job in the game, then give those characters to a group of 5, six year olds, and then we could have that team play against 5 totally random classes and builds, all in the hands of very good players who know what they’re doing. Guess where I’m putting my money?

Okay, so player skill matters in some regard, right? Can we agree on that? Okay, so your personal player skill is the only variable in Solo Q. It doesn’t mean you’ll win every game, or even the majority of games over a short period of time, but over enough games and enough time, your win/loss ratio is determined entirely by your player skill.

But hey, better to run around screaming at ANET because we got a couple bad match-ups in a row, right? Good times.

Your example is ok because its not realistic, furthermore you are basing your entire idea from a very linear perspective. Which essentially tries to determine predictions based upon mathematical results. For somethings this is good, but for a human being this is not. Factoring in each individual then outside influences such as lag, playstyle, build, class and so forth. There becomes so many variables that you can not possibly try to illustrate it through a completely logical thought process.

Its impossible to gauge the skill level of a soloq player. The system tallies team wins, which in soloq is simply put accidental. So in that respect you say that each players win/lose and current ranking in soloq is completely accidental. It would be better if individual stats were tracked instead of generic win/loss ratio.

I don’t see where he said anything was accidental at all. You’re own rank (long term) is all based upon you and how good you are. And basing it on personal score is a horrid concept. That would make everyone not act as a team and just be tagging players with a single attack while someone else would take them down and just cap a zone and leave to go decap or cap another zone without trying to win the actual game because they would be more worried about their individual score rather than the teams score. No thank you.

He didn’t say it was accidental, I did.

A personal score would give a more detailed perspective on how someone performs on average in a match.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

What math? You have provided 0 mathematical evidence. None.

So I guess you don’t understand that 4 players of variable skill level, plus you, is less variance in total than 5 players of variable skill (the opposing team)?

Even if player skill was only 50% of the game, and the other 50% was the quality of the team composition, the enemy team would be in the exact same boat regarding variance in the quality of composition.

So if team composition quality ranges from 1 to 50 (arbitrary scale that we’ll use since I’m now humoring you and pretending that composition is as high as 50% of the determining factor), and each unknown player has a random skill level of 1 to 10 (you initiated this thread be complaining about bad players, so presumably you think there’s a skill level factor and some player have too little skill to be useful), then your team should still win more than it loses, if your level of skill, the non-changing factor, is a 10. You’ll end up with more wins than losses over time.

Player skill influences fights, and fights impact the outcome of the game. You can’t sherk responsibility for your ratio unless you make the claim that there’s no skill involved at all. The fact that a game has luck, does not mean that it’s entirely luck based. Again, this is what bad players tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

This type of self delusion is also what makes poker more popular than chess, because when you lose at chess, you know it’s your fault, but when you lose at poker, you just got unlucky, right? And everytime you’ve lost a match ever, your team just wasn’t any good and you got unlucky, right? Have a tissue.

No, poker is more popular than chess because poker is appealing to idiots and drunks. And there are more idiots in the world than intelligent people. Sadly, this thread makes me start to feel GW2 is appealing to the same crowd as poker does.

Pulling numbers out of thin air does not justify your stance. When I said math, I was referring to something you could substantiate, not just stringing together digits from 0-9, which is precisely what you did.

Your basic argument is that skill level plays some part in the outcome of the game, but you cannot substantiate how much that factors into the equation. So you made numbers up.
Pulling numbers out of your kitten does not an argument make.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

What math? You have provided 0 mathematical evidence. None.

So I guess you don’t understand that 4 players of variable skill level, plus you, is less variance in total than 5 players of variable skill (the opposing team)?

Even if player skill was only 50% of the game, and the other 50% was the quality of the team composition, the enemy team would be in the exact same boat regarding variance in the quality of composition.

So if team composition quality ranges from 1 to 50 (arbitrary scale that we’ll use since I’m now humoring you and pretending that composition is as high as 50% of the determining factor), and each unknown player has a random skill level of 1 to 10 (you initiated this thread be complaining about bad players, so presumably you think there’s a skill level factor and some player have too little skill to be useful), then your team should still win more than it loses, if your level of skill, the non-changing factor, is a 10. You’ll end up with more wins than losses over time.

Player skill influences fights, and fights impact the outcome of the game. You can’t sherk responsibility for your ratio unless you make the claim that there’s no skill involved at all. The fact that a game has luck, does not mean that it’s entirely luck based. Again, this is what bad players tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

This type of self delusion is also what makes poker more popular than chess, because when you lose at chess, you know it’s your fault, but when you lose at poker, you just got unlucky, right? And everytime you’ve lost a match ever, your team just wasn’t any good and you got unlucky, right? Have a tissue.

No, poker is more popular than chess because poker is appealing to idiots and drunks. And there are more idiots in the world than intelligent people. Sadly, this thread makes me start to feel GW2 is appealing to the same crowd as poker does.

Pulling numbers out of thin air does not justify your stance. When I said math, I was referring to something you could substantiate, not just stringing together digits from 0-9, which is precisely what you did.

Your basic argument is that skill level plays some part in the outcome of the game, but you cannot substantiate how much that factors into the equation. So you made numbers up.
Pulling numbers out of your kitten does not an argument make. It just makes you resemble where the numbers came from.

The part you’re continually failing to comprehend, is that the numbers CAN be made up. They don’t matter. Everything that’s subject to chance is subject to chance for both teams. The ONLY non-changing variable is your personal level of skill. That makes it the deciding factor for the win/loss ratio over time (not short term). Also, those made up numbers heavily favored your nonsense argument, because I personally do not believe that 50% of a match hinges on composition, in exactly equal proportions to individual player skill.

I’ll let you make up the numbers. It doesn’t change the fact that over time and enough games played, if your skill level is higher than the skill level of the average random player, you will/must experience a positive ratio.

You keep attacking my argument without ever trying to explain why the only non-variable factor wouldn’t be the determining factor over time, since all variable factors are subject to the same amount of variance. Is this a concept you understand?

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

What math? You have provided 0 mathematical evidence. None.

So I guess you don’t understand that 4 players of variable skill level, plus you, is less variance in total than 5 players of variable skill (the opposing team)?

Even if player skill was only 50% of the game, and the other 50% was the quality of the team composition, the enemy team would be in the exact same boat regarding variance in the quality of composition.

So if team composition quality ranges from 1 to 50 (arbitrary scale that we’ll use since I’m now humoring you and pretending that composition is as high as 50% of the determining factor), and each unknown player has a random skill level of 1 to 10 (you initiated this thread be complaining about bad players, so presumably you think there’s a skill level factor and some player have too little skill to be useful), then your team should still win more than it loses, if your level of skill, the non-changing factor, is a 10. You’ll end up with more wins than losses over time.

Player skill influences fights, and fights impact the outcome of the game. You can’t sherk responsibility for your ratio unless you make the claim that there’s no skill involved at all. The fact that a game has luck, does not mean that it’s entirely luck based. Again, this is what bad players tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

This type of self delusion is also what makes poker more popular than chess, because when you lose at chess, you know it’s your fault, but when you lose at poker, you just got unlucky, right? And everytime you’ve lost a match ever, your team just wasn’t any good and you got unlucky, right? Have a tissue.

No, poker is more popular than chess because poker is appealing to idiots and drunks. And there are more idiots in the world than intelligent people. Sadly, this thread makes me start to feel GW2 is appealing to the same crowd as poker does.

Pulling numbers out of thin air does not justify your stance. When I said math, I was referring to something you could substantiate, not just stringing together digits from 0-9, which is precisely what you did.

Your basic argument is that skill level plays some part in the outcome of the game, but you cannot substantiate how much that factors into the equation. So you made numbers up.
Pulling numbers out of your kitten does not an argument make. It just makes you resemble where the numbers came from.

The part you’re continually failing to comprehend, is that the numbers CAN be made up. They don’t matter. Everything that’s subject to chance is subject to chance for both teams. The ONLY non-changing variable is your personal level of skill. That makes it the deciding factor for the win/loss ratio over time (not short term). Also, those made up numbers heavily favored your nonsense argument, because I personally do not believe that 50% of a match hinges on composition, in exactly equal proportions to individual player skill.

I’ll let you make up the numbers. It doesn’t change the fact that over time and enough games played, if your skill level is higher than the skill level of the average random player, you will/must experience a positive ratio.

You keep attacking my argument without ever trying to explain why the only non-variable factor wouldn’t be the determining factor over time, since all variable factors are subject to the same amount of variance. Is this a concept you understand?

You never explained how a individuals rank reflects their actual performance when they only account for 1/5th of a randomly put together team. The only thing you have done was intellectualize while failing to show results to your perspective.

i hardly post..but i gots to voice my opinion here. the influx of new ppl to pvp can b frustrating at times..we’ve all had our games of wtf??!?!. but the influx of these new ppl just means that theres new blood to pvp…and that is VERY GOOD for pvp in the long run.

I would have to agree with ludus rex and his post more than the OP. at some pt or another you must b held accountable as much as your teammates. you got 2 ppl at treb with u..ask them to go cap something..if they dont..you leave treb and you go cap something and hope for the best.

i just got rank 30 a few days ago and i dont consider myself a great pvp or even a decent one. im still learning the game. i often ask myself when i lose to a another player….“what could i have done to beat that guy. what build is he running..how come i couldnt knock that necro down..or how the fvck is that ranger killing me sooo fast!?!? if i could have beated that guy..or just hold him off long enough till someone else came and help we coulda still had that cap. now im looking at my corpse and watch that mofo cap my spot.”

instead of saying “fvcking noobs, you all suck!, quit the game, i got the most pts on this dumb fvck team therefore im the ONLY reason why we are in the position that we are in” instead of b!tching at them at the end of the match on how much they suck….talk to them in the beginning. Anet does allow like a minute or so to prepare and talk to each other. Use that time to discuss where everyone is going, what kind of build everyone is running and synergizes as best as you can with the ppl u got. but how often do ppl actually spend that time to do that…hardly none at all. maybe 2/10 will actually talk and form some sort of plan. Most of the time i will get one person that says…“plan is to win and kill” while the rest is dead silent.

i find that the teams talk to eachother in the beginning will talk during the matches too…example…“hey we got 2inc at home”. or “there 4 at mid..avoid it” i find that those types of matches are much more enjoyable and more successful. try that a couple of times and see what happens…if u dont want to try then well….keep on doing what your used to and let the dice roll and land where fate decides.

btw i do like the idea of keeping the same team if you win and move on to the next matches that would b soo neat…kinda like gw1. ..and we need REPLAYS…we need a lot of things..but replays would b nice too.

gl c ya in the mist.

Warning: Geek Alert!

Here’s some math for you. It’s oversimplified, but it should be relatively accurate.

Let’s say we can rank each and every single PvPer on a scale from 0 to 10. (I’m using 0 to 10 rather than 1 to 10 both to account for someone that logs out right before the match starts, as well as making the math easier, since the average between 0 and 10 is 5 and the average from 1 to 10 is 5.5.)

Now, each team has five random players with an average rank of 5 per player. That would mean that an average team would have a total ranking of 25. I’ll use ‘W’ for the win percentage of a single battle:

W = 25 (average team rank)/50 (total points possible in a given group)
W = 0.5 or a 50% chance, which makes perfect sense in a random fight between two groups.

Now, we add the single player into the equation. It’s no longer completely random, since your skill now factors into it. We’ll use the letter ‘X’ to represent a single player. The equation now looks like this:

W = (X+20)/50

Now we can plug numbers in for your skill to determine what your chances of winning based on your skill alone. We already know that on average, your skill should be 5. We’ll go to the high end of the spectrum now.

W = (10+20)/50
W = 30/50
W = .6 or 60% chance of winning each battle.

Now for the low end:

W = (0+20)/50
W = 20/50
W = 0.4 or a 40% chance of winning each battle.
As you can see, there is a 20% swing between being a top player and an afker/logout. This makes sense, since you are only one fifth of the team makeup.

Over the course of time, a solo PvPer in a 5-man PUG should not have a winning percentage lower than 40% or higher than 60%. The rest is completely random.

Ludus Rex.1562:

My posts are based on math. All other things being equal, the other team will be assigned 5 random players who (coin toss) let’s say are “good” or “bad”. Your team will be assigned 4 (coin toss) players who are “good” or “bad”, plus you.

The problem with this analysis is that the more variability there is in the skill levels of the players, the less impact one individual can have on the outcome. And right now, there are a lot of very poor players flowing into PvP, and a lot who could be good but only care about gold or achievements.

And so while you are technically correct “in the long run”, that can be a very, VERY long run.

Qaelyn.7612:

Ludus Rex.1562:

My posts are based on math. All other things being equal, the other team will be assigned 5 random players who (coin toss) let’s say are “good” or “bad”. Your team will be assigned 4 (coin toss) players who are “good” or “bad”, plus you.

The problem with this analysis is that the more variability there is in the skill levels of the players, the less impact one individual can have on the outcome. And right now, there are a lot of very poor players flowing into PvP, and a lot who could be good but only care about gold or achievements.

And so while you are technically correct “in the long run”, that can be a very, VERY long run.

Since both teams have the exact same chance of having poor players or ones that are only after gold or achievements, the math still holds up over the long haul. Now, you have to take into consideration that by long haul, we’re talking about hundreds or even thousands of matches. But the math still holds up. And I do so love math for that very reason.

TChalla.7146:

Qaelyn.7612:

Ludus Rex.1562:

My posts are based on math. All other things being equal, the other team will be assigned 5 random players who (coin toss) let’s say are “good” or “bad”. Your team will be assigned 4 (coin toss) players who are “good” or “bad”, plus you.

The problem with this analysis is that the more variability there is in the skill levels of the players, the less impact one individual can have on the outcome. And right now, there are a lot of very poor players flowing into PvP, and a lot who could be good but only care about gold or achievements.

And so while you are technically correct “in the long run”, that can be a very, VERY long run.

Since both teams have the exact same chance of having poor players or ones that are only after gold or achievements, the math still holds up over the long haul. Now, you have to take into consideration that by long haul, we’re talking about hundreds or even thousands of matches. But the math still holds up. And I do so love math for that very reason.

Ah, people who understand math. You’re both on to me, and have cut to the correct heart of the issue.

The argument that Solo Q is “completely random” is 100% false, and the math bears this out. The system is not bias in this way.

A much better, or much more relevant argument which could have been made, is that even though an individual player’s skill level is the only determining factor over time, it’s not a big ENOUGH determining factor in the very short term, and the amount of games necessary to hammer out the variances is too high. That would have been a fair point to make.

Here’s another piece to think about though: Some people are complaining that bad players are clogging up the system, and increasing the variance when you get put on a team with them. But let’s envision a scenario where this isn’t true, let’s say that players had to achieve a certain rank or skill level to qualify for Solo Q.

In this scenario, your individual effect on the game shrinks, rather than growing. If only people of mid to high skill are playing (instead of all ranges), or if you only play people of very very nearly the same skill as you, you remove variance from the player skill side of the equation. That’s the side where you can be a more significant X factor, by having a very high skill level compared to the whole spectrum of players. Since there’s less variance in that area, now a larger percentage of the determining factor becomes composition. Isn’t that true?

…oh well. The OP wanted to complain, and that is what it is. The point is that Solo Q is a place where variance exists, and if you hate variance, then you need Team Q. Otherwise, be aware that your skill still ultimately determines your ratio in Solo Q and so it’s still on you, but that’s only how you do over the “long haul”.

Justin ODell.9517:

It would not be a simple change for the existing systems unfortunately. We also can’t just slip things in to random updates like that for many good reasons which I agree with but can’t get into on the forums.

There’s actually one very simple thing you can do to improve things: new players are limited to hotjoin, solo arenas unlock at rank 20, team arenas at rank 30 (ballpark of course).

manveruppd.7601:

Justin ODell.9517:

It would not be a simple change for the existing systems unfortunately. We also can’t just slip things in to random updates like that for many good reasons which I agree with but can’t get into on the forums.

There’s actually one very simple thing you can do to improve things: new players are limited to hotjoin, solo arenas unlock at rank 20, team arenas at rank 30 (ballpark of course).

This actually would reduce the amount of influence that a single, excellent player could have on the game.

Besides, imagine if things were fixed so that you only played with 9 other people of your EXACT skill level, then composition really would be the only determining factor and people would still cry about the luck because it was random.

Don’t worry about it. Instead, just focus on making yourself the best, most effective player you can possibly be and grind it out. Over time, you should experience a positive ratio if you truly are good. When variance bites you in the fanny, my advice is just to not come crying to the forums about it.

The focus of the complaints would most likely shift from “noob players r bad” to “combo of X, X, Y, Z, Z is OP.”

In other words, there are those that complain just to complain.

if you spot someone is new, and they don’t seem to know what they are doing, have you tried explaining to them, in a respectful tone, and offering advice?

we were all noobs once. and sure maybe you learned the hard way on your own, well done. but now these new players are luckier, they have resources (note: you, or other vets) who CAN help them. and the more you’re willing to offer but 2-3 mins of simple explanations or tips, the faster they learn, and the more knowledgeable they are.. the better the PvP scene will be for everyone.

of course, this is in an ideal world.. and the people you talking to will need to be susceptible for advice and willign to learn (thus the talking to them respectfully right off the bat instead of raging beacuse you just lost). and not saying that just because you spent time talkign to a noob equals the game will fix itself on its own.. but hey, it’s a right step to take. even if a baby step. the power is NOT only in ANet’s hands. sure, they obviously play a huge part, but a lot CAN and IS resting on OUR shoulders as well.

Tourneys matches shouldn’t be 5 or 10 rank higher or lower than your current rank. PvP need to have better match making tourneys ranking tbh.

Ludus Rex.1562:

This actually would reduce the amount of influence that a single, excellent player could have on the game.

Besides, imagine if things were fixed so that you only played with 9 other people of your EXACT skill level, then composition really would be the only determining factor and people would still cry about the luck because it was random.

Don’t worry about it. Instead, just focus on making yourself the best, most effective player you can possibly be and grind it out. Over time, you should experience a positive ratio if you truly are good. When variance bites you in the fanny, my advice is just to not come crying to the forums about it.

Wait, so what you’re saying is that spvp matches played between evenly skilled teams on high level basically boil down to builds alone?
Surely, if one team would have the perfect setup and the other something completely random (anything with a lot of eles, necros or thieves comes to mind), then I suppose team setups were the main factor, but otherwise…

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.
I’m not even talking actual teamplay here (and this game has rather little of what I define as real team-oriented gameplay to start with), but simple colapses/stand-alone movement decisions in order to achieve number advantage on key points. Though admittadly, warriors warped that kind of play to a certain extent.

On a side point, leaderboards have no place in soloq really, because sticking a rating to someting so arbitrary is rather pointless.

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

It does even out eventually and the way it makes teams now I don’t see how it could do it any better unless they are lieing about how they do it. Ten people are selected for a match and then they are put on teams in a way that makes the teams as close as possible rating wise. How can it be any fairer then that? All it takes is about a 50% winning percentage to get fairly high on the soloq leaderboards after the reset which is not that difficult. I have played thousands of soloq matches before the reset and 300+ since the reset and it is way better now then it was even though I did well under both systems it is way better, although not perfect because of newb MMR starting values and small population base, now. What people did under the old system is not germane at all because it was so deeply broken the roster matching system which would frequently put the top players on one team and then match them against five players all with lower ratings.

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

Aza.2105:

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

There’s no theory to it. It pure math and statistics. The fact that someone is expecting to win the vast majority of randomized 5-man pvp tournaments is being short-sighted. You’ll never have a 100% win ratio because of the randomization of it and the fact that your skill only contributes to 20% of your total team.

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

There’s no theory to it. It pure math and statistics. The fact that someone is expecting to win the vast majority of randomized 5-man pvp tournaments is being short-sighted. You’ll never have a 100% win ratio because of the randomization of it and the fact that your skill only contributes to 20% of your total team.

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

Show the results.

Aza.2105:

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

There’s no theory to it. It pure math and statistics. The fact that someone is expecting to win the vast majority of randomized 5-man pvp tournaments is being short-sighted. You’ll never have a 100% win ratio because of the randomization of it and the fact that your skill only contributes to 20% of your total team.

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

Show the results.

I posted the math behind it earlier on this page.

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

There’s no theory to it. It pure math and statistics. The fact that someone is expecting to win the vast majority of randomized 5-man pvp tournaments is being short-sighted. You’ll never have a 100% win ratio because of the randomization of it and the fact that your skill only contributes to 20% of your total team.

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

Show the results.

I posted the math behind it earlier on this page.

I’m not talking about the math. I’m talking about practical results that provide in the now.

akamon.2769:

if you spot someone is new, and they don’t seem to know what they are doing, have you tried explaining to them, in a respectful tone, and offering advice?

Actually I do try to help. But there’s not much you can do in the time allotted. Players should really have some idea what they are doing before they join the queues.

Aza.2105:

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

TChalla.7146:

Aza.2105:

Freeelancer.2860:

KarlaGrey.5903:

Moreover, does your understanding of ‘player skill’ also include movement and tactical decision-making, or just ‘skill’ as in executing one’s build better than their opponent (i.e. winning most of one’s 1v1s)? Because it by far doesn’t boil down to individual skill alone, and a random team with better player synergy (i.e. good rotations/colapses/prediction) can still beat an opponent who is better skilled, but has worse rotations. I’d see teams in spvp/tpvp lose the game even though they were wiping the floor with their opponents, score-wise.

As Ludus tried to explain time and time again, everything apart from what you yourself bring in the game is completely irrelevant, and that includes distinction between combat skill and situational awareness of other players, their build choices or what they ate for breakfast.
Given a big enough sample, in a random composition of soloque, all of the parameters even out eventually, with only you being the controlling factor. Leavers, individual combat skill, tactical prowess, r0 pvp newbies or r60 pro players etc… None of it matters and it all evens out eventually. What you are left with is what you bring to the game, and while it may take a while to get yourself to where you belong eventually you will get there.

There is zero practicality in any of this. There is no result, in fact no one supporting these mathematical assertions can even tell at what point in time a result would show itself. The only thing that is given is a vague “long haul”, “eventually get there” and so forth. Meaning you can use any time in the future to try to justify this theory.

There’s no theory to it. It pure math and statistics. The fact that someone is expecting to win the vast majority of randomized 5-man pvp tournaments is being short-sighted. You’ll never have a 100% win ratio because of the randomization of it and the fact that your skill only contributes to 20% of your total team.

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

Show the results.

I posted the math behind it earlier on this page.

I’m not talking about the math. I’m talking about practical results that provide in the now.

What you’re asking for is impossible for the here and now, apart from the fact that as a player, you can expect a win between 40% to 60% based on your skill alone.

(edited because I cannot believe I typed "hear instead of “here.”)

TChalla.7146:

I’m really disheartened at the fact that so many people just don’t understand how statistics work.

Some people just aren’t math people, and you know what? That’s fine. Not everybody needs to be. I’m okay with that. I’m more disheartened by what some people think constitutes a valid argument.

For example, I do not find things in the realm of “Nuh Uh! You haven’t provided an exact date and time when an individual’s total variance over games played will have perfectly balanced out, so it’s all NONSENSE!” to be a very strong case. I really wish that more people were interested in the truth than blindy pushing their original point.