Guild Wars 2

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).

Rank 30 is something like 100-200 hours of hotjoin. I would never condone sentencing a new player to 200 hours of hotjoin before being allowed into ranked matches.

There are often guilds that try PvP together for the first time, and I think a lot more will be doing it now that rewards are being revamped. There are also second accounts, NA players forming an EU account and vice versa, and the occasional really good WvW player who just hasn’t done that much PvP yet.

The best solution is to keep growing the PvP playerbase, like they’ve been focusing on with new rewards and just making the game better. Even in perfect circumstances, random teams will still be random. You could have a high-ranked teammate who happens to be playing drunk, or the other team could have a new player who played 10 solo queues, lost them all, then spent a month practicing in dueling servers and came back a hundred times better. There’s simply no way to make random arenas not have a random element.

Aza.2105:

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

Doesn’t it seem at all hypocritical to you to make one claim (that all Solo Q sPvP results are random) and provide absolutely zero evidence to support your claim, but then to cry foul when another person makes a claim, which then becomes much more widely accepted (only upvoted post in this thread), on the basis that even though they explained the mathematical truths that make their claim true (more than you have ever provided), that the claim is invalid because they haven’t provided specific case evidence (I don’t know how you could obtain this, any game records of any players would have to be substantiated by verifying the quality of the player’s skill level through peer reviews)?

You make one claim, and provide no evidence. Someone else makes another claim, widely agreed with by people who understand the math behind it, and you say that a claim is invalid without specific case evidence. Do you not find this hypocritical?

Once again, I recommend personal responsibility. If you do not agree with this, and stick to your claim that Solo Q sPvP results are totally random, why don’t you provide some specific evidence supporting your claim?

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

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

Doesn’t it seem at all hypocritical to you to make one claim (that all Solo Q sPvP results are random) and provide absolutely zero evidence to support your claim, but then to cry foul when another person makes a claim, which then becomes much more widely accepted (only upvoted post in this thread), on the basis that even though they explained the mathematical truths that make their claim true (more than you have ever provided), that the claim is invalid because they haven’t provided specific case evidence (I don’t know how you could obtain this, any game records of any players would have to be substantiated by verifying the quality of the player’s skill level through peer reviews)?

You make one claim, and provide no evidence. Someone else makes another claim, widely agreed with by people who understand the math behind it, and you say that a claim is invalid without specific case evidence. Do you not find this hypocritical?

Once again, I recommend personal responsibility. If you do not agree with this, and stick to your claim that Solo Q sPvP results are totally random, why don’t you provide some specific evidence supporting your claim?

You are mistaken, I’m not crying foul about anything. Neither is it hypocritical since I never specifically stated my experience applied to everyone in soloq nor did I completely negate your perspective. You on the other hand dismissed the OP’s perspective entirely and shifted it around to the make it seem that his problem with arena is solely his “personal responsibility”. When even Anet confirmed that what he was complaining about was indeed a problem.

I’ve told you earlier on that your thought process in regards to the matter was very linear. Straight line thinking, this equals that, that equals this, so this equals that and this why this happens. The problem with this is things never move in such a straight line, since there are so many outside influences that will cause deviations. Meaning your statistics will end up different than how you initially imagined them.

Regardless, the only thing that matters is the now, not in the “long haul” but in the “now”. None of what you said can be applied practically in the now.

Aza.2105:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

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

Doesn’t it seem at all hypocritical to you to make one claim (that all Solo Q sPvP results are random) and provide absolutely zero evidence to support your claim, but then to cry foul when another person makes a claim, which then becomes much more widely accepted (only upvoted post in this thread), on the basis that even though they explained the mathematical truths that make their claim true (more than you have ever provided), that the claim is invalid because they haven’t provided specific case evidence (I don’t know how you could obtain this, any game records of any players would have to be substantiated by verifying the quality of the player’s skill level through peer reviews)?

You make one claim, and provide no evidence. Someone else makes another claim, widely agreed with by people who understand the math behind it, and you say that a claim is invalid without specific case evidence. Do you not find this hypocritical?

Once again, I recommend personal responsibility. If you do not agree with this, and stick to your claim that Solo Q sPvP results are totally random, why don’t you provide some specific evidence supporting your claim?

You are mistaken, I’m not crying foul about anything. Neither is it hypocritical since I never specifically stated my experience applied to everyone in soloq nor did I completely negate your perspective. You on the other hand dismissed the OP’s perspective entirely and shifted it around to the make it seem that his problem with arena is solely his “personal responsibility”. When even Anet confirmed that what he was complaining about was indeed a problem.

I’ve told you earlier on that your thought process in regards to the matter was very linear. Straight line thinking, this equals that, that equals this, so this equals that and this why this happens. The problem with this is things never move in such a straight line, since there are so many outside influences that will cause deviations. Meaning your statistics will end up different than how you initially imagined them.

Regardless, the only thing that matters is the now, not in the “long haul” but in the “now”. None of what you said can be applied practically in the now.

Anet admitted there was a skill gap issue for the whole random queue. However, this problem lies with every team, so in essence, it’s still a matter of probability, and the only constant is you.

The thought process is a linear one because the problem itself is linear.

If any PvPer is looking for instant gratification, they’re in for a let down. Your PvP ranking is based on wins over time. Asking for a “here and now” response is like looking at a 30 year monetary investment you made yesterday and panicking because it dropped in value today.

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

Ludus Rex.1562:

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

A initial step is to change it so 4v5 does not count against your rating.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation.

Justin ODell.9517:

Aza.2105:

This might be worse, you may get communication sure. But Team Arena it seems like its more geared towards a dedicated group of pvpers.

The fact it is geared toward more dedicated pvpers is why I think the OP might enjoy it more. Though, I agree… there are some very good players in this arena and it can be very hard to win.

Aza.2105:

Between 4v5, skyhammer, being grouped with rank 5s and other clueless players….its frustrating. I can understand the OP perspective.

Agreed. We’re working on all of the above.

Aza.2105:

The worst part of all, your rating is tied to your wins and losses. But how is it your fault if you played well but everyone else did not? It would make sense for a static team to have a group lose and win ratio. But solo needs something better, like overall stats.

It’s the nature of the beast. PvP is a team sport, and that may sometimes suck in solo arena but do keep in mind other players are being treated the exact same way. I’m experimenting with ways to compensate for this as far as MMR and matchmaking is concerned, but I wouldn’t expect this to change for rewards or ladders.

Aza.2105:

Hey Justin, I’m currently in another 4v5 whoooooo! And it will count against my overall record.

Why are you posting on the forums during a match?! Get back in there and stand on those circles!

You know what I hate? Starting a match, starting to win, doing really great, then the other team starts to ragequit, and I get autobalanced to the losing team.

Happens all the time, ugh… LOL

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation. Stop and think before you post.

It’s not misinformation. If you were playing with and against other players with the exact same skill level as you, your win/loss ratio would be 50/50. On top of that, the probability of losing 8 in a row increases as you get to the same skill level. It’s simple mathematics. The fact that you can’t see that doesn’t make it wrong.

Aza.2105:

A initial step is to change it so 4v5 does not count against your rating.

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. If a 4v5 can’t count against your rating, then can a 5v4 (in your favor) count for your rating? To discount any matches where one of your teammates bails, you have to discount any matches where an opponent’s teammate bails. How would you stop people from trolling by quitting a match where your team took an early lead? If someone bails 1.5 minutes in, and it becomes a 5v4 in your favor, should you not get credit for the win? How do you propose to give credit to the winners in this system, without having it count against the losers?

Again, your team should be LESS vulnerable to 4v5 situations than your opponent’s team, assuming that you never AFK.

Again, if nobody ever went AFK, it would make games more competitive (which I’m for), but if you never AFK, this would actually decrease your long term advantage in this regard (resulting in greater losses).

I am sick of this part of the game and every time i play spvp i want to delete the game. I enjoy the other parts of the game pve and wvw but spvp makes me want to puch the screen. The balance has been a problem for more then a year now and it’s not geting any closer to being fixed. The capture the point mode is beyond kittened. The only reason i still play spvp is that i would like to get the high lvl finishers. If it weren’t for those i wouldn’t touch spvp ever again. It’s the absolute worst part of gw2 and it’s been like this since release.

Thedenofsin.7340:

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation.

Repeating that something is untrue does not make it untrue. Why don’t you try deconstructing my argument and explaining WHY it’s untrue, if this is how you feel?

It’s not really debatable, it’s just a fact. My impulse is to explain the reason again, but I feel like I’ve already done that and you’re just choosing not to try and understand it.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

A initial step is to change it so 4v5 does not count against your rating.

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. If a 4v5 can’t count against your rating, then can a 5v4 (in your favor) count for your rating? To discount any matches where one of your teammates bails, you have to discount any matches where an opponent’s teammate bails. How would you stop people from trolling by quitting a match where your team took an early lead? If someone bails 1.5 minutes in, and it becomes a 5v4 in your favor, should you not get credit for the win? How do you propose to give credit to the winners in this system, without having it count against the losers?

Again, your team should be LESS vulnerable to 4v5 situations than your opponent’s team, assuming that you never AFK.

Again, if nobody ever went AFK, it would make games more competitive (which I’m for), but if you never AFK, this would actually decrease your long term advantage in this regard (resulting in greater losses).

No a 5v4 in your favor shouldn’t count towards your rating either. It works both ways. When I say 4v5, I’m not adding afks and rage quitters in the equation. I’m speaking of when either team starts the match with 4 out of 5 people. This happens quite often, the match starts and red or blue team is undermanned. In rare cases the 5th team mate may show up, but its tends to be near the end of the match.

If a team doesn’t have a 5th player within a certain time frame after the match begins then the system should prematurely end it and not be rated.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Aza.2105:

A initial step is to change it so 4v5 does not count against your rating.

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. If a 4v5 can’t count against your rating, then can a 5v4 (in your favor) count for your rating? To discount any matches where one of your teammates bails, you have to discount any matches where an opponent’s teammate bails. How would you stop people from trolling by quitting a match where your team took an early lead? If someone bails 1.5 minutes in, and it becomes a 5v4 in your favor, should you not get credit for the win? How do you propose to give credit to the winners in this system, without having it count against the losers?

Again, your team should be LESS vulnerable to 4v5 situations than your opponent’s team, assuming that you never AFK.

Again, if nobody ever went AFK, it would make games more competitive (which I’m for), but if you never AFK, this would actually decrease your long term advantage in this regard (resulting in greater losses).

This doesn’t even take into consideration the fact that if I was in a 4 vs. 5 situation and actually won, I’d be pretty ticked off that it didn’t count.

Aza.2105:

No a 5v4 in your favor shouldn’t count towards your rating either. It works both ways. When I say 4v5, I’m not adding afks and rage quitters in the equation. I’m speaking of when either team starts the match with 4 out of 5 people. This happens quite often, the match starts and red or blue team is undermanned. In rare cases the 5th team mate may show up, but its tends to be near the end of the match.

If a team doesn’t have a 5th player within a certain time frame after the match begins then the system should prematurely end it and not be rated.

I just need you to understand that in the long run, if you never AFK, that this will hurt you (in terms of win/loss ratio) MORE than it will help you.

So it still can’t really help things like “8 losses in a row!” complaints.

I want to be the “naysayer” here; I’m enjoying pvp, quite a bit. Just because there are some people here saying they hate it and it’s awful, doesn’t make it so. I like it, and I know others that do as well.

Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement – there most certainly is! – but saying its terrible isn’t true. Saying its terrible FOR YOU might be, but don’t speak for us all.

when you leave can i have your gold?

oh sorry PVPer – nevermind

Romek.4201:

when you leave can i have your gold?

oh sorry PVPer – nevermind

Didn’t you get the memo? They give us gold now! I’m gonna buy a pony.

I enjoy tpvp from time to time, and have since release. That being said, I am incredibly sick and tired of the matchmaking. Today I had one 22 and THREE level 1 teammates, against a team of 20s-30s, on skyhammer no less. To be fair, three level 1s is unusual, but having a whole team under level 10 is pretty normal. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, and ruin the game. Even when i’m on the team that has 20-30s against -10s, it is so annoying. I can either camp their spawn or go afk on a point and look at my email etc.

A simple option is to make a level 10 a solo Q minimum. I would like to say level 20, but I would never want to force someone to stay in hotjoin that long.

I want to enjoy soloQ, but its nearly impossible when its either steamroll or get steamrolled 90% of every match.

Kysin.6349:

I enjoy tpvp from time to time, and have since release. That being said, I am incredibly sick and tired of the matchmaking. Today I had one 22 and THREE level 1 teammates, against a team of 20s-30s, on skyhammer no less. To be fair, three level 1s is unusual, but having a whole team under level 10 is pretty normal. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, and ruin the game. Even when i’m on the team that has 20-30s against -10s, it is so annoying. I can either camp their spawn or go afk on a point and look at my email etc.

A simple option is to make a level 10 a solo Q minimum. I would like to say level 20, but I would never want to force someone to stay in hotjoin that long.

I want to enjoy soloQ, but its nearly impossible when its either steamroll or get steamrolled 90% of every match.

This is actually fairly valid.

Some people in this thread were complaining that they lose because of noobs, and it ruins Solo Q. I was pointing out that if you’re very good, a game flooded with noobs actually causes you to win more than it causes you to loose, so getting rid of the noobs can’t possibly do anything to help the variance that results in “OMG 8 LOSSES IN A ROW?! RAGE QUIT!”

But, if a person’s complaint is that “the matchmaking system has too wide a range in player selection, and the result is that the games often don’t feel competitive, and I don’t like that when it’s hurting me OR when it’s helping me”, well, that’s a valid point.

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Kysin.6349:

I enjoy tpvp from time to time, and have since release. That being said, I am incredibly sick and tired of the matchmaking. Today I had one 22 and THREE level 1 teammates, against a team of 20s-30s, on skyhammer no less. To be fair, three level 1s is unusual, but having a whole team under level 10 is pretty normal. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, and ruin the game. Even when i’m on the team that has 20-30s against -10s, it is so annoying. I can either camp their spawn or go afk on a point and look at my email etc.

A simple option is to make a level 10 a solo Q minimum. I would like to say level 20, but I would never want to force someone to stay in hotjoin that long.

I want to enjoy soloQ, but its nearly impossible when its either steamroll or get steamrolled 90% of every match.

This is actually fairly valid.

Some people in this thread were complaining that they lose because of noobs, and it ruins Solo Q. I was pointing out that if you’re very good, a game flooded with noobs actually causes you to win more than it causes you to loose, so getting rid of the noobs can’t possibly do anything to help the variance that results in “OMG 8 LOSSES IN A ROW?! RAGE QUIT!”

But, if a person’s complaint is that “the matchmaking system has too wide a range in player selection, and the result is that the games often don’t feel competitive, and I don’t like that when it’s hurting me OR when it’s helping me”, well, that’s a valid point.

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

I agree and disagree. There is in fact, a large difference between even a person who is not highly skilled yet knows the strategy of Tpvp and a total newb. You can carry a team that at least has some idea what to do much, much easier. Yet I do understand your logic, and agree that it has some truth to it.

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation.

Repeating that something is untrue does not make it untrue. Why don’t you try deconstructing my argument and explaining WHY it’s untrue, if this is how you feel?

It’s not really debatable, it’s just a fact. My impulse is to explain the reason again, but I feel like I’ve already done that and you’re just choosing not to try and understand it.

Fine. Here’s why it is untrue: you are evaluating the problem in a vacuum. The reality is that you are not taking into account the fact that the number of players is finite and players tend to play multiple games in a row, which means the player pool is not random at all. You also aren’t taking build synergy into account.

Justin ODell.9517:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

I just wanted to highlight this point. I strongly suggest people keep that in mind when discussion matchmaking.

You sure about that Justin? Think about how a good player may select a build, skills and utilities which synergize well with more experienced players, but not as well with inexperienced players.

Venom shares, lockdown/interrupt builds – heck even knowing how Illusion of Life works – I used to run Portal + IoL in solo Q as a mesmer, but it can be a waste of a slot (sometimes 2), depending on who you are teamed with.

A condi-heavy necromancer is very powerful, but only if his team knows enough to give him lots of support and cover. Otherwise that condi necromancer suddenly becomes a hindrance to the team instead of an asset.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Justin ODell.9517:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

I just wanted to highlight this point. I strongly suggest people keep that in mind when discussion matchmaking.

You sure about that Justin? Think about how a good player may select a build, skills and utilities which synergize well with more experienced players, but not as well with inexperienced players.

Venom shares, lockdown/interrupt builds – heck even knowing how Illusion of Life works – I used to run Portal + IoL in solo Q as a mesmer, but it can be a waste of a slot (sometimes 2), depending on who you are teamed with.

A condi-heavy necromancer is very powerful, but only if his team knows enough to give him lots of support and cover. Otherwise that condi necromancer suddenly becomes a hindrance to the team instead of an asset.

Right, the part I keep trying to explain is that any benefit that you and your team might experience by converting 4 potentially bad players, to 4 seasoned pros, will be a GREATER benefit to the opposing team, who will be converting 5 potentially bad players, to seasoned pros.

It absolutely does not matter what benefit you think you will attain by getting more good players on your team, the fact is, since your team has 4 blank slots and the opponent’s team has 5 blank slots, they get MORE of this benefit. You’ve accused me of looking at things in a vacuum, when I just keep telling you how these changes will effect you RELATIVE to how it effects the opposing team. I think you might actually be looking at the benefits in a vacuum.

You keep saying “My team gets better if it’s not full of noobs!”
And I keep telling you “The other team gets better by a larger margin than yours does, because they had more open slots available for noobs”.

Does that make sense?

Other people have said this, but it bears repeating: The best way to reduce variance and have more of an impact on the game than simply being 20% of your team, is to talk to your teammates before the match and try to work with them. If you can influence their gameplay in a positive way, you’re now having the largest impact you can have.

After that? Let the chips fall where they may, and take pride in playing well regardless of the outcome. Good poker players also learn the pitfalls of result oriented thinking.

My humble suggestion is, make a restriction of being at least rank 20 before being able to use Solo / Team Arena. I’m fully aware that rank doesn’t remotely equal player skill. But there’s something equally as important that matters. Knowledge and experience.
I’m not saying this will entirely fix the problem, but it would greatly help. Playing with players that are aware how the Point System / Map / Basic strategies work, is a huge amount of help. Something that for example a rank 10 won’t have (unless it’s an alt) and even less if it’s a below rank 10.

When the game was reels we all ware noobs, some went to dungeons and wvw other to pvp. Now ppl have some sort of understanding and complain when someone from wvw join’s a solo/team arena.
Keep in mind without number’s on the mist pvp will DIE. You cant expect competitive pvp with 1-2 min que with 20 ppl at same rang and rating. The solution here is to have some sort of required wins to join solo arena for example earn the title avenger before joining solo que. Or give us the SO MUCH WANTED 2V2 AND 3V3 MODES. Its hard to get 5 ppl at same time and same skills to play for team arena together.
This conquest mode is just not good enough anymore

Justin ODell.9517:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

I just wanted to highlight this point. I strongly suggest people keep that in mind when discussion matchmaking.

Theoretically correct but emotionally wrong:
do you prefer to lose in a match with all people of you rank (but bad at playing) or with players of rank 1?

Personally I prefer to lose and think “my teammate were bad/opposite team was stronger” rather than “kitten , another match with rank 1 guys… why there is no entry barrier?”.

PS: Entry barrier is easy to implement and it could help A LOT to improve average player skill in solo queue. (note: I said “improve”, not “make good”; not much but better than nothing)

Ludus Rex.1562:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Justin ODell.9517:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Getting rid of noobs can’t help a good player win more, at all, ever, but tightening up the matchmaking system COULD make for more competitive (and potentially more interesting/exciting) games.

I just wanted to highlight this point. I strongly suggest people keep that in mind when discussion matchmaking.

You sure about that Justin? Think about how a good player may select a build, skills and utilities which synergize well with more experienced players, but not as well with inexperienced players.

Venom shares, lockdown/interrupt builds – heck even knowing how Illusion of Life works – I used to run Portal + IoL in solo Q as a mesmer, but it can be a waste of a slot (sometimes 2), depending on who you are teamed with.

A condi-heavy necromancer is very powerful, but only if his team knows enough to give him lots of support and cover. Otherwise that condi necromancer suddenly becomes a hindrance to the team instead of an asset.

Right, the part I keep trying to explain is that any benefit that you and your team might experience by converting 4 potentially bad players, to 4 seasoned pros, will be a GREATER benefit to the opposing team, who will be converting 5 potentially bad players, to seasoned pros.

It absolutely does not matter what benefit you think you will attain by getting more good players on your team, the fact is, since your team has 4 blank slots and the opponent’s team has 5 blank slots, they get MORE of this benefit. You’ve accused me of looking at things in a vacuum, when I just keep telling you how these changes will effect you RELATIVE to how it effects the opposing team. I think you might actually be looking at the benefits in a vacuum.

You don’t substitute 9 noobs with 9 veterans. You’d substitute 1,2,3 and, rarely, 4.
MMR matching is not random: it’s specifically ordered. Player skill level is not uniform – it is likely to be closer to normal or rayleigh.

Here was another, this time out of team queue:

The smart guy left before the match was over.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Here was another, this time out of team queue:

The smart guy left before the match was over.

I never leave, no matter how bad the matchup; in fact, in a match already in progress, I’ll either join random or join the losing team

Funny thing is, last time I joined the losing team, it autobalanced me to the winning team almost as soon as I entered – and the score difference was significant! I just chuckled and shook my head. I tried lol

More people should simply set up their own teams, solves the problem.

TChalla.7146:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation. Stop and think before you post.

It’s not misinformation. If you were playing with and against other players with the exact same skill level as you, your win/loss ratio would be 50/50. On top of that, the probability of losing 8 in a row increases as you get to the same skill level. It’s simple mathematics. The fact that you can’t see that doesn’t make it wrong.

I can see that the probability of losing 8 straight increases when a very good player gets placed on teams against other very good players for every game.

Because before, they had terrible players on the opposite teams that they could easily dominate.

I can see that logic.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Here was another, this time out of team queue:

The smart guy left before the match was over.

What was smart? He made NO points by leaving the match, and got dishonor as well to stop him from playing for a while.

Morfedel.4165:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Here was another, this time out of team queue:

The smart guy left before the match was over.

I never leave, no matter how bad the matchup; in fact, in a match already in progress, I’ll either join random or join the losing team

Funny thing is, last time I joined the losing team, it autobalanced me to the winning team almost as soon as I entered – and the score difference was significant! I just chuckled and shook my head. I tried lol

You’re talking ’bout hotjoin. Which is irrelevant to any form of competitive pvp in gw2.

I have to admit that sometimes, like today, I feel just like the OP did when he started this thread.

PvP in GW2 is something that could be great but is currently VERY frustrating.

It is frustrating because it is a completely uneven experience. One match you are thrown into an absolutely unwinnable situation. The next you are given the win on a platter. You almost CANNOT lose.

On the next match your build is completely countered by several opposing team members who proceed to stomp you repeatedly, no matter how well you play your character.

Chase.8415:

If your ranking is so low that people stand next to you on a treb, perhaps you stop using the treb until your ranking gets better.

See that would make sense… if the ranking system didn’t blow. Before they reset things, i hit rank 72. When it was reset, I was defaulted to rank 65%… I CAN NOT GET OUT OF IT.

I can not break 72%.. and its for reasons like this.. just stuck with bad players, and its hard to carry them. Also, at this level, lots of afk’ers too… i think I have a 20% 4 v 5 rate….

I quit SPVP not for any huge reason other than its bad.

Only thing SPVP is good for imo is playing 3 hotjoin matches for an easy laurel.

Michael.9517:

See that would make sense… if the ranking system didn’t blow. Before they reset things, i hit rank 72. When it was reset, I was defaulted to rank 65%… I CAN NOT GET OUT OF IT.

I can not break 72%.. and its for reasons like this.. just stuck with bad players, and its hard to carry them. Also, at this level, lots of afk’ers too… i think I have a 20% 4 v 5 rate….

Pre reset I was probably top300-400 (my personal high was 211). After reset my rank quickly dropped to ~30%. Pulled myself out of ELO hell and now I’m at 91% with the current gain rate being 1-3% per day.
I’m at best an average skilled player, but I have good situational awareness (and in conquest mode the latter one is more important). I also try to communicate with the team either through map drawings or by suggestions/tips.

Silentshoes.1805:

TChalla.7146:

Thedenofsin.7340:

Ludus Rex.1562:

Additionally, some of the initial complains were about losses caused by relatively new players, and I was just pointing out that if you are very good player (well above average), then tightening up the skill range in the match making system will result in more losses, not fewer.

The games would be closer, and more competitive, which I would certainly welcome, but for problems like people raging because they lost 8 in a row? Well, there’d actually be more of that (for high skilled players) not less. Any proposal to limit the amount of time that you (presumably a good player) have to spend playing with n00bs, will not help you in any way, shape, or form, for what you’re calling “the now”. Do you have an alternate proposal?

This is simply untrue. Stop spreading misinformation. Stop and think before you post.

It’s not misinformation. If you were playing with and against other players with the exact same skill level as you, your win/loss ratio would be 50/50. On top of that, the probability of losing 8 in a row increases as you get to the same skill level. It’s simple mathematics. The fact that you can’t see that doesn’t make it wrong.

I can see that the probability of losing 8 straight increases when a very good player gets placed on teams against other very good players for every game.

Because before, they had terrible players on the opposite teams that they could easily dominate.

I can see that logic.

MMR team making is fixed and ordered. Introducing one new player among the 9 veterans will nearly guarantee the team which has that new player will lose.

Since the player pool is small, players tend to play multiple matches consecutively, and the MMR matchmaking is ordered based upon that MMR ranking, the probability you will continue to get that player on your team is much higher than 50/50. So you are much more likely to have streaks of 8 wins or 8 losses with a new player thrown into the mix than without.