Guild Wars 2

Appreciate the update, Evan

Any consideration for using higher of two MMR for duo queues? Lots of duos gaming mm with one sandbagged smurf.

Please Evan lock classes after Q and do it. If you combine it with a teambalancing after selecting the 10 Players (MMR, teams and class distribution) we are golden ….

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

“Oh Mr Pigeon. I’d kiss you if you weren’t swimming with disease.”

Thanks Evan! Yes, please, please, please trial changes in the off-season! Any thing that increases the “feeling” that the matchmaking algorithm is trying to create 50:50 matchups is appreciated.

I’d love it if you put out the balance patch(es) in the month before a season, so there’s time to balance and adjust them before the season starts.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Sins.4782:

Nice. Does this mean profession specific MMRs will actually be used then? Or are the changes just to class stacking/shuffling?

Nah, we can’t use profession MMR without locking them after queuing. It can better handle mirroring comps across teams.

I really really wish you would! I mean, profession-locking, more than pre-profession MMR, but … avoids the meta-game of chicken where you wait until the last possible moment to swap based on the other team comp, and hope they don’t do the same.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Perhaps you’d understand if you researched a bit on game development. Should be tons of resources if you feel like googling; things like quality assurance, build processes, release management, etc.

I’m sure there is an Alanis Morissette song that can be used to describe your comment.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Perhaps you’d understand if you researched a bit on game development. Should be tons of resources if you feel like googling; things like quality assurance, build processes, release management, etc.

I actually work as software developer, i am well aware it takes long time… just sad :/

I have reported this issue in December, you know?

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

You are amazing dude. One of the best devs I have seen in any game. I hope they pay you well.

thanks evan.
live long and /doh!

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Perhaps you’d understand if you researched a bit on game development. Should be tons of resources if you feel like googling; things like quality assurance, build processes, release management, etc.

Glad to see changes are in the works. Just from a layman’s point of view, having a trial period between seasons to iron out any kinks sounds a lot smarter than a knee jerk change in the middle of a season.

had a similar match recently where the enemy team had 2 duo q’s vs 1 on our side. That is fine and all except one of the duos on the other team was sindrener and vaanss, who are rank rank 2 and 50(?) on the ladder meanwhile i struggle to remain in plat t1. There is ~500 difference in rating between me and them.

This matchmaking feels unfair to the nth degree, ether you get a match that you for sure loose or win by 400 points. It is not fun to play ether way especially when you know you lost within the 1st min.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Bio Flame.4276:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Perhaps you’d understand if you researched a bit on game development. Should be tons of resources if you feel like googling; things like quality assurance, build processes, release management, etc.

Since your reply was so disrespectful and pratronizing, I’ll answer on the same tone:

Perhaps you’re understand if you researched yourself on PvP-centric games and their balance schedule, such as GW1, LOL, DOTA2, Overwatch, etc…
There’s tons of resources if you feel like googling or better yet, just ask ANET’s Devs how they managed to do fast updates on GW1.

Get off your high horse, it’s not helping you, nor the players, nor the game, nor your job…

Didn’t mean to be disrespectful! I also don’t have access to a horse. I just didn’t want to try describing our entire internal build process to explain why a change won’t get to live as quickly as players may want. The bugs I mentioned for the matchmaker are so minor that they don’t warrant a hot fix. The new matchmaker is not worth risking game stability in a hotfix either. The earliest build to ship these on with adequate testing that doesn’t throw off the rest of the studio will be the off-season build.

There are a whole lot of other teams shipping things here that are part of the flow too, and its a fun dance to make sure we’re all getting things shipped with a comfortable cadence. If PvP was its own standalone product with no shared resources like the games you mention, then shipping changes quickly might be easier.

Yet you weren’t so worried on shipping at least 5 iterations of broken matchmaking, i mean its SEASON 5, 4 years post launch, and PvP still isn’t viable. Maybe when the game’s 10 years old and you’re working on GW3 you’ll have the chance.

I get it, you want to get it right, BUT the problem is, the game’s not getting any younger, it’s not getting more relevant, the competitive scene isn’t getting more competitive, and you’re still working on a proper matchmaking algorithm. That’s something you should have been iterating WEEKLY on season 1 or earlier if you wanted it to go right.
Oh, and seasons are too short, which, if you look at other competitive games, is one of the factors that increase match fixing, and other system abuses, now add that to already flawed algorithms, and people leave your game.

GW1 managed to do it though…
Other MMOs can do it also. Maybe it’s not your fault, I can agree to that but still, the fact remains that other games can do it and we’re stuck here with bugs and faulty MMR.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to split into true Random Arena and Team-queue only instead of wasting resources, Dev time, programmer time into a match-making system that will never work?

ReaverKane.7598:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Bio Flame.4276:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

So we have to endure the bugs and flaws of the current system (that certain players abuse) until next season? Lovely… :/

Perhaps you’d understand if you researched a bit on game development. Should be tons of resources if you feel like googling; things like quality assurance, build processes, release management, etc.

Since your reply was so disrespectful and pratronizing, I’ll answer on the same tone:

Perhaps you’re understand if you researched yourself on PvP-centric games and their balance schedule, such as GW1, LOL, DOTA2, Overwatch, etc…
There’s tons of resources if you feel like googling or better yet, just ask ANET’s Devs how they managed to do fast updates on GW1.

Get off your high horse, it’s not helping you, nor the players, nor the game, nor your job…

Didn’t mean to be disrespectful! I also don’t have access to a horse. I just didn’t want to try describing our entire internal build process to explain why a change won’t get to live as quickly as players may want. The bugs I mentioned for the matchmaker are so minor that they don’t warrant a hot fix. The new matchmaker is not worth risking game stability in a hotfix either. The earliest build to ship these on with adequate testing that doesn’t throw off the rest of the studio will be the off-season build.

There are a whole lot of other teams shipping things here that are part of the flow too, and its a fun dance to make sure we’re all getting things shipped with a comfortable cadence. If PvP was its own standalone product with no shared resources like the games you mention, then shipping changes quickly might be easier.

Yet you weren’t so worried on shipping at least 5 iterations of broken matchmaking, i mean its SEASON 5, 4 years post launch, and PvP still isn’t viable. Maybe when the game’s 10 years old and you’re working on GW3 you’ll have the chance.

I get it, you want to get it right, BUT the problem is, the game’s not getting any younger, it’s not getting more relevant, the competitive scene isn’t getting more competitive, and you’re still working on a proper matchmaking algorithm. That’s something you should have been iterating WEEKLY on season 1 or earlier if you wanted it to go right.
Oh, and seasons are too short, which, if you look at other competitive games, is one of the factors that increase match fixing, and other system abuses, now add that to already flawed algorithms, and people leave your game.

What was GW1s release schedule for balance patches? I’m pretty sure gw2 is either more often or on a similar schedule. I’ve yet to see a competitive game where people don’t complain about the matchmaker, or claim to know more than the developers. If only they all got together and made their own game we would finally have a perfect PvP game.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Found a couple minor bugs in addition to the lack of reshuffling. I’ve also worked on a new version of the matchmaker that will improve roster size and profession matching. We will likely trial it during the off-season.

If I remember, I will update the wiki!

Good to see this. But why not lock professions before the queue pops? Seems silly to have matchmaking adjust for MMR and then likely be abused by people who swap.

The way I see it is I’d be more inclined to queue as something that then isn’t the profession I’d like to play to force MMR to roll something for the enemy that my desired swap/main hard-counters. Ultimately I think it might just make things even worse and more toxic/frustrating in the end.

As far as cadence goes, it’s kind of whatever. As a fellow developer, I agree in that you can’t really make changes to MMR midway through a season for both technical and design reasons.

However, the seasons are a bit short (MMR doesn’t get a long enough time to do its job properly) and the cadence on the profession team is definitely too slow in respects to keeping things interesting. Pushing a balanced and most importantly a fun game trumps any small stability issues that may arise, and faster iteration here lets for faster bug fixing; after all, you’ll always be playing catch-up anyways, and this lets for things like reworks (as many facets of the professions, especially elites desperately need) to happen more frequently to shake up the game just enough to keep the meta moving around. Nothing’s really changed in over a year since the elite spec launches; many argue it’s just gotten worse due to the stagnation and hyper-optimization with what are blatantly-obviously-best builds for every profession.

Cheers, though; love the communication. Absolutely great to see this kind of interaction with a competitive game-mode developer.

Faux Play.6104:

ReaverKane.7598:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Bio Flame.4276:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

.

.

What was GW1s release schedule for balance patches? I’m pretty sure gw2 is either more often or on a similar schedule. I’ve yet to see a competitive game where people don’t complain about the matchmaker, or claim to know more than the developers. If only they all got together and made their own game we would finally have a perfect PvP game.

So a couple points:
1) I never said i knew more or less than any dev, i just pointed out the game is well on it’s 4th year of existence and matchmaking, which is a fundamental thing to have working properly is still not doing it’s job. And that if we count only the ranked seasons, this is the 5th. So it’s the 5th design/balance cycle and it’s still not right.

2) The fact that they got it right in GW1 just makes the fact that they can’t in GW2 that much worse. They had ~10 years of GW1 and ~4 of GW2 to get it right.

3) DOTA, the original one, was pretty much the perfect PvP, same for the original CS. And their new versions aren’t that much worse, LoL is pretty good if you discount the community. There’s a lot of great PvP games that work well, which is why, there’s lots of examples of how to do it right and what not to do.

The common denominator with what’s wrong with those games, is that as soon as they reach a commercial level, and grow a large enough community that community becomes the problem.
What’s the common complaint with LoL, DotA, CS:Go, Etc.? It’s the toxic elements of the community.

And GW2 still doesn’t address that, which is compounded by a flawed matchmaker, by the inability to queue as a team, which make the toxic elements more prone to not-so-legal actions.

4)Then there’s the whole calendar… It’s backwards…
Look at LoL, that’s my go to example since it’s the one that i play the most. Their seasons are pretty much 1 year long, BUT they have a WEEKLY update cycle, with constant balances, new champions and reworks.
We have 2 month seasons and 2 month update cycles. Which means we’re stuck with entire seasons of unhealthy gameplay. AND when there’s a cycle, the changes are usually too mild on the bigger picture, so we pretty much have the same meta since HoT released, sure there’s some changes or others, Necros went from powerhouse to meh, but Ele, Mesmer, DH are still pretty much the same classes they were 1 year ago. That leads to a stagnant game, a frustrating game and a game where EVERYONE that has any ambitions of progression HAS to play the meta. Any deviation leads to splat, and that’s before the MMR and matchmaking shenanigans.

Honestly, when leagues were announced i had a small nerdgasm, that was about the time i was most into PvP, which was my go-to for off-living story time. After HoT launched PvP was a mess, then leagues came, the mess didn’t improve much, they tweaked a bit here and there and the meta started refining, but it’s still close enough to that, except now you have unkillable classes that can kill you pretty fast, unlike at the beggining where you’d be dancing around for the whole match without doing anything to each other. It’s an improvement, but doesn’t address the flaw.
To this date PvP is still meh, i have to force myself to participate, because it’s just not fun, especially now that most of my friends don’t play, and even if they did we couldn’t play together.
So i get my off-living story fix on other games, which is actually fun.

Hell im in unranked now and its getting worse. I won 6 times in a row and now Im paired with teammates who die at mid and insta quits the game. I’m losing 5~6 times in a row and literally being punished for my winning streak.

What am I supposed to do when my teammates decide to go afk or die so easily as a one man?

My rating is 853 and i start to play with ma friend who has rating 950. U write here that ppl with high rating get less points to win a more to lose yes correct. But what is wrong that we win and I with lower lvl get +15 a him get +36. Other starnge thing when i start was bronze under 850 a got for loose more than for win its quite demotivated u loose u get -20 once i get -44 without decay a if i win +14-16.
So 1st question why better rated ppl if we played together get better rate points ?
2st Why loose its so hard that i must win 2 or 3 games to get rate up only at bronze…?

First off I don’t think that Match making “sucks” I think that is really harsh and probably jsut used to get Evan’s attention. Which worked.

I am posting in this thread because it seems that most of the discussion I have wanted to participate in has happened here.

My main concern is that for Half of the match making season I held my main account in gold, and for this second half of the season, with most likely lowering populations, I have begun tumbling down.

What is my concern here? Well I think the system worked well when the season was highly populated with a wide range of players. However the system begins to snowball downwards when populations thin, and it is comprised of new comers.

My suggestion: Something i have noticed regardless of population shifts is that the timer for matches, the average time in queue has never changed no matter when I play. I have linked this to a swift degradation of the matches I play, now that the amount of players, and veteran players have left this season.

I respectfully request that you consider increasing queue times a bit more as the season winds down. I know the original reason they have been made so quick, is because of the complaints made in past seasons about Queue time. But, there must be some sort of mid-point as those of us , as a larger group of players the average to the slightly above average players, are being pushed into matches so quickly that the system is not providing very many quality matches.

ReaverKane.7598:

Faux Play.6104:

ReaverKane.7598:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Bio Flame.4276:

Evan Lesh.3295:

Cynz.9437:

Evan Lesh.3295:

.

.

What was GW1s release schedule for balance patches? I’m pretty sure gw2 is either more often or on a similar schedule. I’ve yet to see a competitive game where people don’t complain about the matchmaker, or claim to know more than the developers. If only they all got together and made their own game we would finally have a perfect PvP game.

So a couple points:
1) I never said i knew more or less than any dev, i just pointed out the game is well on it’s 4th year of existence and matchmaking, which is a fundamental thing to have working properly is still not doing it’s job. And that if we count only the ranked seasons, this is the 5th. So it’s the 5th design/balance cycle and it’s still not right.

2) The fact that they got it right in GW1 just makes the fact that they can’t in GW2 that much worse. They had ~10 years of GW1 and ~4 of GW2 to get it right.

3) DOTA, the original one, was pretty much the perfect PvP, same for the original CS. And their new versions aren’t that much worse, LoL is pretty good if you discount the community. There’s a lot of great PvP games that work well, which is why, there’s lots of examples of how to do it right and what not to do.

The common denominator with what’s wrong with those games, is that as soon as they reach a commercial level, and grow a large enough community that community becomes the problem.
What’s the common complaint with LoL, DotA, CS:Go, Etc.? It’s the toxic elements of the community.

And GW2 still doesn’t address that, which is compounded by a flawed matchmaker, by the inability to queue as a team, which make the toxic elements more prone to not-so-legal actions.

4)Then there’s the whole calendar… It’s backwards…
Look at LoL, that’s my go to example since it’s the one that i play the most. Their seasons are pretty much 1 year long, BUT they have a WEEKLY update cycle, with constant balances, new champions and reworks.
We have 2 month seasons and 2 month update cycles. Which means we’re stuck with entire seasons of unhealthy gameplay. AND when there’s a cycle, the changes are usually too mild on the bigger picture, so we pretty much have the same meta since HoT released, sure there’s some changes or others, Necros went from powerhouse to meh, but Ele, Mesmer, DH are still pretty much the same classes they were 1 year ago. That leads to a stagnant game, a frustrating game and a game where EVERYONE that has any ambitions of progression HAS to play the meta. Any deviation leads to splat, and that’s before the MMR and matchmaking shenanigans.

Honestly, when leagues were announced i had a small nerdgasm, that was about the time i was most into PvP, which was my go-to for off-living story time. After HoT launched PvP was a mess, then leagues came, the mess didn’t improve much, they tweaked a bit here and there and the meta started refining, but it’s still close enough to that, except now you have unkillable classes that can kill you pretty fast, unlike at the beggining where you’d be dancing around for the whole match without doing anything to each other. It’s an improvement, but doesn’t address the flaw.
To this date PvP is still meh, i have to force myself to participate, because it’s just not fun, especially now that most of my friends don’t play, and even if they did we couldn’t play together.
So i get my off-living story fix on other games, which is actually fun.

The gw1 system was random, but it was exploitable and people would be able to sync join in randoms. As for balance, smiter’s boon.

Syncing only worked, or worked better with a lower population.
But you’re right, it did exist.

Still, I am pretty sure it could be solved if ANET had used as much resources and Dev work-hours as they do to this idiotic matchmaking system.

And what you didn’t mention was that the GvG scene had a better matching system than GW2 ever did.
As for balance, whether you agree or not, the fact remains that balance was A LOT faster and better in GW1.
Faster, quicker, happened more often.

Bio Flame.4276:

Syncing only worked, or worked better with a lower population.
But you’re right, it did exist.

Still, I am pretty sure it could be solved if ANET had used as much resources and Dev work-hours as they do to this idiotic matchmaking system.

And what you didn’t mention was that the GvG scene had a better matching system than GW2 ever did.
As for balance, whether you agree or not, the fact remains that balance was A LOT faster and better in GW1.
Faster, quicker, happened more often.

People would just go to a weird district like romainian 2 and queue. It was nearly guaranteed to get the same people on your team as the people in your district. Balance was not a lot faster at the most it was monthly. Any build that didn’t have all the expansion packs was virtually useless. It was a great game, but there is clearly better matchmaking now. I thought GW1 had better PvP game modes, but not having a dedicated healer/prot character limits what you can do.

With a skill rating of 1598 I got matched against 1643,1808,1865,1905,2012.
I have never checked that before but I got the feeling that my opponents did
not belong in “my” matchup. Matching players with such a huge skill difference
is not fair.

TheFamster.7806:

Hell im in unranked now and its getting worse. I won 6 times in a row and now Im paired with teammates who die at mid and insta quits the game. I’m losing 5~6 times in a row and literally being punished for my winning streak.

What am I supposed to do when my teammates decide to go afk or die so easily as a one man?

Be thankful that the other team have five slots those insta-quitters could be assigned to, so you are more likely to win a game than lose it because of them?

Witi.2916:

My rating is 853 and i start to play with ma friend who has rating 950. U write here that ppl with high rating get less points to win a more to lose yes correct.

If someone wrote that, they were wrong. The size of your MMR changes is determined by the “confidence” value assigned to you, so the more often you win or lose as expected, the smaller the changes are.

That means a person with bronze skill and bronze MMR will have small changes, and so will a person with platinum skill and platinum MMR.

What you might be seeing is that by using a duo-queue you force a person to be placed against teams they would not normally match with, and so they unexpectedly lose, leading to both lower confidence, and more losses.

Marxx.5021:

With a skill rating of 1598 I got matched against 1643,1808,1865,1905,2012.
I have never checked that before but I got the feeling that my opponents did
not belong in “my” matchup. Matching players with such a huge skill difference
is not fair.

If your team had a similar distribution of MMRs, that’d be reasonably fair. In any case, it is also possible that duo-queue, the substitution bug, or simply being off-hours, so getting queued faster rather than fairer, influenced this.

At least you would also be predicted to lose, so you shouldn’t see a significant MMR change downward, if it was stacked against you.

A bunch of self-entitled pvp’ers in this thread. Shocking.

Evan,
How is it possible that in a duo Queue playing several games consecutively, I can lose more rating on losses than my partner and gain less when we both win? As I understand the algorithm that should not be possible. If I’m more volatile I should both gain and lose more?

shion.2084:

Evan,
How is it possible that in a duo Queue playing several games consecutively, I can lose more rating on losses than my partner and gain less when we both win? As I understand the algorithm that should not be possible. If I’m more volatile I should both gain and lose more?

Simple your Duo Queue partner is lower Mmr than you…. not to also factor in any volatility differences.

BlaqueFyre.5678:

shion.2084:

Evan,
How is it possible that in a duo Queue playing several games consecutively, I can lose more rating on losses than my partner and gain less when we both win? As I understand the algorithm that should not be possible. If I’m more volatile I should both gain and lose more?

Simple your Duo Queue partner is lower Mmr than you…. not to also factor in any volatility differences.

Yes but shouldn’t my probability to win a match be based on my teams average MMR vs. my opposing team’s average MMR? We all have the same chance to win, my chance to win on a team is no greater than my partners????

shion.2084:

BlaqueFyre.5678:

shion.2084:

Evan,
How is it possible that in a duo Queue playing several games consecutively, I can lose more rating on losses than my partner and gain less when we both win? As I understand the algorithm that should not be possible. If I’m more volatile I should both gain and lose more?

Simple your Duo Queue partner is lower Mmr than you…. not to also factor in any volatility differences.

Yes but shouldn’t my probability to win a match be based on my teams average MMR vs. my opposing team’s average MMR? We all have the same chance to win, my chance to win on a team is no greater than my partners????

It’s your Skill rating vs the opposing teams Skill rating. Not the averages of both that are factored, as far as I can tell. And then after that you have to factor in Volatility which will be different for everyone/

But that what be a sort of self evident flaw in logic for how you would apply this algorithm. I mean glaringly so right?

Why should anyone’s odds on a team be better than another member of their team if you can only win or lose as a team. It is obvious that everyone on one team has the same chance to beat the other team…. because they are a team.

Thus you either all did better or worse than you should have and should have your ratings adjusted with volatility in mind. But if I loose more because of volatility then it follows I should have gained more.

This seems far worse than the substitution hole. It seems to obvious for this to be wrong….

shion.2084:

Evan,
How is it possible that in a duo Queue playing several games consecutively, I can lose more rating on losses than my partner and gain less when we both win? As I understand the algorithm that should not be possible. If I’m more volatile I should both gain and lose more?

this is the duo(trio, quad,“false team”) problem , how they manage them for mm.
first seasons they do it taking the lesser or the average of team, and that results in a simple exploit for top players, create and alt, smurf the alt ,lower the team average, and start to farm till the smurf alt has growed enough …. repeat

after they decided to take the top one of the team

in this season i dunno how it managed it

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

for mm purpouses a duo is like a single player that ocupies two slots (they do their calculations to give to that “entity” a mmr number) and after make the q.
the lesser duoer not drag entire team to a lower mmr match, if the duo are calculated as average, the duo brings a lower player and a higher, if taken the high one(last seasons do it) brings a sandbag, this is the reasons that make that in great numbers anet says duoq is not a “exploit” but everyone knows that a duo of same level players being coordinated(voice coms, knowing eachothers plystile) brings a great advantage in the solo environement

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

for mm purpouses a duo is like a single player that ocupies two slots (they do their calculations to give to that “entity” a mmr number) and after make the q.
the lesser duoer not drag entire team to a lower mmr match, if the duo are calculated as average, the duo brings a lower player and a higher, if taken the high one(last seasons do it) brings a sandbag, this is the reasons that make that in great numbers anet says duoq is not a “exploit” but everyone knows that a duo of same level players being coordinated(voice coms, knowing eachothers plystile) brings a great advantage in the solo environement

I don’t think you understood the point.

Ok, let’s say duo is observed as single entity with their own MMR. Let’s say Player A is 2k MMR and Player B is 1k MMR. Is it safe to assume this “entity” is in average 1.5k MMR? Ok, so the game will try to find a match with 8 other players around 1.5k MMR.

For argument sake let’s say it managed to find 8 players with exactly 1.5k MMR each and creates the match. Both teams in average have 1.5k MMR, so numbers say they both have equal chances of winning. So, how can you claim that Player B has less chance of winning, if teams are created in this manner, to justify higher reward, but lesser penalty? Yes, he is facing stronger opponents than himself, but in his team there is also player that is better than enemy, so teams should be (in theory) of equal strength. So, how can in one team, which on paper is of same strength as the other team, you can have 2 players with different chances of winning the match? It is completely absurd.

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

AngryBear.8741:

megilandil.7506:

and the reason is that your partner is lesser in mmr terms than you, they “have to work more” to be competitive in the environement where you drag him and logically their reward is bigger on wins and less penalized in losses

Actually I agree with this, except I would use completely opposite logic. If Player A has higher MMR than Player B and they queue together and win, isn’t it logical that Player A gets higher reward because he was the one carrying (you said it yourself)? To me what makes no sense is being carried and getting bigger reward.

carrying or being carried is not a factor for algorithm, they can factor it, b have to do more efort to stay competitive and not being a sandbag for entyre team that the player that is playing at her level, and for your logical aproach the ones who have to be more rewarded are the three other guys, they dont choice to drag the lesser mmr one, the duoer choice it

Actually, if MM is working properly (and I firmly believe it is not bcs of lack of players) then teams are made to be of equal strength (or as close as possible). In that sense, no one should be carrying anyone, since average team MMR should be equal or close (for example, other team also has someone with lower MMR who drags MMR of the entire team which then in the end makes the match balanced after all). Therefore, it doesn’t make sense (as someone was saying before me) that 1 player in the same team “has more chance to win/lose” than the other player in the same team. Therefore getting/losing different amount of points is completely wrong if matches are made “fair”.

for mm purpouses a duo is like a single player that ocupies two slots (they do their calculations to give to that “entity” a mmr number) and after make the q.
the lesser duoer not drag entire team to a lower mmr match, if the duo are calculated as average, the duo brings a lower player and a higher, if taken the high one(last seasons do it) brings a sandbag, this is the reasons that make that in great numbers anet says duoq is not a “exploit” but everyone knows that a duo of same level players being coordinated(voice coms, knowing eachothers plystile) brings a great advantage in the solo environement

I don’t think you understood the point.

Ok, let’s say duo is observed as single entity with their own MMR. Let’s say Player A is 2k MMR and Player B is 1k MMR. Is it safe to assume this “entity” is in average 1.5k MMR? Ok, so the game will try to find a match with 8 other players around 1.5k MMR.

For argument sake let’s say it managed to find 8 players with exactly 1.5k MMR each and creates the match. Both teams in average have 1.5k MMR, so numbers say they both have equal chances of winning. So, how can you claim that Player B has less chance of winning, if teams are created in this manner, to justify higher reward, but lesser penalty? Yes, he is facing stronger opponents than himself, but in his team there is also player that is better than enemy, so teams should be (in theory) of equal strength. So, how can in one team, which on paper is of same strength as the other team, you can have 2 players with different chances of winning the match? It is completely absurd.

its the base of ELO system, your reward depends of diference whith oponents, the chances of wining and others only are adjustments to aply this system to teams

megilandil.7506:

its the base of ELO system, your reward depends of diference whith oponents, the chances of wining and others only are adjustments to aply this system to teams

I understand that but my opinion is that it is absurd. It is absurd to try to create balanced matches where people have different expectations to win. I admit that I am maybe stupid, but I don’t see how that makes sense to anyone.

It is not just that the matchmaking is bad. The overall quality of players is pretty low as well. I really do not think that in prior seasons the players were actually so clueless as they are now. Fighting off points, not rotating, playing curve ball builds.

The worst part is that rarely people communicate.

Okay so how am I suppose to get good if in gold/plat all the teammates i have are ragers who goes afk or dies instantly without doing anything while the other team is seriously stacked against me?

What do I gain from losing 100-500 each game because people afk, tunnel vision, flame and have stacked classes while I get pulled into matches that I know I will lose in the first 2 minutes because my team wiped and the rage begins?

If I am not good enough for certain matches don’t put me in those matches and have me suffer through 10 minutes of losing while the matchmaking takes another 5~7 minutes. Just tell me that there aren’t enough players at my level queuing and suggest the hour and time that I should queue so that I can enjoy a proper matchmaking/ranked games instead of punishing me for queuing.

I get that Im not good enough for high level play so put me in a match that properly reflects my skill instead of some severely stacked team against my odds

e.g. If I lost 100-500 in a match, don’t put me in the same match with same people in my teammates versus the same opponents. I know I lost when i see the same people im playing with alreaxcdy

And here is more. This was all ranked, played in the prime time (so don’t give me those off-peak hours theories). So last 10 matches, 50% were not even close between the teams. We are not talking about 1 match in thousands, we are talking about 50% of matches in the prime time.

Typically indicative of an imbalance somewhere, be it matchmaking by rank or profession comps.

Either way I think the PvP community is too small to really bring any substantial meaning to Ranked play aside from the very top tiers, and the swingy-matchups are pretty much impossible to balance in multiple levels without extremely long queues.

You’d probably see more balanced matchups if there wasn’t a storm of new/PvE players wanting ascended gear loot boxes achievable via grinding games and not caring about the win/loss. Although you could argue that with so many fewer people playing, the potential pool of candidates to create a good matchup would be heavily reduced and possibly have the same effect.

Overall, the game-state right now via profession design and PvP objective design is just not conducive to housing a substantive competitive PvP environment.

since this game relies heavily on team/class/build counters, could mmr take this into account somehow? I guess the only way would be to have a very strict build choice option, i.e. you can only play meta builds. probably wouldn’t be very popular. although as far as I know, isn’t this how mobas do it? hmm maybe a program could be made that matches a build against a certain meta build (more than a 75% match for example), and allows for off meta builds to join as well by assigning a team slot for them on each team? obviously this would take a ton of manpower, but if it could be done would it work?

Ithilwen.1529:

I just got rolled over by an esl player in unranked. I’m in bronze 2. I know it wasn’t ranked. This kind of match doesn’t inspire confidence in the system.

Yes, I tend to play on off hours. Still, this kind of match is not unusual for me.

Team PZ is pro? Oh god, matchmaking and rating placements are worse than I could have imagined.

Also despite my saltiness Evan: Thank you for responding to some concerns players have had and I know you have to be transparent but Thank you for sharing some future plans with us, sadly for you, I’ll b here another season :P

SlippyCheeze.5483:

Witi.2916:

My rating is 853 and i start to play with ma friend who has rating 950. U write here that ppl with high rating get less points to win a more to lose yes correct.

If someone wrote that, they were wrong. The size of your MMR changes is determined by the “confidence” value assigned to you, so the more often you win or lose as expected, the smaller the changes are.

That means a person with bronze skill and bronze MMR will have small changes, and so will a person with platinum skill and platinum MMR.

What you might be seeing is that by using a duo-queue you force a person to be placed against teams they would not normally match with, and so they unexpectedly lose, leading to both lower confidence, and more losses.

You also get rating based on against who you play, this is particulary notorius in oof hourss and duos (the case the guy its refering), the system give more to the duo less rated and less to the duo more rated and inversily if they lost, both deviation (glicko 1 feature) and volatility (glicko 2 feature) are aplicated of course.

The idea its pretty simple: if a more skilled player lose against a weaker opponent, his rating should drop by more because its very improbable he lost, meaning theres more chances that he lost because his not as skilled. And if he wins, he was expected to, so its not a great display of skill. With glicko the probabilities of losing/winning also include the deviations in the formulas.

Edit: that part im refering its there since Elo xd. Just in case, it could sound the same as the confidence part you put, but its not the same since agregates more variables and at the same time interacts with what you said (it changes de deviation using the change in volatility – aprox. i dont know this that good).

http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

Check the example he does when he gets the Glicko 2 rating (not converted to glicko 1 yet), the formula uses the probabilities and multiplicate them by the deviation, that means the rating and deviations of the enemy are considered in the rating movement before deviations).