Guild Wars 2

The progressiveness of this season and the last season is demoralized by the amount of rating we gain vs the amount we lose. That is the main reason why people won’t invest in this season as much due to this, and along with incentive. There are a lot of factors that determine your rating which is the people you fight in placements/games, teammates who are either decent or inexperienced, and how well you can carry your team. It’s really unproductive when you’ve been queing for 3 hours to get 30 rating, and to lose it all with 1 loss due to unfortunate RNG. It’s something we can’t avoid, but a suggestion I would like to make is that you shouldn’t be able to drop below a tier in each division aside from Legendary which was similar to the Pip system in Season 1-4. Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum, and for each of these there are 3 tiers. Just make it so that we cannot drop once we reach a tier. Once you hit Legendary you should still be able to drop, but not past the tier 3 Platinum to keep it consistent. If you cannot fix the rating gain vs loss, I feel like this is one of the ways to keep consistent. If you don’t fix any of this with Season 7, I would say that people will quit more and more. Consider this change.

I agree that its totally a deflating system…..nothing sucks more then to spend hours and hours on a win streak too have it sucked away in a single loss… happened multiple times yesterday with games you were in so i know were in the same boat LOL

Personally I’d advocate for matchmaking and matches to only search for and match players with/against other players in the same division.

Bronze only with and VS other Bronze
Silver only with and VS other Silvers
Gold only with and VS other Golds
Plat only with and VS other plats
Legend only with and VS other legends.

Right now queues are “fast” but that really doesn’t matter too much as a lot of the matches produced are honestly terrible, and just not fun to play, and as Marvin has stated has lots of RNG.

While locking matchmaking per division might make queue times slightly longer, I am confident that match quality will improve vastly across the board, as well as make each match “worth playing,” as in no more +0/1/2/3 type matches, while simultaneously having a risk of -30~.

The other alternative would be to have all MMR Gains/Losses based off of team average MMR, and not personal MMR.

Im not huge on the idea of people not being able to drop once they pass a certain tier… however i would love to just see the rating loss dialed back a bit… if i go 3-3 my rating should be closest to ~0 change with the current system i could go 3-1 and id be negative rating change and to me thats absurd

Note – id be totally fine with big losses if it would fairly reward us with big gains when we beat people well above us but it simply doesn’t do that.

Absolutely no way ever should you have a system were you can’t get demoted/promoted that is absurd, then we will end up with players who do not belong in certain tiers at all just as in previous seasons

Rating loss is insane, you can get like -30 or more for a bad RNG game but wins only get you like +5-7 if you’re lucky. Side effect of low pop matchmaking but idk how ANet can fix this short of restricting queues to +1/-1 sub divisions (eg. gold t3 / plat t1 / plat t2 in same game maximum and no other deviation) to wins/losses are around 12/13 rating.

I don’t see a point in keeping the div once you reach it not being able to drop, it’s far too easy to luck out and place in Plat when you don’t belong there the current system is fine if you don’t play/keep up the skill you don’t get to stay there.

Class specific MMR is also a problem here. Someone might get to gold and then swap to their favorite but not quite as well played class. If they can’t drop in ranking at some point this produces more subpar results in matches.

I’d say that what S7 needs is a way for the system to handle outliers where there is large rating disparity. Maybe a modifier that reduces negative volatility based on number of games played. If you play, say, 120 games you shouldn’t have to win 80% of your games to maintain your rating. This at least would let top players play more often without fear of sliding down rapidly when they “only” are winning 60% of the time.

I know that once I reach my min. Games I will stop pvping bc I have hardly any to gain and everything to lose.

Oh god, please no.

Changing rating loss will do absolutely nothing but inflates everyone’s rating and potentially ruin the glicko algorithme.
Same goes with safeguards, but it’s even worse for the few players who will get ‘luckily’ promoted to a division they don’t belong in.

People need to understand that their rating does not represent their personal skill level, it represents their personal skill level in comparaison to that of all the other players. And the technology to represent someone’s skill level regardless of the other players does not exist yet.

I disagree with the losing rankings. You need to lose rankings if you lose alot at a certain point.

But i do agree something needs to change with the numbers.

I was literally in a match 2-3 days ago where a DH ran to far where i was capping home. I won the 1 vs 1.

My team lost 4 vs 3 at mid and then 1 player decided to blame me for the loss because i was running rifle.

I lost 15 that match, Anet put me on a team where the other 4 players on the team could not win a single team fight.

Its S6 and we dont see the teams MMR rating which is total BS to me. How can i get -32 one game and +9.

Show me the teams ratings so i at least know i wasnt cheated with your MM.

Glicko isn’t a progression scheme, it’s a skill rating system. Glicko isn’t here to make you feel good, it’s here to quantify your skill. Why should you be given the same amount of rating for winning against lesser players as you do for losing against lesser players?

Because kitten rng matchmaking thanks to EZPORTS GW2 and its wide EZSPORTS community.
+
kitten anet and its super bugs that kick you from match and doesnt let you rejoin giving dishoner. Oh and i kicked out just at the countdown.

I had a lot of matches that were +3, +4 for a while. But at the same time if I had 1 loss it would be like -25; and this was decently well into the season, not the beginning. Seeing this is demoralizing, it translates into a wasted hour and a half +. I wont really go into the lack of population, sometimes terrible matchmaking (like why put 2 high rank duo ques against all lower rated solo ques? is this fun for either side?) etc issues since we all know those are present.

If you lose I think yes you should lose rating, but 1 loss should not be the equivalent of 5+ games. If you do lets say 4 games per hour, because ques are ~7min, games I’m giving 10 min or so, you lose over an hour of progress with 1 loss. >.> It ends up feeling like a waste of time and does not encourage high participation.

Crinn.7864:

Glicko isn’t a progression scheme, it’s a skill rating system. Glicko isn’t here to make you feel good, it’s here to quantify your skill. Why should you be given the same amount of rating for winning against lesser players as you do for losing against lesser players?

Glicko works best when a team of players has the same rating. When the skill range for a team is large, the average rating becomes significantly different from the best and worst players. if matches are made this way, over time everyone will get driven to the same rating. The bad played get minimal point loss for a loss, and they get a significant boost for a win. The opposite happens with the good players. They get very little for a win and get punishes hard for a loss.

I know the matchmaking is pulling from a wide set of players because I’ve been on a team with top 5 players when I’ve had a rating between 1350-1450, in NA.

No one here is asking for you not to lose ratings on loss…..

But all things being equal if I go 1-1 my rating should change 0

If I go 1-1 but my win was against better opponents and I lost against equally skilled opponents then I should still be positive

If I go 1-1 And lose to people ranked lower then me then win a following game against equal skill then my rating would still be negative it’s not a hard concept to. Follow

Nova.3817:

If I go 1-1 but my win was against better opponents and I lost against equally skilled opponents then I should still be positive

If you and your teammates go 1-1 against the same opposition, you should be at neutral, not positive.

Animism.9803:

Nova.3817:

If I go 1-1 but my win was against better opponents and I lost against equally skilled opponents then I should still be positive

If you and your teammates go 1-1 against the same opposition, you should be at neutral, not positive.

no your not understanding…. if the first game i play i win but my opponents consist of overall higher rating then my team then i should get more rating for a win (bc they would be a harder opponent to beat) ……then i play a 2nd game where the skill rating of both teams are equal and i lose —-- then i would be positive as that loss shouldnt way as much as the previous win.

Nova.3817:

If I go 1-1 but my win was against better opponents and I lost against equally skilled opponents then I should still be positive

If I go 1-1 And lose to people ranked lower then me then win a following game against equal skill then my rating would still be negative it’s not a hard concept to. Follow

You do realise that this is exactly how the current system works right ?

Spoichiche.1290:

Nova.3817:

If I go 1-1 but my win was against better opponents and I lost against equally skilled opponents then I should still be positive

If I go 1-1 And lose to people ranked lower then me then win a following game against equal skill then my rating would still be negative it’s not a hard concept to. Follow

You do realise that this is exactly how the current system works right ?

If that was true….. then how am I winning games with one set of people getting+4 then next game play against people who were just on my team and lose 24! I simply don’t think that’s exactly how it works atm

i am open to the fact that i may be wrong but at 1750 rating the group of people that im currently playing is fairly small and i know 70% of them…… so i know that either i should be getting more then just +4 OR im losing WAY to much in my mind…. again i have nothing against having a fair rating system….. its just hard to swallow my rating going down on a 70% win rate…

This is indeed how it’s supposed to work. One weird thing to keep in mind though is that it’s your own personal rating being compared win the average rating of the enemy team.
If you are at 1750 sr, it very likely that you are playing against a few other high rated players but that the average rating of the enemy team is lower than 1750.

I’d like anet to change this system and make it average vs average instead of personal vs average, but at the same time i’m not really sure what the consequences of this could have on the system.

Spoichiche.1290:

This is indeed how it’s supposed to work. One weird thing to keep in mind though is that it’s your own personal rating being compared win the average rating of the enemy team.
If you are at 1750 sr, it very likely that you are playing against a few other high rated players but that the average rating of the enemy team is lower than 1750.

I’d like anet to change this system and make it average vs average instead of personal vs average, but at the same time i’m not really sure what the consequences of this could have on the system.

HMM so your saying it determines +/- based on your personal MMR vs Enemy Team MMR average? if so it would seem that the obvious fix would be to compare apples to apples here and put the average of both teams to determine +/-. i agree this should happen if even for a trial run

sorry i have to disagree w/ this even if i like being in platinum. i certainly dont want people who doesnt play equal or better than me be in the same place or above. but i understand where u getting at. the MM rating gains and loses promoted above 50% win rate. i think its not too much to ask for players. the problem resides in MM pairing platinum players w/ 200+ rating diff. there should be a cap for ex. t2 plat can only play w/ others 1 tier above or below them. so a legendary t1 can only play with t2 legendary or t3 plat. so on and so forth. u get it.