Guild Wars 2

http://strawpoll.me/6996103

So, originally there was a matchmaking system that tried to equalise teams as much as possible.

If there were 10 players of a wide range of MMR, the system would shuffle everyone between the teams, giving each team some high MMR players and some low players.

Overall, the system kinda achieved its goal – regardless of complaints, the stats said that most people had around 50% win rate. This was just an outcome of the algorithm, it’s not it’s “goal” – it’s not deliberately trying to make you lose after some wins.

Some people complained about this, though. They didn’t like the 50% win rate, and they accused the system of deliberately giving you some bad team mates after a win streak, etc. Personally I find these claims a bit hard to believe, but I don’t have any personal evidence one way or the other so whatever.

So anyways, this season ANet changed the matchmaking to be MMR based for finding teammates, and ladder based for finding opponents.

Some people cling to the old idea that the game gets 10 players and then sorts into teams (accusing the system of sorting the best 5 into one team, and the worst into other, meaning 100% chance of unbalanced matchup), but reading the algorithm I don’t think that’s true.
It finds teams with MMR ratings close to each other, and then finds an opposing near your pip level, also formed with similar MMRs to themselves. So it’s mostly random whether your opponent team has a higher, lower or equal average MMR – the only factor is their pip level.

Anyways, the outcome of this is, high performance teams (I’m deliberately avoiding the word “skill” here – performance is all that matters), will have a higher winrate. But for every winning team, there has to be a losing team. Which means that half of the population will have a winrate above 50%, and the other half will have a winrate below 50%

Logically, it’s impossible to have it both ways – either everyone is 50%, or half the players are above 50% and the other half below 50%.

So, which system do you prefer?
A fair match system, where the outcome is a 50% win rate for everyone?
Or a meritocracy system, where the outcome is that high performance teams will win often, and low performance players will lose a lot?

(Note that I said “performance”, not “skill”. Even Roger Federer would lose, if he plays with a wooden racquet and high heels. And even Michael Jordan would lose, if he chooses his team mates by picking people out of the audience randomly. There’s more to being successful in a game/sport than just what you do inside the match.)

This is a cogent explanation of the current system however i think there are a couple of misconceptions. At the lower levels the placement of teams will not be random as there’s less people with lower MMR than higher. So this would account for many of the huge loss streaks and I’d say the range of MMR would vary more widely as well. As a result people are put into teams with an almost 100% loss rate despite the algorithm not appearing to behave like that. Things do improve as the divisions get higher and it should be more random but I’m sensing theres a lot more other factors in play. Profession imbalance, solo q vs premade, people leaving games, afking, or throwing games that prevent it from being purely random.

Ranked is more competitive than unranked so it’s better for improving performance. But the current system does not foster under skilled players. Pro leagues want a place they can play competitively against similarly skilled players as well. And that’s understandable. So there’s no choice but to seperate the two. Or change the game to 50% (no one should have the match stacked agaisnt them) and make progressing up and beyond ruby something that only highly skilled players can do.

I want a 100% win rate. Of course so does everyone else, so a 100% win rate isn’t exactly sustainable, but that’s why I don’t like PvP. For you to win, someone else has to lose. I’d prefer to avoid PvP entirely, because I know for a fact that I do not like it, but they don’t give players that option if they want to get the Ascension wings, so it’s a Catch 22.

But yeah, 100% winrate.

jessiestiles.9437:

This is a cogent explanation of the current system however i think there are a couple of misconceptions. At the lower levels the placement of teams will not be random as there’s less people with lower MMR than higher. So this would account for many of the huge loss streaks and I’d say the range of MMR would vary more widely as well. As a result people are put into teams with an almost 100% loss rate despite the algorithm not appearing to behave like that.

Or change the game to 50% (no one should have the match stacked agaisnt them) and make progressing up and beyond ruby something that only highly skilled players can do.

Well, it’s an inconvenient (and unspoken) truth that there are players out there who are actually less effective than your average PvP beginner, and will never improve. (It’s not necessarily their “fault” – part of improving effectiveness is getting a team you trust, playing often, using voice comms, etc. Not everyone is able to go to those lengths.)

In a meritocracy-based ladder, we imagine that everyone will improve, and climb over the newer players, finding their place in the middle-upper sections of the ladder somewhere.
But actually, there will be players who are less effective than even the average beginner, who can’t be anything other than the stepping stones for everyone else. Being destined for 100% losses may be a rude shock to some of those players, I guess. (well, except when these players randomly match against each other. Then they might get a lucky win.)

Dunno, my other competitive experiences are with Fighting Game tournaments and amateur (real life) basketball leagues. Since I’m quite casual, it’s normal for me to be cannon fodder for 90% of the participants in any tournament. I expect to be destroyed in my first match in a tournament, and if I’m lucky, I’ll get a fair fight in the loser’s bracket on my second match.
Similarly in basketball, although we weren’t the worst team in our division, 3/4 of the other teams were much better and would easily win.

So yeah, I don’t really get the mentality “The matchmaking must only give me fair matches! Preferably ones I will win!!1!”

In most other competitive activities, matchmaking is either completely random (tournaments) or you play -everyone- else (leagues.)

(Oh, and compounding all of this is the fact that new players start with average MMR, which means that, unless they prepared carefully by training in unranked / customs first, they’re destined to lose their way to their proper MMR, taking down other teammates struggling to climb out in the process.)

Ohoni.6057:

I want a 100% win rate. Of course so does everyone else, so a 100% win rate isn’t exactly sustainable, but that’s why I don’t like PvP. For you to win, someone else has to lose. I’d prefer to avoid PvP entirely, because I know for a fact that I do not like it, but they don’t give players that option if they want to get the Ascension wings, so it’s a Catch 22.
But yeah, 100% winrate.

Yeah, I was going to make another thread called, “Rewards ruin everything.”

This is what i prefer always

is not really like you say.

with S1 system put you in a fair match, you can play better than what “system think” and that adjust what “system think” or worse.
the brick wall in S1 is 50% win rate. if you have that, that mmr is your skill.

in S2 the system put you against team that are probably better that your if your mmr is under 50% of all player mmr.
if your mmr is the bottom 5 mmr you have 100%lose, if you are top 5 mmr you get 100% win.
so the mmr system put you in a match that confirm your mmr. there is no adjust at what “system think”.
more you have no fair match, no fun.
in s2 the brick wall is 50% win rate too, for the mass that stay in the middle and have in their pip range +7-7 the same number of team over and under.
and still you get e team above you? you lose, under ? you win…so why play?
and how many time it will take? dunno.
and for works as intended, you really need to have 1 team for pip…that is almost impossible.
note that in S2 we spoke mostly about team, your faith is hard linked to your team faith, because if your mmr is 1327, you will get 4 ppl at 1327, that due low population will be the same forever.
here because S2 will give an upper hand to team instead of soloq, because basically in soloq you are in a team with no organization.
and S2 will never give as output the best player.

S1 vs S2 is an unfair match of S2

Rieselle that is simply not true

1) A lot of ppl got inflated Ranks because MMR would group bad/mediocre players (i assume u r one and were not on the receiving end) with great players.

So great players never got “good” matches and had to carry like crazy just to get legend.

2) The current matchmaking is actually a ladder:
It is not u being placed on low MMR and loosing because of that.
It is first getting roflstomped by great players who are playing through the divison
and/or actually being simply a bad player.

Now ppl of almost same MMR getting grouped is a good thing.
And playing against any other group in the same division is a good thing
→ why is the 2nd a good thing? → BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME DIVISION

Eventually same MMRs in each divison will evolve and u get the 50% wall again,
but this time it will be accurate.

So yeah, the system atm is fair and less carebear.

Rieselle.5079:

Well, it’s an inconvenient (and unspoken) truth that there are players out there who are actually less effective than your average PvP beginner, and will never improve. (It’s not necessarily their “fault” – part of improving effectiveness is getting a team you trust, playing often, using voice comms, etc. Not everyone is able to go to those lengths.)

In a meritocracy-based ladder, we imagine that everyone will improve, and climb over the newer players, finding their place in the middle-upper sections of the ladder somewhere.
But actually, there will be players who are less effective than even the average beginner, who can’t be anything other than the stepping stones for everyone else. Being destined for 100% losses may be a rude shock to some of those players, I guess. (well, except when these players randomly match against each other. Then they might get a lucky win.)

Dunno, my other competitive experiences are with Fighting Game tournaments and amateur (real life) basketball leagues. Since I’m quite casual, it’s normal for me to be cannon fodder for 90% of the participants in any tournament. I expect to be destroyed in my first match in a tournament, and if I’m lucky, I’ll get a fair fight in the loser’s bracket on my second match.
Similarly in basketball, although we weren’t the worst team in our division, 3/4 of the other teams were much better and would easily win.

So yeah, I don’t really get the mentality “The matchmaking must only give me fair matches! Preferably ones I will win!!1!”

In most other competitive activities, matchmaking is either completely random (tournaments) or you play -everyone- else (leagues.)

(Oh, and compounding all of this is the fact that new players start with average MMR, which means that, unless they prepared carefully by training in unranked / customs first, they’re destined to lose their way to their proper MMR, taking down other teammates struggling to climb out in the process.)

Yes I read the scrubs philosophy. I believe it said (paraphrasing) “As in real life, in games, you only care about yourself. And scrubs have a philosophy in life, omg! (not sure the author could even spell philosophy) And it’s not the same as mine!! WTF!”

The exact reason people don’t want to play a game that involves them losing constantly is this is something they do to enjoy themselves (something the scrubs philosophy frowns upon above winning) and they might as well do something else. Being cannon fodder is not something they see as enjoyable. Some of them even, get this, don’t enjoy using other people as cannon fodder either and don’t care to win that way. They don’t see a flaw in the system and think “I can exploit this to interrupt someone else’s enjoyment.” They would much rather lose than degrade their own morals. That sounds perfectly rational to some people and insane to others.

I can totally see where you are coming from with your basketball and you sound really passionate and it’s so commendable that you stick with it. But not everyone thinks the same and they don’t need to be demeaned because of that.

Think about divisons as leagues:

So in S3
leges should start with ruby.
diamonds with saph
ruby with emerald
rest in amber

And it would be enjoyable for all and ppl would play sooner there
where they need to improve to progress

Leeloo.4185:

is not really like you say.
with S1 system put you in a fair match, you can play better than what “system think” and that adjust what “system think” or worse.
the brick wall in S1 is 50% win rate. if you have that, that mmr is your skill.

[snip!]

You talk like Leeloo.

Everyone’s preferred win rate is 100%.

However, because achieving that is practically impossible, I believe that most people’s preference for a gameplay experience would be to have close matches regardless of the win/loss outcome.

The current system results in massive lop-sided wins/losses, which is just awful.

Pure Heart.1456:

Everyone’s preferred win rate is 100%.

However, because achieving that is practically impossible, I believe that most people’s preference for a gameplay experience would be to have close matches regardless of the win/loss outcome.

The current system results in massive lop-sided wins/losses, which is just awful.

I disagree – real pvp players yes.
But that is not “most players” – it is a minority.

Wannabe pvp players just want to roflstomp to legend and cry for nerfs, etc.
They fixate not on improving themselves/the game, but on “robbing” others.

Simply put:
Most players just want to gank and make others feel bad.

However, because achieving that is practically impossible, I believe that most people’s preference for a gameplay experience would be to have close matches regardless of the win/loss outcome.

The current system results in massive lop-sided wins/losses, which is just awful.

I have to say, I prefer close matches that I lose to getting completely blown out, but I definitely prefer matches where my team absolutely obliterates the opposing team to matches where my team just barely wins. If we can get to 300 before they get to 50, awesome! I feel kinda bad for the other team, but I definitely prefer to be in absolutely no danger of losing.

Potentially losing stresses me out. I know some people enjoy that stress, and more power to them, but I have absolutely no interest in it, which is one of the reasons I never PvP except when the game forces me into it. It is just not a game-type that I enjoy on any level, and the less stress a match can have, the better.

Ideally I could be crushing teams of bots rather than teams of actual human beings, but I would prefer to crush teams of human beings to getting crushed by them, or forcing both sides to go through 10-15 minutes of tense back and forth.

As a solo player 10% would be enough in a team based game and let the match making search for other individuals to fill the 50% win rate as team against other 50% win rate team. That kind of match up I wanted to game with.

Pure Heart.1456:

Leeloo.4185:

is not really like you say.
with S1 system put you in a fair match, you can play better than what “system think” and that adjust what “system think” or worse.
the brick wall in S1 is 50% win rate. if you have that, that mmr is your skill.

[snip!]

You talk like Leeloo.

Someone failing really badly at imitating/mocking someone who doesn’t speak English as a first language. Its not even close. Google Translate probably does a better job.

Ghede.9145:

Think about divisons as leagues:

So in S3
leges should start with ruby.
diamonds with saph
ruby with emerald
rest in amber

And it would be enjoyable for all and ppl would play sooner there
where they need to improve to progress

Exactly

Out of curiosity and I know I may be breaching forum guildlines, can anyone name me a multiplayer game where tactics is a very small part of the game whereas individual skill and teamwork is paramount?

Out of curiosity and I know I may be breaching forum guildlines, can anyone name me a multiplayer game where tactics is a very small part of the game whereas individual skill and teamwork is paramount?

I’m not really sure what sort of distinction you’re trying to cut here, “tactics” are an integral part of teamwork, and most individual skill as well. Are you talking more twitch reflexes or something?

Ohoni.6057:

Out of curiosity and I know I may be breaching forum guildlines, can anyone name me a multiplayer game where tactics is a very small part of the game whereas individual skill and teamwork is paramount?

I’m not really sure what sort of distinction you’re trying to cut here, “tactics” are an integral part of teamwork, and most individual skill as well. Are you talking more twitch reflexes or something?

Well there is a distinction, you can have teams with good teamwork, good comms, individuals who have good twitch reflexes but use bad tactics and lose the game as a result.

I am not entirely sure if the above-mentioned scenario plays out in GW2 as I don’t play a lot of PVP but I am quite sure it happens in other multiplayer games.

Lol at high performance, if I may OP what is performance to you?? It’s doesn’t take a brain to know that a team full of good player will have a better performance than one full of noobs. So, your argument is invalid, although it has a few good points.

Khal Drogo.9631:

Ohoni.6057:

Out of curiosity and I know I may be breaching forum guildlines, can anyone name me a multiplayer game where tactics is a very small part of the game whereas individual skill and teamwork is paramount?

I’m not really sure what sort of distinction you’re trying to cut here, “tactics” are an integral part of teamwork, and most individual skill as well. Are you talking more twitch reflexes or something?

Well there is a distinction, you can have teams with good teamwork, good comms, individuals who have good twitch reflexes but use bad tactics and lose the game as a result.

I am not entirely sure if the above-mentioned scenario plays out in GW2 as I don’t play a lot of PVP but I am quite sure it happens in other multiplayer games.

Oh you mean play like Thelordseth portal ing home, hence losing his team the game?? But the same lordseth has been seen around twitch preaching the holy gospel of CARRYING. And tbh, idk if he supposed to CARRY his herd of sheeps home or to the next division.

Well there is a distinction, you can have teams with good teamwork, good comms, individuals who have good twitch reflexes but use bad tactics and lose the game as a result.

Maybe, but I don’t think an individual can claim to have “good individual skill” without having a solid tactical mindset. Otherwise that’s just pure twitch reflex, and I doubt there are many games in which you can become “pro level” with just twitch reflexes (although they are certainly necessary to deploy solid tactics effectively).

And if a team cannot share and coordinate those solid tactics then they can’t claim to have good teamwork no matter how linked up they are. Communication only serves a purpose if it allows the team to deploy tactics more efficiently. It doesn’t matter if everyone knows exactly where each other are and what they are doing if they don’t know how they’re meant to respond to that knowledge.

jessiestiles.9437:

The exact reason people don’t want to play a game that involves them losing constantly is this is something they do to enjoy themselves (something the scrubs philosophy frowns upon above winning) and they might as well do something else. Being cannon fodder is not something they see as enjoyable. Some of them even, get this, don’t enjoy using other people as cannon fodder either and don’t care to win that way. They don’t see a flaw in the system and think “I can exploit this to interrupt someone else’s enjoyment.” They would much rather lose than degrade their own morals. That sounds perfectly rational to some people and insane to others.

I can totally see where you are coming from with your basketball and you sound really passionate and it’s so commendable that you stick with it. But not everyone thinks the same and they don’t need to be demeaned because of that.

Well, I’m not so passionate, since we don’t train or anything. We just turn up and have fun. But while we’re on the court, we do our best to win, regardless of whether our oppenents are top in the league or bottom.

Its possible to be competitive, do everything you can to win, and still have morals. that’s what “sportsmanship” is. On the winners side, you fight hard, don’t cheat, respect your opponent. On the losers side, you try your best, respect your opponent, and accept your defeat graciously.

I guess the reason “true” competitive players keep going even when they’re not the best, is the sense of improvement. In basketball, even though we lose a lot, there are always little victories from each match. The couple of times you got a sweet rebound, the time you faked out your defender and shot a goal, etc etc. As the season goes on, those little victories increase as we get better. (And between seasons we get flabby again because we don’t practice lol)

Does gw2 offer little victories like this in a match? I feel like this might be a problem with the balance and gameplay right now?

Certainly in fighting games, its very satisfying to get a big combo or take control of a round, even if you lose.

Fivedawgs.4267:

Lol at high performance, if I may OP what is performance to you?? It’s doesn’t take a brain to know that a team full of good player will have a better performance than one full of noobs. So, your argument is invalid, although it has a few good points.

I don’t have an argument, I only posed a question, and stated a definition.

High performance, the way I’m using it, means doing what you need to do, to get results.

Your example is a faulty one. To highlight the difference between performance vs skill, here’s a better example.

Team A is full of all stars. 1v1 they are the best. They have the highest “skill”.
However,they don’t use voice comms, don’t practice team tactics, don’t coordinate their builds.

Team B have “lesser skilled” players. However, they use voice comms, practice team tactics, coordinate their builds.

If Team B defeats Team A, then they are higher performing, despite being less “skilled”.
(If team A wins, they are higher performing AND more skilled. But suck at teamwork)

Its impossible to base a competitive activity on skill, or teamwork. (Well, unless you have human judges like ice skating, I guess.) You can only have a competition based on performance. (Skill and teamwork helps, of course.)

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun where you can find it.

Rieselle.5079:

Fivedawgs.4267:

Lol at high performance, if I may OP what is performance to you?? It’s doesn’t take a brain to know that a team full of good player will have a better performance than one full of noobs. So, your argument is invalid, although it has a few good points.

I don’t have an argument, I only posed a question, and stated a definition.

High performance, the way I’m using it, means doing what you need to do, to get results.

Your example is a faulty one. To highlight the difference between performance vs skill, here’s a better example.

Team A is full of all stars. 1v1 they are the best. They have the highest “skill”.
However,they don’t use voice comms, don’t practice team tactics, don’t coordinate their builds.

Team B have “lesser skilled” players. However, they use voice comms, practice team tactics, coordinate their builds.

If Team B defeats Team A, then they are higher performing, despite being less “skilled”.
(If team A wins, they are higher performing AND more skilled. But suck at teamwork)

Its impossible to base a competitive activity on skill, or teamwork. (Well, unless you have human judges like ice skating, I guess.) You can only have a competition based on performance. (Skill and teamwork helps, of course.)

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun where you can find it.

Nice example indeed, but you are insinuating that rank is for team only; that’s where you are wrong. Solo q er should have a chance to compete ( I am not saying we don’t, but the odds are stacked against us).

Nice example indeed.

Fivedawgs.4267:

Rieselle.5079:

I don’t have an argument, I only posed a question, and stated a definition.

High performance, the way I’m using it, means doing what you need to do, to get results.

Your example is a faulty one. To highlight the difference between performance vs skill, here’s a better example.

Team A is full of all stars. 1v1 they are the best. They have the highest “skill”.
However,they don’t use voice comms, don’t practice team tactics, don’t coordinate their builds.

Team B have “lesser skilled” players. However, they use voice comms, practice team tactics, coordinate their builds.

If Team B defeats Team A, then they are higher performing, despite being less “skilled”.
(If team A wins, they are higher performing AND more skilled. But suck at teamwork)

Its impossible to base a competitive activity on skill, or teamwork. (Well, unless you have human judges like ice skating, I guess.) You can only have a competition based on performance. (Skill and teamwork helps, of course.)

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun where you can find it.

Nice example indeed, but you are insinuating that rank is for team only; that’s where you are wrong. Solo q er should have a chance to compete ( I am not saying we don’t, but the odds are stacked against us).

Youre using the wrong meaning of “compete”. You’re using the meaning like, “our prices are competitive”, ie. Similar to your opposition.

That’s not the meaning when we’re talking about a competition, or a competitive game. That one is, “to be in opposition against others.” Ie. Opposite of cooperate.

Solo players have every opportunity to compete, as you said. But just because a tennis player is allowed to compete using a wooden racquet, doesn’t mean he should expect a fair chance at winning, and it certainly doesn’t mean the rules should be changed to accommodate him. (And the ITF is not obligated to make a grand slam circuit just for wooden racquet players.)

Of course, its perfectly fine to want a solo-only league, just like its fine to want a wooden racquet tennis league. But its not fine to feel entitled to one, and be all complainy about losing in the regular league. I guess its about having the right attitude.

Rieselle.5079:

Fivedawgs.4267:

Rieselle.5079:

I don’t have an argument, I only posed a question, and stated a definition.

High performance, the way I’m using it, means doing what you need to do, to get results.

Your example is a faulty one. To highlight the difference between performance vs skill, here’s a better example.

Team A is full of all stars. 1v1 they are the best. They have the highest “skill”.
However,they don’t use voice comms, don’t practice team tactics, don’t coordinate their builds.

Team B have “lesser skilled” players. However, they use voice comms, practice team tactics, coordinate their builds.

If Team B defeats Team A, then they are higher performing, despite being less “skilled”.
(If team A wins, they are higher performing AND more skilled. But suck at teamwork)

Its impossible to base a competitive activity on skill, or teamwork. (Well, unless you have human judges like ice skating, I guess.) You can only have a competition based on performance. (Skill and teamwork helps, of course.)

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun where you can find it.

Nice example indeed, but you are insinuating that rank is for team only; that’s where you are wrong. Solo q er should have a chance to compete ( I am not saying we don’t, but the odds are stacked against us).

Youre using the wrong meaning of “compete”. You’re using the meaning like, “our prices are competitive”, ie. Similar to your opposition.

That’s not the meaning when we’re talking about a competition, or a competitive game. That one is, “to be in opposition against others.” Ie. Opposite of cooperate.

Solo players have every opportunity to compete, as you said. But just because a tennis player is allowed to compete using a wooden racquet, doesn’t mean he should expect a fair chance at winning, and it certainly doesn’t mean the rules should be changed to accommodate him. (And the ITF is not obligated to make a grand slam circuit just for wooden racquet players.)

Of course, its perfectly fine to want a solo-only league, just like its fine to want a wooden racquet tennis league. But its not fine to feel entitled to one, and be all complainy about losing in the regular league. I guess its about having the right attitude.

Ok, you are wrong you are ignoring one thing tennis is not a team based game. And allow me that make this analogy (which is disagree with since you are comparing a team based game with one that doesn’t involve any), if a tennis player has less chance to win using a wooden racket. Then how is a lone low MMR (!= skills ) , grouped with low MMR player, supposed to win against a team full of high MMR players?

As a solo q er, your performance has a 20% impact on the outcome, and the way to fix it is to have a MMR system like Dota or lol uses where 50 is match up against 50. The performance issue although valid nullify the whole purpose of rank,why?? Because most exclusive spvp players do not play rank so they can team with fends, etc. .. We play to see how much we have improved or how better we are compared to our friends. People shouldn’t have to resort to duo/ trio to have a fair chance of winning, that’s all I am saying.

Fivedawgs.4267:

Rieselle.5079:

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun

Of course, its perfectly fine to want a solo-only league, just like its fine to want a wooden racquet tennis league. But its not fine to feel entitled to one, and be all complainy about losing in the regular league. I guess its about having the right attitude.

Ok, you are wrong you are ignoring one thing tennis is not a team based game. And allow me that make this analogy (which is disagree with since you are comparing a team based game with one that doesn’t involve any), if a tennis player has less chance to win using a wooden racket. Then how is a lone low MMR (!= skills ) , grouped with low MMR player, supposed to win against a team full of high MMR players?

As a solo q er, your performance has a 20% impact on the outcome, and the way to fix it is to have a MMR system like Dota or lol uses where 50 is match up against 50. The performance issue although valid nullify the whole purpose of rank,why?? Because most exclusive spvp players do not play rank so they can team with fends, etc. .. We play to see how much we have improved or how better we are compared to our friends. People shouldn’t have to resort to duo/ trio to have a fair chance of winning, that’s all I am saying.

My tennis example is fine. Whether its a team sport is irrelevant, because my point is, in a league where you’re “supposed” to play like X, if you choose to do Y instead, you can’t expect to have a “fair chance of winning”.

You have to accept that you’ve chosen to reduce your chances of winning, but choose to play anyways and take what enjoyment you can from merely participating.

This applies for many different X and Y:
Metal tennis racquet vs. wooden
Team vs solo
Voice comms vs typing
Meta builds vs weaker builds
Playing how its supposed to be played vs not.

Don’t you see that your complaint can have any of these things, and its impossible to have a competitive league that accommodates these complaints?

people shouldn’t have to resort to meta builds just to have a fair chance of winning
people shouldn’t have to resort to voice comms just to have a fair chance of winning
Etc etc.

Currently the “optimal” way of playing the game is to queue with people you trust, using a powerful coordinated team build, and voice comms. Doing less reduces your chances of winning.

ANet has decided, due to the population, to lump everyone into the same league. So unfortunately, your chance of winning is influenced by these things.

I get that you want the system changed to protect solos from teams. Other people want to protect themselves from class stacking, or from voice comms, or from HOT classes. So who gets their wish?

Maybe we should have matchmaking settings that allow you to control what matches you get (and increase your queue time)
- solo queue only
- no elite classes
- no voice comms
- no class stacking
- narrow mmr / pip range

Then everyone is happy? Although queue times will make them unhappy, I suspect.

But then we get to the problem, is it valid to have a competitive ladder where everyone is playing under different rules? If you reach Legendary whilst protecting yourself from all the people playing the game “properly”, do you really “deserve” it?

Ok I am on my phone but I will try my best.

Rieselle.5079:

Fivedawgs.4267:

Rieselle.5079:

If i wanted to make an argument, it would basically be those players who think they are skilled but aren’t doing the other important things to perform better, shouldn’t have the expectation that they can win. But winning isn’t everything, you can take your fun

Of course, its perfectly fine to want a solo-only league, just like its fine to want a wooden racquet tennis league. But its not fine to feel entitled to one, and be all complainy about losing in the regular league. I guess its about having the right attitude.

Ok, you are wrong you are ignoring one thing tennis is not a team based game. And allow me that make this analogy (which is disagree with since you are comparing a team based game with one that doesn’t involve any), if a tennis player has less chance to win using a wooden racket. Then how is a lone low MMR (!= skills ) , grouped with low MMR player, supposed to win against a team full of high MMR players?

As a solo q er, your performance has a 20% impact on the outcome, and the way to fix it is to have a MMR system like Dota or lol uses where 50 is match up against 50. The performance issue although valid nullify the whole purpose of rank,why?? Because most exclusive spvp players do not play rank so they can team with fends, etc. .. We play to see how much we have improved or how better we are compared to our friends. People shouldn’t have to resort to duo/ trio to have a fair chance of winning, that’s all I am saying.

My tennis example is fine. Whether its a team sport is irrelevant, because my point is, in a league where you’re “supposed” to play like X, if you choose to do Y instead, you can’t expect to have a “fair chance of winning”.

A= Show me where Anet said, only teams have to apply or better yet solo q aren’t welcome. And you are example isn’t fine, you are comparing two different thing, so how does can it hold? And better yet, Anet never said that rank is solely for teams.

You *have to accept that you’ve chosen to reduce your chances of winning, but choose to play anyways and take what enjoyment you can from merely participating.*

A = True and I do still that doesn’t mean I have to censure my opinion on the algorithm being used. This is the type of feedback Anet needs to better S3 algorithm.

This applies for many different X and Y:
Metal tennis racquet vs. wooden
Team vs solo
Voice comms vs typing
Meta builds vs weaker builds
Playing how its supposed to be played vs not.

A = No its doesn’t because in a solo game like wooden vs tennis, you are solely responsible for the outcome. In team vs solo, you are not. An experience players with a wooden racket can still beat an average one with a tennis racket. Put the same players in a team, the experience in a team full of noobs(wooden racket) vs the average (in the team full of average); it won’t matter how good the experience tennis player is, the outcome of that game are set in stone since his contribution to win/loss is 20%.

Let me just touch on meta vs weaker builds, most serious pvp er that I know don’t use meta builds; that’s another hole in your argument; it’s true that a team with voice comp has a better chance at winning against one with no voice camp, given that the skills is the same around board. However, I d bet that a pro player match with 4 noob on Ts, has close to 25% chance of winning a game against a team of average player stack together with no voice communication. (Just my opinion)

Don’t you see that your complaint can have any of these things, and its impossible to have a competitive league that accommodates these complaints?

people shouldn’t have to resort to meta builds just to have a fair chance of winning
people shouldn’t have to resort to voice comms just to have a fair chance of winning
Etc etc.

A= Never said any of the above and if you read both of my replies up there, you d see why. Meta builds do not improve your chance of winning in high elo if anything you ll get counter easily. I never said voice comp was the problem. The problem is that the ALGORITHM favor one side over the other, and a way to circumvent it is by using premade or duo. So, it’s becomes clear that the resurgence of teams in rank is due to the faulty Algorithm.

Currently the “optimal” way of playing the game is to queue with people you trust, using a powerful coordinated team build, and voice comms. Doing less reduces your chances of winning.

A= I agree but that doesn’t mean Anet should standardized this model for the remaining two seasons, as someone said earlier ( don’t know if it was true or not); Anet tweak the MM algorithm twice last season. So believing it or not, my complaining about resort to pre made to have an equal chance at winning actually helps the devs.

ANet has decided, due to the population, to lump everyone into the same league. So unfortunately, your chance of winning is influenced by these things.

I get that you want the system changed to protect solos from teams. Other people want to protect themselves from class stacking, or from voice comms, or from HOT classes. So who gets their wish?

*Maybe we should have matchmaking settings that allow you to control what matches you get (and increase your queue time)
- solo queue only
- no elite classes
- no voice comms
- no class stacking
- narrow mmr / pip range

Then everyone is happy? Although queue times will make them unhappy, I suspect.*

A = I noticed you have said you but I have never complained about any of the above, I don’t want a solo queue only or etc… And what make you think that teams don’t encounter the same problem?? The fact is the ALGORITHM X group together against X works across board, though teaming can lessen the pernicious effects of the MM. So, you are either not getting the thrust of my argument or I might have poorly worded it. I am, in no way shape of form against pre made vs solo q er, what I have issue with is the algorithm. Hence, people shouldn’t have to rely to pre made to alleviate the pernicious effect of the MM, that’s Anet job.

But then we get to the problem, is it valid to have a competitive ladder where everyone is playing under different rules? If you reach Legendary whilst protecting yourself from all the people playing the game “properly”, do you really “deserve” it?

A = Now we are on the same wavelength, although I disagree with what you said and my 5 answers above should shed some light on it; but do you believe that the high MMR player who were packed together against low MMR players whilst protecting themselves for all the people playing the game ( thanks to Anet) deserve it?

Most certainly, my preference is to have a 100% win rate.

Anything less than that is obviously a problem with the MatchMaker.

I want a system that, statistically, both teams upon entering the match have an equal chance at winning.

Like if those same teams play 10 games, each team would win 5.

Warcry.1596:

I want a system that, statistically, both teams upon entering the match have an equal chance at winning.

Like if those same teams play 10 games, each team would win 5.

This …

Fivedawgs.4267:

Warcry.1596:

I want a system that, statistically, both teams upon entering the match have an equal chance at winning.

Like if those same teams play 10 games, each team would win 5.

This …

This….
….. is just a bad system for a ladder that is devided into divisions because it would mean bad players will face bad players only and good players will face good players only. This leads to the fact that bad players will progress as fast and as much as good players will do and in the end you can’t say whether the player is good or bad because they are in the same division somehow.

If you want sth like this ( which is probably the most balanced mm) you have to change the whole system of the seasons.

The OP was a very good and provocative question that really gets into understanding the situation and the complaints about sPvP.

dominik.9721:

Fivedawgs.4267:

Warcry.1596:

I want a system that, statistically, both teams upon entering the match have an equal chance at winning.

Like if those same teams play 10 games, each team would win 5.

This …

This….
….. is just a bad system for a ladder that is devided into divisions because it would mean bad players will face bad players only and good players will face good players only. This leads to the fact that bad players will progress as fast and as much as good players will do and in the end you can’t say whether the player is good or bad because they are in the same division somehow.

If you want sth like this ( which is probably the most balanced mm) you have to change the whole system of the seasons.

I believe he is saying he want a system where the average MMR of one team is taken into account and match against another t3am of similar MMR. As for the team composition, we(at least i) still have no idea how it would work. They could take player from the same divison and match them up against one another assuming their respective MMR are similar. So you could have a 1000 500 1000 500 1000 vs 750 750 1000 800 700. And it’s anet job to make sure that low mmr vs low mmr doesn’t happens by restrictions the number of low mmr player per team (just speculating here). But a system like this, which lol or dOta uses, would be a lot better than what we currently have.

Rieselle.5079:

Well, I’m not so passionate, since we don’t train or anything. We just turn up and have fun. But while we’re on the court, we do our best to win, regardless of whether our oppenents are top in the league or bottom.

Its possible to be competitive, do everything you can to win, and still have morals. that’s what “sportsmanship” is. On the winners side, you fight hard, don’t cheat, respect your opponent. On the losers side, you try your best, respect your opponent, and accept your defeat graciously.

I guess the reason “true” competitive players keep going even when they’re not the best, is the sense of improvement. In basketball, even though we lose a lot, there are always little victories from each match. The couple of times you got a sweet rebound, the time you faked out your defender and shot a goal, etc etc. As the season goes on, those little victories increase as we get better. (And between seasons we get flabby again because we don’t practice lol)

Does gw2 offer little victories like this in a match? I feel like this might be a problem with the balance and gameplay right now?

Certainly in fighting games, its very satisfying to get a big combo or take control of a round, even if you lose.

Yes exactly. There’s 3 classes that when you pitted in a group fight together they take hardly any damage. You set up an awesome combo that would instantly down other professions and they are still just standing there. None of which are classes I play or the 3 last season (2 of which are the same as this season). They only nerfed mesmers. People complain and they won’t do anything about it. To the point it’s starting to seem intentional. If one team is stacked with these classes and the other isn’t it’s very unbalanced. It’s not reapers. They don’t have much healing so life force doesn’t count for much anymore. Once that’s gone they are down. They are just a distraction from the real gravy train professions. It’s not druids either they have loads of healing but still take damage and don’t do a lot of damage.

When it’s not like that there’s more of those inner pride moments where you have a big impact on the outcome.

I have to say OP, you must be playing a different PvP league to the rest of us. The game is stacking better players to one team. I’m not getting into class stacking, as I know nothing about it. But most matches you know you are going to lose as soon as you view the teams. I.E. 2 thieves 2 warrios and what ever you are playing Vs 2 necros 2 DH, and an ele.. Now I’m not saying you cant win those games. I’ve had one set up like that, luckily the other team who we though would wipe the floor with us where really bad. They must have all been using zurker. As thy all melted really fast, like crazy fast. But I digress. I liked season 1 match making. And yes i had a win streak in this season, but the win were the other team gets roflstomped are not fun. Same when you are the team that gets stomped. My personal experience in this league as been one of unenjoyable matches. I can remember every match that was amazingly fun. There has been 8. 5 games I was on the winning team, the other 3 losing team. But they where great matches. That’s what I want. I don’t care if I win or lose, I care about having fun matches.

dominik.9721:

Fivedawgs.4267:

Warcry.1596:

I want a system that, statistically, both teams upon entering the match have an equal chance at winning.

Like if those same teams play 10 games, each team would win 5.

This …

This….
….. is just a bad system for a ladder that is devided into divisions because it would mean bad players will face bad players only and good players will face good players only. This leads to the fact that bad players will progress as fast and as much as good players will do and in the end you can’t say whether the player is good or bad because they are in the same division somehow.

If you want sth like this ( which is probably the most balanced mm) you have to change the whole system of the seasons.

Agreed. A 50/50 system might lead to some interesting individual match-ups, but it is HORRIBLE in their current system, for two reasons. 1. After Amber, losses make you go down. If you lose half your matches, you’ll never advance. 2. The game has win streak and lose streak bonuses. If you lose most matches then you at least get a bonus pip when you win, if you win most matches then you rocket ahead, but if you tend to lose one before winning one then not only are you down a pip, but you also will never see those streak bonuses. I’ve said it before, during, and will say it long after this season, the streak bonuses are toxic.

Realistically, if the system does insist on presenting 50/50 match-ups over the long term, what I would prefer is that it deliberately stack every match-up, but in a given order, and let me know that balance BEFORE the match starts. That is to say, deliberately give me 4-5 complete blow-out match-ups in a row, matches where it assumes my team will crush. Then give me 4-5 complete blow-outs the other way, in which my team stands no chance of winning. And warn me of this at the start of the match, so on the “you can’t win this one” match-ups I can relax and not take it too personally.

That way, my overall win-rate is the “fair” 50/50, but I’m benefiting from the streak bonuses and crossing tiers on the one side of it, and also benefiting form the bonuses and having a “cooling off” period on the down side of it, rather than stressing about every single loss.

Fivedawgs.4267:

The problem is that the ALGORITHM favor one side over the other, and a way to circumvent it is by using premade or duo. So, it’s becomes clear that the resurgence of teams in rank is due to the faulty Algorithm.

A = Now we are on the same wavelength, although I disagree with what you said and my 5 answers above should shed some light on it; but do you believe that the high MMR player who were packed together against low MMR players whilst protecting themselves for all the people playing the game ( thanks to Anet) deserve it?

Ok, lets put the general argument aside and focus on your specific concerns. I think the thing you are talking about is “ELO hell”, right?

You said that wooden racquet tennis can’t be compared to queuing solo, because the tennis player is in sole control of his choices, whereas the solo player can’t choose his teammates.

Well, in a solo-only queue, that would be true – if you’re in elo hell and can’t get good teammates, there’s not much you can do apart from start a new account.

But in a mixed queue, YOU have the power – you can choose the metal racquet! Its called “find teammates and queue as a team.”

If you CHOOSE not to use this metal racquet (or can’t afford it), that’s not the games fault.

Putting all of that aside, can you describe what a better algorithm would look like? How do you want it to work? Do you want the 50% winrate back? Or something else?

Ohoni.6057:

Agreed. A 50/50 system might lead to some interesting individual match-ups, but it is HORRIBLE in their current system, for two reasons. 1. After Amber, losses make you go down. If you lose half your matches, you’ll never advance. 2. The game has win streak and lose streak bonuses. If you lose most matches then you at least get a bonus pip when you win, if you win most matches then you rocket ahead, but if you tend to lose one before winning one then not only are you down a pip, but you also will never see those streak bonuses. I’ve said it before, during, and will say it long after this season, the streak bonuses are toxic.

Realistically, if the system does insist on presenting 50/50 match-ups over the long term, what I would prefer is that it deliberately stack every match-up, but in a given order, and let me know that balance BEFORE the match starts. That is to say, deliberately give me 4-5 complete blow-out match-ups in a row, matches where it assumes my team will crush. Then give me 4-5 complete blow-outs the other way, in which my team stands no chance of winning. And warn me of this at the start of the match, so on the “you can’t win this one” match-ups I can relax and not take it too personally.

That way, my overall win-rate is the “fair” 50/50, but I’m benefiting from the streak bonuses and crossing tiers on the one side of it, and also benefiting form the bonuses and having a “cooling off” period on the down side of it, rather than stressing about every single loss.

Actually, I think LOL has a good system. It has a “expected MMR” for each division, if you have an MMR that’s above the expected for your current division, then you will gain bonus pips for a win, and lose less pips for a loss. (And vice versa)

That way, even if you’re winning 50%, you will still gain pips overall until you rise to your expected division.

To make this work though, a game has to be transparent about player’s mmr, and the expected mmr for each division. Otherwise people will be confused and angry about why they did/didn’t get bonus pips.

For some reason ANet is dead set against revealing players mmr, so they can’t use LOLs system until they change that principle.

Rieselle.5079:

http://strawpoll.me/6996103

So, originally there was a matchmaking system that tried to equalise teams as much as possible.

If there were 10 players of a wide range of MMR, the system would shuffle everyone between the teams, giving each team some high MMR players and some low players.

Overall, the system kinda achieved its goal – regardless of complaints, the stats said that most people had around 50% win rate. This was just an outcome of the algorithm, it’s not it’s “goal” – it’s not deliberately trying to make you lose after some wins.

Some people complained about this, though. They didn’t like the 50% win rate, and they accused the system of deliberately giving you some bad team mates after a win streak, etc. Personally I find these claims a bit hard to believe, but I don’t have any personal evidence one way or the other so whatever.

So anyways, this season ANet changed the matchmaking to be MMR based for finding teammates, and ladder based for finding opponents.

Some people cling to the old idea that the game gets 10 players and then sorts into teams (accusing the system of sorting the best 5 into one team, and the worst into other, meaning 100% chance of unbalanced matchup), but reading the algorithm I don’t think that’s true.
It finds teams with MMR ratings close to each other, and then finds an opposing near your pip level, also formed with similar MMRs to themselves. So it’s mostly random whether your opponent team has a higher, lower or equal average MMR – the only factor is their pip level.

Anyways, the outcome of this is, high performance teams (I’m deliberately avoiding the word “skill” here – performance is all that matters), will have a higher winrate. But for every winning team, there has to be a losing team. Which means that half of the population will have a winrate above 50%, and the other half will have a winrate below 50%

Logically, it’s impossible to have it both ways – either everyone is 50%, or half the players are above 50% and the other half below 50%.

So, which system do you prefer?
A fair match system, where the outcome is a 50% win rate for everyone?
Or a meritocracy system, where the outcome is that high performance teams will win often, and low performance players will lose a lot?

(Note that I said “performance”, not “skill”. Even Roger Federer would lose, if he plays with a wooden racquet and high heels. And even Michael Jordan would lose, if he chooses his team mates by picking people out of the audience randomly. There’s more to being successful in a game/sport than just what you do inside the match.)

HA! What delusion! When? When? WHEN will you people get it?

THE SYSTEM IS NOT LEGIT.

Despite your raving about “merit”, the system is DESIGNED to boost people at the expense of others, it’s NOT competitive no matter how much you want to delude yourselves that it is.

Those of you that STILL defend this nonsense have either BENEFITED or are DELUDED. NO EXCEPTIONS.

http://strawpoll.me/6996103

Hah, so far the strawpoll is pretty close to 50%, with the meritocracy system edging ahead slightly.

A cynical person might say that the half of the playerbase who have winrates above 50% are voting meritocracy, and the half of the playerbase who have winrates below 50% are voting for the 50/50 system :P

s1 MM have meritocracy system. at the end your mmr is exactly your skill level.
s2 have a system that give a clear advantage to ppl with high mmr, is like give money to rich ppl. is that a meritocracy system?

so the answers to the poll are wrong. fix them please.

A cynical person might say that the half of the playerbase who have winrates above 50% are voting meritocracy, and the half of the playerbase who have winrates below 50% are voting for the 50/50 system :P

A cynical person would say that the vast majority of players, especially those players that are not hardcore into PvP, have no idea this poll exists and have no influence on its outcome.

I bet none of the people voting for the 50/50 system are eles. Because anet makes them kitten-i-n-g invincible. Nothing to do with skill there.