Guild Wars 2

Only one of eight match ups appears to be even remotely competitive. Four match ups are kaput for the week and three others are trending that way.

http://mos.millenium.org/na/

And we’re,what, 14 hours into the reset?

Sigh….

Almost posted the exact same point but added it to Luvpie’s thread instead..

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

dagnabbit…if it stays this way….We’ll,(FA)….will probably be playing TC and DB yet again, lol.

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

ganeshori.6309:

dagnabbit…if it stays this way….We’ll,(FA)….will probably be playing TC and DB yet again, lol.

The sad part is that because of RNG we have no way of knowing if this is true.

A server can pull together, fight against all odds, over come all obstacles and at the last moment snatch victory from the jaws of defeat! Only to be punished next week by RNG’ing….

Soon.5240:

ganeshori.6309:

dagnabbit…if it stays this way….We’ll,(FA)….will probably be playing TC and DB yet again, lol.

The sad part is that because of RNG we have no way of knowing if this is true.

A server can pull together, fight against all odds, over come all obstacles and at the last moment snatch victory from the jaws of defeat! Only to be punished next week by RNG’ing….

It’s pretty much impossible to have a better than 1/2 probability at a rematch…I think SoR-BG-JQ had the highest chance because of the massive rating difference and we were only about 1/3

I personally have been putting more emphasis on the evolution score than the weekly score. I think others should do the same.

sostronk.8167:

I personally have been putting more emphasis on the evolution score than the weekly score. I think others should do the same.

Because getting your backside kicked by a higher teir server and still gaining points is a good thing?

There is nothing good about having only one map to play on an entire week.

gaining points is always a good thing — it means that your server is stronger than your rating would have predicted, and it makes it more likely that you will face stronger servers more frequently in the future.

if you don’t want to face stronger servers, then you should by all means sandbag and attempt to lose by as big a margin as possible.

-ken

Its not about rating its about having a quality,fun, and balanced matchup.

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

If you’re good at math tell me what numbers you want to make analysis of whether glicko was accurate or not and i’ll pull them from millenium and put them in excel for you.

ganeshori.6309:

dagnabbit…if it stays this way….We’ll,(FA)….will probably be playing TC and DB yet again, lol.

You know you LOVE us! What about all those text messages you sent last night when you were drunk?!? HUH! What about that!

(I would happily fight FA again – the last few weeks – we almost.. GOT ALONG!)

Cookies for all – from my treb!

Zoel.9154:

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

If you’re good at math tell me what numbers you want to make analysis of whether glicko was accurate or not and i’ll pull them from millenium and put them in excel for you.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Even if I did, I suspect I would to need to make some assumptions (and thus a weaker argument) in order to support one position or another.

What I can tell you is the previous system of matchups had reduced match variety to the extent that you could not easily compare servers by rating—which is why people ended up using tiers to talk about server rank. Specifically, you could only compare servers that were close together in rating—because they were the ones who played each other.

The current matchmaking system will bring more match variety and make corrections to the ratings structure to make the ratings of the servers more “accurate” or closer to their theoretical true values. Now, would we see perfectly accurate ratings? Of course not—we don’t have infinitely many matches to play. But this system over the course of 5-10 matches will probably better seed the servers. Then, the variation of the matchmaking rating can be reduced to make better matchups on average, with greater match-to-match variety.

Is this painful in the near term? Absolutely. It’s an artifact of the previous matchmaking system. However, I’m willing to bet that our patience will be rewarded.

Dumb Woob.9415:

Zoel.9154:

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

If you’re good at math tell me what numbers you want to make analysis of whether glicko was accurate or not and i’ll pull them from millenium and put them in excel for you.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Even if I did, I suspect I would to need to make some assumptions (and thus a weaker argument) in order to support one position or another.

What I can tell you is the previous system of matchups had reduced match variety to the extent that you could not easily compare servers by rating—which is why people ended up using tiers to talk about server rank. Specifically, you could only compare servers that were close together in rating—because they were the ones who played each other.

The current matchmaking system will bring more match variety and make corrections to the ratings structure to make the ratings of the servers more “accurate” or closer to their theoretical true values. Now, would we see perfectly accurate ratings? Of course not—we don’t have infinitely many matches to play. But this system over the course of 5-10 matches will probably better seed the servers. Then, the variation of the matchmaking rating can be reduced to make better matchups on average, with greater match-to-match variety.

Is this painful in the near term? Absolutely. It’s an artifact of the previous matchmaking system. However, I’m willing to bet that our patience will be rewarded.

I would agree with all of that except for the implied assumption that accuracy translates to parity. It doesn’t. Just because we know precisely how much better or worse one team is relative to another does not mean that we will get equitable (and therefore enjoyable) matches. All that it means is that we will know more accurately in advance how bad the mismatches will be.

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

2 points here
1) stop acting like you’re a kittening graduate at Harvard.
2) your sentence is impossible to follow because it lacks good grammar.

Sobe.1547:

2 points here
1) stop acting like you’re a kittening graduate at Harvard.
2) your sentence is impossible to follow because it lacks good grammar.

What makes you think that I’m a Harvard graduate? I’m not, and it’s not something I’m trying to represent.

And, yes. I probably could word a couple of those sentences differently (I just use the word just just too many times, justly). Though I don’t know that it’s impossible to follow…

I get the sense that you’re trying to be snarky for no particular reason.

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

Lol, RNG to the extent of this… is not fun. SoS had the same matchup as last week, except for a T2 server, we got a T1 server. SoS should NOT be playing these servers, plain and simple. Playing against these super stacked servers is pointless when you are outnumbered at least 5 to 1 during primetime.

Cactus.2710:

I would agree with all of that except for the implied assumption that accuracy translates to parity. It doesn’t. Just because we know precisely how much better or worse one team is relative to another does not mean that we will get equitable (and therefore enjoyable) matches. All that it means is that we will know more accurately in advance how bad the mismatches will be.

Interesting points, and easy to see once you put it that way. I agree that knowing the true ratings distribution won’t necessarily lead to parity. However, knowing the true ratings might reveal some kind of differential in the ratings under the (more relatively) closed matchup system and this matchup system. I can only speculate when it comes to the outcomes of knowing this closer approximation of the true rankings on the average “excitingness” of matchups with a low-variance version of this matchmaking system. Would make for a pretty cool academic journal paper though.

Personally, I don’t think we can come up with 17 matches every week that will be void of mismatch—the real debate is finding the method to minimize such mismatches while still allowing for appropriate ranking/rating mobility. I don’t have those answers, which is why it’s thoroughly interesting to have these kinds of discussions.