Suggestion for Solo Queue

Suggestion for Solo Queue

in PvP

Posted by: zilcho.7624

zilcho.7624


First off, I want to give a bit of info about myself. When I played WoW, my team was ranked 10th in battlegroup and played competitively with the teams ranked above us. The only reason I bring that up is to give myself some credentials. I am not a pro when it comes to PvP, but I am pretty good at it.


For a little more info about myself, I am also a soon-to-graduate math/engineering major. One of my interests is statistical analysis applied to sports. I’m bringing this up because my suggestion is actually not original. I am going to suggest a stat familiar to anyone who follows sports analytics.

Currently, as I understand it, player ratings are based on wins and losses. If and when a ladder system is implemented, I am sure wins and losses will continue to be the sole input to the rating.

My concern is that this does not work for solo queues. Team games are never won or lost by single players. If you are rating teams, it is fine to look no further than wins and losses. If you are rating players, it is a major problem. The problem gets compounded by GW2’s small population. Players are repeatedly paired with each other, one game after another – something that should rarely happen.

There is a stat that can solve all these problems and more. It is called Win Percentage Added (WPA). What WPA measures is the contribution of a player to his or her team’s chances of winning.


For those not familiar with this stat, it is simple to calculate. All you need is a database of game states paired with outcomes. Then, every time a player changes the state, the difference between the old and new expected win percentage is calculated. In GW2, the state is: time remaining, score, team composition, points controlled, players defending points, players attacking points, and players pursuing objectives. States are saved throughout the game, and the eventual winner and loser is stored along with the states.

What this lets you do is build an expected chance of winning, based on what the current game state is. You simply look at how many teams went on to win from a given state. This is a very simple, quick calculation. For those of you who are software engineers, it is actually a constant time operation. Since this database is constructed ahead of time, all the calculations are done offline only to be stored in a hash table. (More importantly, the memory requirements can be carefully tuned by the size of your “time remaining” bins.)

The point of all this is to accurately determine a player’s skill. A terrific player on an abysmal team will get spotted. Sure, such a player’s team may lose 500-100. But a good player will still earn a good WPA because their contribution need not change in a loss. Conversely, a poor player on a great team will also be spotted. If they contribute little to the win, they will not be rewarded for it.

This is a stat an MMO could implement very easily. The memory requirements are trivial for a server, and the computation itself is constant time. But as easy at it is to calculate, it adds a world of sophistication to a rating-based system.


A common complaint is that WPA seems vulnerable to inflation. In GW2, this might mean abandoning points to capture new ones. This is understandable, but ultimately misguided.

A player who attempts to inflate their WPA must change the game state to do so. In other words, lowering your team’s chance of winning just so you can raise it again causes a net WPA-gain of zero. You get penalized for hurting your team, and fixing it just returns you to where you started.

For example, imagine a player is the last defender at a point. Hoping to inflate their WPA, they leave it to contest another point. This changes the state from “One Defender at A/B/C” to “No Defenders at A/B/C”. This will undoubtedly inflict a negative WPA for the play.

I don’t want to spend to much time justifying WPA as a stat. It is a time-tested, universally accepted tool. There has yet to be a game or sport where WPA could be abused. What makes it immune to abuse is its definition: the only way to earn it is to help your team win. Whatever potential abuse you might think of, closer inspection always reveals that either your would-be abuse actually contributes to a win or always results in negative WPA.

This isn’t the end-all stat, of course. It can’t be abused, but it doesn’t tell the whole story either. That said, it is a vast improvement over attributing entire wins and losses to a player. And for a ladder system using a solo queue, it is all you need.

(edited by zilcho.7624)

Suggestion for Solo Queue

in PvP

Posted by: zilcho.7624

zilcho.7624

The forum keeps eating my edits, so I’ll have to add this in a second post. First, a brief correction: it’s “Win Probability Added”. The word “percentage” was a thoughtless mistake, and I can’t edit the post.

Now for the real point of this second post. Another reason GW2 would do well to try WPA is the hype it would build. Obviously, you don’t want to market it in mathematical terms. But it’s easy to sell the idea that “our game spots good players better than anyone else”.

If you want to attract e-sports players en masse, a better rating system is a great way to do it. These sorts of players want to be the best, and – more importantly – they want everyone else to admit it. A WPA-based system gets right to the heart of that. No one can disagree with a player’s rating if it is based on WPA. You can’t luck your way into or out of a good rating.

It is also the perfect stat to show spectators. You can put a large “Win Probability” stat on the screen, telling you how the game is going. NBC and ESPN have both realized this, and they are already experimenting with it on their in-game tickers. It’s a simple, compact stat that every spectator both wants and understands.

(edited by zilcho.7624)

Suggestion for Solo Queue

in PvP

Posted by: NevirSayDie.6235

NevirSayDie.6235

Well it may encourage people to keep playing until the end…

And yet I’m not convinced. I have a strong feeling we wouldn’t end up with any more information that we already have. I understand that systems like this really can accurately tell you which players on the team are the best. But I think we already know that—the matchmaker selects from a pool of players and places them into teams based on their leaderboard rankings. The highest player will be on one team, the second-highest on the other, and then down the list varying numbers to make the teams as even as possible. I seriously doubt that coding a WPA program within the matchmaker is going to tell us anything other than that the best players are doing the best.

And I don’t think it would significantly change anyone’s standing, either. All good players who lost would fare better than before in terms of MMR; all mediocre players would see no change; all lower-tier players would get hammered for losses even harder (and would gain less for wins) thus staying at…well, low tiers. I suppose it might make it harder to rise or fall, which might be a good thing.

Also, it would be hard to figure out exactly how useful a player is being. Fighting off point is often bad but sometimes clutch. Certain roles will rarely get stomps, rezzes, caps, or decaps, and yet are crucial to the team as a whole.

Are you aware of any games that have used a system like this? If so, has it worked well for them?

Suggestion for Solo Queue

in PvP

Posted by: zilcho.7624

zilcho.7624

Are you aware of any games that have used a system like this? If so, has it worked well for them?

This system has been applied to a few major sports. (ESPN has recently bought into the stat, so you’ll start hearing about it more and more.)

As for a game, there is no example that I am aware of. Which is why there’s a huge opportunity here. The first game to do it is going to attract a huge chunk of the e-sports community. Adopting WPA is equivalent to discovering fire, as far as player rating is concerned. Whoever does it first is going to get a lot of deserved attention.

About the rest of your post, game state really captures more of your concerns than you think. Of course, a utterly exhaustive state would do better than a simple one. The point is that right now, games already use a WPA system. It’s just a blunt, dumb version of one. If a player wins, they get a WPA of 100%. If they lose, they get 0%.

The simple state I mentioned is already far and away more accurate than the current system, even if it isn’t perfect.

(edited by zilcho.7624)