Guild Wars 2

AleCenta.2190:

Hi everyone, im a pvp player and ended this season in middle plat 2.
That’s important because during this season i tried to play some tournaments and always got out in the early rounds even with a team made by 3 plat and one legendary.
Not only me but many in my guild had the same experience.
So my question is, why are there tournaments if they can be enjoyed just by a pretty small group of people?
Only teams of legendaries can enjoy this content.
So why isn’t there a division between tournaments so that ur party get a rating and u are matched with similar teams? Of course the prizes would get lower with ur team rating but it would get enjoyable by a bigger group of players and not only for elite ones.
For example a tournament bronze ,gold,plat.
And every team get a rating based on each memeber personal pvp level. Example: one plat,one bronze,2 gold can join gold level tournament.
im sorry for my bad english hope you can get the meaning of this message.

If your group really all ended in Plat/Legend, you all should have the individual mechanical skill to compete. Assuming of course you guys played something that requries some sort of player ability, not something a troglodyte could play to get to that level, like DH.

What is happening is you probably are not coordinating well at all.

My suggestion would be to record your gameplay, voice and all, and rewatch it, and analyze. Find out how you get outplayed or why you lose your games.

That really is the only way. If you don’t put in the effort, you won’t be able to win.

Crinn.7864:

Kokoro.8437:

Attached pic is the best we have. Stats from gw2efficiency.

given this, a very rough estimate is that for rank distributions are the following.

Legend – <0.5%
Plat – 10%
Gold – 40%
Silver – 40%
Bronze – 9%

comes down to 99.5%, but that last >0.5% is probably floating around near plat, or near bronze.

Probably bronze, since bronze should have the same population as platinum since glicko distributes across a normal curve with a mean of 1200.

Also remember than gw2 efficiency will tend to have a mild skew upwards since super casuals are less likely to have gw2 efficiency accounts compared to more dedicated players.

all true of course, but have to make do with what you have.

Attached pic is the best we have. Stats from gw2efficiency.

given this, a very rough estimate is that for rank distributions are the following.

Legend – <0.5%
Plat – 10%
Gold – 40%
Silver – 40%
Bronze – 9%

comes down to 99.5%, but that last >0.5% is probably floating around near plat, or near bronze.

Ithilwen.1529:

Kokoro.8437:

Is ithilwen really complaining about how bad players cannot win vs good players?

And how that is somehow “unfair?”

No, I’m complaining that the bracket is deliberately pitting the best team against the worst. This creates a near certain win for the top teams.

More importantly, it discourages the relatively new people. Let’s face it, ANET is not in a good position to alienate new players.

What does it matter if the best team faces the worst team?

The worst team will lose vs any other opponent in the tournament. It doesn’t matter if its the best team, or the second best team, or the third best team. Being the worst means that they will lose the first round, even if its just vs the second-worst team.

The top team will also win vs any other opponent in the tournament. Even vs the second best team.

Given this i’m honestly not sure what you are even trying to get at.

How would you know it discourages “relatively new people?” You’re not one of these new players given that you’ve been crying about being farmed for a few years now.

Is ithilwen really complaining about how bad players cannot win vs good players?

And how that is somehow “unfair?”

Ithilwen.1529:

No, it’s just the opposite. While I appreciate that some players may in fact be “that good”; It harms the game to cater to them. Favoring a small group of players and adjusting the game to them is exclusionary.

I think that ANET would do well to cater to the majority instead. Logic is on my side which is why I sarcastically reversed Spock’s famous dictum: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

~edit~ I am not unaware of the broader issue you are referring to; The tyranny of the majority. Yes, I am very personally aware of lgbt rights. I don’t find that the argument applies here.

You’ve been crying about matchmaking every day of every season of PvP for the last 2 years.

Anet isn’t “catering” to anyone. The fact of the matter is that Anet can only provide equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome.

The other fact of the matter is that some people are simply better at certain things than others.

Some people have messed up hands. Other people naturally have 300APM.

The fact of the matter is that 9/10 times the person with 300 APM will outperform the player who can’t even achieve 10APM due to their hand condition, even in the act of simply typing up a word document.

There is very little anet can do unless you somehow improve your own play.

posting kitten like this doesn’t get anything done.

You need to post more juicy details like names.

Because i am playing monster hunter XX, and LoZ Breath of the Wild

What NEEDS to happen is matchmaking limits.

Matchmaking should only make matches where the player with the highest MMR in the match is only at maximum 150-200 MMR away from the player with the lowest MMR in the game.

By doing this it would;

1) Create actually fair and fun matches.
2) Make the matches worth playing, and not +1/-50 matches.
3) Reduce and/or completely remove “High MMR” players farming low MMR players at dead hours.

The downside to this of course is that when there aren’t enough people queuing in that MMR range, some players may simply never get a match. Even for hours. However, I believe this would be a acceptable simply for the health of the game.

That or you remove the downstate mechanic and actually allow players to 1vX in PvP with some sort of reliability.

right now it IS a gamble, mostly because the game is dead.

dead game means no population → trash matchmaking.

Thief is the worst class for solo queue especially if your MMR is higher than your team’s average. This is because as others have stated, the other 4 of your team need to be somewhat competent for a thief to do well. A good thief can get all the decaps and +1s in the world, but if his team mates can’t hold any nodes, the game is lost.

Thief however, is probably the best class for duoqueue, as you gain a reliable ally that can control nodes for the thief and allows the thief to roam freely.

wwDefuser.2056:

The number of Legendary players is little … so when people have to wait until 10 players of >2000 rating are online or queuing -> the que-time explode … or you have every time the same player matchups.

On the other hand, if it wasn’t legendary players farming gold players, more gold players would move into plat, more plat players would move into legendary, and you’d have more and faster matches even in the top level.

I’m all for having hard-limits on the mmr search expansion.

Maybe a total of 150 MMR either way (up or down) from the median player.

So someone who is rated at 1950, at most the lowest player they can be matched against would be 1650, assuming the median player is 1800.

Exedore.6320:

Kokoro.8437:

I am of the opinion for my second example, that since both teams have an average of 1800, the reward and punishment for all players on both team A and B should be normalized.

That doesn’t work well. What you describe is the “Composite Teams” approach in this paper:
http://rhetoricstudios.com/downloads/AbstractingGlicko2ForTeamGames.pdf

The end result in that experiment happened because the matches in that experiment were not made to be “even” in terms of MMR. Instead it was a complete random arena, where the matchmaking did not bother attempting to put together even teams.

Exedore.6320:

Kokoro.8437:

logic fail.

Top 1% of the population is still 1% of the population regardless of if the distribution is gussian, or linear or normal or circular or inverted.

Ya, you got me there.

However, the leaderboard is decayed rating, so you’re probably underestimating by a lot.

Possibly, possibly not.

If people with decay all grinded their MMRs back up, the top score that indicates the top 1% will probably just go up a bit, and the number of people in that top 1% will stay similar.

Exedore.6320:

Kokoro.8437:

just to put things into perspective regarding total pvp population, according to gw2efficiency, a skill rating of 1850 is about where the top 1% of the population is.

Looking at the current NA leaderboards, 1850 MMR is at about rank 70.

Thus, one can extrapolate that there are maybe up to 7,000 players in TOTAL on NA that have played 10 or more PvP matches in the last one and a half months.

Math fail. Rating distributions in Glicko2 (and most rating systems) are Gaussian, not linear.

logic fail.

Top 1% of the population is still 1% of the population regardless of if the distribution is gussian, or linear or normal or circular or inverted.

Exedore.6320:

Rating gain or loss is based on the player’s rating relative to his or her opponent’s rating. Using a 1500 opponent as an example:
- A 1800 player is expected to win. He or she receives little for a win, but loses a lot in a loss.
- A 1200 player is expected to lose. He or she receives a lot for a win, but little for a loss.
- A 1500 player has a 50% chance to win. He or she will lose or gain the same amount.

Low population comes into play because the matchmaker expands rating range for a match the longer a player is in queue. That means a player 1900+ can end up in game where the average rating is 1800. The 1900 player won’t gain as much for a win as the 1800 players.

With group queue, you can have people of disparate ratings in the same match. If the 1200 and 1800 player from my example were in the same group, their average rating would be the same as the opponents’, but they would have different gains and losses.

That would make sense if, for example the 1,800 rating match was 9 1,800 players and one 1,900 player. (In which case, the team with the 1900 would be rated 1820, not 1800.)

However the reality is that its probably closer to 5 1800 players on Team A.
On team B its 3 1800, 1 1900 and 1700.

Both teams have an “average” of 1800. But the 1900 player in team B is expected to pick up the slack of the 1700 player, and yet still gets rewarded less, and punished more than the other players in the match. While on the other hand, the slacking 1700 player gets rewarded more, and punished less than the other players in the match.

I am of the opinion for my second example, that since both teams have an average of 1800, the reward and punishment for all players on both team A and B should be normalized.

just to put things into perspective regarding total pvp population, according to gw2efficiency, a skill rating of 1850 is about where the top 1% of the population is.

Looking at the current NA leaderboards, 1850 MMR is at about rank 70.

Thus, one can extrapolate that there are maybe up to 7,000 players in TOTAL on NA that have played 10 or more PvP matches in the last one and a half months.

Exedore.6320:

You can get larger differences in the ratings of teammates because of:

• Group queue when the two players have a large rating difference.
• Low population – being at the extreme (top or bottom) of the ratings or playing at off-hours.

Volatile rating aside, why should these two affect the the MMR gains/losses of players on the same team by up to 10 times or even more?

Being at the top or bottom end of the ratings means nothing if the matches you are put in also have people at the top/bottom end of ratings on the other team.

And why should two players who have any difference in rating be rewarded differently for playing the same match?

I’ve come out of matches where I gain +2MMR, while someone else on the team has gained +20. Flip this around, I can lose -30 from a match, while others on the same team lose only -5 or -4.

Why is this?

From my understanding, the matchmaker tries to put together equally rated teams. If this is the case, shouldn’t the MMR gains and losses from a match be more uniform across the board for all members of the team?

I’ve been doing some research in regards to MMR gains and losses, and come to the conclusion that the biggest factor that affects MMR gains and losses from matches isn’t actually based on your team’s average MMR vs the opposing team’s average MMR.

Instead it is more based upon how your personal MMR stands compared to your team’s average.

For example.

Team A has the following MMR spread.
10 – 4 – 4 – 4- 3 – Average MMR = 5.

Team B has the following MMR spread.
5-5-5-5-5 Average MMR 5.

If team A plays Team B, and Team A wins, the player who has the MMR of 10 will get near nothing in terms of MMR gains, but players who are at 4 and 3 will gain a lot.

On the other hand, if team A loses, the player with the 10 MMR will lose a lot, while the players with the MMR of 4 and 3 don’t lose very much at all.

Turn this around, and lets say Team B has an average MMR or 6, while Team A still has the average of 5. Nothing really changes. Even if the player with the MMR of 10 was on the team that was “favored to lose,” the match, that player will still lose a huge amount of rating, while the other 4s and 3s don’t really lose much. And if Team A somehow manages to win, the 10 MMR still gains next to nothing for the match.

I am not sure this is how the system is intended to be, but it might be a good idea to keep this in mind while gaming the leaderboards.

The alternative solution for this would be for everyone on a team should gain/lose the same amount of MMR. Instead right now we have players who gain 2 and other players who gain 30 on the same team from the same match. Both put in the same amount of effort, and both had an equal chance to win/lose the match, as the matchmaker basically tries to put together teams with equal average MMR, it should also stand that each player of the team should gain and lose the same amount of MMR instead of how the system is now.

skylink.4972:

Please dont call it skill rating its so inaccurate. It could be called skill rating if it represented YOUR SKILL but it doesnt. 20% of the so called skill rating is you while 80% of it is random 4 players you get.

But if you think that skill rating truly shows your and only your skill level, then explain, how can some players with skill rating belonging to 0,5% top players drop to skill rating of 5% in over 10 games with total games played being 150+ .

Lets get real.

There is nothing in the world that can accurately represent your “skill,” at anything or else we’d just use it to put scores and values on human beings from birth.

sephiroth.4217:

How about putting people in 1900 rating then. As you say, they will fall or would that be unfair? Before you take your condescending tone remember that youre the one trying to argue someone elses perspective and experience. So i ask you to understand my point of view, the average player stuck with these players that have 500-77 scores, if that doesnt tell you something is wrong, nothing will.

At the end of the day we want balanced games, why is that such a hard concept to understand? Why is wanting fair games too much of an ask for you?

I honestly have no enjoyment getting 20 kills against newish players and im positive they hate being spawn camped most games too.

Fair games for all skill levels is all we want. Enjoyable games.

Im honestly starting to believe the people defending this are either not involved in this tier of matchmaking or they are scared to lose thier godly feeling because now they CAN get 20 kills a game. Ill check your rating and post here after work when i get home so we can all see which category you fit under.

You could. But then 1,900 would just become the new “average” and it would become a scale of 0-3,800 instead of the current 0-2400.

So basically its just a matter of scale, and you’re just arguing semantics, for lack of a better term.

It just so happens that right now 1,200 is the “base value” for this MMR system, and because it is the base value of the MMR system, the average player ends up being around 1,200.

Not the other way around.

You could flip it around as well. Have the base MMR be 500, in which case the average would end up being around 500, and legend would be near 900-1000.

Romgaard.1965:

not to sound salty, but isnt that a stupid question…in bronze league i asume its agains other bronze league players

Not really.

if you only do “well” in 1v1s vs other bronze players, and not you “absolutely destroy all of them and can read them like a book” in 1v1s vs other bronze players, perhaps bronze is where you belong.

Romgaard.1965:

I main warrior and do pretty well in 1vs1 and 1vs 2
Not blaming anyone for my losses, but it is frustration when my team does not know how/when to rotate, fighting off points and AFKìng………..thats why i really want to get out of bronze, cause simply it is ruining my gaming experience

you do well in 1vs1 and 1vs2 against what sort of players?

other bronze players? Then that sounds like bronze is where you should be.

Legendary players? In which case you should esaily be winning all your 1vs1s and even some 1vs2s, and should be climbing out of bronze in a day.

ThatNAESLGuard.6238:

Kokoro.8437:

Because the fact of the matter is your actual skill level isn’t enough to go higher than where you are.

Git gud.

nobody higher than me even q’s. at all.

ofcourse not. You expect people to play a kitten dead game?

Because the fact of the matter is your actual skill level isn’t good enough to get to higher than where you currently are.

Git gudder.

Rocky.8195:

Metabattle is cookie cutter man my build is already tweaked beyond that. Air provides more damage via single target however does it provide better overall damage than the Might stacks from Strength and Force? And out of all the runes I listed in my 2nd question which of those or maybe ones not listed do you find give the best overall benefit? Also Signit of Agility doesn’t out-trump Withdraw, SS OR bandits. You should never use that it’s a waste considering you should always have over 65% critical chance with the correct spec given you built yourself correctly. I really just want to know the questions I asked preferably from well experienced SPvP thieves that are using D/P to compete in the 2017 tournament. Thank you for your input though I really appreciate it, anybody else have a reply that can answer my questions? It would not only benefit me but I’m sure alot of other SPvP main thieves as well. Thanks again guys.

Aeroxe just got TOLD!

IMO anyway, the most immediate thing you can do is try to improve your map rotations.

There were quite a few instances IMO that you were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Some of that comes down to your allies though, as some of them rotated badly as well.

the cat.

mjau.

Evan Lesh.3295:

Honest John.4673:

I have the feeling Evan has a lot of job security right about now. This is a good thing, he’s like the anti-Gaile Gray

I’m excited to finally have MMR out in the open. We can get some great community feedback like what professions dominate which skill ratings to better handle player perception. We have metrics like this internally, but its super tedious to look up the skill rating of every player that gives balance feedback on the forums.

Now all you need to do is show the skill rating of the poster on the PvP forums!