If I have a mesmer character that I play with all the time, will another mesmer character share the same mmr but a thief character may have another mmr?
Yep, all characters of the same profession use the same MMR.
5 months ago, Evan Lesh confirmed that Team X is based on the first person to join the team. I don’t know if things have changed since then (esp since Evan did not comment on it just now), but that’s how it is.
Should still be the case.
It’s pretty clear that Team X’s MMR it is not only the MMR of the first person to join the team. Right?
Not MMR, just ordering on the scoreboard. MMR is calculated with party average.
If you keep getting redirected into a match, try logging off for more than 10 minutes. When you log back in, you should be able to continue playing, but may be unable to queue for PvP until we fix it up.
The majority of the community hates this ‘’grindy feeling’’ and you want to contunue with it ?
(fine by me … i simply i want master Helseth to play seriously this games again…..)
We don’t want the leaderboard to be a grind either. We’ve changed the system over the course of testing to remove elements of grind.
Evan – this is a problem with a pretty well understood solution under Glicko – you rank players by their point estimate MMR, minus a multiple of their rating deviation (2 or 3 typically).
We actually do this during matchmaking to err on the side of inactivity dropping skill level. If we had a strict Glicko leaderboard now, I think this is an approach we would take.
One problem we really want to solve for a new ladder system is how easy players can understand their rating. With Glicko, we don’t really get that. This is one benefit of the point system we’ve been testing (Though it needs some in-game info).
But as my post suggests, wins should only serve to rectify ties with personal rating. Just like it shows with the link in my last post for the people in rank 23, 24 and 25.
What I was getting at is that Glicko MMR is very granular, and would almost never need tie-breakers to differentiate players.
Also I don’t see a single reason to don’t decay MMR directly. MMR is tool to evaluate player skill, we could say that someone who doesn’t play gets rusty and his skill is going down over time while not playing.
The Glicko algorithm already accounts for this with rating deviation. The problem we’d run into is the values we’d want for leaderboard decay would most likely not match something that makes sense in Glicko.
This way we don’t have to worry about decay or inactivity, we rectify position on the leaderboard based on wins and losses.
This is one thing that the current point system has going for it. We don’t need decay because players can pass each other. However, this gives the impression of grind being how to climb. The point system would have to be much less granular for wins to be a good tie breaker.
This effectively means the volatility of the true MMR is guarded and can only get closer to the real MMR by 10% each game the player played. Leaderboard rating starts at 0, and is reset to 0 every month (season).
I personally really like this idea.
A goal we’ve had for PvP is to make the game very approachable and understandable. While I think this algorithm would solve some of the MMR leaderboard problems, it still uses hidden numbers (Glicko MMR) that people wouldn’t be able to really understand and calculate themselves. I think there are options that will probably give us the best of both sides, though.
No Decay: We can’t decay MMR directly, which causes the problem of people sitting inactive at the top of the leaderboard.
Why not? Lack of tech or something?
If we mess with the Glicko numbers, it directly changes matchmaking. If we were to implement a decay that drops actuall mmr by 10% over a week, that player isn’t 10% worse, we just didn’t want them at the top of the leaderboard. When they players goes to play more games, they’ll be farming lower-skilled players because we dropped their actual MMR. This is why the old decay system was just for display, and snapped back when people played more games.
Why not have two MMR-based systems then. A less volatile MMR/ELO/whatever system that doesn’t fluctuate as rapidly, and is visible to everyone and published on the leaderboard. Then along side that one, the GLICKO MMR (and the one used for matchmaking), which should also be published on the side, that shows perceived/potential MMR. Eventually if both systems are working properly, they should both come very close to each other in showing how each player performs in relation to other players.
This is a good option and would let us choose a system that better fits players’ needs without affecting matchmaking negatively.
How long does it take to settle? Could the leaderboards simply filter out players who don’t yet have X games? (Where X is 50 or 100 in my mind? More than enough time for folks to settle, I would think?)
Glicko settles pretty quickly, the problem is that it doesn’t always stay settled. If you leave the game for a while and come back, your next games could throw your rating all over the place again. A strict games played counter wouldn’t solve everything.
Similar to my suggestion above, could the LB just filter out players who don’t have Y games in the past 30 days? (Where Y could be 10, for example, I wouldn’t think it has to be large.)
We could. Do we want people coming and going from the leader board, but still having the same ‘skill’ level behind the scenes? Will people still just front load their games and afk? Not sure if a system we can actually decay is strictly better or not. I’m just a programmer :P
I still don’t think using MMR directly is a good idea for a leaderboard, but I fully understand why people would want it: It is perceived as a better indicator of skill most of the time.
Here is why it doesn’t work well:
Random jumps: Glicko is used to make the best match possible. It does this by adjusting quickly which can result in very large jumps up and down before settling.
No Decay: We can’t decay MMR directly, which causes the problem of people sitting inactive at the top of the leaderboard.
Our best bet is to create a system that lives side-by-side with the Glicko MMR. The original system does its thing and makes good matches while the new one can be a new algorithm, or a filtered glicko algorithm to give us more friendly numbers without negatively affecting matchmaking.
I like threads like this because we can nerd out about UI polish.
I agree nameplates should better display team colors and classes. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what profession someone is when they are wearing outfits, or you’re new to the game and haven’t learned all the spell effects yet.
By default, only your targeted or hovered players show nameplates. Is this still too in-the-way? The nameplates themselves don’t have mouse detection, things just have large interact radii. And when your’e ground targeting, you should be able to still click on the ground just fine through people, so maybe there’s a bug?
There is mmr for the account, per arena and mmr for each profession, per arena. We take the two separate mmr for the arena you queue for and combine them together with ratios we can change at any time.
I can’t remember off the top of my head but I’m fairly certain new professions start at default mmr.
5 months ago, Evan Lesh confirmed that Team X is based on the first person to join the team. I don’t know if things have changed since then (esp since Evan did not comment on it just now), but that’s how it is.
If this really is an account-based issue, the quickest way to fix this is for people to submit CS tickets. We can then use someone’s account to as a guinea pig to track down the problem.
the one weird thing i get is that i usually have to select my choice (both map and accept/cancel) 2-5 times before the system accepts it. its the only place in the entire game that i have run into a problem like this.
I’ve seen this before too. I think it’s because the UI doesn’t register clicks while its being updated (which it does whenever someone else’s click is registered). I’ll ping Evan about it.
Wanted to point out that I’m still encountering this issue. I solve by double and triple clicking on my chosen map… after the single click doesn’t work. (because I always fall for it, trying to single click first)
While incredibly off topic, this is getting fixed.
When we are gathering up rosters to make a team, we don’t compare mmr directly, we compare the worst-case scenario of their mmr: ratingLow. This is glicko rating minus glicko rating deviation.
When I said ‘minus’ I literally meant a subtraction. We assume players with ‘unsure’ ratings are probably on the less-skill side. As mmr becomes more accurate, that difference becomes very small.
-Does the following code mean that the weakest link in your premade will only be -compared to the weakest link in your team and the abs difference will raise your -scoreRoster?
Nope, it’s done by averages of the numbers involved.
When we are gathering up rosters to make a team, we don’t compare mmr directly, we compare the worst-case scenario of their mmr: ratingLow. This is glicko rating minus glicko rating deviation.
Looking at the algorithm and wanting to understand it, I have some questions that a dummy like me would be very appreciative if answered.
I. What do these terms mean:
1. falloff – The reduction of how strict matchmaking is
2. RosterSize Distance – Difference between size of two rosters/parties
3. Rank Distance – Difference between average rank of two rosters/parties
4. Rating Distance – Difference between average rating of two rosters/parties
5. roster – A party of player’s queued for PvP
6. team – A collection of rosters adding up to 5 players
7. roster.countProfessions(profession) – counts the number of a given profession in a party
8. team.countProfessions – counts the number of a given profession in a group of 5 players
II. I don’t understand the following code. Explain, plox:
def pickRoster(team, maxLadder, maxRosterSize, potentials, config): #Picks another roster/party of players to put on a team
best = None
playersNeeded = config.teamSize – team.players
for roster in potentials:
if roster.players > playersNeeded: #only pick as many players as will fit on this team
continue
roster.score = scoreRoster(roster, team, maxLadder, maxRosterSize, config.scoring)
if best is None or best.score < roster.score:
best = roster
return best
III. How is team and roster rating and rank calculated?
Rank is the average PvP rank of the players in the party/roster.
Team rating is the average mmr of the members.
ty in advanced, to anyone who tries to tackle this for me.
If this is a per-account issue, then it would be helpful to submit a ticket to custom support so that we can investigate on a per-user basis. Once we find a fix for one person, we can fix it for everyone!
It would help if we can figure out what is in common between everyone since no machines in-house reproduce this issue.
What arena are you playing in?
What map is it on?
What state is the game in? (Warmup, playing, postgame)
There have been mentions of this since the December patch, but nothing concrete has come up. It doesn’t happen to many people.
Maybe there is something different about your hardware, or the type of match you were playing in, or the specific data attempting to be shown on the scoreboard.
this happens to me pretty much all the time, and you’re right, it has been since December. It isn’t one specific match, it’s a constant problem. I doubt it’s lacking hardware, I have a pretty solid build
It wouldn’t be a lack of hardware, but rather some incompatibility with the UI. We introduced the use of bink videos for UI in that update, for instance. Though the scoreboard doesn’t use any
There have been mentions of this since the December patch, but nothing concrete has come up. It doesn’t happen to many people.
Maybe there is something different about your hardware, or the type of match you were playing in, or the specific data attempting to be shown on the scoreboard.
I went to the Super Bowl this year (Patriots/Seahawks)!
The Seahawks were short two people, so they pulled me and another random person in from the stadium to play with them.
We did a great job, I had fun; but the other person didn’t. He didn’t know the plays, couldn’t hear the calls well, and couldn’t keep up with the others.
. . .
This analogy assumes we don’t do matchmaking when combining the 4 players with the 1. Since parties get a slight mmr bump, the solo players is often more skilled than the others. Yes, if those 4 are using voip or party chat, the solo will be left out of some planning, but there shouldn’t be a large skill discrepancy. This is the consequence of allowing any party size to queue, but in my opinion is far less of a problem than splitting up the community.
However why do i even have to WORRY about being matched vs premades while queuing solo?
The fact that im getting premades on both sides means that there are more flaws in the system, not less. Its just that for these past few games i happened to get the “better” premade or it would be more losses than that.
Why do you have to worry?
If a 4+1 versus a 4+1 is an even match, why shouldn’t we make it? There is no right or wrong answer here, just curious as you seem to not think this is a good idea.
Looking at your game history over the last few days, there were only two games you lost where the enemy team had a larger party than was on your team.
Remember that when you solo queue, the rest of YOUR team could be in a party, and you were paired with an equal opposing team. Also, checking for players that queued together by attempting a party invite will at best reveal they are paired with a single other person. Players could have even partied after joining a match.
Evan, do forfeits count as losses on the leaderboard and are they reflected in your displayed W/L ratio? Furthermore, does the winning team against the team with a deserter still get credit as usual? Lastly, if you win as a team with a deserter do you still get credit for the match?
For the leaderboard and in-game UI:
Wins include victories and byes.
Losses include defeats, forfeits, and desertions.
Winning against a team with a deserter results in a bye.
If you win with a deserter on your team, it is still a victory.
If there is a thread that has a run down of the season 2 points system, could anyone please link it, thank you
This is why I linked you the wiki page.
As others have mentioned, if you are disconnected for longer than the grace period then your game result and any party members’ results are considered a desertion. Other team members will receive a forfeit if they lose.
Desertions will cause your ladder points to update as if you had earned zero team score:
if game.result == ‘desertion’:
finalScore = 0
This results in the most harsh ladder point update for the odds bracket the match fell into. i.e If you were heavily favored to win, you will receive -3 points. If you were disfavored to win, you will receive -1 points:
Thank you, however I’ve read through that already and still can’t find an answer to the question I want answered most.
Can we change classes before and/or during a match? -Can you answer this directly?
Because the system might try and minimize duplicate classes for those of us playing roaming dps classes the issue of having point holders is all too real when Q’ing. Side note, League of Legends implemented a team builder Q some time ago, and might be worth looking into.
Switching classes is treated just like any other disconnect. The game doesn’t know if you’ve gone to character select, or chopped your internet connection with an axe.
The above responses are correct, but it is worth mentioning we internally record the loss as a forfeit instead of a defeat. The leaderboards combine these numbers, but we could have UI later than distinguishes between the two.
oh hey evan… question: patch notes or whatever said you guys changed the scoring matrix a little, but ive never seen… say… an updated version of the table that was in the blog. how was it updated?
We only show actual rank for people in the top 1000. The percent on the left is your percentile within the entire leaderboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile
Only people who disconnect get desertions. Their teammates will get get a win or a forfeit.
Update: 4/5 players on the winning team had desertions.
If you are partied with the deserting player, you too get a desertion. That is why he is asking. He was not the one that disconnected, but his friend in his party did. Must have been in a party of 4 if they all received desertion status. Their 5th solo Q’er was unaffected because he was not in party.
This is true. It was a 4/1 split and all 4 party members got a desertion. I will have to loop in other people as this was not something I was involved in!
