Guild Wars 2

You can’t do this if you are in queue :/

It takes a king of the hill 1vs1 Pavillon style in hotm, with spectator above the arena

It would really fun ^^

Justin ODell.9517:

HipposWild.7185:

These matches are so bad!!!! I don’t understand what happened but someone did a terrible god awful job implementing this. Every other match has a 300 point landslide with 5 pre-made dragons versus 5 solo rabbits…. This is the dumbest most enraging state of sPVP I’ve seen since launch. It’s borderline unbelievable.

That’d be me. Sorry. I basically gave the system a lobotomy until we can get in a fix to let it think smarters.

So Does this mean until 16th we have basically no filter and we meet the first people we find in unranked/ranked?

This evening was a pain in the kitten .

I played only unranked tonight (with my second account) i had terrible people in the match (with and against).

Queue very fast but match quality was really bad.

I only played “solo” tonight, yesterday only “solo” but the match quality was really better and the queue longer.

Honestly i prefere to wait 2-3 min more but having better quality match.

Or at least, tell us if there is basically no filter so i go in premade and i avoid to go crazy to carry “uncarryable” people.

Archaon.9524:

It receives votes because if you go premade it’s totally faceroll taking just a couple of minutes

Non provare a negarlo xD

I said this

Courtyard receives a lot of votes so people like it.

For sure this map receives more votes than skyhammer and spirit.

It’s not a good map for pugs because there is an high snowball risk, it really depends on party composition, people brain and their teamfight skill

Maybe some tweaks (like a more “clean” map) could help.

If I’m in premade i like this map, in solo i’m not inclined to vote it.

I hope for an american guy, with a lot of experience in spvp (high Tier too) and with an objective judgment.

Like phantaram for example ^^

This is because the ladder is unique.

In a bronze, silver etc. league configuration, where top 50/100 players fight for “master league” probably this problem wouldn’t happen because there is already a “skill” filter and basically you need only points to win your division.

After that, at the beginning, how to put people in every division is another problem

Justin ODell.9517:

Silentshoes.1805:

As has been mentioned, even having a group of 2 on a team, potentially in realtime communication on TeamSpeak, gives a huge coordination advantage,

We know this is the case.

Looking at the data, and running simulations where we take roster size into consideration during the filter part of matchmaking. Couple of ideas sound good to me at first glance. 1) Adjust their MMR upward so that if they do get paired against lower roster sizes they’ll be against more skilled opponents. 2) A hard filter that just prevented them from being considered at all (at least until a fail-safe kicks in.)

As for TeamSpeak, we can’t reliably detect that to make it a factor.

1) It could work until a definite point. At higher tier this system could be a problem because when mmr is high and people skilled a different roster size (like for example 3+2 vs 1+1+1+2 or 4+1 vs 1+1+1+1+1) can create at huge gap in coordination and movements.

2) Probably a filter can ensure more quality game at every skill tier. But i dunno if there could be long queue problems. Maybe an attempt could be interesting.

3) or Maybe using roster size filter only for a MMR >= X and a more flexible system for low mmr.

Give time to devs to improve their Matchmaking.

Solo against premade it’s not a big issue on low mmr level, good solo players can easily win against bad premades.

The real problem is when 2-3+ good players go together and in the other team there isn’t a similar roster size with the same skill level.

Devs are working on it, give them time.

Nettle.9025:

Blackmoa.3186:

what this leaderboard desperatly needs is a league system like in lol or other similar games

This is entirely the issue right now.

You should be placed into a bracket at the start of a season based on your MMR, and your ladder points in that bracket based on your activity. This is how other online competitive games do it.

For example in SC2 by MMR:
Bronze – bottom 10% of players
Silver – next 35% (10-45)
Gold – next 35% (45-80)
Platinum – next 15% (80-95)
Diamond – next 5% (95-99)
Master and GM – top 1%

This way, you won’t see a ‘meh’ MMR player in the top 25 of all the LB due to sheer activity. They’d be top in their lower MMR bracket, and the best by MMR would still be visible in the high brackets.

People will be rewarded for skill and improvement by placing in higher brackets as new seasons come and go, and rewarded by participation by winning their bracket. Could even have an end of season reward structure that better rewards the higher brackets. This encourages everyone to play, because even the lower skilled players have something to strive for in winning the lower end brackets, rather than being rank 8000 or w/e it is now.

Yes, this should be the final step, but this game is not ready yet.

The purpose of this TEST season is to test stuff, so i think we need to be more patients and we’ll see what works and what doesn’t work at the end of the season.

First of all the key is always the matchmaking, for a good leagues structure, matchmaking needs to work really well and for now it’s not perfect and devs are working on it.

Leaderboard is totally new, i’m the first one who thinks probably time played will be the best factor in this leaderboard but we need time to see what will happen.

Rewards, same thing, rewards are poor for this seasons but it’s ok, it’s a test, of course a reward league system would be better and more competitive, but this is the first seasons test, so i think we need to monitor this seasons and suggest good correctives when we’ll see how things will work on live.

Justin ODell.9517:

MarkPhilips.5169:

I’m ready to bet that in the final top100 there will be people with a really bad win ratio and a huge amount of matches played.

I don’t think this will happen, but if it does happen we can change the table so losing always takes away points. It’s only the narrow losses, or going up against a higher MMR and doing OK, that will let you stay neutral after a loss.

I want to be more specific, at the end of the season, we will see people with win/ratio > 0.6 but not many matches played be below people who have 0.4-0.5 with a TON of matches played.

And i think it’s not totally fair.

Of course i’m not talking ratio 0.6 with 50 matches but 0.6 with like 500 matches. But i bet top leaderboard will have thousands of matches played at the end of the season (1 month)

We’ll see the data, i’m pretty curious about it

I’m ready to bet that in the final top100 there will be people with a really bad win ratio and a huge amount of matches played.

Justin ODell.9517:

Look at the top 2 in NA, both with 58 points as of writing this..

First place:
58 points with 65 wins, 75 loses. That’s ~0.43 points per game.

Second place:
58 points with 63 wins, 51 loses. That’s ~.51 points per game.

That .43 vs .51 is the difference between narrower losses, and winning against tougher opponents. That’s where the skill comes in.

Yes, someone with .5 points per game will be higher than other players with .5 points per game the more they play, but someone with a higher point per game stat will need fewer games to get the same number of points.

Addendum:
Yes number of games also matters. We want the players that play more to be higher on the ladder than similarly skilled players who play less. We also want less skilled players to have a chance as well.

Ok, of course this is a Test Seasons so it’s fine, we’ll see at the end how it will be the final ladder, about matches played, win ratio etc.

But i think at the end, if you play more and you are a worst player than another, you will be above in ladder

In general, a system that forces people to play is fine or we have the same situation we had before, play few games, high elo, go afk for months = gg, but i think a good ladder should have a good equilibrium between matches played and skill.

It would be interesting, for example, introducing small weekly ladder boost based on weekly performance (like for example win ratio) or other “skill” parameters, or other stuff to avoid to give the message: “it’s only count how much you play, if you’re decent and you play 100000000000000 games you’ll be the number 1”

It’s not really a pure grinding.

How many points you get, it depends on odds and end score, so skill it’s always important.

But i’m not really sure at the end of the season we’ll have in the top20 , always the same best 4 teams, it really depends on how much they’ll play.

Really curious about it.

Blackmoa.3186:

It depends on when new leaderboard started to collect data.

no it doesn’t. When teh new leaderboard came online i was on 8 wins, and after the last updaet of teh leaderboard i was on 2 even though i won 2 more games in that time. Other members of the party i was in did not drop wins, in fact i clicked through teh leaderboard and didnt see a single other person have a drop in wins.

Yeah so probably there is some issue or bug or i dunno, but i think it’s normal in this phase.

Good thing to evidentiate these issues before season starts.

Blackmoa.3186:

you all don’t get the point. i dropped in wins, which should be completely impossible.

It depends on when new leaderboard started to collect data.

And i think it’s in test phase, Officially new leadearboard will start with new test season on 16th Dec.

In the meantime, i think there will be bug or data matches don’t recorded.

Your leaderboard position (rank) is different from you rating value (how much good u are).

If people are really good but they don’t play a lot, they can have a low leaderboard position (rank) but an high rating.

It’s different from the old leaderboard.

Yes, new leaderboard will be based on points, so to climb up the leaderboard you will have to play A LOT and WIN a lot.

Remember, there will be a reset on 16th Dec for New Test Seasons, so now i think it’s in test phase

Obsidia.5127:

I still don’t understand what the problem with SoloQ & TeamQ was. You have solved so many issues that SoloQ had. Why would you remove it? I just can’t see the new Ranked Arena working out like this.

I think that Ranked Arena should be ‘Solo’ or ‘5v5’ only. I think Unranked Arena should allow everything else as well.

In theory a unique queue would be better if matchmaking worked great.

We say in another topic that roster size needs to be filtered to avoid some combinations vs others.

BUT now there is a bigger problem linked to rating first of all.

And We need to consider that without a leaderboard and season, community is very split between unranked and ranked now.

Justin ODell.9517:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ahh …I’m on NA…..45mins now…and afraid it might pop any second and don’t want to restart whole process again

This is exactly what I was afraid of when I put min potentials up higher. Sorry :\

It needs to be made more flexible, or it will just keep outliers out of the game during off-peak hours.

But for eu time, is not possible differenciate and use a more flexible system only for off peak Hours and more quality matches for other hours?

Or there will be always the problem of bad matches vs fast queue.

New players need only to start with a low rating value and don’t be matched with veteran players.

But this is a matchmaking issue.

Justin ODell.9517:

Just looking over the data for the last day. With the exception of Courtyard, which seems to get a lot of blowouts, increasing min potentials seems to have a caused decrease in end-game scores between teams. I think that’s a pretty safe metric to gauge the competitiveness of a match, does anyone have any thoughts on that?

I upped it by another 25, but I don’t feel it’s safe to go any further until we get something in to automatically drop it back down during off-peak hours.

Matching similar rating and roster size are more important.

There is too much difference in skill in the same party and like we said in another topic, there are some roster size that never has to be matched against each other.

Final end score is important but match close doesn’t always mean good match.

I really appreciate you are tweaking numbers basically every day, i suggest you to give to rating and rostersize really high priority .

I really think quality match >> fast queue, of course no one wants to wait 10-20 min for a match, but better to wait some minutes for a good match instead of few seconds for a bad match.

Imho veteran/good players should have longer queue. In general, the system should think twice before to put good players with 3/4 noobs.

It would take less approximation to put good player with noob players, bacuse the average result is a bad match. Good players can carry very hardly 3-4 noobs, and if they can, the match results always a pain in the kitten , a very sufferance.

I dunno if the system use a simple average between players to get the final value for the matchmaking but i think veteran players (or noob players, depends how you can handle this) need a different “weight”.

Ready for test season start

Evan Lesh.3295:

If you can queue from anywhere, what happens when the match is ready while someone is loading, in a cutscene, or talking to a scout? I doubt people want the match-ready UI to stay up for 90+ seconds while the slowest player loads and maybe decides to accept. We also can’t just give dishonor to people who miss the queue because they are loading, or watching a personal story cut scene as that seems unfair. These problems led us to the compromise we have now, but we are open to other options!

I’m for making HOTM a better place

Like for example, crafting stations, Big JP with final Chest in the HOTM, 1vs1 Duel Like Pavillon with spectators above ^^

I’m pretty sure these combinations with a similar skill level and decent party compositions on both of sides, can offer very good and fun matches.

It would be interesting watching many players data about finale score and roster size, but i think only Anet can have accurate data because many times the players perception about party size in the other team is inaccurate.

Justin ODell.9517:

FOX.3582:

100% Agree…. 10 matches today vs 9 pre-mades… Lost 9 (ofcourse) -.-

This is why I asked the question. Player perception doesn’t always match the empirical evidence. I pulled up your match history since we launched the new servers.

5 vs 4+1
2 1+1+1 vs 2+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1 vs 2+2+1
5 vs 4+1
5 vs 1
2+1+1+1 vs 1+1+1+1+1
5 vs 3+1+1
1+1+1+1+1 vs 4+1
5 vs 2+1+1+1
3+1+1 vs 2+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1 vs 2+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1 vs 1+1+1+1+1
2+1+1+1+1 vs 1+1+1+1+1
2+1+1+1 vs 1+1+1+1+1

Only 3 of those were matches that were stacked against you.
5 vs 1
1+1+1+1+1 vs 4+1
5 vs 2+1+1+1

I’m want to improve things so even those don’t happen, but sometimes things just don’t happen the way we perceive them to have happened.

This is interesting, i think in general “5vs not 5” shouldn’t happen and i think They were the worst matches in his case

I’d like to know the score for 3-1-1 vs 2-1-1-1 and 5vs 4-1 i think it’s not a good combination. Same for 2-2-1 vs 1-1-1-1-1

Thx for Answer.

I hope you can do this, it’ very crucial now that rated matches are fused

Justin ODell.9517:

Ithilwen.1529:

I have seen no evidence of consideration of team vs. solo. Skimming the matchmaking algorythim, I may have missed it. I was tired but didn’t see anything in the psuedocode that dealt with team size.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Pseudo-Code
Look for roster size and max roster size.

Can you answer here pls? ^^

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/MatchMaking-RosterSize/first#post4601399

I opened a more specific topic about rostersize

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/MatchMaking-RosterSize/first#post4601399

Reading the matchmaking formula on http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm , there are a lot or parameters and I think only:

Scoring/RosterSize/@distance

and

Scoring/RosterSize/@perfect-fit

afflicts party size.

So we have different party size compositions:

5
4-1
3-2
3-1-1
2-2-1
2-1-1-1
1-1-1-1-1

Of course the best way would be to match the same party composition against each other, but if queue were too long, maybe it would be possible some little “exceptions”.

For example

5 always against 5

1-1-1-1-1 vs 1-1-1-1-1 or 1-1-1-2

3-1-1 vs 3-1-1 or 3-2 or 2-2-1

4-1 vs 4-1 or 3-2

It’s only an example of course, i’d like to know your opinion about it. I don’t know how these compositions can be translated in those 2 parameters, but for sure, they need to have an high priority in matchmaking formula, considering now soloqueue and teamqueue have the same queue.

There is a different mmr in unranked and ranked arena i think.

It’s an intentional change to prevent most of 4vs5 at beginning.

It’s a little sacrifice to have a 5vs5 match (at least at beginning).

Maybe i’m wrong, but i remember a dev said if you switch the same prof before the match starts, you have no penalty.

BTW i ’d like to know the exact answer for this.

Devs said this system is not yet a league system, probably it will be the next spvp step.

In general, matchmaking needs to be refined, but devs said with the actual system, they can modify parameters very quickly.

Party size needs to be more similar (no premade vs pugs) and no 3 same profs in the same team.

But if only few people play spvp, no system can be perfect, these features are really interesting and i think we need to be more patients

You’re a good guy, Justin.

We believe in you

Personally, i really like this map voting system.

Harbinger.8637:

I played around 20 games tonight, my group was always between 2-4 people, and we only faced a full premade once. Rest of the time it was against soloq players. It really wasn’t fun for anyone. Every Courtyard ended 500-0, and all the other matches where around 500-150.

How you can say they wasn’t a duo/trio but only soloqueue players?

This map receives a lot of votes, people like it or want to try it.

It’s a different map, spvp population is not used to do deathmatch so it’s a big new for this patch

But i agree a setup for conquest is not always ideal for this map, so people should have the chance to change their profession without penalty.

We were on the opposite side this evening, Justin, queued every rated match in full premade and we met a lot of mixed team (EU side).

:)

I think system can be forced to have a premade vs premade and other stuff vs other stuff

Justin can say this better, now the system is very more flexible and this fix shouldn’t get weeks or months to be addressed.

Justin ODell.9517:

style.6173:

I never thought I’d say that I miss the old system, but wow. This new system was NOT ready for prime time. It is not fun.

Can you elaborate? We have plenty of things we can tweak to improve matchmaking now, so qualitative feedback is useful.

We did a lot of attempts today in unranked and ranked queue.

In unranked queue we queued in 2-3 and 4 and we met basically no premades against us.

In ranked queue we queued in 5 and we met a lot of mixed team. They hadn’t any chance to beat us and indeed the match wasn’t fun.

We noticed that queue starts very very fast, i think it’s better for the game if premade NEVER meet mixed team.

I know with the new leaderboard party composition are considered in ladder points so if a mixed team lose against a premade probably don’t lose points on leaderboard but it’s basically a no fun match.

I dunno if people prefer to meet a premade (and no loosing points if they lose) instead of nothing (infinite queue) or similar team sized but with a lot of difference in skill (same, no fun match).

It’s a delicate point, considering how much tiny is spvp population.

Or a mystic forge recipe for a super llama with multiple llamas!

Anet nerfed vigor and minor endurance trait on engi, mesmer, guardian and ranger

War and necro are fine.

Thief (s/d) and Ele (cantrip) not, too much vigor/dodges

Right, i want npc with the meta builds (updated EVERY balance patch) and with the same top10 players skill level.

Advanced IA Here we go!

Joking indeed, but it would be very fun

I agree with op!

I prefere precursor or gift (for legendary) like a special rewards for top high tier in the new spvp competitive seasons.

In this test season we will have exclusive armor and a exclusive minipet for top100 (armor only for top20).

Of course it’s a test, i think armor for top20 is nice but only a mini pet for 21-100 is not really great.

In general, i’d like a league system with divisions (gold bronze etc.) and rewarding every top tier of every division in different ways for different seasons.

This is a test so i hope future seasons will able to have this league structure.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

from dulfy notes:
Now there is a dishonor stat that is separate from time out. If you decline a match prompt, you will get a bit of dishonor. If you dc during a match at anytime, you will also get a bit more dishonor (2-3 times more). Whenever you get dishonor, you get a timed out where you can’t join arenas that lasts the longer the more dishonor you have.

does this means, once we got disconnected due to server issues, we cannot rejoin the match?

I think you can rejoin but at the end the match you will get dishonor + loss penalty and you can’t go in queue for X time.

Zephyron.7081:

MarkPhilips.5169:

I think it will be always 5vs5

They did post a CDI for sPvP game modes. I’m still waiting to see what has come from that discussion. 2v2 arenas were widely asked for by many, many players, as well as other popular game modes like moba, etc…

So far, we have a GUI update and a match making update with a dishonor system. Wow, I really hope there is more coming soon…

I just wish the development didn’t move at such a snail’s pace….Anet, please at least give us more of a timeline for sPvP updates…a ballpark road map with the disclaimer that nothing is set in stone, maybe?

I agree with you, i really like arena 2vs2 or 3vs3, i suggested this mode many times in other my previous topic..

But i think in this patch, everything will be set for 5vs5 with the same matchmaking rules, so if people vote for Courtyard, there will be a 5vs5 DM no 3vs3 or 2vs2.

At least is what i guess, i hope a dev can give us better infos.

I think it will be always 5vs5