Why is this an example of bad matchmaking?
(…)
Because I didnt die once while my team rallybotted on mid nearly all the time, most of the time fighting on enemy capped point to boot… hence the high personal scores of enemy team. On the other team, the guy with only 95 points contributed most of those points by back-capping my points, dieing quite often in the process.
What division is this in?
(…)
You had 15 points more than the other teams top score, but the rest of your team had lower scores. You can’t cry bad matchmaking every time you lose. I agree that personal score does not capture every aspect of winning strategies, and that the system can be exploited to get points without contributing to the win (think rank point guild missions.) But overall you have to admit that the winning team USUALLY has the most personal score points.
(…)
In balanced matches, personal scores are similar and never mile high. Watch for it.
Nobody’s score seems mile high. 195 is a solid score but i would say mile high is above 300
(…)
The game is so situational and sometimes the smallest things can change the game i.e. landing a stomp 0.5 seconds before your opponent can rezz and you have 2 downed allies that rally as a result. That is a HUGE play that comes down to 0.5 seconds. In less than a second the fight can go from a 2v1 to a 1v3. Plays like this can cause one team to run away with the game.
(…)
What you call a HUGE play is in reality just the difference between good players and bad players. You got the stomp because you cc’ed anybody getting ready to rezz or rezzing. You got the stomp because enemy team wasnt good enough cleave/rupt stomp/use stab or invul to get rezz.
Tbh, stomping/rezzing is in no way something thats gonna win you matches hands down.
And to top it of… you get points for it, so I dont see how this would even partain to the discussion.
I disagree. The play i described actually lead my team to a 150pt comeback victory. The momentum swing can cause a team that is playing solid to just fold up and die. These types of plays occur at all levels and i don’t think this is a l2p issue at all.
(…)
Maybe one player on your team is really good, but in this specific match somebody just has his number and he gets outplayed
(…)
He cant be that good if he lets himself get outplayed in conquest 5v5. Sorry to burst your bubble.
…ok. Sure. No matter how good you are, there’s always someone better.
(…)
Or maybe he has explosive diarrhea and can’t focus on the match very well.
(…)
That’s real life man!! Sometimes kitten gets real. Literally.
(…)
There are so many factors involved in a match that it seems pretty short sighted to constantly blame Anet for bad matchmaking.
(…)
Anet promises improved matchmaking quality and delivers matches, in which I have players on my team that dont just double cap home… they tripple cap it and THEN continue to defend it against one thief with 3 people, not managing to even kill him.
Of course I can and will Anet blame for this. Those kinds of players are the bottom of casualness, they are complete beginners or absolutely unwilling to learn. And because Anet decided Im to carry those noobs now, to improve THEIR match quality… I get the worst kind of matchups possible. Thats not just because mmr is skewed… its because the whole system is kittened up. Whoever thought this would improve match quality should be fired. Its that simple. The whole matchmaking system is one huge design failure, that was already proven to be a failure in season1.
Maybe it’s because i don’t have an inflated view of my skill, but when i lose, i don’t blame Anet for giving me a buncha scrubby noobs on my team, I just assume the other team was better and move on. Although, I hope that S5 includes something other than a pip system for progression.
(…)
Now it sounds like they are going to match people based on MMR only next season and ignore divisions in an attempt to please the masses. This method seems to go against a competitive progression type of system with division standings.
(…)
It only goes against a grindy ladder where everybody can reach legendary.
You’ll end up playing the same people all season and start whining about Anet’s “forced” 50% winrate because you’ll be so evenly matched that you will just stall out. Levels of play should be relative to division placement.
(…)
If they can tune personal score to accurately depict winning strategies, maybe they can base MMR off personal stats as opposed to simple w/l records.
You can calculate pretty accurately how much someone contributed if:
- you add a negative score for dieing
- you punish zerging by at least halfing points (better would be splitting up points)
- reduce amount of points gotten from special objects slightly
- add a defense counter around capture points
But tbh, just adding a death counter will already improve the system by leaps and bounds.
There should be 5 points per kill. If 5 players tagged someone, each should get 1 point for the stomp.
Overall i would hope the goal would be to improve personal scoring to the point that IT would control your MMR and not the match outcome or at least use personal score in addition to the current system. It needs relevance.
it’s not my problem if you can’t comprehend it. Why don’t you go ahead and tell people they don’t know how to spell because “ok” is not a word, when they say “ok”, or “ye” or “ait”. Btw, it’s “you’re” not “your”
There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, you’re free to point it out tho. Sorry, not “tho”, it’s not a real word! Though*