I love how Caed gets his own category.
Was most recent…easier to remember.
So far this since the start of this season, only counting my solo queue matches, which are about 50-80 guestimating, I’ve gotten matched up with.
FULL ABJURED—twice
Apex premade—twice
At least one player from abjurred- 6times, phanta 4 times.
Caed—3 times..
Tarcis, morph, acandis, firebird, and other high profile players more often than I can count.
How am I expected to compete with this without running cheese?
In a system that punishes people that solo queue for having an above average mmr…we will be forced to run cheese when we solo queue. That or lose 45% of our matches and just focus on trying to play well.
I know so many above average players whose win rates are hovering around 45% after a significant sample of games because of this.
Mine was 65% after my first 40 or so matches, when I ran almost exclusively turrets. Now it’s much lower…zerk flamethrower is bad…
Don’t blame the cheese…blame the system.
The solution is extraordinarily easy: Instead of taking into account “odds of victory” take into account only “strength of opponent”. Heaven forbid we reward people that have high enough mmr to fight difficult matches.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Just introduced a small display bug in pvp stats where the headings show up as 7 digit numbers instead of “Team Arena Matches Won”
Very much looking forward to challenge mote fixes.
Sorry Josh, but this does punish high MMR. The higher your MMR, the more likely you are to be favored.
This leaderboard punishes good players and rewards bad ones, the opposite of what it is supposed to do.
This could be remedied easily by keeping the current matchmaking, but only considering the difficulty of your opponent (not the strength of your own team) when deciding how to award points.
While it’s easy to claim that this system is less than perfect. I challenge anyone to claim (logically) that it’s not a vast improvement.
As MMR stabilizes and as the sample size increases, I’d expect this to become an increasingly more accurate representation of skill.
MMR itself was also a fairly good representation of skill. How quick the decay started was the only thing that was broken about it.
We just experienced a bug about an hour ago where the enemy claimed our whole spvp team was invisible to them.
We did attempt to pre stealth for our opener…unsure if that caused it.
We could see ourselves the whole time….no stealth buff…could contest points.
Please fix.
Just experienced this right now….no idea how it happened.
Please fix…
We did attempt team stealth right as match was starting…unsure if that caused it.
We could see ourselves the entire time, no stealth boon.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Are you sure que time isn’t increased because you are grouped? I have 7+ min que time in a gp of 4+ and 2-4 min que time when solo. Now I have no idea what my mmr is so maybe I just suck. It doesn’t make sense that you get that much longer que time because you have high mmr to me, because it’s clear the match making will pool people of different mmr together as long as the total mmr is close between the 2 sides.
I have a consistently opposite experience in which queue times are much shorter when I AM grouped.
also discovered this, would like to have a chance at this acheivement.
Yes.
Also…just made a post that says exactly the same thing while you were typing out this bad boy.
While nothing you said is false…I believe you have misunderstood my main point.
In the current system bad players, and especially players with an artificially low mmr, are very commonly earning higher points per game than medium-high mmr players/high mmr players that solo queue.
An improvement would be to keep matchmaking close to how it is, and only consider the difficulty of your opponent when awarding points. Strength of your own team should be disregarded.
When you have a system that is supposed to decide who is playing the best…it does not make sense to punish higher level play.
Um… isn’t that how the MMR system should work?
1) Opponents should get progressively harder, thus winning should become harder. This is to push your MMR higher and higher. Though stacked teams and premades vs non-premades, I THINK, is being looked into, I THINK.
2) Since it’s a bit natural that less people will reach the higher MMRs it makes sense that there’s less people in general queue’ing up or even being on in that MMR range. People in the same MMR range will/should play against people in the same MMR range.
3) Yes, they are lower, since you will get constantly placed against people of the same skill or higher than you. That’s how you increase your MMR, more so than beating people lower skill.While maybe it is less rewarding than it should be, but by no means should it be that you’re picking on players in the lower MMR range and progressing as if you were beating higher MMR players.
I’m having the same problem…
It looks like the problem has to do the server or something in game…especially if reinstalling the client didn’t fix it.
I know it has nothing to do with our internet connections because ts3 works fine during this whole crash…
In response to Lexiceta…
Playing at peak hours helps.
Someone that plays as often as you during off peak hours will have worse queue times…furthering my point that this system punishes all players who are in between top teams and mediocre mmr ratings.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
1.) Wins are more difficult to come by. I’ve done nothing but solo queue the first 2 days and I fought full abjurred twice, at least some abjurred 4 times, 3 turret engies once, and various other premades. (less than 20 matches)
2.) Queue times are silly. Why should high mmr players have to wait 7-10 minutes as opposed to the average which is apprently 2:30… This gives us nothing better to do than hop on here and complain. (Since getting a beverage, using the restroom and dueling are no longer options)
3.) Your “odds of winning” are constantly lower. Which means even when you manage to get some wins after constantly fighting difficult opponents, you receive less points for those wins. Losses are more likely to punish you.
Unless you are on a top team, or have a mediocre mmr, you’ve got no shot at a good points per match ratio.
These offensive forms still have counterplay guys…
Rampage: kite it….dodge the 3 skill and the 5 skill, blind, block, steal diversion and corrupt boon still apply their cc’s.
Lich: Blinds, blocks, reflects, use terrain, steal, diversion and corrupt boon still apply their cc’s.
Elites are elites…they are not auto wins against good players.
I’ll concede the are overpowered….I really like the idea of 5-6 seconds instead of 3.
Melee is not dead, but it is more difficult to play.
I share the concerns about wvw open field fights turning into mostly ranged fighting. In ranged vs ranged fighting either nobody dies or the least patient group dies… Those fights aren’t fun for anybody.
Maybe they could keep the stacks mechanic on it, but increase the duration on certain stability skills slightly? Maybe they could slightly increase the number of stacks? We’ll all have to play this for a little longer to get a better feel for it…
Should players that have field of view/vert maxed out have a distinct competitive advantage to players who prefer the old settings? Right now, it’s obvious that they do.
If so, we’re all going to have to get used to barely being able to see enemy animations right next to our character…
If not….this needs to be fixed.
Have you tested this yet Aidan?
In my testing more blink spots work now than before…
Concern A: The new objectives and the way mobility is used with them will cause un-even matchups to snowball heavily, more than they would otherwise. This will create really bad matchup problems for all but the most evenly matched weeks.
Concern B: WvW players don’t like mechanics that get in the way of actually fighting the enemy.
These are all valid concerns.
On paper, the patch was the most significant improvement to PvP that has been seen since Tournament Tickets were overthrown.
It hasn’t lived up to the theorycraft in any way. The multiple matchmaking fields that were added (Profession MMR, balanced # of professions, balanced number of premade vs. solo queuers) aren’t working as intended (or at all?)
The solo queue playstyle experience took significant steps backwards. Without these crucial matchmaking fields working properly, it’s just suicide to solo queue into ranked as an intermediate to high MMR player.
There’s not been any communication from Anet as to why the ranked tPvP experience is not living up to the pre-set expectations, maybe there will be talk on that soon.
Without being overly emotional or exaggerating, I wouldn’t be opposed to a full roll-back of the matchmaking & separate queues for Solo and Team queues. The map vote system is great though, props to whoever made that happen..
agree with all.
1.) Matchmaking is worse. I just fought 5 matches as solo, 4 of them against the exact same high level premade, and the other one with a necro on my team that confessed to being new to the game…gg. This never happened before the update. Before at least I had solo arena, now I’m literally just going to wait for those players to log off before I play anymore.
2.) The ready button has not significantly reduced 4v5’s. I dare the devs to look at their data. Playing is way less convenient now, and it has not fixed anything.
3.) The leaderboard system demands that players grind. It reflects playtime above all else. There is no difference in reward between high level MMR matches and low level MMR matches. Obviously there should be.
Love these ideas. If I was in charge, and perhaps there is a reason I’m not, I would balance cele engie by reducing some of the rifle dps, this would also bring turret engie back a little.
The burn on cele ele…is not that bad imo except for the duration after walking through ring of fire. If that was brought down from like 5(or whatever it is) to 3, it would be just fine.
this is worse than what we have.
points per game makes a little bit of sense, but even then you’re putting a cap on people with high mmr (cap at 1) who are most likely the best true players.
Hold on….correct me if I’m wrong here.
You want to give players the power to stop certain players from being on their team?
What’s to stop people from just blocking all the bad players the meat?
So many people would exploit this. Grow some skin, turn chat off if you need to, and play.
Merry Christmas
The OP has a lack of understanding. Pushing far at the start only hurts your team if that player gets killed quickly. or their home character manages a full cap.
Even if that player loses a 1v1 at far, if they make it last 40 seconds or longer it’s certainly not a loss for your team.
If there is a 4v3 at mid, it will very quickly (less than 15 seconds) become a 4v4 because that means your home person got a free cap and will soon rotate mid. Your team now has even numbered fights and a capture point advantage, assuming your team wasn’t bad enough to get focused down in 10 seconds.
Since I don’t have enough clout to argue with someone who is clearly set in their opinion, please spend 20 minutes of your life listening to this kid talk about rotations. He might be a kid… but he has tons of gw2 clout and he understands rotations pretty darn well.
Merry Christmas
1.) Has the frequency of 4v5’s actually gone down? It actually feels worse for me but I concede that could just be just be some bad luck.
2.) What are the MMR’s looking like for the top 100 on the leaderboards at the moment. Is MMR corresponding with points earned or not?
And finally a philosophy question or 2:
Should the same amount of points be awarded to an average team for beating an inexperienced team as compared to a great team beating an above average team?
Said differently: Is it intended for players with higher MMR to have a tougher time earning points?
Yeah my matches from about 10 hours ago aren’t showing up, despite the leaderboard saying it updated less than 2 hours ago.
The good news is that it’s not just you. The bad news is that it has been broken for about 12 hours and I don’t see any evidence that shows they have even noticed it yet.
I agree with OP.
As people learn how to play and kite around points, melee becomes less powerful.
Low level melee is borderline OP; high level melee is underpowered.
No.
Thanks for your bias and valuable contribution to this discussion!
Really?
You are the one who wants to literally nerf a class into the ground. If there’s any biasedness here, it’s on your part.
Either reducing might duration by a small percentage and/or lowering celestial amulet stats by a small percentage would do the trick easier, simpler, without destroying classes, or creating other balance problems.
I agree with OP with diagnosis but the suggested solution to might stacking is a huge overnerf and would also split the function of might between pvp and wvw and pve.
Mistsim…The speculation they are making is that the front page will be filled with nothing but players who play 20-30+ matches per day regardless of skill level.
If the point structure stays the same, we have no reason to believe anything else.
Remember fetid river from gw1? Had a great mechanic where a priest npc would res the whole team at the same time unless the enemy made a push to kill it.
The team that lost the first team fight was not immediately out of it. It allowed for some great comebacks.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Okay, new idea:
What if we restructured this concept of “odds of victory” into a type of handicap system. If a team with significantly lower odds of victory had to score less points in order to clinch a win, could we use that as a way to look only at wins and losses for leaderboards? or maybe wins minus losses as a player’s score? Would this keep high level players and teams entertained if there isn’t a good matchup for them at the time? Would this make less experienced players feel like they have a chance against high level teams?
I know this presents MMR as a problem…ie Good players beating a good team should have a higher reward than bad players beating a bad team..
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Okay, new idea:
What if we restructured this concept of “odds of victory” into a type of handicap system. If a team with significantly lower odds of victory had to score less points in order to clinch a win, could we use that as a way to look only at wins and losses for leaderboards? or maybe wins minus losses as a player’s score? Would this keep high level players and teams entertained if there isn’t a good matchup for them at the time? Would this make less experienced players feel like they have a chance against high level teams?
I know this presents MMR as a problem…ie Good players beating a good team should have a higher reward than bad players beating a bad team..
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
So… as much fun as it is to qq, complain and restate problems…I’m gonna keep trying to think of solutions and post those instead.
Factoring in winning percentage and/or MMR into point system.
Harsher punishments for losing and/or higher rewards for higher margin of victory. (margin of defeat is all that matters now).
Any of these things could lessen, or completely fix the sad truth that time played=points right now while still forcing top players to commit to staying active.
Honestly I think the issue is very high expectations. I do not envy you.
This reminds me of college football in that way. So difficult to compare teams with different records.
Factoring in MMR somehow might be workable (though we are already doing that by changing the number of points you win or lose), but adding anything more might awkward since we don’t expose that information.
Using the number of wins, or the win/loss ratio, is asking for problems. The number of wins vs loss does not reflect your skill because it’s not from a large random sampling of matches, and does not include critical information, i.e. 1) who you played against, and 2) how close of a victory it was.
As far as people’s worries about it being number of games played that means you’re at the top, try to keep a few things in mind.
- Seasons will be short.
- A 500-50 record is more impressive (and more statistically significant) than 10-1 record.
- Eventually, we’ll show you the match prediction information and tell you how you need to perform to get X number of points.
The ladder points system already gives players what they are trying to find by looking at wins vs losses, but is also more accurate because it works around the non-random sample by carrying with it the information that is missing from wins/losses. (See 1 & 2 above.)
I’ve looked at the top people, they’re playing games against opponents that are challenging, and they are consistently winning or coming close to winning.
I think part of the issue is that since 1 & 2 are not immediately apparent (we don’t even show it in-game yet), we humans prone to assume it doesn’t exist, is trivial, or is random.
I understand that all wins are not equal. You’ve done a nice job of explaining that, but here’s my evidence for why win percentage does matter.
Average players that play a ton, like the one Caithe just mentioned, should not be on the top. He’s a 50/50 win loss player in old solo q with about 4500 wins and 4500 losses.
Top teams are missing out on points because they aren’t being matched up against equal opponents (because there isn’t one playing at the time).
Top players tend to play on teams. With this matchmaking system teams tend to win a high percentage.
If there aren’t better players playing, win percentage goes up. If you’re one of the best players at the time you should be rewarded. The theory of matchmaking causing everyone to have close to 50% win percentages doesn’t work unless there’s always competitive teams and players for you to fight at that time of day. Theres no roof to that ceiling anymore…if that makes sense.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Read what you’re arguing with before you argue with it.
My suggestions include possible solutions to the problems that you reiterated.
What would you think of including a points per day cap alongside incoorporating winning percentage as a factor?
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
solution.
New Score=Points*(2*wins/games played)
solution.
New Score=Points*(2*wins/games played)
Keep in mind that the sample size for any data collected within this system is insanely small. Don’t argue by pointing out absurdities in data that have only been collected for a couple weeks. Give the law of large numbers a chance to work. Here’s why I like it so far:
1.) It attempts to balance player performance and player time spent. We must agree that in order to earn a top spot a player should have to be both active and successful.
2.) It allows strong players without teams to compete with strong players on teams. You could make an argument that we want to encourage team forming (firebird already did on these forums). Lets be real here though, someone who wins 30 matches with 4 strong and familiar teammates has not proven as much as a player who wins 30 matches queuing solo.
3.) Players on high level teams (so far) need to play less to accumulate the same number of points as solo queuers.
4.) MMR still exists and still matters. In any given match there are 10 people trying to influence the outcome. Finally they are all taken into account in each match.
5.) Decay was terribly misleading and glicko2 was exploitable.
AAALLLRIGHTY, now for some ideas to improve this thing:
1.) How about including wining percentage as a factor? Look at the record of players on radioactive like guard and overpowered necro and tell me they don’t deserve to be placed slightly higher based on what they have done so far. I feel like not having any equal or greater teams playing at the same time of them has also hurt their scores in this small sample of time.
2.) How about encouraging top teams to play near the same time of day by supporting in game tournaments 2-4 times daily?
3.) How about keeping a separate leaderboard that shows MMR so players can compare and contrast.
4.) How about a formula that balances this point system, wining percentage, and maybe even MMR?
or something simple like: Score= (Points * (2*wins/games)) This would nearly double the point totals of those with records like 30-1. These players are likely getting the short end of the stick anyways because they are probably constantly facing teams with lower “odds of winning”. It would still force players to be active in order to place high on the ladder.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
I would bet the player in 1st place at that time had a low MMR and queued solo more often than not.
Since there win/loss ratio is under .5, I’d assume their MMR is pretty accurate. I’d think the people with closer to .9 win/loss ratios are ones who might be benefiting from an artificially low MMR and/or are grouping up and facerolling.
Of course, that’s just guessing. I still have to look at the actual data.
That makes sense.
I’m just looking for a realistic explanation for a poor winning percentage being scored very highly. Losing a lot of 450 to 500 matches seems very farfetched. Repeatedly getting matched up against a top pre-made team might explain it.
Very interesting data, Justin. Those 2 players scores are the same despite wins and losses being very different because the 2nd player had either more quality losses and/or a lower average odds of winning?
I would bet the player in 1st place at that time had a low MMR and queued solo more often than not.
I would expect/hope that as profession specific MMR starts to stabilize and more matches are played that the new leaderboards will become more accurate over time?
Acandis is right if you assume that these players are winning significantly more than they are losing and playing well in losses etc…
I’d imagine playing 100 matches with a 60% win percentage to be (very roughly) comparable to playing 200 matches with a fifty five percent win percentage under the new system.
(edited by crunchyraisin.6054)
Agree with OP. In NA prime time this doesn’t seem to be an issue. Acandis posting a 40+ minute queue timer should be all the evidence necessary to fix this.
As a middle school math teacher I have to ask:
Are you upset about your luck? or do you have a misunderstanding of how probability works? a 10% chance is not that small. There is a 1% chance of that instance happening twice in a row. That 1% occurrence is all but certain to happen to many players every day.
If you play enough matches, the law of large numbers says things should start to even out. (google it :p)
/agree… with all 5 of you.
We desperately need some new goals for spvp players to aspire towards. It is not very difficult to reach the highest rank in the game(80), and get a few champ titles. Now what do we have to strive for? Setting and chasing goals is what makes games like this fun for a lot of people. Reward tracks, and impending seasons are a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it wouldn’t be too hard to come up with something to keep more players invested for a longer time, especially the group of players that play a lot but aren’t at a high enough level to compete seriously in weekly and monthly tournaments.
Here are some ideas to fix this problem arranged from easiest to most involved:
1.) Develop different finishers and/or skins for 1000 wins, 2000 wins, 3000 wins etc in ranked matches as a way to extend the rank system and allow players to show their experience.
2.) Create new achievements and/or titles with ways for players to show these long-term accomplishments. One for getting a champion title on all 8 classes would be cool.
3.) 3-4 times daily tournaments supported in game, with potential for a qualifying point system for weekly/monthly tournaments supported in-game.
4.) And the most time and resource demanding, but undoubtedly the best way to solve the problem: New game modes!
An ongoing ladder tournament similar to HoH from GW1 would provide an opportunity to incorporate less popular maps and different game modes. Matchmaking takes care of itself because good teams spend most of their time fighting higher up on the ladder, and less experienced teams would have a chance to win a few matches on the first few rungs of the ladder. So many maps have already been created that could be used for this as well, like the ones used in seasonal activities. Maybe even some 5v5v5 action on some tiers…gvg style matches…so many things that could happen to entertain players and keep them pvping.
Conquest is great, new ui looks great, loved watching WTS matches, but give us something to shoot for!
my humble opinion in order of priority:
1.) some kind of supportive team fighter: ie. d/d ele, bunker guard, bunker war, hambow, etc.
2.) a player that can rotate quickly, hold or win 1v1s, and survive in 1v2s until help arrives: d/d ele, warrior, terrormancer etc.
3.) Damage: zerker or condi: theif, mesmer, cele engi, power ranger, etc.
4.) Something mobile that can get decaps: theif usually…but other things are fast.
d/d ele is popular cause it is never caught out of purpose, because there isn’t much it can’t do at least decently.
If I had to pick another build to be ‘necessary’ it would be a cele engie. They are kitten strong when played well.
Best 3 point opening in my opinion is 2 dps push far in stealth, 1 mobile character that can handle 1v1s and live for a while in 1v2’s grabs home, 2 brawlers (cele) push into mid.
Example1: Signet of the hunt/attack of opportunity claims to give +150%. What it actually does is give +50%.
Either the skill description needs to be altered to say it adds 50% bonus damage (like it actually does) or it needs to say the next attack hits for 150% of its usual damage.
I am unsure if there are other skills in the game with similar errors.