Cal Cohen.3527
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Cal Cohen.3527
-
-
Desert Shroud doesn't have the same damage reduction that Death Shroud and Reaper Shroud do. If anyone has evidence that it does, I'd be interested to see it just in case there's an edge case bug somewhere, but there's probably a different explanation for these situations that you guys are seeing.
-
This isn't a thing. I did see an issue when hitting a target with barrier where the red crit background is offset from the damage number which could cause some confusion, but crits are happening as expected. The combat log shows these crits correctly, and I've also confirmed that there's no hidden damage reduction by using a steady weapon internally.
Any appearance of a damage reduction is likely just weapon variance being noticed over a small sample. I'll get the damage floater bug written up and assigned to someone for investigation.
-
I'll chime in here to say that the number of games played on an account has very little impact on what matches you are placed in, and absolutely no impact on what team you end up on. To clarify, the matchmaker uses a few parameters to create a "score" when considering a roster for a match, and these parameters are all weighted differently. The maximum impact of games played is equivalent to about 12 rating points. After rosters have been picked for a match, another layer of the matchmaker builds the teams. This layer only considers rating and profession, and games played isn't used at all.
-
> @"Frostball.9108" said:
> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:
> > I asked for numbers for this season to be pulled since people are always interested:
> >
> > Average skill rating difference between teams: 11.866
> > Average standard deviation difference between teams: 11.643
> > Average rating difference in a match: 98.203 (min rating vs max rating across all players in the match)
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind that end score difference never means that the match didn't start off even. Scores tend to snowball in our game for a number of factors. Some due to map layout/mechanic design. Some due to human nature, as people tend to tilt or give up after getting behind by a certain number. Sometimes people play above or below their potential. That's just part of human performance.
>
> Im curious about what the average rating difference in a match is when there is a legend tier player in it? This season or last season or whatever
The sample of games with a legend player is pretty low, so I extended it down to 1700 (plat 3+). Here's the data including last season and this season:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 14.16
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 13.55
Average rating difference in a match: 189.71
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 0.4%
There's a significant increase in rating range at this level, but as seen the skill rating mean and standard deviation differences between teams are pretty similar. The rating range is always going to be higher at the edges of the rating curve as a tradeoff with keeping reasonable queue times , but it doesn't stop the matcher from making fair teams which is the most important.
As some others have pointed out, the average game doesn't always tell the whole story. So I also grabbed all matches from last and this season and paired it down to the set of games with a rating range over 200 (these account for about 10% of all matches). Here's the data for that set:
Average skill rating difference between teams: 19.83
Average standard deviation difference between teams: 33.67
Average rating difference in a match: 279.42
Percent of games with average skill rating difference >50: 7.5%
While the skill rating and standard deviation differences are a bit higher in this set, these numbers aren't too bad overall.
I'm not trying to say that the matcher is perfect, but the vast majority of games are pretty balanced.
-
-
> @"shadowpass.4236" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:
> > > > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > > The list in the main thread isn't final; one of the reasons we wanted to get it out way early is for you guys to give feedback. We agree that mirage could use more nerfs and it's something we will be looking at in the next few days. If you have any specific ideas (preferably splits) feel free to post them along with any reasoning and we'll take them into consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Hey Cmc, I'm kinda confused what you guys mean by splits? Meaning any suggestions we make need to be split between PvP and WvW?
> >
> > When splitting a skill we're looking at changing numbers on skills rather than functionality.
> > * Damage/healing numbers
> > * Cooldowns
> > * Durations of boons/conditions/effects
> >
> > Essentially the skill should behave the same in every game mode, but can be more or less effective at what it does on a per-gamemode basis.
>
> Thanks for the clarification!
>
> Would you guys also consider suggestions to skills that weren't listed in the proposed changes?
Absolutely
-
> @"shadowpass.4236" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > The list in the main thread isn't final; one of the reasons we wanted to get it out way early is for you guys to give feedback. We agree that mirage could use more nerfs and it's something we will be looking at in the next few days. If you have any specific ideas (preferably splits) feel free to post them along with any reasoning and we'll take them into consideration.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Hey Cmc, I'm kinda confused what you guys mean by splits? Meaning any suggestions we make need to be split between PvP and WvW?
When splitting a skill we're looking at changing numbers on skills rather than functionality.
* Damage/healing numbers
* Cooldowns
* Durations of boons/conditions/effects
Essentially the skill should behave the same in every game mode, but can be more or less effective at what it does on a per-gamemode basis.
-
The list in the main thread isn't final; one of the reasons we wanted to get it out way early is for you guys to give feedback. We agree that mirage could use more nerfs and it's something we will be looking at in the next few days. If you have any specific ideas (preferably splits) feel free to post them along with any reasoning and we'll take them into consideration.
Thanks!
-
While point #4 is a joke (John Madden reference already identified), the other three are the real deal. They're pretty general ideas and certainly not a complete guide to playing ranked, but they're quick tips that most people can improve on which was the point of the original post. If they don't help you that's ok, they probably help someone else. And if no one at all found them useful, it's only my own time that was lost which is no big deal.
-
> @"Damocles.4908" said:
> that challenge awaits, complete it and I'll give you a special present in Guild Wars 2
Who can resist a present. I'll get an account set up at 900 rating and minimum deviation to make things interesting.
I'll start with something like this. Might switch it up a bit or play another class at some point but we'll see how it goes.
http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vFAQJAoIhcMoxhFOwzhBCAjyCHhoQUACABxKTmELDA-jJRHQBlsMQBeAAcY/BAcCAAA
-
> @"Magnito.6187" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > @"Magnito.6187" said:
> > > "I have the handicap of being bad at the game"
> > >
> > > Reaches plat 3
> > > League system is totally fine lads!
> >
> > If I can do it, anyone can. Sounds fair to me.
> >
> >
>
> That wasn't really the point,
> as your rank should indicate your level of skill -as implied when introducing leagues and a duo/solo queue restriction- while you are stating to be a player being 'bad at the game', you shouldn't belong in platinum 3.
>
> - Either you are (like Sind said before) a good player.
> - Either there's something wrong with the league system.
>
> Although 'if I can do it, anyone can' sounds really good, it's out of the matter.
>
>
Yeah sorry, I thought my earlier comment was funnier than it actually was. Since season 5 I've hit legendary twice and mid to high 1700s in the other 3 seasons, so I'd say this season's rating is pretty accurate so far.
-
> @"Crinn.7864" said:
> Whatever happened to the reaper that you used to play?
That build was pretty fun. I haven't tried anything with reaper since PoF though.
> @"Magnito.6187" said:
> "I have the handicap of being bad at the game"
>
> Reaches plat 3
> League system is totally fine lads!
If I can do it, anyone can. Sounds fair to me.
> @"Yukio blaster.9082" said:
> It's refreshing to know that an ANET dev actually play sPVP and he is good too :D . wondering what's your rating gonna be in EU . and beside you @"Cal Cohen.3527" who is a pvper too!?.
Probably somewhere in bronze. West coast ping to EU is pretty miserable and of course EU>NA.
> @"volpenvieh.3201" said:
> 69% win rate? teach me, master!
Ranked tips by cmc™:
1) Don't tilt.
It's really easy to jump on a teammate's mistake and blame them for a lost fight or a decapped point, but this doesn't really benefit anyone. Your teammate will play worse and your focus is split so you'll also play worse. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone has to deal with their teammates' mistakes. It all evens out in the end, so the best thing you can do is just focus on your own play and figure out how you're going to win the game. This idea also applies to deciding whether or not to queue again. Taking a break after a tough loss can give you a more focused mindset for the next game instead of dwelling on why you just lost and disrupting your play even further. Winning every game is unrealistic and never going to happen, so don't worry about it.
2) Get out of fights that are over
Most fights are decided before everyone on one team is dead. The faster you leave a fight the more time you have to press your advantage or mitigate your loss. Everyone has been in those fights where you kill a guy or two, then everyone stays to clean up the 4v2 and by the time they're all dead your homepoint lost his 1v1 or got plussed by a respawn and you're still losing the game. If someone rotated earlier you would still clean up the fight but you could reinforce home if needed or grab the decap at far.
The other side of this is the fight you lose where everyone on your team dies around the same time, then the enemy snowballs into your home and you never recover. There's usually a point in that fight where you can identify that you can't win anymore. Whether it's your whole team at 25% while theirs is healthy, or a big kill+rally sequence in their favor, once you realize you can't win it's time to leave. Even if there's no opportunity to pressure far, getting out alive can prevent the snowball and give you a chance to come back.
3) Reflect on mistakes
Reviewing vods of your own games is a great way to identify mistakes that you're making that you won't notice during the heat of a game. Even if all you can do is local recordings in 240p potato quality, I'd recommend it to anyone looking to improve their play. The more you improve the more you win. Crazy how that works out.
4) Score more points than the enemy team
I've never seen a team lose when they successfully execute this strategy. Highly recommend.
-
Pretty bizarre. I'll take a look this week.
-
I broke the rules and played spellbreaker, but it seems fair because I have the handicap of being bad at the game. Here's the result so far.
Sounds like a fun challenge though, maybe I'll try something next season. I had fun playing janky builds in the past, but I just don't have as much time to play as I used to so I usually stick with the meta stuff.
-
> @"Frozenblade.6039" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > @"Kahrgan.7401" said:
> > > > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > > > @"Kahrgan.7401" said:
> > > > > https://imgur.com/a/oW6eq
> > > >
> > > > I took a look at this match and interestingly enough the team with no duos won 503-498, which sounds like a great match. There are going to be some combinations of ratings where it makes sense for multiple duos/trios to be on the same team. For example, if the 3 highest rated players queue together and 2 lowest players queue together (with the other 5 all solo players), it probably makes sense for those 5 players to be on the same team. We could choose to always separate multi-man rosters when possible, but it would only result in worse matches.
> > >
> > > I cropped out the score on this one because I knew you would use this ONE example to justify the imbalance. "SEE GUYS ITS WORKING *points at one picture out of a sea of examples*"
> > >
> > > The point is, if you are duoed you are typically working together, discord/ts or other means, which means... typically.... better team work. 2 duos should not be on one team, and none on the other. If you equate everything to rating (which is inflated by poor class balance (or deflated if you aren't playing the faceroll button mashing win build of the 6 month period) then you are setting games up to be un-fun. I dont know about you, but I play the game to have fun, not facepalm at the end of matches.
> >
> > You're right that drawing a conclusion on a small sample of games doesn't really work, so I went ahead and pulled all of the matches from this season where one team had two duos and the other team had none. In these matches, the team with two duos won 46% of the time.
>
> Can you give this report by Divisions?
Team with 2 duos vs 0 duos winrate by rating brackets. Within each range I grabbed all of the matches in which the average rating of both teams was contained within the range. No surprise that the overall winrate moves closer to 50% as the sample size grows.
<1000 Rating: 43.9%
1000-1250: 52.6%
1250-1500: 49.2%
1500+: 48.2%
Overall: 49.8%
-
> @"Lyger.5429" said:
> During the current season I have a total of 87 games played with an effective rating of 1511, yet I do not see my name on the boards but I do see it on the friends and guild section. Lowest MMR on the boards as of posting this is 1447. Could a dev please look into this, same thing happened near the end of last season making me play more games than I intended and unfortunately dropping from my spot.
>
> Perhaps another poster could help me confirm if I am indeed showing up and it is a bug on my end.
I think I know what's happening here. It's not possible to move from off the leaderboard onto the leaderboard without playing a match. So what probably happened is your rating wasn't high enough to get on the leaderboard after your most recent match on Monday. Then on Tuesday, the minimum games requirement got increased from 15 to 30 and a bunch of players who were higher rated than you dropped off the leaderboard, but you still need to play another game to post again.
-
I don't have any cool videos, awesome data, or nonsensical propaganda, but you can trust me that this server is pretty fantastic. Hope to see you there soon.
-
> @"Kahrgan.7401" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > @"Kahrgan.7401" said:
> > > https://imgur.com/a/oW6eq
> >
> > I took a look at this match and interestingly enough the team with no duos won 503-498, which sounds like a great match. There are going to be some combinations of ratings where it makes sense for multiple duos/trios to be on the same team. For example, if the 3 highest rated players queue together and 2 lowest players queue together (with the other 5 all solo players), it probably makes sense for those 5 players to be on the same team. We could choose to always separate multi-man rosters when possible, but it would only result in worse matches.
>
> I cropped out the score on this one because I knew you would use this ONE example to justify the imbalance. "SEE GUYS ITS WORKING *points at one picture out of a sea of examples*"
>
> The point is, if you are duoed you are typically working together, discord/ts or other means, which means... typically.... better team work. 2 duos should not be on one team, and none on the other. If you equate everything to rating (which is inflated by poor class balance (or deflated if you aren't playing the faceroll button mashing win build of the 6 month period) then you are setting games up to be un-fun. I dont know about you, but I play the game to have fun, not facepalm at the end of matches.
You're right that drawing a conclusion on a small sample of games doesn't really work, so I went ahead and pulled all of the matches from this season where one team had two duos and the other team had none. In these matches, the team with two duos won 46% of the time.
-
> @"Forsty.7968" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > yes
>
> Hey,
>
> Im curious about volatility when it comes to rating if youre interested in answering. How come do you allow the rating gain/loss to be so volatile at the start of seasons? I understand that MMR or hidden rating whatever it is is not like this but for example at the start of this season you see last seasons 50% winrate gold players jumping all the way to plat 2/3 due to winstreaks * . Doesnt it still effect the matchmaking in some ways like if their winstreak continues, their hidden rating will rise higher and theyll be matched in games where they, at least according to last season, should not belong? I agree that a degree of volatility is good to have but a jump that goes almost 1 division higher after being "hardstuck" in last season. Sorry if this derails from the thread too much.
>
> * im not speaking of all gold players or large amounts, just some that ive noticed myself throughout the leaderboard.
Volatility is higher at the start of a season to give players a chance to get to their true rating faster. If we started everyone at the minimum value it would take dozens of games to climb up, which means more matches of true legendary players playing against silver and gold players. While it's true that some players can luck into a high rating at the start of the season, if they don't belong there they'll drop back down as they continue to play. Essentially it's a net positive over the course of the season, although it does add some variance to the start.
-
> @"Wolfric.9380" said:
> It simply should never happen that the same class has more then one more then the other team. So 0:1, 1:1, 1:2, 2:2, 2:3 and 3:3 should be the valid options and no other choice. Having 3 of the same on one side is already a bad sign but if really needed ...
In cases with an odd number of a profession, the matcher will always do an off by 1 split because 0:3 and 1:4 exceed the 2 limit. In cases with an even number of a profession, forcing the even split starts running into problems when the highest and lowest rated players in the match are the same profession, and this is further exacerbated when you add 2-man rosters into the mix. It's forced to make a worse match because it must put those players on opposite teams even if that doesn't make the most sense from a rating perspective.
-
> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
> > > Zoop and I also had a match where we were placed against 4x Scourges. These people did not swap classes, it just loaded in 4x Scourges against our team that had no Scourges or Firebrands. Needless to say, we lost that match. What felt bad though, is that we were mulching these Scourges all match. Our team seriously outplayed the 4x Scourge team. But because it was a team of 4x Scourges, to be able to kill them, we couldn't stand on the nodes. The 4x Scourge team won the match by repeatedly dying, respawning and walking onto nodes to keep us off nodes, despite the fact that they were being farmed for kills.
> > >
> > > I think that match may have been the biggest demonstration of an imbalanced meta and now imbalanced game mode in general, that I have personally witnessed in all the years of Guild Wars 2.
> > >
> > > **Do not allow class stacking like that if you don't plan on balancing the intra-class dynamics.**
> > >
> >
> > This should literally never happen if no one swapped. I'll track down the match tomorrow and see what's up
>
> If they did swap, it happened before I was able to load in and push the B screen to look at team composition, which means it was pre-contemplated to do so, which reveals a huge exploit within the system to bypass the anti class stacking function. Is there no way to implement a function that plainly prevents a player from logging out and back onto a class that there is already 2 of in the player's current team?
>
> Our team consisted of: Druid/Holo/Holo and two other DPS specs which were not Scourges. The enemy team was 4x Scourges and 1x Holo. Aside from what the coy & sarcastic responses say in this thread, the large majority of player base would agree that a team's success rate goes up higher and higher the more Scourges & Firebrands that are on that team. This is true in spvp and wvw.
I found the match and two of the players on that team swapped to necro after the queue popped. The solution would be to lock character on queue instead of match start but this comes with its own problems. We held a poll some time ago and players voted against locking character on queue.
-
> @"zoopop.5630" said:
> > @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:
> > yes
>
> It hasn't been working like it should.... being paired with 2 rangers/2holo but no necro or guardians at all, however enemy team has 2necro guardians and a holo?
>
> wasn't the new match making suppose to prevent team match ups like this?
The matcher considers all compositions with unique profession differences up to 2 (i.e. 2v0 and 3v1 are both viable choices) and picks the best based on ratings. Our first test in unranked used a limit of 1 (1v1 and 2v2 splits only), but this is a pretty harsh restriction and ended up creating worse matches in many cases. We relaxed the limit to 2 early last week in unranked and saw additional improvements in matchmaking, so that's what we went with moving forward.
-
> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
> Zoop and I also had a match where we were placed against 4x Scourges. These people did not swap classes, it just loaded in 4x Scourges against our team that had no Scourges or Firebrands. Needless to say, we lost that match. What felt bad though, is that we were mulching these Scourges all match. Our team seriously outplayed the 4x Scourge team. But because it was a team of 4x Scourges, to be able to kill them, we couldn't stand on the nodes. The 4x Scourge team won the match by repeatedly dying, respawning and walking onto nodes to keep us off nodes, despite the fact that they were being farmed for kills.
>
> I think that match may have been the biggest demonstration of an imbalanced meta and now imbalanced game mode in general, that I have personally witnessed in all the years of Guild Wars 2.
>
> **Do not allow class stacking like that if you don't plan on balancing the intra-class dynamics.**
>
This should literally never happen if no one swapped. I'll track down the match tomorrow and see what's up
-
> @"Winter.1475" said:
> My friend & I have done only 3 placement matches each & are now encountering the "Error: You cannot perform this action because you or someone in your party has a rating that is higher than allowed for your party size." message.
One of you is over 1600 rating. Even though rating is hidden during placement matches it's still there in the background.
Runes and Sigils rework at 11/13
in Player vs. Player
Posted
There are no new runes or sigils being added to pvp with this update. Celerity is an existing pve sigil and Vision is a new pve sigil, so neither of them will be available in pvp. Intelligence will retain its existing functionality and will still be available in pvp.
If you do the math on the Scholar change you'll see that 125 ferocity is about a 3-4% damage increase depending on amulet choice and additional crit chance. Given that the 6 bonus loses 5%>90% the overall damage ends up being pretty similar. You get a bit more damage while under 90% at the cost of damage over 90%, which is probably a positive most of the time but isn't an increase to 1-shot potential.
There will be a lot of changes to existing runes and sigils for pvp. We have done some preemptive splits and will be keeping a close eye on everything else with the plan of splitting anything that becomes too much of a problem.