PvP Discussion: Matchmaking and Leagues

[Cynz.9437]

> @Reikou.7068 said:

> My question is less about matchmaking itself, and more about **how MMR gains/losses are calculated**

>

> **Why is MMR gain or loss calculated as Personal MMR vs Opposing Team Average instead of Team Average vs Opposing Team Average? **

>

> The current system would make sense if there was absolutely no matchmaking, and matches were put together randomly in a completely random arena.

>

> However, this game has matchmaking, and attempts to put "even" teams together.

>

> With the current situation, the lowest rated player on a team who plays the worst and gets carried the hardest stands to gain the most, and lose the least. Where the highest rated member of a team who has to bust his kitten stands to lose the most and gain the least. Everyone else in between is either on one end or the other end o this spectrum.

>

> Please make MMR gains/losses calculated based purely on team MMR.

 

He already answerd it. Scroll up.

[LUST.7241]

_Specialization icons _

Specialization icons were removed because a small number of players during the beginning of HoT didn't agree with it. With the introduction of PoF and the wide variety of possible builds out there, [can we see Specialization icons return to PvP](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/3765/pvp-should-use-specialization-icons/p1 "can we see Specialization icons return to PvP")?

 

_Pure Solo Queue..._

The Solo Queue after 1600 has been pretty great, imo. But players that like to group will always be touchy. If ATs for 2v2, 3v3 like mentioned in the [AT thread,](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/303875/#Comment_303875 "AT thread,") this would, again, resolve that issue. The current Matchmaking algorithm doesn't work well with Duo+ because it is hardly modified like the other games that use Glicko2. If this is not the approach GW2 will take (heavily modifying the algorithm), then ATs for 2v2, 3v3, should be considered.

 

_Off hours_

Off hours is a good time to abuse the matchmaker and pad one's stats. That's how many on the leaderboard can sit with 90% Win Rates and high ratings. I think that likely will always be an issue since the matchmaker prefers finding games faster at the expense of quality games. Has there been any thought to adjust the matchmaker so playing off-hours is actually less beneficial than playing during prime-time? Meaning, something like the theory-craft discussions [here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/16828/rating-gain-loss-based-on-closeness-of-match "here")

 

_Profession Lock_

The matchmaker is currently set to a max number of 2 of the same profession to potentially be put on the same team. Much like the reasoning to why this was added, 2 of one profession (ex. Necro) can really sway a game one way or another. While character swapping is still possible, is there any thought to change the max profession limit to 1? Ideally this would resolve a huge part of the issue with balance of classes.

 

_AFK and Disconnect Timer_

* Players can avoid the disconnect penalties by pretending to be AFK (which then hurts a team), are there any changes going to be made to the AFK system in matches?

* Players can reconnect and disconnect and restart the timer, are there any changes to make the count not reset?

 

_Placements_

There is a soft reset every season, but the first few placement games matter way more than the last few. Meaning, if Player A and B started at 1200 and Player A started 0-4 and ended 6-4, they may place around 1400. If Player B started 6-0 and ended 6-4, they may place around 1600.

 

[Pinkunicorn of Dethecus.32]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Natto.5819 said:

> > Matchmaking needs to take into account classes that are way stronger than others. Necro, Thief, and Warrior classes should have a stealth bonus rating to account for the fact that they're too strong. For example, if a player has a 1600 Rating, and plays his Necro, his effective Rating is 2000. That will help the matchmaking put together a more balanced opponent team.

>

> Balance changes on a regular basis. Making a system that would have be tweaked that often is not sustainable.

 

Regular is highly debatable. You've already said you don't control balance patches. Maybe that could at least be something that you could control about it, at least. Having played since pre-launch, I'm sicker than I've ever been of a meta (even Celeele or Chronobunk), Scourges should have never made it out of alpha how they are right now, let alone launch or, embarrassingly, 2 balance patches later. I'll refrain from my personal feelings about the team that does control that, but suffice to say, if this were a thing, at least you could control the game mode that we all participate in, instead of a team that apparently primarily reads the (incredibly biased) profession sub-forums for which they balance

[Androdias.7458]

Hi

First of all thanks very much for talking to the community and the people intrested in pvp it feels good to have that.

My question: Why are seasons so close together? Wouldnt it be nicer to have them further apart so league placement would be on display for a while? So maybe players get motivated again for a new season and start with new builds and maybe a new balance after a little break?

At the moment it feels like the final season placement dosnt matter because in 3 or 4 weeks everything will be void and mean nothing anymore.

Combined with the staleness of the meta (which is not your fault tho) and the amout of games needed it tires players out very quickly which is why MM problems pop up in the first place (imo).

[Kapax.3801]

I see that this matchmaking works badly in almost every game.

 

Have you tried a "meritocratic" system? I mean, reward for what you do during the game and reduce your penalties if you lose. I feel that in this game I advance a step but if I lose I go back to the beginning, making all my effort useless.

Also, suppose I did everything possible to win, but the rest of my team gave up or did not take it seriously, why should I be punished for the poor performance of other players?

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @Androdias.7458 said:

> Hi

> First of all thanks very much for talking to the community and the people intrested in pvp it feels good to have that.

> My question: Why are seasons so close together? Wouldnt it be nicer to have them further apart so league placement would be on display for a while? So maybe players get motivated again for a new season and start with new builds and maybe a new balance after a little break?

> At the moment it feels like the final season placement dosnt matter because in 3 or 4 weeks everything will be void and mean nothing anymore.

> Combined with the staleness of the meta (which is not your fault tho) and the amout of games needed it tires players out very quickly which is why MM problems pop up in the first place (imo).

 

Feedback is pretty all over the place when it comes to the length of off season play. We've gotten other feedback asking that seasons either never end or just happen back to back with no break.

 

I personally feel a break between seasons is good, since it allows for a bit of mind reset and, hopefully, battles fatigue. But I did feel that the break was too long before. It used to be around a month. We're targeting a norm of 2 weeks now. Though, we sometimes have to schedule around other releases.

[ChSch.1596]

I think the rating fluctuate very much. You degrade rating fluctuation betwen the 1. and the 50. match. Maybe a solution is to continue the degrate of rating fluctuation betwen the 50. and the 100. match from +-12 to +-6 rating for a standardmatch.

But otherhands if you are not at your real ranking, you need longer to get your real ranking.

A different solution could be to have promotional matches to get in the next Division like in Leage of Legends. Here you have to win maybe 3 of 5 matches for climb from 1599 to 1600 or from 1699 to 1700. Here you would also have to lose 3 of 5 games to fall down from 1700 to 1699 or from 1600 to 1599.

 

What think you about this?

[Ashyri.5426]

Please remove class stacking altogether: each team must have 5 unique classes.

[Vagrant.7206]

> @Ashyri.5426 said:

> Please remove class stacking altogether: each team must have 5 unique classes.

 

I'm ok with this *IF* people are locked into the class they queued with.

[EvilSnowflake.1453]

Hi Developers, thank you for your time.

I would like to suggest a system that may help solve a problem I run into far too often.

I think pvp matchmaking should have a low priority system similar to Dota 2.

This system temporarily moves players to a low priority Queue when they quit/afk/verbally abuse players.

In low priority they don't have a time limit, but a number of games they must win to return to high priority.

 

This would require no small amount of work I understand, but it works well in Dota 2, and may also work well in gw2.

 

What do you think?

[Thane.9421]

So as I understand it, number of points awarded/lost at the end of a match are based on your personal MMR being compared to the enemy team average MMR. Paired with the new restrictions on duo que I'm finding this quite frustrating at the 1600+ level. The game tries to set you up in even matches, attempting to create a 50% win/loss ratio, and without duo queue you only have control of 1/5 of the team. However, losses penalize you more and wins give you less, because you are normally one of the highest MMR players in the match.

 

It seems to me that this would also contribute to a pooling of players at plat 1, which would also make MMR less effective overall, wouldn't it? I'd like to suggest that when it comes to point gain/loss, team averages be compared on MMR on both sides.

 

Also, I'd like to throw my vote behind the idea of an adjustable slider on matchmaking, for the quality vs. queue speed. While at higher ranks this may mean long queues, playing coin flip matches that are one sided ends up being far more punishing than it is rewarding at the higher ranks.

[brannigan.9831]

Team based MMR averages for matchmaking is a terrible system. I know you responded to questions already about possible changes but it needs to be done. Let me give you an example and explain what happens with your system sometimes. Team One:1700, 1600, 1550, 1450, 1400 average MMR 1540. Team two 1600,1600,1550 1500, 1500 = MMR 1550. You matcher will say this is a great match. Im here to tell you that the later team will win easily the vast majority of the time because 1450 and 1400 MMR players will lose any fight where they are together unless they get extremely lucky. There is a weakest link element in this game that can't be overlooked. What ever team has the most good players even if the other team has the highest MMR player or two in the batch will win most of the time. Im far from a pro player but I've beat pros plenty of times because they got saddled with the majority of the weakest players in the match. Not to mention the idea of whether its fair or not to have people forced to group with people far below there skill level and I would argue anything over about 150 MMR difference is pretty big difference in skill level if we are talking about true established true MMRs.

[Morwath.9817]

> @EvilSnowflake.1453 said:

> Hi Developers, thank you for your time.

> I would like to suggest a system that may help solve a problem I run into far too often.

> I think pvp matchmaking should have a low priority system similar to Dota 2.

> This system temporarily moves players to a low priority Queue when they quit/afk/verbally abuse players.

> In low priority they don't have a time limit, but a number of games they must win to return to high priority.

>

> This would require no small amount of work I understand, but it works well in Dota 2, and may also work well in gw2.

>

> What do you think?

 

A reason Quaggan has stopped playing Heroes of the Storm, with his dynamic IP, any IP restart would temporary DC Quaggan, and then he would have to play with toxic people...

[Cevni.2049]

Hi

 

I personally think that the matchmaking system currently allows for too wide player rating gaps between individual players, I have been in multiple games where multiple players in both teams were 400+ lower than me. Beyond the obvious problems with this, there is also the fact that such games often leave me earning +3 for a victory and -22 for a defeat, this creates a situation, where I'd need to win roughly 88% of all games, just to stay at the same rating I got. There are several things that should be done about this, the game should be stricter in matchmaking even if it forces longer queues, it should inform me before I click accept, that should I lose this game I will lose over 7 times as many points as I would gain and also in my opinion there should be a lower cap of +5 as the minimum amount of points one can get from a game, while -15 should be a cap for how many points one can lose, this means one would need to win 75% of all games to stay at the same rating, while winning more increases it, this seems reasonable to me.

 

I would also say that matchmaking needs some form of system to make more balanced team compositions for both teams. For example at the moment, if a team with a support firebrand faces one without, the team with the firebrand is very heavily favored. This is not a criticism aimed at the class balance as this will generally be the case, as a team with an actual support fighting one without an actual support, will and should be very heavily favored. The game should provide some form of system to make sure each team has a more or less reasonable team composition. Exactly how this should be implemented I am not sure however.

 

I would also suggest a feature that allows you to queue-dodge (at least prevent them from being on your team) a number of players, 5 players at once seems like a good number, that is more reasonable than blocking them and looking when they are in a game, this might sound very toxic, but it is rather a suggestion aimed to reduce situations where both people are very frustrated at one another, I have been in games where two players right from the very start of the game started whining at each other and then neither of them focused on the game and it went as horrible as expected. In addition this would allow one to dodge afkers/bots/very toxic players. Having a maximum of 5 prevents people from "sculpting" their dream team of players and also means one cant use it on every player on encounters that has a build one disapproves of.

 

I would also like the ability to see the rating of each person and the average of each team at the end of each game.

 

An AFK detention system would be awesome too that could detect when people are AFK and prevent the rest of the team from losing rating (say 45 sec+ of not being on a node and/or fighting anything for example), similar to the disconnect system.

[Winegum.2395]

Could you tell us more about the distributions of the mean SR and SR difference you're reporting? it sounds like the 50points is just a point estimate of the difference, but how variable is that? standard error of the difference?

 

Also, how variable is SR within a single team typically?

[jyaim.3702]

It's good if 95% of games regroup close match ratings. However this is irrelevant because a majority of people i know had some high volatility of their rating (gold to legy to gold to legy within same season). So you have future legy players in gold, and so on, so that the matches only make sense on paper, but not in reality.

That is confirmed by what was said above : a lower skilled player loosing its fight and making various move mistakes cannot be recovered by a skilled one who has nothing to adapt on, and cannot be equivalent to 2 players in every situation missed by his mate.

 

Ideal SoloQ system implies to take into account player level, historical level because season are short, actual role played in a team because slacking should not earn more points, and class to balance the classes, but also the roles held by classes to make team actually balanced... With a number of players that is limited and changing a lot during a given day, and with evolving builds,

THAT is simply NOT manageable. And mixing solo an duo is even more complex...

 

This is a 5men game, solo or duo should just not exist, and allowing natural grouping/players balancing teams on their own (whether it's 5 men or 3+2) would handle a better deal than any algorithm in current volatil context.

 

Plus, being clamped to irrelevant games means 'not playing' : annoying concept in a game ! Playing with mates overcomes this issue. And yeah some people would 'carry' some others : that is part of life !

 

Then, leaderboard wise, that implies a good ol' system, where struggling ramp up is a challenge and not depending on an algorithm weakness (people presence, class stacking sniping, stream sniping, guild sniping....and other boring concepts)

 

another way would be to attach leaderboard onto AT in a way or another but I dunno how complex that would be.

[Wolfric.9380]

Also having an overal MMR makes it inacurate. You realy should go for class MMR and Leaderboards locking classes with the map roll.

[EgyptRaider.3946]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Cynz.9437 said:

> > 4. Please consider match outcome by points loss. If match was close, player shouldn't lose as many points - this would encourage players to play to the end. A lot of matches ae winnable but players give up early since there is not enough difference between close match and simply lost match.

>

> In order for this to not be broken, we'd have to also not give as much rating increase for winning a close match. How do people feel about this?

>

>

>

 

I'd really like that tbh. When matches are really close I think everyone can recognize that. When a match is lost by 500-460 or something, it just hurts to lose 16 points, even though the teams have fought quite equally.

 

Even for close matches I think the incentives to actually -want- to win are plentiful. Winning vs. losing would still mean the difference between gaining or losing rank points, you get more pips ánd you can close the daily winning achievement. Having the winning team also lose in the amount of rating they get by winning only very close would also avoid abuse of these systems? Otherwise winningteams might just as wel wait around for a bit to give the losing teams more score before they take the win.

 

P.S.

 

One thing that jumped to my mind, but I hadn't mentioned yet in these discussions: have you considered adding a extra pip for playing in Gold (or at least tier 3 of Gold), as a player who used to jump a lot around the 1500 score I always considered this to be a big dividing line to jump around, even though the quality of the matches between high Gold 3 and low Plat 1 is not much ofc. Nowadays my position on Plat 1 is a bit more stable, but still I think it would be a nice addition to make the gap around the 1500 a bit less artificial.

 

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> This thread is to discussion matchmaking and league play. To kick off the thread, I wanted to talk a bit about the current state of the matchmaker.

>

> In a recent random sample of 100,000 matches, we found that in approximately 95% of matches, the difference between the average skill rating of each team was less than 50 points. The matchmaker is doing a good job in most cases. Things get more problematic at the very low and very high skill ratings. Our change to duo queue for 1600+ ranked players is part of our efforts to address this. In addition to that modification, we’re working on some fine tuning on the matchmaker. Our simulation with the proposed changes extended the favorable difference ratio mentioned above from 95% to over 99% of matches. I can’t give you specific dates on when these changes go live, but we’ll be looking to trial them on the unranked queue somewhat soon™.

>

> One thing to keep in mind is that just because the average skill rating of each team is close, that doesn’t mean you won’t have a blowout match. Some maps just tend to snowball, some players tend to give up when they get a bit behind, etc. This can lead to a blowout even if the average skill rating of each team was fairly close.

>

 

This statistical analysis is basically flawed.

 

The average skill rating of the team is a poor metric. You can put 100 and 1 together and come up with an average of 50 ( rounding down.) Now take that team and match it against 2 players rated at 50. This will not be anything like a fair match.

 

The second issue is that a 50 rated player on Scourge is very different from say, a 50 rated player on Renegade.

 

The third issue is duo queue which makes players over perform as compared to solos.

 

You can't get good conclusions starting with an unsound premise. Here you have three strong reasons that team average rating is not sound. **The only effective way to get even matches would be to lock classes, force solo queue and set up matches on class based ratings. You would also need to match player-by-player. Team average would throw You off badly.**

[kiwiburner.2186]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Cynz.9437 said:

 

>

> > 4. Please consider match outcome by points loss. If match was close, player shouldn't lose as many points - this would encourage players to play to the end. A lot of matches ae winnable but players give up early since there is not enough difference between close match and simply lost match.

>

> In order for this to not be broken, we'd have to also not give as much rating increase for winning a close match. How do people feel about this?

>

>

 

It's been suggested elsewhere, but I think you could account better for close matches by rewarding more pips. If you're using pips as the carrot rather than rating, I don't think it's necessary to reward fewer for snowballs. In fact I think a majority of snowballs involve one or more player giving up (usually when you are inadvertently 3-capped for 5 seconds around the first 100 point mark), and you will have fewer snowballs if you have a culture of rewarding gaps of less than 150 points.

 

Also, how about another poll on class-based MMR *with* class-locking on queue? I think your data will show there is a culture developing of class switching for the purpose of imbalancing games, when the original class matching is really sound.

 

[Wolfric.9380]

> @Ithilwen.1529 said:

 

> You can't get good conclusions starting with an unsound premise. Here you have three strong reasons that team average rating is not sound. **The only effective way to get even matches would be to lock classes, force solo queue and set up matches on class based ratings. You would also need to match player-by-player. Team average would throw You off badly.**

 

I always said this .... But i know removing duo will socially hurt. So i suggest 4:4 or 6:6 where the MM puts the duos first.

 

[Bazooka.3590]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Bazooka.3590 said:

> > Hi Ben,

> >

> > here are my ideas I would like to suggest for consideration:

> > I try to be short.

> >

> > I've got a two way suggestion:

> > 1. If you have the resource to rework the Match Making system. 

> > 2. If you don't.  

> >

> > Case 1. If you are willing to rework the Match Making system. 

> > In that case I would like to suggest a method to avoid the annoying total blowout matches like 100-500 result (what happens most of the time) and make balanced games in ranked. Right now the information what MM is using to initialize games (player's actual league rating) just not enough.

> > MM should consider the player's class and build. I know its very hard but maybe it would be enough if the 

> > player could define her or his build, role or playstyle (dps, tank, healer, condi etc... )

> > MM should consider the total pvp experience of the player. Maybe the number of total matches and total rating, lvl or something. 

> > After the match MM system should blow up the teams and recalculate everything from the basics for the next match to avoid the exact same team participation on the next match.

> >

> > Case 2. If you don't want to rework the Match Making system. 

> > In that case I would like to suggest a method to reduce the frustration sector what Match Making can cause when it draws together players with totally different amount of pvp experiences. These matches are mostly total blowouts with result like 100-500.

> > The player can fall hundreds of league rank points in a bad row of games what happens more often then you think.  

> > Instead of that it would be much more fair if the system would reward the player's personal efforts. Even if the player is in the losing side the system should consider her or his personal match points and calculate the league rank point loss according to this. The higher personal match points the less league skill rank points to lose (maybe even none at all) and maybe more to earn if your team has won. 

> > I think it'll make the game much more fair and less less less frustrating, the community less toxic and your rank will be reflecting your personal pvp skill better not your luck.

> > We already got the following match statistics in the game: damage, healing, kills, deaths,  revives, offense, defense.

> > Maybe more would be need to cover the different builds and playstyles like "party heal" and "boons applied on party members" etc..

> >  

> > Of course case 1 and case 2 can work together.

> >

> > Beside of this cases I got another suggestion to make decent matches with low server population: make smaller maps.

> > 1v1 for duel

> > 2v2 for dual duel

> > 3v3  maybe 2 cap points

> > 4v4 3 cap points

> > If the Match Making consider too much time to wait for a 5v5 then it makes a 4v4 or a 3v3 but it makes quality game not an unbalanced one.

> >

> > And one final thought:

> > Maybe ranked should be a little more exclusive if there are Leagues. To join ranked the player should have 20-50 unranked games. This way unexperienced gold diggers can be filtered out from ranked.

> >

> > Thanks for reading it.

>

> 1) I don't believe the matchmaker needs a complete rework. It's doing a decent job in most cases. Snowballing isn't necessarily due to poor matchmaking, there a lot of other things going into it. However, I think our tweaks we're planning will help quite a lot in insuring the match starts out fair.

>

> 2) Basing your skill rating change on personal performance is nearly impossible to do systematically. There are so many things that contribute to good or bad play, and most of them are contextual.

 

Thank you for the answer.

1) I'm not talking about a "complete" MM rework I think considerate player's actual league skill rating is important. It's just not enough to make balanced games.

The system should check not just the player's class and elite spec. but the player's build too ( A Firebrand healer tank not equivalent to a trap DH )

Back in the days in Wildstar the player had to determine his/her role when he/she queued up for a PVP match. In WS there where only 3 roles DPS, Tank and Healer.

GW2 PVP is more complex and it should have more roles/builds/playstyles.

To avoid system abuses MM should check at least the trait lines of the player's build and it have to offer the roles according of that information. For ex. a Spell Breaker with dps and tank trait lines cannot be a condi build.

 

2) There where another similar suggestion on the forum (sry I don't remember the guy's name).

Lose league skill rank points according to the difference of the two teams match result points. The smaller the gap the smaller amount of league skill rank points to lose on the defeated side. For ex. an 500-300 match is -8 points for the members of the losing team but a 500-400 match is only -6 points for them.

The problem with that it's still not offer solution for the 500-50 blowout games.

 

[Forsty.7968]

I dont know if this got covered already but i have a question about rating rewarding based on currrent rating/mmr. Currently it *seems* to me that you gain and lose rating based on your rating solemly versus the average rating of the enemy team instead of both team averages. If that is the case, why is it so?

 

Is it to try to keep the matchmaker from having to group up the higher rated players with even lower rated players than they are currently to compensate?

 

Its been bugging me for a while and i thought i knew the answer to it some months ago.

[Sihmm.9236]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Androdias.7458 said:

> > Hi

> > First of all thanks very much for talking to the community and the people intrested in pvp it feels good to have that.

> > My question: Why are seasons so close together? Wouldnt it be nicer to have them further apart so league placement would be on display for a while? So maybe players get motivated again for a new season and start with new builds and maybe a new balance after a little break?

> > At the moment it feels like the final season placement dosnt matter because in 3 or 4 weeks everything will be void and mean nothing anymore.

> > Combined with the staleness of the meta (which is not your fault tho) and the amout of games needed it tires players out very quickly which is why MM problems pop up in the first place (imo).

>

> Feedback is pretty all over the place when it comes to the length of off season play. We've gotten other feedback asking that seasons either never end or just happen back to back with no break.

>

> I personally feel a break between seasons is good, since it allows for a bit of mind reset and, hopefully, battles fatigue. But I did feel that the break was too long before. It used to be around a month. We're targeting a norm of 2 weeks now. Though, we sometimes have to schedule around other releases.

 

Personally I'd favour shorter seasons, especially if there will be shorter gaps between them. The last couple of seasons I've been getting burned out by my second or third go through the Byzantium reward tier. Then it's not been until a week or two into the next season before I feel ready to play again.

 

I'd also like it if players earned a one-time achievement for reaching a given ranking tier (e.g. Platinum) that could be displayed either as a sort of legacy badge in place of whatever your current season badge is, or as a title. I get a bit disheartened towards the end of the season because maintaining my badge for display during the off-season becomes more important than, y'know, having fun in PvP. I actually turned off my badge this season in a bid to try to stop this, but honestly I miss the sense of being identified as a PvPer, and a half decent one at that.

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @Sihmm.9236 said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > @Androdias.7458 said:

> > > Hi

> > > First of all thanks very much for talking to the community and the people intrested in pvp it feels good to have that.

> > > My question: Why are seasons so close together? Wouldnt it be nicer to have them further apart so league placement would be on display for a while? So maybe players get motivated again for a new season and start with new builds and maybe a new balance after a little break?

> > > At the moment it feels like the final season placement dosnt matter because in 3 or 4 weeks everything will be void and mean nothing anymore.

> > > Combined with the staleness of the meta (which is not your fault tho) and the amout of games needed it tires players out very quickly which is why MM problems pop up in the first place (imo).

> >

> > Feedback is pretty all over the place when it comes to the length of off season play. We've gotten other feedback asking that seasons either never end or just happen back to back with no break.

> >

> > I personally feel a break between seasons is good, since it allows for a bit of mind reset and, hopefully, battles fatigue. But I did feel that the break was too long before. It used to be around a month. We're targeting a norm of 2 weeks now. Though, we sometimes have to schedule around other releases.

>

> Personally I'd favour shorter seasons, especially if there will be shorter gaps between them. The last couple of seasons I've been getting burned out by my second or third go through the Byzantium reward tier. Then it's not been until a week or two into the next season before I feel ready to play again.

>

> I'd also like it if players earned a one-time achievement for reaching a given ranking tier (e.g. Platinum) that could be displayed either as a sort of legacy badge in place of whatever your current season badge is, or as a title. I get a bit disheartened towards the end of the season because maintaining my badge for display during the off-season becomes more important than, y'know, having fun in PvP. I actually turned off my badge this season in a bid to try to stop this, but honestly I miss the sense of being identified as a PvPer, and a half decent one at that.

 

This.

 

As to season and off season. I'd like to see off seasons last until a good balance patch is worked out. The patch would not be rushed. That should be the determining factor.