Why is matchmaking so broken?

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Phil.7369" said:

> > @"HealAlNite.9658" said:

> > Every season is the same: monkeys who cant getgud crying about matchmaking because they think they deserve more than they actually deserve. Why the kitten every season almost the same players get to legend if matchmaking is a kitten. L2P

>

> How your comment looks like: "I'm bored, trololol, learn to play noobs".

> Obviously you didn't even look at the images in the links above. I am already playing against legend players. And I was only fresh gold, exactly 10 placement matches played. Either the top players are also gold or something is really busted with the matchmaking.

 

After seasons matchmaking does a soft reset and pretty much gets everyone within the gold range.

The placements and a couple games afterwards will have really high volatility (you'll see that you'll win a ~20-30 points per win after placements) until you start getting within your "true" range.

This of course creates a huge problem during placements, if you get teamed with or against players that are actually much higher than you, you'll get blown to bits. That's why i never do my placements in the first couple days.

The whole PvP League system is a collection of mismanagement and poor planning.

[Toron.4856]

> @"Phil.7369" said:

> Unfair matchmaking? Well riddle me this Anet.

> How, after my 2 years break from PVP can this happen?

> https://imgur.com/a/HArrx

 

Nothing else to say lmao

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

/Dusts off his tinfoil hat:

 

* Except initially, placement matches are useless. Normally players start close to their last season ending rating.

* Players knowing that they will start the season close to their last rating (or exactly on it), so they don't/won't play until a day or two before the season ends to get a platinum badge. The don't care about the leaderboard, just the shiny.

* This system keeps a fair amount of players out of the queue pool and therefor, with an already small population the MM struggles even harder to make fair matches.

* Players intentionally log and play into the graveyard hours to get the most unbalanced matches that they can to move up even easier.

* Some players have given up competitively, and regardless of their "true skill", they will dunk themselves into bronze for the easy chest farms. That's a good reason you get afks in your placement matches, as well as others. There are a lot of players doing this. Easy chests...easy gold.

* Players swap class before the match starts, this can't be predicted by the MM...so it should be prevented. Class swapping has to stop. If the MM is so good then it must have assumed the match was fair regardless of the opposing comps, or is the fact that class swap is still allowable acknowledgement the MM is just a RNG rig?

[Magnito.6187]

It's still broken lads, just so you know xxx

[Ithilwen.1529]

duplicate post

[Kahrgan.7401]

> @"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.

[Cal Cohen.3527]

> @"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.

[Murmaider.1805]

TL;DR - "I choose to run solo and you must punish those who practice together as a team. Wehhhhhhh"

 

Btw, I run solo.

[primatos.5413]

46% isn´t even half of all right ? .. Seems not THAT much to me ^^

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> To be honest, I haven't seen matches like this since the days of "competitive" deliberately unbalanced matches and win/loss streak enhancement. Has ANET returned to that idea?

>

> *I will own that the class composition seemed to have a very strong effect. Making ratings even won't do much if the classes are too imbalanced.*

>

> In some instances, I got the same teammates in consecutive matches, after having lost with them. **I'm not inclined to take the season seriously. Even matches are a pre requisite for true competition.**

>

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qikvnj4ak9mafyg/gw0102.jpg?dl=0

 

The higher or lower on the bell curve of all players you are, the more uneven matches become.

[EbonFreeman.4051]

Overall Anet has decent picks but there are small tweaks that could use improvement. I'm not 100% sure what the most appropriate way to evaluate a player in PvP is. In NA, I was ranked gold 2 and in EU, platinum 1. I'm not sure why but on my NA account, I get linked with pretty bad players so I'll have 4 or 5 awards for the team per match. My EU account is pretty fresh with <200 hours and no level 80 characters and I'll be lucky to get more than 2 awards. Both accounts I use the same profession.

If you're getting 20+ kills, 500k damage, 0 deaths, and ~200 points per team per match then you're in the wrong rank. My guess is that Anet might be using total matches rather than ranked matches. On my main account I have a ~50-60% win ratio and on my alt I have closer to 80%.

 

What are their options for matches?

1. Use the base statistics to establish each ranking per match and match the entire team with that rank. If that's the case, then could just let you select your entire team and you wait the queue out (remember JQ from GW1?).

2. Use base statistics per established rank (which I'm guessing this is the current way). I would think they would use trending data to establish rank then use a mix of each rank per team. Look for a mix that would end in a close game (~50% win ratio). However, I think there might be something where the queue system steps in for people who have been waiting a long time (match timeout), an instance when people use unranked alt accounts, and also when an experienced player uses a profession he or she is unfamiliar with (thus putting him in a higher ranked match), or if you completely dominated in lower ranks and the algorithm thinks you should be in platinum/legendary rank.

3. Use Swiss-system tournament play using every player/team combination (unlikely). Then Anet could rank easily based on those results.

4. Single or double elimination tournament play which would require registration matches and sets. I don't think most players would go for.

5. Round-robin which would also require registration.

[Wolfric.9380]

If you want to actually reflect player skill in the long run it will be a must to use per class MMR (and thus lock on Q) and solo Q only.

But this will further reduce social aspects = play with a friend) so pick what you want ...

If you want both then we need diffrent game modes in ranked (custom arena and unranked is not a solution, it´s a training ground and the place to try funny things, but won´t pull people in longer and to fight for something ...).

[Vieux P.1238]

Is it just me or does Matchmaking at every match feel lopsided? Noob team then good team then more noobs then again another good team. What the hell?

[corey.6451]

> @"Vieux P.1238" said:

> Is it just me or does Matchmaking at every match feel lopsided? Noob team then good team then more noobs then again another good team. What the hell?

 

Most of the people i know dont do rank anymore that is including me. Im waiting for the balance to decide either to stay or quit. Because enough is enough. We are patience, but everything has their limitations.

 

And yes most of us can get into legend easily. For now majority of good player is waiting for this patch. And hope it is like the big HOT balance patch that actually change pvp for good, it came out around the same time.

[JETWING.2759]

Best thing to this game is bring back the team queue, and Split PvP in 3 modes:

 

*Unranked.*

* Teams are not allowed.

 

*Solo Ranked.*

* Teams are not allowed.

* Character switch are not allowed.

* Requires mastery the Class/Profession that are trying enter (may be na archievement or some thing else).

 

*Team Ranked.*

* Teams are allowed (2, 3, 4 and 5 teamed players). Last empty slots may be filled with some player of Solo Ranked Queue (ex: for teams with 2 + 2 + 1, 4 + 1, etc...).

* Character switch are allowed (also for those that came from Solo Ranked to Team Ranked via MMR).

* Requires mastery the Class/Profession that are triyng enter.

[TamX.1870]

I have now ~40 ranked matches behind, and so far my experiences have been that MMR is working pretty nicely. Most of the times teams have been competitive from class-balance side, I have played in fact much more than previously against exact team matches. Pure stomps are much more incommon than they used to be. Looking my last 10 matches, most of them have been wins/looses around 500 - 460. At least one of the rare pure murders were a match which already started 5vs4, and one of the members of opposite team logged out pretty soon. So, from my side, it feels that MMR is working better than it did last season.

[Delweyn.1309]

> @"TamX.1870" said:

> I have now ~40 ranked matches behind, and so far my experiences have been that MMR is working pretty nicely. Most of the times teams have been competitive from class-balance side, I have played in fact much more than previously against exact team matches. Pure stomps are much more incommon than they used to be. Looking my last 10 matches, most of them have been wins/looses around 500 - 460. At least one of the rare pure murders were a match which already started 5vs4, and one of the members of opposite team logged out pretty soon. So, from my side, it feels that MMR is working better than it did last season.

 

It's what I thought but it still depend on moments or something else we don't know.

Until now it was OK and I made +50 matches.

 

But this morning, I tried :-1:

 

first match : lose 116-500

I put my mates in friendlist to check their mmr. So our team was :

- me : 1536

- 2nd guy : 1477

- 3rd guy : 1470

- 4th guy : 1370

- 5th guy : even not ranked (no MMR)

 

Next match we lose 32-500!

I didn't have the courage to check the mmr.

 

So as I thought, the game still continue to makes some people carry other at certain times. It can be completly broken when there is maybe not much people or when someone had too much wins.

[Vag.5682]

gl try win matches without firebrand necro team vs firebrand necro teams that actually know what theyr are doing . class balance is a freaking issue a 2 rogue , engineer , elementalit + 1 team cant compete vs a firebrand necro warrior team not even close. honestly maybe they should put a warning like don't play a deadeye or a revenant in rank cause u will be useless or something similar

[FrizzFreston.5290]

To be honest, it takes very very little to mess up in a GW2 match.

 

Most people here *seem* to believe that always balanced matches are going to be a thing. If you play any other game competitively you really know thats not going to be a thing. Instead you go win lose win lose way more often.

[Saiyan.1704]

> @"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.

 

Was waiting for this satisfying reply... OP was definitely asking for that aloe vera.

 

> @"Wolfric.9380" said:

> If you want to actually reflect player skill in the long run it will be a must to use per class MMR (and thus lock on Q) and solo Q only.

 

We had this voting option fairly recently but the overall community shot it down by voting against it... because of, reasons.

 

 

[Delweyn.1309]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> To be honest, it takes very very little to mess up in a GW2 match.

>

> Most people here *seem* to believe that always balanced matches are going to be a thing. If you play any other game competitively you really know thats not going to be a thing. Instead you go win lose win lose way more often.

 

I'm OK with win/lose/win/lose

 

I'm not Ok with win X8/lose X2 then win X2/lose X8

 

The game takes too long to reevaluate your position.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Delweyn.1309" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > To be honest, it takes very very little to mess up in a GW2 match.

> >

> > Most people here *seem* to believe that always balanced matches are going to be a thing. If you play any other game competitively you really know thats not going to be a thing. Instead you go win lose win lose way more often.

>

> I'm OK with win/lose/win/lose

>

> I'm not Ok with win X8/lose X2 then win X2/lose X8

>

> The game takes too long to reevaluate your position.

 

If thats over the course of one day I have noticed that Evening-rating and Morning/Afternoon rating seem to be very different. (Cant say thats the case for you). The time of day when you play usually has a huge effect on what kind of matches you get.

 

Also 8-2-2-8 still isnt that weird I think.

[Frozenblade.6039]

> @"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?

[Cal Cohen.3527]

> @"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%

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:

> > @"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%

 

Too bad no one did this kind of post when people were complaining about ranked teams. Might have changed the whole pvp landscape.