Showing rating when match begins

[NeroBoron.7285]

Please not! people would blame low players. Opponents would pick low players as first target, probably resulting in even more blaming. There is already enough toxicity. Even post match, i often meet people over and over again during a day or even multiple times in a row. Which is even more annoying if those people threw the game and went afk.

 

Sometimes I would already wish you dont would see playernames like in wvw. Or a limited chat usage. Where you only have some simple informations you can send. Like "playing support/power DPS/ condi DPS/...", "going close/mid/far", "need help" or "i'm fine". And that's all. cause ppl just can't STFU if they don't have something nice or helpful to say.

[rank eleven monk.9502]

> @"Delweyn.1309" said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > It's something we may do eventually post-match. I'd rather not have it pre-match because of possible toxicity, as well as other concerns.

> >

> > We'll be looking more into this type of thing once swiss is out the door.

> >

>

> If you are sure of your matchmaking system, you should not be afraid of toxicity.

That's simply not true. Rating deviations in matches are down to low population. Not a failure of matchmaking system.

 

Also, people will always pick someone to put the blame on, doesn't matter if he is 20 or 100 ratings below.

 

Showing the ratings before match, like others said, would lead to massive afks and toxicity. Showing the ratings after match, it's going to do exactly the same but without afk-ing. Personally I'd prefer neither, because the toxicity of pvp is already out of hand and this will just turn more people away, resulting in worse matchmaking, resulting in more toxicity.. And so on.

 

I'd very much welcome showing the average team MMR / ratings though. It's going to give you a nice picture about matchmaking without any negative effects on players.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

> @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > @"Delweyn.1309" said:

> > > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > It's something we may do eventually post-match. I'd rather not have it pre-match because of possible toxicity, as well as other concerns.

> > >

> > > We'll be looking more into this type of thing once swiss is out the door.

> > >

> >

> > If you are sure of your matchmaking system, you should not be afraid of toxicity.

> That's simply not true. Rating deviations in matches are down to low population. Not a failure of matchmaking system.

>

> Also, people will always pick someone to put the blame on, doesn't matter if he is 20 or 100 ratings below.

>

> Showing the ratings before match, like others said, would lead to massive afks and toxicity. Showing the ratings after match, it's going to do exactly the same but without afk-ing. Personally I'd prefer neither, because the toxicity of pvp is already out of hand and this will just turn more people away, resulting in worse matchmaking, resulting in more toxicity.. And so on.

>

> I'd very much welcome showing the average team MMR / ratings though. It's going to give you a nice picture about matchmaking without any negative effects on players.

 

No, it needs to show individual player ratings, otherwise it will serve to mask botched skews such as: RED 10, 2, 2, 2, 2, = 18 vs. BLUE 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 18

Ideally, seeing individual player ratings AND average party ratings at the end of the match, would be perfect

[Nappa.1904]

I'll say this again, why not to implement both options of showing individual ratings pre match and post match, say for a week (off season)?

Would it be really so hard to add skill rating box to each player?

[whoknocks.4935]

I get whispered and talked a lot on team chat already especially by those spellbreakers or warriors (I don't know why they think they are always the top player in the team), and call me bronze kid, go to pve and much more offense...

 

And personally I know I might do some mistakes sometimes during a match, like making a bad decision on a rotation etc. And when this guy probably plat level goes into a 1vs2 1vs3 and complain about us that we leave him always alone to fight... When instead he could simply rotate to another node.

 

So seeing the the rank pre-match would make those guys who thinks they are the best to just afk the match, to pre-judge you completely for the entire match.

 

Since the last 3 seasons I always struggled from gold 1 to gold 3, once arrived to plat, but then dropped down again, I am just average I guess.

 

In a match I was the only gold and my teammates all plats, I was the only one never died a single time in the match, made very good 1vs1s and won them, made good outnumbered fights that lead to win, and at the end of the match guess who was the trash gold player who made them lose? Me.

 

One of those guys probably gifted the enemy like 100 points by simply dying, but the unskill trash was me of course because i am gold and they are platinum...

[Nappa.1904]

> @"whoknocks.4935" said:

> I get whispered and talked a lot on team chat already especially by those spellbreakers or warriors (I don't know why they think they are always the top player in the team), and call me bronze kid, go to pve and much more offense...

>

> And personally I know I might do some mistakes sometimes during a match, like making a bad decision on a rotation etc. And when this guy probably plat level goes into a 1vs2 1vs3 and complain about us that we leave him always alone to fight... When instead he could simply rotate to another node.

>

> So seeing the the rank pre-match would make those guys who thinks they are the best to just afk the match, to pre-judge you completely for the entire match.

>

> Since the last 3 seasons I always struggled from gold 1 to gold 3, once arrived to plat, but then dropped down again, I am just average I guess.

>

> In a match I was the only gold and my teammates all plats, I was the only one never died a single time in the match, made very good 1vs1s and won them, made good outnumbered fights that lead to win, and at the end of the match guess who was the trash gold player who made them lose? Me.

>

> One of those guys probably gifted the enemy like 100 points by simply dying, but the unskill trash was me of course because i am gold and they are platinum...

 

You should be proud of yourself then. If they were plats and they performed so badly, no wonder they'd be looking for any excuse (or person) to project their inferiority unto. That's why block option exists.

[Bossun.2046]

^ PvP shines in a new light when you quickly block those salty voices. :)

[CaldaRaric.6305]

PvP is already toxic. It’s rare to go a match without someone complaining about teammates and just standing at spawn continuing to complain. If they had a bronze or silver teammate, they would probably just stay at spawn from the start.

[whoknocks.4935]

> @"Nappa.1904" said:

> > @"whoknocks.4935" said:

> > I get whispered and talked a lot on team chat already especially by those spellbreakers or warriors (I don't know why they think they are always the top player in the team), and call me bronze kid, go to pve and much more offense...

> >

> > And personally I know I might do some mistakes sometimes during a match, like making a bad decision on a rotation etc. And when this guy probably plat level goes into a 1vs2 1vs3 and complain about us that we leave him always alone to fight... When instead he could simply rotate to another node.

> >

> > So seeing the the rank pre-match would make those guys who thinks they are the best to just afk the match, to pre-judge you completely for the entire match.

> >

> > Since the last 3 seasons I always struggled from gold 1 to gold 3, once arrived to plat, but then dropped down again, I am just average I guess.

> >

> > In a match I was the only gold and my teammates all plats, I was the only one never died a single time in the match, made very good 1vs1s and won them, made good outnumbered fights that lead to win, and at the end of the match guess who was the trash gold player who made them lose? Me.

> >

> > One of those guys probably gifted the enemy like 100 points by simply dying, but the unskill trash was me of course because i am gold and they are platinum...

>

> You should be proud of yourself then. If they were plats and they performed so badly, no wonder they'd be looking for any excuse (or person) to project their inferiority unto. That's why block option exists.

 

yeah but block comes after they already talked so badly both in team chat and whisper xD But yeah.

[Math.5123]

> @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > @"Delweyn.1309" said:

> > > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > It's something we may do eventually post-match. I'd rather not have it pre-match because of possible toxicity, as well as other concerns.

> > >

> > > We'll be looking more into this type of thing once swiss is out the door.

> > >

> >

> > If you are sure of your matchmaking system, you should not be afraid of toxicity.

> That's simply not true. Rating deviations in matches are down to low population. Not a failure of matchmaking system.

>

> Also, people will always pick someone to put the blame on, doesn't matter if he is 20 or 100 ratings below.

>

> Showing the ratings before match, like others said, would lead to massive afks and toxicity. Showing the ratings after match, it's going to do exactly the same but without afk-ing. Personally I'd prefer neither, because the toxicity of pvp is already out of hand and this will just turn more people away, resulting in worse matchmaking, resulting in more toxicity.. And so on.

>

> I'd very much welcome showing the average team MMR / ratings though. It's going to give you a nice picture about matchmaking without any negative effects on players.

 

This is really only an issue an low tiers. In games with actual good players, it's very evident who's not pulling their weight. Regardless of MMR and said person will receive the same toxic feedback.

 

I don't know what MMR you play on. But in the top 20s everyone usually knows everyone, and there are people that makes very questionable decisions game after game.

 

I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

[rank eleven monk.9502]

> @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

>

> This is really only an issue an low tiers. In games with actual good players, it's very evident who's not pulling their weight. Regardless of MMR and said person will receive the same toxic feedback.

That's not really true. I agree it's a lot more evident in higher tiers, but showing the MMR / rating would actually justify flaming even more.

>

> I don't know what MMR you play on. But in the top 20s everyone usually knows everyone, and there are people that makes very questionable decisions game after game.

I have been playing plat high t2- low t3 in the last few seasons. If you are in the top20 and know everyone, why would you need to see ratings in the match? You should already know / check the leaderboard.

>

> I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

Okay so first let's make this clear: MMR and rating is not at all the same. They are, of course correlated, but not the same. Rating is what you can see on the leaderboard / pvp panel, while your MMR can't be seen, it's a complex algorithm to estimate your skill level as far as I know. MMR is used for matchmaking purposes, not your rating. So, even if you have 1270 rating, your MMR can deviate much from it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[choovanski.5462]

> @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

> Okay so first let's make this clear: MMR and rating is not at all the same. They are, of course correlated, but not the same. Rating is what you can see on the leaderboard / pvp panel, while your MMR can't be seen, it's a complex algorithm to estimate your skill level as far as I know. MMR is used for matchmaking purposes, not your rating. So, even if you have 1270 rating, your MMR can deviate much from it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

you sure about that dude? all the code on the gw2 wiki for matchmaking seems to imply rating and MMR are the same thing. I mean the page even opens like this:

 

"At the heart of PvP matchmaking algorithm is the Glicko2 matchmaking rating (MMR). This rating, which is an approximation of your skill level, helps match you with other players with similar skill level."

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration

 

so I think rating is MMR, because it's used in place of MMR for all the code. hey maybe I'm wrong, but it totally seems like rating = MMR.

 

so if I'm right, and I think I am then we know the matchmaker commonly has massive deviations in rating (like huge). so I'm guessing anet know this, and since it's due to low pop they can't fix it. hence why they don't want to show rating for teams, because then we would know the frequency that stacked matches come up.

[apharma.3741]

> @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

> > Okay so first let's make this clear: MMR and rating is not at all the same. They are, of course correlated, but not the same. Rating is what you can see on the leaderboard / pvp panel, while your MMR can't be seen, it's a complex algorithm to estimate your skill level as far as I know. MMR is used for matchmaking purposes, not your rating. So, even if you have 1270 rating, your MMR can deviate much from it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

>

> you sure about that dude? all the code on the gw2 wiki for matchmaking seems to imply rating and MMR are the same thing. I mean the page even opens like this:

>

> "At the heart of PvP matchmaking algorithm is the Glicko2 matchmaking rating (MMR). This rating, which is an approximation of your skill level, helps match you with other players with similar skill level."

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration

>

> so I think rating is MMR, because it's used in place of MMR for all the code. hey maybe I'm wrong, but it totally seems like rating = MMR.

>

> so if I'm right, and I think I am then we know the matchmaker commonly has massive deviations in rating (like huge). so I'm guessing anet know this, and since it's due to low pop they can't fix it. hence why they don't want to show rating for teams, because then we would know the frequency that stacked matches come up.

 

From what I gather MMR is an approximation of your skill while rating is an approximation of your skill in relation to everyone playing that season. The difference would be academic if that’s the case however ANet have changed it a fair bit over the years so at this point you can /shrug and just enjoy the games....or try to anyway.

[choovanski.5462]

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> > @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > > @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

> > > Okay so first let's make this clear: MMR and rating is not at all the same. They are, of course correlated, but not the same. Rating is what you can see on the leaderboard / pvp panel, while your MMR can't be seen, it's a complex algorithm to estimate your skill level as far as I know. MMR is used for matchmaking purposes, not your rating. So, even if you have 1270 rating, your MMR can deviate much from it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

> >

> > you sure about that dude? all the code on the gw2 wiki for matchmaking seems to imply rating and MMR are the same thing. I mean the page even opens like this:

> >

> > "At the heart of PvP matchmaking algorithm is the Glicko2 matchmaking rating (MMR). This rating, which is an approximation of your skill level, helps match you with other players with similar skill level."

> >

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration

> >

> > so I think rating is MMR, because it's used in place of MMR for all the code. hey maybe I'm wrong, but it totally seems like rating = MMR.

> >

> > so if I'm right, and I think I am then we know the matchmaker commonly has massive deviations in rating (like huge). so I'm guessing anet know this, and since it's due to low pop they can't fix it. hence why they don't want to show rating for teams, because then we would know the frequency that stacked matches come up.

>

> From what I gather MMR is an approximation of your skill while rating is an approximation of your skill in relation to everyone playing that season. The difference would be academic if that’s the case however ANet have changed it a fair bit over the years so at this point you can /shrug and just enjoy the games....or try to anyway.

 

hate to be that guy, but you do realize a skill rating always to be in relation to something?

 

like you can't have MMR/rating in a vacuum. it always has to be in relation to something, like the community. you can't approximate someone skill level without comparing them to the community.

 

so you can't have MMR be just an approximation of skill, it has to be in relation to rest of the population (what else are you going to measure to players skill against to see how skilled they are, if not other players). it just doesn't make sense.

 

so as I said, I believe MMR and rating are the same thing (MMR is match making rating after all lol), and are both in relation to the playerbase (both past and present).

[Namless.4028]

Didnt they even say that the new rating = your mmr when they changed from the pip system to the rating system?

 

[Namless.4028]

As a suggestion show the rating tacs during the time when you have to accept or dont accept a game.

Then you could see that the game has a huge skilldifference between the players and you could decide yourself if you want to play such a game or not.

I think that would reduce toxicity.

[apharma.3741]

> @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > @"apharma.3741" said:

> > > @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > > > @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > > > > @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> > > > > I have a troll alt account (which I totally didn't throw placements on) which is around 1270 rating. Two days ago I got paired with Frostballs main, which is at the same MMR as my main (1740).

> > > > Okay so first let's make this clear: MMR and rating is not at all the same. They are, of course correlated, but not the same. Rating is what you can see on the leaderboard / pvp panel, while your MMR can't be seen, it's a complex algorithm to estimate your skill level as far as I know. MMR is used for matchmaking purposes, not your rating. So, even if you have 1270 rating, your MMR can deviate much from it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

> > >

> > > you sure about that dude? all the code on the gw2 wiki for matchmaking seems to imply rating and MMR are the same thing. I mean the page even opens like this:

> > >

> > > "At the heart of PvP matchmaking algorithm is the Glicko2 matchmaking rating (MMR). This rating, which is an approximation of your skill level, helps match you with other players with similar skill level."

> > >

> > > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration

> > >

> > > so I think rating is MMR, because it's used in place of MMR for all the code. hey maybe I'm wrong, but it totally seems like rating = MMR.

> > >

> > > so if I'm right, and I think I am then we know the matchmaker commonly has massive deviations in rating (like huge). so I'm guessing anet know this, and since it's due to low pop they can't fix it. hence why they don't want to show rating for teams, because then we would know the frequency that stacked matches come up.

> >

> > From what I gather MMR is an approximation of your skill while rating is an approximation of your skill in relation to everyone playing that season. The difference would be academic if that’s the case however ANet have changed it a fair bit over the years so at this point you can /shrug and just enjoy the games....or try to anyway.

>

> hate to be that guy, but you do realize a skill rating always to be in relation to something?

>

> like you can't have MMR/rating in a vacuum. it always has to be in relation to something, like the community. you can't approximate someone skill level without comparing them to the community.

>

> so you can't have MMR be just an approximation of skill, it has to be in relation to rest of the population (what else are you going to measure to players skill against to see how skilled they are, if not other players). it just doesn't make sense.

>

> so as I said, I believe MMR and rating are the same thing (MMR is match making rating after all lol), and are both in relation to the playerbase (both past and present).

 

You can have a skill rating based on number of games you play and wins vs loses, your own statistics which can give you an MMR number, you don’t have to consider other players stats to get an MMR number.

 

Rating you gain and lose in relation to who you play and whether you win or lose. Win vs people much lower and you might get 2-3 rating, lose and you can lose anything up to 50.

 

To all intent and purposes once enough games have been played the two are almost identical but that doesn’t mean they are the same.

 

“The first phase, called filtering, gathers players based on their current MMR. The primary purpose of this phase is to both reduce the number of players being considered for a match, and to ensure that the match is appropriate given each player's skill level. Over time, padding is added to your player rating. While this may decrease match quality, it helps ensure that outliers still receive matches.

 

The second phase of the algorithm is the scoring phase. During this phase each player is scored against every other player being considered for matchmaking. The metrics used during this phase include: **rating, rank**, games played, party size, profession, and dishonor. With each metric the system is looking for players that are as close as possible to the average of those already selected. The system also attempts to keep the number of duplicate professions to a minimum.”

 

From the wiki page you linked.

 

It probably doesn’t help that MMR and leaderboard rating are both called rating which only serves to make things more confusing. I think there was a red post a while back (possibly old forums) where a dev said they’re essentially the same but there are some subtle differences between MMR and rating.

[rank eleven monk.9502]

> @"Namless.4028" said:

> Didnt they even say that the new rating = your mmr when they changed from the pip system to the rating system?

 

> @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > you sure about that dude? all the code on the gw2 wiki for matchmaking seems to imply rating and MMR are the same thing.

Maybe. I'm not sure

 

> so if I'm right, and I think I am then we know the matchmaker commonly has massive deviations in rating (like huge). so I'm guessing anet know this, and since it's due to low pop they can't fix it. hence why they don't want to show rating for teams, because then we would know the frequency that stacked matches come up.

There are already statistics in another thread. Ben said they would eventually do it.

 

Your guess is right btw. I mean, it's obvious when you have a low population there will be deviations among personal MMR-s, otherwise players on the higher and lower spectrum would never get into any games.

[choovanski.5462]

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> You can have a skill rating based on number of games you play and wins vs loses, your own statistics which can give you an MMR number, you don’t have to consider other players stats to get an MMR number.

>

> Rating you gain and lose in relation to who you play and whether you win or lose. Win vs people much lower and you might get 2-3 rating, lose and you can lose anything up to 50.

>

> To all intent and purposes once enough games have been played the two are almost identical but that doesn’t mean they are the same.

>

> “The first phase, called filtering, gathers players based on their current MMR. The primary purpose of this phase is to both reduce the number of players being considered for a match, and to ensure that the match is appropriate given each player's skill level. Over time, padding is added to your player rating. While this may decrease match quality, it helps ensure that outliers still receive matches.

>

> The second phase of the algorithm is the scoring phase. During this phase each player is scored against every other player being considered for matchmaking. The metrics used during this phase include: **rating, rank**, games played, party size, profession, and dishonor. With each metric the system is looking for players that are as close as possible to the average of those already selected. The system also attempts to keep the number of duplicate professions to a minimum.”

>

> From the wiki page you linked.

>

> It probably doesn’t help that MMR and leaderboard rating are both called rating which only serves to make things more confusing. I think there was a red post a while back (possibly old forums) where a dev said they’re essentially the same but there are some subtle differences between MMR and rating.

 

tbh the wording on the wiki is just too vague. i recall dev post too, wish i knew where it was (probably old forum & gone)

 

like even with the ‘second phase’ you quoted, it’s easy to read rating as MMR & rank as leaderboard positions (like being number 2 in NA). i’m assuming rating equals MMR also because if you click on an MMR hyperlink in the wiki it takes you to the rating section. but honestly we need dev clarity on this.

 

as far as MMR in a vacuum, i guess you can get a WL ratio, but i don’t know if you can do a true skill rating without doing player data comparisons (things like premades, & DUOs would skew results, which i think you would need to overcome via data comparison). personally, i don’t think you can. however that’s not really the point of the thread ‘:-D

 

———

 

@"rank eleven monk.9502" yeah, i think it’s a low pop issue. honestly i feel like gw2 pvp is beyond saving at this point, i don’t think pop will ever get back to a healthy level. i think it’s just going to drop.

 

the problems are more complex, but i basic terms i would say:

 

1. toxic scene

2. no esports (competitive scene is basically Jebro)

3. huge balance issues (massive power imbalances, & high damage make the game unpleasant to play)

4. mostly solo (people are not incentivised to get people to play pvp if they won’t be able to play together)

5. matchmaking issues due to population

 

this game needed a 2v2 mode years ago. solo queue conquest is just too frustrating for most people most of the time.

 

something simple with 2 players, 3-5 rounds, & AT support is what this game needs- or that’s what i would be saying if i thought 2v2 would be anything but mesmer wars 2...

[apharma.3741]

> @"choovanski.5462" said:

> > @"apharma.3741" said:

> > You can have a skill rating based on number of games you play and wins vs loses, your own statistics which can give you an MMR number, you don’t have to consider other players stats to get an MMR number.

> >

> > Rating you gain and lose in relation to who you play and whether you win or lose. Win vs people much lower and you might get 2-3 rating, lose and you can lose anything up to 50.

> >

> > To all intent and purposes once enough games have been played the two are almost identical but that doesn’t mean they are the same.

> >

> > “The first phase, called filtering, gathers players based on their current MMR. The primary purpose of this phase is to both reduce the number of players being considered for a match, and to ensure that the match is appropriate given each player's skill level. Over time, padding is added to your player rating. While this may decrease match quality, it helps ensure that outliers still receive matches.

> >

> > The second phase of the algorithm is the scoring phase. During this phase each player is scored against every other player being considered for matchmaking. The metrics used during this phase include: **rating, rank**, games played, party size, profession, and dishonor. With each metric the system is looking for players that are as close as possible to the average of those already selected. The system also attempts to keep the number of duplicate professions to a minimum.”

> >

> > From the wiki page you linked.

> >

> > It probably doesn’t help that MMR and leaderboard rating are both called rating which only serves to make things more confusing. I think there was a red post a while back (possibly old forums) where a dev said they’re essentially the same but there are some subtle differences between MMR and rating.

>

> tbh the wording on the wiki is just too vague. i recall dev post too, wish i knew where it was (probably old forum & gone)

>

> like even with the ‘second phase’ you quoted, it’s easy to read rating as MMR & rank as leaderboard positions (like being number 2 in NA). i’m assuming rating equals MMR also because if you click on an MMR hyperlink in the wiki it takes you to the rating section. but honestly we need dev clarity on this.

>

> as far as MMR in a vacuum, i guess you can get a WL ratio, but i don’t know if you can do a true skill rating without doing player data comparisons (things like premades, & DUOs would skew results, which i think you would need to overcome via data comparison). personally, i don’t think you can. however that’s not really the point of the thread ‘:-D

 

Yeah it is very ambiguous to say the least, I do think that there’s very little difference between the two, especially if you play a lot over a season where any difference would have little to no difference at the end.

[phokus.8934]

Overwatch shoes your rank and rating alongside other teams average MMR.

 

But if gw2 has a decent matchmaking system then team mmr will be within an acceptable range, ideally even, it almost becomes a non-factor of whose rating is what.

 

More transparency is good and I’m really surprised this hasn’t happened yet. If you play like dog doody, expect to get called out regardless of what your rank is.

 

Showing mmr just gives the indication of a fair match or not and if you’re a lower team mmr, ideally you’ll lose less mmr if you lose.

[TamX.1870]

I know this is a bit old thread. I would not like to necropost, but wouldn't like to open new topic for this.

 

I first would like to separate toxicity issue out from the questions about improving the matches. In PvP, unranked matches are pretty relaxed. The toxicity issue comes up with ranked matches, and the reason is IMO not MMR, showing stats or anything like that, but the fact that your performance, your abilities to climb up in the ladders and win the prizes are up to four other persons you (usually) don't know before-hand and have not chosen to be on your side. The game mode itself is problematic from this perspective. It could be better that instead of restricting queue size more at high ratings, we could loosen the ratings so that at high plat you could join with a premade team of five. All in all, in sPvP side, it would be healthy to encourage people to make more or less permanent teams to compete against each other, and try to keep solo, duo or trio queueing more like a practise runs for people.

 

Now to the topic: I queue to matches (ranked and unranked) solo. What I would like to have before match starts, is some sort of indication about the experience of my and opposite teams. For me, the best would be to see the ratings of all members, but if not that, maybe there would be e.g. stars marking the two highest rated players in the team? Such an indication would give me a hint whose actions to follow if I want to get better. If we go with those stars, I would say that mark two highest rated players in both teams, because if you mark only one, it might be the thief or mesmer who does more roaming between the points and not the usual team bread'n'butter.

 

But that is not enough. With these "random" match ups - that is, both your own and the opposite team is ever-changing - I would desperately need indicators to tell me if I did better or worse than in previous match. Definitely the highest obstacle in front of me to get better in PvP is that I really don't know when I was better than in the last game: because winning and loosing feel really random. I have improved myself in other sources than playing PvP, just because it can not be used to measure your performance. It would be different, if you would have somewhat permanent team and opponents, but in the current situation, well...

 

I want to get better player. I want to understand things. I would love to see tools to help me in this path. I would like to see the rated game toxicity to dealt with, although I am pretty sure it is how the game mode works (solo queue to groups you don't have any idea what they are going to do or who they are, with high personal stakes).

[holodoc.5748]

I'd give (almost) everything for the ability to see who I am playing with in ranked matches before I accept a match. I am honestly sick of having to block so many team-mates which either team or whisp spam and then I have to play with them without any means of communication.

 

Proposal: allow players to see who they will fight with before they accept or refuse to join. Give some kind of reward for accepting a match (you already did something similar for the ready indicator) but also allow them to refuse a match, lets say three times a day, which will automatically deny them the aforementioned reward every time they refuse to join the proposed match.