shadowpass.4236 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Cougre.6543" said: > 1. You'll find it difficult to be taken serious with that ad hominem, and apples and oranges comparison. I'd like to watch that sports league where participants randomly get matched into a team. And nowhere did I even imply how functional I feel the current system to be, check yourself. > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > First off, you're assuming players in high plat/legendary don't know how to rotate. > 2. And you're assuming that they do? Infallibly so? > > The primary advantage to having voice chat is so that players can communicate for better rotations. However, good players don't need voice chat for this. So fights STILL come down to technical skill and awareness in the higher divisions because the advantage of voice chat is nullified. > 3. The way you phrase this makes it sound as though top players are never conflicted about rotations, so I doubt you've ever experienced being a good player yourself, and simply make assumptions about those you aspire to. > > Second, I played solo 95% of the time even when premades were a thing. I've won against 5 man groups with pug teams more times than I can count. Voice chat =/= auto win. > 4. Obviously having voice communication doesn't guarantee your win. Your statement is slanted toward saying nothing about whether it can offer an advantage. Stop moving the goal posts. 1. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Comparison? Yup. 2. Generally speaking, yes. There's a reason high plat/legendary players are rated as high as they are. Mistakes can be made with or without voice chat. Again, voice chat =/= auto win. A matches outcome still revolves heavily around mechanical skill and awareness. 3. Yes, we usually aren't conflicted. That's why we're top players. If we make mistakes, we lose. Simple as that. Oh wow, you're right! ([i aspire to be rank 1 instead.](https://imgur.com/a/HXmRGKS)) 4. Yes, and your argument is slanted towards the fact that voice chat gives such a heavy advantage that simply not having it puts you and your team at a massive disadvantage, especially in higher tier play. This is 100% incorrect no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Cougre.6543" said: > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > Again, all stats we got from the Devs point to a win rate of slightly more than 50% in **favour** of solo queue. (In plain english, solo player teams were winning more vs premades than vice-versa). > > > > > > So again, what evidence do you have? > > > > > This statistic you keep referring to is so insufficient in its information that it's completely worthless as an argument. What is the worth of knowing whether premades won or lost more often when we do not differentiate between different ratings? I present to you the extreme example of every premade in legendary and platinum league winning, while every premade in the leagues below these loses, this is an entirely possible scenario with the given statistic. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand we have plainly recorded evidence of top players who took advantage of premade queueing having disproportionately high win/loss ratios. > > > > So actual statistical information from a developer about that precise issue is invalid, but your anecdotal evidence is more valid... > > > > You must also believe the earth is flat, no? > > > > (...) > > > > > > It is statistics. It could happen, that in Platinum/Legendary the premades were extremely dominant, because that is where the premades made out of active PVPers played. They just farmed all the solo players, no matter that their technical skill and awareness were much better - the premade just had teamspeak. > > > > > > On the other hand, in lower tiers a lot of premades consisted of players, who just had a look into pvp, being motivated that they could play together while not really being interested in PVP. They just got ridiculously farmed by any average PVPer and yes, they used teamspeak - for having a good laugh. > > > > > > In total, the two values added up being around 50%. But the message is very different. Don't trust statistics where you can't really observe the actual data. ;) > > > > First off, you're assuming players in high plat/legendary don't know how to rotate. The primary advantage to having voice chat is so that players can communicate for better rotations. However, good players don't need voice chat for this. So fights STILL come down to technical skill and awareness in the higher divisions because the advantage of voice chat is nullified. > > > > Second, I played solo 95% of the time even when premades were a thing. I've won against 5 man groups with pug teams more times than I can count. Voice chat =/= auto win. > > > > But yes, we should listen to what you're saying because ignoring official statistics and taking "what ifs" as reasons for supporting a flawed system makes plenty of sense. 8^) > > I only pointed out that these kind of numbers often are not that easy in statistics and critical thinking is always good. ;) That is actually a big problem in research, even in known papers. A lot of mistakes happen even there. And as long as they didn't specify their numbers, we _should_ be careful with its interpretation. > > And of course, I overexaggerated. I would actually be fine with different ladders for solo and teams, but I'd prefer a more rewarding rework somehow. I like that point in the video actually. Like i said earlier, it's (was) a HUGE mistake to change the game to meet with the fringe elements. Those can be made into exceptions (again like they currently did with duos for plat+) your argument is entirely invalidated because you're trying to justify generalizing a behaviour to favour a statistical anomaly. You like overexaggerations? Here's one: Your logic thinking if applied to medicine would lead to everyone receiving chemotherapy. Because some people get cancer, so lets treat everyone like they have it. Again, like i said earlier, those players that can't be adjusted by the Matchmaker to have a inflated MMR for being in teams (as in the top players), would, in a competitive environment, with pro teams, naturally gravitate towards a team, because if you're that good at it, any normal, intelligent human being would want to **profit** from it. So of course all top players are in teams, because being in the top team would lead to a shot at a substantial amount of money. Basically what i'm saying is that the "oh but platinum..." is a fallacious argument with only, at best, anecdotal support. While the reverse argument is actually substantiated in what little statistical facts we could get from the Devs. If, at the time, instead of allowing people to vote blind, out of ignorance, without information, they had given us the statistical data to back the choice, maybe a lot of harm would have been avoided. > @"Cougre.6543" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > It's a good thing that we have people like you telling us it is. 8^) > You'll find it difficult to be taken serious with that ad hominem, and apples and oranges comparison. I'd like to watch that sports league where participants randomly get matched into a team. And nowhere did I even imply how functional I feel the current system to be, check yourself. > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > So actual statistical information from a developer about that precise issue is invalid, but your anecdotal evidence is more valid... > Your response leads me to believe that you completely ignored my reasoning for why that statistical information should not used the way you do use it. Perhaps you're the flat-earther projecting here? Hah... No, again your response leads me to conclude you really don't know the difference between fact and feeling. > > The extreme tiers **should** be all premades, **especially** in the context of the time, where the best premades would be invited to the Professional competitions. So of course it would be teams at the top. > > Your problem is that you have a tiny vision, pinpoint focus... Only a tiny percentage of players will be within the exception zone of being afected by premade vs solo. And those, if they're so good, should be vying for a pro spot. But even then, those would be an exception to the rule (like we have now for duos), what happened is that the rule was established only for that small exception that could be hurt by premades, or rather, the global perception of the issue was skewed by the minority opinions. > Who are you to declare who should be playing with whom? Furthermore, who are you to determine what percentage of players is affected? You're not even presenting anecdotal evidence here. Me, i'm not declaring anything. I'm telling you what happens naturally, like in nature, you know, physics, causality and all that jazz? If there's a few thousand dollars in prize money, if you're at the top tier of a competitive game. You'll naturally join a team, because single players don't get to compete. That's like... Human Nature? > > The end-result is in plain sight, sPvP has only decayed considerably in terms of quality and quantity of players and the community since removing teams from ranked play. So, the proof is even more evident that that decision only hurt the content. > You're linking cause and effect with zero proof that they belong together. Well, true, i'll give you that... Correlation doesn't mean causation... But then again, the season after they removed teams, GW2 also was removed from ESL. Also, without ranked teams, there was no transparent mechanism in place to replace ranked teams as a way to get invited to Worlds. So, yeah, i can't speak to it being the only cause. But definetly it was a factor for the decline. > > You and others like you can keep on fooling yourselves, i'm past caring. sPvP is broken way past the point of fixing with small platitudes, and unless something massively changes within Arena net, that's all we'll be getting. > And you're here anyway? Either you care despite what you say, or you are bait that is no longer worth responding to. > Because ignorance and misinformation irk me... So i do my best to dispel those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"JayAction.9056" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"JayAction.9056" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > > > Good points. > > > > > > > > > > Edit: figured I should mention that allowing prems in ranked is still a mistake in gw2 specifically and it was proven before. Aside from that though, good points. > > > > > > > > Proven? How? The only evidence we have from actual devs actually points towards the opposite direction. > > > > > > > > > s1 - whenever duo q ceased > > > Legend/top 250 > > > > > > All the “pros” that got stomped without a 5 man roster, or still got stomped by random 5s of a decent rating while having a full roster. > > > > > > Prems are too large an advantage. However, most people who care to play in prems are not that great in the first place, or the skill difference between members tends to be large and they get stomped quite regularly. > > > > LOL! > > First you mean season 5? > > Second duo Q never ceased? > > Third: You mean the people that only played with teams won/played less because it's a team game, and it's not a game you can easily carry, so your team is a RNG factor you can't control, meant that those players experienced a less consistent win record? > > Sure! I'll buy that! > > Does that prove that teams in ranked is a mistake? NO? > > First the only point where that would ever be a issue would be at the very top tiers, like top 50 - 100 players. Since at anything less than that the MMR can easily "punish" teams by making them fight "above" their level, which it was doing in double fashion, not only did the Matchmaker up-scaled teams a bit, but the base MMR for teams was the highest player MMR instead of the average, which meant that teams were always fighting against theoretically better players than the team's average. > > > > Second, it has been proven in **every** team game, that you **don't want to remove teams** from ranked competition. League of Legends tried that out for a season, and was returning it back with a vengeance (via the Flex Queue) by the time GW2 was voting to remove it. > > > > It takes a **huge** bout of mental gymnastics and anti-social character to believe that any team game is healthier when teams are removed from the equation. > > It makes individual game play inconsistent, because you can have a good game where the team is cooperating and synergising, or you can have a game where your team is just inting and throwing the match. And you can't do anything about it. > > And worse off, GW2 has the **WORSE**, but the very worse communication tools available for teams to communicate (not even talking about VoIP, just the pings), which just compounds the issue of lack of pre-arranged teams. Up until like a month ago, the pings where extremely subjective, and to this day, you still don't know who's communicating what. Which basically rnders it useless, since and this is like communication 101 for there to be proper communication you need to know at least 3 basic things, the **Sender** (which is impossible to know with current ping system), the **Message** (which until recently was entirely subjective, still isn't perfect, but better now), and the **Receiver** (which in this case would be the whole team). > > Without a system message accompanying the ping, with who said what, we don't have proper context to the ping to know what's happening... > > Take League of Legends for example... > > Someone pings enemy is missing, the "?" ping... You look at the chat, and you see it's the top laner. If you're middle, you'll probably play a bit more defensive until you get vision back on the enemy top laner because he might be going for a gank on mid (unlikely he'll go bot), If it's the mid laner, the top and bottom lanes will be guarding for a roam, etc. > > IF that same ping is used on an objective, it usually means you lack vision there and enemy might be going for it, so ward it. > > If it's on you after a good or bad play, it means people are like "What was that!" > > Etc. > > And that's just one ping!! > > > > I GW2, we don't have enough context to use those tools effectively, also don't have teams to make up for that lack of communication, which means your "e-sport" is now a meme. > > Have you ever been high rating? > > I’m confused how you are so clueless. He's correct. <- [High Rated Player](https://imgur.com/a/HXmRGKS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"JayAction.9056" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"JayAction.9056" said: > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > > > > Good points. > > > > > > > > > > > > Edit: figured I should mention that allowing prems in ranked is still a mistake in gw2 specifically and it was proven before. Aside from that though, good points. > > > > > > > > > > Proven? How? The only evidence we have from actual devs actually points towards the opposite direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > s1 - whenever duo q ceased > > > > Legend/top 250 > > > > > > > > All the “pros” that got stomped without a 5 man roster, or still got stomped by random 5s of a decent rating while having a full roster. > > > > > > > > Prems are too large an advantage. However, most people who care to play in prems are not that great in the first place, or the skill difference between members tends to be large and they get stomped quite regularly. > > > > > > LOL! > > > First you mean season 5? > > > Second duo Q never ceased? > > > Third: You mean the people that only played with teams won/played less because it's a team game, and it's not a game you can easily carry, so your team is a RNG factor you can't control, meant that those players experienced a less consistent win record? > > > Sure! I'll buy that! > > > Does that prove that teams in ranked is a mistake? NO? > > > First the only point where that would ever be a issue would be at the very top tiers, like top 50 - 100 players. Since at anything less than that the MMR can easily "punish" teams by making them fight "above" their level, which it was doing in double fashion, not only did the Matchmaker up-scaled teams a bit, but the base MMR for teams was the highest player MMR instead of the average, which meant that teams were always fighting against theoretically better players than the team's average. > > > > > > Second, it has been proven in **every** team game, that you **don't want to remove teams** from ranked competition. League of Legends tried that out for a season, and was returning it back with a vengeance (via the Flex Queue) by the time GW2 was voting to remove it. > > > > > > It takes a **huge** bout of mental gymnastics and anti-social character to believe that any team game is healthier when teams are removed from the equation. > > > It makes individual game play inconsistent, because you can have a good game where the team is cooperating and synergising, or you can have a game where your team is just inting and throwing the match. And you can't do anything about it. > > > And worse off, GW2 has the **WORSE**, but the very worse communication tools available for teams to communicate (not even talking about VoIP, just the pings), which just compounds the issue of lack of pre-arranged teams. Up until like a month ago, the pings where extremely subjective, and to this day, you still don't know who's communicating what. Which basically rnders it useless, since and this is like communication 101 for there to be proper communication you need to know at least 3 basic things, the **Sender** (which is impossible to know with current ping system), the **Message** (which until recently was entirely subjective, still isn't perfect, but better now), and the **Receiver** (which in this case would be the whole team). > > > Without a system message accompanying the ping, with who said what, we don't have proper context to the ping to know what's happening... > > > Take League of Legends for example... > > > Someone pings enemy is missing, the "?" ping... You look at the chat, and you see it's the top laner. If you're middle, you'll probably play a bit more defensive until you get vision back on the enemy top laner because he might be going for a gank on mid (unlikely he'll go bot), If it's the mid laner, the top and bottom lanes will be guarding for a roam, etc. > > > IF that same ping is used on an objective, it usually means you lack vision there and enemy might be going for it, so ward it. > > > If it's on you after a good or bad play, it means people are like "What was that!" > > > Etc. > > > And that's just one ping!! > > > > > > I GW2, we don't have enough context to use those tools effectively, also don't have teams to make up for that lack of communication, which means your "e-sport" is now a meme. > > > > Have you ever been high rating? > > > > I’m confused how you are so clueless. > > He's correct. > > <- [High Rated Player](https://imgur.com/a/HXmRGKS) Thanks! I'll still answer... No, i've never been "high ranked" in GW2. I never played GW2's pvp intensively enough for that to happen... But what i have done is play it more or less regularly since the game released, which allows me to have witnessed the high and low points of sPvP, and trust me, this is the lowest of the low right now. Also i've played just about every genre of competitive games, i've played in several e-sports competitions semi-professionally, so i do understand how competitions work. Also i have a degree in Engineering, which, believe it or not, also provides a pretty ample understanding of maths and statistics. Finally, the period i played sPvP the most was during the content drought pre-HoT, and seasons 3-4 i think, i was playing with a team of friends and guildmates, while also doing some games solo, which also allowed me to witness just how much playing premade would impact my wins. (Basically i was having less than 50% winrate with 5 man premades, which i'd only make up when playing solo or 2-3 man premades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougre.6543 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > 1. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Comparison? Yup. An interesting way to deny that your comparison lacked any aptitude. > 3. Yes, we usually aren't conflicted. That's why we're top players. If we make mistakes, we lose. Simple as that. > Oh wow, you're right! ([i aspire to be rank 1 instead.](https://imgur.com/a/HXmRGKS)) Seeing how you called the same system that's shown in your screenshot flawed, I'm afraid I cannot take this seriously. > 2. Generally speaking, yes. There's a reason high plat/legendary players are rated as high as they are. Mistakes can be made with or without voice chat. Again, voice chat =/= auto win. A matches outcome still revolves heavily around mechanical skill and awareness. > 4. Yes, and your argument is slanted towards the fact that voice chat gives such a heavy advantage that simply not having it puts you and your team at a massive disadvantage, especially in higher tier play. This is 100% incorrect no matter how you look at it. This is incredibly pedantic. Can we not agree that the goal of any competition should be minimalize any imbalances that do not stem from inherent skill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s You're correct! We can't really tell for sure, and i've said as much, my argument is simply that the only actual proof we have on the matter is that single statistic that was released in a patch not, which points towards pre-mades **not being** a factor on win.rates. The rest is anecdotal evidence at its best. So which one should i trust more? The statistic released by a dev that also corroborates what i've seen in the game and in other games, or the anecdotal evidence which can be easily explained by human nature*? *Like humans are more likely to remember bad experiences than good ones, so you're more likely to be able to recount the times you lost vs a premade, than the ones you won vs a premade... Because when you lose you automatically try to find an explanation, and the easiest one is "it was a premade". While when you lose you don't care about anything else but the fact you got that dopamine boost. Also, players dropping rank when premades ended can easily be explained by loss of motivation, the need to adapt to playing with "generic" tactics and strategies, instead of the group cohesion you're used to, etc. Not just "they're boosted", that's a basic, simplistic view of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Cougre.6543" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > 1. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Comparison? Yup. > 1. An interesting way to deny that your comparison lacked any aptitude. > > 3. Yes, we usually aren't conflicted. That's why we're top players. If we make mistakes, we lose. Simple as that. > > Oh wow, you're right! ([i aspire to be rank 1 instead.](https://imgur.com/a/HXmRGKS)) > 2. Seeing how you called the same system that's shown in your screenshot flawed, I'm afraid I cannot take this seriously. > > 2. Generally speaking, yes. There's a reason high plat/legendary players are rated as high as they are. Mistakes can be made with or without voice chat. Again, voice chat =/= auto win. A matches outcome still revolves heavily around mechanical skill and awareness. > > 4. Yes, and your argument is slanted towards the fact that voice chat gives such a heavy advantage that simply not having it puts you and your team at a massive disadvantage, especially in higher tier play. This is 100% incorrect no matter how you look at it. > 3. This is incredibly pedantic. Can we not agree that the goal of any competition should be minimalize any imbalances that do not stem from inherent skill? 1. You were the one that mentioned top players taking advantage of the system to get "disproportionately high win/loss ratios." In real life, the best teams will have much higher win/loss ratios than an average team. So why is this an issue in GW2? 2. The system is flawed because wins are not based entirely on personal skill. Simply put, you cannot carry a Conquest game as a single player. No matter how good you are or how many fights you win, you can only be in 1 place at a time. So, if you win your node, your teammates can still lose the other 2. So yes, the system is flawed but you'll still find that players at the top of the leaderboard have a noticeable skill difference when compared to your average plat 1-2 player. 3. Yes, but the current system does the complete opposite. You can't give random teammates in a team based game, then base an individual's skill off of how their RNG teammates performed. Team based PvP. RNG teammates. Rate an individual's skill based off of what? How their team performed? This makes no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopDaGod.9346 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 with the amount of shit that this rank season(last 4) i grown tired of it overall, at this point i'm just gonna spam rank games with P/P deadeye to for LoLs and most likly still obtain the same crap i have the last 4 seasons. noting about rank at the moment is shown to show a player "true" skill level at all. It's Spam whatever the hell is broken and can carry a fight easily, and then we have find a bunch of players to que sync with each other to carry games together or.... win trade a few games. That's what the last 4 season has shown me, and noting has really stopped any of it beside a few bans here and there while they still keep the rewards for end of the season. just bring back team rank or at least make it 3 player duo.... at all rating. Game becoming boring and really really tasteless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# Learn statistics please. €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler > > Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# > > Learn statistics please. > > €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. I really enjoy debating topics with people who only respond with "No, your points don't count because I don't have any reasons, they just don't count." _Fun._ Apparently saying, "learn statistics" is the universal response that automatically dispels any opposing arguments. Maybe I'll try this next time I have absolutely nothing of substance to offer. After all, it seems to work well enough for you. 8^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > > > > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > > > > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > > > > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > > > > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > > > > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler > > > > Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# > > > > Learn statistics please. > > > > €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. > > I really enjoy debating topics with people who only respond with "No, your points don't count because I don't have any reasons, they just don't count." > > _Fun._ > > Apparently saying, "learn statistics" is the universal response that automatically dispels any opposing arguments. Maybe I'll try this next time I have absolutely nothing of substance to offer. After all, it seems to work well enough for you. 8^) Okay. But you could not invalidate my point on the "50%-winrate"-argument, right? You could not prove it wasn't like this, right? Another example: I am also 99% soloQing, like you. My rating rose significantly after they got rid of duoQ, while with decreasing population, it usually should _de_crease. What could be reasons for that? 1) I leanred faster than anyone else! Well... highly unlikely tbh. 2) I played stronger classes. No... I played ele/guard/reaper and now I am only playing ele... 3) I am not being supressed by teamQ anymore. Well... might be? You are obviously playing rather high on the leaderboard too. May I ask you what you rating was when they had duoQ? Did you also play solo that time? Again, this also does not prove anything of course. But with enough data, we could derive a proper evaluation of the effect of teamQ, not just saying something about a random 50%-winrate or whatever. Which _could_ still be unfair and carry "worse" players than you for example to high placements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > > > > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > > > > > > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > > > > > > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > > > > > > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > > > > > > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > > > > > > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler > > > > > > Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# > > > > > > Learn statistics please. > > > > > > €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. > > > > I really enjoy debating topics with people who only respond with "No, your points don't count because I don't have any reasons, they just don't count." > > > > _Fun._ > > > > Apparently saying, "learn statistics" is the universal response that automatically dispels any opposing arguments. Maybe I'll try this next time I have absolutely nothing of substance to offer. After all, it seems to work well enough for you. 8^) > > Okay. But you could not invalidate my point on the "50%-winrate"-argument, right? You could not prove it wasn't like this, right? > > Another example: I am also 99% soloQing, like you. My rating rose significantly after they got rid of duoQ, while with decreasing population, it usually should _de_crease. What could be reasons for that? > 1) I leanred faster than anyone else! Well... highly unlikely tbh. > 2) I played stronger classes. No... I played ele/guard/reaper and now I am only playing ele... > 3) I am not being supressed by teamQ anymore. Well... might be? > > You are obviously playing rather high on the leaderboard too. May I ask you what you rating was when they had duoQ? Did you also play solo that time? > > Again, this also does not prove anything of course. But with enough data, we could derive a proper evaluation of the effect of teamQ, not just saying something about a random 50%-winrate or whatever. Which _could_ still be unfair and carry "worse" players than you for example to high placements. I didn't ignore/immediately invalidate your argument. I addressed your point. If it happened to invalidate it, it is what it is. That's a poor example. People weren't being suppressed by 5 mans. In fact, the only divisions 5 mans actually affected were plat 3 and legendary. If you weren't playing at the top, the issue of 5 mans didn't really exist. I can elaborate more on this if you wish. Sure. - Season 1: Didn't play - Season 2: Division 6 Legendary - Season 3: Division 6 Legendary - Season 4: Division 6 Legendary - Season 5: 1762 I've always been a primarily solo player. It's not always convenient to find people to party with and the hassle of getting on voice chat all the time just to coordinate in a ranked match honestly outweighed the (minor) benefits. Anyways, in ranked, I stopped caring shortly after they stopped us from playing with our friends. Although I played solo for 19/20 matches, being able to share the pain with a buddy helped alleviate the stress and frustration of having shit teammates constantly. Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > > > > > > > > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > > > > > > > > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > > > > > > > > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > > > > > > > > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler > > > > > > > > Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# > > > > > > > > Learn statistics please. > > > > > > > > €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. > > > > > > I really enjoy debating topics with people who only respond with "No, your points don't count because I don't have any reasons, they just don't count." > > > > > > _Fun._ > > > > > > Apparently saying, "learn statistics" is the universal response that automatically dispels any opposing arguments. Maybe I'll try this next time I have absolutely nothing of substance to offer. After all, it seems to work well enough for you. 8^) > > > > Okay. But you could not invalidate my point on the "50%-winrate"-argument, right? You could not prove it wasn't like this, right? > > > > Another example: I am also 99% soloQing, like you. My rating rose significantly after they got rid of duoQ, while with decreasing population, it usually should _de_crease. What could be reasons for that? > > 1) I leanred faster than anyone else! Well... highly unlikely tbh. > > 2) I played stronger classes. No... I played ele/guard/reaper and now I am only playing ele... > > 3) I am not being supressed by teamQ anymore. Well... might be? > > > > You are obviously playing rather high on the leaderboard too. May I ask you what you rating was when they had duoQ? Did you also play solo that time? > > > > Again, this also does not prove anything of course. But with enough data, we could derive a proper evaluation of the effect of teamQ, not just saying something about a random 50%-winrate or whatever. Which _could_ still be unfair and carry "worse" players than you for example to high placements. > > I didn't ignore/immediately invalidate your argument. I addressed your point. If it happened to invalidate it, it is what it is. > > That's a poor example. People weren't being suppressed by 5 mans. In fact, the only divisions 5 mans actually affected were plat 3 and legendary. If you weren't playing at the top, the issue of 5 mans didn't really exist. I can elaborate more on this if you wish. > > Sure. > > - Season 1: Didn't play > - Season 2: Division 6 Legendary > - Season 3: Division 6 Legendary > - Season 4: Division 6 Legendary > - Season 5: 1762 > > I've always been a primarily solo player. It's not always convenient to find people to party with and the hassle of getting on voice chat all the time just to coordinate in a ranked match honestly outweighed the (minor) benefits. Anyways, in ranked, I stopped caring shortly after they stopped us from playing with our friends. Although I played solo for 19/20 matches, being able to share the pain with a buddy helped alleviate the stress and frustration of having kitten teammates constantly. > > Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. So it obviously didn't happen to you, which would indeed be a hint in the opposite direction. If anyone else could state their experience, that would be helpful. I know there is a lot more to teamQ versus soloQ. Reducing stress is acutally a good point. But were you never angry when you fought people you clearly outplayed in usual games - better duelist, better team support, better map awareness -, but they just roflstomped with their strong mesmer/thief-carry-combo because of superior sidepoints coordination? Or, well, FB+Scourge today by just keeping mid forever? Don't know where that challange comes from now... but I'm on EU anyways. Of course rating is very volatile and does not tell the full story. There is always luck involved and people move... well, _I_ am moving up and down by 50 points all the time. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. That RNG is in your favor: there are more combinations where the other team gets the "worse" player than when your team gets them, simply because you are present on your own team. > Don't know where that challange comes from now... but I'm on EU anyways. Of course rating is very volatile and does not tell the full story. There is always luck involved and people move... well, _I_ am moving up and down by 50 points all the time. ;) MMR is in constant motion, ever individual MMR. It is an estimate, and part of the way that estimate works is by continuing to move around the target point. The advance that GLICKO matchmaking brought over ELO is that it uses an estimated confidence rating to reduce that variance over time, but it will still move you around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. > > That RNG is in your favor: there are more combinations where the other team gets the "worse" player than when your team gets them, simply because you are present on your own team. > > > Don't know where that challange comes from now... but I'm on EU anyways. Of course rating is very volatile and does not tell the full story. There is always luck involved and people move... well, _I_ am moving up and down by 50 points all the time. ;) > > MMR is in constant motion, ever individual MMR. It is an estimate, and part of the way that estimate works is by continuing to move around the target point. The advance that GLICKO matchmaking brought over ELO is that it uses an estimated confidence rating to reduce that variance over time, but it will still move you around. Well,sure. Actually I am quite confident with the matchmaking and the rating system. It does need improvements, yes, but I think there are more important points to fix in PVP. Like get rid of the seasons and give more regular rewards for playing or something, somehow improve the motivation to play whenever you like and not get into the 120-games-hassle, yes, maybe even working on a fair(er?) system to include teamQ... pretty much the first point in the video above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowpass.4236 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > You obviously don't deal with statistics too often. Maybe you should, there are really interesting books readable for the everyone out there. @"Cougre.6543" is absolutely right with his main point - his doubts about the statistics. Which _could_ also be correct of course, we just can't tell. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw. stop rank showing-off... rank 2 with 1745... :s > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. [Here's a higher one.](https://imgur.com/a/RGFAvRY) > > > > > > > > > > > > This is before the leaderboard got wiped. I would've ended at rank 2 if I didn't try and que extra to beat 1805 (who got removed) the day before season ended. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless, high rating is high rating. Top 10 is still top 10. The reason why EU ratings are higher is because EU has a higher population so there's more rating to go around. > > > > > > > > > > > > I edited out "inb4 someone tries to invalidate the screenshot." Oh well, missed opportunity. 8^) People like you will always come up with excuses. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Your rank 2 doesn't count because reasons. :s" - Mega "kitten" metzler > > > > > > > > > > Do you actually keep making screenshots of your rating? Dude, what? :# > > > > > > > > > > Learn statistics please. > > > > > > > > > > €: On topic: Yes, bring back teamQ. But only with seperated ladders, so everybody is happy (except the queuetime :p). Or - even better - rework the whole thing. > > > > > > > > I really enjoy debating topics with people who only respond with "No, your points don't count because I don't have any reasons, they just don't count." > > > > > > > > _Fun._ > > > > > > > > Apparently saying, "learn statistics" is the universal response that automatically dispels any opposing arguments. Maybe I'll try this next time I have absolutely nothing of substance to offer. After all, it seems to work well enough for you. 8^) > > > > > > Okay. But you could not invalidate my point on the "50%-winrate"-argument, right? You could not prove it wasn't like this, right? > > > > > > Another example: I am also 99% soloQing, like you. My rating rose significantly after they got rid of duoQ, while with decreasing population, it usually should _de_crease. What could be reasons for that? > > > 1) I leanred faster than anyone else! Well... highly unlikely tbh. > > > 2) I played stronger classes. No... I played ele/guard/reaper and now I am only playing ele... > > > 3) I am not being supressed by teamQ anymore. Well... might be? > > > > > > You are obviously playing rather high on the leaderboard too. May I ask you what you rating was when they had duoQ? Did you also play solo that time? > > > > > > Again, this also does not prove anything of course. But with enough data, we could derive a proper evaluation of the effect of teamQ, not just saying something about a random 50%-winrate or whatever. Which _could_ still be unfair and carry "worse" players than you for example to high placements. > > > > I didn't ignore/immediately invalidate your argument. I addressed your point. If it happened to invalidate it, it is what it is. > > > > That's a poor example. People weren't being suppressed by 5 mans. In fact, the only divisions 5 mans actually affected were plat 3 and legendary. If you weren't playing at the top, the issue of 5 mans didn't really exist. I can elaborate more on this if you wish. > > > > Sure. > > > > - Season 1: Didn't play > > - Season 2: Division 6 Legendary > > - Season 3: Division 6 Legendary > > - Season 4: Division 6 Legendary > > - Season 5: 1762 > > > > I've always been a primarily solo player. It's not always convenient to find people to party with and the hassle of getting on voice chat all the time just to coordinate in a ranked match honestly outweighed the (minor) benefits. Anyways, in ranked, I stopped caring shortly after they stopped us from playing with our friends. Although I played solo for 19/20 matches, being able to share the pain with a buddy helped alleviate the stress and frustration of having kitten teammates constantly. > > > > Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. > > So it obviously didn't happen to you, which would indeed be a hint in the opposite direction. If anyone else could state their experience, that would be helpful. > > I know there is a lot more to teamQ versus soloQ. Reducing stress is acutally a good point. > But were you never angry when you fought people you clearly outplayed in usual games - better duelist, better team support, better map awareness -, but they just roflstomped with their strong mesmer/thief-carry-combo because of superior sidepoints coordination? Or, well, FB+Scourge today by just keeping mid forever? > > Don't know where that challange comes from now... but I'm on EU anyways. Of course rating is very volatile and does not tell the full story. There is always luck involved and people move... well, _I_ am moving up and down by 50 points all the time. ;) Oh, it might be worth mentioning that I have a 60% win ratio in ranked with 2.3k games played. Obviously, I'd win more depending on how much I try but ranked is a meme so w/e. No, I was never angry about facing duos/5 man teams. I actually looked forward to fighting them because I knew it was going to be a challenge and pretty fun. This is actually something I don't understand. People get upset about this in a video game but are perfectly fine with it in real life. First, I recognize that anytime anyone decides to spend a little extra effort getting organized, they'll have an advantage. Whether this be in real life (like forming a soccer team and practicing more than your opponent), or in a video game (getting on voice comms) it's more than fair to reward them for that. Now, a mesmer/thief working together still isn't guaranteed a win. They still have 3 other pugs that have the RNG chance to be significantly worse (or better) than my pugs. So if I do my job (and a little extra if I want to carry), and I also get competent teammate(s), we still have a good shot at winning. Honestly though, I've been matched up with Naru, Vallun, another good player, and me on the same team in ranked and still lost. No one was on voice comms, but the point still stands. A team can be super stacked and still lose to randoms. Some people are interested in seeing how I play. I'm always up for a duel if someone wants to test if I can back up my words. But yes, 50 rating at the top of the leaderboards is the difference of 2-3 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twyn.7320 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 An additional video for further reinforcement of the issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said: > > > > Keep in mind that rating in Conquest isn't necessarily reflective of an individual's personal skill (as winning comes down to RNG teammates), so if you're on NA and would like to see in person. Send me a whisper and I can duel you. > > > > That RNG is in your favor: there are more combinations where the other team gets the "worse" player than when your team gets them, simply because you are present on your own team. > > > > > Don't know where that challange comes from now... but I'm on EU anyways. Of course rating is very volatile and does not tell the full story. There is always luck involved and people move... well, _I_ am moving up and down by 50 points all the time. ;) > > > > MMR is in constant motion, ever individual MMR. It is an estimate, and part of the way that estimate works is by continuing to move around the target point. The advance that GLICKO matchmaking brought over ELO is that it uses an estimated confidence rating to reduce that variance over time, but it will still move you around. > > Well,sure. Actually I am quite confident with the matchmaking and the rating system. It does need improvements, yes Absolutely agreed. GLICKO2 is not the best possible system here, but ultimately, any system will show the same degree of mobility of MMR over time -- if for no other reason, but that it ranks you against every other player, and that means any time an individual player gains skill, they cause ripples through anyone else in the region, because suddenly the order is in flux. It doesn't look like anyone has an extremely compelling alternative; even Microsoft's TrueSkill system -- designed to better handle team games rather than one-on-one -- and widely used on the XBox, doesn't seem to have substantially reduced complaints. Sadly. Hopefully someone decides there is a nice PHD, and a nice, well paid job in industry, waiting for this solution. ;) > but I think there are more important points to fix in PVP. Like get rid of the seasons and give more regular rewards for playing or something, somehow improve the motivation to play whenever you like and not get into the 120-games-hassle, yes, maybe even working on a fair(er?) system to include teamQ... pretty much the first point in the video above. I'd also agree with that, yes. Ultimately, my point here was to remind people that while the system isn't perfect, the (extremely limited) bias is in favor of getting you close to your actual MMR, or above it, and that your MMR moving up and down a little is not just normal, but a necessary part of the system. I'd absolutely support working out better ways to handle motivation for ongoing play, rather than metagaming where you try and optimize for placement and avoid PvP in favor of rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megametzler.5729 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 I actually hate it, when I play against a 5-man-premade with 4 other randoms (like me :p). They usually have a specialised composition, have a plan alltogether and therefor - in my experience, in which I still trust more than a random 50%-winrate-number - I can only win if we have some absolutely superior technical skill. Yes, happens, but rarely. And of course, because this is unranked, the MM might have problems with these kinds of premades and appropriate enemy teams. @"shadowpass.4236", @"SlippyCheeze.5483": Lets imagine they add teamQ back to ranked. Maybe there would be a way to make it not unfair at the very top, but still enjoyable for everyone? For example significantly reduce rating for wins (when in the premade) and losses (when facing premades) - because at the top, you wont find 5 soloQers who have 100 or whatever more rating? I dont know if such a thing exists within GLICKO or whatever. It would still suck to face r55 though, so there should be some kind of a serious disadvantage too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"shadowpass.4236", @"SlippyCheeze.5483": Lets imagine they add teamQ back to ranked. Maybe there would be a way to make it not unfair at the very top, but still enjoyable for everyone? For example significantly reduce rating for wins (when in the premade) and losses (when facing premades) - because at the top, you wont find 5 soloQers who have 100 or whatever more rating? I personally doubt that would be possible. The out-of-GW2 coordination advantages that a premade have, even if it is just familiarity with the other players, will always provide a significant competitive advantage compared to random groups. That said, I'm not an expert in this area, and it is entirely possible that my armchair knowledge of the subject means I have missed some critical thing that invalidates my personal belief. > I dont know if such a thing exists within GLICKO or whatever. It would still suck to face r55 though, so there should be some kind of a serious disadvantage too. In theory, any MMR system should push premade groups into higher MMR brackets than random groups, simply because it rates "relative performance compared to everyone else". In this model, the extra advantages of being a premade theoretically translate into a higher MMR vs random groups, given the same individual player skill levels. That should balance out: really good random queue players vs medium good premades theoretically balances things. The obvious problem is that the premade groups will dominate the top of the chart, so "awards go to the highest MMR people" significantly favor premades, to the point I think it would be a practical issue. Again, see comments about my expertise level above. I'm comfortable making the statements I have with the caveats I have, but I can't claim to be able to answer your questions in perfect detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinn.7864 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > > Good points. > > > > > > > > Edit: figured I should mention that allowing prems in ranked is still a mistake in gw2 specifically and it was proven before. Aside from that though, good points. > > > > > > Proven? How? The only evidence we have from actual devs actually points towards the opposite direction. > > > > Seasons 1-4. > > Again, all stats we got from the Devs point to a win rate of slightly more than 50% in **favour** of solo queue. (In plain english, solo player teams were winning more vs premades than vice-versa). > So again, what evidence do you have? That is because the matchmaker inflates the rating of groups proportional to the number of people in the group. Thus a group of 5 1200 rating players will get matched against a set of 1300+ rating solo queuers. However this method only works if the 5man is not composed top players, if the 5man is comprised of high rating players than the rating inflation does nothing because the matchmaker can't find any pugs of high enough skill rating to offset the 5 stack. This is why having 5mans in ranked was so bad, because pretty much all of the high level players where running stacks thus negating the matchmaker's only method for trying to fairly match 5stacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufo.3716 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 This whole thing is why I wished they would just put all the rewards in for playing unranked. Let the hardcore players who think their rating actually means something play ranked. Don't know how many times I've had players say dude, I don't care, I'm just here to farm pips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 > @"Crinn.7864" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > > > > Good points. > > > > > > > > > > Edit: figured I should mention that allowing prems in ranked is still a mistake in gw2 specifically and it was proven before. Aside from that though, good points. > > > > > > > > Proven? How? The only evidence we have from actual devs actually points towards the opposite direction. > > > > > > Seasons 1-4. > > > > Again, all stats we got from the Devs point to a win rate of slightly more than 50% in **favour** of solo queue. (In plain english, solo player teams were winning more vs premades than vice-versa). > > So again, what evidence do you have? > > That is because the matchmaker inflates the rating of groups proportional to the number of people in the group. Thus a group of 5 1200 rating players will get matched against a set of 1300+ rating solo queuers. > > However this method only works if the 5man is not composed top players, if the 5man is comprised of high rating players than the rating inflation does nothing because the matchmaker can't find any pugs of high enough skill rating to offset the 5 stack. This is why having 5mans in ranked was so bad, because pretty much all of the high level players where running stacks thus negating the matchmaker's only method for trying to fairly match 5stacks. Thanks for repeating what i said, and failing to read the rest of what i said, where i addressed the mistake of generalizing an anomaly. > @"Rufo.3716" said: > This whole thing is why I wished they would just put all the rewards in for playing unranked. Let the hardcore players who think their rating actually means something play ranked. Don't know how many times I've had players say dude, I don't care, I'm just here to farm pips. I wouldn't say remove the rewards altogether, the problem is, the way they set it up, the rewards aren't linked to outcome. You're not encouraged to play well, just to play a lot. If the rewards were, like the video suggests, offset to when you climb a rank (once per rank only, don't want to encourage people to drop rank on purpose to get repeat rewards), if they were tied to wins (like a repeatable achievement, giving a chunk of the chest's rewards for every 10 wins or something), and at the end of a season, you should get a one-time big reward according to your final rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now