PSA: Placed plat but fell to gold? you're a gold player!

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Falan.1839" said:

> > @"HeadCrowned.6834" said:

> > What about players that finished legend in one season and finished plat 1 in the next season?

>

> Was about to say the same, I can think of a few examples. But probably their skill just vanished from one season to another, omegalul.

 

...or, and I'm just spit balling here, if your rating is tied to performance *relative to all other players*, then maybe the change wasn't in them, it was in, y'know, other people?

 

> I can say from my own experience that I have been pretty much everywhere between ~1570 and ~1840 during the last 3 seasons, which is quite a big volatility considering I have been playing this game consistently on one class since pre-Hot in Ranked and hence my personal skill level is unlikely to have changed that dramatically within these 3 seasons.

 

Did you change class, and/or did your class change, during that time? I don't think anyone is trying to make the argument that MMR is an absolute, fixed, unchangeable values. Heck, I voted against class swapping, because take that away and you can have a per-class MMR, because I swear to you, I might play good on one, but if I tried to take a warrior into PvP I would be MMR -50 or something.

 

MMR is a reflection of your skill at this moment in time, with the class(es) you are playing, in the meta you are playing in, compared to all the other players who are also playing PvP at this point in time. It isn't an absolute measure, where a 1500 player is a 1500 player for all time, it is only meaningful in comparison to other people playing at the same time.

[Falan.1839]

No, I didn't change class, at leat not in Ranked. Thought that was clear on "been playing this game consistently on one class since pre-Hot". The performance relative to all other players is merely a theoretical factor, since the average skill level is unlikely to change dramatically over a relatively short period of time. What plays into it indeed is the different extent of rating creep in each season (like Top 250 beginning at 1600 vs beginning at 1670), but even within one season my rating can easily deviate as much as 150 points, which is about the difference between Top 50 and not even on the leaderboard.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"maxwelgm.4315" said:

> Topic title. The people in low plat and high gold really have to stop blaming others for losing 6+ times in a row. You lost 6(SIX) times? Start thinking about your class or build, because at that point you should be getting players lower than your true placement (unless you're too high up...wink wink). Got players that are indeed far lower than you? Well good riddance because the population is small enough (and Glicko helps...) for the enemy to get these guys too. Lost three matches in a row due to throwing? What about the next 3 ones then? Are you sure you're not just stressed out? Are you absolutely sure you didn't stop to type while the player you're calling a n00b is getting wrecked 2vs1? If you're not able to carry, are you able to delegate roles in a way that does not alienate your team? So many matches are lost due to gg's called at 80 - 10 scores.

>

> You want to be at the top of the leaderboard? Start leading!

 

That's not entirely true, and misconstrued, and misrepresentative...

Every time i do placements i usually end up mid gold... The last season i've played, i won 12 games in a row, then lost 7 games in a row. Out of those 7, three were "good" matches where we ended up like 450-500 or somewhat tight matches.

3 of those were games where someone simply wasn't playing in my team, either just feeding, ragequitting or AFK.

The last match was basically a total blow-out of 500-10, i asked my team, there was a premade of 2 bronze players, one guy doing placements, me at gold, and one guy left the game before answering (as in shut down gw2).

I didn't ask the other team, didn't get their names, but regardless of rank, it was very obvious they were more skilled than the bulk of my team.

 

So until this game can match you properly, has proper anti-leaving policies and tools, and allows carrying (which except for maybe mesmers using portal to hold 2 points, you really can't, since it can easily be won without combat using numbers) you really can't claim that it's 100% the player's fault.

 

Sure you can do what everyone at the top does, and just play PvP 6 hours a day... But then again, some of us have a low tolerance for trash tier quality content.

I can guarantee you one thing though. The skill cap, and the average player skill in current guild wars 2, is miles below the average of pre-HoT gw2.

 

[Vague Memory.2817]

OP is talking nonsense. I find I stay where every I'm placed, so what does that say. Says the system is bad at assessing an individual player's skill in a group, unless you are skilled enough to carry teams or at least carry 1-2 people.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> OP is talking nonsense. I find I stay where every I'm placed, so what does that say.

 

That placement worked correctly, and put you at the level of your skill, at which you then stay?

 

> Says the system is bad at assessing an individual player's skill in a group, unless you are skilled enough to carry teams or at least carry 1-2 people.

 

This is hardly the most obvious explanation for "I get placed at MMR X, and stay there", or the simplest. Just the most flattering to you, personally.

[Vague Memory.2817]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> > OP is talking nonsense. I find I stay where every I'm placed, so what does that say.

>

> That placement worked correctly, and put you at the level of your skill, at which you then stay?

>

> > Says the system is bad at assessing an individual player's skill in a group, unless you are skilled enough to carry teams or at least carry 1-2 people.

>

> This is hardly the most obvious explanation for "I get placed at MMR X, and stay there", or the simplest. Just the most flattering to you, personally.

 

But that is the truth, in different seasons I've been places in different tiers and I've stayed there by the end of the season. So how can I simultaneously be silver, gold, and plat genius when my skill level is the same. The system is ridiculous like your argument.

[Deimos.4263]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> In that case you should take comfort in knowing that there is only a 4/9 chance of playing with them, and a 5/9 chance of playing against them, so in the long run they will artificially raise your MMR, not lower it.

 

Unfortunately the algorithm "gains confidence" too rapidly, so if you get a string of bad games early on you're kinda hosed. You burn through the opportunity to climb fast, and then you're essentially pigeon-holed at whatever rating it has decided you belong. Probably the best thing you can do is not play the first week or two, and let the majority of the crazies fizzle out, so that the algorithm has a better chance to rate your skill and not other things.

[Megametzler.5729]

I got placed in gold several times and always climbed into plat - sometimes higher, sometimes lower. It depends on a lot of things - what class/build, the current meta, how hard you try to adapt to team setups and/or communicate...

 

The MMR is not perfect, but close to the current standard.

[mes.4607]

This is spot on. When people call GG after one lost mid fight I tilt super hard

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> > > OP is talking nonsense. I find I stay where every I'm placed, so what does that say.

> >

> > That placement worked correctly, and put you at the level of your skill, at which you then stay?

> >

> > > Says the system is bad at assessing an individual player's skill in a group, unless you are skilled enough to carry teams or at least carry 1-2 people.

> >

> > This is hardly the most obvious explanation for "I get placed at MMR X, and stay there", or the simplest. Just the most flattering to you, personally.

>

> But that is the truth, in different seasons I've been places in different tiers and I've stayed there by the end of the season. So how can I simultaneously be silver, gold, and plat genius when my skill level is the same. The system is ridiculous like your argument.

 

Possibly. It also ranks you vs other players, and I'm not a huge fan of the idea PvP skill is completely fungible across classes, but ... maybe you are right, and it isn't being fair to you. From here, not knowing anything about your skill, or your history, the simplest possible explanation is that it works, and you don't like the outcome.

 

I can't say it is the only one, and I am definitely not saying it **must** be what is going on, but it'd take more than assertion to make a claim that it was MMR being broken here (and not, for example, in LoL or other MOBAs that use the same rating system) causing it.

 

Which I strongly encourage you to actually get: if MMR is busted, it is unlikely that ANet are gonna be more inclined to believe you than I am, without proof, but ... nobody can argue with hard numbers, y'know?

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > In that case you should take comfort in knowing that there is only a 4/9 chance of playing with them, and a 5/9 chance of playing against them, so in the long run they will artificially raise your MMR, not lower it.

>

> Unfortunately the algorithm "gains confidence" too rapidly, so if you get a string of bad games early on you're kinda hosed. You burn through the opportunity to climb fast, and then you're essentially pigeon-holed at whatever rating it has decided you belong. Probably the best thing you can do is not play the first week or two, and let the majority of the crazies fizzle out, so that the algorithm has a better chance to rate your skill and not other things.

 

You know that confidence isn't a one-way ratchet system, right? Like, if you are expected to win all the time, and keep losing, confidence will go back down.

 

[Deimos.4263]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

 

> You know that confidence isn't a one-way ratchet system, right? Like, if you are expected to win all the time, and keep losing, confidence will go back down.

And yet that doesn't actually seem to happen. Seasons after season, it makes up it's mind *somewhere* and can't be convinced.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

>

> > You know that confidence isn't a one-way ratchet system, right? Like, if you are expected to win all the time, and keep losing, confidence will go back down.

> And yet that doesn't actually seem to happen. Seasons after season, it makes up it's mind *somewhere* and can't be convinced.

 

I'm just gonna point back at the comments above, which says the simplest possible explanation for that is that reflects your actual skill level in that season.

 

Again, I'm totally down with the idea that may not be true, but to be convincing in arguing that the simplest and most obvious explanation isn't the correct one, you are gonna need to have some sort of supporting evidence, minimally to disprove that notion.

[Deimos.4263]

So our skill level wanders around season to season, and the algorithm is perfectly fine? A much simpler explanation: it doesn't really work in 5v5 competitive play with random teams, and ends up measuring things that have nothing to do with the player.

[Chuck.2864]

> @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Vague Memory.2817" said:

> > > OP is talking nonsense. I find I stay where every I'm placed, so what does that say.

> >

> > That placement worked correctly, and put you at the level of your skill, at which you then stay?

> >

> > > Says the system is bad at assessing an individual player's skill in a group, unless you are skilled enough to carry teams or at least carry 1-2 people.

> >

> > This is hardly the most obvious explanation for "I get placed at MMR X, and stay there", or the simplest. Just the most flattering to you, personally.

>

> But that is the truth, in different seasons I've been places in different tiers and I've stayed there by the end of the season. So how can I simultaneously be silver, gold, and plat genius when my skill level is the same. The system is ridiculous like your argument.

 

To be fair that's just your own anecdote, what I will say from my experience is you will climb if you're really on a different level. This season I had awful placements, as you know even in placements you have a rating it's just hidden and has massive volatility which decreases with every game you play. I lost 5 of my first 6 placements, some of them to DC's, afkers and other shit, every loss like that brought me down the ELO's and by the end of those 6 games I definitely noticed people were way less skilled than me, I was playing with Silver players and was able to win 1v2's and hard carry just with mechanics, then won the last 4 placements. Placed G2, eventually climbed back to Plat 1.

 

The point is my own experience tells me if you put a low Plat player in high Silver\Gold 1 he will climb super easily. My placements and how low my rating seemingly got during them has opened my eyes a bit, there's a very real and noticeable difference between you and whatever is 300 rating below you. If there's actually a gulf between where you are and where you think you should be (i.e not "I'm gold 3 but think I should be Plat 1" because there's no difference in reality and that's what really annoys me with the system, but that's a different discussion) then you will climb.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> So our skill level wanders around season to season, and the algorithm is perfectly fine? A much simpler explanation: it doesn't really work in 5v5 competitive play with random teams, and ends up measuring things that have nothing to do with the player.

 

The meta changes. If you don't change or even if you do, everything else is changing as well. It is entirely possible for a build to work in one season and not in another. It's also possible that you play some classes/builds better than you do others. If your best build is marginalized in the current meta, you should expect to perform at a lower level than you did in a previous meta where your best build was top notch.

 

What other explanation is there for what you see? I mean, everyone else is playing under the same rules. How can it possibly be that bad matchmaking effects only you and others who feel they are well below their deserved rating over a span of hundreds of games? Does that seem in any way plausible when you think on it?

[Arlette.9684]

> @"maxwelgm.4315" said:

> Topic title. The people in low plat and high gold really have to stop blaming others for losing 6+ times in a row. You lost 6(SIX) times? Start thinking about your class or build, because at that point you should be getting players lower than your true placement (unless you're too high up...wink wink). Got players that are indeed far lower than you? Well good riddance because the population is small enough (and Glicko helps...) for the enemy to get these guys too. Lost three matches in a row due to throwing? What about the next 3 ones then? Are you sure you're not just stressed out? Are you absolutely sure you didn't stop to type while the player you're calling a n00b is getting wrecked 2vs1? If you're not able to carry, are you able to delegate roles in a way that does not alienate your team? So many matches are lost due to gg's called at 80 - 10 scores.

>

> You want to be at the top of the leaderboard? Start leading!

 

I agree with the carrying vs delegating. But that’s about as much as I can agree with. From gold 1 to Plat 2 the only difference you see skillwise is the point callouts, the occasional map callouts and point picking at the start of the game.

 

I find the general tone of your thread to be ill conceived and poorly executed.

 

Peace.

[Abazigal.3679]

The population right now is too low to have an accurate rating. Whether i'm being placed at 1550 or 1400, i'm going to face the same opponents anyway. This isn't ' git gud ' , more likely that you're very likely to get your deserved rank after 150-200 games, but you're also very likely to experience luck issues after only 15-20 games.

[Poseidon.3852]

Honestly? Ranked matches and tournaments should only be playable in a 2vs2, 3vs3 and 5vs5 pre-made teams that differentiate between a team and a personal rating. Give PIPs and similar currency based on team rating, but allow the purchase of the items for that currency based on personal rating.

 

With pre-made teams, I don't mean just partying up before queue, but teams as in permanent until disbanded "mini-guilds" of 4-10 players depending on the desired format of play.

 

Then... don't give PIPs on a loss, but decrease the amount of lost rating due to a loss.

 

Problem solved.

[Deimos.4263]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

 

> What other explanation is there for what you see? I mean, everyone else is playing under the same rules. How can it possibly be that bad matchmaking effects only you and others who feel they are well below their deserved rating over a span of hundreds of games? Does that seem in any way plausible when you think on it?

The point is it's bad-matchmaking, period. I'ts not measuring player skill very well at all, it's more or less random. But people will continue to defend it regardless, as they do with pretty much anything.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> > What other explanation is there for what you see? I mean, everyone else is playing under the same rules. How can it possibly be that bad matchmaking effects only you and others who feel they are well below their deserved rating over a span of hundreds of games? Does that seem in any way plausible when you think on it?

> The point is it's bad-matchmaking, period. I'ts not measuring player skill very well at all, it's more or less random. But people will continue to defend it regardless, as they do with pretty much anything.

 

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

>

> > What other explanation is there for what you see? I mean, everyone else is playing under the same rules. How can it possibly be that bad matchmaking effects only you and others who feel they are well below their deserved rating over a span of hundreds of games? Does that seem in any way plausible when you think on it?

> The point is it's bad-matchmaking, period. I'ts not measuring player skill very well at all, it's more or less random. But people will continue to defend it regardless, as they do with pretty much anything.

 

That may be, but I've still yet to see a plausible eXplanation for how the system manages to keep some "skilled" players down while simultaneously elevating less skilled players.

 

I'm sure there are better ways of handling rating, matchmaking, and PvP in general.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> > @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> >

> > > What other explanation is there for what you see? I mean, everyone else is playing under the same rules. How can it possibly be that bad matchmaking effects only you and others who feel they are well below their deserved rating over a span of hundreds of games? Does that seem in any way plausible when you think on it?

> > The point is it's bad-matchmaking, period. I'ts not measuring player skill very well at all, it's more or less random. But people will continue to defend it regardless, as they do with pretty much anything.

>

> That may be, but I've still yet to see a plausible eXplanation for how the system manages to keep some "skilled" players down while simultaneously elevating less skilled players.

>

> I'm sure there are better ways of handling rating, matchmaking, and PvP in general.

 

Both of these things, so very much. I, too, am absolutely certain that various things could improve. Matchmaking would be a universe better without class swapping, for example, because then per-class MMR would be available, but players objected to removing it.

 

Even the algorithms are not perfect. ELO was replaced by GLICKO, and GLICKO-2, because it improved on the original -- even though LoL still uses ELO and is happy about match quality. Microsoft worked on their TrueSkill system to try and improve MMR estimation in team games, because while you still converge accurately, it can be more variable or take longer. That is a variant on GLICKO-2, at heart, and doesn't radically change the base.

 

Beyond that, though, the simplest explanation for players unhappy with their MMR is not that the underlying system -- used by every MMO and MOBA -- is broken, but that players have not accounted for some factor that changes their performance from expectation.

 

Ultimately, anyone who wants to be believed when they say that matchmaking is wrong, and that people defend it "blindly", is on the hook to prove that the simplest explanation is not the correct one. You could be right that the matchmaker, or population, or algorithm, or random teams, are what prevent you getting the rank you think you deserve.

 

Now figure out a way to demonstrate that is true, in a way that doesn't depend on your own assertion about what rank you should be at.

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"maxwelgm.4315" said:

> Topic title. The people in low plat and high gold really have to stop blaming others for losing 6+ times in a row. You lost 6(SIX) times? Start thinking about your class or build, because at that point you should be getting players lower than your true placement (unless you're too high up...wink wink). **Got players that are indeed far lower than you? Well good riddance because the population is small enough (and Glicko helps...) for the enemy to get these guys too**. Lost three matches in a row due to throwing? What about the next 3 ones then? Are you sure you're not just stressed out? Are you absolutely sure you didn't stop to type while the player you're calling a n00b is getting wrecked 2vs1? If you're not able to carry, are you able to delegate roles in a way that does not alienate your team? So many matches are lost due to gg's called at 80 - 10 scores.

>

> You want to be at the top of the leaderboard? Start leading!

 

I generally agree with most of this except the bolded, which is objectively not always the case. When you high in plat 2 or three you're typically going to end up being the bullk of your team's cumulative rating for match maker. But the other team can be similarly unbalanced in skill rating just like yours. But it's at least just as likely to be an actually a well balanced comp rating wise. Since the match maker isn't trying to account for your extreme with their team, it ends up with a team where every member is a good bit better than your four teammates.

 

 

 

[Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497]

What's this? A ranked game where we must blame ourselves? Heracy! Stone the witch!