To Devs: Players that die faaar too often - rank them faaaar down in MM

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

I played a match where a weaver and i really performed very well in each team battle 2v2 , or 2v3, no prob. We won everything, capped, decapped ... but we couldnt get a point advantage.

And then i saw that a thief and a ranger fed the enemy points like crazy by dying.

 

I know the anet MM is .... yeah u know.... but if you care for input: more important than killing or points is how many ez points u give the enemy.

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

players or classes?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

actually its the fault of people like you for carrying them and winning them games.

 

 

 

 

:P.

 

[OutOfOrder.3719]

Should change this to any player that dies 5 times or more a Match, should not gain as much hidden MMR rating when the team wins.

 

Although there will be some false positives, where you are playing well and it's just a tough game where you are 1 vs 2 again and again. But overall it would help reduce most players from being carried into matches where they never should have been in in the first place.

 

It would also be easier to write an algorithm that only tracks how often teammates die and only reduces how much a player's hidden rating increases when the team still wins the match.

 

Of course, no penalty to a player's hidden rating should happen when your team loses and you die more than 5 times.

 

While we're at it, players that idle for longer than 40 seconds should be effected the same way. If your team manages to win, even with 1 player AFK for 40 seconds , that player should receive no benefit to their hidden MMR from winning.

 

Some of these things could already be implemented and the PvP community would never know about it. I can only hope that something like this is already there, but I seriously doubt it. It would be easy to write the algorithm though, now whether it would be fair or not or even help we will never know.

[Poelala.2830]

 

Cellofrag died 4 times this match. Does he not deserve to be legend? Did he not do a good job that match? Blanket rules like excessive dying has potential to be inherently corrosive to the community. Back in HoT on my dagger/warhorn ele I died 5 times in one match, yet held 1v2 and 1v3 all match long, causing us to win. Did I deserve to lose rating for this?

[OutOfOrder.3719]

Ok then 6 times or more. Not trying to be completely unreasonable here.

[OutOfOrder.3719]

Trying to account for the Newb that goes far 6 times and dies instantly each time and throws the entire match.

 

Not for players that can 1vs2 or 1vs3.

 

It's way too hard to code players only dying on far, when there are two other nodes on the map.

 

Even if Cellofrag dies 6 times in a match, he still would not be performing as well as he typically plays, which is Legendary.

[Undertaker.4368]

Mostly problem is when players run alone to mid or home when is like 4 players and give free points, then they respawn and again. They don't listen when team mate scream like etc. no mid or no home.

 

Btw. Cellofrag played good 1 vs 3. I only saw a few players play like this.

[Airdive.2613]

During a match, it is possible there are players who are prioritized by your enemy which naturally causes them to die quicker, while you stay alive because the opponents are out of their most powerful skills.

See how it can promote 1) griefing, 2) passive gameplay along the lines of "I won't be the first to engage"?

[Yannir.4132]

> @"Airdive.2613" said:

> During a match, it is possible there are players who are prioritized by your enemy which naturally causes them to die quicker, while you stay alive because the opponents are out of their most powerful skills.

> See how it can promote 1) griefing, 2) passive gameplay along the lines of "I won't be the first to engage"?

 

For necromancers it's rather normal to die 5-6 times per match even when they play well. No disengage skills, no mobility and they lack hard damage mitigating defenses. In return they are supposed to drag 2-3 enemies down with them each time.

[Schwahrheit.4203]

OP has a point, players that die often shouldn't really get matched vs. decent players. It should contribute to the algorithm in a way. Tho sPvP is like.. always been somewhat underpopulated and it's like the devs are just gonna be like "your suggestion is gonna make matchmaking take longer" which kinda makes sense.

 

It's sadly never going to be better, matchmaking will always be RNG no matter what game you play unless somebody is smart enough to make an entertaining 1v1 game that can turn into a team game with team que or some crap to stop frustrations with team mates.

[Blackdagger.9670]

you should have considered the build diversity before coming up with such idea.

Tanky meta builds like spellbreakers and Firebrands die just maximum 1-2 times while glass cannon builds die 5-6 times during a single game.

 

If a player dies more than 6, let him rot in abyss.

[Airdive.2613]

> @"Blackdagger.9670" said:

> If a player dies more than 6, let him rot in abyss.

 

Congratulations, you've just increased the AFK rate by 50%. Now your enemy knows there's a chance your teammates will get tilted and go AFK after they've died 6 times, so they're going to target one after another.

Way to play the system instead of playing the game.

[Blocki.4931]

I'm all for this if that means that having 1 bad game puts you into actual hell just to see how stupid that idea is

[rank eleven monk.9502]

The topics in this forum are really getting out of hand.

I mean, what the hell is this again?

[phokus.8934]

> @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> The topics in this forum are really getting out of hand.

> I mean, what the hell is this again?

 

This is by far the worst community I’ve ever seen in all my years of gaming. I honestly cannot believe that these are real posts and not trolls.

 

[otto.5684]

What does the number of deaths have to to with anything?!

[polvere.2805]

> @"phokus.8934" said:

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

> > The topics in this forum are really getting out of hand.

> > I mean, what the hell is this again?

>

> This is by far the worst community I’ve ever seen in all my years of gaming. I honestly cannot believe that these are real posts and not trolls.

>

 

You have seen nothing then my friend.

 

Btw the devs don't care about random baseless rant threads.

[pah.4931]

> @"phokus.8934" said:

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

> > The topics in this forum are really getting out of hand.

> > I mean, what the hell is this again?

>

> This is by far the worst community I’ve ever seen in all my years of gaming. I honestly cannot believe that these are real posts and not trolls.

>

 

I believe most people actually mean well. They know something is broken,; they are just clueless on how to fix it.

 

Neil Gaiman said something like this about readers: "When readers tell you that something is wrong in your writing, they're almost always right. When they tell you how to fix it, they're almost always wrong."

 

Same goes for gaming and gamers, imo.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

The best way to reflect a player's contribution is just "sheer win and loss rate" without anything else added. <- This encourages the idea that, no matter what happens, the player needs to make sure he wins the game, using only the best actions dedicated towards team play if he wants + rating points. If we start adding things that _seem like good ideas_ such as "gain more or less rating based on top stats achieved" it encourages players to do things for their own progression, that aren't exactly the best actions for optimal team play, which is no good.

 

IE: Red team is winning 400 to 350. The Red Warrior isn't sure if he has as many top stats as other players and he doesn't want to get only a small gain in rating after the match ends, he wants a higher rating gain. He is holding the far node his color but he notices his team is about to finish a mid fight and cap the mid node so he leaves far and goes to mid, in hopes of tagging more damage, tagging offense and defense, and maybe getting a revive in. As soon as he leaves to do this, a Blue Thief backcaps the far node and the Red team's final rotation falls apart, allowing the Blue team to catch up and win. This likely wouldn't have happened if the Red Warrior had been more concerned with winning the match and less concerned with tagging more top stats.

 

With your particular suggestion @"Bloadsoaked.6792" of players living or dying reflecting their personal progression, it would very likely result in the same exact thing as the above. Players knowing they've already died too often in the match so they begin avoiding combats entirely because "We are losing 300 to 400, so if we are going to lose this match, I'm going to be the one with the least amount of deaths, so I am effected the least from this loss." All resulting in some player just out right throwing the match and not even trying for a comeback and even though he was the one throwing, he will be the one effected the least from the loss. That doesn't sound very fair to me.

 

There are lots of good suggestions in this forum concerning how to tweak the algorithm to better reflect the contribution of individual players. I've thought up a few that were not unlike what you suggested here, but at the end of day after seriously sitting down and considering how these suggestions would actually work in real gameplay, we can see that they look good paper but would have terrible consequences in application. Not so easy to implement a gauge for individual contribution into the glicko algorithm past sheer win/loss rate. The sheer win/loss rate is really the only way to get players to play as competitively as possible.

 

[Falan.1839]

Pretty much what Trevor said. Dying often is obviously never good, but it isn't always your fault either. Let's say you play reaper and the enemy team agrees to focus you in tfs, yet your doesnt support you or peel for you and doesn't do enough counterpressure either, you might see yourself dying frequently to a focus spike of 3 or 4 without really being able to do anything about it.

 

However if you play a bruiser like Ele, Druid or even Warr and duel 24/7 on an enemy node without getting a decap or kill you are completely useless to your team, yet might not have died once at the end of the match.

[Kako.1930]

There would be no necros on the leaderboard lol.

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

> @"Kako.1930" said:

> There would be no necros on the leaderboard lol.

 

I play necro main and i die often not even once. No tank or heal build - just range and utility skills. Its about reading the map, seeing ur team + enemies and POSITION correctly imo.

I did the OP because i see a problem with players that are not tough by the game to avoid situations they most certainly die in - however this post is just for communications sake, sharing my thoughts, maybe its useful to some.

Example:

There is an enemy warr with a supp guard (or anything else most ppl cant solo) on close and team mates walk solo there again and again. The time i notice that and can post in chat, they maybe have fed them 15 points*6 or more just from 1 situation and those team mates are not helping in other fights.

Just have an open eye for sth like that if u care to win.

 

o/ have fun

 

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

To underline what i said about not dying:

 

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

[https://ibb.co/cGkNYU](https://ibb.co/cGkNYU "https://ibb.co/cGkNYU")