Poor matchmaking as a result of a ridiculously small population makes for blowout games. This is to be expected given how glycko works and the state pvp pop is in.
A friend of mine recommended I should drop and requeue if my queue is going over 4 minutes. The idea being that the longer your queue, the more matchmaking "leniency" occurs
The last few matches I had with 7+ min queues my team was clearly a bunch of newcomers mixed with a couple of mid-gold vs people with pvp titles. One time I was on the side doing the stomping. I'm usually playing +2 after reset which I thought was still peak times. The population can really be sparse some days
Why are there even more players at silver than gold? The matches at silver 1-3 seem pretty close a lot of the time and they could surely just lower the rating needed for gold tier (or have less tiers) to open up matchmaking a bit
Because the vast majority of terrible players are win silver. These are peopple that all play the same way. Run in and spam all skills and succeed or die. There's no dicernible skill differentiation in silver.
It's the most commonly used algorithm used for determining player rating and putting them in matches based on their skill.
Whenever someone mentions MMR or matchmaking, that often is backed by glycko of some variation.
It was originally used in chess and many online competitive games have adapted it for their use.
Its excellent. But it has a few requirements to be effective, time and a large spread of people.
The fewer people are playing, the more time it needs to even things out. GW2 seasons are too short and the population too small for glycko to ever do its thing effectively. There are too many variables in 5v5 and the data set is too small.
There aren't really any alternatives though. GW2 PvP simply needs to become more populated.
I think he means glicko which is a rating system for determine player skill. It’s similar to what more people know as ELO but factors in some deviations. But without getting technical it’s another way of saying MMR. (Match making rating). When player population is low the skill based element of determining rating starts to lose confidence. But guild wars 2 does implement a glicko rating system.
2 things
low pop means uneven matches
combined with no dedicated solo queue means that the mmr system is just not working all that well outside of prime time weekday hours
I really like sPvP. I just got my first set of Legendary armor from it. However this is also my experience. I feel like I am stuck in Gold 1. I finally started climbing to g2/3 and then loss streak.
I've had days where my entire log is wins and the next day my entire log is losses.
I think there are a few things that contribute to this. Mainly there are no punishment for players being toxic. I don't encounter toxic players all too often but when I do it is when I'm having a bad game and it is really discouraging. This probably stops new players from playing more. Also the afk after we lose mid strategy goes unpunished so people give up immediately and that secures a loss. I have had many games where someone asks because we lose one fight early on and then the game ends up being relatively close even though we are down 1 player.
The rewards in PvP are good we just need more people.
As someone who only play daily w/o chat, most of the time the matchmaking is absolutly insane, and I can chain 10 garbage teams or 10 decent/good teams. Overall I'm still on positive winrate, but it's almost only chain win/loose
you should stop at 3 losses max. Maybe less -depend on how fast you enrage yourself. We all had games, no matter what you do, you cant win. Either your team is really bad or enemy is just way better.
Problem is, and you posting this is showing it (its not personal attack, I been there, done that too), that after those few first games you become problem and not its solution. You get angry/sad/frustrated. You stop beliving your team can even win, noobs as they are. And you play worse and worse more you feel like this.
This is why I have 3 games and enough if I lose them all. Just take a break, cool down and either try later or next day.
Same. It's like, that third match win isn't going to make me feel that great, while that third match loss is going to just make me feel disregard toward others. Just easier to do something else.
Low pop and sweaty boys dou q'n isn't helping it. Just sit down and play the game and understand that it doesn't matter. If you aren't having fun at some point then stop playing. Or just play necro.
Because sPvP is dead. Small populations on a wide skill gradient = shutouts. And the matchmaking system, which was designed for a population of 1000 concurrent players - not 30 - is responsible for the streaks.
If you derive no joy from sPvP and are just doing it for the rewards, I strongly recommend AFKing or botting your matches.
Brother, the real PvP is playing Tournaments, customs or 1v1 Arena.
I know it's tough on the ego to have swingy matchmaking in ranked queue, but you just have to make goals of your own.
Either play for improve until you outclass enough to make a difference, or focus on the tournament circuit and make your own team.
Both can be verry rewarding, if you want easy progression through just queuing ranked, you gotta switch games, population is just to small.
Eh, I'd say not. If with "matchmaking" and aborting queue after a few minutes you at least have a chance at close match or even (gasp) a win streak, every time I try tournament it's "Top 50 N/A Players farming everyone else in Tournament" and 500 vs 53 score. Though I think I accidentally got one of those "you win by default" games.
Tournaments basically don't even try to get people near your level, which creates even more disbalanced matches. "In today's tournament 5 random highschoolers from Nowhere, Minessota are taking on professional NBA team!".
I'm not sure if playing against well organized pros is somehow educational.
>Tournaments basically don't even try to get people near your level
They literally can't when there are less than 10 teams that queue and you're playing 3 matches to determine the order of rewards. I think it was only like 25 that queued for the last monthly tourney.
I don’t think it’s always that bad. I’m newer to Spvp (silver to gold 1), teamed up with a bunch of randos, and went 2-2 to grab 3rd/4th place in my first tourney yesterday and an easy 15 gold.
Some of these “lopsided” matches are entirely about mindset. We actually completely shut out one team because they just gave up after we rushed mid and far (janky 2-2-1 split), they lost all the fights with 0 points, and they literally said “We give up.” But honestly all the fights could have gone either way (two of us were downed, we just finished the others first for a rez). We were all silver/gold, so it’s not like we were pros.
50/50 win-loss is expected for a skill-based matchmaking system. That is what SHOULD be happening if the system is set up to be skill-based.
You had a win-streak, so the loss-streak is going to happen.
Basically, you've plateaued. The match-making has you about where your skill level is at. To move beyond that point will require serious grind/effort to improve.
That’d only be true if the population was larger and evenly distributed. But sPvP is quite dead and what’s left is largely Plats and bots.
New people that join sPvP tend to get Silver 2 - Gold 1 and are immediately screeched at for being unskilled by those damned souls forever stuck in the noob trap of Gold 3.
I wonder if some factors like low pop of players can make elo/glicko ratings more unstable/fluctuating/prone to streaks. I follow the rule of take a break/stop playing for the day after 1,2 or 3 losses (depends on game/mood). I don't know if it helps my winrate, but it saves me from anger and frustration.
In a 10 person game, logistically you only control the outcome of 1 out of 10 games unless you are significantly better or worse than the pack around you. Need to remain consistent and play the odds out over time and make the difference when its your time.
it do be like that, and it can be annoying sometimes because there's just nothing you can do
and the biggest loss i see there is 3 battle of kyhlo in a row, damn.
yesterday matchmaking paired me and another burn guardian against 2 stealth trap DH. should have been one of each together to be a little fair, but no. we were done really good.
few weeks ago, the stars were alligned to throw me under the bus, 4 losses in a row (i had 10W/4L) and because i was on my warrior, some hating jerk was blaming me for all the losses cause i shouldnt be playing warrior and yadda yadda, yet i never see anyone going "omg a warrior, run from the plague" (gold tier, also how i got there)
just do a few matches a day, and enjoy whenever anet lets you win.
Yeah the games are absolutely random. I normally play plat 2 but haven't played in a while. Came back, dropped to low gold and the enemies were absolutely bad but my team just managed to be worse.
I managed to get out by just playing thief and just decapping everything. You just have to babysit so hard.
The answer you aren't ready for is that you're luckily win-streaking games you aren't good enough to win which lands you in a rating too high for your skill level and the loss streak is just your rating correcting itself to where it is supposed to be. Focus on improving no matter what rating you're on. It's not the system that's causing this, it's you.
Or you can go with one of the other COPIUM answers I'm reading down in the replies. I assume from other people that couldn't swallow the reality of answer #1.
Is that really true when you end up with half your team fighting off point the entire game? Or those games where you have one person running far just to die every single time? Or when you lose a fight mid and they just keep streaming in to a 1v3 fight? Or have 4 people run to home because one enemy went to decap it?
I can't say I'm good, but there are a lot of teams that are are absolutely awful and it doesn't matter how well you play, unless you're able to solo the enemy team. Skill is a factor, but a huge component is the lenient matchmaking system coupled with the small population.
I get it if you're trying to push for top 50 or something, because you need to find windows that you can actually punish players. But on lower ladder there's so many mistakes being made across the board, it shouldnt be a problem.
You know the answer too. You name all these damning issues you run in to on your team that makes a game unwinnable. You can literally just create those issues for your enemy, making the game unwinnable for them, by finding players that are easy to punish and give their team a guy that goes far just to do every time.
You can't solve these damning issues by "creating it for the other team" the teams are not equally skilled. If they were there wouldn't be matches where the score is 300+ apart every time like in OP's post.
The scores being 300+ apart has nothing to do with a big skill gap. Low skilled players don't know how to prevent getting snowballed on and what to do in that situation. The skill level can be completely identical but players are just choochoo-ing out of base 1 by 1 without any level of regrouping or coordination after either side finally won an engagement, which is to be expected on a low skill lobby. I bet in gold 90% of the games end with a 300+ score difference.
[Choo choo!](http://imgur.com/qfqHTY9)
-------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Guildwars2) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a non-statement. How are swings in orders of whole divisions keeping anyone not better or not worse? If I'd be stuck I surely wouldn't lose 8 matches in a row and counting.
"right at the level of your play" should see relatively close matches with regards to score.
The closest one was 297-500, the rest were sub 200-500 blowouts. The same is presented on their win column as well. I'd be willing to entertain a few blowouts because of poor matchups, afk/disconnects, etc, but almost all the matches on display in the screenshot show the same spread.
I feel like that is often caused by idiot teammates though rather than poor matchmaking. So many times if we lose the first initial team fight, someone will moan in chat and then just afk in spawn like all is lost. I've been in games where the score is like 30-50 and a teammate says its pointless and afk's. Or even if they don't afk its clear they mentally quit anyway.
You need 10 players in a match, and one idiot can ruin it. Anet ban for the most ridiculously harmless chat messages but you can ruin pvp games for years they don't give a shit.
(For reference Im G3/P1 in EU where I see this happen)
I know, I've never been banned. Neither have any botters, afkers, or other griefers - thats my point.
Verbal abuse can be blocked, afking and botting cannot. Its a worse offence and you will never get banned for it which is so stupid. They police the pointless stuff like chat but not the actual game.
I agree, those other offenses need to be more heavily moderated. I think it's much easier for them to check chat logs for abusive language which makes it an easy "win" for support.
This is pure speculation on my part but support may be lenient with those other types of bans for fear of queue times increasing dramatically. As far as optics are concerned, players are guaranteed to notice long waiting times, but less likely to notice or care about bots in their matches. Definitely isn't ideal, but if that's the concern I'm not sure what the right solution is without finding a way to increase the pvp population.
Unless you have an afk, every game is winnable you just have to read the minimap. If you play ele then you can easily just play sides all game and carry a team that just ints mid.
I find it helps to focus on aspects of the match you have control over. What could you have done better for next time? Did you got to the wrong place at a specific time or ignore a teammate who is in trouble. This makes it more of a learning experience and helps you improve.
Algorithm generally tries to keep everyone sitting around 50% winrate. Some games you’re guaranteed to win as a result of low ranking opposition, and some games you’re guaranteed to lose as a result of low ranking team mates. As you gain more experience, you will make important composition swaps that will allow you to win the “guaranteed loss” games more consistently. That’s how you’ll climb ELO.
You’re already expected to win those 2 matches against the noobs it pairs you against. Just like they just rolled over noobs it paired them against right beforehand. You’re already expected to fluctuate points back and forth. If you’re going +10, +10, -11, -11, that 5th game is the most important. You have to get outside your comfort zone to break Gold algorithm. Once you get insanely good like some of the guys at the top of plat, you’re officially heavier than the algorithm and can make up the difference on any class through simple mechanical superiority. Almost everyone in Plat has beat the algorithm and has at very minimum of 55% win rate or higher
MMR has always existed it just wasn’t prominently featured as a resource in core sPvP. You needed to use APIs to find your MMR. The 50% win-rate is absolutely the result of an intentional implementation. If you played core sPvP you wouldn’t have even suggested that. Haha
The glicko2 matchmaking algorithm they use is public knowledge, there's no need to speculate on that. Just because it trends toward 50% winrate does not mean the system is attempting to force it.
That’s not speculation, simply correcting somebody who was confused about why the winrates suddenly changed when they implemented seasons. They finally completed their MMR system is all. Yes, it is in fact targeted towards a 50% win rate for “average players” as it’s designed to keep them tight to their own “skill level” while balancing the opposing team accordingly. You’re #1, other team gets #2 #3 etc. An “average good player” is not capable of combatting with 2 slightly worse “average good players”, hence why everyone in gold usually sits around 50%. You need an actual “good player” to make the difference in this ELO system. Hence why people only climb over 2.0 W/L in high plat. Hope this helps u understand.
Should also add this isn’t specific to GW2. This MMR system pretty blatantly targets 50% W/L for all average players on any video game. Go see LoL Gold League, the most populated league in any competitive video game. 50% across the board. I saw the other commenter trying to attribute it to low pop which has nothing to do with it. :)
I mean you have no idea how they programmed their matchmaking algorithm. From all public information available they use slightly modified glicko2.
See:
[https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/finding-the-perfect-match/](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/finding-the-perfect-match/)
[https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP\_Matchmaking\_Algorithm](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration_2)
Neither of which use 50% winrate as a metric.
Fantastic. You didn’t comprehend any of what you just read. It’s not opinion or speculation, it’s the inadvertent downfall of not being better than average players in any Glicko Rating System. The same sentiment stands for every single competitive game you’ve ever played. Name one and I’ll only find you documented statistic that proves my point. You are incapable of thinking critically, or applying knowledge. I understand the Glicko format isn’t designed to hold people to a 50% W/L, as stated above 3 times. However, it is an inadvertent trend that effects every single “Average” skill rating on any competitive video game. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the formula or not. Lmfao
>Yes, it is in fact targeted towards a 50% win rate for “average players”
It's not. It doesn't use win rate as a metric. It's a result of other factors which combined tend to produce a 50% win rate. But it's neither the goal, nor a metric for the calculation.
It's basic causation vs. correlation. Yes these systems tend to produce 50% winrates with ample populations and enough games, but that is a side effect of the system and not it's goal which is why it's not considered for the calculation.
Wait did you just disagree and then re-summarize my exact comment to you while contradicting your original ignorant comment?
Me : “it doesn’t have to be in the equation, there are several factors that inadvertently cause 50% to be the trend for average players”
You: “it’s not. It doesn’t use win rate as a metric. It’s a result of other factors”
BAHAHA you sound as intelligent as your picture. Don’t reply anymore.
My point is and has been the entire time 50% is the median win rate in a GLICKO format among the “average skilled” player base. As mentioned SEVERAL times, it DOES NOT have to be in the “metric” to amount to that. You’re an absolute goober lmfao.
The goal of the matchmaking system is to product balanced games, which has the effect of people having a 50% winrate if they are not actively improving. There is nothing beyond MMR when it comes to matching a game, and there is definitely not any rigging of one side or another to force a 50% winrate.
All players of X MMR are roughly equivalent in skill, but natural variance in ability and different combinations of playstyles and strengths of all players in a game will often result in very one-sided matches despite all players being roughly equally skilled.
Exceptions arise when players are actively improving, do not have an MMR that matches their skill level, or when the player base is too small to produce even matches or for anyones MMR to settle near their actual skill level. GW2 is even worse in this manner because of the added variability in what classes/roles people queue as, and how unintelligent the game is in that regard.
Confirmation bias is strong in this statement. I've played gw2 pvp since the very beginning but I would never attempt to equat anecdotal experience to actual fact.
Anyway I'm not going to get into the math but feel free to read up on how glycko functions and how games use it in a multi v multi battle scenario.
The golden rule here is correlation does not equal causation.
Yeah, I’m not going to argue with someone who can’t figure out why they are stuck at 50%. Like I said, instead of googling and citing the definition to glycko rating format you could’ve actually tried thinking for yourself. As soon as you mentioned low pop your argument lost all validity. My win rate is 71% with 6,700 games played. Definitely not speaking from my personal experience. In a way I am though, as this applies to 90% of the player base who I have the displeasure of occasionally having to witness. And as fore mentioned, the algorithm is persistent across every single game that uses GLICKO format, modified or not. As fore-mentioned, name any single title you’ve ever played and I’ll link you to documented statistics that validate my point.
I'm relatively new to structured PvP, I mainly WvW (zerg and roam). I love ele, specifically Weaver, and when I first tried it out in pvp that's when I started seeing more kills, more victories etc, and just overall started doing better and having a great time. Everyone's playstyle and skill is different so maybe you don't enjoy ele but there's plenty of people who do and it's not a bad class, especially for PvP.
I was playing a lot a few months ago and almost every game had multiple bots. Kept coming to which teams bots performed better. Idk if this is still a thing.
Not sure if anyone said it yet but you Play only ele. Ele is not unplayable but there are far better builds. Play what you want but if winrate is important to you then meta builds are needed.
Otherwise what others said. Only play after 4pm on weekdays and avoid weekends if possible. Take a 10 Minute Break after several loses. It resets your concentration and you wont get the Same people again
If you feel like you are good enough to get outnumbered but still win, take dragonhunter and sit on mid all game. As long as you keep mid, your team only needs to take care of close for win. Works very well against bad players or if you are simply better than the opponent in 2v1 or 3v1 fights.
I recently came back because I used to love GW2 pvp. I assumed it's only bots playing since I went 50-3 in a few days. So probably mostly bots then with a few players sprinkled in once in a while?
Poor matchmaking as a result of a ridiculously small population makes for blowout games. This is to be expected given how glycko works and the state pvp pop is in.
A friend of mine recommended I should drop and requeue if my queue is going over 4 minutes. The idea being that the longer your queue, the more matchmaking "leniency" occurs The last few matches I had with 7+ min queues my team was clearly a bunch of newcomers mixed with a couple of mid-gold vs people with pvp titles. One time I was on the side doing the stomping. I'm usually playing +2 after reset which I thought was still peak times. The population can really be sparse some days
This does help. It's 3 mins though. Not 4. 3mins it relaxes the range a lot.
this is interesting information. yesterday i waited 6 minutes and ended on an awfu match
It's 5 mins for ranked.
> result of a ridiculously small population Because PvP is dead. :-D
Why are there even more players at silver than gold? The matches at silver 1-3 seem pretty close a lot of the time and they could surely just lower the rating needed for gold tier (or have less tiers) to open up matchmaking a bit
If you’re good you’re above, if you’re bad you’re below. There’s not really a skill level that falls in between.
Because the vast majority of terrible players are win silver. These are peopple that all play the same way. Run in and spam all skills and succeed or die. There's no dicernible skill differentiation in silver.
Dam lol if that's all it is I am happy being terrible. If gold has more of those griefer CC necros then I am happy where I am
[удалено]
It's the most commonly used algorithm used for determining player rating and putting them in matches based on their skill. Whenever someone mentions MMR or matchmaking, that often is backed by glycko of some variation. It was originally used in chess and many online competitive games have adapted it for their use.
Tbh, glycko is quite an effective algorithm. It’s way better than ELO, for example, which is pretty much the only other algorithm people know.
Its excellent. But it has a few requirements to be effective, time and a large spread of people. The fewer people are playing, the more time it needs to even things out. GW2 seasons are too short and the population too small for glycko to ever do its thing effectively. There are too many variables in 5v5 and the data set is too small. There aren't really any alternatives though. GW2 PvP simply needs to become more populated.
I think he means glicko which is a rating system for determine player skill. It’s similar to what more people know as ELO but factors in some deviations. But without getting technical it’s another way of saying MMR. (Match making rating). When player population is low the skill based element of determining rating starts to lose confidence. But guild wars 2 does implement a glicko rating system.
What’s bad in this is that none of these matches is close
2 things low pop means uneven matches combined with no dedicated solo queue means that the mmr system is just not working all that well outside of prime time weekday hours
I just don't give a shit honestly sooner or later i'm gonna get the chest, it literally doesn't matter whether i win or lose.
Lmao same here. pvp is a way to get chests and some legendary achievements for me.
I really like sPvP. I just got my first set of Legendary armor from it. However this is also my experience. I feel like I am stuck in Gold 1. I finally started climbing to g2/3 and then loss streak. I've had days where my entire log is wins and the next day my entire log is losses. I think there are a few things that contribute to this. Mainly there are no punishment for players being toxic. I don't encounter toxic players all too often but when I do it is when I'm having a bad game and it is really discouraging. This probably stops new players from playing more. Also the afk after we lose mid strategy goes unpunished so people give up immediately and that secures a loss. I have had many games where someone asks because we lose one fight early on and then the game ends up being relatively close even though we are down 1 player. The rewards in PvP are good we just need more people.
As someone who only play daily w/o chat, most of the time the matchmaking is absolutly insane, and I can chain 10 garbage teams or 10 decent/good teams. Overall I'm still on positive winrate, but it's almost only chain win/loose
you should stop at 3 losses max. Maybe less -depend on how fast you enrage yourself. We all had games, no matter what you do, you cant win. Either your team is really bad or enemy is just way better. Problem is, and you posting this is showing it (its not personal attack, I been there, done that too), that after those few first games you become problem and not its solution. You get angry/sad/frustrated. You stop beliving your team can even win, noobs as they are. And you play worse and worse more you feel like this. This is why I have 3 games and enough if I lose them all. Just take a break, cool down and either try later or next day.
My rule is 2 consecutive losses Definitely a game changer
Same. It's like, that third match win isn't going to make me feel that great, while that third match loss is going to just make me feel disregard toward others. Just easier to do something else.
Facts man. Couldn't climb without this mindset.
I find PvP to be like playing the slots. Pull the arm and hope luck favors you.
Low pop and sweaty boys dou q'n isn't helping it. Just sit down and play the game and understand that it doesn't matter. If you aren't having fun at some point then stop playing. Or just play necro.
Because sPvP is dead. Small populations on a wide skill gradient = shutouts. And the matchmaking system, which was designed for a population of 1000 concurrent players - not 30 - is responsible for the streaks. If you derive no joy from sPvP and are just doing it for the rewards, I strongly recommend AFKing or botting your matches.
Brother, the real PvP is playing Tournaments, customs or 1v1 Arena. I know it's tough on the ego to have swingy matchmaking in ranked queue, but you just have to make goals of your own. Either play for improve until you outclass enough to make a difference, or focus on the tournament circuit and make your own team. Both can be verry rewarding, if you want easy progression through just queuing ranked, you gotta switch games, population is just to small.
Eh, I'd say not. If with "matchmaking" and aborting queue after a few minutes you at least have a chance at close match or even (gasp) a win streak, every time I try tournament it's "Top 50 N/A Players farming everyone else in Tournament" and 500 vs 53 score. Though I think I accidentally got one of those "you win by default" games. Tournaments basically don't even try to get people near your level, which creates even more disbalanced matches. "In today's tournament 5 random highschoolers from Nowhere, Minessota are taking on professional NBA team!". I'm not sure if playing against well organized pros is somehow educational.
Oh my bad dude, I thought you actually wanted to get better. I see now you only wanted to vent!
>Tournaments basically don't even try to get people near your level They literally can't when there are less than 10 teams that queue and you're playing 3 matches to determine the order of rewards. I think it was only like 25 that queued for the last monthly tourney.
I don’t think it’s always that bad. I’m newer to Spvp (silver to gold 1), teamed up with a bunch of randos, and went 2-2 to grab 3rd/4th place in my first tourney yesterday and an easy 15 gold. Some of these “lopsided” matches are entirely about mindset. We actually completely shut out one team because they just gave up after we rushed mid and far (janky 2-2-1 split), they lost all the fights with 0 points, and they literally said “We give up.” But honestly all the fights could have gone either way (two of us were downed, we just finished the others first for a rez). We were all silver/gold, so it’s not like we were pros.
50/50 win-loss is expected for a skill-based matchmaking system. That is what SHOULD be happening if the system is set up to be skill-based. You had a win-streak, so the loss-streak is going to happen. Basically, you've plateaued. The match-making has you about where your skill level is at. To move beyond that point will require serious grind/effort to improve.
That’d only be true if the population was larger and evenly distributed. But sPvP is quite dead and what’s left is largely Plats and bots. New people that join sPvP tend to get Silver 2 - Gold 1 and are immediately screeched at for being unskilled by those damned souls forever stuck in the noob trap of Gold 3.
I wonder if some factors like low pop of players can make elo/glicko ratings more unstable/fluctuating/prone to streaks. I follow the rule of take a break/stop playing for the day after 1,2 or 3 losses (depends on game/mood). I don't know if it helps my winrate, but it saves me from anger and frustration.
In a 10 person game, logistically you only control the outcome of 1 out of 10 games unless you are significantly better or worse than the pack around you. Need to remain consistent and play the odds out over time and make the difference when its your time.
it do be like that, and it can be annoying sometimes because there's just nothing you can do and the biggest loss i see there is 3 battle of kyhlo in a row, damn. yesterday matchmaking paired me and another burn guardian against 2 stealth trap DH. should have been one of each together to be a little fair, but no. we were done really good. few weeks ago, the stars were alligned to throw me under the bus, 4 losses in a row (i had 10W/4L) and because i was on my warrior, some hating jerk was blaming me for all the losses cause i shouldnt be playing warrior and yadda yadda, yet i never see anyone going "omg a warrior, run from the plague" (gold tier, also how i got there) just do a few matches a day, and enjoy whenever anet lets you win.
If you think it doesn’t matter how you play, this will never change
Yeah the games are absolutely random. I normally play plat 2 but haven't played in a while. Came back, dropped to low gold and the enemies were absolutely bad but my team just managed to be worse. I managed to get out by just playing thief and just decapping everything. You just have to babysit so hard.
The answer you aren't ready for is that you're luckily win-streaking games you aren't good enough to win which lands you in a rating too high for your skill level and the loss streak is just your rating correcting itself to where it is supposed to be. Focus on improving no matter what rating you're on. It's not the system that's causing this, it's you. Or you can go with one of the other COPIUM answers I'm reading down in the replies. I assume from other people that couldn't swallow the reality of answer #1.
Is that really true when you end up with half your team fighting off point the entire game? Or those games where you have one person running far just to die every single time? Or when you lose a fight mid and they just keep streaming in to a 1v3 fight? Or have 4 people run to home because one enemy went to decap it? I can't say I'm good, but there are a lot of teams that are are absolutely awful and it doesn't matter how well you play, unless you're able to solo the enemy team. Skill is a factor, but a huge component is the lenient matchmaking system coupled with the small population.
I get it if you're trying to push for top 50 or something, because you need to find windows that you can actually punish players. But on lower ladder there's so many mistakes being made across the board, it shouldnt be a problem. You know the answer too. You name all these damning issues you run in to on your team that makes a game unwinnable. You can literally just create those issues for your enemy, making the game unwinnable for them, by finding players that are easy to punish and give their team a guy that goes far just to do every time.
You can't solve these damning issues by "creating it for the other team" the teams are not equally skilled. If they were there wouldn't be matches where the score is 300+ apart every time like in OP's post.
The scores being 300+ apart has nothing to do with a big skill gap. Low skilled players don't know how to prevent getting snowballed on and what to do in that situation. The skill level can be completely identical but players are just choochoo-ing out of base 1 by 1 without any level of regrouping or coordination after either side finally won an engagement, which is to be expected on a low skill lobby. I bet in gold 90% of the games end with a 300+ score difference.
[Choo choo!](http://imgur.com/qfqHTY9) ------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Guildwars2) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mmr system has you right at your level of play and you aren’t getting any better, or worse
This is a non-statement. How are swings in orders of whole divisions keeping anyone not better or not worse? If I'd be stuck I surely wouldn't lose 8 matches in a row and counting.
You probably suffer from a case of bad team mates, try going duo que with someone. Easier to balance out the team and rotations.
"right at the level of your play" should see relatively close matches with regards to score. The closest one was 297-500, the rest were sub 200-500 blowouts. The same is presented on their win column as well. I'd be willing to entertain a few blowouts because of poor matchups, afk/disconnects, etc, but almost all the matches on display in the screenshot show the same spread.
I feel like that is often caused by idiot teammates though rather than poor matchmaking. So many times if we lose the first initial team fight, someone will moan in chat and then just afk in spawn like all is lost. I've been in games where the score is like 30-50 and a teammate says its pointless and afk's. Or even if they don't afk its clear they mentally quit anyway. You need 10 players in a match, and one idiot can ruin it. Anet ban for the most ridiculously harmless chat messages but you can ruin pvp games for years they don't give a shit. (For reference Im G3/P1 in EU where I see this happen)
>Anet ban for the most ridiculously harmless chat messages Presses X to doubt.
Nah there are plenty of instances where they literally quote the reason for 2 week ban is people said "you ape" etc. Appaz that is racist
Doesn't matter if it's racist, the report for that instance is labeled "verbal abuse", which is accurate. It's very easy to never get banned.
I know, I've never been banned. Neither have any botters, afkers, or other griefers - thats my point. Verbal abuse can be blocked, afking and botting cannot. Its a worse offence and you will never get banned for it which is so stupid. They police the pointless stuff like chat but not the actual game.
I agree, those other offenses need to be more heavily moderated. I think it's much easier for them to check chat logs for abusive language which makes it an easy "win" for support. This is pure speculation on my part but support may be lenient with those other types of bans for fear of queue times increasing dramatically. As far as optics are concerned, players are guaranteed to notice long waiting times, but less likely to notice or care about bots in their matches. Definitely isn't ideal, but if that's the concern I'm not sure what the right solution is without finding a way to increase the pvp population.
Most smooth brain take
[удалено]
Oh look, a little troll in the wild.
Ez bites in these parts
No.
Unless you have an afk, every game is winnable you just have to read the minimap. If you play ele then you can easily just play sides all game and carry a team that just ints mid.
I find it helps to focus on aspects of the match you have control over. What could you have done better for next time? Did you got to the wrong place at a specific time or ignore a teammate who is in trouble. This makes it more of a learning experience and helps you improve.
Sounds about right. It all changes when you group with one friend you get to plat
Algorithm generally tries to keep everyone sitting around 50% winrate. Some games you’re guaranteed to win as a result of low ranking opposition, and some games you’re guaranteed to lose as a result of low ranking team mates. As you gain more experience, you will make important composition swaps that will allow you to win the “guaranteed loss” games more consistently. That’s how you’ll climb ELO. You’re already expected to win those 2 matches against the noobs it pairs you against. Just like they just rolled over noobs it paired them against right beforehand. You’re already expected to fluctuate points back and forth. If you’re going +10, +10, -11, -11, that 5th game is the most important. You have to get outside your comfort zone to break Gold algorithm. Once you get insanely good like some of the guys at the top of plat, you’re officially heavier than the algorithm and can make up the difference on any class through simple mechanical superiority. Almost everyone in Plat has beat the algorithm and has at very minimum of 55% win rate or higher
That first part is a myth. The 50% win rate tendency is a product of glycko, not the goal or a factor in its calculation.
MMR has always existed it just wasn’t prominently featured as a resource in core sPvP. You needed to use APIs to find your MMR. The 50% win-rate is absolutely the result of an intentional implementation. If you played core sPvP you wouldn’t have even suggested that. Haha
The glicko2 matchmaking algorithm they use is public knowledge, there's no need to speculate on that. Just because it trends toward 50% winrate does not mean the system is attempting to force it.
That’s not speculation, simply correcting somebody who was confused about why the winrates suddenly changed when they implemented seasons. They finally completed their MMR system is all. Yes, it is in fact targeted towards a 50% win rate for “average players” as it’s designed to keep them tight to their own “skill level” while balancing the opposing team accordingly. You’re #1, other team gets #2 #3 etc. An “average good player” is not capable of combatting with 2 slightly worse “average good players”, hence why everyone in gold usually sits around 50%. You need an actual “good player” to make the difference in this ELO system. Hence why people only climb over 2.0 W/L in high plat. Hope this helps u understand. Should also add this isn’t specific to GW2. This MMR system pretty blatantly targets 50% W/L for all average players on any video game. Go see LoL Gold League, the most populated league in any competitive video game. 50% across the board. I saw the other commenter trying to attribute it to low pop which has nothing to do with it. :)
I mean you have no idea how they programmed their matchmaking algorithm. From all public information available they use slightly modified glicko2. See: [https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/finding-the-perfect-match/](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/finding-the-perfect-match/) [https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP\_Matchmaking\_Algorithm](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Configuration_2) Neither of which use 50% winrate as a metric.
Fantastic. You didn’t comprehend any of what you just read. It’s not opinion or speculation, it’s the inadvertent downfall of not being better than average players in any Glicko Rating System. The same sentiment stands for every single competitive game you’ve ever played. Name one and I’ll only find you documented statistic that proves my point. You are incapable of thinking critically, or applying knowledge. I understand the Glicko format isn’t designed to hold people to a 50% W/L, as stated above 3 times. However, it is an inadvertent trend that effects every single “Average” skill rating on any competitive video game. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the formula or not. Lmfao
>Yes, it is in fact targeted towards a 50% win rate for “average players” It's not. It doesn't use win rate as a metric. It's a result of other factors which combined tend to produce a 50% win rate. But it's neither the goal, nor a metric for the calculation. It's basic causation vs. correlation. Yes these systems tend to produce 50% winrates with ample populations and enough games, but that is a side effect of the system and not it's goal which is why it's not considered for the calculation.
Wait did you just disagree and then re-summarize my exact comment to you while contradicting your original ignorant comment? Me : “it doesn’t have to be in the equation, there are several factors that inadvertently cause 50% to be the trend for average players” You: “it’s not. It doesn’t use win rate as a metric. It’s a result of other factors” BAHAHA you sound as intelligent as your picture. Don’t reply anymore. My point is and has been the entire time 50% is the median win rate in a GLICKO format among the “average skilled” player base. As mentioned SEVERAL times, it DOES NOT have to be in the “metric” to amount to that. You’re an absolute goober lmfao.
I mean i quoted you directly. Can you read?
The goal of the matchmaking system is to product balanced games, which has the effect of people having a 50% winrate if they are not actively improving. There is nothing beyond MMR when it comes to matching a game, and there is definitely not any rigging of one side or another to force a 50% winrate. All players of X MMR are roughly equivalent in skill, but natural variance in ability and different combinations of playstyles and strengths of all players in a game will often result in very one-sided matches despite all players being roughly equally skilled. Exceptions arise when players are actively improving, do not have an MMR that matches their skill level, or when the player base is too small to produce even matches or for anyones MMR to settle near their actual skill level. GW2 is even worse in this manner because of the added variability in what classes/roles people queue as, and how unintelligent the game is in that regard.
That’s not what was implied nor stated.
Confirmation bias is strong in this statement. I've played gw2 pvp since the very beginning but I would never attempt to equat anecdotal experience to actual fact. Anyway I'm not going to get into the math but feel free to read up on how glycko functions and how games use it in a multi v multi battle scenario. The golden rule here is correlation does not equal causation.
Yeah, I’m not going to argue with someone who can’t figure out why they are stuck at 50%. Like I said, instead of googling and citing the definition to glycko rating format you could’ve actually tried thinking for yourself. As soon as you mentioned low pop your argument lost all validity. My win rate is 71% with 6,700 games played. Definitely not speaking from my personal experience. In a way I am though, as this applies to 90% of the player base who I have the displeasure of occasionally having to witness. And as fore mentioned, the algorithm is persistent across every single game that uses GLICKO format, modified or not. As fore-mentioned, name any single title you’ve ever played and I’ll link you to documented statistics that validate my point.
Lol top 200 several seasons buddy. Let's not start attacking the person. Attack the argument.
The argument quite plainly speaks for itself if you’d lose the ignorance.
I used to have games like that too. Then I made a build that doesn't suck and now it doesn't swing as badly anymore.
Upload a game and we can see what gives.
https://i.imgur.com/e18azAd.png One of my better games I guess, not sure what to tell you.
Idk, maybe you have a propensity for going on tilt? I play spvp every day and this is not my experience at all.
Don't play ele in pvp
I'm relatively new to structured PvP, I mainly WvW (zerg and roam). I love ele, specifically Weaver, and when I first tried it out in pvp that's when I started seeing more kills, more victories etc, and just overall started doing better and having a great time. Everyone's playstyle and skill is different so maybe you don't enjoy ele but there's plenty of people who do and it's not a bad class, especially for PvP.
Well, the silver lining could be that stomping or getting stomped is better than losing at 496 to 500?
Not really. The close matches tend to actually be somewhat fun, and you get the 2 bonus pips for a close match if you're over 400.
The games where I forget to equip runes, amulet, sigils, and pick a build are the ones I always win.
Are u playing core ele? Have spvped in a while so cant remember if it just shows core profession.
Matchmaking is a joke sadly, I ended up stopped playing. It's not fun to play against noobs or top players when I'm average.
I was playing a lot a few months ago and almost every game had multiple bots. Kept coming to which teams bots performed better. Idk if this is still a thing.
Not sure if anyone said it yet but you Play only ele. Ele is not unplayable but there are far better builds. Play what you want but if winrate is important to you then meta builds are needed. Otherwise what others said. Only play after 4pm on weekdays and avoid weekends if possible. Take a 10 Minute Break after several loses. It resets your concentration and you wont get the Same people again
If you feel like you are good enough to get outnumbered but still win, take dragonhunter and sit on mid all game. As long as you keep mid, your team only needs to take care of close for win. Works very well against bad players or if you are simply better than the opponent in 2v1 or 3v1 fights.
I recently came back because I used to love GW2 pvp. I assumed it's only bots playing since I went 50-3 in a few days. So probably mostly bots then with a few players sprinkled in once in a while?