Solo Que Matchmaking has a Serious Flaw - Data Inside

[Mursie]

what a joke - pot5 republic. here are my last two ques:

 

Match 1:

republic: 1161, 1271, 1205, 1394 (this was a recent transfer sage from SL that did less than 30k dmg)

imperial: 2106, 1956, 1928, 1534

 

Match 2:

republic: 1161, 1271, 1126, 1394 (same transfer sage)

imperial: 2256, 1956, 1784, 1534

 

Your game is garbage. With over 80 ranked games played on republic pot5 it has been literally the worst gaming experience of my life. Why I continue to play I do not know. I am literally that bored I guess. Regular wz's are meaningless and I am clearly insane thinking that next match around the corner will be a fun competitive one. But look at the above, this is a joke.

 

THE RICH GET RICHER.

[orryko]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

musco, you know i got love for ya, but lesbehonest

 

forget matchmaking for a second...the ELO coding is completely trash

 

example: Achido(Skillx) was in solo queue the other night, on stream, @2200 rating. he was matched up against people in the 1200ish range. his team lost the match and he only lost 13 points. 13!!!!! Meanwhile, he beats other 1200ish people and still gets 7-9 per win!!!!

 

Does that look right to you or any of the devs? I mean really.

 

A loss between that disparity should be 40-50 points and a win should only be 1. Yes, I know there are averages and blah blah...but come on. 13 and 9 are very, very far off.

 

Same thing in grouped ranked really...the win and loss points are really messed up in some cases.

[Mursie]

rofl.. and the last match classic:

 

republic: 1161, 1271, 1205, 1224

imperial: 2106, 1957, 1956, 1534

 

Is this a joke? THREE matches where my average group rating is 1200 vs. an average group rating of about 1900.

 

HOW DO YOU THINK THIS IS LEGIT?

[HaLeX]

A 1900 team going against a 1200 team would be the equivalent of a 50 point spread in college football.

[JP_Legatus]

rofl.. and the last match classic:

 

republic: 1161, 1271, 1205, 1224

imperial: 2106, 1957, 1956, 1534

 

Is this a joke? THREE matches where my average group rating is 1200 vs. an average group rating of about 1900.

 

HOW DO YOU THINK THIS IS LEGIT?

 

Could be due to imbalance in faction ratings.

IE if all the pubs on that day average 1200 and the imps 1900, well this is the matchup you'll always see.

 

That's why I said if u get 2 or 3 like this in a row, just go do something else and come back later.

Edited November 22, 2013 by JP_Legatus

[OldSpiceSwag]

pub vs imp disparities are not good evidence as most pubs are garbage and thus most pubs have low ratings

 

not to say this isnt a big problem, cuz it is. matchmaking is trash and imp vs imp disparity in ratings AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IN COMPS is just awful

[Megatfx]

musco, you know i got love for ya, but lesbehonest

 

forget matchmaking for a second...the ELO coding is completely trash

 

example: Achido(Skillx) was in solo queue the other night, on stream, @2200 rating. he was matched up against people in the 1200ish range. his team lost the match and he only lost 13 points. 13!!!!! Meanwhile, he beats other 1200ish people and still gets 7-9 per win!!!!

 

Does that look right to you or any of the devs? I mean really.

 

A loss between that disparity should be 40-50 points and a win should only be 1. Yes, I know there are averages and blah blah...but come on. 13 and 9 are very, very far off.

 

Same thing in grouped ranked really...the win and loss points are really messed up in some cases.

 

I've already made a post about this, the higher your rating, the better chance you're going to get paired up with other higher rated players while the other team is significantly lower rated than your team average and I agree you should lose so much more *********** rating being 2200.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Megatfx

[Skolops]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

Thank you very much for the reply, Eric. I think a very important point here is that whether it happens consistently or not is not really important so much as that a case as in this particular example can happen even once. I think just about everyone can understand when late at night or when the ques are not filled with a sufficiently diverse population that some mismatches are bound to happen. However, in this particular example there is no need for it to. The teams in this very game could have been evenly matched simply by swapping one player to the other team and vice versa.

 

The question would be not so much, why does this happen often or infrequently, but rather, why does it *ever* happen that two same-faction ELO 2000 players wind up on one team against a team of four ELO 1200 players, when swapping one 2000 for one 1200 makes an even team? Swapping the healers would have produced an average difference of 67. Swapping Somnax with Acliptic would have produced a difference of 17.

 

That said, I can say that it does happen with some consistency. Over the course of 30 or so games a night, I would say that in my experience at least 5 of them regularly result in some kind of rating mismatch of this sort.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Skolops

[DarthVengeant]

I don't see how making unbalanced matches balanced is that hard.

 

Here is what you do. If 9 people que...only let 8 in to a match, 4 on each team. If 15 que then only let 14 in a game, 7 each team.

 

Easy. Logic. Done. Problem solved. But, I guess this is advanced rocket science to Bioware somehow....

 

This has been a problem for ages now and still not fixed. Yet there is a simple solution RIGHT THERE!

Edited November 22, 2013 by DarthVengeant

[idnewton]

The main problem is going to be population. There just is not enough of a pvp population on one server to have fair games. You either have to roll the dice and play with higher ranked people, or sit around and not do anything while the system tries to match you with people of the same ratings. would be nice to see more pvp stats such as how many WZs are currently being played and the number of people currently in queue.

 

Realize that I've never agreed with the idea of cross-server queuing. It always has seemed unnecessary to me. Queue times, post-transfer, have always been great.

 

That said, if you're matching groups based on rating, server-specific queuing is no longer an option.

[Birna]

This is partly a problem of how small the pool of people queuing for this is. Bioware may have to figure out how to at least make this queue cross-server to even start to solve it.

 

 

 

edit: Or, you know, what other people said.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Birna

[Skolops]

This is partly a problem of how small the pool of people queuing for this is. Bioware may have to figure out how to at least make this queue cross-server to even start to solve it.

 

 

 

edit: Or, you know, what other people said.

 

That's true at times, but again, in the example I cited there players were all there to make fair and balanced teams.

[Calenei]

Is Somnax still playing? i thought everyone in the Shadowlands edition of ID quit the game.

 

More on topic, they should outsource matchmaking to Bungie because they know what they're doing.

 

ID are alive and well on Pot5 (Imp side) and Shadowlands (Rep side)

 

On another note, they need to do away with the conversion of regular comms into ranked comms. i.e. force the cattle into either solo Q or ranked Q to get their top tier gear. Perhaps then with force people into the ranking system will they finally to fix match making rather than just throwing 2 sets of random groups together.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Calenei

[fungihoujo]

ID are alive and well on Pot5 (Imp side) and Shadowlands (Rep side)

 

On another note, they need to do away with the conversion of regular comms into ranked comms. i.e. force the cattle into either solo Q or ranked Q to get their top tier gear. Perhaps then with force people into the ranking system will they finally to fix match making rather than just throwing 2 sets of random groups together.

 

Yeah, good idea- because flooding rateds with bads in blues is exactly what everyone wants right?

[Yeochins]

ID are alive and well on Pot5 (Imp side) and Shadowlands (Rep side)

 

On another note, they need to do away with the conversion of regular comms into ranked comms. i.e. force the cattle into either solo Q or ranked Q to get their top tier gear. Perhaps then with force people into the ranking system will they finally to fix match making rather than just throwing 2 sets of random groups together.

 

This alone tells me you must be very new to PvP in SWTOR.

 

People like you are going to be the first to complain that level 55's with fresh greens, and who have never stepped foot into a WZ or arena are on your team versus 4 well seasoned PvP'ers in full Obroan gear. People participate in the regular queue because they can convert commendations.

[Calenei]

This alone tells me you must be very new to PvP in SWTOR.

 

People like you are going to be the first to complain that level 55's with fresh greens, and who have never stepped foot into a WZ or arena are on your team versus 4 well seasoned PvP'ers in full Obroan gear. People participate in the regular queue because they can convert commendations.

 

 

Have you seen me complain about green / blue players yet?

 

It is obvious that the main complaints are due to the following issues:

 

1. Not enough people in Ranked Queue

2. Elo Matchmaking simple does not work as it should. I.e. a average team of 1400 rating vs 2000+ rated team.

3. Loss of rating too great when facing a team that is more than 400+ points higher than you.

4. Gain of rating too great when facing a team that is more than 400+ points lower than you.

 

To the quoted person, if people are going to go straight into ranked solo in their greens / blue fresh 50, then within 4-5 games they should 'in theory' be out of 1200 bracket quickly. (Due to a 30-40 point loss if they are new to arena). The whole point of the system is to get 'You' where you should be in terms of rank. At the moment the matchmaking simply isn't working. But as i referred to before, all those green / blue geared 50's could happily sign up for ranked and play as much as they want in a 800-1000 bracket. For its common sense that is where they will end up falling down to. They 'shouldn't' get paired with a player that is 1600+, but at the moment with the current matchmaking system, they are. That is where the problem lies.

 

As for complaining about Blue / Green geared players, I have had my fill of them in solo ranked on my way to 1600 but I don't race off to the forums to complain , I die, respawn and signup again. The good players will continue to rise to the top, no matter if they end up getting paired with fresh 50's.....

 

The whole point of the system is to provide competitive games for your skill level. Converting comm's has always been a major issue when it came to 8v8's as people never wanted to queue for 8's due to the fact they could farm top end gear in regulars. This had a knock on impact on the ranked community and queuing system. The only reason this trade up / trade down of comm's was added in the first place was due to the gear being released before they had ranked 8's working at that time.... or do you people have a selective memory?

 

There needs to be more involvement in Ranked Solo and Ranked group in general, and a elo matchmaking system that properly groups players based on their elo rating. Allowing top end gear to be farmed in regulars doesn't help the overall ranked pvp community, it frankly hinders it due to having it split.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Calenei

[Warhams]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

Eric, Would it be possible to please look at the ratings Gained and Lost when a Inferior team beats or loses to a Superior team. I've had a lot of experience personally where I beat a team that has at least 200+ ELO average higher than mine to gain only +13 points, whereas losing to the almost exact same team the next game docks me -18 points. The current system seems to reward only the very best players as they can easily get points while the average players if they get a lucky break, would still get less rating points for winning and lose a lot more for losing. Thanks

[keeroo]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

would be awesome to increase the matchup time in order to get a better matchmaking or pop a notification about the rating difference in the matchup with an option to leave without penalty.

[Skolops]

Eric, Would it be possible to please look at the ratings Gained and Lost when a Inferior team beats or loses to a Superior team. I've had a lot of experience personally where I beat a team that has at least 200+ ELO average higher than mine to gain only +13 points, whereas losing to the almost exact same team the next game docks me -18 points. The current system seems to reward only the very best players as they can easily get points while the average players if they get a lucky break, would still get less rating points for winning and lose a lot more for losing. Thanks

 

Unfortunately, it isn't always even about talent at this point because of the kind of mismatches I have sought to illustrate here. I know on my own server several of the best players at their classes whose ratings are languishing in lower tiers because match after match they find themselves on teams which have a collection of average players, facing off against teams of 3 or 4 of the best players on the server.

 

That said, your other concern is also a huge part of it. It seems to be almost universally the case, with some exceptions, that losing costs more points than winning earns. In other words, if you go .500 you do not remain at a steady rating - you actually go down. If you lose a match, you need to win greater than one match to catch up to where you were. Of course, if these gains and losses fluctuated purely according to the teams' comparative ratings, then we'd have no concerns. However, it seems as though winning - against just about any team - almost always gains less than is lost by losing - against just about any team.

[DarthMaulUK]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

Maybe the way you 'track' data is flawed, which wouldnt surprise me and would probably explain some of the dumbest pvp design decisions of late

[mattycutts]

best game si had so far:

 

3 healers 1 tank v 4 tanks

2 healers / 2 dps v 3dps 1 tank

4dps v 2 dps, 2 healers (this was my fav, emp v emp surely to god 1 of them healers on other team for a dps would have made it perfect)

 

tbh i dont see that many solo queue games where its very nicely balenced.

 

i find myself less and less queeing for arenas and sticking to either normal sign up or 4man rank sign up.

[MidichIorian]

Lol wut? We all transfered to Pot5 half a year ago. ID is alive and well.

Yeah I know that but I was under the impression that the absence of rankned 8 vs 8 took its toll.

[Warhams]

Unfortunately, it isn't always even about talent at this point because of the kind of mismatches I have sought to illustrate here. I know on my own server several of the best players at their classes whose ratings are languishing in lower tiers because match after match they find themselves on teams which have a collection of average players, facing off against teams of 3 or 4 of the best players on the server.

 

That said, your other concern is also a huge part of it. It seems to be almost universally the case, with some exceptions, that losing costs more points than winning earns. In other words, if you go .500 you do not remain at a steady rating - you actually go down. If you lose a match, you need to win greater than one match to catch up to where you were. Of course, if these gains and losses fluctuated purely according to the teams' comparative ratings, then we'd have no concerns. However, it seems as though winning - against just about any team - almost always gains less than is lost by losing - against just about any team.

 

Exactly as you stated, it doesn't help that my other pet peeve namely, Hybrid Healers and Tanks can 'pretend' to be DPS and thus in a 4 dps vs 4 dps match, they as hybrids have a advantage. ( I made a thread about it here http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=698880). I've always been told that Hybrids of 2 roles should be a lot weaker in either role than a Pure specced one yet in Arenas, they are far superior in most cases.

[UndyingHadyn]

Unfortunately, it isn't always even about talent at this point because of the kind of mismatches I have sought to illustrate here. I know on my own server several of the best players at their classes whose ratings are languishing in lower tiers because match after match they find themselves on teams which have a collection of average players, facing off against teams of 3 or 4 of the best players on the server.

 

That said, your other concern is also a huge part of it. It seems to be almost universally the case, with some exceptions, that losing costs more points than winning earns. In other words, if you go .500 you do not remain at a steady rating - you actually go down. If you lose a match, you need to win greater than one match to catch up to where you were. Of course, if these gains and losses fluctuated purely according to the teams' comparative ratings, then we'd have no concerns. However, it seems as though winning - against just about any team - almost always gains less than is lost by losing - against just about any team.

 

 

 

I started the new ranked season a few days late, but it's true. There is a disparity with ratings. I remember this one random teammate went afk or something. He didn't even enter the round. He timed out eventually and of course we lost that match. My rating went down 22 points, but the most I've gotten from a win has been 13. Lmao /shrug.

 

It's going to take ALOT of consecutive wins to catch up to my peers on this server lmfao.

[TonyDragonflame]

We have seen similar posts on what you have reported in this thread. The rating disparity you have shown in your results is entirely possible, although very unlikely to happen on any consistent basis. I wanted to assure you that our team is aware of these reports and is tracking data behind our matchmaking to look for any potential issues.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

Roll scrapper scoundrel 55 lvl on PoT5, play solo ranked arenas couple weeks, and after that please tell us about game balance, your personal fun, rating and enjoy from game and why we must pay for this game.

 

Kkthxbye.