Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
F4ster

Matchmaking punishes you for winning.

Recommended Posts

Recently, I've been very frustrated at how much rank I lose from losing to a player of lower rank. While this is a very common thing in video games it doesn't work properly in reflex due to the low player base. The top 3-4 ranks are quite commonly all equal skill levels, with some lower ranked players being able to beat higher ranked players on certain maps, or being particularily good against a certain play style. 

Heres an example: Kyto beats gaiia on the catalyst because that's his best map, he ranks up to prime overlord and they requeue into another duel. This time its aerowalk and gaiia smashes kyto. Their 1-1 but kyto has  significantly lower rank than when he first played. 

Here's how it should be: the amount you lose should be relative to the number not the rank. A prime overlord sitting at 2500 will lose a ton to a overlord sitting at 2499. edit:higher rank punishments for losing should only come into effect at a skill number difference of around 500

There's a second way matchmaking punishes you for winning, it massively increases your queue times. Sane wasn't queuing for 1h30m on prime time NA because nobody had turbo queue enabled. They just simply couldn't play with him even with it on. The only reason I can play this game is because a lot of my friends use community servers. Otherwise I would simply not be able to find enough matches to justify playing. Turbo queue should remove ALL skill rating barriers. A lot of people just wanna play a match. 

 

Edit: I'm NA so things might be different with skill distribution among rank in EU. Idk about things over there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how ELO works, always been this way - the increase/decrease of rank depends on the winner and the difference between participants. Sure, one can argue that it doesn't suit a small playerbase very well. Your particular example doesn't work very well however, since the number of points is inversely proportional to the number of players in a particular point range; it's the same thing in Dota for example, where you see 8k, 9k MMR players only getting five points per game won, but losing up to forty points per game lost. And, in my opinion, the higher rank you are, the less it matters, since people who get there mostly care about getting good opponents and good games rather than how many imaginary points they acquire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yakcyll~ said:

That's how ELO works, always been this way - the increase/decrease of rank depends on the winner and the difference between participants. Sure, one can argue that it doesn't suit a small playerbase very well. Your particular example doesn't work very well however, since the number of points is inversely proportional to the number of players in a particular point range; it's the same thing in Dota for example, where you see 8k, 9k MMR players only getting five points per game won, but losing up to forty points per game lost. And, in my opinion, the higher rank you are, the less it matters, since people who get there mostly care about getting good opponents and good games rather than how many imaginary points they acquire.

You're absolutely right about the higher rank you get the less you actually care about what rank you are because all you want is simply to find matches. I probably should've put my second "way" first because its more important. I still think the rank punishments should be less severe from losing to lower ranks because the skill distribution among ranks isn't very accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×