Current MMR Explained by Rethaz
Have fun reading.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/5x81y5/current_mmr_system_in_gwent/dejbm4n/
Have fun reading.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/5x81y5/current_mmr_system_in_gwent/dejbm4n/
A plot twist.... But yeah, some sort of an explanation or a statement would be nice to see.frbfree;n8002080 said:
Too lazy to read it right now, could anyone summary it in a funny if slightly inappropriate gif?
Rethas;n8057150 said:
I don't mean to be contrary, and it may be just a coincidence, but I am most decidedly not joking.
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...d-aa/7976790-bran-is-not-welcome-in-nilfgaard
I playtested this deck for nearly a week, and never once drew a Bran deck against it. In the current Meta, the probability of that is infinitesimal.
Unless you're pulling my leg with your comment. In which case, you got me.
How is the MMR gain/loss calculated?
Even after all this time I am still puzzled by how this is calculated. I read an linked article a while ago on reddit (about K values and stuff), but that didn't enlighten me much.
So far I just know, that
- you get more pts for beating players with higher MMR
- to an unknown rank CDPR is apparently adding points somehow to provide higher/more motivational sense of progress
- I think you also get more points for beating 2-0 than 2-1, but not sure
Still even the first thing seems to be adjusted by additional factors, as I got differing rewards playing vs players with a rather similar MMR difference.
So does any of you know of a source that is providing more insight into the more exact calculation?
Even after all this time I am still puzzled by how this is calculated. I read an linked article a while ago on reddit (about K values and stuff), but that didn't enlighten me much.
So far I just know, that
- you get more pts for beating players with higher MMR
- to an unknown rank CDPR is apparently adding points somehow to provide higher/more motivational sense of progress
- I think you also get more points for beating 2-0 than 2-1, but not sure
Still even the first thing seems to be adjusted by additional factors, as I got differing rewards playing vs players with a rather similar MMR difference.
So does any of you know of a source that is providing more insight into the more exact calculation?
Thanks, kinda at least 
That was the post, that I was referring to and initially just confusing me.
But maybe that was a 2 in the morning thing, after rereading I got more aspects, even though sadly there's still not enough detail known to properly anticipate, how much MMR you are wagering in a game.
That's in short what I was hoping for, to instantly know if you are in for a 20/30/50 MMR gain/loss once you know the MMR difference shown in Gwent tracker.
After some contemplation, I wonder how much this ranking approach is something for me (bad case of ladder anxiety) - and just hope they add more game modes besides it and casual winning, which after a while isn't giving you much feeling of progress anymore...
Still hoping for some sort of Arena/draft mode, though that might not work out at all with the design of Gwent ?!?
That was the post, that I was referring to and initially just confusing me.But maybe that was a 2 in the morning thing, after rereading I got more aspects, even though sadly there's still not enough detail known to properly anticipate, how much MMR you are wagering in a game.
That's in short what I was hoping for, to instantly know if you are in for a 20/30/50 MMR gain/loss once you know the MMR difference shown in Gwent tracker.
After some contemplation, I wonder how much this ranking approach is something for me (bad case of ladder anxiety) - and just hope they add more game modes besides it and casual winning, which after a while isn't giving you much feeling of progress anymore...
Still hoping for some sort of Arena/draft mode, though that might not work out at all with the design of Gwent ?!?
frbfree;n8002080 said:
Even with a dev posting an official response I still have to agree with this... I've played 900+ games ranked and many more in casual and if I'm getting matched against weather decks with no counter I can adjust the cards in my deck and immediately stop being matched against them (for example if I run aeromancy in my deck I will get matched against weather deck after weather deck, if I remove all weather and weather counter cards of all types I will be matched against zero weather decks from then on), if I'm running into a certain archetype that murders my deck I can swap out a card or two from my deck and the matches I get are very different from then on. If I run dbomb in my deck about half the players I'm matched with suddenly also use dbomb... same thing with commanders horn... if I remove either from my deck I stop running into dbomb horn players (seeing them once in a blue moon vs half the time). On and on this goes, I've gotten very good at building decks which prevent me from being matched with the metas I can't stand playing against, it always takes work but you can reliably game the system the way it is set up now.
The downside is there are certain cards I want to use just because they are fun... but using them gets me in completely different matches which kill my win% so I take the card back out and I'm back to the matches I got before and will remain so for dozens of games thereafter. This isn't something in my head, it's consistently reliable, I can always completely avoid the decks I hate the most that use specific cards by picking the right combination of faction and cards (this is very important, you have to use the right faction with the right neutral cards to keep from being matched against certain things) for my own deck. I can set up my deck designed to keep from being matched against certain decks and I can run the other deck not so designed... play 10 games with each and reliably show the matches are indeed altogether different.
Rethas;n8057150 said:
Last edited:
Okay I suppose a clear concise summation would be nice for some people.
-MMR is based on Elo (from Chess)
-K-value (which is the uncertainty variable) has been standardised, that is, it doesn't shrink from its initial value very quickly if at all. The idea behind an uncertainty value is that the game doesn't know how good you are yet, so it allows for large swings in MMR to quickly place you. The theory is that your MMR should swing early in your ratings, whereas it will only swing a small amount once you have hundreds of games. However, in the current form it seems like your K-value is still large, after hundreds of games.
-Rethaz mentioned that lower ranks are artificially inflated, but not because the winner gets extra points.
If you notice, you get around 50 points for beating someone with the same MMR. This swing can go above 100 and bottoms out at 0 based on your relative MMR. Because you gain as much as the opponent loses this is normally a zero sum game. However, at lower ranks, Rethaz states that you don't lose as much MMR for losing so they feel better about their progression, which means that ranked games at low ranks are not zero sum. Therefore you have MMR being injected at the lower ranks into the system, which eventually filters up to the top and gets traded around by higher rank players. (This is presumably the cause of the steady MMR inflation at the top of the ladder)
- There are some advantages to this system, but they're clearly not happy with it.
It's nice that the entirety of the MMR spectrum is now occupied (Garrunah is around 50 MMR off the hard maximum), but this has happened in too short of a timeframe I think.
They are working on an algorithm to make large MMR discrepancy have a better win expectation than stuff like 98-2.
They understand that lots of top players spam cancel queue to stop their matchmaking range getting too large, and will be adding a QOL improvement option to prevent this.
Hope this helps to make things clear for people.
-MMR is based on Elo (from Chess)
-K-value (which is the uncertainty variable) has been standardised, that is, it doesn't shrink from its initial value very quickly if at all. The idea behind an uncertainty value is that the game doesn't know how good you are yet, so it allows for large swings in MMR to quickly place you. The theory is that your MMR should swing early in your ratings, whereas it will only swing a small amount once you have hundreds of games. However, in the current form it seems like your K-value is still large, after hundreds of games.
-Rethaz mentioned that lower ranks are artificially inflated, but not because the winner gets extra points.
If you notice, you get around 50 points for beating someone with the same MMR. This swing can go above 100 and bottoms out at 0 based on your relative MMR. Because you gain as much as the opponent loses this is normally a zero sum game. However, at lower ranks, Rethaz states that you don't lose as much MMR for losing so they feel better about their progression, which means that ranked games at low ranks are not zero sum. Therefore you have MMR being injected at the lower ranks into the system, which eventually filters up to the top and gets traded around by higher rank players. (This is presumably the cause of the steady MMR inflation at the top of the ladder)
- There are some advantages to this system, but they're clearly not happy with it.
It's nice that the entirety of the MMR spectrum is now occupied (Garrunah is around 50 MMR off the hard maximum), but this has happened in too short of a timeframe I think.
They are working on an algorithm to make large MMR discrepancy have a better win expectation than stuff like 98-2.
They understand that lots of top players spam cancel queue to stop their matchmaking range getting too large, and will be adding a QOL improvement option to prevent this.
Hope this helps to make things clear for people.
no - just MMR. player level is just a measuer for how much you have played, not for how good you are - and gives progression rewards. This is reflected in your MMR and rightfully goes into the equation.
Otherwise ppl would eventually end up in a downwards spiral, if their player level exceeds their skill, but they would never loose player level to get matched against comparable opponents.
Otherwise ppl would eventually end up in a downwards spiral, if their player level exceeds their skill, but they would never loose player level to get matched against comparable opponents.
ELO-System
Hello community and Staff members.
I am a little curious how this Elo-System and the Ranking works, but i cant figure it out.
Found a few posts on Reddit, but nothing realy helpfull.
Is there any official explanation how this works?
Hello community and Staff members.
I am a little curious how this Elo-System and the Ranking works, but i cant figure it out.
Found a few posts on Reddit, but nothing realy helpfull.
Is there any official explanation how this works?