I still feel like there should still be some kind of minimum amount of points awarded for wins. It's really not fair to get awarded with "No Change" for a win against an opponent whose level and rank are much higher than mine.
More information about calculating MMR can be found here: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...ns-aa/7997410-current-mmr-explained-by-rethaz
Then it means he had a lower mmr than you. The points are based on the difference in mmr, the bigger the difference the more the total points are added/substracted at the end of the game. Even if he's level 27 rank 9, it just means he went on a losing streak and was behind you on mmr.Darkmor;n8468380 said:
I already posted this on other topic but I might aswel post it here. I must say today happened something that made me take a step forward and post something on this forum. I was playing a higher lvl player than myself and in the last round the conclusive card the opponent played suddenly made my connection fail. The opponent waited for a long time before playing his last card and the card that was played would have lead to me winning the game because I was lucky enough to see the card my opponent played, but unluckily my connection "got lost" and I lost. Right after the card was revealed my connection got lost so I lost the game. Fair enough. Nothing special about that. BUT it made me wonder, if there could have been a bug since this was the 3rd time this has happened to me. The 1st time this happened I did'nt mind and I went on with my life. The 2nd time I was like "wow what are the odds exactly like the 1st time with the last card and round". The 3rd time I was like "WHAT AN ACTUAL FUCK" exactly like the 1st and 2nd time, and I started writing this post. The second thing crossed my mind was a cheat so I wrote the players name down(the 1st and 2nd time I did no such thing), but since I cannot be a 100% on this I will not be accusing anyone. If it would have been casual matches I propably would have ignored this, but since it has only occurred in ranked matches it is very annoying. Has anyone else experienced any similar problems in ranked matches? I thank you for your time.
MMR is a joke
I suspect that this has been debated many times, but hey. The Match-Making (and ranking) is a joke. Lvl 32 Rank 12 (me), and up against lvl 70(...) Rank 15. The inevitable loss cost me 63 points of ranking. I beat a guy who was lvl 52, rank 14 (narrowly) and gained 12 points. The losses, whether close or not, cost us huge amounts of points, and wins, especially when close to the next ranking threshold net us sod all. Playing people who are 15-40 levels higher than us may not look much when they are only 1 rank above us but especially at lower levels the difference in resources (ie. Legendary cards) can be huge. Level and Rank need to be matched to make it fair. And the Scoit'ael Passive should be dragged out back and shot. I get the idea of it, but forcing someone to go first when they are a round down, playing Yaevyn (who pisses all over Dinar or Brina) and bleeding them out of cards doesn't make for a fun game at any point for the person on the other end of it. As various streamers have stated, there's no sense of achievement for beating the ST Control deck either, just a feeling of thank f*** that's over. Rant over.
I suspect that this has been debated many times, but hey. The Match-Making (and ranking) is a joke. Lvl 32 Rank 12 (me), and up against lvl 70(...) Rank 15. The inevitable loss cost me 63 points of ranking. I beat a guy who was lvl 52, rank 14 (narrowly) and gained 12 points. The losses, whether close or not, cost us huge amounts of points, and wins, especially when close to the next ranking threshold net us sod all. Playing people who are 15-40 levels higher than us may not look much when they are only 1 rank above us but especially at lower levels the difference in resources (ie. Legendary cards) can be huge. Level and Rank need to be matched to make it fair. And the Scoit'ael Passive should be dragged out back and shot. I get the idea of it, but forcing someone to go first when they are a round down, playing Yaevyn (who pisses all over Dinar or Brina) and bleeding them out of cards doesn't make for a fun game at any point for the person on the other end of it. As various streamers have stated, there's no sense of achievement for beating the ST Control deck either, just a feeling of thank f*** that's over. Rant over.
I have had no issues with it MMR or opponents. I have also faced higher level and ranked opponents
FYI Rank and level of the opponent is a non issue.
MMR is based on wins and losses ... if you get a level 100 rank 15 that completely tanks their MMR though 30-40 losses in a row ( just as an example) they could end up facing a rank 10 and it would be a perfectly legitimate match
Also stop worrying about the outcome and rank losses happen just have fun "playing the game" regardless of the outcome. No matter what you will always end up facing opponents that are of similar "skill level".
Here is a link from one of the devs to explain how it works.
FYI Rank and level of the opponent is a non issue.
MMR is based on wins and losses ... if you get a level 100 rank 15 that completely tanks their MMR though 30-40 losses in a row ( just as an example) they could end up facing a rank 10 and it would be a perfectly legitimate match
Also stop worrying about the outcome and rank losses happen just have fun "playing the game" regardless of the outcome. No matter what you will always end up facing opponents that are of similar "skill level".
Here is a link from one of the devs to explain how it works.
[–]rethazCD PROJEKT RED 135 points 2 months ago*The system does indeed take inspiration from the classic Elo rating system and the assumption you make regarding it are generally correct
As a general rule of thumb it can be said that a higher K-Value is basically always disadvantageous since there many negative things attached, like e.g.: the higher the K-Value the lower the importance of long term performance shortterm performance matters much more which leads to unwished results like: - bad Matchmaking - not finding games because the MMR stretches way more cause of bigger volatility and swings and many more.
This is true. Our K value was working significantly differently from the 19th of December until Mid January. Our simulations predicted drastically different player behavior than what turned out to be reality once the ranking system launched. The top of the leader-board was topping out around 2200 instead of 4200, so in order to allow us to collect more data and also to allow players to have more fun and feel a sense of progression we standardized the K value as a temporary measure. We have learned a lot from both of these periods about player behavior, but also about expectations.The advantage of having a higher K-Value being that you can climb faster with lower amount of games (pretty selfexplicatory if only shorttermperformance matters) => So in general it can be said that you want to minimize this value as much as possible as long as it´s halfway feasable, that means that if that value is extremely low it could lead to the disadvantage of having to play too many games in order to find out your true MMR.We do have a dynamic K-factor in quick play and we are observing the trends and data here still. As mentioned above we also had the same system in place when the ranked system launched, it was present for several weeks. This was not fun for players and they couldn't obtain the rewards we had intended, the system also felt incredibly grindy. I am sure there's a few reading who can attest to that
The K-Factor in Chess once a certain amount of games have been played is "10" at the moment. One game of chess usually takes up many hours and rated matches usually don´t take place on a consecutive basis. The K-Factor in Gwent seems to be around "100" at the moment (I don´t have the specific number but I would guess it´s around that figure.
Given that Gwent games are accessible at any time and take less than 15 minutes/game in average it seems to be quite weird to be the case, since you would expect it to be equal or lower than 10, but def. not 100. Because of that reason we can encounter a lot of problems specifically at the high rank competitive play which would be: - very long queue times, very often not even finding a suitable match within 20 minutes - the MMR not really reflecting your playskill, very dependent on the last 20-50 games you executed which is basically your daily performance.
Our ranked system has two main goals.
- To allow all players to gain a sense of progression and achievement.
- To show who the best Gwent players in the world are.
For the first goal to be achieved the system needs to encourage and allow progression, you purposely lose less points at lower ranks in order to achieve this. This allows players to obtain a decent rank through hard work (decent does not mean rank 15).
For the second point to be true the above seems contradictory. However we actually normalize the points loss / gain as your rank increases, so once your are at the higher ranks the system moves back towards being zero sum and no longer inserts artificial points into the system.
Between how the system was working initially and how it has been working recently we have collected a great deal of data and feedback. And likely the most sensible and logical solution is somewhat of a middle ground.
We still aren't happy with the player progression and we'd actually like the average player to obtain a rating of around 800 high than they currently are. This means more economic rewards for everyoneSince this isn't happening yet we will be making some tweaks here.
At the top end of the system it has led to some issues where players are often incentivized to "camp" once achieving a high rating. This is in part why it can become difficult to find a similarly rated opponent. We believe K returning as more of a factor will help with this as punishment and gains would be less swingy towards the top end of the ladder. We are running simulations on this with various weights attached to K, I can't give an ETA on this but it is something that we hope to have in place before the game transitions to Open Beta.Food for thought and hopefully this will see quick change before people get used to climb those MMR points very quickly and feeling bad about "only" receiving let´s say 6 or 7 points in the future.This is very true, but instead of making the person gain less points we want to adapt the system around the concept of the player getting more points and still keeping it balanced. We are aiming to make the system more balanced by modifying the win% expectation formula to work with higher MMR differences.
As a final point, something we will also be adding as a quality of life change for high rated players is a pop-up that asks if you wish to enter extended matchmaking or not. This way it is your choice if you wish to risk your points on a game that might not have the optimal outcomes for you.
We haven't detailed how our season transitions will work yet or even if there will be seasonal transitions. We aren't ready to talk about that just yet
When we are we will be happy to take on board feedback from players. However something we can commit to is that we do not want to destroy the entire progress a player has made while participating in ranked play.
(Please keep in mind this statement does not apply to when the game transitions to Open Beta, the entire game will undergo a full reset, details of the compensation for this are detailed in the following link:http://wpc.4d7d.edgecastcdn.net/004D..._Update_EN.png)
Last edited:
Martin33a;n8532770 said:
Rank and lvl doesnt mean nothing. What you have to see is the opponent mmr. A lvl 70 rank 15 can easily have a lower mmr than you at lvl 32 rank 12 and if you loose to him you will loose a lot of mmr. This happens because even if someone hits 3,9k mmr and gets rank 15, he will stay at that rank even if he looses mmr after. i.e. you cant loose rank (neither lvl, obviously).
Also, theres not how to create a ranking system things according to your collection. If you feel handicapped because you miss some cards, than dont play ranked... or play it but dont complain if you loose. Play casual until you have a meaningful collection and than try your luck on ranking.
Ranking points make no sense.
So I'm rank 7 and still no clue on how ranking points are given, for instance I beat a guy in three rounds first round it was like 70 to 30 to me. Second round I let them waste cards on my lubberkin so 13 - 11 to them. Then finished with a 30-10 to me and I got 14 points. Then I was beaten by literally one point and got minus 47 points? Is this broken or is there something I'm not seeing?
So I'm rank 7 and still no clue on how ranking points are given, for instance I beat a guy in three rounds first round it was like 70 to 30 to me. Second round I let them waste cards on my lubberkin so 13 - 11 to them. Then finished with a 30-10 to me and I got 14 points. Then I was beaten by literally one point and got minus 47 points? Is this broken or is there something I'm not seeing?
The pts are calculated based on yours and his MMR for example if you play against someone who has an MMR decently lower than you ( still in the range of a same rank though) you will lose more pts than someone with almost equal MMR and vice versa. How you win or lose the game does not affect your ranking pts.
depends on the ranking of the person you are playing. Beating someone with a higher total ranking gives more points than beating someone with a lower total. It has nothing to do with how many points you won the rond by.
Likewise, losong to someone who has lower ranking than you, will cost you more points.
Likewise, losong to someone who has lower ranking than you, will cost you more points.
Ah thanks for the explanation guys. But I don't like idea it's based on if the guy is higher or lower than you. I think it should be based on the round it took an points won by like if you won you'd get a base amount of points then if you win by more than ten points it gets boosted and so on and so on. That way it promotes winning by large margins.
4RM3D;n8832460 said:
Not really it would give a more reliable idea of what you'll get/ lose at the end of the game meaning people could be less inclined to rage quit as they'd know what they're losing in terms of points. Also it would be a better incentive for winning securely and if it is close it means people don't loose out too badly.
mortimerMarshall;n8832810 said:
None of those points counter my argument that you are locked into playing a certain archetype (to maximize the difference in strength). Thus, still a bad idea. Besides, players will get even more frustrated when the opponent pulls out a Scorch in the final round.
4RM3D;n8833010 said:
Well no because you'd still get a decent amount of points just additional if you win by a lot so it wouldn't force you to change style but if you win by more you get a better result which I think is fair. Well that would be a good save by the other guy but still you can predict what you get rather than getting a ridiculous amount of point deducted for a close match.
mortimerMarshall;n8833120 said:
The mod is right. If this was the way of ranked points, then all you would see is dwarf decks and Morkvarg/ Olgierd skellige because they can get so many units to a high value.