Addressing the issue of ELO-hell.

I’m not saying you don’t get bad matchmaking where you have very few chances of winning to no chance, I’m saying over a time period of 100+ games that evens out because you have as much of a chance to benefit from matchmaking as you do to suffer from it.

This is what everybody has said since the start of this topic.

And as I said 50/50 chance does not mean it will even out. There will be some people with a lot of good luck and some with a lot of bad luck.

Because of the garbage MM, the bad luck people will delete the game and we have lost players. Which just makes the MM even worse. So we are kind of in a Relic MM Hell.

Another big problem with ELO hell is you only get 1 out of 3-5 games where you can actually play it out and win. So you have to go full sweat mode on those games. No fun strats. No mistakes. Or you lose. So now when you make a mistake you get severely punished, frustrated, and delete the game.

Where the "lucky" player gets to play 3-5 games any way they want since they will most likely win anyway.

The Relic MM is a real problem. And it is a HUGE problem. And it has eaten away player base since the games inception.

That is why I am on here everyday lobbying for you guys. It needs fixed ASAP. I dont care about my ranks. I just want it to be fun for players. And smashing the shit out of Level 2-6 players is not fun for anyone involved.

Someone at Relic should already be writing the code for COH3 servers. If not, start. And implement it soon.

Here is my current streak (+7). Did I all of a sudden just became a Grand Master Wizard at Coh2? I mean I was a LEVEL 14 three years ago. But now I get it and can play much better?


And I dont have to go far to see the flip side of this pattern (-5)(-9). These are the people I care about. These guys may have already deleted the game. And how could I blame them or talk them out of it?


And of course all of the elitist dorks here will say "Hey man, they have a shit win ratio man....". Yes and how do you think it got that way? Use your brains. L2P is not the panacea you think it is.

Here is my current streak (+7). Did I all of a sudden just became a Grand Master Wizard at Coh2? I mean I was a LEVEL 14 three years ago. But now I get it and can play much better?

That's actually sums up my 4v4 experience. After each match in that mode, I feel like I've lost some brain and nerve cells, while simultaneously made my self worse at the game. Basically a temporary debuff of losing 10 IQ points. Any number from 9 to 15 matches may make you temporary braindead. Watch out!

Here is a guy who is currently rank 20 with a 7 win streak??? With that crappy win ratio??? Did he just start using map hacks or is it the dog squeeze relic Match Making?

That's actually sums up my 4v4 experience. After each match in that mode, I feel like I've lost some brain and nerve cells, while simultaneously made my self worse at the game. Basically a temporary debuff of losing 10 IQ points. Any number from 9 to 15 matches may make you temporary braindead. Watch out!

LOL, in the USA we have SURGEON GENERAL warnings on things harmful to your health. Maybe COH2 should have this warning on it so people dont delete them game. They just wait out the brain damage they just received

And as I said 50/50 chance does not mean it will even out..

That’s…..exactly what it means……

That’s…..exactly what it means……

If the MM has given you 10 bad games in a row you still have a 50% chance it will give you another bad game. It does not mean it will automatically even out and you will now win 10 games.

You could never win a game again theoretically. Unlikely, but completely possible. Your next game is still a 50% chance of losing.

Maybe the people with 40% sub 40% winrate are the reason games are lost because they simply play terrible.
There are not consistently enough players that bad online to put them all in one match.
And even then the losestreak continues for half of them.

And i told you 55% is all it takes in 4v4

Also people are not losing 10 in a row because of terrible coin flips.
They are losing because of terrible play.

There are not consistently enough players that bad online to put them all in one match.

You saw this right? I personally have had as many as 5 of these games in a row. There are always a ton of players worse than you playing and Relic will seek them out.

Maybe the people with 40% sub 40% winrate are the reason games are lost because they simply play terrible.
There are not consistently enough players that bad online to put them all in one match.
And even then the losestreak continues for half of them.

And i told you 55% is all it takes in 4v4

You know what's more funny about this entire situation? If a certain person didn't qualify for the biodiversity museum they could easily be top 200 with a lower than 50% win rate. But to consistently /l without trying any of the games will lead to terrible outcomes.

Also, I made top 10 with a ~50% win rate in 4v4 randoms. So you don't even need 55%, what matters is winning the games where you gain the most ELO because not all wins are equal at the end of the day and that's something no one here is really talking about.

Maybe not enough terribad people to fill out 2 teams then.
They are a rare breed.

what matters is winning the games where you gain the most ELO because not all wins are equal at the end of the day and that's something no one here is really talking about.

I agree 100%. I did not want to muddy the waters further since people are having trouble handling the statistic so far.

What happens when you get rekt 5 games in a row by the same "unranked" top 10 premade team? You should lose NO ELO at all since they are really top 10 players. But the monkeys at Retardic have no concept of this so you may lose a ton of ELO. Does anyone know? Do we have proof and data to support it?

There are a number of things that make this whole process not a 50/50 system. We do not have the Relic server code. There could be a number of things programmed into it that harm certain players. We have no idea.

Lets look at this another way: How many game should a person lose before they get a win?

Should the server at a minimum try to give a person a better chance after forcing them to lose 5 games in a row? 10 games in a row?

How about maybe remove them from a certain map if they just lost on the same map 3 times in a row?

Maybe not enough terribad people to fill out 2 teams then.
They are a rare breed.

It's 4v4. Everyone is terribad. Especially Miku.

It's 4v4. Everyone is terribad. Especially Miku.

And me. I am trash.

I agree 100%. I did not want to muddy the waters further since people are having trouble handling the statistic so far.

What happens when you get rekt 5 games in a row by the same "unranked" top 10 premade team? You should lose NO ELO at all since they are really top 10 players. But the monkeys at Retardic have no concept of this so you may lose a ton of ELO. Does anyone know? Do we have proof and data to support it?

There are a number of things that make this whole process not a 50/50 system. We do not have the Relic server code. There could be a number of things programmed into it that harm certain players. We have no idea.

Lets look at this another way: How many game should a person lose before they get a win?

Should the server at a minimum try to give a person a better chance after forcing them to lose 5 games in a row? 10 games in a row?

You may lose tons of ELO, but you can also regain it back over the course of a week. It's a back and forth tug, but you reduce your chances of clawing it all back if you continually /l based on your teammates before a match begins or when things go bad.

It's really not going to be a 50/50 system in any form because of premades and also I don't think the ELO gain/loss averages out to 50/50 either, it's a very spikey system made worse by the relative poor quality of players at all but the top 50 in 4s.

I have gone on 12-15 game losing streaks and have gotten 10 game winning streaks, I've gone from rank 50 to rank 400 in an evening. I don't think asking how many games a person should lose before they get a win is a correct one given the context of competitive ranking even if it is a shitty one because the answer is always going to be: a player should lose as many games as it takes until they get a win. There is no room for pity mechanics here when you're talking about something that is binary in definition - you either win or lose. Now how much ELO you win or lose that can be up for debate.

LOL, in the USA we have SURGEON GENERAL warnings on things harmful to your health. Maybe COH2 should have this warning on it so people dont delete them game. They just wait out the brain damage they just received

Well the butthurt is definitely temporary and all the stupid habits and braindead spam tactics you've picked up there could be remedied with a competitive 1v1 match or three 2v2s. The 2v2s are not conclusive though, as you may encounter a JT/Ele/ISU player alongside MG and 120mm spammers.
It is believed that the path+scott spam may also be hazardous. However, the last type of cancer is fearlessly debated in the coh2 community, but some anecdotal evidence show that it might put the axis player into the uninstall fever or even have an worse effects, such as JT/ele building disorder and chronic meta whoring.

And me. I am trash.

Can't tell because you don't play a good portion of your matches and Miku rage quits just as often even when we're winning.

Also, I doubt it because I have an entire 'friends pending' list of people I absolutely hate in 4v4 and some of them are within the top 200. One day they'll accept my friend invite and I can yell at them... one day.

Oh, my 2v2 is at a 47% win rate, but I am rank 258 or some crap. It really is about just playing every game to your best ability.

If the MM has given you 10 bad games in a row you still have a 50% chance it will give you another bad game. It does not mean it will automatically even out and you will now win 10 games..

Do you even understand basic statistics? The more the sample size increases the less the outliers affect the overall outcome.

Please stop spouting nonsense.

Do you even understand basic statistics? The more the sample size increases the less the outliers affect the overall outcome.

Please stop spouting nonsense.

Um, Rosbone's statement is correct. It's an extreme example of Bayes theorem. You're talking about regression towards the mean which is a concept and not an actual theorem.