1V1 Ranked matchmaking

Is it just me or is the 1v1 matchmaking somewhat off?

Note beforehand: Currently level 9/12/10/11/16 (Sov/Wehr/USF/OPW/Brit) after 47/83/69/89/132 games.

Lately i have noticed that my wins are really 1-sided. Out of maybe the last 40 wins, only 4-5 have been memorable games where i had to outsmart/outtactic/outplay my opponent to win. Rest have all been gg easy, stomps really. What surprises me here is that when i check their level after the game, they're all between 3-5 levels below mine. Most recent game i was LVL12 as Ost against a LVL7 Soviet. Rest of his levels weren't any better. And this isn't just a single case. If you go back in my history it's the case way more often.

I know there aren't a lot of people playing so matchmaking can be a bit off, but isn't this taking away the fun for both parties involved? I cba to wait 10 minutes in queue to get matched against some disgusting blobber or maxim abusing animals (hi zarok) that has no clue how to play differently due to being HARD stuck level 7-9, while they are probably tired of waiting that same queue time and then getting gg easy'd in 15 minutes.



Also, on a side note, what is up with the Brit ranking? Ladder -> page 16. Level 13 -> 16 ???

I don´t know if my opinion is even valid because I don´t have the time to play often and are only rank 5 with Ost, but I noticed that the skill of my oppnent greatly varies. Usually after 2 or 3 wins I get someone who wipes the floor with me and knocks me back down one rank.

Is it just me or is the 1v1 matchmaking somewhat off?

Note beforehand: Currently level 9/12/10/11/16 (Sov/Wehr/USF/OPW/Brit) after 47/83/69/89/132 games.

Lately i have noticed that my wins are really 1-sided. Out of maybe the last 40 wins, only 4-5 have been memorable games where i had to outsmart/outtactic/outplay my opponent to win. Rest have all been gg easy, stomps really. What surprises me here is that when i check their level after the game, they're all between 3-5 levels below mine. Most recent game i was LVL12 as Ost against a LVL7 Soviet. Rest of his levels weren't any better. And this isn't just a single case. If you go back in my history it's the case way more often.

I know there aren't a lot of people playing so matchmaking can be a bit off, but isn't this taking away the fun for both parties involved? I cba to wait 10 minutes in queue to get matched against some disgusting blobber or maxim abusing animals (hi zarok) that has no clue how to play differently due to being HARD stuck level 7-9, while they are probably tired of waiting that same queue time and then getting gg easy'd in 15 minutes.



Also, on a side note, what is up with the Brit ranking? Ladder -> page 16. Level 13 -> 16 ???

Ranks 1-2 are always level 20, 3-13 is 19, 14-36 is 18, 37-80 is 17, 81-200 is 16, but then after the ranks use elo to differentiate. So in more populated ladders levels 14 and 15 are both used, in slightly smaller ladders there tends to be no level 15s, and in smaller ladders still (brit 1v1) there is no level 14 or 15. This is because after the top 200 players have been given the fixed ranks, there is no one with elo high enough to classify as 15 and 14.

Basically a lot of the level 16s as brits might only be level 14 as ost even if they were equally good at both factions, and the same as level 17s being 'real' level 16s etc.

I am about rank 350 as OKW (Level 13) and about 750 as Ost (Level 11 - 13) and I played them all...

Jove some weeks ago, RtN.Talisman yesterday, HelpingHans, StephenJF, Jesulin, etc...

It's just like "Okay I got two options:

a) I quit immediately which is a bitch move but I will lose anyway
b) I won't quit, play a few minutes and get raped and lose anyway
"

Both are not very enjoyable.

Is it just me or is the 1v1 matchmaking somewhat off?

Note beforehand: Currently level 9/12/10/11/16 (Sov/Wehr/USF/OPW/Brit) after 47/83/69/89/132 games.

Lately i have noticed that my wins are really 1-sided. Out of maybe the last 40 wins, only 4-5 have been memorable games where i had to outsmart/outtactic/outplay my opponent to win. Rest have all been gg easy, stomps really. What surprises me here is that when i check their level after the game, they're all between 3-5 levels below mine. Most recent game i was LVL12 as Ost against a LVL7 Soviet. Rest of his levels weren't any better. And this isn't just a single case. If you go back in my history it's the case way more often.

I know there aren't a lot of people playing so matchmaking can be a bit off, but isn't this taking away the fun for both parties involved? I cba to wait 10 minutes in queue to get matched against some disgusting blobber or maxim abusing animals (hi zarok) that has no clue how to play differently due to being HARD stuck level 7-9, while they are probably tired of waiting that same queue time and then getting gg easy'd in 15 minutes.



Also, on a side note, what is up with the Brit ranking? Ladder -> page 16. Level 13 -> 16 ???

Matchmaking is heavily influenced by the players online at any time. It can go to as low as 2,000 but can be as high as 10,000 at times. ELO ranks aren't necessarily and indication of skill, either. Because they fluctuate with every game (except maybe the top 10?) there is no anchor point one can really judge their skill. There was a time, before the ladder changes, that my Ostheer rank was in the low 400s. Went on a twenty-some loss streak and went to 2200, then leveled back out at around 1,500.

Recently, I've lost to players who are a few hundred ranks below me, but I've also beat players just over 100 (about 200 ranks above me).

I am about rank 350 as OKW (Level 13) and about 750 as Ost (Level 11 - 13) and I played them all...

Jove some weeks ago, RtN.Talisman yesterday, HelpingHans, StephenJF, Jesulin, etc...

It's just like "Okay I got two options:

a) I quit immediately which is a bitch move but I will lose anyway
b) I won't quit, play a few minutes and get raped and lose anyway
"

Both are not very enjoyable.

If you are around 350, you can't really complain. Yeah, it's just way too much real skill difference, but you should expect to face regularly people who are 200 ranks above or below you. 400 ranks difference when the MM has been searching for a while isn't weird.

Matchmaking is heavily influenced by the players online at any time. It can go to as low as 2,000 but can be as high as 10,000 at times. ELO ranks aren't necessarily and indication of skill, either. Because they fluctuate with every game (except maybe the top 10?) there is no anchor point one can really judge their skill. There was a time, before the ladder changes, that my Ostheer rank was in the low 400s. Went on a twenty-some loss streak and went to 2200, then leveled back out at around 1,500.

Recently, I've lost to players who are a few hundred ranks below me, but I've also beat players just over 100 (about 200 ranks above me).

How do you go on a 20 something loss streak if you are roughly appropriately ranked?! If u have a 50% chance of winning against an on-level opponent you have a 0.5^20=0.000000095 chance of losing 20 times in a row, except that as you lose your games your opponent will on average get worse so you should now have a more than 50% chance of winning and so that probability is even lower...

I would have accepted the argument you got unlucky a lot and got overmatched opponents queueing at bad times but then you wouldn't have lost much elo and hence many ranks for losing to the much better players so wouldn't have plummeted to 2000 which is in the bottom half of the ladder. And the fact you levelled out back to only 1500 suggests either there was something dodgy about your rank 400 or you got substantially worse (?).

I've never lost more than 5 games in a row in 1v1! And over my time playing many RTSs I've almost never gone on loss streaks on more than 4-5 games in a row.

I am about rank 350 as OKW (Level 13) and about 750 as Ost (Level 11 - 13) and I played them all...

Jove some weeks ago, RtN.Talisman yesterday, HelpingHans, StephenJF, Jesulin, etc...

It's just like "Okay I got two options:

a) I quit immediately which is a bitch move but I will lose anyway
b) I won't quit, play a few minutes and get raped and lose anyway
"

Both are not very enjoyable.

Yup, basically my problem in a nutshell. Except for me it has been getting matched against lower players, takes away most of the challenge as it's either a complete shitstomp or a prolonged complete shitstomp.

I like winning and shit, but this doesn't feel like something i'd play a game for.

Ranks 1-2 are always level 20, 3-13 is 19, 14-36 is 18, 37-80 is 17, 81-200 is 16, but then after the ranks use elo to differentiate.

Didn't know that, thanks. That solves part 2 of my question.

How do you go on a 20 something loss streak if you are roughly appropriately ranked?! If u have a 50% chance of winning against an on-level opponent you have a 0.5^20=0.000000095 chance of losing 20 times in a row, except that as you lose your games your opponent will on average get worse so you should now have a more than 50% chance of winning and so that probability is even lower...

I would have accepted the argument you got unlucky a lot and got overmatched opponents queueing at bad times but then you wouldn't have lost much elo and hence many ranks for losing to the much better players so wouldn't have plummeted to 2000 which is in the bottom half of the ladder. And the fact you levelled out back to only 1500 suggests either there was something dodgy about your rank 400 or you got substantially worse (?).

I've never lost more than 5 games in a row in 1v1! And over my time playing many RTSs I've almost never gone on loss streaks on more than 4-5 games in a row.

The problem is that when you launch into a game of 1v1 of coh2, even if your elo rank is equivalent to your opponent's, you won't have a fifty percent chance to win.

As ranks fluctuate, different units come into play, different strategies, commanders, etc.

The last game I lost was when I was above rank 2,000. It was on semoskiy winter against soviet industry tactics.

Now, at that stage in the meta (about a year ago, I believe) soviet industry was almost never seen in 1v1. Or, at least, I had not encountered it in quite a while. I was on the back foot, wasn't as good as I was now. Using Gren/fausts and PaK40s to counter multiple T70s is hard. Then came the T34s and it was just unstoppable.

I've come quite a ways since then; watching ESL has helped, I think, but it was definitely a frustrating match. So much so that I remember it vividly. My opponent's infantry micro was terrible but I was so scarred into thinking that ostheer can't be aggressive and that I must maintain my little bubble of defense on semoskiy.


Anyway, you can't assume that there's a 50% chance of winning among equal players. Shit happens that you don't expect/prepare for, RNG can be unmerciful, or you can be tired af but still playing coh2 because you've got nothing better to do with your life.

Recently, I've lost to players who are a few hundred ranks below me, but I've also beat players just over 100 (about 200 ranks above me).

Nothing out of the ordinary, its not like ELO is a golden rule for who should win a given matchup. Shitty players spam games and have inflated rank, some people streak off consistently getting matched vs far inferior players, people have good or bad days, people sometimes to lose to lower ranked players when they do something unorthodox, sometimes you get the shitty side on an imbalanced map, people return after extended breaks with a new patch and don't know the current meta, etc. If you're in the top 50 and lose to someone that got the game 2 weeks ago then maybe you should scratch your head after that one, but a bunch of white kids from Yale beat Baylor last week so it shouldn't come as a surprise when a rank 300 RTS players lose some games to people that are #500.