Leaderboard matchmaking system broken?

I bounce around the 800-1200 rank for both factions and I've found I get stuck in loop because of the matchmaking system.

i.e.

I will play one or two games, win and maybe move up to rank 800, my next opponent will be in the top 200 (aerohank) or rank 9 (holyhammer), I will of course lose horribly and drop down the ladder to rank 1600, I will then move up the ladder to rank 800 and the same thing will happen again, This will continue over and over.

I don't believe this is fair or fun for either party.

Is it because of lack of players online at that time?
Could we be allowed to set our own rank search range?

Has anyone experienced the same issue?

I think it's just because not enough people are searching 1v1 at a given time (or you are also a bit "lucky" in the search timing). Probably about half my matches have been against people in the top 100.

To play versus good players are much better, then play versus top1000.Atleast you can learn samethink.

game is too unbalanced to care about leader-boards in my opinion,

i think next patch they should reset all ranks, they probably wont...

To play versus good players are much better, then play versus top1000.Atleast you can learn samethink.

While it might be an honor to play against a top player (and lose horribly) once in a while it does seem to happen rather frequently.

I've had some ranked games in 1v1 against Top 50 players and let me tell you:
As a mediocre player (800-1000) I didn't learn that much - even after studying the replays.

Except, I do now know the following:
Top players can micro 4+ simultaneous engagements - I cannot.
So surprise! They outmicroed me right away.
Those games were lost after the first 5 to 10 minutes and thus hardly any fun at all, for either player I think.



Would be nice to have some sort of indication as to the skill level of your opponent like in vCoh.

While it might be an honor to play against a top player (and lose horribly) once in a while it does seem to happen rather frequently.

I've had some ranked games in 1v1 against Top 50 players and let me tell you:
As a mediocre player (800-1000) I didn't learn that much - even after studying the replays.

Except, I do now know the following:
Top players can micro 4+ simultaneous engagements - I cannot.
So surprise! They outmicroed me right away.
Those games were lost after the first 5 to 10 minutes and thus hardly any fun at all, for either player I think.



Would be nice to have some sort of indication as to the skill level of your opponent like in vCoh.

At least it is not just me then.

game is too unbalanced to care about leader-boards in my opinion,

i think next patch they should reset all ranks, they probably wont...

I wish they did reset the boards, it would at least let the decay system work from day one, instead we're just going to have to wait for it to slowly remove inactive players.

To play versus good players are much better, then play versus top1000.Atleast you can learn samethink.

All I learnt was how bad I am compared to the top tier

.

What was worrying for me is that I noticed 2 players so far (after replay tool came out)

One, was my teamate in 2v2, he was ranked about 5-6 k, after the game. had 0 wins 3 losses (similar stats in all modes), overall rank 12. He spent entire game building M3's and putting Cons and Penals in them (for about 20 min), absolutely clueless.

My opponents weren't that brilliant since I managed to fight it out with them for 30 min, until I got overwhelmed by vet2 and vet 3 armor (you guessed it, he charged with his M3's filled with infantry on tanks, losing every single unit to the last model)

I got dropped by more then 3000 places, because I assume he was ranked 2-3000 before game, if he dropped as much as me. And our opponents were low ranked.

Anyway, what's confusing me:

1. How the hell is he ranked that high to start with, being so clueless
2. Does ELO take any account of damage dealt, kills, point caps, etc or just wins/loss

Either way it makes no sense at all


3v3 and 4v4 games, I am almost always lowest ranked 90k-100,000 (with Soviets) Regardless of me having almost every game, highest kill ratio, damage dealt, points caped, etc. Often double that of my entire team combined, yet somehow they are ranked well better than me..........

Had a guy in 4v4 on my team that was ranked about 10,000 when he obviously played the game 4 times (thats how many losses he had) and didn't go through campaign, straight into multiplayer. (absolutely clueless about all aspects of the game, didn't even know he needs to cap points)


So yeah, I read a lot of things about Ranks, ELO, how matchmaking works and was always frustrated with unbalanced games. I always attributed that to lack of players searching, but since Replay tool came out.

I am suspecting that ELO and leaderboards are just completely broken, and all those explanations from Relic, just bull....

Anyway, what's confusing me:

1. How the hell is he ranked that high to start with, being so clueless
2. Does ELO take any account of damage dealt, kills, point caps, etc or just wins/loss

Either way it makes no sense at all


I am suspecting that ELO and leaderboards are just completely broken, and all those explanations from Relic, just bull....

i had a hard time understanding your story. someone with 0 wins and 3 losses was rank 12? that doesnt make sense. maybe im reading that wrong?

but to answer your second question, no it doesnt any of those stats into account. in a sense, total number of wins/losses isnt even that important. your elo relative to your opponent is determines the change in your rating. a high ranked player beating a low ranked player will have a small effect on both players ratings, but if the low ranked player wins, there will be a much greater effect on both players. just look at the top 10 soviet 1v1, this is why ivan has over 400 wins and isnt the top rank. its also why a player like シャナ can be ranked 10 with only 39 games played. ivan is obvoiusly playing a lot of low rank players, while シャナ won against some much higher ranked players.

leaderboards are working fine. all theyre doing is comparing elo. you can read more about it here if you want to know more specific details on how it works.

i think the issue (if you can call it that) that the rest of this thread is about is not the leaderboard, but matchmaking. lots of players dont understand how matchmaking works. when you start the queue, the system tries to match you to a player/team within a specific range of your elo. after a while, if it cant find a suitable match, the range is increased to improve your chances of finding a game. the range will keep increasing until you find a game. this means the longer youre in the queue, the more likely you will be matched with someone much better or much worse than you, but if you find a game quickly, you are most likely very similar in elo rating. so if there arent many players on, instead of sitting in the queue indefinitely, some unfair games will be set up. this might not be ideal, but if the playerbase is small, its better than not finding a game at all.

i had a hard time understanding your story. someone with 0 wins and 3 losses was rank 12? that doesnt make sense. maybe im reading that wrong?

Rank 12, is overall rank (you know the one from 1-100), meaning he didn't play many games

His COH2 leaderboard rank, after the game, was 5-6,000. I went down 3000+ places in that game, I assume he did as well. Logically I would conclude that before that game, He was ranked around 2-3000 in 2v2 mode.

after the game was finished he had 0 wins 3 losses and was ranked 5-6000.

You are not reading it wrong, it just doesn't make any sense at all. One way or the other, there is something wrong there. ELO? COH2 leaderboard bug? Replay tool bug? IDK, it makes no sense.

P.S. I know very well how ELO is meant to work in theory, it just doesn't seem to be doing good job...

I come across many player who are good player but low ranked, and many players who are borderline clueless with decent/high ranks.....

Practice doesn't support theory.

P.P.S. i would have never noticed this if I wasn't trying replay tool

i think the issue (if you can call it that) that the rest of this thread is about is not the leaderboard, but matchmaking.

If the ELO isn't doing good enough job, than matchmaking will automatically be affected. I had to many games to just keep accepting "low player base'

You cannot tell me that in 15 minutes of waiting, best thing matchmaking can find me is someone ranked 50,000 places bellow me. Ok if its rarely, but it happens quite often. to me, to Ivan and to other players.

The player base isn't that low

I actually disagree with this but if the playerbase is small, its better than not finding a game at all. I would rather wait another 15 min

I seem to mostly get games slightly below my ladder rank, occasionally one equal and occasionally one way higher. It's reassuring losing more slowly than you think you will against players who are actually good. The only time I've had a LITERALLYCAN'TDOANYTHING game was against Sib but I don't remember particularly dropping more than a few dozen ranks as a result of playing any really decent players.

If the ELO isn't doing good enough job, than matchmaking will automatically be affected. I had to many games to just keep accepting "low player base'

You cannot tell me that in 15 minutes of waiting, best thing matchmaking can find me is someone ranked 50,000 places bellow me. Ok if its rarely, but it happens quite often. to me, to Ivan and to other players.

The player base isn't that low

I actually disagree with this but if the playerbase is small, its better than not finding a game at all. I would rather wait another 15 min

using ivan is a bad example. very few players can match the top 10 players in elo and its extremely unlikely that many will be in the queue at any given time. the player base isnt that low, but the number of players queued at the same time is quite low. look at a game like war thunder. even with 25,000+ players online, youll see something like 100 players in queue. so even if theres thousands of players on coh2, most people are playing single player, comp stomping, or in game, not in the queue.

you might be willing to wait 15 minutes for a game, but i think most people would disagree. i know the majority of my games are against players much lower ranked than me, but id rather be playing than staring at the queue. in a team game tonight, i got matched with a player 100,000 ranks lower than me. even so, its better than playing a computer or not playing at all.

using ivan is a bad example. very few players can match the top 10 players in elo and its extremely unlikely that many will be in the queue at any given time. the player base isnt that low, but the number of players queued at the same time is quite low. look at a game like war thunder. even with 25,000+ players online, youll see something like 100 players in queue. so even if theres thousands of players on coh2, most people are playing single player, comp stomping, or in game, not in the queue.

you might be willing to wait 15 minutes for a game, but i think most people would disagree. i know the majority of my games are against players much lower ranked than me, but id rather be playing than staring at the queue. in a team game tonight, i got matched with a player 100,000 ranks lower than me. even so, its better than playing a computer or not playing at all.

I guess, we all have different opinions. Personally, i would rather not play with someone 100,000 ranks bellow me than play. (which isn't possible as 4v4 Soviet, since I am stuck in, what appears, inescapable 90,000-100,000 rank loop).
But I don't have option, for obvious reasons.

As far as Ivan is concerned, fair enough. Most people ranked above and around him have quit playing.

Still doesn't make ELO very good skill indicator or matchmaker. Until it incorporates more data from the game (which is never) Especially for team games.
with ladder decay of course

Very small player base is the underlying problem. Even smaller at the top.

I still don't understand how can someone with 0 wins and 3 losses be ranked 5-6,000. That just doesn't make any sense, any and every which way I try to look at it.

It has to be some bug, somewhere. Even thinking of ELO being responsible gives me chills

Yeah, just a tiny player base.

I wish more upper intermediate skilled players were playing...But I have had the same thing, you get up to the top 100 or so, and you start hitting the warp speed multitaskers, so you quit 1v1 and go play 2v2 or something.

Rank 12, is overall rank (you know the one from 1-100), meaning he didn't play many games

You are referring to level not rank in this case. Not a biggie but the using the wrong words for things like level and rank can be very confusing.

@Topic I think it would be interesting if you could actually check a box or something, where you accept long waitingtimes for better ELO matches.