Well, its just matchmaking. If you had a team of no prestige noobs against a team of Master prestige, it wouldnt be fair even though it does happen. Same idea here. I got one solution for you, join a decent clan to have like minded teammates. GHOSTS CLAN RECRUITMENT
Its better to have some organized team than a random one. I dont even play Ghost solo anymore because I cant handle the idiots that end up on my team.
I'm a loner, I don't do the clan/friend thing.
I can deal with having idiots on my side, that comes with online gaming...I just don't get why now COD has decided I should have NOTHING BUT idiots on my team!
All it means now is a serious amount of Lobby quitting on my part.
..And think about it, if the game makers equation now says if you have a high stat player in the lobby, you stack all the other above average players against him, and he quits you're left with THE most one sided match up ever.
It wasn't broken before, sometimes you had tough games, sometimes easier ones, the arrangement now is just dumb in the extreme.
Yeah true. But playing with randoms yields random results. The COD formula for matchmaking isnt necessarily fair, but does decent for the cards it has in its hand.The system has to make balanced teams for every lobby, and there are quite a few factors for changing teams. How do you think other players feel when they get bad teammates? Pretty much the same as you. Im not saying you're wrong, but the system for matchmaking cant really change a whole lot, the computer doesnt know who an idiot is or not. It just throws you in a lobby and matches you the best it can. If their was an option to narrow matchmaking making results, that could help, but there isnt those options. Its first come, first serve, and the ones that come first may be the majority faction we call noob.
Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. K/D: 2.12, W/L: 1.59. I use to run solo, but not anymore just for the exact reason you're having.
I here what you're saying, but the point is the system HAS changed a lot. Post (-presumably) the last GHOSTS update (-8th September ish) the more random method for who's on what side HAS clearly most definitely been altered to a new setup. I now can predict accurately who will be on my side in the pre game lobby, which was something I was never able to do under the old team selection.
I joined this Forum to see if anyone else had a) noticed it b) know why it was done c) vent my annoyance at it, as it has all but TOTALLY killed my enjoyment of playing to win.
Sometimes you are on the winning side sometimes you are not ... that is just how it goes.
I have a 1.56 TDM KD and and a 1.00 WL.
I can hold my own but I can't win a whole match by myself if the noobs keep doing their 720-no-scopes.
But I am not a quitter either ... I just switch to support and take down every killstreak the enemy team brings up
You say you have decent stats, and yes 2.44 KD is good but 11 avg killers p/game isn't good. I average 8 per game however I only play search and rescue, and that is pretty good for a person who always plays in a 6 man party. However if you are playing any other game mode 11 kills is terrible. You can't carry a team like that. I would rather be on a team with a person who has a 1.5 kd and has 20+ average kills per game.
If you wanna win, play with friends, but like you said you are a "loner" so you can't complain.
LOL get real . If you only avg 11 kills a game you barely move, how do you expect to contribute to a win ?
You got to play more of an active role to win matches , hence, sacrificing KD stats...
My avg kills is 26, I commit in all maps,which usually rubs off towards my random team mates whether it be TDM,DOM or any mode , having a mic also helps as long as your not overly forward this can result to being muted.
Sly was a bit blunt but a big part of your problem is you. Unless you are playing SnD, 11 kills per match is okay but it's not what is needed to carry a team to victory. I average between 25 and 35 kills per match even in TDM. When I have the occasional 11 or 12 kill match, I'm just glad that someone else on my team had a good game because I sure didn't do much. Now the reason this is so important to your dilemma is that you play solo. Whenever you play solo you run the risk of having bad teammates and you run the risk of going up against an organized clan (which happens a lot in Ghosts). Both of these things are going to make securing the win difficult. In order for you personally to see better results consistently you have to become the deciding factor. You've got to learn how to strap on the backpack and carry your team beyond their ability.
There is your problem. You are blaming everyone but yourself.
"I'm a loner, I don't do the clan/friend thing. " - and yet you play team-based modes and complain because you aren't guaranteed stellar teammates. Regardless of your score, are you doing anything to help the team? Call outs? ANYTHING? Or are you just playing selfishly to keep the stats you decided you had to mention in the first sentence of this thread?
"All it means now is a serious amount of Lobby quitting on my part." - Congrats on being part of the problem.
It hasn't changed. There have been a lot of clan-based activities lately so folks are playing with their groups. Even a mediocre team can often beat up on an unorganized group of randoms,especially if players on that team are playing selfishly and not for the team.
I have had to play lone wolf because of my weird schedule and because many of my friends have either stopped playing ghosts or upgraded to next gen... plus I don't get to play at the times we all used to party up any more.
So I have to play with randoms. I feel like I am a pretty strong player... I lead my team and am near the top of the lobby more often than not. And because I don't play with a team, I win some and lose some. I do what I can to help my team win, and have been able to lead pretty rag-tag teams to victory, even over clans.
Until you stop placing the blame outwards, you are going to continue to struggle and continue to be unhappy with your results.
I look at this question with interest because it applies to me quite a bit as well. Most of my friends no longer play COD or they only show up when a clan war is on, so I play solo at least 2/3 of the time. Because of the way parties dominate in objective modes, I have typically reverted to TDM. Because I have played way so much, my KDR (1.55) and average kills (12) are nothing special. Those numbers are deceptively low compared to recent monthly/weekly stats, though, so make sure you filter for time period when you are stat-stalking someone.
Like most people (you either do it, lie about not doing it or are one of the few who actually don't do it), I snoop through the competition stats in lobbies before the game. What I have come to realize is that the team getting the highest KDR players is often much less important than which one gets the lowest KDR players.
A bunch of average guys with 0.8 to 1.0 have at least demonstrated that they probably have opposable thumbs. If there is more than one sub 0.4 player on your team, though, you can count on having to carry a big load. The average joes will keep it close enough for you to make a difference, but the thumbless wonders are the guys that will drop a 4-24 and feed the enemy streaks.
Personally, I find that my best scores come from games when my teammates aren't all that good. When I play with my 2+ KDR buddies, you are luck to break double digits in TDM kills. When I play solo with a mediocre team, the enemy starts seeking me out for the revenge kills and I can get my streaks faster...plus I don't have to wait for airspace for my helo...
I don't know. Very good players usually know there will be a losing streak and poor performance. Just like a .325 based player going on bad streaks. I don't think he'll blame the ump or the ball is suddenly smaller. He'll know it's probably his own fault--lost his fundamental and more likely became over-confident.
...which makes me wonder how pure (or not pure) your KD really is.
I got a good laugh out of the "something has changed and now it sucks" posts. Hilarious. I figure those that believe that are either new to COD or new to running solo ... or new to being a top performing, solo player.
The team creation portion of the match-making process has always been quite predictable. Nothing about the system has changed and skill has ALWAYS been a major factor in determining teams (NOT LOBBIES). In other words, while skill is "a" factor in lobby formation, it is NOT "the" critical factor in placing 12 players into a lobby.
Only once 12 players are in the lobby does "skill" become critical. "Skill" is determined by an algorithm that incorporates a "large" number of player statistics that are not publicly available, not even to the individual player. Some of the statistics that are used are, however, easily seen. Statistics like K/DR, W/LR, time played, prestige/rank, accuracy, score per minute (SPM), score per match - these are all stats that are clearly observable or can easily be calculated by anyone observing the lobby. Other statistics that cannot be seen by either the player or anyone else except the studio are disconnect ratio, weapon variety, perk frequency, individual weapon performance, performance on specific maps (such as KDR on Stonehaven, etc), volume of passive lethals, etc, etc.
So using all those stats, how is "skill" determined? It is determined via an incredibly simple concept. Take all 12 players and rank them on each individual stat. I'll use three stats as an example: KDR, WLR, and SPM. I'll also do this for three fake players just to give the general idea.
KDR WLR SPM
Player A 1.1 0.34 246
Player B 1.6 0.75 357
Player C 2.1 0.52 138
Their ranks in each category would look like the following:
KDR WLR SPM Total
Player A 3 3 2 8
Player B 2 1 1 4
Player C 1 2 3 6
Thus, their overall "skill" ranking would be as follows:
Player B 1
Player C 2
Player A 3
Now, do that for all 12 players in the lobby and you have their "skill" rank - FOR THAT LOBBY, nothing else. (and DON'T FORGET that those are NOT the only stats used to determine skill).
Once this is determined, you now take the odd numbered rankings and put them on one team and the even number rankings on the other team and you have two teams of six (or nine in older games with GW). One might look at it this way ...
Team A Team B
You're right, that's not "balanced." But in a large way, it is balanced. The higher skilled players should not be penalized because they are better players. "Weaker" players should have to earn their way onto the "better" team. And that is exactly what happens. If you'll stay in the same lobby for more than 5 matches, you'll begin to notice that it is the lower performing players who tend to switch teams the most frequently from match to match. That's because you're higher ranked players are well-established and it will generally take a lot of significantly better or significantly worse matches in order for their rank to change.
I know what you're thinking. "What about parties?" Players that are in the same party are placed on the same team automatically. If there is a party of six, thus, creating two teams is very easy to do. If you see the enormous problem this can create, good for you. If not, I'll explain it later a little better but probably won't have to because the issue the OP is having is likely due to smaller parties.
Again, any time a party exists, that party is automatically together on one team, regardless of skill. So if you have a party of two who happen to be the # 1 and # 2 skill ranked players in the lobby, they are on the same team. Period. Once they are placed on a team, the other 10 players are placed according to the "normal" process used for random players. So what you then have is Team A being something like 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 versus Team B 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 ... or Team A: 31 vs. Team B: 47, where the lower the number, the higher the skill.
The system does a pretty good job of finding solo players to prevent such a huge disparity from happening - but ONLY if there are not 12 players already in the lobby. More common than the # 1 and # 2 players being partied together, you'll see a third player dropped into a lobby that is either the # 1 or # 2 ranked player in that lobby making the other two players either # 1 and # 3 or # 2 and # 3. Theoretically, that will balance out the lobby.
As the OP is discovering, however, what works on paper does not necessarily work in practice. What the OP describes sounds pretty close to how I approach the game, as well. Win or lose, I stay in the same lobby for long stretches. However, when I get into a lobby where there is a party that is obviously far more skilled than my random teammates, I may give it a run but if it is going to be a slaughter of my teammates, I'm out. It won't be a slaughter of me because I'll hunker down and gladly go 9-10 just to minimize the disaster. But the CODculture is such that "campers" are complained about so the rest of the team, not wanting to be deemed "campers" would rather run out there and get mowed down 30 times just to score 2 or 3 kills and not be a camper.
Okay, well, if pride is that stupid, I don't need to be on that team.
Anyway, back to the obvious - this system OVERWHELMINGLY favors partied players. Mathematically, yes, it is fair. But as soon as you throw parties into the mix, fairness gets thrown out the window. This is like gathering some Special Olympics kids and putting Magic Johnson on their team and then telling Magic he's evenly matched against last year's San Antonio Spurs.
But that's the way the system works today and it is the way the system has worked since COD4. What I've described in here is roughly what I described on a thread during MW3 while a dev was present. I was using about a dozen stats to explain how player skill rank was determined and he said that "far more" stats were actually used but the general concept that I described was exactly how the match-making system worked.
To the OP, what Yppe the Dog explained is pretty much exactly how you have to deal with it. You're in a statistic rut where you're literally such a good player that the system sees you outweighing most, if not all, other players in the lobby. If you're a solo player, life is going to suck for you if you're a strong player.
Welcome to the club.
This is good info. I never knew the extent to which they did this.
I have three accounts and all three have pretty good numbers and are pretty much the same (for those who think by resetting your account you will then get much better numbers. Think again. You're as good as you are and no resetting is going to change that.) I've been playing my newest account lately, with about a .2 higher KD and .5 higher SPM than the older two accounts.
Transitioning from the old to the new account didn't seem to be any different at all insofar as lobby make-up and overall player skill are concerned. But the other day I played my oldest account for the first time in quite a few months, with much more time played, master league ranking (didn't play league with new account), lower KD and SPM, and I just wasn't doing as good as when I was playing my newest account. I was losing gunfights I usually win. More importantly, the opposing team just seem to have better map skills, which lag for the most doesn't affect. They just seemed to be better at anticipating. In other words, they always seem to see me first.
Mind you, I played the two different accounts one right after the other.
Funny things is. Because I was just not doing as well playing with the old account, I adjusted my game That is, played a bit more aggressively when I could/should and less aggressively when I could/should. In other words, I went back to fundamentals instead of playing, because of overconfidence, recklessly or too reservedly.
Hence my point to the OP.
Smart gaming, Yppecaye.
And here's why. How much time you have played on each account can affect the type of lobby in which you find yourself. If you were running solo, the system may have been dropping you into lobbies that needed a couple more players with you being the "balancing" player against other top players on one team already in the lobby. Where you end up noticing the difference is that their "skill" may have been weaker in kdr, wlr, accuracy or something like that and the system weighted you as equal due to time played ... or vice versa.
I will note, though, Yppe, that I can't help but wonder if you didn't do something that I caught myself doing lately. My sensitivity settings are different on different CODs. I tend to forget that when switching games. Way back in the day when I had multiple accounts I would do the same thing within a single game - forgetting that different accounts had different settings.
Anyway, Yppe's point should be listened to closely for a couple of reasons. First, yep - your stats reflect what you are. You can improve them but not by resetting stats (remember, you also have to reset everything you've unlocked). The only way to improve stats is to get better at the game - and even that takes a long time before you start seeing any improvement. Second, like I said above ... every time your performance improves or diminishes, you change your skill ranking. And when that changes, you're going to change the skill of the players you are up against.