Guild Wars 2

Here are the top 25 players on the current leaderboard ranked by how many points per win they average.

I would say this means that they tend to win “bigger” than predicted, and lose less severely than predicted.

That means they tend to help their teams the most.

You think that the best player in tpvp is rockin a 45% win ratio????

julesremain.7260:

You think that the best player in tpvp is rockin a 45% win ratio????

well probably. If you play in a team game, all of your teamates have high ratting too. So even if you win, I doubt you get much point.

I dont’ think the ladder is fair though. Since how do you determine who is better. The best teamq players or the best soloq players.

julesremain.7260:

You think that the best player in tpvp is rockin a 45% win ratio????

Win ratio means nothing when matcher is forced to put you, solo, into matches against experienced teams on voice communication. They have an advantage.

Win ratio only counts when the playing field is “level”.

You are terribly wrong.

0.98 is how many pts per win I am at. Which is substantially higher than some people in the screenshot, and I have a better winrate. Difference between those people and me is I don’t grind the board 24/7.

Silentshoes.1805:

julesremain.7260:

You think that the best player in tpvp is rockin a 45% win ratio????

Win ratio means nothing when matcher is forced to put you, solo, into matches against experienced teams on voice communication. They have an advantage.

Win ration only counts when the playing field is “level”.

the playing field would be more level if premades had the proper mmr boost.

but you should never expect fair games at high mmr with short q times and a small community. which is what people are complaining about and unrealistically expect out of matchmaking.

SobeSoul.6910:

You are terribly wrong.

0.98 is how many pts per win I am at. Which is substantially higher than some people in the screenshot, and I have a better winrate. Difference between those people and me is I don’t grind the board 24/7.

What is wrong?

How strong a win is a better indicator, hence the “Points Per Win” from the point award grid based on how tough a match it was. And I chose the “top 25” since they have maintained the Pts Per WIn over the most games. That is a more “consistent” “Pts per Win” because it happened over a long run of matches.

The simple “win rate” is not a good indicator, because you can be given a match you are expected to lose.

Lopez.7369:

I don’t think this really means anything. This could just be a bunch of low-MMR players who happen to be less bad than the people they face but are still pretty bad.

No evidence of that. Over time the matcher does tend to put you with your MMR groups.

To be honest, the leaderboard currently just feels like ‘WHO CAN RAKE UP THE MOST POINTS BY PLAYING THE MOST MATCHES!?! Try your luck now and play as many matches as possible!’

-.-

Holl.3109:

To be honest, the leaderboard currently just feels like ‘WHO CAN RAKE UP THE MOST POINTS BY PLAYING THE MOST MATCHES!?! Try your luck now and play as many matches as possible!’

-.-

Not if you look at the “Points per Win”. Which is really the “toughness of the win”.

Silentshoes.1805:

SobeSoul.6910:

You are terribly wrong.

0.98 is how many pts per win I am at. Which is substantially higher than some people in the screenshot, and I have a better winrate. Difference between those people and me is I don’t grind the board 24/7.

What is wrong?

How strong a win is a better indicator, hence the “Points Per Win” from the point award grid based on how tough a match it was. And I chose the “top 25” since they had the most games. That is a more “consistent” “Pts per Win” because it happened over a long run of matches.

The simple “win rate” is not a good indicator, because you can be given a match you are expected to lose.

Odds of victory which doles out point is a flawed. Take the highest skilled player vs. the lowest skilled players based on mmr. We will need to use ceteris paribus here. We cannot take into account unknown factors like who the highly skilled players are teaming with. I do see a lot of the ESL and tournament contenders queueing with others.

Highest skilled players probably can only expect a pts per win ratio of 1 unless they whole team blows MMR wise, because naturally their mmr is higher so the predictor will only award them one point for a game they play. Where as lower skilled players can get more pts per win if they happen to do real well for whatever reason.

tl;dr

The best players would still be screwed

LOL what is that? The leaderboard is suppose to represent the best. For example if everyone is to solo que who do i want on my team? Guess what ill take 3 of my guild mates who like me are slightly above average over these top 25 so called leaders of the board.

I have a guild mate 9-0, i see others like noscoc at what is it 100-5. And your telling me that i should want these 25 people over magictoker,ostrich eggs,josre, and zoose? please stop it. Its had to tell if your really believe this or just trolling.

Points per win isn’t the way you should value it… I mentioned this suggestion a few weeks before. The leaderboard should be based on points/games played (with a minimum of 100 to enforce people to play at least 100 games to utilize the max point ratio, or else some lucky streaker will stop with say 10 victories and no losses).

Because in your example the guy with 130 points is 3rd, while he certainly does better than the guys with 129 and 124 points since he lost less games!

112-92 130pts would be 130/204 = 0.637
111-115 129 pts would be 129/226 = 0.570
97-114 124 pts would be 124/211 = 0,587

As you can see the guy with more losses but heavier wins is still ranked above the close to 50% win ratio guy. But the guy who lost less is taking the lead. It will also lower the grindiness of pvp as only 100 games are necessary and premades will be up ahead again because they usually have big win % but they’ll have less points (1) every win. If they only reach 66% win rate with their premade, they still stand a chance of being behind a person like that guy with 112-92.

Also the matrix of anet is wrong imo, a more fair set up should be:

0-20 -1 -1 0 +1 +3
21-39 -1 -1 -1 0 +2
40-59 -1 -1 -1 0 +1 (as is)
60-79 -2 -2 -1 -1 +1
80-100 -3 -2 -2 -1 +1

Mostly the 0 turned into -1 (except for even teams small loss). I don’t see why good teams with 100% chance to win should receive no punishment for losing barely. They were supposed to stomp em!

kdaddy.5431:

LOL what is that? The leaderboard is suppose to represent the best. For example if everyone is to solo que who do i want on my team? Guess what ill take 3 of my guild mates who like me are slightly above average over these top 25 so called leaders of the board.

I have a guild mate 9-0, i see others like noscoc at what is it 100-5. And your telling me that i should want these 25 people over magictoker,ostrich eggs,josre, and zoose? please stop it. Its had to tell if your really believe this or just trolling.

I’ll explain it for you kdaddy.

When you win against higher odds, you get more points. Because you won tougher matches.

High MMR players who play on voice communications with a team have a huge advantage and get easy wins against uncoordinated soloers. They play against easy odds. They don’t get many points for their easy games.

All of your “best” players ought to play solo for 100 matches and show us how many tough matches you can win and get a Points Per Win of 2.00.

SobeSoul.6910:

You are terribly wrong.

0.98 is how many pts per win I am at. Which is substantially higher than some people in the screenshot, and I have a better winrate. Difference between those people and me is I don’t grind the board 24/7.

this.

So let me get it straight, people who take the time to coordinate or have friends who they like to play with should be penalized? Also they were on top of the solo que leader board too. Your logic makes no sense, if i win a match i wasnt expected to win great but if i play that same team 5 more time and lost 5 it doesnt mean im better then them.

Also you saying they should solo, why? I solo que most of the time but i dont feel i should get more credit for it. If muliplte team up and coordinate there builds and strategy i feel they should get credit for it. There are people who are small groups of 3-4 who try to find other pugs in hotm to get a better feel for the team and guess what they still lose.

And you missed my point completly, im sorry but there is no one in this top 25 im taking if i had a choice who what 4 other people i can choose from. Those so called best players where on top of the solo and team que for literal months and just because we now use a leaderboard where farming is what is called for now, after pvp was made so easy for everyone. Anet makes getting ranks easier, they make builds easier for the new people coming in easier and now you want to punish those who have friends or made friends threw pvp because they take to time to get on team speak? Would you aslo like for people you fight against play with 1 hand or have 20% less life. Im sorry pvp should not be equal, if you play a group of really good players and you got 3 bad pugs. You should get warped, if i play kobe bryant 1 vs 1 i shouldnt complain because hes 5 inches taller then me or because he jumps 5 inches higher. I should know going in that those things are going to give him a advantage when i dont have those things.

kdaddy said: " Im sorry pvp should not be equal," (i.e. not use handicapping in the league).

That will kill sPvP, since there are no brackets. You will just have a handful of people waiting to crush everyone else.

Everyone else will just go play something else.

Which is what has been happening in GW2 over the past year.

But if you reward people for performing better than their average, they have something to strive for.

ArenaNet can periodically list the names of the highest MMR players, as their reward. That’s better for the game than having them matched against new and uncoordinated players people and crush them all day long.

Grump, I think I see what you mean. Losses that still give a point should have more weight. Is that what you are saying?

Holl.3109:

To be honest, the leaderboard currently just feels like ‘WHO CAN RAKE UP THE MOST POINTS BY PLAYING THE MOST MATCHES!?! Try your luck now and play as many matches as possible!’

-.-

sure anyone can play a lot of matches, but they still have to win those matches in order to earn some ladder points.

playing a lot of matches and at the same time losing matches means losing ladder points.

and contrary to popular belief, it is very, very hard to lose the match and still somehow managed to score at least 400 team points if match prediction says your team only have 0 – 19% chance to win the match.

especially if the match making system placed you against a very good team.

Im sorry once you again your talking about the little guy, this is the LEADER BOARD. The leader board is suppose to represent the best. Now the people starting off on the bottom should be fighting other people starting out from the bottom. Also your tlaking about rewarding everyone who does better then there average which is fine but you dont lead the gw2 community on by posting up a leaderboard of average players.

If you want to talk about leaderboard seasons and rewards for it, thats fine. That way incoming players can practice now and get better for the next season but as constructed this is not a good leader board. Your argument has no base.

Points per win, should we all have win shares or per?(player efficiency rating) You have made better cases in the past couple weeks but this was bad.

Here are the top 25 players on the current leaderboard ranked by how many points per win they average.

I would say this means that they tend to win “bigger” than predicted, and lose less severely than predicted.

That means they tend to help their teams the most.

You got people who have more losses then wins. Im sorry but im average and i win more then 50%. I have friends who are great winning 60%+ and not in the top 200. Tell me how some guy who isnt better then my friend higher then him on a leader board thats here to tell community who the best pvp players are?

kdaddy,

There is a disadvantage that solo players have when they are matched up against friends playing together, often with voice communications. That’s an advantage that grants more wins.

What we are talking about in the ladder scoring is a “handicap system” .

From Wikipedia: "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning… Handicapping is used in scoring many games and competitive sports, including go, chess, croquet, golf, bowling, polo, basketball, and track and field events. "

As I said, ArenaNet can regularly publish the MMRs of the “top players.” and give them titles, etc. That would be recognition. But don’t just have them play “lower bracket” players and call that fair.

If there aren’t going to be brackets, then adjust the ladder points awarded to make the games more even and fair. Let the team that plays better than their average ability win.

this is worse than what we have.

points per game makes a little bit of sense, but even then you’re putting a cap on people with high mmr (cap at 1) who are most likely the best true players.

Im not disagreeing with you on the fairness but i am on the idea that average players should be the top 50 on the leader board. Im sorry but if you have michael jordan and scottie pippen on your team and i got chris dudley and chris childs im going to lose. I understand your trying to say make it as fair as possible which i agree with but i cant agree with a leader board and system that dont show the best players. There are guys with literally less then 42% win rates on this board, is it great for them to get points on a win. Of course but its not fair to the guy who is solo queing or with 1 friend and these guys ahve 60%+ wins. The entire system is play as many games as possible and if your really good +1 and if your average +2 when the best players in the game dont play all at the same time.

How do you feel about the 20 or so people with 65%+ wins and over 80 wins not being near the top 50? Or some of the guys who are walking around at 20-2. I mean not everyone can spend hours on end playing this game. Just wondering your thoughts on how to assimilate there value into the pvp leader board structure.

Silentshoes.1805:

Not if you look at the “Points per Win”. Which is really the “toughness of the win”.

You don’t know who do you face in match and what’s their rating.
The only thing you can do is to grind that ladder.
Actually number of games played matters the most.

Silentshoes.1805:

Here are the top 25 players on the current leaderboard ranked by how many points per win they average.

I would say this means that they tend to win “bigger” than predicted, and lose less severely than predicted.

That means they tend to help their teams the most.

Your calculation is awfully wrong, since it does not include the points, the player is loosing.

You just divided the points through this number of victories. But since a loose also cost points, a victory must first have earned more points in the first place.

Not to mention, the people in your ladder who are in the first place:
newby.1225 Points: 3; Number of victories 1: => Points per victory: 3; number 1 yeah!

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

That’s a terrible idea. It would only work if solo queue and team queue were split again.

kdaddy.5431:

Im not disagreeing with you on the fairness but i am on the idea that average players should be the top 50 on the leader board. Im sorry but if you have michael jordan and scottie pippen on your team and i got chris dudley and chris childs im going to lose. I understand your trying to say make it as fair as possible which i agree with but i cant agree with a leader board and system that dont show the best players. There are guys with literally less then 42% win rates on this board, is it great for them to get points on a win. Of course but its not fair to the guy who is solo queing or with 1 friend and these guys ahve 60%+ wins. The entire system is play as many games as possible and if your really good +1 and if your average +2 when the best players in the game dont play all at the same time.

How do you feel about the 20 or so people with 65%+ wins and over 80 wins not being near the top 50? Or some of the guys who are walking around at 20-2. I mean not everyone can spend hours on end playing this game. Just wondering your thoughts on how to assimilate there value into the pvp leader board structure.

kdaddy,

I agree that they need recognition. But whatever rank they achieve should not include easy games against inexperienced and uncoordinated teams. Such things “inflate” their rank artificially.

Being in the Platinum Bracket would be their main recognition in most games. But we don’t have brackets.

Someone suggested that ArenaNet should just separate the ladder into three regions and call them Platinum, Gold and Silver, and restart the rank numbering within each section. I like that idea.

Yet I also want the blowouts to stop since they are so demoralizing for newer players and players stuck on a weak team.

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon.9524:

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon,

Please explain why win-loss means something when the matcher gives you games it expects you to lose.

Seriously. Explain your logic.

If a pro football team played in a high school league would their win record mean anything?

Archaon.9524:

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon does not understand why they lost, I guess.

Lopez.7369:

Win-loss ratio is a completely useless metric. If I won 100 matches against a team full of keyboard-turning clickers who don’t even have traits, an amulet, runes, and sigils selected, I’d have a 100 percent win ratio and would be ranked higher than someone who won 50 out of 100 matches against Abjured — even though the person who can beat Abjured deserves to be ranked much higher.

The current leaderboard sucks, but a ladder based on win-loss ratio is the worst possible replacement.

May I suggest the old leaderboard system with Split Solo and Team Qs and Leagues or brackets?

points per win is pretty valid. that means regardless of your win/loss record ,the highest points per win will be players who only lost games they were expected to lose, and never lose games they were expected to win.

the problem many don’t seem to understand is that NO system will make much sense or be very accurate when the majority of players have still only played a few dozen games so far on it.

give it some time.

Lol i dont get it, you say yeah they should be valued but give no real points to bring them in. I have a guild mate who is 12-1 in ranked games. He mostly solo ques and/or party with 1-2 guild members and we dont use ts for pvp. This is a leaderboard for pvp players where winning is the name of the game. I shouldnt see a guy with a 38% win rate over my friend. I know of 2 people ranked in the 400-500 area who are elite players in the pvp land. They have over 60% win rates and just because they dont play 5-10 games a day, your saying they shouldnt be higher. Its hard to try and debate this with someone who talks so poorly about people who coordinate better cause they use ts. Its a advantage yes but im 100% sure that those guys with 65% win rates are better then the 45% with or without ts.

Points per game is a better indicator than points per win.

Lopez.7369:

Solstice.1097:

points per win is pretty valid. that means regardless of your win/loss record ,the highest points per win will be players who only lost games they were expected to lose, and never lose games they were expected to win.

the problem many don’t seem to understand is that NO system will make much sense or be very accurate when the majority of players have still only played a few dozen games so far on it.

give it some time.

This is a math problem. We don’t need to wait to see some magical scenario in which each person plays hundreds of matches. The current leaderboard system is a grind — pure and simple. The old system actually measured skill better, even with all its problems.

Points per win doesn’t solve any of these problems. In fact, it arguably worsens them since high-MMR players have a much more difficult time getting matches that are worth more than 1 point.

What’s worse is these aren’t some new, unsolvable problems that ArenaNet is the first to tackle. Other games have had functioning leaderboard system for years. But the developers ignored those solutions and instead created a monstrosity of a system that satisfies a handful of people who like grinding tons of matches.

You can’t fault them for trying. All we’ve been hearing for the past year is how bad the old system was. New system in and well…. yea…

Fact is though, this new system is good. The only problem? Solo q and Team Q smashed together. It feels like no Team is getting challenged so people form teams so they can steam roll people. If the queues were split Team Q peeps would get their fair share of leaderboard grinders but they’ll drop pretty fast if they come up against people who they should beat but end up not beating and Solo Q will remain solo Q, random and painful.

kdaddy,

I am puzzled by why win ratio is so important in your mind. The matcher often puts players against teams that are “above their bracket” and it expects you to lose. It gives some people a lower win ratio by giving then impossible matches on a regular basis.

You are assuming the matcher always gives you an even chance. Everyone knows that is not true. Especially in off peak hours.

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon,

Please explain why win-loss means something when the matcher gives you games it expects you to lose.

Seriously. Explain your logic.

If a pro football team played in a high school league would their win record mean anything?

If you’re expected to loose you’re not a good team…good teams should be expected to loose only a few games once in a while or noone at all, regardless who they face

When football teams play vs trash ones do they get less points? Or bad team gets points when losing just because they weren’t expected to win? No..noone gives a kitten if they were supposed to lose or not, if you lose you get nothing…end of the story. At the end of the season the team that won most matches, and with better win\loss ratio always ends on top…you will never see bad ones get something just because they tryharded a lot and failed

Archaon, why do you think other game have brackets, like Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze?

Why do you think they go to the trouble of doing that?

There is a reason.

you can only average more than 1 point per win in the beginning. once your MMR increases you can no longer average more than 1 point per win. if your MMR isn’t increasing, that means you are losing games you shouldn’t have lost.

nobody should expect their MMR to be accurate after playing 30 games. nobody should expect to be on leaderboard in 100 games. the people that have grinded their way to the top better enjoy their place while they have it, because over time the players who just play better will eventually have enough games played to overtake them.

Solstice,

That’s a problem for high MMR players. I agree.

The only thing I can think of is brackets where they can earn higher points for tough games against people of their level.

Lopez.7369:

Dirame.8521:

You can’t fault them for trying. All we’ve been hearing for the past year is how bad the old system was. New system in and well…. yea…

The point is they didn’t have to “try.” They could have copied and pasted the leaderboard system from World of Warcraft, WildStar, or Starcraft 2 and it would have been fine. Instead, they created a new system that created all sorts of problems without solving anything.

I think GW2 is a complex team game and experienced teams who get good can really outplay new people. And that discourages new players from sticking with it. So, low population and tough matchmaking and leaderboard issues.

Silentshoes.1805:

Solstice,

That’s a problem for high MMR players. I agree.

The only thing I can think of is brackets where they can earn higher points for tough games against people of their level.

well the best players will KEEP their “almost 1 point per win” ratio.

the grinders will not be able to maintain that ratio once their MMRs increase.

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon, why do you think other game have brackets, like Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze?

Why do you think they go to the trouble of doing that?

There is a reason.

Here we would have like 20-30 ppl in platinum\gold\whatever…and after those an ocean of pve heroes in bronze farming for chests, achievements, title or whatever . High level pvp in EU is just about no more then always the same 20-30 ppl (And it’s pretty optimistic) otside that there’s just…nothing. And this is why most games are 500 – <100 roflstomps…still i can’t see the reason why good players has to be punished with max 1 pnt no matter what for winning with their team (This is a team game after all) while bad ones are rewarded when losing..if you don’t have\make a team it’s your fault…i personally wouldn’t even allow anything that is not a 5ppl premade to go into ranked…if you’re less then 5 ppl you can just go unranked or hotjoin (With no rewards, track and so on). This would give a way better team based ladder (As it should be) promoting ppl to play as a team not as a bunch of headless chickens on meth…wanna see ppl starting to play in half decent way? Just stop giving rewards to losers, no rewards at all in hotjoin (Or practice like they like to call it now) no matter if you win or lose…some silvers for winning team in unranked…and reward track only from winning ranked matches, in both ranked and unranked if you lose you get nothing…not less…just..ZERO

I assure you’re gonna see ppl trying to organize teams and play decently pop up in no time…instead of just randomly going solo with no clue

Archaon.9524:

Here we would have like 20-30 ppl in platinum\gold\whatever…and after those an ocean of pve heroes in bronze farming for chests, achievements, title or whatever . High level pvp in EU is just about no more then always the same 20-30 ppl (And it’s pretty optimistic) otside that there’s just…nothing. And this is why most games are 500 – <100 roflstomps…

OK, I understand where you are coming from.

Perhaps GW2 is a bit odd. It’s a “twitch-response” gaming mechanic in an MMO world.

I think perhaps it’s too “hard” for the general MMO type. Not all of them. But MMOS don’t attract the classic Street Fighter, Half-Life, Call of Duty-type crowd of gamers.