Guild Wars 2

So i just wanted to make a thread about the leader board, im still kind of hoping you can post it on the forum since i cant see the EU tops which would be cool.

Yet im a little taken back, yes the rating system is much better, the rewards are much better but it didnt do anything to make PvP more active.

Obviously there is a alt account issue among other things but i quickly just counted (NA) ( i could be +/- 1 or 2 on numbers so they are not permanent) the players in the top 250 of NA with X amount of game played.

24 or less games played- 28 = 11% of the leader board

49 or less games played- 62 = 25% of the Leader Board

I dont know what Anet feels is a good amount per season to play and i dont know what the community wants a leader board number to say but this isnt good.

You have PvE players playing lots and lots of games to get the easily acquired ascended armor. Heck you might have some WvW players coming in to get some nearly free ascended armor.

Thats great the more the merrier but once again what does this leader board do for PvP players?

You made a leader board where the importance of it is to get into the top 250, nothing else required. You have 25% of the leader board covered with players who have not even played the game.

Lets also play the hypothetical here and bring in alt accounts and say there is 25 alt accounts. (hahahahaha only 25)

We are now over 30% of what this leader board is suppose to stand for.

For me personally 75 games in a season sounds reasonable, if your one of the best players in the game and play 75 games boom Super Man can sit at the table but if i have top sit next Mumen Rider after he saved 4 cats and walked 3-4 old ladies across the street and is ranked in the top 200. Then decided he would wait for his check to come in at the end on the season because there is no reason to play anymore. For me thats a current issue with the leader board.

I agree that in season six some changes need to be made to the way the leaderboard and decay works.

There should be a minimum number of games people have to play (25? 50? 100?) before they even get placed on it, but the way decay works needs some adjustments as well.

The rating decay system was also great in theory, but it’s clearly designed in way that can be exploited. The decay doesn’t actually change your rating overall, but it does adjust the amount of rating you get per win. It was a great idea to have some kind of “catch-up” mechanic, but it’s far too forgiving and lets players catapult past divisions in literally 5-6 games with literally zero penalty.

Rather than just merely complain about it though, I’ll propose a few solutions I have in mind:

1. Set a games-played threshold to the leaderboard. Something like 50 games is absolutely reasonable over the course of a season.

2. Adjust the number of placement matches to 20 and/or cap out the highest you can land out of placeements at 1650.

3. Keep decay the way it is, but remove the bonus rating per win/loss when you return so that players can’t just easily lowball their games per season.

I agree there should be a minimum amount of games played to place on the leader board. Over the course of the season it’s not unreasonable for an active pvp player to play at least 50 matches.

Well i wanted people to throw in there own input. This wasnt just a complaint thread. Many people have pointed out the Leader Board as broken and im just backing it up.

For me first thing changed is the placement games. 10 games is a good number but lets say you go 10-0. The max number you should get is lets just say 1750. You should have to work to get into Plat 3 and legendary.

Next thing is fix the rating win/loss system. Top players dont want to lose rating knowing if they win they get 2-10 and if they lose -20-40. It takes away incentive to keep playing more games. Many of the top 10 players are no longer in the top 25.

Get rid of the decay system, its just bad.

Also the season is over 50 days long so it should have more then 50 games to me. I said before 75 was good but 100 sounds like a even number.

They also need to fix they way matches are done between players in different levels. Either its solo que or you can play with friends. If Anet wants duo que they need to create a more forgiving rating system.

Overall i want players with the best skill to be rated the highest but i also want them to actually play the season. People who dont belong in the top 250 are sitting with there placement scores because the leader board isnt good.

It be like naming a player MVP in basketball even though his team sucks or he got hurt and only played 10 games in a 82 game season.

I simply made this thread for suggestions for a better leader board and some of the things i thought needed addressed.

As long as ANet doesn’t do anything to ban people that pay to throw/smurf etc the GW2 leaderboard will never be competitive. Having said that…

Definitely there needs to be a limit on placement, I think Gold 1 would be fine since they can climb easily if they’re really that good.

150 games at the very least to show up on leaderboard in the final days I reckon, if you look at EU they’re very active and don’t just sit there with a high rating and AFK and then play every 3 days. Like I’ve said before, the decay needs to be more harsh the higher you are. Gold and below – no decay at all. Plat – decays every 2 days. Legendary – every day or something to that effect.

The rating loss is also a big deal – I gained 5 for a win and lost 16 for a loss the other night which just kills any motivation for me to play PvP. If I was at my skill level ~50% win rate then I would gain and lose the same amount and not move up at all but right now that rarely happens. I assume it is worse for top players higher ranked than me.

Which goes on to my next point, you cannot put 2100 MMR players together with 1700 and similarly 1700 with 1300 and expect that to create any meaningful matches! I’ve watched Ajax from EU stream against sind/misha who are wayyyy higher rated than his plat 1. I dont understand why you put them together, Ajax got punished for an unwinnable match (-7, but still) it’s just stupid.

fishball.7204:

As long as ANet doesn’t do anything to ban people that pay to throw/smurf etc the GW2 leaderboard will never be competitive. Having said that…

Definitely there needs to be a limit on placement, I think Gold 1 would be fine since they can climb easily if they’re really that good.

150 games at the very least to show up on leaderboard in the final days I reckon, if you look at EU they’re very active and don’t just sit there with a high rating and AFK and then play every 3 days. Like I’ve said before, the decay needs to be more harsh the higher you are. Gold and below – no decay at all. Plat – decays every 2 days. Legendary – every day or something to that effect.

The rating loss is also a big deal – I gained 5 for a win and lost 16 for a loss the other night which just kills any motivation for me to play PvP. If I was at my skill level ~50% win rate then I would gain and lose the same amount and not move up at all but right now that rarely happens. I assume it is worse for top players higher ranked than me.

Which goes on to my next point, you cannot put 2100 MMR players together with 1700 and similarly 1700 with 1300 and expect that to create any meaningful matches! I’ve watched Ajax from EU stream against sind/misha who are wayyyy higher rated than his plat 1. I dont understand why you put them together, Ajax got punished for an unwinnable match (-7, but still) it’s just stupid.

Yeah see i dont like a decay system.

I would really prefer just a game limit like X games played. Like if i know i cant play after jan 21 for example. So i play 100 games to get to the limit or 150. Then i go off to work or something i shouldnt be punished because i played the requirement.

Right now there are multiple people in the top 100 with 20 games or less and that shouldnt be the case, if they are the best players in the game fine thats ok. But they should have to play the limit games.

Like Lebron James plays 75 games a year and all the playoff games, you know hes gonna be in the eastern conference finals. The NBA doesnt let him skip the season and 2 rounds of playoffs.

So i would prefer if there was just a game req to meet.

I’d be ok with that but I’m pretty sure ANet wants people to play throughout the entire season that’s why they have decay in place :<

I’d rather just grind out X games too and just AFK after that because my rating isn’t going anywhere without significant changes (eg. my skill ceiling cap going up a lot) so I cbf.

The only actual downside I see is that there will be a lot less people playing after they’ve achieved their X games because there’s little reason to play unless they want something specific (eg. top 250).

Motivation to play the throughout the season is needed, otherwise what is there to keep the population? This season saw massive influx of players when it commenced, now the population has dropped decidedly.

I’m not a major fan of decay, but under the current system without it there is no reason to keep playing once you achieve your desired rating.

I have also noticed the lack of matches played by NA leaderboard. Absolutely yes, there should be a minimum number of games to qualify for the leaderboard.

MissCee.1295:

I have also noticed the lack of matches played by NA leaderboard. Absolutely yes, there should be a minimum number of games to qualify for the leaderboard.

Absolutely. Literally over 20% of the leaderboard, roughly ~55 players as the writing of this post (give or take a couple due to human error) are in the top 250 with under 50 games played.

This includes 4 of the top 5, 5 of the top 10, and 10 of the top 30.

75 games is not very reasonable at all imo a season is 2 months long an your average game is like 9 minutes long. So you going to be the top player in the game playing 11 hours in two months? I mean man you must really enjoy pvp in this game to be playing it an hour a week. I understand we don’t want this to be a grind but really I would think a couple hundred game in two months should be the goal. You shouldn’t be able to maintain the top rating playing less then what I would consider even casual. You should be putting your rating on the line often.

I have over 90 matches played and I usually only play weekends and we still have a month to go. So anyone who wants to be in the Top 250 should be required to play 100 games over the course of the season to be eligible. That is extremely easy to do for any non super casual player.

Even using very conservative stats of 4 matches per hour, that’s 25 hours over 2 months. That’s just over 3 hours per WEEK. If you only played weekends that easily doable.
Come on ANET fix this already.

EU is having the same issue: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Enable-minimum-200-games-for-leaderboard/6459584