Guild Wars 2

Can we add two new variables to skill rating to improve accuracy and match quality while eliminating the unfair mechanics in the ladder?

1. Add a lifetime skill point variable which increases everyone’s skill rating by the number of lifetime Ranked matches won divided by 10. So a player with 3000 Ranked matches won would get +300 rating added to their base.

2. Add a seasonal skill point variable which increases everyone’s skill rating by the number of matches won during the season divided by 2.5. So a player winning 100 matches during a season would get a skill rating bonus of +40 points.

This will better separate the player base by experience and skill and discourage people from creating multiple alternate accounts and stealing multiple places in the top 250.

This will also correct the inaccuracy of the top 10 positions on the leaderboard. The point is to factor lifetime and seasonal experience into the skill rating.

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s completely untrue. The professionals have played several thousand games and are, obviously, very skilled. Likewise, new players (having no experience), have played very few games and are low skilled. By suggesting there is no correlation you are saying experience doesn’t correlate to skill. I’ve never heard such an axiom. That’s ridiculous.

I would go as far as to say there is not only a correlation, but a causation. Show me someone who is good at anything without experience? You can’t have skill without it.

Do you think it is fair for the top 250 spots to be loaded with alt accounts? That makes a mockery of the whole thing. Look at position number one and two on the leaderboards. Another mockery.

Archon.6480:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s completely untrue. The professionals have played several thousand games and are, obviously, very skilled. Likewise, new players (having no experience), have played very few games and are low skilled.

I would go as far as to say there is not only a correlation, but a causation. Show me someone who is good at anything without experience? You can’t have skill without it.

Do you think it is fair for the top 250 spots to be loaded with alt accounts? That makes a mockery of the whole thing. Look at position number one and two on the leaderboards. Another mockery.

Number of times doing something does not mean you are good at it, especially if the player never actually try to improve.

Improving accuracy by adding a completely irrelevant factor into the equation?

Don’t want to be mean, but you just won the worst suggestion of the week award, and there’s some serious competitors for that award.

A number of games will never represent your skill in any meaningful way just like anything that just accumulates over time.
I myself have never played ranked PvP besides the first year simply because I didn’t see a representation of skill in grinding your way through divisions. I wasn’t even rank 80, yet got placed mid plat (EU btw) after my placement matches, because I very well know how to play the game without the need of having played ranked before.

There are people who’ve played thousands of games and are still terrible. I’ve met them. They come on here to post how they’re vets and don’t deserve to be in bronze. Sure with skill comes experience but it’s not necessarily true the other way around.

BlaqueFyre.5678:

Number of times doing something does not mean you are good at it, especially if the player never actually try to improve.

Of course, that is true. But is not relevant. I am saying experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating skill. I mean seriously. How many resumes have you completed that did not require you to list prior experience? Would you really pay a software engineer with 10 years experience the same as one with no experience?

So, my suggestion is to include it as a factor.

Honest John.4673:

There are people who’ve played thousands of games and are still terrible. I’ve met them. They come on here to post how they’re vets and don’t deserve to be in bronze. Sure with skill comes experience but it’s not necessarily true the other way around.

I’ve met far more who have no experience and can barely find the keys on their keyboard.

Entenkommando.5208:

A number of games will never represent your skill in any meaningful way just like anything that just accumulates over time.
I myself have never played ranked PvP besides the first year simply because I didn’t see a representation of skill in grinding your way through divisions. I wasn’t even rank 80, yet got placed mid plat (EU btw) after my placement matches, because I very well know how to play the game without the need of having played ranked before.

Are you sure you belong there? Perhaps you are one of the players making platinum a complete mess. How could you know the difference?

Archon.6480:

BlaqueFyre.5678:

Number of times doing something does not mean you are good at it, especially if the player never actually try to improve.

Of course, that is true. But is not relevant. I am saying experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating skill. I mean seriously. How many resumes have you completed that did not require you to list prior experience? Would you really pay a software engineer with 10 years experience the same as one with no experience?

So, my suggestion is to include it as a factor.

The systems rates you essentially based on performance not on experience two completely different things, you should not be considered more skilled because you have played a lot…

Spoichiche.1290:

Improving accuracy by adding a completely irrelevant factor into the equation?

Next time you go on an interview. Tell them experience is completely irrelevant. Heck, why not try out for captain of the nearest professional football team. Tell them experience is irrelevant, when they ask why they should consider you.

Don’t want to be mean, but you just won the worst suggestion of the week award, and there’s some serious competitors for that award.

No offense taken. I think you just won it. I mean look at the top 10 leaderboard. You think maybe there is a problem with the metrics that determined 1st and 2nd place?

Archon.6480:

BlaqueFyre.5678:

Number of times doing something does not mean you are good at it, especially if the player never actually try to improve.

Of course, that is true. But is not relevant. I am saying experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating skill. I mean seriously. How many resumes have you completed that did not require you to list prior experience? Would you really pay a software engineer with 10 years experience the same as one with no experience?

So, my suggestion is to include it as a factor.

If that software engineer has been fired from every job he’s had then no, I would not hire him. Experience alone is not proof of skill. With your suggestion, players would slowly but surely continue to move up in rank despite never actually improving.

Archon.6480:

Spoichiche.1290:

Improving accuracy by adding a completely irrelevant factor into the equation?

Next time you go on an interview. Tell them experience is completely irrelevant. Heck, why not try out for captain of the nearest professional football team. Tell them experience is irrelevant, when they ask why they should consider you.

Don’t want to be mean, but you just won the worst suggestion of the week award, and there’s some serious competitors for that award.

No offense taken. I think you just won it. I mean look at the top 10 leaderboard. You think maybe there is a problem with the metrics that determined 1st and 2nd place?

Wow, look at this guy he has thousands of games that means he has a lot of experience. I sure want him on my team:

How about this guy? 3,800+ games played. Seems pretty experienced…. at losing. (data is real and taken from gw2pvp.de)

Archon.6480:

Next time you go on an interview. Tell them experience is completely irrelevant. Heck, why not try out for captain of the nearest professional football team. Tell them experience is irrelevant, when they ask why they should consider you.

Employers don’t really look at years of experience (what you’re asking to do); they look at your record and current skill set. A sports team doesn’t hire a mediocre player just because they’ve been in the league for a while.

Archon.6480:

Entenkommando.5208:

A number of games will never represent your skill in any meaningful way just like anything that just accumulates over time.
I myself have never played ranked PvP besides the first year simply because I didn’t see a representation of skill in grinding your way through divisions. I wasn’t even rank 80, yet got placed mid plat (EU btw) after my placement matches, because I very well know how to play the game without the need of having played ranked before.

Are you sure you belong there? Perhaps you are one of the players making platinum a complete mess. How could you know the difference?

Yes I’m certain with that and I really enjoyed being able to rely on some teamwork and communication.

Honest John.4673:

How about this guy? 3,800+ games played. Seems pretty experienced…. at losing. (data is real and taken from gw2pvp.de)

Yeah, you really should read more carefully. I said that “ranked games won” should be the metric. Not total games played. There is a significant difference.

Shaogin.2679:

Archon.6480:

BlaqueFyre.5678:

Number of times doing something does not mean you are good at it, especially if the player never actually try to improve.

Of course, that is true. But is not relevant. I am saying experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating skill. I mean seriously. How many resumes have you completed that did not require you to list prior experience? Would you really pay a software engineer with 10 years experience the same as one with no experience?

So, my suggestion is to include it as a factor.

If that software engineer has been fired from every job he’s had then no, I would not hire him. Experience alone is not proof of skill. With your suggestion, players would slowly but surely continue to move up in rank despite never actually improving.

No, I am going to post a few examples to clear this up. They would be seeded higher but would loose placement just as fast as they do now. That part is working well and would stay the same.

Archon.6480:

Honest John.4673:

How about this guy? 3,800+ games played. Seems pretty experienced…. at losing. (data is real and taken from gw2pvp.de)

Yeah, you really should read more carefully. I said that “ranked games won” should be the metric. Not total games played. There is a significant difference.

They still don’t deserve it though. If you won 1600 ranked games, great, still doesn’t mean you’re good or deserve to be seeded higher esp. if your losses are much much higher. That person already has a very low MMR to begin with.

If you’re worried about seeding they already did it in a way with the soft reset. If you were a very good player your mmr before placements started off at (old mmr+1200)/2 meaning the much better players already started off higher and the lower ones, even if they had thousands of games started off lower (as to not get completely crushed in placements). Your solution would place them much higher than they belong.

Honest John.4673:

There are people who’ve played thousands of games and are still terrible. I’ve met them. They come on here to post how they’re vets and don’t deserve to be in bronze. Sure with skill comes experience but it’s not necessarily true the other way around.

That’s fine. Do you know people who have won thousands of Ranked games who are worse than players who have never queued in ranked?

The leagues are seeded with beginners in all levels. The algorithm to determine initial seeding was over simplistic. There are many factors that can be used to get a more accurate seeding…. like Ranked Matches won. It’s not perfect but better than nothing.

I’m pretty sure, there are “new” players that are better than some who played thousands of games. And if new players are bad, they will lose rating quite fast so unless you are at the bottom of the rating already, you won’t see that much new players anyways, because i doubt ranked PvP gets flooded with new newbies all the time.

And your comparison with experience in real life jobs or sports is bad, because there you have to do a good job over time, otherwise there will be consequences. Meanwhile in GW2 you could play as bad as you want and don’t even notice how bad you actually are, because of how the matchmaking works.

It would help people realize how bad they are if the announcer would boo them.

“Player x is being a little kitten.”

UmbraNoctis.1907:

I’m pretty sure, there are “new” players that are better than some who played thousands of games. And if new players are bad, they will lose rating quite fast so unless you are at the bottom of the rating already, you won’t see that much new players anyways, because i doubt ranked PvP gets flooded with new newbies all the time.

And your comparison with experience in real life jobs or sports is bad, because there you have to do a good job over time, otherwise there will be consequences. Meanwhile in GW2 you could play as bad as you want and don’t even notice how bad you actually are, because of how the matchmaking works.

I am pretty sure the only new players who are better than bad players with thousands of ranked wins are smurfs. That or GW2 PvP is a joke where anyone who mashes buttons can succeed.

I am surprised more people are not annoyed at the mismatched games and cheating that is going on with smurf accounts. Top 250 is a joke. Many positions locked in with alt accounts. Smurfs throwing matches and disconnecting to promote main accounts. Bleh. Something needs to be done to ensure smurfs don’t start in platinum or legendary.

If nothing changes, the season will end with exploiters taking position one and two and many of the top 250 positions.

Archon.6480:

Do you know people who have won thousands of Ranked games who are worse than players who have never queued in ranked?

Drazeh spends 90% of his gametime dueling other players.
When Sindrener joined orange logo he barely played spvp, as he came from the gvg scene and was already an outstanding thief.

A player doesn’t git gud just because he keeps playing more and more ranked games. The only way he can get better is by actively trying to improve his own gameplay, and that includes reading guides, watching streams, dueling good players and learning from them, recording your gameplay and analysing it afterward, ect.

There may be a correlation between player skill and the number of ranked win but there is no causality. Taking it into account when calculating player skill will only reduce the accuracy of the system.

New to ranked PvP doesn’t neccessarily mean, new to the game or PvP in general. When i started playing ranked PvP at the beginning of season 1, i already played some unranked PvP and WvW and did pretty well against those average players. I don’t play that much PvP overall and i’m still way below 1000 ranked matches played, yet i always had 60+% winratio. And i’m pretty sure, i’m not the only one. Not everyone needs thousands of matches to figure out how to play the game and not everyone who plays a lot, improves a lot. You might be surprised how terrible “experienced” players can be.

To “fix” some smurf isses it might help to increase the amount of placement games to 50 or even 100 matches to make it a bit harder to get into the top 250, but in the end, some players will always try to exploit and manipulate the system and as long there is no punishment for doing so, it won’t change. Sadly. Making the system less accurate is not a solution though.

Currently 3 of the top 5 are under 13 games played. Only one of those guys really belongs there at 120ish games played.

Season 5 = Season 5murf.

That’s only in NA though, EU ranking seems reasonable. It’s as much a player issue as an issue with the system.

Noscoc
Marvin

How would your system rank these two players?

Gwaihir.1745:

Currently 3 of the top 5 are under 13 games played. Only one of those guys really belongs there at 120ish games played.

So what do you expect? How many games is “enough” to be at the top?

Exedore.6320:

Gwaihir.1745:

Currently 3 of the top 5 are under 13 games played. Only one of those guys really belongs there at 120ish games played.

So what do you expect? How many games is “enough” to be at the top?

I never stated an amount to be at the top. If you cant see that someone holding there at 15 games is smurfing that’s another issue. I suggest that players simply not be allowed to place into anything above t1 platinum.

Gwaihir.1745:

Exedore.6320:

So what do you expect? How many games is “enough” to be at the top?

I never stated an amount to be at the top. If you cant see that someone holding there at 15 games is smurfing that’s another issue. I suggest that players simply not be allowed to place into anything above t1 platinum.

So 15 games is not enough according to a number from your posterior. How many is “enough”? I’ll help you out: you need to look at how many games it takes for rating to reasonably converge at the true number. Now go do some research.

Further, is it wrong for players to have ratings at top if that rating is truly reflective of their skill?

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

Unfair ladders has a fair and simple solution.

Keep skill rating as is, but introduce a cap to your effective rating.
So, you need say 30 games for your effective rating to break gold; 50 games to break platinum, and 100 games to completely remove the cap on effective rating.

This ensures that all players in higher divisions at least has a decent amount of games to determine their skill rating.

Archon.6480:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s completely untrue. The professionals have played several thousand games and are, obviously, very skilled. Likewise, new players (having no experience), have played very few games and are low skilled. By suggesting there is no correlation you are saying experience doesn’t correlate to skill. I’ve never heard such an axiom. That’s ridiculous.

I would go as far as to say there is not only a correlation, but a causation. Show me someone who is good at anything without experience? You can’t have skill without it.

Do you think it is fair for the top 250 spots to be loaded with alt accounts? That makes a mockery of the whole thing. Look at position number one and two on the leaderboards. Another mockery.

I completely disagree about giving people who have played a lot of matches a built in advantage. That game mode is WvW. The game is similar to a skill based sport. Some people no matter how much they play won’t get very good. Take golf for example. There are lots of people that have played for years and are awful at it, where as you can take someone that has aptitude for it and they would be shooting better scores in a couple of months. The leaderboard should not be a grind based one.

I agree the top couple of spots look fishy. Having people on the top spots that have played 1/10th the matches that others have seems wrong. While they may be good players, something makes me think they are gaming the system to get the ranking they have.

I think the final standings should be based off of a final placement and tournament using only the top 250/500/1000 (pick a number) players. Only allow accounts that are tied to a phone number to participate and only one per number.

Faux Play.6104:

Archon.6480:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s completely untrue. The professionals have played several thousand games and are, obviously, very skilled. Likewise, new players (having no experience), have played very few games and are low skilled. By suggesting there is no correlation you are saying experience doesn’t correlate to skill. I’ve never heard such an axiom. That’s ridiculous.

I would go as far as to say there is not only a correlation, but a causation. Show me someone who is good at anything without experience? You can’t have skill without it.

Do you think it is fair for the top 250 spots to be loaded with alt accounts? That makes a mockery of the whole thing. Look at position number one and two on the leaderboards. Another mockery.

I completely disagree about giving people who have played a lot of matches a built in advantage. That game mode is WvW. The game is similar to a skill based sport. Some people no matter how much they play won’t get very good. Take golf for example. There are lots of people that have played for years and are awful at it, where as you can take someone that has aptitude for it and they would be shooting better scores in a couple of months. The leaderboard should not be a grind based one.

I agree the top couple of spots look fishy. Having people on the top spots that have played 1/10th the matches that others have seems wrong. While they may be good players, something makes me think they are gaming the system to get the ranking they have.

I think the final standings should be based off of a final placement and tournament using only the top 250/500/1000 (pick a number) players. Only allow accounts that are tied to a phone number to participate and only one per number.

That’s not what they are saying. They are saying that experience makes better players. Not that in this season alone it applies. Most players with few matches and high ranking have played loads either on other accounts or prior to this season.

Having things tied to phones is a no no.

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Did I miss the part where they said they wanted “improved rating” for experience?

Essence Snow.3194:

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Did I miss the part where they said they wanted “improved rating” for experience?

They said they wanted to get better rating for “experience” so they did yes.

BlaqueFyre.5678:

Essence Snow.3194:

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Did I miss the part where they said they wanted “improved rating” for experience?

They said they wanted to get better rating for “experience” so they did yes.

Can you show me where? Quote plz?

Gwaihir.1745:

It would help people realize how bad they are if the announcer would boo them.

“Player x is being a little kitten.”

Ha, ha. I like it!

“Archon is on a death streak!”
“It looks like Jim Bob is AFK!”

Archon.6480:

Can we add two new variables to skill rating to improve accuracy and match quality while eliminating the unfair mechanics in the ladder?

1. Add a lifetime skill point variable which increases everyone’s skill rating by the number of lifetime Ranked matches won divided by 10. So a player with 3000 Ranked matches won would get +300 rating added to their base.

2. Add a seasonal skill point variable which increases everyone’s skill rating by the number of matches won during the season divided by 2.5. So a player winning 100 matches during a season would get a skill rating bonus of +40 points.

This will better separate the player base by experience and skill and discourage people from creating multiple alternate accounts and stealing multiple places in the top 250.

This will also correct the inaccuracy of the top 10 positions on the leaderboard. The point is to factor lifetime and seasonal experience into the skill rating.

December 2014 and first half of 2015 leaderboards, that crap was based on matches played, without a doubt the aberration you are describing its an improvement of it (point 2 its flawed but probs better than that system) . But still xd.

Lucius.2140:

December 2014 and first half of 2015 leaderboards, that crap was based on matches played, without a doubt the aberration you are describing its an improvement of it (point 2 its flawed but probs better than that system) . But still xd.

No, what I am suggesting is nothing of the sort. I am asking for the same system we currently have with an added offset to initially separate accounts with positive experience (Ranked matches won) from those that have none. It’s just an offset to the existing system. Take a look at the top of the N/A leaderboards. A glance can tell you that 4 of the 5 accounts don’t belong there.

My suggestion would change skittledness position in the following way:

2066 + seasonal_offset(150/2.5) + lifetime_offset(2000?/10) = 2066 + 60 + 200 = 2326

The seasonal offset alone would place him in first place with 2126 points, while the lifetime offset would put his account out of reach of newly made alternate accounts created to mess up his position. I assumed his account has won 2000 ranked games, but it is probably more than that.

In addition to fixing the top of the leaderboard, the lifetime offset would also go a long way to make gold and platinum league more exciting. People would have a much harder time getting their alternate accounts into those leagues. This would increase the competitiveness and open up more top 250 positions for players who just want to make it there.

Ryan.9387:

Noscoc
Marvin

How would your system rank these two players?

I have no idea. I assume they had over 2000k MMR last season, so how many ranked matches have they won this season and over the lifetime of their account?

Keep in mind what I am proposing is only a modification to the initial seeding of their accounts, so they are more accurately seeded based on skill.

They would have been initially seeded at something like:
(1200+2000)/2 = 1600.

Modified initial seeding would be more like:
(1200+2000)/2 + lifetime_offset

Modified current position would be:
(1200+2000)/2 + lifetime_offset() + seasonal_offset() +/- performance()

performance() is calculated the same what it is now, with 10 placement matches and games won/lost.

A new account with 0 pvp games played would be seeded like:
(1200+0)/2 + 0 = 600

Perfect performance in the placement matches would land it significantly lower on the leaderboard that noscoc or marvin (I assume?)

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Tell me, how do you practice 5v5 Conquest in WvW?

Game Knowledge means you understand the nuances of the game mode, not just the basics.

That means:
• common build’s, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to prioritize them as a threat
• common team compositions, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to counter them
• map mechanics, strategies, and how to prioritize movements
• the ability to read the map and make a tactical choice even when you’re in the middle of a fight

It’s basically all the stuff your teammates are yelling at you about when you start making huge mistakes and throwing the match.

You can’t win the game without these things. You don’t learn them anywhere else.

Edit: That being said, I don’t think ANY of OP’s ideas are worthwhile. We simply need to account for individual contribution the similarly to CS:GO’s MVP system and allow for the better performers (in most cases the veteran players) to gain faster rating separation. Easy.

hackks.3687:

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Tell me, how do you practice 5v5 Conquest in WvW?

Game Knowledge means you understand the nuances of the game mode, not just the basics.

That means:
• common build’s, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to prioritize them as a threat
• common team compositions, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to counter them
• map mechanics, strategies, and how to prioritize movements
• the ability to read the map and make a tactical choice even when you’re in the middle of a fight

It’s basically all the stuff your teammates are yelling at you about when you start making huge mistakes and throwing the match.

You can’t win the game without these things. You don’t learn them anywhere else.

This games fairly static. The rules of conquest here are simpler than many other games. You already know the threat level of classes mostly if you play wvw.
But still game exp is not equivalent to game knowledge. I was inactive for 2 years, I return and the same people have been there the entire time making the same mistakes.

We already have something related to this called a Rank 20 Restriction.

Honestly that could probably be higher, but the problem is that there isn’t enough tutorials on particular maps about rotations, how nodes behave for caps, etc.

It’s impossible to teach builds as those change constantly with every patch. I think it would be more helpful for hints to come in during the first 20 ranks like ‘All enemies spotted, use your minimap to find an available open capture point’.

Archon.6480:

No, what I am suggesting is nothing of the sort. I am asking for the same system we currently have with an added offset to initially separate accounts with positive experience (Ranked matches won) from those that have none. It’s just an offset to the existing system. Take a look at the top of the N/A leaderboards. A glance can tell you that 4 of the 5 accounts don’t belong there.

My suggestion would change skittledness position in the following way:

2066 + seasonal_offset(150/2.5) + lifetime_offset(2000?/10) = 2066 + 60 + 200 = 2326

The seasonal offset alone would place him in first place with 2126 points, while the lifetime offset would put his account out of reach of newly made alternate accounts created to mess up his position. I assumed his account has won 2000 ranked games, but it is probably more than that.

In addition to fixing the top of the leaderboard, the lifetime offset would also go a long way to make gold and platinum league more exciting. People would have a much harder time getting their alternate accounts into those leagues. This would increase the competitiveness and open up more top 250 positions for players who just want to make it there.

Gonna be honest: People alredy give you the answers.

´* First: Matches played =/= skills.

This has four main factors: Talent, quality of the experience and reflecting from the experience, outside experience.

Quality of the experience:

Its not the same to have 500 matches played in a gold level enviroment, than a legendary one than a bronce one.

Same for the culinary knoledge of someone that eats porridge all days and some gourmet that eats different great dishes.

Or the guy that never traveles compared to one that went to all Europe, America , then visited India in his gap year and went to Egypt for his first job vacation.

Reflecting from the experience:

Lets be honest, yeah you played 500 matches, how many you analysed carefully?.
Theresa huge diferrence between taking the experience as a learning process, reflecting about it, philosophically taken it, analysating it contrasted to just play it and become a litle better with the build or against some builds, etc.

It depends of several factors: how much seriusly you take the game, how much motivated you are towards improving, analysis ability, EQ, etc.

And this means both people with similar pvp talent can have 5000 matches, but the guy that reflects, analyzate properly, drives to improve, have better tools for it, has a more philosophical aproach about what happens (means he see it as a theres a reason or something to learn) and not enter in any case of biasing neurosis (EQ ftw!, for real) will learn more and be better.

Outside experience:

First game ever vs first action rpg ever vs first competitive action rpg ever vs Veteran of a thousand action rpgs.

Guys start, have different levels of skills even if they have the same talent, then of course the veteran get a higher MMR and as such better quality experiences.

Talent

The more talent the person has the faster he learns how to do it, what to do and what not, in fact you dont need to experience that much if you can make a simulation, the notions come first, then the automatic do it, by experience, that the talented learn faster.

From experience:

In the university the 1, 2 and 4-10 ranked studied hours of hours of hours, me the third ranked, played games all day after university and chatted all the off hours in the campus + sleep in a lot of classes.

To put it simply the first of the class (a japonese descendant girl) needed to read something three times and practice 2 hours of 20 questions of math demostrations to get a 20. I needed to do a fast read one time and go to the exam, could just figure the kitten demostration without problem and concept wise if i just skipped 1 class i could just deduct the idea and put it (worked 99% of the time), plus my analysis were better.

However my EQ was fairly inferior (could have learned more, get along with the teachers more and go to more classes, exams and present more works xd). Dont do that ever xd.

Point: Your talent matters, it sucks to not have it or have less, but its like that (will never be a professional football player, my kinetics skills are bottom quality).

Pd: Not my main language.

Gwaihir.1745:

hackks.3687:

The Game Slayer.7632:

hackks.3687:

Exedore.6320:

1. No. How many games you played has no correlation to skill.
2. See #1.

That’s bullkitten. Game experience = game knowledge. Game knowledge is crucial in PvP.

But I roamed and did small scale things in wvw for most of my time in gw2. This is my first season that I’ve actually participated in, and I only have 600 games played. (Ranked+unranked.) I’m rank 212 right now (1,762 rating) with about 200 ranked games played this season. What does that tell you?

(I’ll answer that for you. Game experience can be earned in places outside of spvp, therefore improving someones rating because of time spent in spvp will make ratings more in-accurate!)

Tell me, how do you practice 5v5 Conquest in WvW?

Game Knowledge means you understand the nuances of the game mode, not just the basics.

That means:
• common build’s, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to prioritize them as a threat
• common team compositions, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to counter them
• map mechanics, strategies, and how to prioritize movements
• the ability to read the map and make a tactical choice even when you’re in the middle of a fight

It’s basically all the stuff your teammates are yelling at you about when you start making huge mistakes and throwing the match.

You can’t win the game without these things. You don’t learn them anywhere else.

This games fairly static. The rules of conquest here are simpler than many other games. You already know the threat level of classes mostly if you play wvw.
But still game exp is not equivalent to game knowledge. I was inactive for 2 years, I return and the same people have been there the entire time making the same mistakes.

So by your logic we should be all be great basketball players if we just go outside and kick the soccer ball around.

Great advice.

…….

hackks.3687:

Tell me, how do you practice 5v5 Conquest in WvW?

Game Knowledge means you understand the nuances of the game mode, not just the basics.

That means:
• common build’s, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to prioritize them as a threat
• common team compositions, their strengths/weaknesses, and how to counter them
• map mechanics, strategies, and how to prioritize movements
• the ability to read the map and make a tactical choice even when you’re in the middle of a fight

It’s basically all the stuff your teammates are yelling at you about when you start making huge mistakes and throwing the match.

It’s very simple. Mechanics are very hard to learn. Learning how conquest is played can be picked up very quickly compared to mechanics.

hackks.3687:

You can’t win the game without these things. You don’t learn them anywhere else.

Bullkitten. Not only is it very easy to pick up, but I’ve spent hours outside of the game watching streams of top rated players to see what they do both mechanically, but most importantly, what they do within the conquest game mode.