Guild Wars 2

‘In the newest version of this system, we’re putting a much stronger focus on wins, with less weight given to the sheer number of games played over a period of time.’

This clearly has had little to no effect as there are still 4 people in the top 25 with under 50% win rate and nobody in the top 75 is even a ‘top tier’ player, so shall we just go back to what actually showed good players and find a way to deal with decay instead of reinventing the wheel and making a square?

#RemoveTheFarmBoards
#NoPointsForLosing

I’d actually prefer the leaderboards be removed. How could ANET not have known that the new test was going to fail before it started?

They say mmr is like a ladder…

Readymade.1672:

#RemoveTheFarmBoards
#LosePointsForLosing

fixd
no points = farm board
lose points = board measures your change in skill

better but not good enough

Yea reset everyones MMR and make it MMR based, a couple weeks of confusion and bad matches and then people will relax, although neither MMR or current leaderboard use win % i am never sure why people keep bringing this up. If win % is your idea of “top tier” then it is hard to beat the guy who is 1-0

Damsel Delilah.9084:

‘In the newest version of this system, we’re putting a much stronger focus on wins, with less weight given to the sheer number of games played over a period of time.’

This clearly has had little to no effect as there are still 4 people in the top 25 with under 50% win rate and nobody in the top 75 is even a ‘top tier’ player, so shall we just go back to what actually showed good players and find a way to deal with decay instead of reinventing the wheel and making a square?

I agree with youmostly but who died and made you the king of naming top players. Actually there are quite a few very good solo only players in the top 100 right now. There are also a lot of bads.

brannigan.9831:

Damsel Delilah.9084:

‘In the newest version of this system, we’re putting a much stronger focus on wins, with less weight given to the sheer number of games played over a period of time.’

This clearly has had little to no effect as there are still 4 people in the top 25 with under 50% win rate and nobody in the top 75 is even a ‘top tier’ player, so shall we just go back to what actually showed good players and find a way to deal with decay instead of reinventing the wheel and making a square?

I agree with youmostly but who died and made you the king of naming top players. Actually there are quite a few very good solo only players in the top 100 right now. There are also a lot of bads.

I view top tier players as players who are known for regularly placing well in tournament settings, whether it be past or present.

Lexiceta.4156:

Yea reset everyones MMR and make it MMR based, a couple weeks of confusion and bad matches and then people will relax, although neither MMR or current leaderboard use win % i am never sure why people keep bringing this up. If win % is your idea of “top tier” then it is hard to beat the guy who is 1-0

I’m not disagreeing with you considering where the game is at.

The top players are those with the highest mmr. This point based system is being built for what’s best for the game right now since it isn’t 2011 anymore. The problems you described are solved by leagues and decay so win% is addressed while also accounting for a previous seasons mmr so those who did well climb the ladder faster. But, all that needs to be sustained by a large enough population. Unfortunately, the direction is aimed at solo players feeling entitled to a team oriented ranked match instead of encouraging them to form teams.

It is like a cup — of tea. It fills us with warmth until it reaches its capacity and becomes a useless endeavor.

Literally don’t know why they’re doing this complex, pretentious system that flat out doesn’t work.

Look at dota. +0-25 for winning depending on the MMR difference between the teams, -0-25 for losing, same factors. That’s so kitten easy it’s common sense. Why are there points for losing under any scenario? If you even think about that for a second you know that the more you play the more that’s going to add up.

Readymade.1672:

#RemoveTheFarmBoards
#NoPointsForLosing

ur my hero

I’m curious how many leaderboard tests are needed for them to say “ok, this one’s it”.

Solo players want their own leaderboard, splitted from teamq.
Team players want a more skill based leaderboard instead of a grind.
Exactly what does Anet want?

The top players are those with the highest mmr.

I have to disagree with this, The highest MMR players have the highest MMR that does not make the the best players, as anyone who has played the game knows an individuals team MMR is always higher than their solo MMR, hence so called high MMR players QQing on how they can’t solo que because they get matched with so low MMR players they can’t carry their fellow players. Stating that players that team more often are the best players is wrong, they maybe the best players but the assumption is incorrect

Someone is angry they wouldn’t be able to bot to the top of the leaderboards anymore.

Who? Is that a reference to me? I doubt it, my Leaderboard rank is about 95% usually. Useless you think that is at the top, but i think there are about 2000 people above me. But yes a MMR leaderboard is much easier to manipulate. Lets not forget that season was 1 yr or more longer.

Lexiceta.4156:

The top players are those with the highest mmr.

So person who plays the most games is more skilled than person with a high mmr?
MMR ladder is only flawed because of mixed queues. If the ladder was based off of teams for team queue and individual players for solo queue, there wouldn’t be a problem.
And by teams I mean guilds, meaning draw up a ladder that ranks guilds based on mmr reached by the players who rep it during ranked, then you can click the guild to see which ppl in it have the most games played repping it in team queue. Then set a conditional to where you have to be in a guild with someone if you want to queue the ranked match as a duo+. You could add tons of conditionals to control potential abuse of a system like this. But with mixed queues sharing a ladder, it’s much harder to deal with exploitation of the ladder.

No, the person that plays the most games in not necessarily better, but neither is a high MMR an indication of skill. The current system is not about winning and increasing MMR it is about points, the two are not mutually exclusive. Trouble with a MMR based leaderboard is the seasons and the reset of MMRs, it takes weeks for MMRs to settle down and you the matching is bad now wait till you see it with everyone at 0.

I want both! Keep the grind board and bring back the MMR board. Everybody wins! And so, some will kitten with MMR, some with Grindfest…. and the best will do BOTH.

Just delete the leaderboard, it doesn’t even mean anything.

Lexiceta.4156:

No, the person that plays the most games in not necessarily better, but neither is a high MMR an indication of skill. The current system is not about winning and increasing MMR it is about points, the two are not mutually exclusive. Trouble with a MMR based leaderboard is the seasons and the reset of MMRs, it takes weeks for MMRs to settle down and you the matching is bad now wait till you see it with everyone at 0.

How is high mmr not an indication of skill? Do you think Magnus Carlsen just lucked out in his world chess championship games? The only purpose of an MMR algorithm is to define skill level relative to other players. The reason it’s sucked in GW2 is because solo queue and team queue share both a queue and a ladder. Every game that is premade vs solo players corrupts the ladder to some varying effect in terms of MMR (because you can’t measure odds of communication against just having decent ppl in a party together). This is why you need 2 ladders, one for solo queue MMR and one for team queue MMR (casted to actual teams, not individuals, since the overall skill level of a party differs based on who is in the party).

It is my understanding that the current system gives everyone an MMR, but decides team MMR by shooting the collective MMR of each individual in the party into a formula that spits out a weighted average. The reason this doesn’t work in the long run is because you can’t tell how much of an effect that communication actually has on the odds/outcome of the game. And because different people play differently with each other, the system can’t assign a popper MMR. For example; what if someone gets carried to a high MMR by doing team queue with his really skilled friends? Then he joins a new group of players and his MMR parameter corrupts the weighted average his team will get (because his MMR is not indicative to his actual skill level).

Chess is a ELO system although similar not the same and MMR is for exactly what it stands for Match Making Rating not measure of skill but a measure of relative skill not a scoreboard of skill. My point wasn’t that, it was the MMR is defeated by the current system it self the promotes neither MMR or winning.

Lexiceta.4156:

Chess is a ELO system although similar not the same and MMR is for exactly what it stands for Match Making Rating not measure of skill but a measure of similar skill not a score of skill. My point wasn’t that is was the MMR is defeated by the current system it self the promotes neither MMR or winning.

ELO is an MMR system. If you want to get specific, I believe GW2 uses a derivation of Glicko (which is also an MMR system, just newer & more complex than Elo’s). Any ratings-based system purposed around ranking players is technically an MMR algorithm.
It’s silly to argue that the players ranked near the top are not the more skilled. At least not in a fair environment. Teams vs solo is the only thing really hindering that fairness. Maybe class balance to some extent.

So your saying based on past performance we can just skip the matches and declare a winner, Fine by me. It is relative skill not intended or designed to be a end all and be all ranking system, but ranking system for matches. I am not arguing players near the top are good players i am saying the current system is hiding good players at low MMRs because the current system doesn’t promote winning or MMR

NO! STOP!

Dedication should be rewarded Equally if not greater than winning! If i play 50 games daily on my turret engineer , why should someone who plays less game than me be higher on the ladder boards!

Ladder boards should reflect who works the hardest, NOT WHOEVER FINDS 4 FRIENDS AND FARM SoloQ Players!

google.3709:

NO! STOP!

Dedication should be rewarded Equally if not greater than winning! If i play 50 games daily on my turret engineer , why should someone who plays less game than me be higher on the ladder boards!

Ladder boards should reflect who works the hardest, NOT WHOEVER FINDS 4 FRIENDS AND FARM SoloQ Players!

lmao

Lexiceta.4156:

I am not arguing players near the top are good players i am saying the current system is hiding good players at low MMRs because the current system doesn’t promote winning or MMR

Oh. Yeah, no I totally agree with that. Plus, I’m pretty sure you can just tank your MMR by day, then win farm by night and totally exploit it. This is nothing more than a ranked points treadmill, let’s be honest.

Lexiceta.4156:

I am not arguing players near the top are good players i am saying the current system is hiding good players at low MMRs because the current system doesn’t promote winning or MMR

ow. this is a fundamental misunderstanding. leaderboard points have nothing to do with mmr. the 2 are separate numbers, separate systems. the current leaderboard hides high mmr players at low points because they can only play less games (queue times) and they may play less games (doing other things like scrims, duels, not playing 8 hours a day).

So you are saying the MMR is not used for matchmaking? Thats new thinking i guess. so MMR is not used for matchmaking and high MMR players are low ranked because they don’t play? Ok well that’s some unique thinking, Idk what would prevent a high MMR player from queuing 2 games an hour like everyone else. Leaderboard poiints have everything to do with MMR without matchmaking the leaderboard would be all over the place, as no one would play even close to their level. Odds of winning would be impossible to calculate, the whole system is dependent on MMR. To suggest the two are separate and unrelated is well——- not worth thinking about

Lexiceta.4156:

So you are saying the MMR is not used for matchmaking? Thats new thinking i guess. so MMR is not used for matchmaking and high MMR players are low ranked because they don’t play? Ok well that’s some unique thinking, Idk what would prevent a high MMR player from queuing 2 games an hour like everyone else. Leaderboard poiints have everything to do with MMR without matchmaking the leaderboard would be all over the place, as no one would play even close to their level. Odds of winning would be impossible to calculate, the whole system is dependent on MMR

you dont even know what youre saying, its actually kinda funny

I thought so too but if you believe that MMR doesn’t play a part setting the odds of winning or losing or in the points awarded. Or that it is used to establish the matches themselves well if you believe all that there is no way i can convince you other wise. But you are right very funny

Anything else would not be worse than what we have tbh.

Lexiceta.4156:

I thought so too but if you believe that MMR doesn’t play a part setting the odds of winning or losing or in the points awarded. Or that it is used to establish the matches themselves well if you believe all that there is no way i can convince you other wise. But you are right very funny

you still dont make sense.

whatever you apparently think im saying is not what im saying. thats the only conclusion i can make.

That’s as simple as i can make it, sorry you don’t understand

leaderboard points have nothing to do with mmr. the 2 are separate numbers, is what i read

its not me who doesnt understand lol

Well you are wrong they have everything to do with each other

you dont even know what mmr is