Guild Wars 2

I have 24 QP and I am not on the ladder, fix this.

I only transfered once, it’s in EU but I am switching it to NA tomorrow so might as well put that on NA

Alright thank you! I actually won 1st places but that was in EU and I’m not getting rewards there.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

leashmaygoss.2140:

I only transfered once, it’s in EU but I am switching it to NA tomorrow so might as well put that on NA

I don’t recommend transferring from EU to NA yet, because we still have the issue where you’ll stop earning tournament rewards for a number of games afterwards. It’s stickied in this post: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Tournament-chests-and-transferring-between-server-regions

I transferred from NA to EU, I will be transfering back from EU to NA.

In other words people who have points, but haven’t played in a while won’t show up and probably never will if they have left the game.

I have 1 point and am on NA… must have been before the logging…

All we need now is Glicko rating to kick in so we don’t have to grind nonstop. Currently you can beat the top 5 players consistently and it wouldn’t matter if they get more games than you do per day.

I would tend to agree, the number of points you have is not entirely an accurate display of rank because with no elo or mmr there is no control over the skill level of opponents.

If you grind long enough you will eventually be able to pick up a lot of points by facing pug or inexperienced teams. Although that becomes harder to do as players leave in droves and only a few teams are left.

This really shows how few teams are on NA paids… really need to merge pvp paids for NA and EU.

do you get qp for winning 1 round? or the whole paid tournie?

Im suprised nobody is as disappointed as i am about the " ladders" they come out with. I feel like they should be in game for you to check, not some copy paste on the forums. I feel the same about how they do WvW also.

Anyone else feel the same?

Tantrasil.7634:

Im suprised nobody is as disappointed as i am about the " ladders" they come out with. I feel like they should be in game for you to check, not some copy paste on the forums. I feel the same about how they do WvW also.

Anyone else feel the same?

It may be work in progress for all we know, they’re no strangers to MMOs.

I have same problem. EU 16QP and not even mentioned. qq

Sprawl.3891:

do you get qp for winning 1 round? or the whole paid tournie?

Winning the whole tournament.

Heh.. better not showing the ladder at all.. The only thing what i see there is how small playerbase we have. Only few players can say they can win tournament regulary.

Heh.. better not showing the ladder at all.. The only thing what i see there is how small playerbase we have. Only few players can say they can win tournament regulary.it looks like a joke to be honest. + ladder being displayed as forum post?? eh.. disapointed

Me and my mates on EU all have 6 QP’s, but we aren’t anywhere on the ladder

It really does underscore the smallness of our community. Makes me feel like pvp being a dev priority any time soon is very unlikely.

Guard.6751:

This really shows how few teams are on NA paids… really need to merge pvp paids for NA and EU.

It actually doesn’t show anything about NA paids in regards to EU. There are certain playtimes and length of play that allows for an inflation of QPs. Not to downsize the achievements of anyone on the board, but all NA teams have lost to each other.

Personally, I think it’s just another design flaw (QPs) as it rewards heavily for time played and there are ways around hard matchups.

What ladder are we talking about? can someone elaborate?

This is not a ‘ladder’ this is just showing us which teams invested enough time to ‘farm’ QP.

Real ladders would need a rating system.

Hopeless.8195:

This is not a ‘ladder’ this is just showing us which teams invested enough time to ‘farm’ QP.

Real ladders would need a rating system.

Just curious, why do you think it’s simply a matter of investing time?

At person above: You don’t lose points for losing. So Player A could be amazing, and win 6 QPs out of 7 tournaments.

Player B could be bad, and win 7 QPs out of 100 tournanments.

Player B is simply higher because of time invested.

However I think this is true with normal rating systems too anyway….you need play a lot to get high ratings as well, so there is always an element of time invested in any ratings/ladder system.

DalzK.9086:

At person above: You don’t lose points for losing. So Player A could be amazing, and win 6 QPs out of 7 tournaments.

Player B could be bad, and win 7 QPs out of 100 tournanments.

Player B is simply higher because of time invested.

However I think this is true with normal rating systems too anyway….you need play a lot to get high ratings as well, so there is always an element of time invested in any ratings/ladder system.

That wasn’t the question. I never stated QPs were a rating or ladder system. I asked why he thought gaining QPs is simply a matter of time.

While I do agree time has some to do with it, you can’t pin it all on duration played. Especially in NA where there’s a window for frequent queues.

demonstrative.9176:

Hopeless.8195:

This is not a ‘ladder’ this is just showing us which teams invested enough time to ‘farm’ QP.

Real ladders would need a rating system.

Just curious, why do you think it’s simply a matter of investing time?

It’s not just time, but time is a large part of it. Examples as follow:

Example 1: Two teams are exactly equal in skill. Also, if they fight each other, the outcome is exactly 50/50. However, team A plays twice as much as team B. Team A has twice as many qualifier points, because they played more. If the rankings were based on skill, not time, A and B would be roughly equal in rank.

Example 2: Team A is the top team in the world. Team B is the second best. Team B will always, without fail, beat any team that is not A, but will always, without fail, lose to A. If A and B always end up playing at the same times, B won’t even rank on the leaderboard. A team that plays against worse teams can rank higher than a better team that happens to get matched against the best ones.

As it is, very few teams play paid tournaments. This allows QPs to give a fairly close approximation of a ladder. However, this shouldn’t be mistaken for a real ranking system, as it really is not.

Jacobin.8509:

In other words people who have points, but haven’t played in a while won’t show up and probably never will if they have left the game.

Exactly, and why this thread (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Requesting-new-rules-for-sPvP-to-reduce-spam/first#post671727)
is a complete and total joke.

That wasn’t the question. I never stated QPs were a rating or ladder system. I asked why he thought gaining QPs is simply a matter of time.

Because to some extent, they show merely HOW MANY paid tournaments a person has participated in, rather than HOW WELL they play.

It’s a good start for Anet, and I commend them for trying, but frankly, paid tournaments just aren’t that popular yet and so these rankings don’t mean a lot. A couple of months from now however, it’ll be a different story most likely.

Dejh.5971:

demonstrative.9176:

Hopeless.8195:

This is not a ‘ladder’ this is just showing us which teams invested enough time to ‘farm’ QP.

Real ladders would need a rating system.

Just curious, why do you think it’s simply a matter of investing time?

It’s not just time, but time is a large part of it. Examples as follow:

Example 1: Two teams are exactly equal in skill. Also, if they fight each other, the outcome is exactly 50/50. However, team A plays twice as much as team B. Team A has twice as many qualifier points, because they played more. If the rankings were based on skill, not time, A and B would be roughly equal in rank.

Example 2: Team A is the top team in the world. Team B is the second best. Team B will always, without fail, beat any team that is not A, but will always, without fail, lose to A. If A and B always end up playing at the same times, B won’t even rank on the leaderboard. A team that plays against worse teams can rank higher than a better team that happens to get matched against the best ones.

As it is, very few teams play paid tournaments. This allows QPs to give a fairly close approximation of a ladder. However, this shouldn’t be mistaken for a real ranking system, as it really is not.

While somewhat true, this really isn’t a representation of how it is right now. PZ, who have the most QPs on the board lose regularly to various teams; and vice versa. There’s also at least two queues going at a time so there’s a good chance the two top teams won’t play each other. Every competitive team has most likely played against every other competitive team in all three maps at this point.

Like I said, I agree time has a part to play…but to say QPs are in majority part due to teams being able to play more is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Coming from experience, everyone with the higher number of QPs belongs to a team and have been competitive in the games. Yes QPs are inflated due to several reasons, but the people on the list do deserve to be on there in a large capacity.

Bsquared.3421:

It’s a good start for Anet, and I commend them for trying, but frankly, paid tournaments just aren’t that popular yet and so these rankings don’t mean a lot. A couple of months from now however, it’ll be a different story most likely.

If the current teams continue to play as they have been, they’ll still have a considerable leg up on any other new teams. You can definitely see the difference between a team who understands each other over a team who has just gotten together.

demonstrative.9176:

While somewhat true, this really isn’t a representation of how it is right now. PZ, who have the most QPs on the board lose regularly to various teams; and vice versa. There’s also at least two queues going at a time so there’s a good chance the two top teams won’t play each other. Every competitive team has most likely played against every other competitive team in all three maps at this point.

Like I said, I agree time has a part to play…but to say QPs are in majority part due to teams being able to play more is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Coming from experience, everyone with the higher number of QPs belongs to a team and have been competitive in the games. Yes QPs are inflated due to several reasons, but the people on the list do deserve to be on there in a large capacity.

I think you missed the last part.

>As it is, very few teams play paid tournaments. This allows QPs to give a fairly close approximation of a ladder. However, this shouldn’t be mistaken for a real ranking system, as it really is not.

Right now, the small number of teams gives a pretty close approximation. Certainly, all teams with significant amounts of QPs are skilled. However, it’s still just a leaderboard, not a ladder. Any rank system where you can’t go down in rank will favor those who play more.

Also, two tournament queues? When do you play? I generally only see one paid tournament going during our team’s normal playtimes (starting roughly 8-9 pm eastern time). Two is a busy day. From what I’ve heard, Asian times typically have no paid tournaments going.

Dejh.5971:

demonstrative.9176:

While somewhat true, this really isn’t a representation of how it is right now. PZ, who have the most QPs on the board lose regularly to various teams; and vice versa. There’s also at least two queues going at a time so there’s a good chance the two top teams won’t play each other. Every competitive team has most likely played against every other competitive team in all three maps at this point.

Like I said, I agree time has a part to play…but to say QPs are in majority part due to teams being able to play more is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Coming from experience, everyone with the higher number of QPs belongs to a team and have been competitive in the games. Yes QPs are inflated due to several reasons, but the people on the list do deserve to be on there in a large capacity.

I think you missed the last part.

>As it is, very few teams play paid tournaments. This allows QPs to give a fairly close approximation of a ladder. However, this shouldn’t be mistaken for a real ranking system, as it really is not.

Right now, the small number of teams gives a pretty close approximation. Certainly, all teams with significant amounts of QPs are skilled. However, it’s still just a leaderboard, not a ladder. Any rank system where you can’t go down in rank will favor those who play more.

Also, two tournament queues? When do you play? I generally only see one paid tournament going during our team’s normal playtimes (starting roughly 8-9 pm eastern time). Two is a busy day. From what I’ve heard, Asian times typically have no paid tournaments going.

8-9pm Eastern; I’m pretty sure we’ve played the least out of any team out there as well.

Just watch the different streams, pretty easy to determine when you see someone in paid on Foefire, and you get a pop.

Once again, I never said the QP list was a ladder or ranking system of any sort. I’m generally speaking to people who are discrediting anyone on the list. AFAIK mostly everyone on that list has played with/against everyone else, and most of the people speaking up and saying QPs are mostly a time issue and says nothing about player skill aren’t featured.

demonstrative.9176:

8-9pm Eastern; I’m pretty sure we’ve played the least out of any team out there as well.

Just watch the different streams, pretty easy to determine when you see someone in paid on Foefire, and you get a pop.

Once again, I never said the QP list was a ladder or ranking system of any sort. I’m generally speaking to people who are discrediting anyone on the list. AFAIK mostly everyone on that list has played with/against everyone else, and most of the people speaking up and saying QPs are mostly a time issue and says nothing about player skill aren’t featured.

Oh, I think we just had a misunderstanding then. The whole time discussion was started by someone saying that the QP board is not a ladder, and my responses were directed more at that part.