Guild Wars 2

Evan Lesh.3295:

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en

JonathanSharp.7094:

^

Go to there!

this seems to add some authenticity

No dubt they are…the question is…wtf? xD

Top 100 only? Talk about underwhelming. That’s not many players at all. At least show Top 1000. Most your playerbase are not in the Top 100. I didn’t realize you were releasing this feature to be useless to most players. A lot of people want to know where they stand and if they’re progressing, but they may not be in the Top 100.

In vanilla World of Warcraft their battleground leaderboards included just about everyone down to Rank 2 or Rank 3, so even complete noobs could see if they were progressing.

nice markup)
<td class=“up rank number”> <td class=“equal losses number”>
Omg, 7183 achievement points, I won’t get even 1000th place(

There’s no main statistic, WvW current score with at least hourly update. This is what matchups site is for.

Ladies and gents you got it all wrong. The real reason why there is not top 1000 ladderboard is…. wait for it…. There are not 1000 players in pvp… TADA!

Yeah the ‘next’ button doesn’t work for EU ratings.

This took over a week?

Thanks, that eases my concerns. =)

The only other major problem is a lack of search box..

https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/news/introducing-leaderboards/

For people who missed it.

Very interesting. However, I won’t have real interest until the list is expanded and my name pops up there.

I also want to add that this system, well… it kinda makes me want to play ranked matches only with a competitive team (which I can’t anymore), because with the current match system, playing with a team increases your odds, and playing solo decreases your odds. That pretty much means that I’ll probably stick to hotjoin until the devs implement a solo(/ duo) only queue, or else I’ll lose rank points unfairly whenever I get matched against premade teams.

Disappointing to say the least.

Leaderboards should be ingame displaying personal ranking with displayed live rating/ranking. That would make it an interesting and meaningful thing to complete for and you could see how you are doing, each victory would be meaningful and encourage people to keep playing for just one more win/ranking.

Instead we get an out of game list that’s not live and for the majority of us won’t show us our ranks for a long time. Playing matches will be almost as meaningless as before as you won’t be able to see the effect of each match on your rank and the ladder will just be a thing to f5 once a night and hope that a dev has bothered to press the refresh button on.

This should be a ladder to encourage people to play the game and give meaning to tpvp, not a reason to alt tab out of the game.

DiogoSilva.7089:

Very interesting. However, I won’t have real interest until the list is expanded and my name pops up there.

I also want to add that this system, well… it kinda makes me want to play ranked matches only with a competitive team (which I can’t anymore), because with the current match system, playing with a team increases your odds, and playing solo decreases your odds. That pretty much means that I’ll probably stick to hotjoin until the devs implement a solo(/ duo) only queue, or else I’ll lose rank points unfairly whenever I get matched against premade teams.

Yes, a solo-only queue and leaderboard is greatly needed.

Although I also want it to be shown in-game too (are there plans for that?), as long as it’s expanded enough until I appear in the list, it’ll give me motivation to improve.

I am really happy. We just need split solo que from team que and I wont talk on forum again Thanks.

A lot of people reacting to these leaderboards should look up Elo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating.

It appears that the Leaderboards are all based off of tournament results from a specific character. It does not take into consideration the tournament results from the entire account. Is this accurate?

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

stof.9341:

It’s not the number of wins that matter but the quality of those.

sorry but if 7 wins against top level teams puts you top 50 then their rating system is horrid. Take WoW for example, you start at 1500 rating. Even if you played the #1 team and beat them over and over it would take you 50+ games to get top 50.

seriously. 7 Wins, 4 Losses.

I’m not sure you should use Wow rating system as an example as you clearly don’t know how it works.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1820952130

so it changed slightly and starts at 0 now vs 1500 before. did you even read that? it would still take 100s of games to get top 50. going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800

You are wrong …………

Leaderboards should be class specific :/

Right now it doesn’t promote learning new classes, since you will drop your ranking.

Its a good start, though

Evan Lesh.3295:

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en

I heard there was a secret code
That Sharp played and it pleased the pvpers lords
But you don’t really care for pvp do ya
Well it goes like this the fourth the fifth soon
The minor community fall and the major already left
The baffled community composing hallelujah

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah

Leaderboards, as you present them to us are major dissapointment and I really dont see the time you put into them. How can possibly be somebody with 10 games in top 100 players? Why it is full of bugs if you tuned it for two weeks after annoucement? Everything we hear from the launch is “improvement in the future” but when exactly is that future? We got the shorter side of the stick because you already have our money and we have only promises.

Can someone explain to me the leaderboard logic, because i don’t seem to get it.

So I checked out the leaderboards today and I just saw a list of people I didn’t know. To me, this isn’t as useful compared to a system where I can see what percentile I personally fall into.

So while it’s nice for those who make it to the top 100, I want to know where I personally stand. Am I average, good, or bad?

ColinJohanson.2394:

Lok.3102:

Top 100 only? Talk about underwhelming. That’s not many players at all. At least show Top 1000. Most your playerbase are not in the Top 100. I didn’t realize you were releasing this feature to be useless to most players. A lot of people want to know where they stand and if they’re progressing, but they may not be in the Top 100.

The list will continue to be expanded over the next week, we’ve got it at the top 100 today to ensure the site handles the traffic load initially, and then we’ll continue to expand listings and search options. Fear not, you’ll be able to search regardless where you are on the ladder and know what % you fall into over-all.

Nice1!

bhagwad.4281:

So I checked out the leaderboards today and I just saw a list of people I didn’t know. To me, this isn’t as useful compared to a system where I can see what percentile I personally fall into.

So while it’s nice for those who make it to the top 100, I want to know where I personally stand. Am I average, good, or bad?

Number of players shown will be expanded this week coming

It seems someone is mad because he is not in the top 100

How can possibly be somebody with 10 games in top 100 players?

If Little Timmy who has never played 1v1 beats Kobe Bryant in a 1v1 game 10 times, with Kobe Bryant giving it his best, does that make Little Timmy better than Kobe Bryant in 1v1?

It seems someone is mad because he is not in the top 100

Also this.

dat eu to na win%! lols I’m sure NA’s will stabalize a bit once this brings a few of the competitive players back

Rerroll.9083:

Leaderboards should be class specific :/

Right now it doesn’t promote learning new classes, since you will drop your ranking.

Its a good start, though

Few players have an even distribution between multiple classes anyway. Seems to be status quo to me.

I want to have your faith in this ranking system. I was on ts with player on ladder with 10 games and he was pug player from our server. And 10 games arent enough to judge any skill anyhow. So… yeah I am really hurt not to be in the list

Lok.3102:

How can possibly be somebody with 10 games in top 100 players?

If Little Timmy who has never played 1v1 beats Kobe Bryant in a 1v1 game 10 times, with Kobe Bryant giving it his best, does that make Little Timmy better than Kobe Bryant in 1v1?

It seems someone is mad because he is not in the top 100

Also this.

why is timmy playing vs kobe if there is match making supposedly in place?

Got 6 runs this evening…necro who was in team with me is in ladder and i’m not, and we went 6 times with the same team for 5 wins and 1 loss…dam 3 hgh u.u

Srsly wtf is going on with those rankings? Same team..same runs…meh…this stuff seems pretty buggy imo…

DiogoSilva.7089:

Very interesting. However, I won’t have real interest until the list is expanded and my name pops up there.

I also want to add that this system, well… it kinda makes me want to play ranked matches only with a competitive team (which I can’t anymore), because with the current match system, playing with a team increases your odds, and playing solo decreases your odds. That pretty much means that I’ll probably stick to hotjoin until the devs implement a solo(/ duo) only queue, or else I’ll lose rank points unfairly whenever I get matched against premade teams.

+1

Indeed! Complete opposite of incentive to play ranked.

Surely, the Leaderboards didn’t reset MMR!?

Look at the top players, they must have been queueing into each other as premade teams (+ been given higher rating gain because of it) just from having the same MMR before and after rating was implemented.

While people at the bottom started solo queuing and got stomped by premades, others grouped up with high MMRed people and got pulled right into the top 100 for playing below 10 matches.

Concerns were raised long ago about Leaderboards, they require: rating based on classes, seperate rating for teams/solo, no mixing of MMR, punishment for leavers, no class swapping during games, …

This system will be exploited the second rating becomes visible, if it’ll ever be worth our time that is.

Its some sort of glicko or elo style system, since rank doesn’t correlate with any of the displayed stats (win percentage etc).

I’m fine with this as a start. There were some that complained it shouldnt give you a high rank after just a few wins against top players, but i disagree. Hypothetically if i was a top player who decided to buy a new account for some reason, i shouldn’t need to grind dozens of matches to get back to my true ranking – just beating top players enough times to prove it wasn’t luck should be sufficient.

Still, my experience with other competitive games (especially not very popular ones) says that it’s better to have two versions of the ladder:
- Personal rating, based on glicko/elo/whatever. This rates your true skill level.
- A seasonal ladder that awards points per win and deducts per loss. This is reset after every season, and winners get a prize.

The problem with the second ladder is that it rewards players who play a lot of matches. but actually that’s not really a problem – in games that aren’t popular, it’s useful to encourage people to play as much as possible. This increases the matches and thus the matchmaking possibilities.

For those that don’t have the time, there is still the rating based leader boards that track their true skill level, disregarding number of games played.

A big problem with elo style systems is that top players are disincentivised to play matches, because it takes them forever to find a valid opponent and an unlucky loss loses a lot of ratings points.

This is why the seasonal ladder is needed – it encourages top players to play a lot, and makes wins against lower ranked opponents still meaningful.

DiogoSilva.7089:

Very interesting. However, I won’t have real interest until the list is expanded and my name pops up there.

I also want to add that this system, well… it kinda makes me want to play ranked matches only with a competitive team (which I can’t anymore), because with the current match system, playing with a team increases your odds, and playing solo decreases your odds. That pretty much means that I’ll probably stick to hotjoin until the devs implement a solo(/ duo) only queue, or else I’ll lose rank points unfairly whenever I get matched against premade teams.

You can always play solo and if you are going to lose alt+F4 the game. No leaver penalty, no change in win/loss ratio, no problem!

Since “quality of win” is clearly in effect, does it work in the opposite direction too? If I solo-q and get blown out by a pre-made, does the system take this into account to make my loss worth less (and the win worth less as well)? If I happen to beat the pre-made do I get a higher “quality of win” than if a pre-made had beaten the pre-made?

Sprawl.3891:

why is timmy playing vs kobe if there is match making supposedly in place?

Because 1v1 is a poor comparison to a 5-man oriented rating system.

Imagine, instead, having Timmy + All Star Teammates.
Even if Timmy has 0 ranking or whatever the median is, he’s still going to be ranked against All Star Teams because the rest of his team more than makes up for his low ranking. He and his team won’t start at the top but after a few games of winning, from which his ranking skyrockets from each win, the averaging needed by his teammates becomes less and less relevant the more quickly the aggregate team value reaches a stable median.

So, yes, if Timmy plays with pros, giving him the ability to play with the pros, and wins against other pros, he is indeed considered a pro.

looool in 2 hours team curse, idle and paradigm are already top of the food chain.

I just hope the competition will get better, because it’s going just like everybody would expect.

Sprawl.3891:

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

stof.9341:

It’s not the number of wins that matter but the quality of those.

sorry but if 7 wins against top level teams puts you top 50 then their rating system is horrid. Take WoW for example, you start at 1500 rating. Even if you played the #1 team and beat them over and over it would take you 50+ games to get top 50.

seriously. 7 Wins, 4 Losses.

I’m not sure you should use Wow rating system as an example as you clearly don’t know how it works.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1820952130

so it changed slightly and starts at 0 now vs 1500 before. did you even read that? it would still take 100s of games to get top 50. going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800

It wouldn’t take 100 games to be top 50…

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/travel%20form%20paw/
rank 4 40win-4 loss.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/full%20feared%20cdew%20LOL%20JK/
Only 30 matches played… rank 15

Now, if you are unable to make a a cohesive and accurate conclusion with this. Then… I fear for the humanity.

“going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800”

You still don’t know how mmr works. Read it again.

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

stof.9341:

It’s not the number of wins that matter but the quality of those.

sorry but if 7 wins against top level teams puts you top 50 then their rating system is horrid. Take WoW for example, you start at 1500 rating. Even if you played the #1 team and beat them over and over it would take you 50+ games to get top 50.

seriously. 7 Wins, 4 Losses.

I’m not sure you should use Wow rating system as an example as you clearly don’t know how it works.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1820952130

so it changed slightly and starts at 0 now vs 1500 before. did you even read that? it would still take 100s of games to get top 50. going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800

It wouldn’t take 100 games to be top 50…

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/travel%20form%20paw/
rank 4 40win-4 loss.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/full%20feared%20cdew%20LOL%20JK/
Only 30 matches played… rank 15

Now, if you are unable to make a a cohesive and accurate conclusion with this. Then… I fear for the humanity.

the odd are very highly against this person only queing vs.. let’s say top 20 people for those 11 games

also highly unlikely he would actually win unless it’s a new account

~edit – even if that is the case, the system sucks if you can progress that quickly – yeah there should be variance but not that high. even if the population is painfully low

WvW leaderboard is realy poor. 10 times better is Matchup on Millenium. I thought WvW leaderboard show players score from new system, kills ect. not server rankings ;/

dejay.2598:

also highly unlikely he would actually win unless it’s a new account

Could be well be a new account, or its someone who bought an account after playing on a friend’s, for example. No real way to account for such objectively and, if the person played and beat top teams, he deserves his rank.

Kil M.3680:

WvW leaderbord is realy poor. 10 times better is Matchup on Millenium. I thought WvW leaderbord show players score from new system, kills ect. not server rankings ;/

There’s about as much relevance in showing the WvW Rank as there is in showing a PvP Rank, or kill/death ratio. They don’t measure anything on any gradient of a formula that can actually judge player worth.

Its very hard to measure much of anything of worth in WvW since its not a truly structured format.

Lilianzzz.7924:

Can someone explain to me the leaderboard logic, because i don’t seem to get it.

People higher on the leaderboard are worth more to beat.
So they boost your rating more when you beat teams with them on it, teams comprised entirely of people on the leaderboard give an even higher boost.

So this means if all you do is beat people on the leaderboard even if you have a low amount of games you’ll quickly be boosted to relevance.

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

Poplolita.2638:

Sprawl.3891:

stof.9341:

It’s not the number of wins that matter but the quality of those.

sorry but if 7 wins against top level teams puts you top 50 then their rating system is horrid. Take WoW for example, you start at 1500 rating. Even if you played the #1 team and beat them over and over it would take you 50+ games to get top 50.

seriously. 7 Wins, 4 Losses.

I’m not sure you should use Wow rating system as an example as you clearly don’t know how it works.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1820952130

so it changed slightly and starts at 0 now vs 1500 before. did you even read that? it would still take 100s of games to get top 50. going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800

It wouldn’t take 100 games to be top 50…

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/travel%20form%20paw/
rank 4 40win-4 loss.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/arena/tichondrius/3v3/full%20feared%20cdew%20LOL%20JK/
Only 30 matches played… rank 15

Now, if you are unable to make a a cohesive and accurate conclusion with this. Then… I fear for the humanity.

“going 7-4 vs top team would out you at 700 rating in that system lol with top teams around 2800”

You still don’t know how mmr works. Read it again.

personal rating doesnt reset when you quit and start a new team in WoW, youre a moron, it’s possible in WoW because they have split ratings. Previously in WoW (when i played) it was team rating only, you start a new team you start back at 1500. Now they have personal MMR AND team rating, so teams that re-make get matched up against their personal rating (already high) so they advance their team rating much faster. GW2 has only one rating.

Don’t tell me to read something when you don’t get it.

The only thing I can think of is if this guy was a new player and played 11 games with a top team vs other top teams and thus put him in the top 50, which again, shows how this single player rating system (as opposed to team rating) is a joke. Any group of 4 elite players could carry an average player for a handful of games to a top 100 rank.

Ostricheggs.3742:

There would be a great benefit in making solo/duo queues seperate from trio-5man queues while taking into account the number of players solo/duo queueing with trio-4mans. Right now the system is flawed and punishes solo queuers (like myself) and punishes those players at the top who don’t solo queue but lose to solo queuers. This skews the leaderboards so they’re NOT legitimate.

I personally think that I ruined davinci and sataar’s chances at being at the top of the leaderboards because I beat them a lot recently in gasmask, shan’s and lily’s group. They deserve it wayyyy more than those three IMO. It’s a shame, really. The guys who worked the hardest at it got screwed over by the guys who just started playing hardcore again and picked a few games off the guys who should be at the top. While they DID end up beating the top players, having someone like me with a terrible ratio because I solo queue beat them just makes it far, far worse.

Your system is flawed a-net. Please address this quickly

BAM.

Sadly true.

As things stand right now, i would love to make a team again with my guildies and play to win, but i can’t right now due to exams session and i’m forced to solo que.

This means that i’ll ruin my rating, unless i carry 4 pugs.

Time to play HGH engi exclusively, no other way to carry pugs otherwise

Thesilentflute.8761:

Lol fubar failed to deliver do you remember how wow was you should head back for a week and check it out for a reminder. I am very happy with what they deliverd

WoW is like ten years old dude… get over it.

So uhm… i shouldn’t solo queue anymore ? :O

And doing random teams with people from friends list is going to end? Since all the top kittenes won’t want to go down in their rating?

Btw, biggest Anet troll?

“Log in to view stats based on your profile”

And… nothing? XD

This is so retro I believe I am reliving the mega drive saga.

Although the formula for the calculation of the leaderboards isn’t going to be released anytime soon I think it needs some revision.

Anvil Rock chat lit up in a very negative way at the sight of the leaderboards and although I thought it was funny at first after seeing my rank vs friends ranks there is definitely some significant flaws.
For example 10wins 0losses is better than 1000wins 1loss apparently.