Guild Wars 2

Having activity rewarded is indeed a good thing, but as current point system works, it’s nothing more but farming.

1. We need Brackets ASAP

Without brackets it’s impossible for high rated teams ( or individuals) to get even matches, they’ll get stuck into an ELO hell they won’t be able to escape from unless playing 5x times more then X “random Joe” who’s nothing more than decent.

2. Odds of Win chances needs to be worked around

It’s cool you don’t lose points if u play well in a match you were supposed to lose, point is there’s no real distinction among points earned.

Facts to be told, if u win against a highly more rated team, you’ll get 3 points just like if you were facing a “slightly better” team.

Moreover, not losing points when u lose ( even if the odds were against you) leads to a point where you shouldn’t even care about winning or losing, as long as you play well and carry you won’t lose too match while having the chance of earning points anyway.

this leads to farm and to point 3

3 Not losing points on loss is TOO KIND

You should ALWAYS lose points when you lose, at the very best u should lose LESS points, but not losing any points is not acceptable.

Imho the solution is very simple

We need a huge “point increase per win” and more “point loss” per loss.

Moreover the best “point score” needs to be awarded ONLY ( and i mean ONLY) if you play against EQUAL or MORE RATED teams than yours ( or better team average)

Of course to do this we need brackets.

Current system is perfect ( in theory ) but without these things it will be a disaster, cuz teams ( and specifically BEST teams) will never be able to have proper match ups, and even more since the “best ladder guise” are ( and WILL be) only the ones playing more, with a very little representation of the the “true skilled” players.

Ah and of course we need better rewards.

No one cares about lamas.

Just saying.

I was really hoping for exclusive finishers for top 1000 players.

Chase.8415:

I was really hoping for exclusive finishers for top 1000 players.

top 1000 lol

Archaon.9524:

Chase.8415:

I was really hoping for exclusive finishers for top 1000 players.

top 1000 lol

I know right, it’s a complete joke that only 4% of the PvP population gets it.

I’ll agree with #3 only if you get an accurate #1.

Silentshoes.1805:

I’ll agree with #3 only if you get an accurate #1.

No, we need all of them.

Current ladder is way more of a joke than the last.

Mrbig.8019:

Silentshoes.1805:

I’ll agree with #3 only if you get an accurate #1.

No, we need all of them.

Current ladder is way more of a joke than the last.

I just meant #3 without #1 does not work.

Mrbig.8019:

Silentshoes.1805:

I’ll agree with #3 only if you get an accurate #1.

No, we need all of them.

Current ladder is way more of a joke than the last.

Dunno how it can be possible considering how crap the old one was…but this is actually true…so…terribly…true

Would the truly skilled playing more matches be an option?

The OP has missed the real issue with match making in GW2: lack of pvp population. If you were asked to run a sports league that was made up of only 4 teams: one of which is of pro caliber, one is ‘weekend warrior’ skill level, and 2 teams that have never ever played the sport before how would you go about setting up ‘good matches’ each week for the league? The solution in this situation is not in the match making but rather getting more teams into the league.

In my opinion, Anet needs to take a step back and re-evaluate the pvp situation. In its current state:
- Conquest pvp is not easy for new players to learn. i.e. its much more about watching the mini map, player coordination and rotations than actually killing any enemies. GW2 has zero anything in place to ease new players into pvp, little lone teach them through play how actually play conquest
- Many of the game mechanics have been implemented very specifically for conquest which makes adding other game types very very difficult
- Playing pvp without a full team in comms puts you at very large disadvantage. Its unlikely a new pvp’er would be on a team in comms, and without a training system in the game its very likely they will get absolutely crushed or blasted by their team for not playing correctly a few times and walk away from the pvp game type

If Justin and co had a large player pool to work with and game modes that weren’t so strat and coordination dependent, I’d be more inclined to complain on the forums about the match making system…

Frost

Tman.6349:

Would the truly skilled playing more matches be an option?

Skill =/= Farming

Not even close

Frost.5017:

The OP has missed the real issue with match making in GW2: lack of pvp population.

In the first week since the patch went live 16,000 unique EU accounts and 8000 unique NA accounts played PvP. That may be small compared to pve, but it is not a small pool.

Frost.5017:

If you were asked to run a sports league that was made up of only 4 teams:

I’m a Bucs fan in the NFC South... someone make the hurting stop.

Justin ODell in the current system you match up players with a huge difference in skills. When that happens the game becomes frustrating and most players can’t learn to improve their play if the do not meet opponents that are on par with their skills.
Noone I know keeps playing Guild Wars 2 PvP if they get stomped in the ground so often. Most people on my guild quit playing PvP because of that.
Why don’t you use a handicap for skilled players to even the game with lower skilled players to keep it exciting? Many games like golf, go or chess use handicapping to keep their audience.

Justin ODell.9517:

It’s more likely RandomJoe.5555 Will probably have to play more often to get the same points the higher rated teams will.

I was referring to the fact that since a top team is always expected to win, they will always gain only 1 point per win, needing more wins than “average Joe” ( who’s expected to lose in at least 50% of his matches, consequentially gaining more points per win than " X top team".

If average Joe plays 100 matches, wins 50 and loses 50 ( no wide margin loss) he’ll get 70+ points.

If top team wins 70 matches and loses 30 ( against equally skilled top teams) they’ll end up pretty much like average Joe’s score.

This is not fair by any means.

Justin ODell.9517:

Check our the table on this page:
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/finding-the-perfect-match/

The wiki will also have the details: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm#Ladder

Ye my bad.

Doesn’t change the sum anyway: if i beat a “way higher” team than mine, i’ll get just 1 more point than winning against teams about my MMR range.

Another reason why we need a wider point arrange.

Justin ODell.9517:

Changing the scoring is certainly something that could be done. We’ll be looking at things like that, and for your opinions, at the end of the beta ladder season.

Gud.

Justin ODell.9517:

That would suck for the more rated team, since you’re lower than they are they wouldn’t be getting points. All lose and no win doesn’t seem very fun, so I doubt they’d enjoy it. Could be wrong though.

That would suck indeed but it’s just like it should be.

If #1 top team faces “who cares elo” team , there’s no reason why they should obtain more than 1 point.

Facts is with current system even 1 point is like 1/3 of the best possible score , reason why a wider arrange of points is totally needed.

Three 500-0 wins of a decent team against random pugs is worth the same than random pugs beating TCG, MIM or Abjured.

Tell me in what world is this fair by any chance.

Obviously we need brackets limitation in order to avoid things like these.

Giving more points per win as the ladder is climbed ( and as long as matches are fair and not loop-sided) seems reasonable imho.

Of course if the system gets rearranged like this , we need ACTUALLY GOOD rewards for the end of the season, cuz staying on top will be hard

And this leads to the last point.

Justin ODell.9517:

:( I love my llama!

We don’t.

Get over it and give us a real reason to play this game.

There are so many problems the devs have to contend with when designing these systems. It’s not easy. They’ve tried to address a lot of them by splitting the games into ranked and unranked. You can either struggle to make a completely accurate all-encompassing system which may not work and may be less accurate and extremely unfair against some groups of players, or a looser and simpler system which leaves many things unaccounted for in order to be possibly fairer overall. If you want to aim for the former, you need to really identify and plan to address every issue. As a programmer, it’s easier to justify and explain a lack of functionality when it’s calculated and reasoned deliberation as opposed to accidental or the result of shortcomings, lack of resources or failure.

Brackets work well for fixed teams, but not for solo queuers, unless you can create a temporary virtual bracket in context of a match as it happens given the positions of each member on the boards. But for that to be completely accurate, you have to consider team compositions as a factor, for premades have control over theirs’, but solo queuers don’t. The more players in the party, the more control you have over your composition, so some sort of calculation would need to be in place to determine how much was deliberate and how much wasn’t, and it would also need to be specific to each player so as not to unfairly treat those that weren’t in that party. It ranges from no issue with premades to a complete issue for those who have no team and want to compete on the boards, and get a terrible composition (yes I’m talking about those 2 thief 3 offguard compositions) against once with say 2 celestial elementalist, 1 celestial engineer, 1 hambow, 1 bunker guard. In such scenarios, calculating odds by a rating of each individual player isn’t enough. A human can instantly see that the team with the terrible composition should lose, but a system like the current could punish them for it. You also have to measure individual performances in game, otherwise one person getting the same sort of teams with the same mindset over and over will never be able to progress - a major issue in the previous system. But then we have to consider roles people should be fulfilling. Different classes have different roles to play; how is this determined? Should the system just say X class will perform Y role? Or X build will perform Y role? Too inflexible. No room for meta change and new build creation. Such a system would become obsolete overtime with balance updates. The system would therefore need to be intelligent; dynamic. It would need to be able to analyse builds and produce data structures to determine what roles the builds can perform, how effective they are, and they would need to be sufficiently comparable so that they can be used accurately in context with the team - roles and effectiveness at them as a team. But now you’re falling into the trap of calculating what players should and should not be doing, producing a set of requirements for them to fulfill during the match and rewarding them for how well they fulfill them. People don’t like being told what to do - especially in a game and especially when it feels like a restriction where there wasn’t one before. Furthermore, this is a complex system, and with increased complexity comes increased likelihood of serious problems: bugs and inaccuracies. Some people won’t appreciate such a system even if it works, preferring the freedom to try new things and test their own theories - theories an algorithm won’t be able to have. How would these calculations be used in terms of composition A vs composition B? Can they be added together to determine overall effectiveness of the team in particular aspects, measure support and tankiness against mobility and damage dealing capability? Not easily. What about synergy between the classes involved? What about the quantities and qualities therein? More complexity, more difficulty, more exclusive focus on a small area of the game, and creating much more room for error. Is that worth it from a developer’s perspective? Is that the best use of their time?

Does it stop there? No. What about actual gameplay decisions, rotations, strategies, apparent awareness, outcomes of XvX scenarios given the classes and builds involved? Have tournaments? Manual adjustment? Not everyone or every team competes in tournaments. Is the system complete and accurate if it assumes this or simply omits this detail? What flaws to look for? Over-reaching, over-committing, zerging, leaving points unprotected and unwatched after fighting for it for half the game? Alright but who is the culprit? How does the algorithm determine who was involved by fault? Are all who are doing it to blame, or does someone there know better - deserve better - but was forced to adapt and participate in the act to avoid being chased by 2-3 people around the map while his team is on respawn in between suicide rushes? If one sees it as futile and tries to play properly alone, but constantly dies in 1v2-3 alone and inbetween points, should they be punished for it - for statistically just dying and not successfully contributing to the team’s score? What if 1 or 2 people go afk or stop trying, and those remaining throw the game as a result? How do you know who is idling as a result as opposed to idling in fault?

So what are some simple solutions? Having unranked matches is a simple solution which goes a long way to address some issues here. How? It gives players the option not to be ranked, thereby allowing them to avoid having their rating affected by seemingly random players of unknown experiences and skill levels. There is of course that problem to deal with as well. Perhaps a tutorial of some sort for PvP? It would have to be for all current players as well as new, and mandatory, for the problem is still current in players who have been playing the game for a long time. Unranked should also be a complete duplicate of ranked to truly provide the freedom of choice between matches in terms of that one difference: ranked or unranked. This means allowing standard models to work in unranked arenas.

Rewards? A common proposed solution to get more players playing PvP. Does it work? Sure. For a while. Until those players have grabbed the rewards and left until the next time. How can this be amended? Rewards such as skins are popular. Perhaps some items with an attractive new stat-combination exclusive to PvP as well? With one difference as opposed to in the past: they are rewards for PvPers, not from PvP. Make them only accessible and then usable by players who have done so many matches in the last N period of time. This sort of thing does work - we see it daily. No really, a lot of players do PvP just for the PvP daily. If it’s something they want, they will come. It therefore has to be something that will keep them coming, not just to obtain it once.

Edit: To be clear, I’m not arguing that the devs should do all of the things mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3. I’m explaining why they won’t make the sort of improvements many of us would like to see: because they are just too complex and area-restrictive.

Just because a problem is complex dosen’t mean it shouldn’t be adressed. You can toss a lot of assumptions why the devs do this or that. An intuitive answer is not better than just blindly guessing why. If they are smart they use the statistics of the game and some good algorithm to adjust it. Maybe they even fiddle with some of the games mechanics. But if the median of people loses their matches or feel like they are playtesting an unfinifshed game and have therefore an unpleasant gaming experience; you can bet that this game will lose a lot of players. If they do not fix this and do it quick, they damage their own source of income.

Frost.5017:

The OP has missed the real issue with match making in GW2: lack of pvp population. If you were asked to run a sports league that was made up of only 4 teams: one of which is of pro caliber, one is ‘weekend warrior’ skill level, and 2 teams that have never ever played the sport before how would you go about setting up ‘good matches’ each week for the league?

Completely not true. You can have any type of league you’d like at any amount of population. If people are getting stomped, from a nonpremade group then it’s a l2p issue from you or your team. A premade group, then form a team. If you’re not all too skilled then why join rank and ruin your record anyways?
Besides like some one stated earlier 10k+ players is more than enough.

People think there’s an easy, medium, and hard mode in TPvP. There’s only one mode and it’s not easy. Don’t expect to get matched against players your own level when you enter an all-level-rank entry system. The matchmaking will do its best at keeping teams even but it’s Never a guarantee.

Justin ODell.9517:

That would suck for the more rated team, since you’re lower than they are they wouldn’t be getting points. All lose and no win doesn’t seem very fun, so I doubt they’d enjoy it. Could be wrong though.

Losers are NOT meant to get points omg…just look at old freaking gw1, in GvG losers were just losing…never getting points for that, in ha was the same: high ranked teams facerolling and bad players just sitting in a corner with nothing until they managed to get better and somehow winning…this is how a competitive game should work…rewards for losing is only gonan promote farming that is the worst thing that can possibly happen in a pvp wannabe esports

stop

rewarding

losers

just…stop.

Archaon.9524:

Tman.6349:

Would the truly skilled playing more matches be an option?

Skill =/= Farming

Not even close

I didn’t say or imply that at all.

Not even close.

Okay, new idea:

What if we restructured this concept of “odds of victory” into a type of handicap system. If a team with significantly lower odds of victory had to score less points in order to clinch a win, could we use that as a way to look only at wins and losses for leaderboards? or maybe wins minus losses as a player’s score? Would this keep high level players and teams entertained if there isn’t a good matchup for them at the time? Would this make less experienced players feel like they have a chance against high level teams?

I know this presents MMR as a problem…ie Good players beating a good team should have a higher reward than bad players beating a bad team..

Saiyan.1704:

Completely not true. You can have any type of league you’d like at any amount of population.

You’ve disregarded the ‘good match ups’ portion. I can’t argue with you on your point that once you have two teams you can have a match. I would argue that it takes more than just two teams to have a entertaining match both from a player or spectator’s perspective.

If people are getting stomped, from a nonpremade group then it’s a l2p issue from you or your team. A premade group, then form a team. If you’re not all too skilled then why join rank and ruin your record anyways?

My point was that, in my opinion, Anet’s top PvP priority needs to be getting new players into the PvP scene and retaining them. Certainly l2p is a big part of the issue with player retention and their isnt anything in place or baked into the game to even remotely assist in this area. Put yourself in a new player’s shoes: a friend tells you to come join GW2 and check out the PvP, so you purchase a copy and sit down to get into the game. Taking it from that point, how do you go about learning to play as that new player? I hope we can at least agree that the conquest game mode is much more complicated, and hence has much greater depth for it, than just being a mechanically proficient player.

Besides like some one stated earlier 10k+ players is more than enough.

Those numbers seem pretty inflated, either due to the surge of players coming into pvp to check out the new changes (similar to the surge that showed up when reward tracks were implemented) or over a 24hr period (i.e. time differences would prevent many of those numbers from ever queuing against one another). But then again, we can only speculate as Anet has the population data, and they aren’t sharing.

Don’t expect to get matched against players your own level when you enter an all-level-rank entry system. The matchmaking will do its best at keeping teams even but it’s Never a guarantee.

I’m not really sure what you are driving at here. I’m suggesting that if there was a larger healthier pool of pvp players to pull from it would be more likely to find players of similar caliber and skill to match up. And its those close matchups that are going to help player skill develop; blowing out a team or being blown out does little to better you as a player.

Archaon.9524:

Justin ODell.9517:

That would suck for the more rated team, since you’re lower than they are they wouldn’t be getting points. All lose and no win doesn’t seem very fun, so I doubt they’d enjoy it. Could be wrong though.

Losers are NOT meant to get points omg…just look at old freaking gw1, in GvG losers were just losing…never getting points for that, in ha was the same: high ranked teams facerolling and bad players just sitting in a corner with nothing until they managed to get better and somehow winning…this is how a competitive game should work…rewards for losing is only gonan promote farming that is the worst thing that can possibly happen in a pvp wannabe esports

stop

rewarding

losers

just…stop.

That only makes sense if every match has a 50/50 win chance for each team.

Which means a handicap system to level the playing field. Such as faster score ticks for the weaker team.

There is a broad variety of possible ways to include a handicap system. Some games allow a good player to pick a specific handicap. For example some lower your power of executable performances (like running with weights), some lower the strategic options you have by disallowing certain draws (like having a hand tied on your back) or limiting strategic information (like beeing blindfolded).
It is more or less like the Mistlock Instabilities in the fractals of the mists.

There are two things they need to do to make the ladder work well in my opinion:

1. Scale the points awarded for a match by the average MMR of the teams.

2. Make average points per game the ranking metric for the leaderboards.

Laserbolt.6731:

Archaon.9524:

Justin ODell.9517:

That would suck for the more rated team, since you’re lower than they are they wouldn’t be getting points. All lose and no win doesn’t seem very fun, so I doubt they’d enjoy it. Could be wrong though.

Losers are NOT meant to get points omg…just look at old freaking gw1, in GvG losers were just losing…never getting points for that, in ha was the same: high ranked teams facerolling and bad players just sitting in a corner with nothing until they managed to get better and somehow winning…this is how a competitive game should work…rewards for losing is only gonan promote farming that is the worst thing that can possibly happen in a pvp wannabe esports

stop

rewarding

losers

just…stop.

That only makes sense if every match has a 50/50 win chance for each team.

Which means a handicap system to level the playing field. Such as faster score ticks for the weaker team.

Why should a weaker team have an advantage?

NeXeD.3042:

Laserbolt.6731:

Archaon.9524:

Justin ODell.9517:

That would suck for the more rated team, since you’re lower than they are they wouldn’t be getting points. All lose and no win doesn’t seem very fun, so I doubt they’d enjoy it. Could be wrong though.

Losers are NOT meant to get points omg…just look at old freaking gw1, in GvG losers were just losing…never getting points for that, in ha was the same: high ranked teams facerolling and bad players just sitting in a corner with nothing until they managed to get better and somehow winning…this is how a competitive game should work…rewards for losing is only gonan promote farming that is the worst thing that can possibly happen in a pvp wannabe esports

stop

rewarding

losers

just…stop.

That only makes sense if every match has a 50/50 win chance for each team.

Which means a handicap system to level the playing field. Such as faster score ticks for the weaker team.

Why should a weaker team have an advantage?

To make the winner the team that played better than their average ability.

Do you know what handicaps are in golf, bowling leagues, etc? Maybe you are not aware of these things.

Yeah I am except those aren’t “contact” sports. Ever seen Tom Brady just be like kitten it you guys can have the ball this time.

Nice try richard.

NeXeD,

Well, please explain how the “contact” thing makes a difference on why you should have not have handicapping in GW2?

Aren’t brackets a form of handicap? Do you think there should be brackets?

We don’t have brackets…..

A team made up of players that are on average worse than their opponents shouldn’t be given an advantage… they should get better or get rekt. That’s what competition is.

NeXeD.3042:

We don’t have brackets…..

A team made up of players that are on average worse than their opponents shouldn’t be given an advantage… they should get better or get rekt. That’s what competition is.

No, I’d say that completely mismatched teams are the opposite of competition. LOL.

Laserbolt.6731:

No completely mismatched teams are the opposite of competition. LOL.

That would be the fault one of the following:

• insufficient population
• inadequate matchmaking algorithm/parameters
• (temporary) inadequate matchmaking data
• (also temporary) Justin turned off the matchmaking checks for the weekend

As i alluded to in your other thread, the MMR algorithm does not need extremely high confidence if the main consequence for being a bit off is 1 point of MMR that could go either direction and evens out over time.

Being wrong and giving a handicap like faster point ticks requires a much higher degree of confidence from the matchmaker, and I don’t think GW2’s population is close to large enough to supply the data and the accuracy to get to that confidence.

Chase.8415:

Archaon.9524:

Chase.8415:

I was really hoping for exclusive finishers for top 1000 players.

top 1000 lol

I know right, it’s a complete joke that only 4% of the PvP population gets it.

are you sure it is 4%? it is actually incredibly easy to get to 1000 and leaderboards are really volatile

Quote:

“Losers are NOT meant to get points omg…just look at old freaking gw1, in GvG losers were just losing…never getting points for that, in ha was the same: high ranked teams facerolling and bad players just sitting in a corner with nothing until they managed to get better and somehow winning…this is how a competitive game should work…rewards for losing is only gonan promote farming that is the worst thing that can possibly happen in a pvp wannabe esports”

“That only makes sense if every match has a 50/50 win chance for each team.”

“Which means a handicap system to level the playing field. Such as faster score ticks for the weaker team.”

“Why should a weaker team have an advantage?”

“To make the winner the team that played better than their average ability.”

“Do you know what handicaps are in golf, bowling leagues, etc? Maybe you are not aware of these things.”

Then the “buffed” team would always win. Very frustrating for a ‘higher’ team who has a solid record, knowing they’re so good that they could face these “buffed” teams numerous times. If I was receiving a handicap I’d want a substantial bonus rewarded for it.

If this really needs to happen, have a type of losing-streak-buff for the individual players who loses 10 games in a row. Maybe a 10% increase in stats or quickness gained 5s when at 20%, etc.
A small, noticeable change yet game changing.

I rather receive partial credit for losing then no credit at all. I know I, myself, can give me team 50 more points by keeping a node, making stomps or rallying people. That can be a difference of a 400 point loss or 300 point loss. I want that to show on the leaderboards after X amount of games; instead of a solid 0 points that 1 point means a lot.
I think points earned should be increased further if odds of losing is greater, for people with little to no points.

Why would the buff team always win? The buff is just to make for an EVEN match by giving just enough buff to level the playing field.

I can see how the gear-based MMO mentality is behind some people’s thinking. That thinking is: if you have earned the power and a big advantage, you get to use it to dominate.

That’s WoW, etc.

Laserbolt.6731:

NeXeD.3042:

We don’t have brackets…..

A team made up of players that are on average worse than their opponents shouldn’t be given an advantage… they should get better or get rekt. That’s what competition is.

No, I’d say that completely mismatched teams are the opposite of competition. LOL.

THIS. Will stop being as much of a problem when a larger sample size for our MMR is done. So yeah the matchmaking is going to suck for a little while for some cough people. It doesn’t mean yo..i mean the bad players should get an advantage.

Laserbolt.6731:

Why would the buff team always win? The buff is just to make for an EVEN match by giving just enough buff to level the playing field.

I can see how the gear-based MMO mentality is behind some people’s thinking. That thinking is: if you have earned the power and a big advantage, you get to use it to dominate.

That’s WoW, etc.

Now your equating player skill and experience with high level gear in WOW. I cant tell if your trolling now

NeXeD,

I am not trolling at all.

Earlier you spoke that “weak players should get ‘rekt’ or get better”.

In the GW2 matchmaking system when it is set to strict matching, you are going to be facing players just as skilled as you are. Nobody is going to be “rek”-ing anybody.

The entire GW2 design is to have challenging matches with no huge advantage to one side.

But playing people you can easily “rek” because you are a lot more experienced and skilled goes entirely against the game design.

You tell them “suck it up; get better”. But you ignore that you had the advantage because you were “playing a lower bracket” in effect. The matchup was lopsided. The matcher screwed up. That’s what people are complaining about.

Your “get better” comment implies it was an even match and they played below their skill level. But they played AT their skill level.

GW2 has a Glicko 2 MMR system. It’s there so that people play opponents that are tough for them, not easy.

GW2 is instituting the Ladder Point grid that gives you points even if you lose. THAT, by the way, is a kind of handicap system.

GW2 gives everyone the same gear so there won’t be a WoW-type gear advantage.

In WoW, people can destroy people because their gear is typically much stronger and they have an advantage.

Playing a team from a much lower “bracket” is the same thing. Doesn’t matter if it’s a skill advantage or a gear advantage, it’s a lopsided match.

Anyway, I am old enough to be your grandfather, probably. I am going to bed.

There’s not enough players to get q times fast enough to get games that even.