Guild Wars 2

It would promote a healthy, competitive playing environment.

Currently the people at the top of the leaderboard usually get there and then quit for ages to stay there. This shouldn’t be possible. Instead after a few days of inactivity the account should gradually lose rank (exponential decay). This clearly isn’t in the current ladder system of arenanet which seems like a huge oversight (or if it is in then it isnt enough by a long way).

Welcome to the leaderboards where the top 25 are inactive and the players behind it are never able to reach it due to 10 wins / 1 loss ratio which throws them back in the ranking.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Welcome to the leaderboards where the top 25 are inactive and the players behind it are never able to reach it due to 10 wins / 1 loss ratio which throws them back in the ranking.

Yeh, I think this is a huge issue tbh.

I think after 3 days of inactivity the rating should be multiplied by 0.95
After 4 days by 0.90
After 5 days by 0.85

etc.

The fundamental point of a leaderboard in a video game is to make people play lol. Atm the leaderboard rewards people to not play. Total fail.

I still go soloq many times a day for fun (Facing premades and losing many times off course) like i used to do, giving a kitten bout ladders and stuff but i noticed that after I stopped playing for something like 7-8 days i actually went up in the leaderboard, dunno how this thing really works and i don’t care, but rewarding ppl for being inactive sounds a bit stupid to me…expec considering the actual lack of active players in pvp…

Not to mention the invisible rating.

PS: Rating-decrease through inactivity won’t save the problem. You can easily dodge other competitive teams and play a match against a soloQ-team = problem solved.

Archaon.6245:

I still go soloq many times a day for fun (Facing premades and losing many times off course) like i used to do, giving a kitten bout ladders and stuff but i noticed that after I stopped playing for something like 7-8 days i actually went up in the leaderboard, dunno how this thing really works and i don’t care, but rewarding ppl for being inactive sounds a bit stupid to me…

Well imagine the person top atm quits the game and nobody can catch up to him because you get most rating for beating people above you. SO there is literally no way (besides winning 50 matches in a row) to get above him. Does that mean this person at the top still the “best player” even though they havent played for 4 months? You have to have a punishment for inactivity built into any ladder system or the risk/reward for playing becomes so hugely weighted towards risk when you are at the top that if you care about the ladder then you simply are incentivised to not play.

Simple decay system on the ladder placement, not thier hidden MMR would work fine.

And that’s the reason why i absolutely don’t care bout ladder, i still go solo (Many times with fancy specs like dps Scepter/Torch guardian), i still go with r20 guilmates and friends and i still have fun…if aiming to high rank means you can’t play for fun when and how you want, or even worse you’ve better not to play at all, there’s no reason to play a game imo, since games are supposed to be fun…or not?

Archaon.6245:

And that’s the reason why i absolutely don’t care bout ladder, i still go solo (Many times with fancy specs like dps Scepter/Torch guardian), i still go with r20 guilmates and friends and i still have fun…if aiming to high rank means you can’t play for fun when and how you want, or even worse you’ve better not to play at all, there’s no reason to play a game imo, since games are supposed to be fun…or not?

I agree but that is a different point. For some people “fun” is trying to get high up the ladder. If this is made harder because people at the top dont play then it needs to be addressed. A simple decay system would solve so many issues. It is just a matter of designing the system in a way which is fairer. A decay system would be a step in this direction. It would also make people play more which is good for the game and the ladder.

I like the idea of a simple ladder decay system.

Good idea. Something should also be done to minimize the meteoric ris of players that have fewer than 50 wins. The leaderboard is clogged with people who rarely play.

Most of them are not inactive but just play a 2nd acc…
this makes climbing the ladder even more difficulty since you are matched against lower mmr accs and losing against them drops your rating even more (and winning increases not as much…).

This doesn’t really concern me, but how about basing your score off of the last xx days of play? That way the score will more accurately reflect a player’s ability in recent times.

Navzar.2938:

This doesn’t really concern me, but how about basing your score off of the last xx days of play? That way the score will more accurately reflect a players ability in recent times.

I think the point is something needs to be done. This is another suggestion worth considering imo.

Something clearly isnt right atm

Definetly. Check these guys:
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Lakonia.3491
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Soppis.1843
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Kaeleth.3041
All of them played ~~10 matches, got into the leaderboards and then stoped playing, and have been moving up and down ranks just by letting others play.
Theres really no reason to play better right now, i hop they get into that revamping rewards thing they mention in the sotg very soon, or else no specator/CA/shoutcasted tournament is gonna fix this.

Couldn’t agree more with thi thread.
This is a big issue. Rewarding inactivity is totally wrong. Best players that deserve to be in the top 1000 are those who keep playing and keep winning.

Although losing rating for inactivity isn’t exactlly fair…
If someone goes 10 days for vacation he shouldn’t be dropped. There are many fair ways to keep a ranking system, starting with the minimum matches played. There should be a minimum of 100 games.

Inactivity could not drop rating but make players “invisible” to the rankings until they play a game again.

Good reason to shoutcast bigger tournaments. This gonna happen / is allrdy planned and will be something huge. Hopefully this will get some more competition into this game.

ahuba.6430:

Definetly. Check these guys:
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Lakonia.3491
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Soppis.1843
http://www.gwshack.info/?page=player_spvp&region=eu&username=Kaeleth.3041
All of them played ~~10 matches, got into the leaderboards and then stoped playing, and have been moving up and down ranks just by letting others play.
Theres really no reason to play better right now, i hop they get into that revamping rewards thing they mention in the sotg very soon, or else no specator/CA/shoutcasted tournament is gonna fix this.

Soppis is so imba anet wouldn’t dare to drop him off, his signets would wipe the entire leaderboards otherwise.

Absolutly, i agree with Lord, inactivity needs to downgrade the elo rating or better, people need to be “invisible” in ladder if they don’t play for a long time (elo rating stays the same but they don’t appear in ladder).

But i think this step needs to be linked with soloqueue and premade queue separated.

A lot of strong people have a second account because they don’t want to lose positions in ladder when they play in soloqueue or in pug, this issue freeze a lot of people in top 50-100, they don’t move in ladder simply because they don’t use their account or they play few matches.

Seems like you should need 75 games or something first to even be on it

It’s goofy you have these people ranked in the top 100 with stuff like 9 wins 4 losses

+1 And also to add, I like how Starcraft handles people who actually play often as well ( with a bonus pool) so have a daily pool of extra points to earn for wins when you actually play. I’m not a fan of this mysterious rating that ranks not only inactive players higher, but players who don’t play many games per day.

Amelor.9845:

Although losing rating for inactivity isn’t exactlly fair…
If someone goes 10 days for vacation he shouldn’t be dropped. There are many fair ways to keep a ranking system, starting with the minimum matches played. There should be a minimum of 100 games.

Inactivity could not drop rating but make players “invisible” to the rankings until they play a game again.

Nah, leaderboards are competitive – not casual. If you don’t play, you shouldn’t be rewarded for it – and keeping your rating is a reward.

GW1 GvG ladder had a pretty good method for this. The inactive guild is removed from the toplist, but can keep their ratings.
If they play a game they will get back to the leaderboard with their former rating + the win/lose from the match played.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Amelor.9845:

Although losing rating for inactivity isn’t exactlly fair…
If someone goes 10 days for vacation he shouldn’t be dropped. There are many fair ways to keep a ranking system, starting with the minimum matches played. There should be a minimum of 100 games.

Inactivity could not drop rating but make players “invisible” to the rankings until they play a game again.

Nah, leaderboards are competitive – not casual. If you don’t play, you shouldn’t be rewarded for it – and keeping your rating is a reward.

Totally disagree. Competitive does not mean you can not have a life or a family or leave for 10 days. Like they mentioned before, you can just disappear from rankings till you play games again

Amelor.9845:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Amelor.9845:

Although losing rating for inactivity isn’t exactlly fair…
If someone goes 10 days for vacation he shouldn’t be dropped. There are many fair ways to keep a ranking system, starting with the minimum matches played. There should be a minimum of 100 games.

Inactivity could not drop rating but make players “invisible” to the rankings until they play a game again.

Nah, leaderboards are competitive – not casual. If you don’t play, you shouldn’t be rewarded for it – and keeping your rating is a reward.

Totally disagree. Competitive does not mean you can not have a life or a family or leave for 10 days. Like they mentioned before, you can just disappear from rankings till you play games again

The only compromise I’d be willing to go for is keeping the rating due to hiatus but other players who play everyday get more points (to a certain amount via daily bonus pools) so they are rewarded for playing and winning. And then add seasons, so let’s say you have a vacation for season 1 and rank 90%. Then in season 2, you are active, you get back to top 500 or so. IMO, look at LoL, Sc2, and see how they make their matchmaking work so well.

Gandarel.5091:

GW1 GvG ladder had a pretty good method for this. The inactive guild is removed from the toplist, but can keep their ratings.
If they play a game they will get back to the leaderboard with their former rating + the win/lose from the match played.

this sounds quite good to me

Yes, probably “invisible” mode for inactivity is a good way to solve this.

I don’t think bonus pool could work in GW2, because this game only has MMR.

Bonus pool works in sc2 because they have both visible ladder points and a hidden MMR. The bonus pool only applies to the visible amount.

LoL has a similar method with visible LPs (league points) and a hidden MMR, but they have decay on LPs + dropped from visible rankings after 4 weeks of inactivity.

I’m fairly sure the concept of decay doesn’t exist in a base elo/glicko system (correct me if I’m wrong). Modifying someone’s MMR based on inactivity would create inaccurate skill level measurements. I believe Glicko 2 has a form of confidence that decreases due to inactivity, but this only makes your rank more volatile when you start back up. It doesn’t change it if you aren’t playing.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a similar setup added here with some visible number rating on top of your hidden MMR, and some decay/bonus on the visible rating.

Nettle.9025:

I don’t think bonus pool could work in GW2, because this game only has MMR.

Bonus pool works in sc2 because they have both visible ladder points and a hidden MMR. The bonus pool only applies to the visible amount.

LoL has a similar method with visible LPs (league points) and a hidden MMR, but they have decay on LPs + dropped from visible rankings after 4 weeks of inactivity.

I’m fairly sure the concept of decay doesn’t exist in a base elo/glicko system (correct me if I’m wrong). Modifying someone’s MMR based on inactivity would create inaccurate skill level measurements. I believe Glicko 2 has a form of confidence that decreases due to inactivity, but this only makes your rank more volatile when you start back up. It doesn’t change it if you aren’t playing.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a similar setup added here with some visible number rating on top of your hidden MMR, and some decay/bonus on the visible rating.

You’re right. Interesting information that I didn’t think about. Ideally, my only quarrel is the people who have low games played who are rank in the top 1000. :<

The whole point of this ladder thing was to make the tpvp players buy a second account so they can actually keep playing when their 5 man teams are not all logged on and anet can make more money wasn’t it? Making people drop down the ladder from inactivity would seem to contradict this.

MarkPhilips.5169:

Yes, probably “invisible” mode for inactivity is a good way to solve this.

It is a possible solution. I prefer just losing rating though when you dont play for a week or more.

I’ve played 2 games since march 26 to april 29, rank 110 atm.
GG leaderboards

Don’t worry, you remember the month wait when only anet could see the leaderboards?

>They made us wait that long so it could stabilize aka the people that never play get off the leaderboards.<—-

agree, I have seem some people playing on a sub account because they afraid of losing their rank on the leader board, which is funny. Why care so much

never really thought about this and i’m not one to actively “manage” my position on the boards (quite low right now XDD) but of course, i will strive to win all matches.

that being said, i think if they are able to implement some of these ideas or address this issue constructively, it will be better for the health and state of the game. which would be beneficial for most, if not all, of us.

i blame amesan.

I really do think that it’s a necessity that inactive Players loose rank…

akamon.2769:

never really thought about this and i’m not one to actively “manage” my position on the boards (quite low right now XDD) but of course, i will strive to win all matches.

that being said, i think if they are able to implement some of these ideas or address this issue constructively, it will be better for the health and state of the game. which would be beneficial for most, if not all, of us.

Yeh, also I would of thought this can be fixed without needing to patch the game? Should be a simple matter of changing the web based ladder