Guild Wars 2

Its clear that if you got lucky in the placement matches and got placed within top 100 you are discouraged and punished for playing more games. All u have to do is play 1 match every 3 days to keep your spot and never drop out of top 100. So how is it fair that some1 plays 20-30 matches has worse rating than some1 who plays 1 game every few days?

my idea is that players should exp decay once they have played less games the average game played by all players obviously some players dont even pvp or played 1 game and done but i feel like atleast this way you would have to play more then 1 game every 3 days i agree

yeah this is very exploitable. not sure how to solve this though. making the decay harsher doesnt sound good either.

Emdrix.6124:

Its clear that if you got lucky in the placement matches and got placed within top 100 you are discouraged and punished for playing more games. All u have to do is play 1 match every 3 days to keep your spot and never drop out of top 100. So how is it fair that some1 plays 20-30 matches has worse rating than some1 who plays 1 game every few days?

It’s the quality of opponents. Even the bronze sub 1,000 rank players can go 6-4 in placements and play 100s of games there in bronze if that’s where they belong and can’t improve to break their wall.

If you want it to be just “games played” you might’ve like the old system better.

all in all its way to early to tell if that is actually the case seeing as they dont have alot of games if they avoid playing if they play there 1 game and lose they just as easily fall out of top 250

The top 250 keeps changing too pushing out all the lower scores. It started at around 1530 now the lowest you can be is the 1700s whereas if you were say 1750 to start and in the top 100 or even 50 I’d be getting nervous right about now. (and we’re only a few days in with over 50 more to go)

Honest John.4673:

The top 250 keeps changing too pushing out all the lower scores. It started at around 1530 now the lowest you can be is the 1700s whereas if you were say 1750 to start and in the top 100 or even 50 I’d be getting nervous right about now. (and we’re only a few days in with over 50 more to go)

It wont push out the lower scores because those who got good placement matches can be nearly 1900 range with only 10 games played.

Emdrix.6124:

Honest John.4673:

The top 250 keeps changing too pushing out all the lower scores. It started at around 1530 now the lowest you can be is the 1700s whereas if you were say 1750 to start and in the top 100 or even 50 I’d be getting nervous right about now. (and we’re only a few days in with over 50 more to go)

It wont push out the lower scores because those who got good placement matches can be nearly 1900 range with only 10 games played.

You say lower scores won’t get pushed out when I already gave an objective verifiable example that they have. Then you bring in the higher scores to prove your point. But guess what, people with 1900 rating have already got pushed out of the top 10 and are now much lower now. Even then you’d have to play 18 more matches throughout the season to ward off decay. And if you win a lot of those games at that level then yeah your MMR should stay up there where you deserve.

I for one will be playing 1 to 3 matches a day this season cause if I play 25 in a day and end up in the same area that 1 to 3 would’ve got me, I’m just wasting my time. Plus it keeps me from being tilted.

Here’s direct evidence. Number 3 on the leader board has all of 10 games.

The leader board ought to be based on a combination of games played and win %. That was really a pretty obvious exploit and should have been prevented.

Your skill rating is based off your previous MMR. If you’re good enough to get that high a skill rating after going 9-1 you likely had a pretty kitten good MMR to begin with plus you were likely going up against the same competition you played previously. This person has to play a bare minimum of 18 more games throughout the remainder of the season (52 days) to stave off decay. See if they drop, with more games played.

Ithilwen.1529:

The leader board ought to be based on a combination of games played and win %. That was really a pretty obvious exploit and should have been prevented.

So you want to go back to a grind leaderboard, no thanks.

I didn’t say grind. What I said was that playing a minimal number of games doesn’t risk dropping anywhere near as much as a person playing regularly. It’s an exploit.

The leader board should consider win percentage AND number of games played.

Ithilwen.1529:

I didn’t say grind. What I said was that playing a minimal number of games doesn’t risk dropping anywhere near as much as a person playing regularly. It’s an exploit.

The leader board should consider win percentage AND number of games played.

An exploit is the misuse of a software feature or bug in a way that allows a player to generate in-game benefits without the risk or time expected by the game’s designers.

There is no loophole in the design of decay or with the way leader boards are set up that anyone is taking advantage of.

They still have to play games to remain there, at minimum 1 every 3 days and unless they win (the majority of) those games they’ll drop.

Ithilwen.1529:

I didn’t say grind. What I said was that playing a minimal number of games doesn’t risk dropping anywhere near as much as a person playing regularly. It’s an exploit.

The leader board should consider win percentage AND number of games played.

But you do want a grind leaderboard. The current leaderboard isn’t based on win percentage or number of games played, it’s based on MMR, as it should be; it’s a leaderboard based on who the matchmaking system thinks is good.

Your leaderboard would reward people with a positive win/loss ratio but wouldn’t take into account the difficulty of the opposition; in theory, a player in bronze division could have the same win percentage as a player in legendary, in which case the only deciding factor between who is higher on the leaderboard would be games played.

It would also mean that players who are still climbing would have an advantage over people who have settled into their correct division according to the matchmaking system, which is absurd.

So in summary, you want a grind leaderboard with an element of win percentage which doesn’t take into account the difficulty of the opposition. No thanks.