I would like to suggest that all players who have more ranked match losses than wins would be automatically removed from the top 1000 PvP leaderboard.
It is not good to see in the leaderboard players who have high rankings yet have more losses than wins. It just shows that they made it to the top not because of their skill but just because they have played more often.
Just my two cents. I hope the developers would act upon this though. Thanks.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Attachments:
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
I belive this system is broken. Mostly because if you lose, the more you score the less LB points you lose or even have chance to gain them, HOWEVER if you win, it doesn’t matter how many points enemies have scored. So if you think about it, both teams can end up with +1, just because “win more” scenario for better team isn’t rewarded and they aren’t encouraged for the best possible play like total denying enemies from scoring any points.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
Random Engineering // Trixxti // Random Noises (worst thief eu)
Svanir Appreciation Society [SAS]
Or just make it a rate over time. LB pts divided by matches played, with a nominal minimum # of games played.
This wouldn’t work for teamq’ers with high MMR, since it’s impossible for them to gain more than 1 point per game, meaning they can’t average more than 1.
Random Engineering // Trixxti // Random Noises (worst thief eu)
Svanir Appreciation Society [SAS]
Or just make it a rate over time. LB pts divided by matches played, with a nominal minimum # of games played.
This wouldn’t work for teamq’ers with high MMR, since it’s impossible for them to gain more than 1 point per game, meaning they can’t average more than 1.
True. Might work better if the point spread was widened a bit, and took into account opponent’s score.
There are so many things not to love about a system that measures individual skill on team play, especially with solo queue being as random as it is and so crap at balancing classes between teams, but since the end of game scoreboard doesn’t appropriately reflect people’s contributions to the match, it’s unfortunately all we’ve got.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +2 points at 400 or +3 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Random Engineering // Trixxti // Random Noises (worst thief eu)
Svanir Appreciation Society [SAS]
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Confirmed, the longer win streaks I had, the less +LB gains on average per match.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Confirmed, the longer win streaks I had, the less +LB gains on average per match.
How about this for another suggestion:
Points you gain/lose from matches are use MMR as a multiplier.
I don’t know what the scale is for MMR, but say for example the average MMR is 2000. Point gain/loss is multiplied by MMR/2000. This way you are being rewarded for being a high MMR player and eliminates people exploiting the leaderboard by losing 200 games right before the start of a reward season to lower their MMR.
Random Engineering // Trixxti // Random Noises (worst thief eu)
Svanir Appreciation Society [SAS]
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Confirmed, the longer win streaks I had, the less +LB gains on average per match.
How about this for another suggestion:
Points you gain/lose from matches are use MMR as a multiplier.
I don’t know what the scale is for MMR, but say for example the average MMR is 2000. Point gain/loss is multiplied by MMR/2000. This way you are being rewarded for being a high MMR player and eliminates people exploiting the leaderboard by losing 200 games right before the start of a reward season to lower their MMR.
That seems to be good idea. I think there should be more things taken into account like:
1) multiper bonus based on your MMR
2) multiper based on your odds of winning Edit: 3) premade size in your team vs premade size in enemy team (3+2 would be 3)
4) base points for your performance as team (if you’re winning enemy score would be indicator of it, if you’re losing then score of your team)
This way players with high MMR paired against players with lower MMR wouldn’t be punished for it (even if their chance to win would above 80%), if they would outplay their enemies by e.g. 500-0, it still would be worth +3 (in +3 <-> -3 scale).
Edit: Also, I think using higher scale for rating matches like +10 <-> -10 would be much better for accuracy than +3 <-> -3.
