Guild Wars 2

yes I’ve read the FAQ, and am still confused about the %’s for rank we get, is a higher percentage or lower percentage better?

the main reason I’m confused is that when I look at the leaderboards with it filtered for my guild and/or friends list, the rank percentage seems all over the place.

I’m personally at 19/16 win loss, and at 38% rank, while a guildie of mine who is at 36/29 with 49% rank
and on the flip side I also have a guildie who is at a negative w/l at 8x%, and another with a positive w/l also at 8x% rank =_=

it just seems super confusing and I would like to know what actually constitutes as a better rank, and what sort of metrics could affect it so much that win/loss actually matters that little.

% == “better than % of players under top 1000”
there is a hidden “rating” they don’t ever show for each player (rlly stupid imo),
you get more of it for winning vs players with high rating than you do for winning vs low rating

milo.6942:

% == “better than % of players under top 1000”
there is a hidden “rating” they don’t ever show for each player (rlly stupid imo),
you get more of it for winning vs players with high rating than you do for winning vs low rating

alright thanks ratings would be way better, this is just totally confusing

lmaonade.9207:

milo.6942:

% == “better than % of players under top 1000”
there is a hidden “rating” they don’t ever show for each player (rlly stupid imo),
you get more of it for winning vs players with high rating than you do for winning vs low rating

alright thanks ratings would be way better, this is just totally confusing

Careful what you wish for. While it would be more transparent to just show ratings people would be able to determine the forumla for the rating system if this was done and it would lead to people gaming the system.

What they have currently does not work. That is not a point of debate. If they made the formula public I think it would actually get worse, because any system that so readily rates inactives high and has so much volatility with low sample size is begging to be exploited. You would basically get try hards that aren’t all that good figuring out how exactly to get an unbeatable rank in a relative few games playing some off peak games and flooding the ladder. Once in top ladder spots they’d play a few games a week to avoid decay and basically lock the ladder. There are already people that guessed close enough to accomplish this (even if you look at the first page it is full of inactives).

Myrmidian Eudoros.4671:

lmaonade.9207:

milo.6942:

% == “better than % of players under top 1000”
there is a hidden “rating” they don’t ever show for each player (rlly stupid imo),
you get more of it for winning vs players with high rating than you do for winning vs low rating

alright thanks ratings would be way better, this is just totally confusing

Careful what you wish for. While it would be more transparent to just show ratings people would be able to determine the forumla for the rating system if this was done and it would lead to people gaming the system.

What they have currently does not work. That is not a point of debate. If they made the formula public I think it would actually get worse, because any system that so readily rates inactives high and has so much volatility with low sample size is begging to be exploited. You would basically get try hards that aren’t all that good figuring out how exactly to get an unbeatable rank in a relative few games playing some off peak games and flooding the ladder. Once in top ladder spots they’d play a few games a week to avoid decay and basically lock the ladder. There are already people that guessed close enough to accomplish this (even if you look at the first page it is full of inactives).

hmm fair enough, I’d settle for a more robust FAQ then

but yeah crazy confusing, I just lost 2 more games and game out with a higher rank…