Guild Wars 2

To be honest, I do not see why I should have a leaderboard.

My matches are most of the time 4 vs 5

it was only meant for use in 2013. 2014 they use a new system that we don’t have access to yet.

Eh we all have to deal with 4v5s even those of us at the top end of the leaderboard. Some days I will get mutiple 4v5s in a row just means I have to win all my other matches.

vincecontix.1264:

Eh we all have to deal with 4v5s even those of us at the top end of the leaderboard. Some days I will get mutiple 4v5s in a row just means I have to win all my other matches.

That’s true for sure! Although it’s not fun when you’ve had a day with 12 4v5 matches :’(

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

TeamQ yes, SoloQ no.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

TeamQ yes, SoloQ no.

Why not soloq? So a person having 60% winrate with more than 500 games played is not a “fairly well” indication of how well they play?

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

TeamQ yes, SoloQ no.

Why not soloq? So a person having 60% winrate with more than 500 games played is not a “fairly well” indication of how well they play?

Most of the time if you win either is dependant on your setup and/or your teammates. You can make a difference, but for me it feels more like a lottery tbh.

To add: Everybody can play a class “well” in this game. Problem is good awareness of rotation, which even top soloq players (those, which never played in teams) bring rarely on the table.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

TeamQ yes, SoloQ no.

Why not soloq? So a person having 60% winrate with more than 500 games played is not a “fairly well” indication of how well they play?

Most of the time if you win either is dependant on your setup and/or your teammates. You can make a difference, but for me it feels more like a lottery tbh.

To add: Everybody can play a class “well” in this game. Problem is good awareness of rotation, which even top soloq players (those, which never played in teams) bring rarely on the table.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Good point!

My personal view of the current leaderboards:

- being low/not on the leaderboards doesn’t mean you’re bad
- being in the upper quarter of the leaderboard doesn’t prove you’re good

however:

- being low/not on the leaderboards doesn’t indicate you’re good
- being in the upper quarter of the leaderboard certainly doesn’t indicate that you’re bad

So even if the system is flawed, even when soloQ is 90% luck/4vs5/unequal teamcomps, over 100s of games the 10% personal skill should get you above those who are lacking in these 10%. Generally you’ll find better players at the top and lesser experienced ones at the bottom. The leaderboards aren’t accurate for single cases (esp. not for people with a little amount of games played) but they aren’t wrong. Just learn to interpret them

Why do you even care about leaderboards? Just play however you want.

Lopez.7369:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Most of the time if you win either is dependant on your setup and/or your teammates. You can make a difference, but for me it feels more like a lottery tbh.

To add: Everybody can play a class “well” in this game. Problem is good awareness of rotation, which even top soloq players (those, which never played in teams) bring rarely on the table.

But it’s a lottery for everyone. That’s the point. That lottery becomes a statistical wash over time, and the only factors that end up mattering are individual skill and class.

I happen to study Mathematic and Statistic in Université de Montreal. I don’t know what "statistical wash’ even means, and where it comes from. But I do know one thing, I will win the lotery according to you, and I’ll be a billionaire. I can’t wait!

Lopez.7369:

That’s not what statistical wash means.

The simplest way to explain it is that if everyone has the same chance to get in a bad team or comp, so it evens out over time.

You should focus more on your studies.

Lopez.7369:

That’s not what statistical wash means.

The simplest way to explain it is that if everyone has the same chance to get in a bad team or comp, so it evens out over time.

You should focus more on your studies.

[/quote]I don’t know what "statistical wash’ even means, and where it comes from.[/quote]

Also,

Lopez.7369:

You should focus more on your studies.

Is another one of you logical fallacie? Assumption aside, I’m one of the top student in my departement, my name is listed in “le palmares du doyen”, but this is irrelevant to this dicussion.

Look, when you come up with actual data, and take into consideration what is exactly statistic, I may probably consider your post, and not come up with assumptions. You did not even use hypothesis testing (This is the basic of the basic, probably the most staighfoward branch of statistic, I’m not talking about Normal Law with integrals here… with A LOT of variable to consider), you just came up with “It’s even up over time, it’s a statistical wash”. Thit is not STATISTIC.

I will not take your “opinion” seriously. I just have the feeling that you try to make it appear like facts. For now, I will assume “statistical wash” is a term you invented yourself for the sake of it. Unless, the english system use different terms. If it’s the case, I would like you to send me the theory.

Luck becomes irrelevant with a high enough game count, leaving the only common factor between all games the individual player. Provided the player is never responsible for his team’s loss (i.e. he is very good) then there is a 44% chance that the player’s team will lose the game and a 56% chance they will win. This is because there are 4 potential bad players on the first team and 5 potential bad players on the second. Sometimes players are good enough that they can overcome the bad players’ impact and win the game, resulting in win loss ratios above 56%.

Over time the player will climb the leaderboard to the point where he becomes responsible for his team’s loss enough to where the player will settle at a 50% win/loss ratio.

The reason you see players high on the leaderboards with win loss ratios above 50% (and high game counts) is because there are no players with a high enough skill to provide a matchup where the player can be responsible for their team’s loss.

Of course games match wins are decided in a subtler way than a single losing player per match.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Keyword is 30 (or insert another arbitrary number)—you cannot have a a lucky streak for that many games. LB doesn’t reflect new players well, but it should reflect veteran players fairly well. Just wait til LB decay gets rid of the newbies and/or they play and get crushed.

I care so much about the site, that I even do not know the right number.

a t s e.9614:

solo Q leaderboard means nothing .all u have to do is play a skillless bunker build and u should be in top 100 easely. It worked for me.

Seriously why people even bother with solo Q , its worse than hotjoin. At least in hotjoin you can leave the match .

Well it means you are better a playing a bunker build than majority of players.

Quincy.2198:

Lopez.7369:

The leaderboard still shows skill because, as Vince mentioned, everyone has to deal with outnumbered matches. So those matches — and other problematic matches — become a statistical wash for everyone after 30 or so games. What leaderboards measure, then, is who can carry their team despite whatever problems — four-on-five matches, bad comps, bad attitudes — arise.

In your opinion, how does it show skill? I’ve seen alot new players in top 25, had them on my team, they didn’t know what they were doing at all. Just lucky because they get matched up with good players.

Most guys on the leader-board with a lot of games played are definitely skilled. Yea its broken how someone that goes like 10-3 gets up there, but look at the guys with high volume of games. If youre winning 62% of 1000 games you’re pretty kitten good