Guild Wars 2

Most of the topics i read here are about the bad matchmaking system, lack of players, unfair matches etc… so i gonna share my thoughts about this.

If you want to have balanced matches you need a system that sorts the queuing players into teams not only taking premde team sizes, but also player personal skills into consideration. Our current system seems to lack on both of these but imo the bigger problem is how the ranking system works.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/swIgFV4.jpg[/img]

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?! (not meaning to offend these ppl thy surely are grate players)
all i see the leader syster rewards the time invested instead of player skill. Devs could copy the ranking system of chess like many other games did and guess what it works wonderfully for them.
This is how you get balanced matches: you drop in players with the same skill level which is determined by theyr rank points.

+Lot of my mates did quit the game just becouse of the bad ranking system. They didnt even argue about ‘bad matchmaking’ or ‘lack of gamemodes’ or ‘lack of tournaments’ the lack of competitive skill measurement was simply enough.

So in my opinion the implementation of a proper rankend system would not only fix most of the current problems by itself, but it would atract a LOT of people to the pvp scene.

MadVisions.4529:

Most of the topics i read here are about the bad matchmaking system, lack of players, unfair matches etc… so i gonna share my thoughts about this.

If you want to have balanced matches you need a system that sorts the queuing players into teams not only taking premde team sizes, but also player personal skills into consideration. Our current system seems to lack on both of these but imo the bigger problem is how the ranking system works.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/swIgFV4.jpg[/img]

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?! (not meaning to offend these ppl thy surely are grate players)
all i see the leader syster rewards the time invested instead of player skill. Devs could copy the ranking system of chess like many other games did and guess what it works wonderfully for them.
This is how you get balanced matches: you drop in players with the same skill level which is determined by theyr rank points.

+Lot of my mates did quit the game just becouse of the bad ranking system. They didnt even argue about ‘bad matchmaking’ or ‘lack of gamemodes’ or ‘lack of tournaments’ the lack of competitive skill measurement was simply enough.

So in my opinion the implementation of a proper rankend system would not only fix most of the current problems by itself, but it would atract a LOT of people to the pvp scene.

I can perhaps see why your PvP friends would be upset over the ranking system, it is accessible to anyone of all skill levels, you just have to solo queue in ranked a lot. Unfortunately, for those that won’t/can’t, it could be very un-engaging.

It’s pretty much the High Warlord/Grand Marshal quest that some MMO PvPers have known in the past, lol. Except there were unique skins for all tiers, not just the top 1%.

Whether that’s ‘good’ or not, that’s up to the playerbase. Speaking for myself, and what I’m sure is a reasonable slice of the population, the current ranking system is completely un-engaging and is totally ignorable, because solo queuing all day is simply out of the question.

Question: Ranked queue marathon all day, every day?

() Yes – You will find the system rewarding.
() No – You will not find the system rewarding.

MadVisions.4529:

Most of the topics i read here are about the bad matchmaking system, lack of players, unfair matches etc… so i gonna share my thoughts about this.

If you want to have balanced matches you need a system that sorts the queuing players into teams not only taking premde team sizes, but also player personal skills into consideration. Our current system seems to lack on both of these but imo the bigger problem is how the ranking system works.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/swIgFV4.jpg[/img]

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?! (not meaning to offend these ppl thy surely are grate players)
all i see the leader syster rewards the time invested instead of player skill. Devs could copy the ranking system of chess like many other games did and guess what it works wonderfully for them.
This is how you get balanced matches: you drop in players with the same skill level which is determined by theyr rank points.

+Lot of my mates did quit the game just becouse of the bad ranking system. They didnt even argue about ‘bad matchmaking’ or ‘lack of gamemodes’ or ‘lack of tournaments’ the lack of competitive skill measurement was simply enough.

So in my opinion the implementation of a proper rankend system would not only fix most of the current problems by itself, but it would atract a LOT of people to the pvp scene.

1. Leaderboard ranking has nothing whatsoever to do with your rating.
2. Using rank points is possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard. Someone with 0 wins 9001 losses will have more rank points than 1000 wins 0 losses.

You need to understand that frustration comes because people always try to blame something for loosing either matchmaking, class imbalance etc. Sometimes they are right but most of time there are not.
Any system where you can sign with not full team will be flawed.
But current system is best implemented for solo, semi group Ranked system I have seen when it comes to matchmaking is also best because arena net actually cares ( not like Swtor Ranked which is joke).
Summary: System is not perfect but for solo is best I have seen and encourage people to group with friends and team the way ranked is meant to played. This is also test season so for me good enough.
Point system is not best but is not worse I think it is experiment and they want to do something which makes people not sit on rating like in Wow. They still test and they should.

MadVisions.4529:

If you want to have balanced matches …..

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?!

How does the win rate reflect on the player’s ability? Isn’t % win rate a function of whether the matchmaking system is functioning well or not?

If the top ten players in the game are at the skill ceiling, they would have a roughly 50% win rating because they’d be playing equally skilled players.

Just like a complete newbie lumped in with a bunch of others would have a 50% win rating.

I suppose you could have someone with a crazy high win % up at the top if they were so much more skilled than any other player that they didn’t really have piers. But I keep hearing how this game has fairly shallow mechanics with a comparatively low skill ceiling. If that’s the case, then you would expect a large number of players to reach that skill ceiling, and settle into something very close to a 50%/50% win/loss.

Gibson.4036:

MadVisions.4529:

If you want to have balanced matches …..

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?!

How does the win rate reflect on the player’s ability? Isn’t % win rate a function of whether the matchmaking system is functioning well or not?

If the top ten players in the game are at the skill ceiling, they would have a roughly 50% win rating because they’d be playing equally skilled players.

Just like a complete newbie lumped in with a bunch of others would have a 50% win rating.

I suppose you could have someone with a crazy high win % up at the top if they were so much more skilled than any other player that they didn’t really have piers. But I keep hearing how this game has fairly shallow mechanics with a comparatively low skill ceiling. If that’s the case, then you would expect a large number of players to reach that skill ceiling, and settle into something very close to a 50%/50% win/loss.

This is exactly how it works. The only time a high ranked player would have a high win% is if they played a low number of games and performed very well, but over time these average out.

So far i don’t even see the point of ranked here, there’s nothing attached to it, you get the same rewards.

At least other games give rewards for top players, unless im wrong

After seeing numerous arguments, I think the real root of SPVP problem is the lack of update and game mode, which drives people dull, resulting as huge lost in PVP population, which is a little too late to catch up after 2.5 year of game released.

They can add better rewards and fiercer competition, but it only solves short term problem, only attract some of the loot hungry people that were not there before for a period of time, and that’s about it. In order to fix the problem, they have to change PVP entirely, adding more game modes and versatility.

another explanation for high win % is for players that recently became better in a way or another, personally i had like 75% win rate for a couple of weeks until the matchmaking adjusted after i stopped changing profession after every match and actually learned how to play decently.

MadVisions.4529:

Most of the topics i read here are about the bad matchmaking system, lack of players, unfair matches etc… so i gonna share my thoughts about this.

If you want to have balanced matches you need a system that sorts the queuing players into teams not only taking premde team sizes, but also player personal skills into consideration. Our current system seems to lack on both of these but imo the bigger problem is how the ranking system works.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/swIgFV4.jpg[/img]

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?! (not meaning to offend these ppl thy surely are grate players)
all i see the leader syster rewards the time invested instead of player skill. Devs could copy the ranking system of chess like many other games did and guess what it works wonderfully for them.
This is how you get balanced matches: you drop in players with the same skill level which is determined by theyr rank points.

+Lot of my mates did quit the game just becouse of the bad ranking system. They didnt even argue about ‘bad matchmaking’ or ‘lack of gamemodes’ or ‘lack of tournaments’ the lack of competitive skill measurement was simply enough.

So in my opinion the implementation of a proper rankend system would not only fix most of the current problems by itself, but it would atract a LOT of people to the pvp scene.

I totally agree with your analysis. I would be shocked that anyone would believe otherwise. The only thing that the current Leaderboard says anything is how many matches you’ve played.

I’m sure this is demotivating for many people, and it’s understandable you’ve had several friends quit the game because of this reason.

ANet once said they used a modified version of the Chess rating system – this was awhile ago, but this doesn’t seem to make sense now, as losses in Chess are punished extremely harshly. It seems as if the current Leaderboard system doesn’t punish losses hardly at all. It is purely about quantity of games played.

Glad that you’ve called attention to this – I wasn’t sure if anyone else noticed it. Then again, I don’t frequent the forums often. Cheers! =)

I agree. A leaderboard is supposed to determine, at least somewhat, who is skilled at a particular game, correct? The current system does anything but. It’s just an indicator of how many games you’ve played.

A lot of people I know are frustrated at this as well.

@Anet

Just copy wow’s rating system and seasons

edgarallanpwn.8739:

Gibson.4036:

MadVisions.4529:

If you want to have balanced matches …..

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?!

How does the win rate reflect on the player’s ability? Isn’t % win rate a function of whether the matchmaking system is functioning well or not?

If the top ten players in the game are at the skill ceiling, they would have a roughly 50% win rating because they’d be playing equally skilled players.

Just like a complete newbie lumped in with a bunch of others would have a 50% win rating.

I suppose you could have someone with a crazy high win % up at the top if they were so much more skilled than any other player that they didn’t really have piers. But I keep hearing how this game has fairly shallow mechanics with a comparatively low skill ceiling. If that’s the case, then you would expect a large number of players to reach that skill ceiling, and settle into something very close to a 50%/50% win/loss.

This is exactly how it works. The only time a high ranked player would have a high win% is if they played a low number of games and performed very well, but over time these average out.

So far i don’t even see the point of ranked here, there’s nothing attached to it, you get the same rewards.

At least other games give rewards for top players, unless im wrong

… links:
http://www.lolking.net/leaderboards/#/na/1
http://www.heroesofnewerth.com/ladder/

if it “awerages out” then the player gonna stuck into a mmr level, but top players allways gonna have high win %…

if you want some rewards for pvp ask for xxx gold/gem rewards for rank lvls instead of mini lama and stuff, also more frequently if posible, like weekly???

Edit: to make things clear for Gibson: lower bracket wins —> higher rank —> matchup with ppl with already higher rank —> they win —> you dropp back to your skill bracket + the played with a player from usually lower bracket not only with “each other” —> bigger win% for them.

How to make pvp competitive:

- Fix the ladder point system: More games played should not mean higher rating.

- Introduce 4 month seasons

- Each season has new skins coming in a reward track. That reward track is only available to the top1000 players (subject to change)

- At the end of the season, top 10 players get a sick title and finisher.

I don’t have much experience with matchmaking in the middle of MMR. It might not be so bad, since average queue time is about 2 minutes. Near the top end of ratings, it gets pretty bad. Getting a match in under 7 minutes is abnormal. When we do get a match, it’s a blowout half the time or only a challenge because of an awful teammate. Quite a few times, I’ve waited 7 minutes to get the same matchup.

I wouldn’t mind waiting to get a good match. But waiting to get not so good matches is frustrating.

Melting new and veteran players in a pot is the root of problem.

New players got bullied by veteran = quit +
Veteran players soloQ with new players got 50-500 = rage quit.
= Causing Low on genuine pvp population = Root of problem.

As for a quick LB fix, why not just add a MMR column to the current pvp leaderboard and allow people to view a descended order of the top 1k MMR’s as well? MMR on the leaderboard will have a false decay but doesnt actually change your ingame MMR for matchmaking from not playing.
Seems this would keep all parties happy and people can see who the ‘top players’ are by there own judging standards.

Neptune.2570:

As for a quick LB fix, why not just add a MMR column to the current pvp leaderboard and allow people to view a descended order of the top 1k MMR’s as well? MMR on the leaderboard will have a false decay but doesnt actually change your ingame MMR for matchmaking from not playing.
Seems this would keep all parties happy and people can see who the ‘top players’ are by there own judging standards.

That would cause an array of issues, mostly just dramatize the forums and tpvp in general. People will simply look at top MMR and consider that the new Leaderboards. The actual Rank Number on the left will be invisible to everyone.
You will get the top rank 50 people on the leaderboard complaining why they have low MMR. Next to that forum post, you’ll see another thread about very high MMR players being on the bottom of the leaderboard.

We know what the issue is, we don’t want to actually see it staring back at us

MadVisions.4529:

edgarallanpwn.8739:

Gibson.4036:

MadVisions.4529:

If you want to have balanced matches …..

Take a look at the leaderboard. 6 ppl in the top 15(even #1) got <=50% win rate. how is that even posible ?!?!

How does the win rate reflect on the player’s ability? Isn’t % win rate a function of whether the matchmaking system is functioning well or not?

If the top ten players in the game are at the skill ceiling, they would have a roughly 50% win rating because they’d be playing equally skilled players.

Just like a complete newbie lumped in with a bunch of others would have a 50% win rating.

I suppose you could have someone with a crazy high win % up at the top if they were so much more skilled than any other player that they didn’t really have piers. But I keep hearing how this game has fairly shallow mechanics with a comparatively low skill ceiling. If that’s the case, then you would expect a large number of players to reach that skill ceiling, and settle into something very close to a 50%/50% win/loss.

This is exactly how it works. The only time a high ranked player would have a high win% is if they played a low number of games and performed very well, but over time these average out.

So far i don’t even see the point of ranked here, there’s nothing attached to it, you get the same rewards.

At least other games give rewards for top players, unless im wrong

… links:
http://www.lolking.net/leaderboards/#/na/1
http://www.heroesofnewerth.com/ladder/

if it “awerages out” then the player gonna stuck into a mmr level, but top players allways gonna have high win %…

if you want some rewards for pvp ask for xxx gold/gem rewards for rank lvls instead of mini lama and stuff, also more frequently if posible, like weekly???

Edit: to make things clear for Gibson: lower bracket wins —> higher rank --> matchup with ppl with already higher rank —> they win --> you dropp back to your skill bracket + the played with a player from usually lower bracket not only with “each other” —> bigger win% for them.

Still wrong. You;re taking LoL statistics from the start of a new season. S5 JUST STARTED not too long ago. Challenger players often hit 1400-200+ games or more by the end of the season, and most of them barely have 200-300 in.

I applaud you for trying, but make sure you gather ALL the evidence before stating something pointblank.

ALSO your HON link also proves you WRONG
Half of their win losses are at 50% and UNDER

Saiyan.1704:

Neptune.2570:

As for a quick LB fix, why not just add a MMR column to the current pvp leaderboard and allow people to view a descended order of the top 1k MMR’s as well? MMR on the leaderboard will have a false decay but doesnt actually change your ingame MMR for matchmaking from not playing.
Seems this would keep all parties happy and people can see who the ‘top players’ are by there own judging standards.

That would cause an array of issues, mostly just dramatize the forums and tpvp in general. People will simply look at top MMR and consider that the new Leaderboards. The actual Rank Number on the left will be invisible to everyone.
You will get the top rank 50 people on the leaderboard complaining why they have low MMR. Next to that forum post, you’ll see another thread about very high MMR players being on the bottom of the leaderboard.

It’s all one leaderboard, just different ways of looking at it. Top 50 points player complaining he has low MMR? Tell him to practice duels, get better, and get used to playing with an organised team. Top MMR players complaining there not at the top of the games played list? Tell them to play more and spend there day soloqing.
Hell, if that dramatizes people then those people are not gonna be happy no matter what. That’s just dramatic people. Lol.

I think if anet wants to have a points-based leaderboard, they need to eschew from MMR- based matchmaking like they have now.

Instead have grades/ranks/whatever at certain point intervals, and allow the player to select a range of grades that they are willing to play with/face. The lowest of the upper limit being your own rank. And if there are not enough players that match your criteria, you will be told so, so you can either change your criteria or something.

Players should also be rewarded for win streaks and punished for losses.

I read all these post qqing about rank system and I don’t really understand.
1. You get nothing for being high ranked
2. In a perfect system 99% of the people will have around 50% win ratio anyway, so while we can’r prove the high ranked players have high mmr we also can’t prove that they have bad mmr either.

The match system is only bad when it produces records like 0-100 or 100-0. In any ranking ladder system almost everyone have a 50% win ratio. The only system where the best players have a hugh win ratio is a tournament system where the high end players play majority of his matches vs lower ranked players like tennis or golf.

Reikou.7068:

IPlayers should also be rewarded for win streaks

Players should be rewarded for being lucky enough to face several teams in a row that aren’t better than them? Makes sense.

Mogar.9216:

I read all these post qqing about rank system and I don’t really understand.
1. You get nothing for being high ranked
2. In a perfect system 99% of the people will have around 50% win ratio anyway, so while we can’r prove the high ranked players have high mmr we also can’t prove that they have bad mmr either.

The match system is only bad when it produces records like 0-100 or 100-0. In any ranking ladder system almost everyone have a 50% win ratio. The only system where the best players have a hugh win ratio is a tournament system where the high end players play majority of his matches vs lower ranked players like tennis or golf.

That’s true in theory but not in practice here because we are not comparing apples to apples (solo’s, duos, trios, foursomes, and full groups are all mixed together) and we don’t have an unlimited amount of players of all skill levels. You will play with people better or worse then you quite often depending on the time of day you play because the player base is quite low. Now theoretically that all evens out over time but a lot of people get angry and quit before it ever could. Right now though there is no getting around the fact that the number one determiner of how high you can get on the leader board is amount of games played. Regardless of whether you think the current matchmaking mostly works that needs to be changed somehow and I believe they have already said they have something in the works.