Guild Wars 2

A 48.31% win turret engy hero is at the moment at the top of GW2 leaderboard.

#esports
#AICarryMe

The only issue here is scoring system. He should have 0 points in fair world with his negative win ratio instead of 372.

6 and counting…

Man, people really hate seeing turret engineers kick their behinds. The salt is real.

They hate being beaten by AI with traits; seeing players who do not compare to themselves in terms of actual skill, knowledge and ability, drop some AI to automatically provide knock backs, immobilises, damage, homing missiles, reflecting shields, and boons while the player facerolls inbetween running around it. I can understand that frustration, even if I don’t find them bothersome.

What’s worse, is that once you figure out how to deal with them, it’s still just as sad to encounter. The fact that it exists as a build is just sad. Then there is the income of new players/PvPers and the less-capable ones who can’t deal with it, so it remains as effective as it always was. Some that get beaten by it even reroll to it to be rewarded for their failure two-fold.

Pros? It should make people realise they have room for improvement, and there are plenty of threads where people have explained how to deal with these builds.

Cons? It seems there will always be turret engineers, and seeing how the current leader board is a grind and turret engineer requires no skill and doesn’t really require your presence to play, it’s likely to be seen a lot among solo queue-rs and on the leader boards.

Let’s not forget that it’s been complained about a lot before, and ANet responded by buffing them - homing missile, reflective shields, boons. Now we have a new update in our sights - unknown release date - that shows a trailer where you can spot an engineer running with its new weapon (hammer) followed by flying gadgets. That’s right, engineers will have miniature mobile turrets soon.

Isn’t the leaderboards still a grind system? It doesn’t matter who’s on top. The engi is an average player who out-grinded everyone else.

The issue here is two-fold, but the primary issue is the leaderboard itself and the turret issue serves only to amplify the primary issue.

My biggest gripe with the leaderboard is that it is currently far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player (as I have stated before on other threads). This makes no sense at all, since leaderboards should surely be displaying where players stand in terms of skill level.

Turret engis when played by low MMR players will be matched against other low MMR players. As we have established, the low MMR players are the ones most likely to encounter severe issues with this build. This allows low MMR players to shoot up the leaderboard with this build.

As I have suggested several times now, MMR needs to be taken into account if we want any mildly accurate leaderboard. Either base the leaderboard on MMR, give us a separate leaderboard for MMR for those that want a real indicator of relative skill levels, or incorporate MMR into the points system (higher point gain/loss for higher MMR players).

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Turret engis when played by low MMR players will be matched against other low MMR players. As we have established, the low MMR players are the ones most likely to encounter severe issues with this build. This allows low MMR players to shoot up the leaderboard with this build.

So, I agree with you that leaderboards should be an indicator of skill, not grind, but I have to point out that this statement is silly.

Suppose a player has an MMR of 1200 and plays turret engy. If he starts winning, say, 80% of his games, his MMR will increase. Now he’s playing against MMR 1400 players, for example, and will find less success.

The build itself is unrelated to the player’s success on the leaderboards. As has been pointed out, a sub-50% win rate means that this player is either a) not particularly good or b) consistently matched against harder competition but manages to score a decent number of points.

The problem with the leaderboard is the non-zero-sum point system.

Think about gambling: every casino game has something in common. On average, the house wins. You might win a game or two here or there, but on average, every dollar that is spent produces something 98 cents of winnings. (Or substantially less, depending on games.)

This means that the more people play, the more they (slightly) lose money.

Leaderboards are the reverse: the average “winnings” is slightly positive, meaning that the more games which are played, the higher the scores of players on the leaderboards.

This could be solved entirely by ensuring that every score distribution is zero-sum, meaning the total of all points awarded is zero. Above average players would have positive points. Below average players would have negative points.

Isn’t it possible, provided a premade with characters with very disparate ratings, that you could end up in a game where you still lose points on winning the match?

I agree that the point system is flawed and ultimately a grind, but a strict zero sum has some issues too.

Btw showing this to gui cause its hilarious

Um… 48% win rating is not great at all… This sounds more like a scoring issue than a broken build… Hell thst should be easy to take from this. The build can’t even “carry” a 50% win ratio…

How the hell are we complaining about the build at this point? You know what we call this in the real world? A confirmation bias.

timmyf.1490:

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Turret engis when played by low MMR players will be matched against other low MMR players. As we have established, the low MMR players are the ones most likely to encounter severe issues with this build. This allows low MMR players to shoot up the leaderboard with this build.

So, I agree with you that leaderboards should be an indicator of skill, not grind, but I have to point out that this statement is silly.

Suppose a player has an MMR of 1200 and plays turret engy. If he starts winning, say, 80% of his games, his MMR will increase. Now he’s playing against MMR 1400 players, for example, and will find less success.

The build itself is unrelated to the player’s success on the leaderboards. As has been pointed out, a sub-50% win rate means that this player is either a) not particularly good or b) consistently matched against harder competition but manages to score a decent number of points.

The problem with the leaderboard is the non-zero-sum point system.

Think about gambling: every casino game has something in common. On average, the house wins. You might win a game or two here or there, but on average, every dollar that is spent produces something 98 cents of winnings. (Or substantially less, depending on games.)

This means that the more people play, the more they (slightly) lose money.

Leaderboards are the reverse: the average “winnings” is slightly positive, meaning that the more games which are played, the higher the scores of players on the leaderboards.

This could be solved entirely by ensuring that every score distribution is zero-sum, meaning the total of all points awarded is zero. Above average players would have positive points. Below average players would have negative points.

Your theory requires that rating be directly proportional to leaderboard points, which it certainly isn’t. Take this examples:

You play a match where you have a 10% chance of winning. You lose 500-300. Under the current ladder system, you will actually gain 1 point on the leaderboard. You will not however gain any MMR from this. I’m not 100% about GW2’s Glicko2 system, but you will either lose MMR or simply remain the same.

Now if you lose a match where you have 55% chance of winning and the outcome is 500-400, you do not gain/lose any leaderboard points. You will however lose MMR under any rating system.

If you take these examples into account, the turret engi in question is constantly having his MMR lowered back to the correct MMR, but these losses do not always result in a drop in leaderboard points.

Random Weird Guy.3528:

timmyf.1490:

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Turret engis when played by low MMR players will be matched against other low MMR players. As we have established, the low MMR players are the ones most likely to encounter severe issues with this build. This allows low MMR players to shoot up the leaderboard with this build.

So, I agree with you that leaderboards should be an indicator of skill, not grind, but I have to point out that this statement is silly.

Suppose a player has an MMR of 1200 and plays turret engy. If he starts winning, say, 80% of his games, his MMR will increase. Now he’s playing against MMR 1400 players, for example, and will find less success.

The build itself is unrelated to the player’s success on the leaderboards. As has been pointed out, a sub-50% win rate means that this player is either a) not particularly good or b) consistently matched against harder competition but manages to score a decent number of points.

The problem with the leaderboard is the non-zero-sum point system.

Think about gambling: every casino game has something in common. On average, the house wins. You might win a game or two here or there, but on average, every dollar that is spent produces something 98 cents of winnings. (Or substantially less, depending on games.)

This means that the more people play, the more they (slightly) lose money.

Leaderboards are the reverse: the average “winnings” is slightly positive, meaning that the more games which are played, the higher the scores of players on the leaderboards.

This could be solved entirely by ensuring that every score distribution is zero-sum, meaning the total of all points awarded is zero. Above average players would have positive points. Below average players would have negative points.

Your theory requires that rating be directly proportional to leaderboard points, which it certainly isn’t. Take this examples:

You play a match where you have a 10% chance of winning. You lose 500-300. Under the current ladder system, you will actually gain 1 point on the leaderboard. You will not however gain any MMR from this. I’m not 100% about GW2’s Glicko2 system, but you will either lose MMR or simply remain the same.

Now if you lose a match where you have 55% chance of winning and the outcome is 500-400, you do not gain/lose any leaderboard points. You will however lose MMR under any rating system.

If you take these examples into account, the turret engi in question is constantly having his MMR lowered back to the correct MMR, but these losses do not always result in a drop in leaderboard points.

Comes down to “participation”; playing more than some one else always guarantees you more rank points.
Either have a cap of 100 games a month (some one from other threads have suggested) or developed a system that reflects all casual players who play normal hours.

Saiyan.1704:

Either have a cap of 100 games a month (some one from other threads have suggested) or developed a system that reflects all casual players who play normal hours.

That would be me: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Leaderboard-Suggestion-1/first#post4778543

I’m going to put all my suggestions together into a single thread with a detailed analysis of each one.

Hahaha @ that dude with troll win ratio playing turrets. He wins life, that’s for sure.

Anyways, what I gather from this topic…

1. Garbage design of the leaderboards – checked
2. Garbage design of turrets – checked
3. Garbage players abusing the above – checked

Who gives a kitten about these kitten leaderboards? Who cares about some randomb bob, who won’t stand a chance vs even a mediocre player as soon as Anet get their act right and nerfs these builds to where they belong?

Chill out, guys! This is not even a cometitive game yet.
Josh Davis may claim otherwise and provide all kinds of wishful thinking disguised as facts, but it really isn’t and it won’t be before these problems are solved. That’s their problem if they want to make this game any good. But you, guys, getting angry because of some poor design that wasn’t thoroughly thought through and is obviously a fail is just a waste of your time. If Anet are intelligent people, they know they failed and they will work on fixing it.

One thing seems rather promising – turrets won’t probably work as efficiently in Stronghold. That’s the hope. And I can assure you that some random guy, like the one mentioned in the OP, won’t be able to succeed in Stronghold because of a negative map awareness caused by turret-induced tunnel vision.

Problem is on the one hand the leaderboards are so terrible they killed competitive play (or partly).

On the other hand due to the having to queue from heart of the mists, no matchmaking, turret engis, no ranking system (they removed it and insta made everyone 80) means that maybe the only thing keeping the pvp population alive is the ability to grind the leaderboards.

It really isn’t very good right now haha

Ladder right now = grind

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Saiyan.1704:

Either have a cap of 100 games a month (some one from other threads have suggested) or developed a system that reflects all casual players who play normal hours.

That would be me: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Leaderboard-Suggestion-1/first#post4778543

I’m going to put all my suggestions together into a single thread with a detailed analysis of each one.

Thread here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Possible-leaderboard-changes-analysis/first#post4786788

To all the people complaining about leaderboards measuring skill: you are playing the wrong game. GW2 PvP is about conquest, not fighting other players. As long as the end goal of the game is to hold 2 points out of 3 the won’t be about beating other people. There’s some strategy to rotations, sure, but playing solitaire is harder than learning point rotations.

To have a skill-based leader board we need 3v3 koth arena (or some other actual player versus player mode) and someone to do PvP balancing more often than once in a blue moon.

Uuni.3561:

To all the people complaining about leaderboards measuring skill: you are playing the wrong game. GW2 PvP is about conquest, not fighting other players. As long as the end goal of the game is to hold 2 points out of 3 the won’t be about beating other people. There’s some strategy to rotations, sure, but playing solitaire is harder than learning point rotations.

To have a skill-based leader board we need 3v3 koth arena (or some other actual player versus player mode) and someone to do PvP balancing more often than once in a blue moon.

Yea, right. Only deathmatch measures skills, any tactical aspect should be disregarded.

Uuni.3561:

To all the people complaining about leaderboards measuring skill: you are playing the wrong game. GW2 PvP is about conquest, not fighting other players. As long as the end goal of the game is to hold 2 points out of 3 the won’t be about beating other people. There’s some strategy to rotations, sure, but playing solitaire is harder than learning point rotations.

To have a skill-based leader board we need 3v3 koth arena (or some other actual player versus player mode) and someone to do PvP balancing more often than once in a blue moon.

Not about fighting other people? Did i miss anything? Im gonna get 4 solitaire players then and farm everyone.