I think the answer is obvious, of course the 500/1000 is better. Seriously are you trying to troll the 500 won 7 times as many games. So would make him/her at least 7 times better.
No the other one only played 100 games so guessing he would have 700 is a guess. The other have proven 500 win the first has proven 70. It is about accomplishment not guessing. So by your mind is one person went 1 for 1 they are now going to win 1000 of 1000?
Then play 700 games….. Here is the issue with your first statement. You are asking to be rewarded for playing 10% of the games that he worked very hard for. 100 games vs 1000. You want to be rewarded for your casual play? 100 games is nothing in PvP. No matter how bad the LB’s are messed up you need to do a bit more than 100 games to expect anything out of it. Yes there should be a cap on games per season to take out the grind factor. Say the cap is 500 for 2 months, you want to play your best and make those 500 count to get rewarded. Playing 3k games will no longer matter and skill will come into play a bit more.
In order to put a cap on it the though, the point system would have to be much more diverse or you will just have 200 people at the top with the same amount of points at the end. 1st place would go to the person who reached those points first. Would need a much different point spread than -3 to 3. Something like -10 to 10. or -5 to 5 and add in 1/2 points along the way.
No the other one only played 100 games so guessing he would have 700 is a guess. The other have proven 500 win the first has proven 70. It is about accomplishment not guessing. So by your mind is one person went 1 for 1 they are now going to win 1000 of 1000?
I have taken a few courses in statistics. Of course 1 game is not a big enough sample size. 1000 is only approaching an ample sample size. But on sheer numbers a lone in OP’s scenario, Man U was 20% more effective in the games they played than the 13 y/o kids’ team.
You are basically throwing away all logic by saying a team that played 10 times more game and won 7.7 more times game is the better team.
Then play 700 games….. Here is the issue with your first statement. You are asking to be rewarded for playing 10% of the games that he worked very hard for. 100 games vs 1000. You want to be rewarded for your casual play? 100 games is nothing in PvP. No matter how bad the LB’s are messed up you need to do a bit more than 100 games to expect anything out of it. Yes there should be a cap on games per season to take out the grind factor. Say the cap is 500 for 2 months, you want to play your best and make those 500 count to get rewarded. Playing 3k games will no longer matter and skill will come into play a bit more.
Here’s the problem with your statement. You are asking to be rewarded for less effective play. That’s absurd.
leaderboards should show the skilllevel/whos best. So it should be MMR based. Its nothing to work for. Otherwise we see Turret Engis on top claiming to be top players in the forums. We had a MMR based Leaderboard before actually. The only flaw was the decay system. So maybe just let our MMR decrease if we dont play enough and take the old leaderboard (players get rusty anyway if they dont play)
leaderboards should show the skilllevel/whos best. So it should be MMR based. Its nothing to work for. Otherwise we see Turret Engis on top claiming to be top players in the forums. We had a MMR based Leaderboard before actually. The only flaw was the decay system. So maybe just let our MMR decrease if we dont play enough and take the old leaderboard (players get rusty anyway if they dont play)
There’s a flaw in MMR though. Solo queuers vs. premades. Which is why I think they need to split apart the two again.
First 6 games were vs genyen’s team with players like countless etc, we got stomped in all 6 games. Next 3 we were only 2Q’ing and got phantaram, noscoc and their premade with my 2Q. Kept 2Q’ing into 4Q’s until finally I guess someone passed us in MMR after we lost about 8 in a row.
W/E the MMR formula is, it’s pretty whacky. I don’t see why there’s even an MMR, it’s only in place to punish people with higher MMR. You can say you get rewarded with closer matches.
IMO either reward people with high MMR or remove it altogether. I hope after losing 8 in a row I’d have the lowest MMR that will take months to recover from. What do you bet I get abjured later tonight after waiting in Q for 30 seconds…
Then play 700 games….. Here is the issue with your first statement. You are asking to be rewarded for playing 10% of the games that he worked very hard for. 100 games vs 1000. You want to be rewarded for your casual play? 100 games is nothing in PvP. No matter how bad the LB’s are messed up you need to do a bit more than 100 games to expect anything out of it. Yes there should be a cap on games per season to take out the grind factor. Say the cap is 500 for 2 months, you want to play your best and make those 500 count to get rewarded. Playing 3k games will no longer matter and skill will come into play a bit more.
Here’s the problem with your statement. You are asking to be rewarded for less effective play. That’s absurd.
No I am not. If he played the same 1000 games as him (and kept his elite ratio) you would be much higher than him on the LB’s. This is the way it is for now. There were hundreds of these posts 3 months ago. Nothing new besides everyone looking at you and saying “Oh god, they are coming out of the woodwork again”. Nothing is going to change by people starting to post this crap all over again.
1: Yes it is a grind
2: Nothing you can do about it
3: So just deal with it an move on.
4: He wouldn’t place in the top 25 anyway if it went solely on skill. So either way, he will STILL be settling for a Llama. So if you wouldn’t make top 25 no matter which way it went, why even come on here and complain? Top 500 is easy as hell. Even a casual player can get there with some decent wins.
What would you have? The way it was before? You can go 11-1 and stay rank 5 for 9 months? Lol please dude.
The funny thing is that we don’t even need to rely on statistics to know who’s better between Man U and the 13 year old kid team. The skill gap makes them play on completely different and unrelated leagues
GW2 is not that different in this sense. It has its own way to measure player skill level and, even if it often fails because of the lack of population, tries to use it in order to create fair and interesting matches.
When it comes to leaderboards, however, it seems none of this matters anymore and it’s totally fine to rate the 13 years old kids over Man U.
Pure nonsense.
Then play 700 games….. Here is the issue with your first statement. You are asking to be rewarded for playing 10% of the games that he worked very hard for. 100 games vs 1000. You want to be rewarded for your casual play? 100 games is nothing in PvP. No matter how bad the LB’s are messed up you need to do a bit more than 100 games to expect anything out of it. Yes there should be a cap on games per season to take out the grind factor. Say the cap is 500 for 2 months, you want to play your best and make those 500 count to get rewarded. Playing 3k games will no longer matter and skill will come into play a bit more.
Here’s the problem with your statement. You are asking to be rewarded for less effective play. That’s absurd.
No I am not. If you played the same 1000 games as him (and kept your elite ratio) you would be much higher than him on the LB’s. This is the way it is for now. There were hundreds of these posts 3 months ago. Nothing new besides everyone looking at you and saying “Oh god, they are coming out of the woodwork again”. Nothing is going to change by people starting to post this crap all over again.
1: Yes it is a grind
2: Nothing you can do about it
3: So just deal with it an move on.
4: You wouldn’t place in the top 25 anyway if it went solely on skill. So either way, you will STILL be settling for a Llama. So if you wouldn’t make top 25 no matter which way it went, why even come on here and complain? Top 500 is easy as hell. Even a casual player can get there with some decent wins.
What would you have? The way it was before? You can go 11-1 and stay rank 5 for 9 months? Lol please dude.
Please. It is exactly what you want. And no you couldn’t stay rank 5 for 9 months in the old system by staying 11-1 for 9 months. That wasn’t the flaw. Go learn what decay was and what it actually did.
Whether or not I would end up in the top 25 has nothing to do with recognizing a bad system that rewards people for not playing as effective as other players.
I predict by the time the expansion releases there will be a more equitable leaderboard than the grindfest one you want.
Seriously. What do you expect Anet to prefer? Rewarding a bunch of top tier players that have less than 100 games played but top skill/ win ratio. Or the people the event is bringing in that play their hearts out. Which option brings in more players to the community? That is the big picture here.
Top players get rewarded by playing tournaments. You going to wine you don’t get 1 piece of gear or a llama too, for hardly playing? That’s like winning a raffle at the amusement park and getting kittened because they don’t give you the pen, ball chained to the table that you signed up with. If you get that kittened over these small rewards that are geared towards new players and bringing them to the scene; that is sad IMO.
Have it my way? OK, get rid of the LB’s and make it invisible. Then randomly choose a month or 2 and give rewards out without telling anyone. This is just turning everyone into a bunch of whinny children. 100% of people will not be happy ever. So why even QQ? So, Anet makes you happy, then the next dude is kittened.
The better questions is why are Man U being matched against 13 year olds?
I think that’s an outstanding analogy for everything that’s wrong with GW2 PvP queueing and matchmaking, because in effect Man U and 13 year olds are not only being put in the same league together but being placed in the same match against each other.
When ANet figure this out then match outcomes and MMR might start actually having some modicum of credibility.
Hackkz/Riggamaroll
I’ve stayed at this party entirely too long
In any season event, participation will always yield more. The same is said for Starcraft, LoL, etc.
The issue with GW2’s is, you will ALWAYS gain rank points after X amount of games played. You can’t derank yourself if you lose against a low MMR player/team like Starcraft. If you have a 50% win ratio, you’ll almost never lose points in X amount of games.
Hopefully the new ladder system with do a better job.. I still think a “cap” is a more viable solution.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
I understand there is flaws. People on here only want the skilled players to be rewarded. They also complain about Q times and matchmaking. You know what a huge fix for those 2 are? Player base. If the game only rewarded top players, do you honestly think more players would want to come in from other parts of the game with 0 rewards? You have to have a way to reward everyone. YES a ladder system would do that; but as you can see, that is not the direction they are taking right now. Maybe in the future, but for now, that is how it is. You just have to deal with it.
End game. Get more players involved. Can’t do that with 0 incentive.
The issue with GW2’s is, you will ALWAYS gain rank points after X amount of games played. You can’t derank yourself if you lose against a low MMR player/team like Starcraft. If you have a 50% win ratio, you’ll almost never lose points in X amount of games.
This is not true at all…… If you loose to a team with lower MMR you DO loose rank points.
I understand there is flaws. People on here only want the skilled players to be rewarded. They also complain about Q times and matchmaking. You know what a huge fix for those 2 are? Player base. If the game only rewarded top players, do you honestly think more players would want to come in from other parts of the game with 0 rewards? You have to have a way to reward everyone. YES a ladder system would do that; but as you can see, that is not the direction they are taking right now. Maybe in the future, but for now, that is how it is. You just have to deal with it.
End game. Get more players involved. Can’t do that with 0 incentive.
Yes, there needs to be an incentive for players from other parts of the game to spent time in PvP, but there also needs to be an incentive for players to improve and get better, specially on a competitive game mode (although it can be applied to any part of the whole game).
PvP base rewards not being laughable when compared to some braindead activity like, lets say, Silverwastes chest farm, could be a nice start.
Please. It is exactly what you want. And no you couldn’t stay rank 5 for 9 months in the old system by staying 11-1 for 9 months. That wasn’t the flaw. Go learn what decay was and what it actually did.
I know exactly what it did. Do you really want proof? These LB’s went for what? 8 Months I believe? Thousands of games played by top players on the board…but you have these in there…..
NA Team Q Rank 9.
9 Muffins.2495 Muffinnz (17- 1) 94.44% Jade Quarry
NA Solo Q Rank 13
13 SENA LEE.5389 Jal Ja (11- 2) 84.62% Stormbluff Isle
EU Team Q Rank 5
5 Golby.8164 Yo Eternya Yo (54- 8) 87.1% Desolation
EU Solo Q Rank 4
4 meyeR.8569 Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv (10-3) 76.92% Far Shiverpeaks
This last one had a top ranking of 2….. Was definitely flawed m8. YES those people got TOP rewards when they were given out for their elite skill…… You say it had decay, didn’t work so well. One guy moved down 2 rank places in 8 months..
I understand there is flaws. People on here only want the skilled players to be rewarded. They also complain about Q times and matchmaking. You know what a huge fix for those 2 are? Player base. If the game only rewarded top players, do you honestly think more players would want to come in from other parts of the game with 0 rewards? You have to have a way to reward everyone. YES a ladder system would do that; but as you can see, that is not the direction they are taking right now. Maybe in the future, but for now, that is how it is. You just have to deal with it.
End game. Get more players involved. Can’t do that with 0 incentive.
Yes, there needs to be an incentive for players from other parts of the game to spent time in PvP, but there also needs to be an incentive for players to improve and get better, specially on a competitive game mode (although it can be applied to any part of the whole game).
PvP base rewards not being laughable when compared to some braindead activity like, lets say, Silverwastes chest farm, could be a nice start.
^This.
I think season rewards should be based on performance more so than time spent. Obviously you want to have a" minimum games played" metric to qualify for ladder rewards. However, to keep people interested you could put in a Seasonal type Achievement Point systems with rewards worth our time.
Please. It is exactly what you want. And no you couldn’t stay rank 5 for 9 months in the old system by staying 11-1 for 9 months. That wasn’t the flaw. Go learn what decay was and what it actually did.
I know exactly what it did. Do you really want proof? These LB’s went for what? 8 Months I believe? Thousands of games played by top players on the board…but you have these in there…..
NA Team Q Rank 9.
9 Muffins.2495 Muffinnz (17- 1) 94.44% Jade Quarry
NA Solo Q Rank 13
13 SENA LEE.5389 Jal Ja (11- 2) 84.62% Stormbluff Isle
EU Team Q Rank 5
5 Golby.8164 Yo Eternya Yo (54- 8) 87.1% Desolation
EU Solo Q Rank 4
4 meyeR.8569 Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv (10-3) 76.92% Far Shiverpeaks
This last one had a top ranking of 2….. Was definitely flawed m8. YES those people got TOP rewards when they were given out for their elite skill……
You don’t really understand the decay system if you think they stayed in those positions without playing for 9 months. Besides people with new accounts could get high up the leaderboard for short periods of time, but as those players with 10-3 records played more they would either maintain their positions, lose their positions, or artificially gained positions by afking and only playing one game a week.
You don’t really understand the decay system if you think they stayed in those positions without playing for 9 months. Besides people with new accounts could get high up the leaderboard for short periods of time, but as those players with 10-3 records played more they would either maintain their positions, lose their positions, or artificially gained positions by afking and only playing one game a week.
Played more? Those are THE FINAL results from the winners in December when they reset them to start the December season… Let me take a screen shot for you so you understand that I didn’t pull those numbers at the beginning of the season. You can double check this with the list of winners that got paid out if you want. I am not sure where that thread is buried…. It may have worked some of the time. It was still flawed. This is EU Team Q final standings and NA Team Q Final
The issue with GW2’s is, you will ALWAYS gain rank points after X amount of games played. You can’t derank yourself if you lose against a low MMR player/team like Starcraft. If you have a 50% win ratio, you’ll almost never lose points in X amount of games.
This is not true at all…… If you loose to a team with lower MMR you DO loose rank points.
What IS true is that if you have a 50% ratio, all you have to do is grind games all day to be top rank of the leaderboard. That’s true with the past seasonal ladder, that was the point I was trying to make.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
You don’t really understand the decay system if you think they stayed in those positions without playing for 9 months. Besides people with new accounts could get high up the leaderboard for short periods of time, but as those players with 10-3 records played more they would either maintain their positions, lose their positions, or artificially gained positions by afking and only playing one game a week.
Played more? Those are THE FINAL results from the winners in December when they reset them to start the December season… Let me take a screen shot for you so you understand that I didn’t pull those numbers at the beginning of the season. You can double check this with the list of winners that got paid out if you want. I am not sure where that thread is buried…. It may have worked some of the time. It was still flawed.
I don’t care about the screenshot, and trust you, but you are not understanding the old leaderboard system.
1) If a player went 10-3 and then lost 7 games in a row they would be thrown down.
2) The flaw with the old leaderboard system was people could abuse the decay system.
3) Some people argued that new accounts being in the top 50 was horrible. At the time I didn’t care as the leaderboards didn’t offer rewards or anything other than some way to track your skill levels to some degree if you played enough. Currently I think there would be a need for a minimum games play to qualify for ranking.
If they reintroduced that system and with a better decay system, and split solo queue and team queue up, it would satisfy a large majority of vets. Because it more accurately reflected skill levels than the current point based system.
