Guild Wars 2

They stated they did it because “friends wanted to queue with friends in a group, in casual, fun gameplay”

Thanks, ladies and gentlemen.

I agree it’s a population problem. Just hoping maybe a subscription, improved PvP experience would attract enough people.

Archaon.9524:

Here we would have like 20-30 ppl in platinum\gold\whatever…and after those an ocean of pve heroes in bronze farming for chests, achievements, title or whatever . High level pvp in EU is just about no more then always the same 20-30 ppl (And it’s pretty optimistic) otside that there’s just…nothing. And this is why most games are 500 – <100 roflstomps…

OK, I understand where you are coming from.

Perhaps GW2 is a bit odd. It’s a “twitch-response” gaming mechanic in an MMO world.

I think perhaps it’s too “hard” for the general MMO type. Not all of them. But MMOS don’t attract the classic Street Fighter, Half-Life, Call of Duty-type crowd of gamers.

Lopez.7369:

Dirame.8521:

You can’t fault them for trying. All we’ve been hearing for the past year is how bad the old system was. New system in and well…. yea…

The point is they didn’t have to “try.” They could have copied and pasted the leaderboard system from World of Warcraft, WildStar, or Starcraft 2 and it would have been fine. Instead, they created a new system that created all sorts of problems without solving anything.

I think GW2 is a complex team game and experienced teams who get good can really outplay new people. And that discourages new players from sticking with it. So, low population and tough matchmaking and leaderboard issues.

Solstice,

That’s a problem for high MMR players. I agree.

The only thing I can think of is brackets where they can earn higher points for tough games against people of their level.

I’d be willing to pay real money, a subscription, to guarantee a consistently fair and even matchup and a short queue time.

I don’t know how it would work, or if it would work.

But just sayin’…I’d pay for that, ArenaNet.

Archaon, why do you think other game have brackets, like Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze?

Why do you think they go to the trouble of doing that?

There is a reason.

kdaddy,

I am puzzled by why win ratio is so important in your mind. The matcher often puts players against teams that are “above their bracket” and it expects you to lose. It gives some people a lower win ratio by giving then impossible matches on a regular basis.

You are assuming the matcher always gives you an even chance. Everyone knows that is not true. Especially in off peak hours.

Here you go…

Archaon.9524:

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon does not understand why they lost, I guess.

Archaon.9524:

Silentshoes.1805:

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

Still better than looking at ppl with <60% win rate on top who actually get points for LOSING

Archaon,

Please explain why win-loss means something when the matcher gives you games it expects you to lose.

Seriously. Explain your logic.

If a pro football team played in a high school league would their win record mean anything?

Just be aware that unranked has lots of bad match ups where your inexperienced team will face coordinated teams that will often crush your team. Try to observe and learn how they do it.

Thanks Flumek and others! Helpful stuff!

NeXeD,

I meant that you were theory crafting about player strategy. Inexperienced players with a 0 to 19% chance of winning can’t be cat-herded into such reasonable, strategic behavior, in my experience.

I’ll never go to a game where you have to mindless grind for PvP gear in order to compete effectively.

I wonder if any experienced condi Necros here who play PvP have used Signet of Spite into epidemic as a standard tactic in team fights?

How well does it tend to work?

Blackwyn, I would send Justin O’Dell a private message asking him to take a look at your MMR and situation and see if something can be changed to even things up a bit.

NeXeD.3042:

laokoko.7403:

Blackwyn.8127:

It’s definitely not suppose to work that way at all. Just cause I managed to win the majority of my matches the system put a 50% win rate on. It doesn’t mean it should now put me in matches I’m not suppose to win almost all the time afterwards.

If everyone is suppose to have 50-70% win ratio, who get the loss?

I’ve been trying to say this to people on here for a while now… everyone seems to think they should be winning… no one thinks it’s possible they can lose its quite ridiculous. Especially when its probably a player skill issue.

Also this thing people like to do now where they say “you didn’t read what I posted” anytime someone disagrees with them is childish.

As an aside from Blackwyn’s point, I think this “always win” mentality comes from gear-based MMOs that make you “the hero” as you PvE and get stronger and stronger and all the NPCs bow to you etc. And then gear-based PvP in WoW and other MMOS where your gear makes you more powerful the more you grind. Makes you expect to smash everyone in matches.

NeXeD.3042:

Silentshoes.1805:

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Not really, if you lose as a solo queuer against a premade you don’t lose anything, you will even gain a point if it was a close loss.

Actually if you have 0% chance of winning as predicted by the matcher, you will lose a point, unless you score 200 pts….which is really hard against a team that you have a 0% chance of winning.

Zerging one point and not letting them kill you would get you the point. Seems pretty simple if you know this is going to happen after a few minutes tell your team and if your lucky they listen. If not play as smart as you can.

You are theorycrafting. I never see it happen that way with the kind of teams who have 0-19% chance of winning. They just don’t think that way, and they don’t listen.

Archaon.9524:

ladder based on win\loss ratio or gtfo

Why would you want to count an experienced team’s easy, unchallenging win against an uncoordinated, solo PUG as a “win”? That’s what win/loss does.

kdaddy.5431:

Im not disagreeing with you on the fairness but i am on the idea that average players should be the top 50 on the leader board. Im sorry but if you have michael jordan and scottie pippen on your team and i got chris dudley and chris childs im going to lose. I understand your trying to say make it as fair as possible which i agree with but i cant agree with a leader board and system that dont show the best players. There are guys with literally less then 42% win rates on this board, is it great for them to get points on a win. Of course but its not fair to the guy who is solo queing or with 1 friend and these guys ahve 60%+ wins. The entire system is play as many games as possible and if your really good +1 and if your average +2 when the best players in the game dont play all at the same time.

How do you feel about the 20 or so people with 65%+ wins and over 80 wins not being near the top 50? Or some of the guys who are walking around at 20-2. I mean not everyone can spend hours on end playing this game. Just wondering your thoughts on how to assimilate there value into the pvp leader board structure.

kdaddy,

I agree that they need recognition. But whatever rank they achieve should not include easy games against inexperienced and uncoordinated teams. Such things “inflate” their rank artificially.

Being in the Platinum Bracket would be their main recognition in most games. But we don’t have brackets.

Someone suggested that ArenaNet should just separate the ladder into three regions and call them Platinum, Gold and Silver, and restart the rank numbering within each section. I like that idea.

Yet I also want the blowouts to stop since they are so demoralizing for newer players and players stuck on a weak team.

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Not really, if you lose as a solo queuer against a premade you don’t lose anything, you will even gain a point if it was a close loss.

Actually if you have 0% chance of winning as predicted by the matcher, you will lose a point, unless you score 200 pts….which is really hard against a team that you have a 0% chance of winning.

kdaddy,

There is a disadvantage that solo players have when they are matched up against friends playing together, often with voice communications. That’s an advantage that grants more wins.

What we are talking about in the ladder scoring is a “handicap system” .

From Wikipedia: "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning… Handicapping is used in scoring many games and competitive sports, including go, chess, croquet, golf, bowling, polo, basketball, and track and field events. "

As I said, ArenaNet can regularly publish the MMRs of the “top players.” and give them titles, etc. That would be recognition. But don’t just have them play “lower bracket” players and call that fair.

If there aren’t going to be brackets, then adjust the ladder points awarded to make the games more even and fair. Let the team that plays better than their average ability win.

Grump made a suggestion that a fair measure for the Ladder should be the average points per game, over at least 100 games.

So I calculated that and here is the result.

If the High MMR people had played at least 100 games, they would be at the top of this.

Grump, I think I see what you mean. Losses that still give a point should have more weight. Is that what you are saying?

kdaddy said: " Im sorry pvp should not be equal," (i.e. not use handicapping in the league).

That will kill sPvP, since there are no brackets. You will just have a handful of people waiting to crush everyone else.

Everyone else will just go play something else.

Which is what has been happening in GW2 over the past year.

But if you reward people for performing better than their average, they have something to strive for.

ArenaNet can periodically list the names of the highest MMR players, as their reward. That’s better for the game than having them matched against new and uncoordinated players people and crush them all day long.

kdaddy.5431:

LOL what is that? The leaderboard is suppose to represent the best. For example if everyone is to solo que who do i want on my team? Guess what ill take 3 of my guild mates who like me are slightly above average over these top 25 so called leaders of the board.

I have a guild mate 9-0, i see others like noscoc at what is it 100-5. And your telling me that i should want these 25 people over magictoker,ostrich eggs,josre, and zoose? please stop it. Its had to tell if your really believe this or just trolling.

I’ll explain it for you kdaddy.

When you win against higher odds, you get more points. Because you won tougher matches.

High MMR players who play on voice communications with a team have a huge advantage and get easy wins against uncoordinated soloers. They play against easy odds. They don’t get many points for their easy games.

All of your “best” players ought to play solo for 100 matches and show us how many tough matches you can win and get a Points Per Win of 2.00.

kdaddy.5431:

Lol this one is funny cause all everyone is doing is trolling the person posting the topic.

Also the leaderboard is suppose to be about the best players. Hence LEADERBOARD, when people read it it suppose to be the best players. In the top 50 there are about 6 players i sit here saying to myself really?

kdaddy,

Best at what? Teamwork? Dueling?

Holl.3109:

To be honest, the leaderboard currently just feels like ‘WHO CAN RAKE UP THE MOST POINTS BY PLAYING THE MOST MATCHES!?! Try your luck now and play as many matches as possible!’

-.-

Not if you look at the “Points per Win”. Which is really the “toughness of the win”.

Lopez.7369:

I don’t think this really means anything. This could just be a bunch of low-MMR players who happen to be less bad than the people they face but are still pretty bad.

No evidence of that. Over time the matcher does tend to put you with your MMR groups.

SobeSoul.6910:

You are terribly wrong.

0.98 is how many pts per win I am at. Which is substantially higher than some people in the screenshot, and I have a better winrate. Difference between those people and me is I don’t grind the board 24/7.

What is wrong?

How strong a win is a better indicator, hence the “Points Per Win” from the point award grid based on how tough a match it was. And I chose the “top 25” since they have maintained the Pts Per WIn over the most games. That is a more “consistent” “Pts per Win” because it happened over a long run of matches.

The simple “win rate” is not a good indicator, because you can be given a match you are expected to lose.

Aaron,

Yes, the situation is complicated by having solo players be thrown into random pugs against teams who generally have a communication and teamwork advantage.

“The system is total points.”

I get that, and I think it does currently reward “competent playing, lots of hours”.

It should be changed to rank “Average points Per Win”. That will cover the solo players as well as those with a team advantage over the soloers.

And I challenge you to play 50 games and earn 2 pts per win, as a solo player. So it measures your skill in randomly assigned teams.

I like it if it keeps daily grinders out of Ranked.

Aaron,

A leaderboard can be about whatever they want it to be.

The top player can be the best at improving any random team’s score.

I agree that total points can reward grind if you are competent. But “Points Per Win” is not grind based and rewards team contribution skill.

Aaron.2413:

You are not getting the point… The point is time played = high leaderboard rank……

a. These leaderboarss should be for teams not solo ( it’s rated team arena…)
B. It shouldn’t be time based (min 100 games, after that it should stop)
C.the last leaderboards did show the best players… Decay needed tweaking .. An overhaul was overkill

The idea of “Pts per Win” is not grind based. It is skill based and rotation skill based.

Yes Aaron, announce you are going to do it,and then start queuing only SOLO.

Start from your current “pts per win” which is only about 1.00, correct?

See if you can make it 2 pts per every win for 50 games.

I’ll follow your progress.

The best players makes a team perform better than expected and score more points.

Worse players make a team tend to score fewer points. Regardless of twitch skill level or knowledge of their class.

Damsel Delilah.9084:

This does not make a good ranking system simply because it does not show the BEST players, which is what a leaderboard is supposed to do.

Best at what, Delilah? Helping a team? Or 1v1ing in a deathmatch style?

julesremain.7260:

You think that the best player in tpvp is rockin a 45% win ratio????

Win ratio means nothing when matcher is forced to put you, solo, into matches against experienced teams on voice communication. They have an advantage.

Win ratio only counts when the playing field is “level”.

Here are the top 25 players on the current leaderboard ranked by how many points per win they average.

I would say this means that they tend to win “bigger” than predicted, and lose less severely than predicted.

That means they tend to help their teams the most.

Aaron, if you are skilled at playing, play solo and prove it: Earn more points than wins as a solo player not dependent on having skilled teammates.

Playing with your team against uncoordinated pugs is not a test of skill. Think about it.

Aren’t you the one that wanted these newbies to lose a point for a loss even if they are put up against a much better, veteran team who are using voice communications? Seriously??

“The current leaderboard is a farmboard and does not represent actual skill.”

Mostly, I disagree. There are people who tend to make their team lose. They play a lot but get few ladder points.

For each person on the ladderboard now, see if their points are greater than their number of wins.

Those people are skilled at team playing. They tend to get bigger-than-expected win scores, and bigger-than-expected scores even when they lose the match.

The people who pay a lot and tend to help their team win also tend to have higher ladder points.

Good to hear. I will persevere.

So it is all about dueling skill. I can’t 1v1 very well.

Any thoughts you all have on how to tell if you played well and strategically even if you lost in a 500-50 blowout match?

^^ Right. That makes sense.

Maybe that works.

In these threads what confuses all of this is that the matcher very often is forced to give solo Q teams matches they have a very small actual chance of winning.

Yet people are used to win/loss = skill.

oneply.9586:

Leaderboards a joke. anyone with a sub 60% win rate should definitely not be anywhere near the top (really imo would say 75%). but when you have guys lower than 50% then its really pathetic that they are near the top just because they have nothing else to do but play.

One Ply,

Even if you are solo and 70% of the time the matcher gives you matchups it expects you to lose ?

Please explain your logic on this, given how the matching works, especially in off hours.