Premade does not mean good, it does not mean voice comms, and I see some serious exaggerations on facing premades and even on what people assume their skill level is….. what makes anyone think they would do any better against a bunch of solos of similiar skill level as the people on the premade team?
The matchmaking isn’t that bad…. I’m going to guess it’s keeping you at about 50% which means working as intended even if you get the occasional game where you stomp or get stomped.
It often means:
- Proper composition (point holders + roamers)
- Minimum coordination
- Experiance of playing together
- Optional Voice Com
And since you often win more or less due to such stuff than personal skill anything bigger than duo never should be matched against solo player.
You get used to it. I soloq a majority of the time and I face premades probably more than I should. However, Anet said they’re not going to bring back soloq so it’s whatever. Sometimes it’s decent, then other times, I get thrown against the same premades four games in a row.
He isnt trolling. I was the downed warrior, I saw him catch my rock. It came up with ‘block’ and did no damage. I have already reported him for hacking.
So you say, using Virtue of Courage (gives Aegis) to block downed ‘2’ is hacking now?
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Confirmed, the longer win streaks I had, the less +LB gains on average per match.
How about this for another suggestion:
Points you gain/lose from matches are use MMR as a multiplier.
I don’t know what the scale is for MMR, but say for example the average MMR is 2000. Point gain/loss is multiplied by MMR/2000. This way you are being rewarded for being a high MMR player and eliminates people exploiting the leaderboard by losing 200 games right before the start of a reward season to lower their MMR.
That seems to be good idea. I think there should be more things taken into account like:
1) multiper bonus based on your MMR
2) multiper based on your odds of winning Edit: 3) premade size in your team vs premade size in enemy team (3+2 would be 3)
4) base points for your performance as team (if you’re winning enemy score would be indicator of it, if you’re losing then score of your team)
This way players with high MMR paired against players with lower MMR wouldn’t be punished for it (even if their chance to win would above 80%), if they would outplay their enemies by e.g. 500-0, it still would be worth +3 (in +3 <-> -3 scale).
Edit: Also, I think using higher scale for rating matches like +10 <-> -10 would be much better for accuracy than +3 <-> -3.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P
The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.
There was a situation with one player where he would earn +3 points at 400 or +5 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.
Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.
Ironically it’s far easier for a lower MMR player to get to the top of the leaderboards than a high MMR (and presumably better) player…
Confirmed, the longer win streaks I had, the less +LB gains on average per match.
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.
How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.
People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.
Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…
Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.
A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.
I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.
I belive this system is broken. Mostly because if you lose, the more you score the less LB points you lose or even have chance to gain them, HOWEVER if you win, it doesn’t matter how many points enemies have scored. So if you think about it, both teams can end up with +1, just because “win more” scenario for better team isn’t rewarded and they aren’t encouraged for the best possible play like total denying enemies from scoring any points.
Here’s wondering why HA (Heroes’ Ascent), a simple Team Death Match with few extra mechanics did far more better in GW1 than GW2 is doing (PvP).
Why do they have to go after all these gimmicky game modes, mix moba, conquest, buffs, and all the other things.
Because we don’t have Monks and proper supporters/interrupters.
We agree. The spectator camera changes Branden just put in was just one small item on the list of things we’d like to do for spectator mode at some point. There has been some great discussion on the forums in the past regarding spectator mode improvements/readability, and we agree with much of what is said.
We haven’t talked about our new mode in-depth yet (no spoilers, sorry), but making it a friendlier viewer experience is something we think about constantly when making design decisions – right up there with making it fun, approachable, and intuitive.
Would be amazing to have ingame option to watch saved on server games of top teams, like it was in GW1.
sPvP will always be the minority till we either all find another MMO to get our PvP fix, or when A-net decides to properly reward us. I’m sticking with unranked PvP combined with another game to get my daily dosis of PvP.
It amazes me how people can play unranked… with all those kittened asuras jumping around.
Stealth itself is OP, however because of completly different reasons and has nothing with class balance since it can’t be balanced. There are many reasons why, but I guess it’s worthless to even discuss it, because I doubt that such ‘core’ mechanics will be changed ever.
It is possible to turn the tide in Foefire and Silent temple if you outplay them.
Rush lord when it hits 350, capture mid and bottom at the timer, etc.
But mostly if you fall behind, it means your team sucks.
So it’s natural that the sucker team not be able to come back, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense does it?
Because of eSportz.
In other words: it’s boring to watch if there is small comeback potential.
The hate is easily explained because in solo-queue the LB ranger is a high reward vs. low risk build. If you have some rather competent team mates that can ‘tank’ the opposition on a node and you do nothing but sit afar and snipe them, it will sooner or later incur the feeling that you’re really nothing but a 2 buttons damage bot. Even a p/d thief, which in a team fight does almost the same thing (bursting low targets to down them quickly) has more risks because he can be caught in some low area AoEs (hammer stuns, imobs etc.) and he can die quickly. The feelings worsen when you duel such a ranger solo on a node and they never sit out of the LB and die miserably after 10 sec or so.
Actually Power Ranger is high risk build, it’s only low risk vs newbies who doesn’t know who to focus…
LOL if you complain about IP and overcharged shot then this is a clear L2P issue I am afraid. Engineers have been nerfed over and over. In fact recently that might patch destroyed engineer. You literally dont see them anymore. They just suck now.
Hint: to stop IP then save your condi cleanse for it. Come on dude. Easy. Engineer is rly bad now.
According to one of the best engis in game (Chaith) not much changed for celestial Engineer… but clearly you know better.
lol dude engineer is bad. And slick shoes is really underpowered. Dont know what game you are playing but its obvious. Just port out or use stability vs slick shoes….come on
Im playing game where two the best classes are: Engineer and Elementalist. However I’m not really sure, what game are YOU playing.
LOL if you complain about IP and overcharged shot then this is a clear L2P issue I am afraid. Engineers have been nerfed over and over. In fact recently that might patch destroyed engineer. You literally dont see them anymore. They just suck now.
Hint: to stop IP then save your condi cleanse for it. Come on dude. Easy. Engineer is rly bad now.
According to one of the best engis in game (Chaith) not much changed for celestial Engineer… but clearly you know better.
With the extension announced, I’m thinking about giving GW2 another try.
While I am very interested by a ranger and usually playing warrior/guardian, I’m a little concerned about the meta.
Can you please give me a subjective point of view about your idea of the actual meta by ranking every professions in your answers and maybe give a little opinion ?
Like gw2 you are often placed with new players on your team in MOBAs. However they have a very unique way of balancing the problem. As an individual doing extremely well in a match your character is upgraded and you are able to carry your team effectively.
If you were a developer, how would you implement this system in gw2? How would you decide who receives upgrades and why?
Thats the worst part of MOBAs, because one guy in your team can feed enemes and carry them no matter what you do… in GW2 you can comeback due to team play even if someone got outplayed few times, because everyone is ‘equal’ since beginning to the end.
not everything is about 1vs1, at the end of the day…….the team that reach 500 pts win
Ofc it’s not. However if you want Ranger to do something, other class will do it better. Probably with exception of condi Spirit Ranger, which is barely played anymore since it’s not good in this meta with so much aoe cleanses.
Edit: You go to tournament with selected team, you can have any composition and you can handpick ANY players. Why would you pick Ranger?
Tell me how Ranger is good in ‘bursting’ tanky meta, when Ranger job is to hunt down squishies. Most of time, there are no squishes, nothing but tanks, that’s why you use a ranger.
Tell me how Ranger mobility is good compared to Thief or Mesmer. Read the Wind
Tell me how Ranger is sooo good in 1v1 against competent people? self explainatory, just win, they have a lot of good stuff, pretty underrated right now if you ask me, plus not many classes have a nice knockback like they do, even more reason why to go ranger
All you need to really focus on is longbow 2 and 4. use 5 during cooldowns. use gs 3 to run away and decap nodes and gs4 to block attacks.
Speaking of squishies. If I’m 1v1ing someone and I know they squishy, I’d play my medi guard.
If I know they a tanky class, I’d go ranger.
With tanky meta. You should go ranger. Only reason why I still play medi guard is because all those rowdy rough talkers play squishies and I enjoy destroying them.
Both Power Rangers and Medi Guards aren’t competitive builds.
Ninja edit: Well Medi-Hammer Guards are sometimes played, however their role is completly different than GS ones.
Tell me how Ranger is good in ‘bursting’ tanky meta, when Ranger job is to hunt down squishies.
Tell me how Ranger mobility is good compared to Thief or Mesmer.
Tell me how Ranger is sooo good in 1v1 against competent people?
Cele D/D Ele, due to sustain and ability to still deal damage.
Cele Rifle Engi, due to mobility and versality (kits), loads of cc.
Thief due to damage, mobility and stealth.
You can’t only consider balance for the very top players. What the average player experiences should be taken into consideration as well. For the average player, longbow ranger is extremely frustrating to play against, mostly because of Rapid Fire and their long range. Though condi rangers with entangle can also be frustrating. So yes, I agree that ranger needs to change, but in doing so it needs to be made more viable at the top and less of a one-trick-pony for the general player.
For average player Thieves and Mesmers are for sure more ‘frustrating’ since they deal more dmg out of nowhere and stealth/port away after. So you suggest to nerf Thieves and Mesmers?
Played endless Whack a mole with skills for no other reason than PvPers got bored every few months.
PvE players hated it.
Guild Wars 2 doesn’t have hundreds of skills that you can pick and choose from and trait or gear changes are subtle. I’d prefer that development resources instead got spend on at least two more stronghold maps, and other game related content.
I think thieves are mainly the reason for mesmers getting shut out of the meta. I haven’t seen top tier teams have too many issues with turrets, and it seems that supply crate is mainly used for the stun and secondarily for the bandages and turrets. With all the eles hanging around, I doubt those turrets last very long.
That’s not necessarily true, thieves have been part of the meta for a long time, but that didn’t stop mesmers – the shift away from mesmers wasn’t due to the introduction of thieves. Anyway, that’s a different topic completely :P
Mesmers are less played exacly because of Thieves.
The only thing that needs to be toned down is the fact that Ranger is just an easy profession no matter what build you play.
They’re not that strong ATM but you can’t buff something that’s just flat out easy mode without reworking it into something that’s a little bit harder.
How Ranger is easy? Why Ranger is easy? Since it’s not, playing Ranger properly isn’t easy.
Agreed it is not, but it does way too many things well imo
Too many things? Like?
If I play Power Ranger, all I can do is spike (2), good at nuking from distance (1500m). No condis around.
If I play Condi Ranger, all I can do is condi spam (900m) & evade. No burst around.
If I play Spirit Ranger, all I can do is support. Since no matter if I pick Power or Condi route I sacrifice traits and utilities for supportive stuff.
If you think about it, Ranger usualy does only one thing depending on what kind of Ranger it is.
