Showing Posts For Rashy.4165:

Year of the Ascension Achievements

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Quoted it strait from your link. The current Wings can be earned AFTER a new one is released. Can someone please point out the new backpack? no? ok.

They never said it was exclusive to Seasons 1-4. That was implied by them saying “one backpiece per year” where Ascension was logically 2016, since it worked out to 4 seasons per year. As of the end of S1, they stated very simply that if you miss out on earning it in 2016, you can still earn it through some other means in later years, IF they release a second backpiece.

People assumed that The Ascension won’t be obtainable after 2016, but ANet said they’d come up with a way to still make the backpiece earnable. Somehow. Currently, they don’t HAVE to do that as they haven’t announced a second backpiece. Even if they were to release a second backpiece, the cleanest solution would have been to not retire the achievements and allow for people to always make progress towards them (potentially earning multiple backpieces at the same time, unless they change the achievements for future backpieces).

The goal was always to ensure rewards were always ACCESSIBLE. That doesn’t cheapen the effort needed to actually get it (except for the difference in league tracks vs. divisions which was fair because they anticipated that not everyone would be able to cross into higher divisions multiple times). The ones who worked their butt off got to show off their backpiece for a lot longer.

1 backpiece per year is not an implication, it wasn’t implied at all it was stated directly by Anet. Implication… jesus…

They did say it was going to obtainable in the future yes, but AFTER a new one was released. I still don’t see a new back piece but what I do see is another decision to push away the dedicated players of the game while simultaneously discrediting Anets future promotions to it’s customers. People worked hard to make it in the time frame and stopped playing other modes, games and gave up some real life time to make sure it happened.

They laid out there plans, no one made any assumptions, we just believed Anet like the morons we are then settle for satisfied when nothing happened again.

Read closely. One backpiece per year IMPLIED that it would be one backpiece for S1-4. One backpiece for S1-4 was NEVER STATED EXPLICITLY.

Year of the Ascension Achievements

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Quoted it strait from your link. The current Wings can be earned AFTER a new one is released. Can someone please point out the new backpack? no? ok.

They never said it was exclusive to Seasons 1-4. That was implied by them saying “one backpiece per year” where Ascension was logically 2016, since it worked out to 4 seasons per year. As of the end of S1, they stated very simply that if you miss out on earning it in 2016, you can still earn it through some other means in later years, IF they release a second backpiece.

People assumed that The Ascension won’t be obtainable after 2016, but ANet said they’d come up with a way to still make the backpiece earnable. Somehow. Currently, they don’t HAVE to do that as they haven’t announced a second backpiece. Even if they were to release a second backpiece, the cleanest solution would have been to not retire the achievements and allow for people to always make progress towards them (potentially earning multiple backpieces at the same time, unless they change the achievements for future backpieces).

The goal was always to ensure rewards were always ACCESSIBLE. That doesn’t cheapen the effort needed to actually get it (except for the difference in league tracks vs. divisions which was fair because they anticipated that not everyone would be able to cross into higher divisions multiple times). The ones who worked their butt off got to show off their backpiece for a lot longer.

ELO hell climb was a complete joke LUL

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

@nothelseth: what do you think are the most important keybinds to change to improve play, generally speaking, and more specifically for mesmer?

also ty for this thread and ur streams.

ELO hell climb was a complete joke LUL

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

I have three questions for you:

1) Absolutely. If the player is good, plays a profession that can carry, and if their team listens to instructions. I only include the last point because not every player will be able to solo carry, only the truly top tier players. Most players, the ones who are above average or around average, can carry a bad team if the teammates listened.

If you’re the best player on the team, and all of your teammates didn’t listen, there’s very little you could do to carry.

2) See answer to #1.

3) -shrug-

Personally not whining about ELO hell. I did make a joke about it on Reddit when I hit 666 because it was staring right at me. My main concerns are really about improvements to the league system as a whole. It’s a good start, but there’s always room for improvement. Maybe some aspects of matchmaking and ladder climbing isn’t really working as intended, and should be looked into. Maybe the issues are bigger and due to low concurrent queue numbers (which isn’t a quick fix).

Personally, I had a bad start at 466. Since then, playing fairly casually at least 3 games per day, I’ve climbed to 776. I’m setting my sights low this season because I’m relatively new to PvP, and hope to make it to 1050 or 1350, depending on how well I do from now on. I plan on being much more prepared for next season by playing matches during the break.

499 to 504, -20

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

You probably lost against a team you weren’t expected to lose to.

Not knowing both team’s average MMR though, can’t say.

Year of the Ascension Achievements

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Nice job on turning it into the participation trophy of GW2.

Not that it was much of a prestigious award to begin with.

When it was possible to grind your way to Legendary using the old Pips division system to begin with?

Yeah, it was never prestigious.

It was supposed to be prestigious by only being obtainable across the 4 seasons so only a handful of the total percentage of playerbase would receive it…

That was never the intention. The intention was, if a new backpiece came out and Year of the Ascension had to be retired, there would still be an alternate way to earn past backpieces. Regardless of the approach they took (keeping achievements for longer, providing an alternate path for gift of the competitor), The Ascension would still be accessible well beyond the first 4 seasons.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pvp-leagues-and-sloth-attack-on-guild-chat-a-summary/

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Stopped-dead-on-Wings/page/2#post6067744

Video in particular: https://youtu.be/1ApYM2f12ys?t=263

(edited by Rashy.4165)

MMR not equal to Rating

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

We’ve already received plenty of information that matchmaking uses a player’s skill rating for matchmaking. If you still think MMR and Skill rating are different, then I don’t know what else to say.

Year of the Ascension Achievements

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

After people worked their behinds off to get far enough in the achievements to be able to finish it this tournament? Why?

Can’t please everyone. Some people got it by Season 2.

Times change. Plans change.

Start showing everyone's rating in games

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

IMO, the only thing they should show is your team’s average MMR and the opposing team’s average MMR. That’s effectively what decides the expected outcome. Show these numbers at the end of the match (starting average and ending average after rating changes).

Year of the Ascension Achievements

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Nice job on turning it into the participation trophy of GW2.

Not that it was much of a prestigious award to begin with.

When it was possible to grind your way to Legendary using the old Pips division system to begin with?

Yeah, it was never prestigious.

Ranked Refinements and Tweaks

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

> I’m interested to hear more details about your theory as to how new players and formerly PvE-only players would fit into higher tiers soon after starting sPvP.

Let me spell it out again, word by word.

People. Learn. At. Different. Rates.

That applies to all facets of life. Some people have natural talents. Others need only a bit of work to become really good. Others need a lot of hard work to succeed. And there are also people who, despite the effort, cannot get better without extra guidance. And there are others, regardless of how much guidance they receive, will never improve.

You’re using your own personal experience to apply it as the general case.

There’s more than enough resources online to get the essentials needed to start to succeed.

The big change with Season 5 with Ascended gear being easily farmable was to attract new players – a portion of those new players will stick around, while the rest move on. Some of those new players will improve. Others may not.

Metabattle does a good job of documenting the essentials for each meta build. The rest is easy to pick up on with a bit of situational analysis from the player’s side. With a bit of research, players can watch top rated streamers and see what they do. Some actually explain what they’re doing as they play, making it that much easier to receive tips and tricks.

Of the many issues people have with the current system, half can be fixed by increasing population. Any new player who comes into the game will fit somewhere on the bell curve of MMR (that’s how statistics tends to work). The other half of the issues can be fixed while working on a way to bring in large numbers of players.

The issue you mention about MMR changes depending on individual performance is one of the issues that’s unrelated to population, which can be looked into for Season 6. There are other issues such as exposing team MMR (starting and ending) after the match, in the match details panel, which can also be implemented now that MMR is visible.

You’re missing the point I make about prioritization. Higher priority doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that needs to be worked on. I already clarified what I meant when I said "no issue is worth discussing until … "

Yes, other issues need working on, but most of those are ongoing problems that have been happening for a long time. Yet, despite all these years, they still haven’t fully addressed the issue of PvP population, and providing proper incentives to get better in PvP.

(edited by Rashy.4165)

Ranked Refinements and Tweaks

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

>Your idea of increasing the sPvP population is nice, but doesn’t solve the current issue of MMR mismatching people of disparate skill levels.

MMR mismatch is a result of the system not having enough players at different MMR ranges.

And as for taking a minimum of 3 months to get to Platinum level, that is entirely subjective. People learn at different rates. Most classes have a low skill floor to do well, and only some classes have a high skill ceiling to do really well. Learning conquest and rotation isn’t unique to GW2 as it’s conceptual.

Proportionately here means something along the lines of:
If say 80% of the playerbase is Bronze and the remaining 20% is Platinum or higher, and the game brings in 100k new players, those new players will more or less fit into those divisions with the same proportions, in theory. In practice, if the numbers are even slightly different (say, 10-15% of new players reach platinum level), that’s still a noticeable boost in population at platinum.

Yes, all of this did make more sense at launch, but it’s never too late to start. Frankly, the game was almost completely overhauled with new systems for HoT, which was 3 years after the game’s release.

Ranked Refinements and Tweaks

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Anet is no longer a tiny developer, they can handle more than one problem at a time (they employ more than one dev). Saying as you did that we can only discuss other people’s pet peeves after your particular annoyance has been solved is a self-interested attempt to shut down other important discussions. Yes, we’d all benefit from a larger PvP population, no, that discussion should not eclipse all other discussion dedicated to improving the sPvP side of GW2. I would also point out that if the population were to increase, it would all be new people, and so would simply increase the number of “bads” in the lower tiers of sPvP ranked matches and wouldn’t affect higher tiers. It wouldn’t solve the issue of Silver/Gold-level players being stuck in Bronze due to not being quite good enough to carry 4 other players every match, and it would only increase the number of players in need of carrying. That being said, people who are stuck in Bronze who “don’t belong there” are only a portion of the sPvP population and I don’t think their concerns are more or less important than any other issues.

I have heard the idea of a sPvP-only client before and I think it’s a great idea, this should happen and I fully support it. Your idea of a sPvP-only GW2 account is a bit different, still viable and I like it. It would also help GW2 market itself as a MOBA within a MMO, which could take GW2’s sPvP situation in a more positive direction.

" and so would simply increase the number of “bads” in the lower tiers of sPvP ranked matches and wouldn’t affect higher tiers."

New to GW2 perhaps, but not necessarily bad players, or necessarily new to PvP and conquest. People learn at different rates. Bringing in more players would increase populations at all skill levels proportionately, not accounting for individual player growth from those new players.

“Anet is no longer a tiny developer, they can handle more than one problem at a time”

I’m aware. However, they’re also relatively small in size compared to the big names in PvP games. Due to that size, prioritization is important. Tackling more problems at the same times runs the risk of them being stretched too thin, not being able to dedicate enough time and resources to each problem individually.

Also, PvP population isn’t a personal annoyance. It’s a prevalent problem that’s existed since GW2 launched. Concurrent population is affected by that as well – why do you think they removed Team Queue and aren’t re-adding it now? Because they can’t afford the split in PvP population as it will affect queue times adversely.

Ranked Refinements and Tweaks

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

No suggestion is worth implementing until ArenaNet can fix the biggest issue: drawing in many more players and giving them incentives to perform well in PvP.

Once we can guarantee that we have 100s of players at all skill levels queuing concurrently (this is the key, really, not just sheer numbers, but concurrent numbers), then we can start to talk about matchmaking and whether or not it’s working as expected.

Rashy is right. We can only focus on one problem at a time. LITERALLY. The devs are physically incapable of solving more than one problem in a given timeframe. Not possible, will never happen, let’s never discuss solutions to problems ever.

Not sure if sarcasm, but to elaborate:
Yes, there are plenty of issues that need looking into. Yes, all of them do need to looked at at some point in the future. However, not all issues are equal priority. The focus should be on the biggest issue, while working on the other issues simultaneously (lower priority).

And IMO, the highest priority right now should be PvP population. Matchmaking issues will probably fix itself if it has a healthy population of players to draw from. With a healthy population to draw from, they can implement additional controls to prevent class stacking. With a healthy population, you won’t have matches that are stacked against you, you’ll have more even matches where everyone is rated roughly equally. With a healthy population, proper solo and teamQ can be re-implemented, and separated queues won’t be a problem. Even with a healthy population, the game doesn’t need to be an esport, but it has a better potential to be one.

Class balancing is an on-going problem that can be dealt with by making far more frequent balancing updates, or implement a public test server (probably more work involved).

So, how to bring in more players?
The cleanest solution would probably be a PvP-only version of the game (GW1 called, it wants its idea back), that players can download for free, or for a small price. They get most of the PvP build interface unlocked (the core stuff that everyone gets, including all specializations). They can still earn reward track progression and pip rewards, but can only be fully taken advantage of if they buy the full game. Additional things can be unlocked by paying for it with gold, as it is for players with the full game. If a PvP-only player wants to buy the full game, they can pay a discounted price for it.

Of course, ANet will need to prepare for something like that, as the large influx of players could pose many problems.

Ranked Refinements and Tweaks

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

No suggestion is worth implementing until ArenaNet can fix the biggest issue: drawing in many more players and giving them incentives to perform well in PvP.

Once we can guarantee that we have 100s of players at all skill levels queuing concurrently (this is the key, really, not just sheer numbers, but concurrent numbers), then we can start to talk about matchmaking and whether or not it’s working as expected.

Can win streaks be a thing?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

The win/lose streaks should effectively change a player’s volatility to allow for quicker changes, before settling again, but only for the truly anomalous cases where placements put them either too high or too low, and for any player who surpasses their true rating significantly.

This is basically what I was referring to. If you’re getting a win streak like the OP indicated (and it was against even opponents), he’ll start to increase faster. But like you said, such a huge shift is unexpected and should stabilize quickly.

The point is that Glicko2 does account for anomalies and that a special “win streak bonus” is not needed.

While a bonus system isn’t needed, and Glicko corrects anomalies by itself, the bonus system would correct anomalies faster than just glicko by itself.

Can win streaks be a thing?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

So anyone going to provide a real mathematical argument? Or just continue to make kitten up?

In theory, Glicko should take into account win streaks. As in, if you’re consistently winning, you are going up in rating, meeting higher ranked players, defeating them, repeat. However, Glicko also becomes more and more certain the higher up you go, so your individual gains from each match along the win streak tapers down, as again, should be expected.

Other games though, make an extra modification to quickly get out of a bad placement, by giving bonus rating. This is something in addition to Glicko, as far as I can tell. This means that your win streak doesn’t need to be as long to reach your target skill division. Without bonuses, hypothetically, you may need 30 matches to advance to your actual skill rating, with bonuses, that could be brought down to 15 matches, for instance. Actual numbers would depend on many factors, but the assumption here is, the player doesn’t have trouble consistently winning. The bonus rating changes should fix any anomalies in placement matches where a player gets placed too low and the system stabilizes too quickly.

http://imgur.com/n7oceII Bad image due to lack of scanner.

That should highlight some scenarios that could happen with Glicko. TRUE indicates players true skill rating, starting average is 1200, and HIGH/LOW represents misplacements. Of course, this assumes that a player’s true rating is above the starting average, and there’s an equivalent set of scenarios for if their rating is below average.

The red line indicates what should happen, in theory, for an average player whose true rating is 1200. The system should match them up in 50-50 matches and they’ll fluctuate around 1200.

The purple line indicates a proper placement, where they’re placed right at their true rating, and they fluctuate there.

The green line indicates a player who completely overshot their true rating, and through a series of win/lose streaks that got progressively shorter, arrived at their true rating.

Orange indicates a high misplacement. In theory, the player should hit their losing streak a lot quicker, unless they played it super safe and only did 1-2 matches a day to maintain a 50-50 winrate despite not belonging there. They may inevitably hit a big losing streak, and they’ll drop down to their true rating. How fast that happens depends on any extra penalties they accrue along the way (right now, there appears to be no extra penalty for being on a losing streak, aside from a big drop in rating by default).

The light blue line indicates a low misplacement. In this scenario, the win streak should happen a lot quicker to boost them out of that low rating towards their true rating. The win streak could cause an overshoot, but they should lose matches and start to fluctuate around their true rating.

The minor fluctuations are a result of the 50-50 win rate. It’s a pattern of win/loss/win/loss/repeat, or win/win/lose/lose, which is a more volatile case.

Lets consider a hypothetical case where the red line, the average player, improves in skill significantly over many matches, and their true rating is indicated by HIGH. The problem now though, is that the system has stabilized to the point where their gains and losses aren’t particularly high. They go on a long win streak, but because their gains are low, their win streak slope would be far less steep than light blue. Assuming they maintain that win streak, it will take them a really long time to reach HIGH. This is where the win streak bonus should kick in, to allow that player to get a large jump (steeper win streak slope) to get to HIGH. They may overshoot it, but again, they should be able to fluctuate until they settle at HIGH.

The win/lose streaks should effectively change a player’s volatility to allow for quicker changes, before settling again, but only for the truly anomalous cases where placements put them either too high or too low, and for any player who surpasses their true rating significantly.

One caveat though, is the frequency of wins/losses. If you only play 1 match every 3 days, and win all of them, that shouldn’t be counted as a win streak, as you’re playing it too safe. Same goes for losing streaks. Win/lose streaks should factor in how often you’re playing too; if you play 10 matches per day and win all of them, then that’s a fair win streak.

Can win streaks be a thing?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Are you for real? GW2 uses rating system invented for chess which is a 1v1 game? xD Anet keeps on surprising me.

It’s modified to account for 5v5 differences.

Another PvP issue

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

The main problem with matchmaking is an issue that ANet will probably struggle with for some time to come: having a healthy population of players queuing concurrently. At least 50-100 per sub-division (bronze 1/2/3, silver 1/2/3, etc), or more.

It’s the problem that top 10 players are facing – with not enough people at 2k+ rating, they will get matched up with players in the 1800-1900 range, or lower, if they have to be (because of not enough players queuing concurrently).

Duplicate White Mantle Portal Device

in Fractals, Dungeons & Raids

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

And just as I was considering trading in my one White Mantle Portal, I got a second. Yay.

Ascended rewards count for armor achievement?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

It shouldn’t count. The crafted/PvE Ascended armours have a completely different skin (Illustrious), which is what counts for the achievement. You don’t have to craft it, as getting armour drops from raids or fractals will count as it’s the same skin. Same goes for purchased ascended boxes.

(edited by Rashy.4165)

No Credit for League Dominator - Elite

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Only possibility I can think of is, you didn’t complete all of them before the “day” reset. Not entirely sure if PvP follows the standard daily reset or not (noticed something similar with league participator).

I’d say contact support and see what they have to say.

How does this matchmaking works?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Here’s how matchmaking works:

It looks for 9 other players around your skill rating from the existing queue of players. If it can’t find that many, the search range is widened until it fills all 10 spots. Then, the teams are formed by trying to balance team MMRs as much as possible.

Those two 2000+ rated players didn’t have 8 other equally rated players to be matched up with at that given point in time, so the search was widened for them until the system found you and placed you in a match with them.

For matchmaking to work flawlessly, it needs to be able to draw upon a queue that has not only a diverse range of players at different ratings, but also have enough players at any given rating. Something on the order of 10s or 100s of players at smaller rating intervals (501-550, … , 1901-1950, 1951-2000,2001-2050, … , 2301-2350), all queuing simultaneously.

Of course, there’s no way to guarantee that that many people queue at the same time. It requires a much higher population of players than GW2 has for PvP.

Why do you lose more points than you win?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

That’s not how ELO works.

GW2 uses a modified Glicko2.

And that’s exactly how it works. When a match is decided, there’s an expected outcome based on your team’s average rating and the opposing team’s average rating. These numbers, when identical, lead to a 50-50 chance of winning. In reality though, they’re never identical, which leads to kitten -45 chance, or something else entirely.

The other thing you have to keep in mind, your team’s MMR changes from match to match. Lets say you’re 1400, and you lose a match and lose 40 points, in a matchup where your team’s MMR is 1375. At the end of this match, your MMR is now 1360, and the next match you play, your team’s MMR won’t be 1375. That’s not even including the opposing team’s MMR, which can vary due to the players in it.

We don’t have exact numbers to work with, aside from adding everyone in the match to your friend’s list to see their MMR and working with that, which is effort. Ideally, the post-match details (after the match is over, not before it begins) should reveal both team’s starting MMR before the fight.

ELO details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Theory

Note that E_A and E_B are expected outcomes based on R_A and R_B, which is the player’s ratings before a game (or analogous team ratings before a match): . Both expected outcomes are then used to calculate the new rating for each player (R_A’, R_B’) based on both their expected outcome (E_A) and actual outcome (S_A). K-factor is effectively a volatility constant.

Glicko is a bit more complex than ELO.

(edited by Rashy.4165)

"rating/division"= " Caste system"?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Previous season only counted to “soft reset” your rating closer to 1200. Although, previous seasons did not expose ratings, so getting to Diamond or Legendary didn’t mean you actually belong in that division as per the current ratings.

The results of placement matches depend largely on the people you’re matched up with and against, and the outcome of them. Ratings are too volatile during placement, so the system could end up placing people incorrectly.

Matchmaking is designed to ensure that any match you’re put in has a 50-50 chance of win or lose, or as close to that as possible. This is the expected outcome as per glicko. This also means that your skill rating is relatively accurate, if those matches end up in a 50% win ratio for you.

If you defy the expected outcome consistently, you’ll climb into a higher division.

I wouldn’t compare this to a caste system, despite the similarities.

Why AP for the top 250 titles is not cool

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

After an internal review, we’ve decided that awarding points for achievements that are this exclusive goes against the intent and spirit of our achievement system. We’ll be removing the points on these in a future release.

I am incredibly disappointed with that. You’ve basically told players that getting into the top 250 is not an achievement worthy of any points. I’m saddened it seems you wont be removing the points from previous Legendary titles to align with this new decision.

The Achievement system should be to display what people achieve in game, I’d say top 250 is a great one.

Being able to flaunt an exclusive title is a reward in and of itself. No amount of points awarded would be a fair amount.

need 3/1 winrate is get out of lead division?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

I suppose that’s fair.

Team MMR before and after outcome of the match would both be nice to see in the match details.

need 3/1 winrate is get out of lead division?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

You’re likely winning against teams that are close to your MMR, and losing against teams that are lower average MMR, hence the bigger loss. If your MMR and opposing team’s MMR was identical every single match, your wins and losses won’t be that different.

We won’t really know for sure though, unless we can see both team’s average MMR at the start of the match. I think it would be a good addition to have.

Thoughts from the Bottom

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Random comment from my own experiences: I try to wish everyone a good game in map chat prior to match starting, and one person said to me “don’t wish them luck, we aim to win”, to which I responded with “-shrug- sportsmanship” and got a blank “?” in response.

We lost that match, but still.

Remove duoqueuers from ranked

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Either that or allow to join as 3 and kitten .

WTF? Why five gets censored? 55555

You typed “A” followed by multiple 5’s. Change 5 to S and it’ll make sense.

ANet’s censoring on the forums is pretty Draconian.

Slothasor Request

in Fractals, Dungeons & Raids

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Mush 1: basically eat to the middle, then eat towards Mushroom 2.
Mush 2: Eat along the outside towards Mushroom 3, then eat towards the inside towards the group. Group holds AoEs. This ensures that the last mushroom you at in the middle is the last to fill back up.
Mush 3: Eat around the outside to Mushroom 4, then back towards the middle as with Mushroom 2.
Mush 4: Eat around the outside to Mushroom 1, then towards the middle.

Repeat. Kill should happen usually around Mushroom 2-3 on second round.

That’s one way to eat inside. There’s an alternate way as well, which I’m not familiar with.

This video shows one way too. Pause and re-watch multiple times to get the pattern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWO-9zdVJlc

(edited by Rashy.4165)

If you feel bad about your rating check this

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Glicko is fine for the most part, even with the modifications for 5v5.

The problem, I think, is that the volatility goes away too quickly. Placement matches are intentionally volatile and random. Players placed in the right division from placements will remain there. In theory, players placed either too low or too high will either outplay the other team, or be outplayed, and go up or down.

In practice, that doesn’t appear to be happening. Players placed too low and go on a win-streak where every match is won by more than 150 points aren’t gaining enough points to break them out of a low division. I won more than 80% of the matches immediately post-placement, but my rating changes quickly stabilized to +10-15 points per win. I don’t think that should have happened, as something like that should have pushed me higher (and if it turned out I really don’t belong in that high division, I would expect to go on a losing streak).

I’d say keep the extra volatility for longer. 10 Placement matches, plus at least 10-20 more. The extra matches post-placement will give more data to determine where a player really begins.

Decay does nothing

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

If this is true, then wouldn’t decay actually make it easier to gain rank? If you’re ranked 2000, for example, and get seven days worth of decay, your first game will then be against rank 1300 players (on average). You’ll play an easier game and get +100 rank at the end of it. Repeat 6 more times and just make sure you don’t have any decay accumulated at the end of the season…

Your effective rating (skill rating – decay) isn’t used for matchmaking. You’ll still be matched up against rank 2000 players, but your effective rating goes up as decay reduces.

Matchmaking

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Seems to be working for some, while not as much for others. I’m at a little under 50% win rate (factoring in abysmal placement matches), all of my wins have been 500:200-300, with occasional stompings, and my losses have been basically the same. So far, I’ve only had one match where we won or lost by 500:470. Of the 20 matches I played post-placement, I managed 14-6 before hitting a losing streak.

Ignoring placement matches, I’m at anywhere between 60-70% win ratio depending on which side of the match I end up on (win by dominating the match, or lose by being dominated).

I’m going to keep monitoring the results on a day to day basis.

Please make shards of glory a wallet item...

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

How would you trade them?

Specifically, they’re also used in some recipes. The WvW shard is also the same. They have to be a physical item.

Is PvP gear's stat change problem solved?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Honestly, instead of it being forgeable, I’d rather see an item that lets you reset the stats, kinda like Bloodstone fen. Additional sink for Ascended shards. Balance that out by awarding 50 Ascended shards per repeatable Byzantium (optional).

love the system devs dont change it

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

The system is fair, the placement games are not. There’s just no freakin way to place people properly in only 10 games. Placement is just pure RNG.

but placement games are nothing different. the only thing it does is hides your actual mmr cause its so volatile in the first few games.

Placement matches are basically the same as most other competitive games. It’s meant to be that way. It works for some, it doesn’t work for others. There’s not much that can be done to change that, except maybe retain the volatility for the entire 10 games as opposed to deciding too quickly (if we were to accept that the first 3 games seems to have the highest weight). Immediately post-placement should also be taken into account, as the system may be stabilizing too quickly, and there needs to be a proper way to break out of that.

“Gitgud” is an easy response, but what if you’re already more skilled than what the rating puts you at? Learning to carry is a possible option, but there are matches where it’s just not possible.

love the system devs dont change it

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

No system is really perfect on its first iteration. There’s always room for improvement. Couple of things that would be nice to see:

- Recognize win streaks. If a player is consistently winning and outplaying the opposing team (by more than 100 to 200 points), perhaps they don’t entirely belong in that division, especially if it’s one of the lower ones. If the bonus from win streaks puts them too high, they’ll go on a losing streak (likely) and fall back down to where they should be.

- And on a related note, also recognize losing streaks. If you get placed too high, and you’re on a losing streak, it should carry a heavy penalty (factoring in expected outcome, obviously; eg. if both teams are closely rated and you go on a losing streak, you probably don’t belong there, but if the opposing team has a higher MMR each time you lose, then that’s an expected losing streak).

- Incentives for putting up a good fight. Losing 200:500 isn’t much of a fight. Losing 400:500 is a better fight. Losing 470:500 even more so. Rating changes should reflect that, again, factoring in Expected outcome. This has the added benefit of allowing players to put in a good amount of effort to minimize their losses, instead of just accepting that they’ve lost and not do much to fight back. Currently, there’s no pressure to win, but there’s also no incentive to TRY to win, or balance out the score. The “reward” here is -5 MMR instead of -25 MMR. Additionally, an extra pip or two if you manage to put up a good fight and still lose (being considered).

Thief + Raid =?

in Fractals, Dungeons & Raids

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

They’re actually in a very good place. They’re a good replacement for Tempest especially when the extra utility of the Tempest isn’t needed. DPS-wise, they can contend with a Tempest, although an average Tempest will probably still beat an average Thief in practice.

You’ll have to join a group of known people though. PUGs aren’t too fond of deviating even a tiny bit from the meta comp.

Matchmaking Question

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

So this just happened to me today? Not sure what happened, but for some reason I didn’t lose any rank points for this match. Anyone else had this happen? Maybe somebody d/c’d and I didn’t notice?

IIRC, if someone on your team DC’d and you lost, you wouldn’t lose ratings, but it would still count as a match played.

map select 1 v 7...

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Skyhammer itself is not a bad map. I certainly enjoyed it the few times I had to play it.

Although, the map selection wheel probably does need looking into. Even in those 1v7 cases, the RNG still tends to pick the less voted one, regardless of the map. Maybe it’s just me though. I guess the weighting can be tweaked a bit more to more or less guarantee the most voted maps.

I’ve so far only had one match where everyone selected the one map. It would have amused me to see that map not get selected though, against all odds.

Ascended Gear in PvP

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Yeah, OP’s request is pretty reasonable. I think the real problem though is granting rewards pips whether you win or lose. What we have now is a system where you can afk in pvp matches and farm for ascended gear faster than you can earn it in pve. That is the real problem here, and I can’t believe Anet didn’t forsee this.

They probably did. It’s human nature to take the path of least resistance, and this is about as to-the-T as it gets.

Of course, not taking any steps to prevent it from happening – I’m curious as to why they did that. Perhaps it’s one of the planned changes, and they want to first see how skill rating and matchmaking changes worked along with separated pip rewards, before the introduced additional systems to prevent AFKing.

The solution to AFKing: factor in participation. PvP uses a very stripped down events system. Modify it to use the HoT form of the events system (that accounts for map participation), factor in things like time spent on point, damage/healing done on point, players killed on point, or even off-point, % of match spent actively participating, etc, and you have a means to track participation.

Meet a certain participation threshold (say, 50%) and maintain it to get 3 pips on loss. It should be reasonably easy to get to 100% participation, and hold it, just by doing normal things in a match (depending on class, role, etc).

(edited by Rashy.4165)

Matchmaking Question

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Another issue I’m running in to actually, anyone know why someone would not show up on your friend leaderboard when you friend them? It’s been very inconsistent for me. At first I thought maybe it just didn’t show some people because they were in placement matches, but I’ve tried adding people that have their badges already and sometimes it shows them on the leader board and sometimes it doesn’t. The whole thing is just very inconsistent. Anyone got an answer to this?

You have to pay attention and look through all pages on the tabs, and yes it won’t show people that haven’t placed.

Yeah, I am going through all the pages but for some reason some people just don’t show up, even if they have a placement badge already.

In my opinion this would be a whole lot easier to see if anet would just show everyone’s mmr with a (+/-X) by each player’s name on the scoreboard at the end of the match. At the end of the match, everybody already has a general impression of their teammates and enemies worth, and the blame is already being thrown around for anet creating unbalanced matches.

If anet showed mmr’s at the end of the match, and players are being matched properly, then that would let players know that they were properly matched. This could cut down on a ton of negative forum posts (not all of course). The only reason I can see for not showing mmr’s at the end of a match is if anet doesn’t want us to see how the matchmaking set us up, and I would really hope that is not the case.

This may be a bit … problematic. If they showed everyone’s rating on a match by match basis, there’ll inevitably be a lot of finger pointing.

Instead, average team MMR is probably enough. The bulk of the matchmaking process makes a list of 10 players relatively close to each other’s rating (within a certain range) and then balances the team to make sure the average ratings are close. If the average team MMR’s are closer, then matchmaking worked to make the match as even as possible. If it’s significantly different, then it failed (likely because that’s the closest possible difference between team MMR’s).

Personally, I want to see both my own skill rating and rating deviation (measure of uncertainty). I would also like to see my own rating adjustment in the match history.

Let’s be honest though, there is plenty of finger pointing with or without mmr’s being shown. And an average may be fine, but wouldn’t really show if average is being offset by someone’s higher mmr who is expected to carry the team.

There will also be more finger-pointing if everyone’s skill rating was visible. Right now, unless you go to extra lengths (adding to friends list, etc), people finger-point without knowing people’s skill rating. It will be much worse if it were visible without much effort.

Matchmaking Question

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Another issue I’m running in to actually, anyone know why someone would not show up on your friend leaderboard when you friend them? It’s been very inconsistent for me. At first I thought maybe it just didn’t show some people because they were in placement matches, but I’ve tried adding people that have their badges already and sometimes it shows them on the leader board and sometimes it doesn’t. The whole thing is just very inconsistent. Anyone got an answer to this?

You have to pay attention and look through all pages on the tabs, and yes it won’t show people that haven’t placed.

Yeah, I am going through all the pages but for some reason some people just don’t show up, even if they have a placement badge already.

In my opinion this would be a whole lot easier to see if anet would just show everyone’s mmr with a (+/-X) by each player’s name on the scoreboard at the end of the match. At the end of the match, everybody already has a general impression of their teammates and enemies worth, and the blame is already being thrown around for anet creating unbalanced matches.

If anet showed mmr’s at the end of the match, and players are being matched properly, then that would let players know that they were properly matched. This could cut down on a ton of negative forum posts (not all of course). The only reason I can see for not showing mmr’s at the end of a match is if anet doesn’t want us to see how the matchmaking set us up, and I would really hope that is not the case.

This may be a bit … problematic. If they showed everyone’s rating on a match by match basis, there’ll inevitably be a lot of finger pointing.

Instead, average team MMR is probably enough. The bulk of the matchmaking process makes a list of 10 players relatively close to each other’s rating (within a certain range) and then balances the team to make sure the average ratings are close. If the average team MMR’s are closer, then matchmaking worked to make the match as even as possible. If it’s significantly different, then it failed (likely because that’s the closest possible difference between team MMR’s).

Personally, I want to see both my own skill rating and rating deviation (measure of uncertainty). I would also like to see my own rating adjustment in the match history.

Ever feel like you did all you could?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Occasionally. I’ve had my fair share of matches where I was trying to do as much as I could, but it just wasn’t working well.

I really think that your team score relative to the opposing team’s score should have an effect on rating adjustment and pip rewards. Losing a match like that shouldn’t carry as high a penalty as losing a closely fought match. A blowout loss should have less of a penalty than losing 300:500, etc.

People then have an incentive: work harder to minimize losses. It’s a loss either way, but the harder you push, the less rating you’ll lose, which can then be made up with a follow-up win.

**Idea to help "unlucky"" players climb**

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Or they could just give a standard amount of points for wins and losses, instead of deducting more points for losses than they give for wins.

This is only really possible in theory, and not practice. How much you gain or lose depends on your MMR relative to the opposing team’s MMR. There are other factors as well that changes from match to match, such as rating deviation (which is the uncertainty in a player’s skill rating). Pretty much any game that has a skill rating based on ELO or Glicko or whatever will work that way.

As for low rating gains at higher MMR, depending on how many games are played by then, the system is more sure about a player’s rating, so the changes are minimal, to avoid significantly overshooting a player’s skill rating.

That’s the short explanation. The long explanation involves analogies to control theory and vibrations.

WTH Anet, is this even possible?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Looks like you went into overtime and they were better setup for it

Just barely by the looks of it.

I’d consider that a well fought match, tbh, as unfortunate as it is.

New backpack

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Considering how long Legendary armour is taking, I’m not entirely surprised a new Legendary backpack fell behind schedule. Once a year was pretty ambitious.

In the mean time though, not having a second backpiece means anyone who fell behind on Ascension can catch up in two seasons. Here’s hoping the next backpiece gets pushed to Season 7.

fastest way to reach T4 fractals

in Fractals, Dungeons & Raids

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

Finish up your ascended gear, then buy the infusions you need (they only cost gold and +1 infusions, easily traded). Then do T4 dailies, and it’ll automatically go up. Costs about 140g, give or take, for 150 AR.

You can also get a group to farm 100 until you reach 100, but that’s less likely to happen.

Low bronze with expereinced players?

in PvP

Posted by: Rashy.4165

Rashy.4165

It’s possible you’re playing against former high rated players who were unfortunate enough to be placed in Bronze due to bad placement matches.