Rank gain/loss for close matches

Inspired by current pvp discussion, which would you prefer?

• Option 1: Current system with same amount rank gain/loss regardless whether the match was close or not
  OR
• Option 2: system that would reduce less points but also award less for close match?

Example:

• currently, normal match: +15/-15 ranks. Close match: +15/-15.
• second option: normal match: +15/-15. Close match: +10/-10.

Opinions?

I personally prefer second option because it would motivate players not to give up so early in match and try to fight til the end.

While I voted the second option as this looks rather obvious and fair, the possibility of abuse is so extremely high that I'm not sure I would really want it.

@Cynz.9437 said:I personally prefer second option because it would motivate players not to give up so early in match and try to fight til the end.

could not agree more that way even in the face of a guaranteed loss you can still have some positive come out of it

@rank eleven monk.9502 said:While I voted the second option as this looks rather obvious and fair, the possibility of abuse is so extremely high that I'm not sure I would really want it.

I think match manipulation is different issue, i don't think anyone wants it, just like nobody wants trolls/afk'ers etc. I don't think majority of players (that are actually not affected by tryhard wintraders) should not have chance for second option because of few cheaters. Ofc, i (like probably many other) wish obvious match manipulation was actually looked at by CS and punished.

Realistically, i say there is no system that cannot be hacked/abused. That is what CS and co. are for - to make up for the flaws that cannot be fixed easily via technical means.

I think the solution isn’t a drastic 15/15 to 25/-25 for a stomp.

<100 point difference should be -5 to winner and +5 to loser. Using 15/-15 base, the winner gets 10 and loser loses 10. I should note that if the end gain ends up being negative, meaning the game would have been a gain of +4/-13, then the gain for a close game should be reset to 1/-8 because the winner should always gain something.

100-200 point difference should be no points gained or lost. A classic average game of 500-350 should behave normally because that is where many games fall. 150 points +/- 50 is where team comp and builds determine victory just as much as skill.

200+ point difference is a stomp and should be +5 winner and -5 to the loser. So 15/-15 becomes 20/-20.

Five points is significant but not too many points per match to wager on the two extreme match outcomes.

If you award less points for close matches, then you’re really incentivizing winning teams to do things like spawn camping, which doesn’t really make the game any better.

I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. You lose more points for close games, and you lose less points for stomps...because if you lost in your close game, it means you were up against players of your skill level on an even playing field, and failed to win.

In the case of a stomp, you were either playing at an advantage or disadvantage. In this way, it makes no sense to give/take more points for being handicapped or bolstered. Make sense?

Personally I think the entire rating system should be revamped to take into account personal contribution to your team. Exactly how that is determined I suppose would be an entirely separate discussion all together. However, if you contribute more to your team than other players you should receive a higher rating for a win than other players on your team and lose less rating than other players for a loss.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. You lose more points for close games, and you lose less points for stomps...because if you lost in your close game, it means you were up against players of your skill level on an even playing field, and failed to win.

In the case of a stomp, you were either playing at an advantage or disadvantage. In this way, it makes no sense to give/take more points for being handicapped or bolstered. Make sense?

Ooo, Quaggan disagrees. Teams can be "equally skilled", but one team would have "meta" composition, while other wouldn't.If you pull close lose rather than stomp as 2 Mesmers, 2 Thieves and Soulbeast vs Fireband, Scrooge, Mirage, DD, Spellbreaker/Druid, you should be rewarded not punished...

I’d add that the goal is to incentivize both teams to fight at all times to their best ability.

This means if the game is 200-100 the winning team wants to push to 300-150 to secure more points. Likewise, the losing team is incentivized to try to get to 300-250 to keep the difference under 100 (or turn around the game) to minimize their point loss.

In a 300-100 situation the winning team is incentivized to try to play strong to the end to secure extra rank gain. The losing team fights equally hard to secure a normal point loss by trying to close the gap to within 200 points. All that means is getting a 500-300+ match result.

@Crius.5487 said:Personally I think the entire rating system should be revamped to take into account personal contribution to your team. Exactly how that is determined I suppose would be an entirely separate discussion all together. However, if you contribute more to your team than other players you should receive a higher rating for a win than other players on your team and lose less rating than other players for a loss.

There are too many aspects that simple can't be measured by the game but decide the match. We all wish for personal contribution being a deciding factor but until we have super smart AI managing ranked games, it is technically not possible.

@Dahkeus.8243 said:If you award less points for close matches, then you’re really incentivizing winning teams to do things like spawn camping, which doesn’t really make the game any better.

This already happens in matches where teams give up early. Thing is, spawn camping also is often reason for throws and how seemingly losing team actually wins at the end.

Close games: +10 / -5, for exemple.

Roflstomps should stay the same.

@yanniell.1236 said:Close games: +10 / -5, for exemple.

Roflstomps should stay the same.

Ben said, if the system takes close matches into account, it would have to reward less points as well, otherwise it would be broken.

"Would be broken". That's cute lol

@"yanniell.1236" said:"Would be broken". That's cute lol

Not my words. I can link you the exact quote.

Anyway, I gave it a little more thought and reached the conclusion that winners by a large margin should get more points as well, otherwise, when the winner is clear, they could let the other team make some points, so them lose less rating.

Giving more points if you win by a large margin, and losing less points when you lose by a small margin give both teams incentive to keep playing till the end. Would be fair and help with the afking situations.

@"yanniell.1236" said:Anyway, I gave it a little more thought and reached the conclusion that winners by a large margin should get more points as well, otherwise, when the winner is clear, they could let the other team make some points, so them lose less rating.

Giving more points if you win by a large margin, and losing less points when you lose by a small margin give both teams incentive to keep playing till the end. Would be fair and help with the afking situations.

Well technically you would get more if you win by large margin and also lose more if you lose by large margin. As someone wrote, if your team is winning you will try to keep the point difference as high as possible so you wouldn't reach "close match" situation where you gain less points.

Option 1: Keep it as-is.

Score difference is not a good reflection of how close a match actually was.If my team plays conservatively - doesn't recklessly push far and plays 2 nodes and gives up map mechanics if it's not worth the risk, then the score will be relatively close. However, when you look at fights and strategy, one team had a clear upper hand. The most clear example of this is Legacy of the Foefire. If my team has 400 points and 2 nodes and the other team is at 200 and staggered, we could care less if our lord is under attack. If one of their guys kills it, the game will end in something like 500-375. But it wasn't close. In a general sense, if I know I've safely won, I may not push hard to end the game faster and throw it away.

Smaller adjustments goes against expected outcomeIf I lose by a little, but based on skill difference, I should have won decisively, then I'm actually adjusted less by this proposal than I should be. Similarly, if I should have lost by a wide margin, but barely won, I'm rewarded less. This could be caused by bad comps or a single mistake which snowballs.

ConclusionAdding this change is more work for no benefit - possibly even causing problems due to improper adjustments.Keep in mind that your skill rating isn't a fixed number; it's supposed to fluctuate day to day. Instead, you should look at you high and low points once you become stable and view your rating as the midpoint of those. In the end, the win and loss adjustments will average out.