[Suggestion] Make PvP Competitive Again — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[Suggestion] Make PvP Competitive Again

Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
edited October 1, 2017 in PVP

One of the hot topics on this forum (and rightfully so) is the current state of sPvP and why it is in such a bad spot. I'd like to take a look at some of these issues and propose suggestions for them made by myself and other members of the community.

What needs to be done in order to provide a better sPvP experience to Guild Wars 2 players?

1. Tutorial - I know this may seem like a dumb suggestion, but there is no in-game way for players to learn how to play sPvP before they hop into a match. It just lets you queue right into a regular match at PvP rank 0, and although players should be learning as they go, if they're never taught the correct way to begin with, they may just play however they want until level 20 (which only takes a couple days), then they hop right into ranked. This tutorial could cover things such as how points are captured (yes, we've all seen someone stand on a point then get off before it finished capping), the scoring system (so players know what goes into winning/losing), making smart fight decisions (ie. don't run into 1v4s at mid), rotating (don't fight a 3v1 at home when there's a 1v3 in mid), different types of damage and how to mitigate them, and more. I think the best length for this tutorial would be approximately 30 minutes, with the player having to actively participate in different 'minigames' (ie. there's a 2min cutscene explaining a mechanic, then the player has to show proficiency in said mechanic). Yes, it might suck for veteran players to have to run through this tutorial if it were implemented (as a one time thing), but I think this alone could significantly improve the quality of matches.
2. Matchmaking Deviation - A big issue a lot of people have noticed is that the matchmaking system pulls players from every rank if it has to in order to make a match. When I was in Plat 1 I had a ranked match where there was a Silver player and a few low Gold players on my team, and a Legend duo on the other team. That should not happen. Ever. There should be a maximum deviation of 200 points from any given player within a ranked match. This means that if Player A has a rating of 1500, and Player C joins the queue at 1300 MMR, then everyone else would have to fall between 1300 and 1500 MMR (as 1299 would be 201 points from Player A, and 1501 would be 201 points from Player C). This would make queues longer, but would significantly improve the quality of matches. Once the sPvP population increases, that deviation could slowly be decreased to further improve match quality.
3. Functioning Report System - Currently poor behavior goes completely unpunished in ranked. Whether it's raging at other teammates, trolling by running around the map, going AFK, dancing in mid, I'm sure we've all seen it all. There needs to be a way for these players to be held accountable for their actions so the players that do want to take ranked seriously are able to. I originally came up with a system for automatically granting players dishonor after X amount of reports, however as Ithilwen pointed out, that could easily be abused. Omcrazy came up with a great idea of having multiple reports bumping a player to the top of the report queue, and I think that's a solid solution. One thing I would like to add is that all reports of players should go under the same ticket for that account as to not clog up the queue, but also that we get a dedicated person to handle player reports, and not just have it ran through regular customer support, who already have their hands full as it is.
4. MMR System - There have been a lot of complaints regarding the MMR system and how punishing it can be at times. It makes sense that our MMR gain/loss is determined by our individual MMR compared to the average MMR of the opposing team, but some games are simply not winnable, no matter how hard we try. To correct this issue, if we were to assume that the even matchup MMR gain/loss is 15 points (below Legend), then the maximum gain could be 17 points, and the maximum loss could be 13 points. That is a 2 point deviation in either direction compared to what I believe is currently a 5-7 point deviation. This would also make sense when we look at suggestion number 2.
5. Balance - This is a hot ticket item at all times, but I think it's also one that isn't addressed enough by ArenaNet. Condi right now is in a much better spot than power in sPvP. Yes, there are great Power builds, but if you want to hit those big numbers in teamfights, you're probably going Condi given the amount of AoE condi applicators, and rightfully so. One of the big issues with Condi is that you can be tanky and still put out tons of damage via things like Carrion Amulet and Vitality/Toughness runes with Condition bonuses, or vice versa. On the other hand, if you want to put out big numbers as Power you have to invest in Power, Precision, and Ferocity, or at least Power and Precision OR Ferocity. To be truthful, I'm not sure how this could be corrected (besides tuning damage numbers), but adjusting some of the Amulets/ Runes would be a start. Furthermore, we have the issue of builds such as Ventari Rev which go untouched for months before being nerfed/changed, allowing players to 'abuse' these builds for extended periods of time. I'm not trying to call out Ventari Rev specifically, but seeing as that's the current thing to hate on, I'm using it as an example. If builds are found to be too strong, they should be balanced within a week or two, not a few months. I understand the balance process can be quite lengthy, but come on now.
6. Core vs Elite Specs - I was going to put this under balance, but I feel as if this deserves a segment of its own. Currently for most classes, their Elite Specs are objectively better than their Core, and as I stated in one of my other posts, Elite Specs should offer a different way to play, not a better way. There are very few viable core builds, and even the ones that are viable are still often left having to choose between a rock and a hard place when it comes traits, skills, and weapons. There are a lot of traits which are simply outdated and no longer used, and there should never be obvious BiS cookie cutter builds, and yet currently that's exactly what we have. The same goes for utility skills. Each class has skills which are outdated or simply no longer useful at all (in either PvP or PvE), and should be brought up-to-date, as well as with weapons. Of course this is a very lengthy process, but it is certainly an overdue one.
7. Game Modes - This is another big ticket item. We've had Conquest since launch, and Stronghold was a complete flop. Where's our 1v1 dueling, 3v3 Deathmatch, 5v5 Deathmatch, 5v5 Capture the Flag, 10v10 Capture the Flag? You get the picture. We are desperately in need of new and exciting content when it comes to sPvP, and a new map every other year isn't cutting it. PvE has raids, fractals, dungeons, open world content, world bosses, meta events, and new updates every few months with Living World, and we've gotten jack. We're part of the community as well, and we've been placed on the backburner for far too long.
8. Hide Opposing Team Names - Players are unable to be even relatively sneaky if they don't have stealth because they have a giant name above their heads. Hiding behind a pillar, box, or even around a corner doesn't work when our names stick out like a sore thumb. Seeing as there's no real reason to be able to see an opponents name in sPvP anyways, I suggest removing them all together, but allow us to still see our teammates' names.
9. Lag, Disconnects, Desync - All of these issues have become even more prevalent since the POF launch. Large ping spikes (isolated to GW2) have been frequent as of late, we still have the disconnect at the end of almost every match bug, player model positions are different on different player's screen are the big issues at the moment, and only hurt the competitiveness of GW2 PvP.

That's all I have for right now, but if you have any other suggestions you think I missed that you think should be added let me know and I will add it when I get a chance! Thanks for reading!

Comments

  • Update: Fixed grammar and syntax issues

  • kKagari.6804kKagari.6804 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I've been wondering, if the matchmaking is adjusted so that they grab a pool of players at a smaller difference of ratings, like say, 20 players. That means two games are running, and once these games are completed, two games are ran again, with these players mixed up to make up the teams.

    Since the ratings are similar to begin with, people's skill levels should be similar also. If a player loses too much rating to be part of that pool, he gets ejected out, likewise with a player who wins too much.

    This way, you will consistently get games without long wait times, and theres enough changing of teams to keep things fresh, not to mention players can switch classes after each game anyways. The real benefits here is that, at the risk of games being a bit more predictable since you may have fought with/against the same player, the games should be much more even in quality.

  • kKagari.6804kKagari.6804 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Unfortunately I don't think performance based rewards work very well with conquest. I've had games where I've made crucial home defenses: I chased down a druid, dropped onto the point at the last moment and prevented him from decapping, then held off a +1, until my team came and cleaned house, after winning mid.

    Repeat that 3 times that match, got the coliseum buffs, landed some crucial kills. The result? No top stats.

  • @kKagari.6804 said:
    Unfortunately I don't think performance based rewards work very well with conquest. I've had games where I've made crucial home defenses: I chased down a druid, dropped onto the point at the last moment and prevented him from decapping, then held off a +1, until my team came and cleaned house, after winning mid.

    Repeat that 3 times that match, got the coliseum buffs, landed some crucial kills. The result? No top stats.

    Yeah, that's why I said I was on the fence about it. I know there a lot of times where I feel like I'm hard carrying a game, and I get to end of match screen and find myself facing an award for... drum roll please... healing. As a Core Power Warrior. I know thieves would also face that dilemma quite a bit, especially if they're doing their job correctly, but that being said, when you do get an award and get those extra reward track points/ PIPS, it would feel pretty kitten awesome.

  • Ithilwen.1529Ithilwen.1529 Member ✭✭✭✭

    A system that automatically dishonors after x reports will almost certainly be abused. Some of those legend players would find themselves perma dishonored because that would make games easier for everyone else.

    Such a mechanism needs live human intervention. I don't anticipate that ANET is willing to pay for staff dedicated to reviewing pvp complaints.

    Mesmerizing Girl

  • @Ithilwen.1529 said:
    A system that automatically dishonors after x reports will almost certainly be abused. Some of those legend players would find themselves perma dishonored because that would make games easier for everyone else.

    Such a mechanism needs live human intervention. I don't anticipate that ANET is willing to pay for staff dedicated to reviewing pvp complaints.

    True, I didn't think about the Legend players, and also true, given ArenaNet's history it's highly unlikely they'll start giving a kitten about PvP anytime soon. Maybe we'll get lucky and after these leads are gone we'll get some folks that have a hard-on for PvP.

    Do you have a suggestion for an alternative system for handling reports?

  • Omcrazy.4756Omcrazy.4756 Member ✭✭✭

    1 - Agreed with needing a tutorial. The goal should not be to refuse admittance to pvp. A lot of posters on the forums want something that refuses anyone who isn't basically as good as they are, but that's not how a competitive game/sport works. You are always going to have a variety of skill levels, you need a healthy population so people play against people at their skill level. But it would be good to teach the basics, something that teaches those "are you new to pvp" points. Lot of people don't seem to realize you shouldn't charge into 1v3s just to contest the point for a couple seconds. Of course, some people incorrectly believe they are capable of winning those contests.
    2 - I agree with this. Would love to see a cap on MMR discrepency. The exact value would need to be tweaked for ideal match making and we'd still run the risk of someone with a Plat1 MMR queuing as an alt and really belonging in G2. Would likely need to have separate ranks for each class.
    3 - Yes, this needs to improve. But I don't really agree with a system that has not human component. Maybe something that moves a player to the top of the queue for a human to inspect. So if you get 10 reports within a couple days you are likely the next to get looked at. And if its determined you are breaking rules (botting, afking, excessive verbal abuse, etc) then you get a stronger suspension and eventual ban for repeated instances. In the end, this is hard without putting more resources to it and resources cost money that Anet may or may not be able/willing to spare
    4 - Losing against teams significantly lower ranked than you should get you fewer points than winning against those teams would win you. Guys in Legend playing against folks in Plat are at a clear advantage and it shouldn't be nearly equal for a win or loss, especially since the population basically forces top 250s to play against low legend or even plat. That being said, I do think the amount lost is a bit high. And I also think it should take into account the MMR of your team as well. Honestly, I see no reason not to take your team's average MMR vs the enemy team's MMR and have that as the base rating change. Then your own personal rating change increases or decreases depending on how you compare to your team. Are you the lowest ranked and your team won? You get the highest MMR increase. Are you the highest ranked and your team lost? Then you lose the most, but ideally less than the current situation. What sucks is being ranked the highest but having some really bad teammates so its completely unwinnable. But because your personal MMR is higher than the enemy team you end up getting a huge drop.
    5 - I don't like putting rewards so heavily on stats. Honestly, I think the current system is reasonably fair. Maybe reduce the pips won on a blow out by 1, so its 2 +1 for top stats. And increase the pips won on a close loss by 1 so its 3 + 3 for close + 1 for top stats. But I don't like removing pips for losses or significantly reducing them because that breeds toxicity. And I don't like putting a huge focus on top stats because a lot of games you can make some huge clutch moves and that end up winning the game, but not get any top stats. Been in plenty where some glass cannon gets top stats for damage and kills but is actually the reason we lost because all he would do was zerg and require constant reviving.
    6 - Balance is always going to be a work in progress. Personally, I don't find condi builds to be OP. I only play in Gold so maybe its different in Plat and Legend but it seems to me I play against a lot more power builds than condi. And most condi builds I do play against tend to be glass cannon that have to be played well or else they get blown up too quickly. Yes, condi thief is annoying, but only because played well they can do a lot of surprise damage. Played well is the key, I think.
    7 - I agree core should be balanced with elite specs. I think Anet tries but balance is ever a challenge. But one thing to keep in mind is the spec trees bring certain play styles and while they should be balanced in general, they don't all have to be viable in conquest itself. Some core builds might be weak in pvp that are great in pve or wvw. There are three game modes (with 3 additional ways of pve) that all require balance and attention. Expecting all trees to be viable in all modes is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind, just because only one build is considered meta on metabattle.com doesn't mean other builds aren't fully capable. Go ask a hammer guard, its only been a week now that I've seen radiant hammer on metabattle. Maybe one build is going to be the best of the best, that will happen. As long as other specs are also viable then I think its about as balanced as can be expected. Balance will NEVER be perfect. Note: Not saying it is currently balanced as well as it can be
    8 - Would love some more competitive game modes. Probably requires alternating seasons because ranked is supposed to be a esport level competitive environment and different game modes will likely have very different metas. Where a rogue can carry hard in a conquest by effectively rotating and +1ing, would they be truly viable in a TDM or capture the flag (or OP in capture the flag depending on how its designed). So balancing for one season would be challenging which is likely why they've avoided it. But I would love to see a season for conquest then a season for arena (2v2 and 3v3 and/or 5v5). Then maybe another season for another game mode. Stronghold is interesting but feels too pve to me.

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 18, 2017

    @Omcrazy.4756 said:
    3 - Yes, this needs to improve. But I don't really agree with a system that has not human component. Maybe something that moves a player to the top of the queue for a human to inspect. So if you get 10 reports within a couple days you are likely the next to get looked at. And if its determined you are breaking rules (botting, afking, excessive verbal abuse, etc) then you get a stronger suspension and eventual ban for repeated instances. In the end, this is hard without putting more resources to it and resources cost money that Anet may or may not be able/willing to spare
    4 - Losing against teams significantly lower ranked than you should get you fewer points than winning against those teams would win you. Guys in Legend playing against folks in Plat are at a clear advantage and it shouldn't be nearly equal for a win or loss, especially since the population basically forces top 250s to play against low legend or even plat. That being said, I do think the amount lost is a bit high. And I also think it should take into account the MMR of your team as well. Honestly, I see no reason not to take your team's average MMR vs the enemy team's MMR and have that as the base rating change. Then your own personal rating change increases or decreases depending on how you compare to your team. Are you the lowest ranked and your team won? You get the highest MMR increase. Are you the highest ranked and your team lost? Then you lose the most, but ideally less than the current situation. What kitten is being ranked the highest but having some really bad teammates so its completely unwinnable. But because your personal MMR is higher than the enemy team you end up getting a huge drop.
    5 - I don't like putting rewards so heavily on stats. Honestly, I think the current system is reasonably fair. Maybe reduce the pips won on a blow out by 1, so its 2 +1 for top stats. And increase the pips won on a close loss by 1 so its 3 + 3 for close + 1 for top stats. But I don't like removing pips for losses or significantly reducing them because that breeds toxicity. And I don't like putting a huge focus on top stats because a lot of games you can make some huge clutch moves and that end up winning the game, but not get any top stats. Been in plenty where some glass cannon gets top stats for damage and kills but is actually the reason we lost because all he would do was zerg and require constant reviving.
    6 - Balance is always going to be a work in progress. Personally, I don't find condi builds to be OP. I only play in Gold so maybe its different in Plat and Legend but it seems to me I play against a lot more power builds than condi. And most condi builds I do play against tend to be glass cannon that have to be played well or else they get blown up too quickly. Yes, condi thief is annoying, but only because played well they can do a lot of surprise damage. Played well is the key, I think.
    7 - I agree core should be balanced with elite specs. I think Anet tries but balance is ever a challenge. But one thing to keep in mind is the spec trees bring certain play styles and while they should be balanced in general, they don't all have to be viable in conquest itself. Some core builds might be weak in pvp that are great in pve or wvw. There are three game modes (with 3 additional ways of pve) that all require balance and attention. Expecting all trees to be viable in all modes is unreasonable. Also, keep in mind, just because only one build is considered meta on metabattle.com doesn't mean other builds aren't fully capable. Go ask a hammer guard, its only been a week now that I've seen radiant hammer on metabattle. Maybe one build is going to be the best of the best, that will happen. As long as other specs are also viable then I think its about as balanced as can be expected. Balance will NEVER be perfect. Note: Not saying it is currently balanced as well as it can be
    8 - Would love some more competitive game modes. Probably requires alternating seasons because ranked is supposed to be a esport level competitive environment and different game modes will likely have very different metas. Where a rogue can carry hard in a conquest by effectively rotating and +1ing, would they be truly viable in a TDM or capture the flag (or OP in capture the flag depending on how its designed). So balancing for one season would be challenging which is likely why they've avoided it. But I would love to see a season for conquest then a season for arena (2v2 and 3v3 and/or 5v5). Then maybe another season for another game mode. Stronghold is interesting but feels too pve to me.

    1. I like the idea of having multiple reports sending a player to the top of the queue. As you and Ithilwen mentioned, an automated system could easily be abused, and I'll change the OP to use your idea. What they need to do is make it so all reports for a single account go onto one ticket, as I guarantee that since this is ArenaNet we're talking about, each report creates a new ticket, thus clogging the report queue. They need to wipe all old tickets and start fresh, and actually have at least one person dedicated to monitoring and handling player reports, and not have it go through the regular customer support (as I'm sure it currently is).
    2. I like this idea as well, but I think this would be a lot less of an issue if the teams' MMRs were much closer to one another, and I think they're using a copy and pasted MMR system so while minor modifications might work, I'm not sure how large ones would fare.
    3. Yeah, I was really on the fence about this one, and I think I'll scrap the idea of award based rewards all together.
    4. No, I don't think that Condi builds are OP, I stated that they're in a better spot than Power builds because they're capable of building relatively tanky without having it affect their damage output, unlike Power builds which have to make sacrifices to maximize damage output. I think the bigger issue is the distance between balance patches, which causes extremely strong builds to go untouched for extended periods of time while you see them in almost every other match.
    5. No, expecting every build to be viable in every game mode is definitely unreasonable, but given the current state of balance there are realistically only one or two optimal builds for each game mode, which I think is also unreasonable. As I mentioned in the OP, there are a lot of outdated traits, skills, and weapons amongst the professions, resulting in them not being viable in any game mode. A lot of old traits have very little synergy with the elite specs, and while some lack of synergy is understandable (as the core game is F2P and elite specs are locked behind the expansions), some overlap could be made where it benefits and synergizes with an elite spec without requiring an elite spec or weapon to still be good. The same goes for utility skills and weapons; while some of them offer something unique, unique isn't always good when it means sacrificing something better.
    6. I mean the different game modes could use the same season, but just have separate MMRs. So you could be a Silver Conquest player, but a Platinum 5v5 Deathmatch player, and as for displaying the rank next to our names, just have it display the highest rank.
  • Omcrazy.4756Omcrazy.4756 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 18, 2017

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    6. No, I don't think that Condi builds are OP, I stated that they're in a better spot than Power builds because they're capable of building relatively tanky without having it affect their damage output, unlike Power builds which have to make sacrifices to maximize damage output. I think the bigger issue is the distance between balance patches, which causes extremely strong builds to go untouched for extended periods of time while you see them in almost every other match.
    7. No, expecting every build to be viable in every game mode is definitely unreasonable, but given the current state of balance there are realistically only one or two optimal builds for each game mode, which I think is also unreasonable. As I mentioned in the OP, there are a lot of outdated traits, skills, and weapons amongst the professions, resulting in them not being viable in any game mode. A lot of old traits have very little synergy with the elite specs, and while some lack of synergy is understandable (as the core game is F2P and elite specs are locked behind the expansions), some overlap could be made where it benefits and synergizes with an elite spec without requiring an elite spec or weapon to still be good. The same goes for utility skills and weapons; while some of them offer something unique, unique isn't always good when it means sacrificing something better.
    8. I mean the different game modes could use the same season, but just have separate MMRs. So you could be a Silver Conquest player, but a Platinum 5v5 Deathmatch player, and as for displaying the rank next to our names, just have it display the highest rank.

    Agreed with your 6 & 7. While I think balance is better than many in the community suggest (especially on these forums) balance is something that needs to be constantly monitored and tweaked when its discovered something is a bit over-the-top. And I agree with identifying where those traits are outdated. Although I disagree with a lot of people (not necessarily you) about how useless some traits are. I've seen plenty of posts talk about how garbage x trait is.... for one game mode. But its actually quite good for a different game mode or build. And in the end, there will always be underpowered traits, I don't see any way to balance it all. But I agree, they should continue to push for improved balance so each trait has at least some viable builds in some game modes (plus more builds per game mode in general).

    I would be curious to see how much diversity there really is for different classes. While we often talk about the meta, I feel like there are more builds out there that might not be as effective at the top tier but would still be really effective in lower or middle tiers, even up to plat. Guardian, for example, basically has 2 "viable" builds. DH Meditrapper and DH Symbolic. Up until about a week ago when suddenly Radiant Hammer showed up on metabattle and now it seems every other match I find one (plus myself). Then we have the burn guard which is quite effective at lower and middle tiers. Don't know about upper tiers (I am aware of good plat burn guards). Then there is the GS Guardian whom I don't see very often but have seen it be used effectively in gold. And Saiyan's zeal symbolic. So now we see Guardian having 5-6 builds that are plat viable.

    Makes me wonder if other classes have plat or better viable builds and we as a community are missing out on them because we're so focused on the super meta builds. Seems to me that often meta builds are meta because they have a high skill ceiling but often come with a low skill floor. So might actually be worse for a lower tier player because they aren't as capable at things like blocks and combos. If that makes any sense.

    8 - True, but then you divide the player base which often hurts matchmaking.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 18, 2017

    In my opinion is the lack of personal gain/loss rank that breed toxicity , knowing that your future is in the hands of somebody who potentially is there just to troll people...it's not fair, if not personal stats..then something else is required, another option would be to improve the MMR algorithm to more closely represent the actual skill level of players.

    P.S a 200 deviation is way to big, the max deviation should be 50

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • @Omcrazy.4756 said:
    Makes me wonder if other classes have plat or better viable builds and we as a community are missing out on them because we're so focused on the super meta builds. Seems to me that often meta builds are meta because they have a high skill ceiling but often come with a low skill floor. So might actually be worse for a lower tier player because they aren't as capable at things like blocks and combos. If that makes any sense.

    8 - True, but then you divide the player base which often hurts matchmaking.

    Yeah, I'm sure there's definitely other viable builds out there, and sub-optimal builds can still win games, but I think the gap between different builds within a profession really shows when you compare them side-by-side, ie. a Rifle Engi's damage output compared to a Hammer Scrapper. Rifle Engi is viable, it's not great, but you can win games and get kills with it, but when you compare it to Hammer Scrapper it's pretty abysmal.

    And yeah, having different game mode queues would hurt matchmaking, but then it falls onto ArenaNet to make PvP more appealing to other members of the community, which certainly wouldn't be an easy task. I've noticed a LOT of the community is very casual, even when it comes to PvE. They don't want to do anything that might seem challenging, competitive, or confrontational, but I think that's just the type of players GW2 attracts.

  • @Arheundel.6451 said:
    In my opinion is the lack of personal gain/loss rank that breed toxicity , knowing that your future is in the hands of somebody who potentially is there just to troll people...it's not fair, if not personal stats..then something else is required, another option would be to improve the MMR algorithm to more closely represent the actual skill level of players.

    P.S a 200 deviation is way to big, the max deviation should be 50

    The current MMR deviation for matchmaking is like 1000 (if there's even a limit), and even then it sometimes takes 3-4 minutes to find a match. 200 would be a good start, and as the PvP community grows it could be reduced.

  • Omcrazy.4756Omcrazy.4756 Member ✭✭✭

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    In my opinion is the lack of personal gain/loss rank that breed toxicity , knowing that your future is in the hands of somebody who potentially is there just to troll people...it's not fair, if not personal stats..then something else is required, another option would be to improve the MMR algorithm to more closely represent the actual skill level of players.

    P.S a 200 deviation is way to big, the max deviation should be 50

    Each division (silver, gold, plat, etc) is 300 MMR. So Silver is 900 MMR - 1200 MMR. Gold is 1200 MMR to 1500 MMR. That means each tier within a division is 100 MMR. 200 seems pretty reasonable. As a G2 that would see me playing with G3s and G1s. As a G1 I would be playing with G2s and S3s.

    I think you overestimate the size of the pvp population if you want to limit it to just 50MMR difference. It would be nice if it was this close but capping at 50MMR would probably make the queue last for a long time and would likely see you playing with the exact same people over and over and over.

    Honestly, 200MMR is not as significant a different as you might think. G1 players aren't that much worse than G2 who aren't that much worse than G3, etc. The real goal is to keep bronze out of gold matches, silver out of play matches, gold out of legend matches.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Omcrazy.4756 said:

    @Arheundel.6451 said:
    In my opinion is the lack of personal gain/loss rank that breed toxicity , knowing that your future is in the hands of somebody who potentially is there just to troll people...it's not fair, if not personal stats..then something else is required, another option would be to improve the MMR algorithm to more closely represent the actual skill level of players.

    P.S a 200 deviation is way to big, the max deviation should be 50

    Each division (silver, gold, plat, etc) is 300 MMR. So Silver is 900 MMR - 1200 MMR. Gold is 1200 MMR to 1500 MMR. That means each tier within a division is 100 MMR. 200 seems pretty reasonable. As a G2 that would see me playing with G3s and G1s. As a G1 I would be playing with G2s and S3s.

    I think you overestimate the size of the pvp population if you want to limit it to just 50MMR difference. It would be nice if it was this close but capping at 50MMR would probably make the queue last for a long time and would likely see you playing with the exact same people over and over and over.

    Honestly, 200MMR is not as significant a different as you might think. G1 players aren't that much worse than G2 who aren't that much worse than G3, etc. The real goal is to keep bronze out of gold matches, silver out of play matches, gold out of legend matches.

    Yes you're right, I believe my estimation was completely off

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2017

    @Omcrazy.4756 said:
    Each division (silver, gold, plat, etc) is 300 MMR. So Silver is 900 MMR - 1200 MMR. Gold is 1200 MMR to 1500 MMR. That means each tier within a division is 100 MMR. 200 seems pretty reasonable. As a G2 that would see me playing with G3s and G1s. As a G1 I would be playing with G2s and S3s.

    I think you overestimate the size of the pvp population if you want to limit it to just 50MMR difference. It would be nice if it was this close but capping at 50MMR would probably make the queue last for a long time and would likely see you playing with the exact same people over and over and over.

    Honestly, 200MMR is not as significant a different as you might think. G1 players aren't that much worse than G2 who aren't that much worse than G3, etc. The real goal is to keep bronze out of gold matches, silver out of play matches, gold out of legend matches.

    Yeah, most games allow you to be matched up or down a division or two. This would also mean those that have a greater difference than 200 MMR wouldn't be able to queue together, but I think that's only fair to the other players in the match.

  • R E F L H E X.8413R E F L H E X.8413 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2017

    I've almost started to not care about all the problems or only having one format in the game anymore because its hard to bear using the same exact 5 weapon skills any longer. Once those arent fun anymore nothing else really matters anymore. Part of what gave gw1 longetivity is making new and crazy builds. Seeing the occasional pet monk or chiblains warrior on my team wouldnt bother me as much as the restriction in diversity.

  • Omcrazy.4756Omcrazy.4756 Member ✭✭✭

    @R E F L H E X.8413 said:
    I've almost started to not care about all the problems or only having one format in the game anymore because its hard to bear using the same exact 5 weapon skills any longer. Once those arent fun anymore nothing else really matters anymore. Part of what gave gw1 longetivity is making new and crazy builds. Seeing the occasional pet monk or chiblains warrior on my team wouldnt bother me as much as the restriction in diversity.

    I've played around with 4 different Guardian builds this season. Would be a 5th but hammer is too fun. New specs are about to be released that I expect will result in a lot of new builds getting tried, tested, and turned meta or close to.

    You are not required to only play the one build listed on metabattle as "meta" There are plenty of non-meta builds that are viable, often with little to no drop off from the "meta." Sometimes other builds are actually MORE effective than the meta because the meta often depends on a high degree of skill to be played effectively and if you don't have that then you may be better off with a "lesser" build.

    I agree with continually trying to push for build diversity in all formats, but I also think there is more diversity in spvp than the community thinks. Its just too many people with elitist mentalities think its meta or nothing.

  • I've tried thief mesmer ranger and necro almost every way they can be played during core which made using the same weapon sets with "new elite" not even wanting to try the elite on some of them because its the same thing.

  • Added a section regarding hiding player names.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭

    "It's a testament to the folly of the humans and their gods. They say Arah was sacred, but all I see is one big dragon nest."(Rytlock Brimstone)

  • Played 10 ranked games today, won 4, lost 6, dropped 80 points. Can we please get a fix to this garbage MMR system?

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭

    Added section on lag.

  • Qori.9671Qori.9671 Member ✭✭

    I feel like they should make ranked 5 man premades only. let people solo que for unranked...make friends , join a group and play unranked with their group. Add people you like and you play well with to friends list. Once you have been playing a while in unranked and made some friends you play well with , then make a 5 man and do ranked.
    If it is supposed to be a team type game make the ranked matches ones with the teams. This way you don't get the trolls looking to be carried or people who afk leave in ranked. When I used to PvP often , this is how it was for me. You learn in unranked , make friends , and then go do ranked together. I don't know why unranked is the one with 5 man premades kicking all the newbies kitten just for fun , and ranked has all the random bots screwing up everyone elses fun.

  • @Qori.9671 said:
    I feel like they should make ranked 5 man premades only. let people solo que for unranked...make friends , join a group and play unranked with their group. Add people you like and you play well with to friends list. Once you have been playing a while in unranked and made some friends you play well with , then make a 5 man and do ranked.
    If it is supposed to be a team type game make the ranked matches ones with the teams. This way you don't get the trolls looking to be carried or people who afk leave in ranked. When I used to PvP often , this is how it was for me. You learn in unranked , make friends , and then go do ranked together. I don't know why unranked is the one with 5 man premades kicking all the newbies kitten just for fun , and ranked has all the random bots screwing up everyone elses fun.

    Please stop, this horse has been dead long time ago. Never to raise again. Just accept it and continue, or move on.

    I am the one and only true Majestic Being.
    I stand now on the precipice of change.
    My perceptions on quality is refined.
    I am now the outsider looking in.
    Next level simi profession troll at your service.
    Bring the lols like no other.

  • Qori.9671Qori.9671 Member ✭✭

    Sorry , i dont pvp alot. Quit well before heart of powerceeep came out.

  • XxsdgxX.8109XxsdgxX.8109 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 2, 2017

    Game's skill gap is so tiny right now... most of the problems would be fixed if all these low risk/high reward builds were actually nerfed so they wouldn't be able to carry all the bad players (Yes: Scourge, Spellbreaker, Cond Thief, Druid, Dh, almost everything). So yes most of the issue with this game is the absolute terrible balance between Risk and Reward. All these builds just keep stomping any new potential player to the game and playing said stomping build just keeps feeding the cycle of chaos. Most people just never touch PvP ever again.
    A game with no skill gap has no replay value.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.