Jump to content
  • Sign Up

decay & games played needs a look at


Chilli.2976

Recommended Posts

I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is bullshit, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:

  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Morwath.9817 said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chilli.2976 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

Fooo, excuse Quaggan, but seasonal ranked IS for casuals, or if you prefer to put it other way - majority of PvP playerbase, like in every other game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chilli.2976 said:

@"Morwath.9817" said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

I have a hard time bringing myself to soloQ 120 games every season. I know a lot of other players in the "higher ranks" (I know) that feels the same way. Just count top 50, how many people has 240 games + played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Loop.8106 said:

@"Morwath.9817" said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

I have a hard time bringing myself to soloQ 120 games every season. I know a lot of other players in the "higher ranks" (I know) that feels the same way. Just count top 50, how many people has 240 games + played.

That is because everyone is camping their rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Chilli.2976" said:I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:

  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

There is a thin line between making the system too grindy or too much to promote passive play. I think the current requirements are perhaps a little more towards passive yeah, but requiring too much play time will lead to players will not be bothered playing because the system is too demanding.This means the leaderboard will only consist of players who can play a ton, and not necessarily the best players.Your argument lies too much on “If you’re not willing to play as much as you possibly can you don’t deserve to be on leaderboards” which is absurd. GW2 while being a great game ( current meta sucks dick and is boring af but in general ), or any game really, can’t demand people to put absurd play time in because people enjoy it more or enjoy it less in certain times, and when they enjoy less they’ll get fed up quickly and leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:

@"Chilli.2976" said:I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:
  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

There is a thin line between making the system too grindy or too much to promote passive play. I think the current requirements are perhaps a little more towards passive yeah, but requiring too much play time will lead to players will not be bothered playing because the system is too demanding.This means the leaderboard will only consist of players who can play a ton, and not necessarily the best players.Your argument lies too much on “If you’re not willing to play as much as you possibly can you don’t deserve to be on leaderboards” which is absurd. GW2 while being a great game ( current meta sucks kitten and is boring af but in general ), or any game really, can’t demand people to put absurd play time in because people enjoy it more or enjoy it less in certain times, and when they enjoy less they’ll get fed up quickly and leave.

Playing 5 hours per week is casual, 30 games per week is not asking for much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone can log in every day. The current system is a decent compromise between having to log in every day and being able to recover playing just on weekends.

Your suggestions, if they are that specific, would only deter more people from joining PvP. We do not need that at this point.

@Chilli.2976 said:

@"Morwath.9817" said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

Yes, it is. It is for EVERYONE, like it or not.

Now, if you want a higher end competitive PvP, you form a team, and join a tournament.

And stop using "tryhard" as a derogative term, it makes absolutely no sense. You know who learned to use fire, discovered the earth was round, invented writing, discovered evolution and made theories about how it works, developed commercial flight, developed the Internet, got to the moon and brought us Guild Wars 2? People trying so freaking hard, they succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Chilli.2976" said:I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:

  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

I have...to agree with the quaggan thing and that makes me throw up in my mouth a little lol ;)

This might be one of the top 5 worst ideas I have seen on here in the last year. Great way to kill off whats left of the population that plays ranked man. I mean really what MMO do you think you are playing in? WoW? With its player base a whole like bigger than this one? Reality called man. Pick up the white courtesy phone. I mean.. really?

PvP in this game is just about on life support and Anet has pretty much had it in maintenance mode for years. This idea would be like pulling the plug and shooting the patient in the head with a .357 magnum. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chilli.2976 said:

@"MithranArkanere.8957" said:Yes, it is. It is for
, like it or not.

Now, if you want a higher end competitive PvP, you form a team, and join a tournament.

Tournaments are not sufficient for a higher end PvP at the moment, as tournaments are broken.

Tournaments are still in development and more is yet to come for them. When something is broken "Fix it" usually works better than "discard it".

We may live only a few years. But there's no need to be so impatient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are definitely a lot of people that play the minimum or a small amount above it to try to protect there rating. How do I know? Because I see them in unrated lol. Also, its obvious if you pay attention to the leaderboard who is doing it they are always right around what it takes to show up every time the game threshold increases. I agree 2-3 hours a week that's not enough to require. Not that we want a grind fest but we want people to play enough games where you get the feeling everything evened out in the end for everyone and that so called "top pvpers" lol are playing more then occassionally. I feel like it should be 250-300 games played if you want to be a legit ranked player at the end. The decay system I feel is fine but the total amount to qualify for lb ranking needs to be raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, just remove decay and let people have their ranks without being forced to play everyday. Ranked is dead anyways, theres people on the top 50 that don't even know how half of the classes works, it's better to just let the casuals take over and feel good about themselves so they can keep buying gems and keeping the game alive.

Your "competitive scene" is dead, boy. It's time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The number of games is not the issue, the problem is that there are several factors that make camping on a high rating attractive.

One is the high volatility of rating, you can easily jump up and down around a ~150 mmr span during a few days without inconsistencies in your gameplay. So once you are on the higher part of the realistic rating spectrum for you, it makes sense to sit instead of risking a drop by playing more games.Another fact that you don't appear on the leaderboard before you have minimum games, so you can abuse that mechanic to only pop up on the leaderboard at the very last day, making it very hard for your competitors for your current rank to react.The third factor is that once you've hit a certain rating, the huge gap between rating gained for wins and rating lost for losses becomes too punishing, especially during off peak times when not many high rated players compete. A mechanic like this is needed to stop the top players who consistently win a lot more games than they lose from "snowballing" the ladder, however the current system is a bit to extreme with gains like +3 or +4 compared to losses of -25 not being uncommon. A divergence like that requires a w/l ratio that is unrealistic even for the best players to stay in your place (let alone climb).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... PvE got harder content, raids. I thought I would have some quality gameplay in the PvP aspect, in ranked, but it's no different than unranked if it comes to people you meet and their mentality of not giving two fricks about improving themselves. Casuals who refuse to learn ruin PvP gamemodes. I always believed that and it is always true, at this point a universal truth, that you can't have good PvP with people who don't care about PvP for the pure sake of it, but for what shiny crap it gives. Because this game caters to casuals. I already gave it up and just play other games for PvP. I was supportive for far too long and it still goes down to the bottom, fewer and fewer players of true quality. Just play for PvE, this game is PvE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Morwath.9817 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:Ooo? Quaggan would like to remind you that game isn't designed around few tryhards, some people got life, waifu and other hobbys, you can expect everyone to play everyday.

Seasonal ranked PvP is not for casuals, there are other game modes like unranked and the moba style map for people who can't play more than 2 hours a week.

Fooo, excuse Quaggan, but seasonal ranked IS for casuals, or if you prefer to put it other way - majority of PvP playerbase, like in every other game.

PvP Rank isn't for casuals, and it shouldn't ever be lol. why match ups are assssssssssssssssssssssss because people take it to be a "casual" thing.

Anyway this post is legit people who play 1-2 rank games every 3 days is a damn good reason why we don't have so many people queing up because they'll rather camp their spot on the leader-board which is fucking stupid. Spamming games hurts a person MMR to heavily if you are in the 1550-1750 rating level, hence why a GOOD amount of top tier players that been around the same rating level usually have a total of 100 games or close to 100 per season.

Very rarely you see people with over 300 games in the top 250 leader board , I myself starting next season won't be spamming games anymore just to hold a spot in the top 50 within the leader board once again.> @Chilli.2976 said:

I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:

  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

I would like to see this in the future:

1:increase decay starting every 48 hours2:Decay starts at 100 after every 48 hours3:Decay reduced by 25 per game not 504: Players do receive positive rating for winning decay games5: Players receive negative rating for each lost during decay games6: decay should only happen to Gold and high rating players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this and the requirements are quite casual. The current system discourages people from playing games, which causes them to camp their rating or play on alts. I would change is increasing the required number of games played to 20-25 and increase season length. A longer season would increase the required number of games and for those that can't be bother to log in past the 120 mark would not be able to qualify for the leaderboards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chilli.2976 said:

@Chilli.2976 said:I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:
  • Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
  • Decay starts at 100 per day.
  • Decay reduced by 50 per game.
  • Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
  • Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
  • Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

There is a thin line between making the system too grindy or too much to promote passive play. I think the current requirements are perhaps a little more towards passive yeah, but requiring too much play time will lead to players will not be bothered playing because the system is too demanding.This means the leaderboard will only consist of players who can play a ton, and not necessarily the best players.Your argument lies too much on “If you’re not willing to play as much as you possibly can you don’t deserve to be on leaderboards” which is absurd. GW2 while being a great game ( current meta sucks kitten and is boring af but in general ), or any game really, can’t demand people to put absurd play time in because people enjoy it more or enjoy it less in certain times, and when they enjoy less they’ll get fed up quickly and leave.

Playing 5 hours per week is casual, 30 games per week is not asking for much.

30 games is a lot. Are you also considering the time it takes to queue? Sometimes queues can last as long as 7-8 minutes.

Let's assume for a moment every game lasts 10 minutes. Now let's assume the time it takes to get a queue pop is 3 minutes. Factor in 1 minute before the match begins.That amounts to 7 hours of ranked games per week. In reality it would take much longer. This is no good. The current system is fine imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...