Jump to content
  • Sign Up

A fundamental problem of the ranked system


Cougre.6543

Recommended Posts

People aren't incentivized to play throughout the whole season. One can finish their 120 required games in the first few weeks and then walk away until the last day to then completely get rid of their decay (and maybe even score higher due to volatility) in a mere 7 games and still score a spot on the leaderboards.The effect of this was very observable last season, with a low population of queueing players throughout the season resulting in awful matchmaking until the very last day, which saw everyone rush for the top spots and matchmaking, in stark contrast to the weeks prior, being actually really good and creating some very enjoyable games.The way I see it the top 250 should be reserved for people who are capable of consistently playing, while material and monetary rewards remain as they are now.Of course this is only one of multiple reasons that match quality was not as good as it could've been last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cougre.6543 said:People aren't incentivized to play throughout the whole season. One can finish their 120 required games in the first few weeks and then walk away until the last day to then completely get rid of their decay (and maybe even score higher due to volatility) in a mere 7 games and still score a spot on the leaderboards.The effect of this was very observable last season, with a low population of queueing players throughout the season resulting in awful matchmaking until the very last day, which saw everyone rush for the top spots and matchmaking, in stark contrast to the weeks prior, being actually really good and creating some very enjoyable games.The way I see it the top 250 should be reserved for people who are capable of consistently playing, while material and monetary rewards remain as they are now.Of course this is only one of multiple reasons that match quality was not as good as it could've been last season.

They got rid of the volatility a couple seasons ago. You still have a valid point though. Once you get a high rank that you probably can't sustain and you are close to or at the 120 match limit, you are better off only playing 1 match every 4 days, or taking a bunch of time off. If you are just playing for the badge, then you don't even have to play a minimum number of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.Spamming matches is neither a good thing nor synonym of skill.

If the problems are the wintrader, then it's a thing, but if you are complaining about how players distribuite their playing time, it's another.Does the fact that some players managed to reach a specific rank in 1 week, instead of spamming games every week , hurt you somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can view it the different way. I was placed at 1350 for no reason at the season's beginning and it took me a lot of matchs and time to get back to 1500, having to deal with chain wins/chain loses. I logged back on the last days, and matchs did put me at 1499. I tried to get back to 1500, but i gave up at 1440 after a huge chain lose. Is this really fair ?I mean, if someone decided to play 500 games during the first 4 weeks, why should he be punished on the last days ?

There is no real good answer to this, but what should be adressed is the main issue , which is : Why are players not playing along the whole season ? Solo queue common issues ( i.e uncarriable matchs due to setups , multi scourges, afk/wintraders, toxic players,..) leading to the sinusoidal effect, making you going +/- 100 rating points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Huskyboy.1053 said:I mean the solution here is just to increase the number of required games, that's it. Pick a number!

No, the solution is to make decay matter, and to make seasons longer.Also, make rank matter... That'd help. Most people just play for the Byzantium chest, which you get irrelevant of your ranking. The whole PvP rewards system is geared towards promoting farming for rewards, instead of bothering with the competitive aspect.IF GW2 removed the chests, and added a end-season single reward according to rank, then people would care about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:I mean the solution here is just to increase the number of required games, that's it. Pick a number!

No, the solution is to make decay matter, and to make seasons longer.Also, make rank matter... That'd help. Most people just play for the Byzantium chest, which you get irrelevant of your ranking. The whole PvP rewards system is geared towards promoting farming for rewards, instead of bothering with the competitive aspect.IF GW2 removed the chests, and added a end-season single reward according to rank,
then
people would care about that.

That's a fair point. It's how ATs work, but right now the only special rewards you get for your rank are titles, which only matter to a subset of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:I mean the solution here is just to increase the number of required games, that's it. Pick a number!

Also, make rank matter... That'd help. Most people just play for the Byzantium chest, which you get irrelevant of your ranking. The whole PvP rewards system is geared towards promoting farming for rewards, instead of bothering with the competitive aspect.IF GW2 removed the chests, and added a end-season single reward according to rank,
then
people would care about that.

^This 100%.Tying the season reward to performance (and giving it only ONCE at end of season) is the only way Anet can ensure that ranked becomes less of a grind fest.Add pips to unranked for all I care. If people want to farm their rewards their, they can do so in a much more casual way and with WAY less toxicity (which plays a pretty big part why new people dont give pvp a shot actually). I dont know why Anet is so hesitant about rewards in pvp. The pvp population only makes up for a fraction of the overall playerbase and yet they are afraid that the mode is too lucrative a farm? And then....they go ahead and add Palawadan to the game.

But on topic:No, 120 games is plenty. Not everybody is a high-school student that can live for free at their parents after all and play every day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BikeIsGone.8675 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:I mean the solution here is just to increase the number of required games, that's it. Pick a number!

Also, make rank matter... That'd help. Most people just play for the Byzantium chest, which you get irrelevant of your ranking. The whole PvP rewards system is geared towards promoting farming for rewards, instead of bothering with the competitive aspect.IF GW2 removed the chests, and added a end-season single reward according to rank,
then
people would care about that.

^This 100%.Tying the season reward to performance (and giving it only ONCE at end of season) is the only way Anet can ensure that ranked becomes less of a grind fest.Add pips to unranked for all I care. If people want to farm their rewards their, they can do so in a much more casual way and with WAY less toxicity (which plays a pretty big part why new people dont give pvp a shot actually). I dont know why Anet is so hesitant about rewards in pvp. The pvp population only makes up for a fraction of the overall playerbase and yet they are afraid that the mode is too lucrative a farm? And then....they go ahead and add Palawadan to the game.

But on topic:No, 120 games per week is plenty. Not everybody is a high-school student that can live for free at their parents after all and play every day of the week.

It's 120 games for the whole season iirc. (haven't played PvP this last season, and never played enough for leaderboard material since at least season 5).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you play a lot of games you are more likely to get matches where you are supposed to carry and get a rating less accurate.

Using myself as an example most seasons I make it into top 50, and on a bad day or just bad string of games with people in low plat or gold I may sometimes drop out of top 250 completely. Then, I que on a day where the team composition is mostly people top 250(enemy and my own) and I make it back into top 100 in 4-5 games.

Like there are games where 3/4 of my team mates will get farmed by one person who is not able to beat me and thus I lose the match and rating. If you q all the time this is more likely to happen just because you are playing more than everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Huskyboy.1053 said:I mean the solution here is just to increase the number of required games, that's it. Pick a number!

Also, make rank matter... That'd help. Most people just play for the Byzantium chest, which you get irrelevant of your ranking. The whole PvP rewards system is geared towards promoting farming for rewards, instead of bothering with the competitive aspect.IF GW2 removed the chests, and added a end-season single reward according to rank,
then
people would care about that.

^This 100%.Tying the season reward to performance (and giving it only ONCE at end of season) is the only way Anet can ensure that ranked becomes less of a grind fest.Add pips to unranked for all I care. If people want to farm their rewards their, they can do so in a much more casual way and with WAY less toxicity (which plays a pretty big part why new people dont give pvp a shot actually). I dont know why Anet is so hesitant about rewards in pvp. The pvp population only makes up for a fraction of the overall playerbase and yet they are afraid that the mode is too lucrative a farm? And then....they go ahead and add Palawadan to the game.

But on topic:No, 120 games per week is plenty. Not everybody is a high-school student that can live for free at their parents after all and play every day of the week.

It's 120 games for the whole season iirc. (haven't played PvP this last season, and never played enough for leaderboard material since at least season 5).

right...120 for whole season / 15 per week...thatst what I meant^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...