Suggestion: Close Game Reward Pips

Change the reward pip formula in ranked to be less punishing when you lose, especially when the game was very close.

Loss pips are 3 as now +250 score: "At least you tried" = 2 pips400 score: "Put up a fight" = 2 pips495 score: "Close Game" = 2 pips

Essentially making a loss at 495 score equal 9 pips which is 1 less than a victory. Takes some of the the sting from the loss, though you do still lose rank.

Could move 1 point from the 250 mark to 400 or 495, making higher score be more rewarding.

If you remove the specific numbers from the suggestion, I think there's some merit.

In theory, it could tackle a more important problem: people who give up or go AFK during the match. Linking Pip gain to final score incentivizes players to try at least until they reach the next benchmark.

This almost certainly requires changing existing mechanics (since score isn't used to determine reward) and refactoring of rewards (it would increase Pip gain across the board substantially). It might also be better to make it 1 pip every e.g. 80 points -- if people are at 220 with little time left, they are only going to aim for 250 in the original scenario, because there's no chance for 400. But distribute the points more evenly and there's reason to keep fighting.

On the downside, this will exacerbate overreactions by the toxically inclined: people will get even angrier during big losses than they are now. (I dunno if that's enough for ANet to reject the idea; it's just something that needs to be considered. i.e. it's not without its own downsides.)

If we can't have a forfit system, we should be rewarded much more for continuing to put up a good fight.

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:On the downside, this will exacerbate overreactions by the toxically inclined: people will get even angrier during big losses than they are now.

Not sure why you think people would get more toxic than before? Doesn't seem logical to me.

Anyway adding another idea here, on the subject of leavers. If a match ends with a leaver on your team and you lost the game then you get a "leaver compensation" of 2 pips.

Pips... See if you told me, make rank loss a bit less on close matchups, so that at least you don't have to win 3 in a row to make up for a loss, i'd thumbs up that, but, Pips.Clear illustration of what the priority for PvP is.

@ReaverKane.7598 said:Pips... See if you told me, make rank loss a bit less on close matchups, so that at least you don't have to win 3 in a row to make up for a loss, i'd thumbs up that, but, Pips.Clear illustration of what the priority for PvP is.

Well, can't deny you got me there. I play for the rewards, as do many others. Feel free to add to this suggestion about rank points though, nobody's stopping you.I'm currently Gold 2 in rank, still playing to win even if ranking up is not my priority.

@Ari.4023 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:On the downside, this will exacerbate overreactions by the toxically inclined: people will get even angrier during big losses than they are now.

It's not that people will become more toxic; it's that there will be an increased number of opportunities to trigger any existing toxicity. Put another way: of the fraction of people who might ever be toxic in game, only some of them do so under the current system. I predict a greater number of that minority would do so under the proposed system.

And again, that might not be important enough to matter; it's just one more factor ANet would have to consider.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ari.4023 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:On the downside, this will exacerbate overreactions by the toxically inclined: people will get even angrier during big losses than they are now.

No they will not DURING the game. After the game they can go as much nuclear as they want. During the game they will try hard to get lowest amount of pips atleast and thats what matters.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ari.4023 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:On the downside, this will exacerbate overreactions by the toxically inclined: people will get even angrier during big losses than they are now.

More or less. I'm not sure this would create toxicity, but develop bad behaviours.If we consider a game being lost 200-350, i'm fairly sure the average team in solo queue will play in order to get 250 points and no try to come back, though it is possible. Have 3 players rush to recap close and sit on it, meaning opponents will play on other 2 nodes and secure the win. The latter is that could also happen at 450 points : make the situation where you're losing 435-480. Several players will try to reach 450 instead of trying to come back and win.

The best that could happen is " lose less rating " belonging to score, but really small difference. Like :

• Normal lose : - 14 rating
• 350-500 lose : -13 rating
• 495-500 lose : -11 rating

With such small differences, i'm not sure this will truly have an impact on players behaviour, so score will reflect the game.

The point is: it's something for ANet to consider. None of us have as good an idea as they do the sort of impact a change in reward structure can cause.(And again, to be clear: I'm not saying this will cause toxicity; I'm saying it gives existing toxic players more opportunities to go crazy.)

@Ari.4023 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:Pips... See if you told me, make rank loss a bit less on close matchups, so that at least you don't have to win 3 in a row to make up for a loss, i'd thumbs up that, but, Pips.Clear illustration of what the priority for PvP is.

I have, more than once. Also have espoused the belief that pips are a cancer for PvP and are one of the reasons why it's quality has steadily degraded in time.Because like you said, and i'm not faulting you for it, mind you, most people play for the rewards, and most of those people don't really care for the competitive aspect.You play to win, because you want more pips, others don't because it's less of a hassle to just throw a match and get one pip than put in the effort to get 3.

As for your rank, Gold 2 isn't that much to bring home about.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:The point is: it's something for ANet to consider. None of us have as good an idea as they do the sort of impact a change in reward structure can cause.(And again, to be clear: I'm not saying this will cause toxicity; I'm saying it gives existing toxic players more opportunities to go crazy.)

Well, i'd argue they either don't know or don't care, because they've done nothing to change the decline of the game. And honestly, after reading @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 's idea of competitiveness regarding ranked queues. I've lost all faith we'll ever have anything resembling the pre-HoT PvP community.