A serious suggestion

In a recent post, https://guildwars2.com/en/news/whats-next-for-guild-wars-2/ , ANET said that a PvP festival is planned in the future.

The last PvP festival, the "Year of Ascension" appears to have hurt PvP population more than it helped.

To prevent a repeat. I suggest the following: Invert the "competitive" matchmaking that was used during the "Year of the Ascension" season 2-3, ( if memory serves. ) This would mean that a losing team would be set on teams biased to win next time. A winning team, would get a harder match next time.

New people coming in need to succeed. Exposing them to being repeatedly smashed will only alienate a majority of newcomers.

An "inverted" Season 3 system would push everyone toward a 50/50 win ratio. Those who are highly skilled could beat that ratio.. while newcomers would be protected from the kind of losing streaks we saw in season 3.

TLDR newcomers need to have a good experience. Any PvP festival should carefully take this into account. I suggest an inverted season 3 "competitive" matchmaking setup.

I solo q in rank....and I ended up over 50% win ration.

At this point if you and any other want to have a better chance of winning games then ya'll should put in a bit more effort and study some of your match ups/specs. The game literally already gives you 50/50 win ration in most cases.

Theoretically, newcomers are matched with teams that should allow them to accrue wins, even if they have a sub-50% win ratio.

I've got a 60% ranked win ratio, but I don't support a matchmaker forcing everybody to be at 50%, especially if they play well enough.

@BlackTruth.6813 said:

@Chaith.8256 said:I guess when it comes down to it, this is just PvP communism. @"Ithilwen.1529" wants to ensure the road to future PvP legendary items won't be slowed down by having low skill.

You can suggest ArenaNet change the matchmaker to ensure equality of outcome for all at 50% win rate. The problem is that there's a vast difference between player's skill.

Plato: "Nothing is so unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."

Every PvP game has leagues resembling a hierarchy.. That's gaming.

Right now, the game already gives a push towards 50% win rate by balancing team MMR, handicapping/boosting your teammates relative to you. It's already pretty beginner friendly.

Ignoring the comments about socialism...

Turret engi in its original form would actually be extremely weak these days in comparison to the current meta, because the amount of AoE damage that's currently achievable. Turrets would never survive long enough to make a significant enough impact.

@BlackTruth.6813 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy said bring back the old turret engi so that new players might stand a chance. Let's make it so that the poorest schmuk can be as good as people who do hard work.

Isn't that why ANET introduced the condi mirage (and previously scourge) of a few seasons ago ....to let the poorest schmuk be as good as people who do hard work? :p

As a new to PvP player, I agree with you in theory. However, my understanding of the MM in this game, is that a lower ability player isn't matched a team and against a team of equal players, but an average. Ie, a losing player gets put on a stronger team, so the stronger team wins, thus pulling up the losing player (correct me if I'm wrong).

Ideally, players would always play with and against other players of similar skill (with an upper abd lower limit). No REAL gamer wants to go 500-0 OR 0-500.

But in the end, new players gravitate to unranked, believing that's where they belong, and get curbstomped by premades/coordinated/high tier players a few times and leave.

I don't play a whole lot of ranked sPvP now days but any match making system worth it's salt will have most players with a ~50% win rate naturally (excusing really good/bad players). I can agree somewhat that yes even in a pvp environment it is imperative that new players a way to see a road to success. They need to be able to clearly realize why it is they lost/won. I don't think this should be something enforced by a system though. It should be up to the player if they choose to improve on their past mistakes or not.

Something a lot of people (and OP) are getting wrong, the matchmaker absolutely does not take past matches into account for the matchmaking of your next match and it never has.

Each match is independently balanced as best as possible with who is available, expanding to putting bad, good, and average players together as long as the teams are balanced team MMR.

@Spartacus.3192 said:

@BlackTruth.6813 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy said bring back the old turret engi so that new players might stand a chance. Let's make it so that the poorest schmuk can be as good as people who do hard work.

Yep, ANET had a history of doing this and they ended upgetting a lot of hate. Here is to hoping condi mirage is the last..

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@BlackTruth.6813 said:

@Chaith.8256 said:I guess when it comes down to it, this is just PvP communism. @"Ithilwen.1529" wants to ensure the road to future PvP legendary items won't be slowed down by having low skill.

You can suggest ArenaNet change the matchmaker to ensure equality of outcome for all at 50% win rate. The problem is that there's a vast difference between player's skill.

Plato: "Nothing is so unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."

Every PvP game has leagues resembling a hierarchy.. That's gaming.

Right now, the game already gives a push towards 50% win rate by balancing team MMR, handicapping/boosting your teammates relative to you. It's already pretty beginner friendly.

That's beyond the point, all I'm saying is everybody has to climb up be it in rank or how good they actually are. Making builds like condi mirage and turret engi the OLD turret engi (not taking place in this era obviously) is flat out stupid because it's a person who has more experience should win and ANET intervening with that concept is stupid, or changing something that is fated to be RNG to "help" new players is just idealistic and too hard.

To help new players you HAVE to teach them that this game is about trading cds and dodges nowadays, there are some instances where you have to trade hits, sure but it is mostly about the latter.

@BlackTruth.6813 said:

@Chaith.8256 said:I guess when it comes down to it, this is just PvP communism. @"Ithilwen.1529" wants to ensure the road to future PvP legendary items won't be slowed down by having low skill.

You can suggest ArenaNet change the matchmaker to ensure equality of outcome for all at 50% win rate. The problem is that there's a vast difference between player's skill.

Plato: "Nothing is so unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."

Every PvP game has leagues resembling a hierarchy.. That's gaming.

Right now, the game already gives a push towards 50% win rate by balancing team MMR, handicapping/boosting your teammates relative to you. It's already pretty beginner friendly.

As opposed to what? Capitalism? The system that has historically tried to pass itself off as a "competitive, innovative meritocracy"? Hah! Pay no attention to the massive wealth gap rigged behind the curtain! Socialism, at least, analyzes problems from a systematic way as opposed to brushing it off by saying, "Hey, it's all your fault".

Let's make it so that the poorest schmuk can be as good as people who do hard work.

So...what's wrong with that? Isn't that the point? I thought we wanted "competition" here.

Like when the guy says "while newcomers would be protected from the kind of losing streaks we saw in season 3." I don't know, how is ANET going to implement something like that in the first place. Protecting new comers from losing streaks? What is to stop smurfs from trolling new comers? The system will have no way of finding out what a smurf is if the smurf manipulates the matchmaking.

There has to be a better solution to get "new people" in other than changing a system that is fated to be RNG.

There is, blow up the pvp system. The system doesn't work for the majority of people, it needs to be destroyed. We can start with bringing back 5v5, segregate the queues(solo/team) and put in team ratings. You really have RNG because of the individual rating. Newbies and vets just get matched up together and FORCED to make do, which is good for NEITHER party. If there were only team ratings, queues would take an eternity but there would be better games. As far as smurfing goes, you can't control others' actions, but you can counter it by forming your own team. Another issue is that all the elitists, forum warriors & "pros" got the devs' ear, they don't want things to change.

Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)

Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

@BlackTruth.6813 said:Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

I'm not sure why you're conflating an economic system with a game's mechanics, but we'll roll with it?

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@BlackTruth.6813 said:Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

I'm not perfect with analogies but it's not like we can't try doing that lol..

Here's one thing I don't agree with socialism/communism, no matter the effort and harsh work you'll do, you won't get better reward than let's say, someone that almost does nothing. It's a bit against nature itself when you think about it, natural law here; you don't work, you don't eat, you work a little, you eat a little (I'm not talking about those who CAN'T, that's another thing).

But let's return to the main subject.

This can also apply here though... If I understand correctly, you can be more skilled and someone that puts less effort and that is obviously less skilled than you get to have to same reward as you? I mean, let's say I just started the game. I earn a reward. Looks like that reward is also earned by pro that plays extensively at the game and they are putting time and effort to achieve things and you get the same reward than them by not even doing half of their work?

I'll say that's terribly unfair if that's the case and it is no surprise if that sort of thing can lower the pvp population even more.

Despite assertions to the contrary. I don't care much about PvP Legendary items. ( Though I do have The Ascension on an alt account. )

What I do care about is not seeing a repeat of season 2-3 where I believe a large number of players were turned off from PvP..

"Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

@"Ithilwen.1529" said:Despite assertions to the contrary. I don't care much about PvP Legendary items. ( Though I do have The Ascension on an alt account. )

What I do care about is not seeing a repeat of season 2-3 where I believe a large number of players were turned off from PvP..

"Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

But nobody is owed anything besides a fair chance. There are some people who are not good and will never get better for whatever reason and will constantly lose. Its for them to decide if they should move on or constantly frustrate themselves.

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@"Ithilwen.1529" said:Despite assertions to the contrary. I don't care much about PvP Legendary items. ( Though I do have The Ascension on an alt account. )

What I do care about is not seeing a repeat of season 2-3 where I believe a large number of players were turned off from PvP..

"Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

I would assert that matchmaking is only approximately fair at best. My idea would weight matches in favor of new players instead of against them.

As to "some people who are not good"... I would say that the function of matchmaking is to make a place for everyone to have an approximately fair match.

@"Ithilwen.1529" said:I would assert that matchmaking is only approximately fair at best. My idea would weight matches in favor of new players instead of against them.And this is just as unfair. Anything besides having a 50/50 to win is unfair. Which is something you had a problem with, unfair matchmaking. Though some peoples notion of "fair" is getting the wins they feel they deserve..never the case,. The MMer already pushes 50/50 as it is. Speaking of:As to "some people who are not good"... I would say that the function of matchmaking is to make a place for everyone to have an approximately fair match.Just because a match is fair doesn't mean you will or should win. Some people can be given a completely fair chance consistently and never be able to make something of it. Its not the games fault at that point. Again, nobody is owned wins in a competitive environment.

No, people are not "owed" wins. However, this argument loses sight of a basic fact: This is a game, played for fun. The game does have an obligation to provide fun.

Hence my suggestion in the OP.

As I mentioned before, new to PvP, so I dont KNOW what happened the previous event.However, I presume OP is not saying people should just be given wins per se, but the best possible chance, across the board.This should be simple in an appropriately rated/tiered system. 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th would ideally play against 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th. And so forth. After each match the positions would change. This would mean the worst player, would always be playing with and against the other worst players; this would not guarantee a win, but would make a noob-stomping far less likely.All matches theoretically would be more fair and more fun due to the appropriate challenge. Also it would in theory still remain a 50/50 system.That in my mind is a good system; and it has nothing to do with any ideologies (especially not a commonly misconstrued one, read up on the subject if your gonna throw it around).

Isn't it already like this? I feel like it's already like this to some extent.

@"Chaith.8256" said:Something a lot of people (and OP) are getting wrong, the matchmaker absolutely does not take past matches into account for the matchmaking of your next match and it never has.

Each match is independently balanced as best as possible with who is available, expanding to putting bad, good, and average players together as long as the teams are balanced team MMR.

Incorrect. During the "competitive" matchmaking seasons of The Year of the Ascension, The matchmaker encouraged win streaking. This was expressly done by weighting the teams based on whether the players won or lost the last match.

This was explained by ANET.

@"BlackTruth.6813" said:Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)

Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

"Triggered"? Nonsense! Let's have some fun!

Capitalism is about responsibility and hard work? Hah! My friend, I would say the opposite! If anything, capitalism rewards the irresponsible., such as wall street and the pharmaceuticals. Charity in capitalism is also pretty dishonest because it is done with the expectation of a return, which goes against the concept of charity! That billionaire doesn't just give away stuff from the bottom of his heart! Capitalism has no virtues, it is merely a system that perpetuates to make as much money as possible.

As far turret engi and mirage, go, I don't support that nonsense. I've fought against them. I don't support the post-HoT powercreep that has infested pvp.

@"Ithilwen.1529" said:No, people are not "owed" wins. However, this argument loses sight of a basic fact: This is a game, played for fun. The game does have an obligation to provide fun.

Hence my suggestion in the OP.

You're, understandably, conflating winning with being fun.

But by weighting people to win you are weighting other to lose? Which is exactly what you don't like in your OP. Demographic shouldn't really matter. It would also give these newcomers a false experience and when the MM changed, to what it usually is from what you wish it to be ( hypothetical situation), they would "get smashed" then and be even more frustrated because they "were doing do well before".

Competitive environments are supposed to be competitive. This mean they aren't always fun. Its down to the player to decide if they are having fun or if they aren't having fun and should seek to do something else with their time.

The argument doesn't "loses sight of a basic fact: This is a game, played for fun.". It generally sounds like "I want to have fun therefore I should be able to win". That's not how competitiveness works.

I also don't understand your complaint about something 2~3 years ago when the MM has made a lot of progress since then. and actually does try to promote fair matches,50/50, which it should. Complaining about something in season 3 when season 15 is about to start and after they have change MM to promote 50/50 seems asinine.

@JTGuevara.9018 said:

@"BlackTruth.6813" said:Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S

Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)

Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

Capitalism doesn't always mean greed. As I've said before, more compettion means people are going to want to improve and in turn better services and products are made. But then, if you redistribute wealth to the poorest schmuck, that isn't exactly competition if the schmuck starts going back to their old ways, no? And sad reality is, when you are charitable you are lowkey hoping that people try to do to others what you have done for them. Doesn't mean it's wrong to hope for people to give something in return to society if not back to yourself.

And then in socialism you get taxed at high rates (and the government never tells you where they are spending the money into). What's the point of getting rich in Venezuela? What is the point of improving goods and services by that logic if wealth will simply be redistributed so that the poorest schmuck will be "as rich" as those who worked harder? How will that poor schmuck understand the error of his ways, because some poor people ACTUALLY do not like to work hard and are bad with money? Redistributing wealth doesn't ALWAYS mean there will be good coming out of it because you redistribute wealth to the most lazy schmuck then the cycle repeats itself. How do the people on top find a way to improve their business when their wealth will simply be taken away from them? You realize that people on the top are the ones that provide jobs as well right? If they get taxed high because people want to implement socialism, they will simply cut jobs and contribute to unemployment. You have poverty so much, then you have to understand that what socialism does can lead to that as well.

Socialism shuns improvement, effort, and people start to not accept reality for what it is once they start truly believing this ideology.

At least you agree with me that turret engi and condi mirage is garabge in design though.