4 Top Scores Shouldn't Lose Rank - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

4 Top Scores Shouldn't Lose Rank

2>

Comments

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2019

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:
    And now you've totally moved the goal-posts, on to an entirely separate point about whether wins and losses should be rewarded equally.

    Which they should be IF everyone is getting 50/50 expected matchups and getting 50% win-rates.

    Do you think your rating should increase even if you're winning 50% of 50/50 expected matchups? What?! That would mean that the more games you play, the higher your rating goes. That means that rating is simply equivalent to number of games played. Which is meaningless PvE achievement drivel.

    How is this the case if you always lose more than you gain?

    Even with win +12 and lose -13, if you are 50% WR, you don't go up.

    I just said:

    "I don't think 50/50 win loss rewards should be the same either. There must be some punishment minimum. (win loss rewards should not be equal)"

    This means you will always lose more than you gain.

    I also said:

    Losses should never be (-)lower than the winning reward.

    Maybe this one was confusing. I meant if you win 8, you shouldnt lose only 7. I shorthanded it with the (-) sign. I can see how that would mean a gain as long as you win. The absolute value of the loss has to be greater than the win.

    You are looking from the perspective of an above-average player.

    Remember, there is a whole other half of the bell-curve to consider.

    The rating calculation is designed to pull people towards the middle of the bell-curve. That's what makes it a bell-curve. If it were otherwise, then the ratings wouldn't be a bell-curve, they'd be a triangle, with the highest population in B1, and population getting less and less as you go up through S, G, P, L. But we know this isn't the case. The majority of the playerbase is in Gold, with moderate populations in Silver and Plat, and with hardly anyone in Bronze/Legendary.

    So if you are above average, say in P1, you will lose more than you gain per loss/win.

    But if you are below average, say in S1, you will gain more than you lose per win/loss.

    If you're in Bronze-1, I'm assuming its basically impossible to get the -30 losses that players in Plat-3 are subjected to, and also basically impossible to only get +5 for a win.

  • Vagrant.7206Vagrant.7206 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    They should consider closer scores and lowering the rating loss a little.

    I mean does a game that goes 500-496 deserve the same loss in rating as a loss of 500-15?

    If you do this, you have to reduce the rating gain for the winners by the same amount, otherwise you will have run-away rating inflation (not to mention opportunities for match manipulation).

    If you can, explain where the inflation would happen.

    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and I don't want to make any assumptions before I debate the point.

    The rating system has to be very finely tuned to create "equilibrium". If gains exceed losses, then you end up with everyone in Legendary-3. If losses exceed gains, then you end up with everyone in Bronze-1. As much as people complain about the current system, it is actually balanced correctly, the evidence for this is the distribution of ratings. If it were imbalanced, then you would see 1 of the 2 latter scenarios.

    Actually, the global average is gradually decreasing as players leave the game permanently. The bell curve is shrinking from one side only.

    Yes, but it is still maintaining a bell-curve, normalised I think on 1200 rating. How do you know it is shrinking from one side only?

    The number of players who are in the "legendary" and "platinum" tiers have shrunk substantially. In the US, it's between 5-10 in legendary now, but a few seasons ago it could be as many as 30.

    The great god Lagki demands sacrifice!

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2019

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    They should consider closer scores and lowering the rating loss a little.

    I mean does a game that goes 500-496 deserve the same loss in rating as a loss of 500-15?

    If you do this, you have to reduce the rating gain for the winners by the same amount, otherwise you will have run-away rating inflation (not to mention opportunities for match manipulation).

    If you can, explain where the inflation would happen.

    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and I don't want to make any assumptions before I debate the point.

    The rating system has to be very finely tuned to create "equilibrium". If gains exceed losses, then you end up with everyone in Legendary-3. If losses exceed gains, then you end up with everyone in Bronze-1. As much as people complain about the current system, it is actually balanced correctly, the evidence for this is the distribution of ratings. If it were imbalanced, then you would see 1 of the 2 latter scenarios.

    Actually, the global average is gradually decreasing as players leave the game permanently. The bell curve is shrinking from one side only.

    Yes, but it is still maintaining a bell-curve, normalised I think on 1200 rating. How do you know it is shrinking from one side only?

    The number of players who are in the "legendary" and "platinum" tiers have shrunk substantially. In the US, it's between 5-10 in legendary now, but a few seasons ago it could be as many as 30.

    Sure. And do you know if the number of players in Bronze hasn't also changed?

    You said the bell curve is shrinking from one side only.

    You have demonstrated that one side is shrinking.

    Where is the evidence that the other side is NOT shrinking?

  • Vagrant.7206Vagrant.7206 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:

    @Ragnar.4257 said:

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    They should consider closer scores and lowering the rating loss a little.

    I mean does a game that goes 500-496 deserve the same loss in rating as a loss of 500-15?

    If you do this, you have to reduce the rating gain for the winners by the same amount, otherwise you will have run-away rating inflation (not to mention opportunities for match manipulation).

    If you can, explain where the inflation would happen.

    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and I don't want to make any assumptions before I debate the point.

    The rating system has to be very finely tuned to create "equilibrium". If gains exceed losses, then you end up with everyone in Legendary-3. If losses exceed gains, then you end up with everyone in Bronze-1. As much as people complain about the current system, it is actually balanced correctly, the evidence for this is the distribution of ratings. If it were imbalanced, then you would see 1 of the 2 latter scenarios.

    Actually, the global average is gradually decreasing as players leave the game permanently. The bell curve is shrinking from one side only.

    Yes, but it is still maintaining a bell-curve, normalised I think on 1200 rating. How do you know it is shrinking from one side only?

    The number of players who are in the "legendary" and "platinum" tiers have shrunk substantially. In the US, it's between 5-10 in legendary now, but a few seasons ago it could be as many as 30.

    Sure. And do you know if the number of players in Bronze hasn't also changed?

    You said the bell curve is shrinking from one side only.

    You have demonstrated that one side is shrinking.

    Where is the "only" evidence?

    There's no way to prove that the number of bronze players is growing or shrinking without ANet's data. However, if the bronze players were also shrinking roughly equally, everybody's average would remain about the same. But the PvP leaderboards consistently show a decrease in the average over every season, and there's no indication that the number of bronze players has increased or decreased.

    The great god Lagki demands sacrifice!

  • Captain Kuro.8937Captain Kuro.8937 Member
    edited August 1, 2019

    How about using top stats as a friendly +1 button to a player that we like
    (giving him extra +1 rating on his next win/-1 if lost in his next match up , if that player ''ACCEPT IT'') .

    If that recieving player , pass some rating tiers (1400/1450/1500/1550 etc ... once) the player that gave him the +1 will get some bonus PiP in end of the season , or every week.

    So either sucfrifice your earned top stats/PiP to ''gamble'' on ppl that you think that have a fighting chance and get rewarded at the end , or ''cash in'' your end match rewards NOW .

    Mostly it will be used for L33T players to punish other players or sabotaze then , but they spent less time typing and afking

    If the player that recieves the +1 , didnt had a single stat (damage-healing...etc) less than the 15% avarege of the match/all ppl (he was afk) , he ACCEPTS THE QUEST istantly> meaning +1/-1 on win/loss on his next match (or only the negative effect -1 , if you are also reported him for afk)

  • shion.2084shion.2084 Member ✭✭

    You may have to adjust your metric to reflect the desired result, but simply saying you don't calculate valuable stats currently doesn't mean you should give up on the idea. Even with the stats you have now, if someone gets offence, defence, damage and kills.... don't you think they were likely outperforming for the team they were on to get all 4 of those? How would being able to get all of those stats constitute sacrificing a win? If there is a way then simply adjust the stats, but I would find that hard to believe.

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    We're not likely to every alter the skill rating change formulas based on top stats. As others have noted, it would motivate bad behavior. People would chase top stats at all costs, even sacrificing the win to do so. Top stats are not always indicative on how much you helped your team and many important strategies may not net you any top stats at all.

    We do reward top stats by giving an extra pip.

  • Gamble.4580Gamble.4580 Member ✭✭✭

    No because if u taking the anti romer role u don’t get any top stats or if u do a few. And that role is needed.

  • MyPuppy.8970MyPuppy.8970 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think at the end of the day a loss is a loss and should make you lose rating. But in an unfavorable matchup, the losing team should be rewarded for playing well, while the winner should have a slight penalty. Something along those lines:

    500-[0;300[
    winning team: +15
    Losing team: -15

    500-[300;400[
    winning team: +14
    losing team: -13

    500-[400;450[
    winning team: +13
    losing team: -11

    500-[450;499]
    winning team: +12
    losing team: -9

    Maybe that would ensure to some extent that everyone gives its best to get a quality match.

  • JETWING.2759JETWING.2759 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:
    We're not likely to every alter the skill rating change formulas based on top stats. As others have noted, it would motivate bad behavior. People would chase top stats at all costs, even sacrificing the win to do so. Top stats are not always indicative on how much you helped your team and many important strategies may not net you any top stats at all.

    We do reward top stats by giving an extra pip.

    But if the top stats measured how much a player helped his team on especific things, means that that specific player played objectively... Then that player could not be punished like his team, in case defeat.

    I think this that the only top stats that could be removed is death, because i have seen some kamikase DH that helps a lot their team.

    Each top stats could decrease the general rating loss in 15%. If this happens, may be we see less afk players, and less frustration on case defeat.

©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.