Ranks Should Be Based On Skill, Not Luck

[Dahkeus.8243]

People here don't understand basic mathematics and statistics.

Random factors may happen every game, but they happen to both teams. Sometimes the weakness of your own team is beyond what your personal skill can overcome. Sometimes that happens to someone on the other team. However, when you play enough games, this effect evens out and you're at a disadvantage just as much as you're at an advantage. The effect that will remain constant, however, is how more likely your team is to win with your contribution.

Play enough games and the randomness of good/bad teammates evens out.

[Magnito.6187]

If it's all up to the other 9 lads and lasses in the game wether you win or not, then those people reaching top 3 over and over again must be damn magicians of luck.

[otto.5684]

OP, it will be great if we can measure performance individually. I try to draw analogy from sports. Usually experts watch the games and would grade players based on their individual performance. However, we cannot do that in GW2, since obliviously we cannot have someone watch every game, next best thing is win/loss. It is crude, but on a large enough sample, it should work. This is why there are 10 games for placement and 120 games for ranking. Is it accurate? Nothing is 100% accurate, but it probably is reasonably accurate on large samples. If you have a win rate of higher than 55%, you are in P2 for a reason. I am consistently between 60-65% win rate. Do I sometimes lose/win couple of games in a row? Yes. But If I open my last 100 games, I am probably looking at 60-65 wins.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@Aisling.5901 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:By placement do you mean top stats?

I mean your placement on your team. Unless I am grossly mistaken, at the end of the game you are displayed as being higher or lower on your teams listing based on how well you performed overall. Best player is at the top, worst player is at the bottom.

If that is not the case then my point remains the same; you should be graded based off how much you contributed to the team overall. How much were you playing the objective, how many players did you kill while in range of the objective, how much did you contribute to team fights. Top stats only measures how much you did of something mathematically, it doesn't measure how productive what you did was to the game however,

They should discover a way to properly gauge who contributed the most and who contributed the least, so that it can slightly alter the best player's rating gain or loss, as well as the worst player's gain & loss. But they shouldn't display this stat... it would only create QQ.

There is a way. Artificial Intelligence. It probably requires few hundred million dollars to create an AI capable of monitoring every game and determining individual performance. Hence, no game uses it.

A cheaper way would be to integrate top stats in measuring performance. Only problem, this is highly subject to manipulation. It also would alter players' performance veering-off objectives.

[Ralkuth.1456]

@"Aisling.5901" said:At the end of the match; your reward, and the amount of rank you gain or lose should be based on your placement within your own team. First second third fourth fifth, with a plus or negative modifier put on based on whether your team won or lost. That way, the main deciding factor in the game is how did YOU do. Not how did your TEAM do.It sounds good but how should the "marking scheme" be designed? You're asking the game to interpret decision-making itself, but the match result is already an indirect summary of your team's decision-making, in a team-based game. You're trying to get around the win-lose rating system by implementing another win-lose rating system that will stratify you away from the dichotomy of only Win vs Loss. You assume you'll likely lose the game but you'll likely win when comparing teammate performance? Would your idea change if you found out you didn't rank well within the team? Would you have new ideas that put you at the top again?

It gets really boring, win streaking one day then lose streaking the next. All while using the same build, same playstyle, in the same rank range. You're playing just as well every match, doing the thing that makes you a contributing valuable member of your team yet sometimes you win ten times in a row and sometimes you lose the whole day and all your progress gets stolen away. Because it's literally all random, did you get put on the team with more or less good players. You are just one player, there are nine others in the match. No matter how good you are the outcome is determined by the sum performance of all ten players. The only way you could consistently influence the match in your favour against the entire performance of the nine other players in the match is if you're using a build that's so broken it literally makes you unstoppable. Which shouldn't be possible anyways.You assume that PvP games are progressive, which implies that you don't believe that you belong in a certain rank range but instead have infinite potential. But then, you also say you play just as well every game, which implies you believe you belong in a defined rank range. So, wouldn't it mean that in order for you to define yourself as someone of that rank range, you would have to maintain a certain Win-Loss ratio, around 50-60%? Won't that mean losing is part of your rank identity? By using the word "Stolen", you are implying that you are objectifying yourself as the victim of rating theft, and therefore cleared of any responsibility in terms of any game loss, by virtue of there not being any room for you to play more perfectly; is that what you mean? Do you imply in this paragraph that none of the other players on your team can engage in actions (e.g. playing a meta build effectively) that can influence the match in your favour?

In a game with nine other players in every match; your individual choices are not the game changer. There are nine other people individually influencing the outcome. If your team isn't good, you lose; if your enemy team isn't good; you win. Regardless of how good you are at the game, if your team is that bad or the enemy team is that good it will override anything you can do. Yeah sometimes you will make the right choices at the right times and that sways a balanced match into your favour but that's only with a somewhat balanced match; which do not happen very often, and only some of the time will you even have that opportunity. The logic that you winning or losing is based off your choices in a game of ten people is impossible, because by that logic that means the other nine people also can make the game win or lose by their choices. Which means you only won because your enemies all made worse choices then your allies. So the outcome was still influenced by the sum of ten players; even when using the ridiculous insecure logic that your individual choices entirely determine the outcome and thus if you lose oh it's all your fault and those nine other players had nothing to do with it.You assume that non of your choices can be game-changing, and you assume all players in a team game act completely separate from one another; you implied that their choices can't happen in parallel and have to be considered individually in separate, vacuum instances, and they also can't interact to compound/cancel out.You claim that you can't be the only one to make choices that matter in a game, then you go on to say that 10 people's choices combined matter in a game. The premise has shifted from individual action to group interaction pretty fast. So do you mean that while the 5 people on the enemy team gets to make decisions, on your side only your 4 teammates can do that, because you can't make choices and your fate is pre-determined? Are you objectifying yourself as a victim of fate to be absolved of all blame in a lost game?

Being good at the game literally doesn't matter because there's so many other players in the match that even if you're bad, if you get put on the better team they can still easily carry you. While if you're good, being put on the worse team doesn't matter because you physically can't carry all of them at once against a better enemy team.So you assume that your teammates can carry you while you don't consider yourself to be a teammate that has carry potential?So you assume games are mostly either (1) you get carried by multiple teammates, and (2) you have to carry multiple teammates? Do you assume all your teammates in an individual match to be homogeneous in property?

At this point the ranking system might as well be grading who is the luckiest, abuses the most scummy class pairings with the duo que; and or uses the most hot meta that is so broken it literally can win you the entire match over the nine other players in it. Yes, some people who read this will just try to make up excuses to perpetuate the illusion that the one out of ten players in the match is the sole one influencing the outcome as long as that player is specifically them. Since if they accept that winning or losing is out of their hands then they can't claim credit for all their wins and generate ego from it."if you're using a build that's so broken it literally makes you unstoppable. Which shouldn't be possible anyways" and"the most hot meta that is so broken it literally can win you the entire match over the nine other players in it" seem to be in conflict.So you seem to pick out the egoists that claim they can carry a game solo. What does that have to do with anything? Did someone tell you you could have done certain things better but you took it as non-constructive criticism? Have you not developed the game sense to gauge what is possible for you to do and what isn't, and use that as measurement against outside opinions?

Doesn't change the fact that this system is fundamentally based off coin flipping whether you get the winning or losing team regardless of whether you yourself are a good player or not.You seem to have decided to dismiss the fact, unless you are unaware, that GW2 runs off of a modified Glicko system tweaked for individual rating in a team-based game mode; its recent inaccuracy, leading to a drop in match quality, and overall player complaint, are very likely caused by a low population, which is a candidly plausible explanation for lopsided matches with undesirable but unfortunate cross-tier pairings.So you absolve yourself of all personal responsibility in making any choices that could affect the match outcome by claiming that the team allocation is the device of fate-determination. Would it actually be possible for you to decide to not play that match and AFK while on a good team and still win?

And after a thousand a five hundred games that's my biggest complaint about this whole system, is you are rewarded based on the coin flip and not your own performance. I don't especially mind going on random, asinine losing streaks. It's the fact that the game steals days worth of rank progress from me while it simultaneously is the one putting me on that losing streak. Just makes the entire process feel totally pointless and miserable because it honestly just is.You don't mind going on losing streaks, but you don't like that someone might have a hand in putting you through that losing streak?You seem to be dissatisfied with your account stats (e.g. rank, rating) gains, as well as your PvP game losses, and you have attributed it singularly to malice on the part of the game service.

You might also want to look at this discussion to see if you are truly as good as you assume you are: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/53443/new-scoreboard