Jump to content
  • Sign Up

NA's Low Platinum population and its effect on PvP, also how to improve it


Chaith.8256

Recommended Posts

@Chaith.8256 said:

@skillze.7689 said:Decay is a big reason to why higher ranked players need to keep playing the game mode and does nothing to help the low tier rated players climb the leaderboard, maybe forcing stricter decay on higher rated players and not so much on lower tiers is the only way to make sure platinum+ rated players have to continue playing the leaderboards.

Yeah totally sounds good. Decay starting to kick in faster at Platinum's 1500+ is totally not a bad idea to keep that demographic queuing a bit more.

Platinum players are also not just the top percentage. With a healthier population like EU, you're nowhere in the top 250 with just a Platinum badge.

So maybe as an example decay at low tier (Bronze) take only 1-2 matches to clear if u start to decay but when in platinum+ it could take upto 30 matches to clear decay if you let it kick in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@skillze.7689 said:

@skillze.7689 said:Decay is a big reason to why higher ranked players need to keep playing the game mode and does nothing to help the low tier rated players climb the leaderboard, maybe forcing stricter decay on higher rated players and not so much on lower tiers is the only way to make sure platinum+ rated players have to continue playing the leaderboards.

Yeah totally sounds good. Decay starting to kick in faster at Platinum's 1500+ is totally not a bad idea to keep that demographic queuing a bit more.

Platinum players are also not just the top percentage. With a healthier population like EU, you're nowhere in the top 250 with just a Platinum badge.

So maybe as an example decay at low tier (Bronze) take only 1-2 matches to clear if u start to decay but when in platinum+ it could take up to 30 matches to clear decay if you let it kick in ?

I'm all for any idea that gets 1500+ players queuing up to help fix the current catch 22.

In my opinion, it's a bit of a negative reinforcement instead of a positive one, but potentially one of many changes. Great suggestion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaith.8256 said:

@skillze.7689 said:Decay is a big reason to why higher ranked players need to keep playing the game mode and does nothing to help the low tier rated players climb the leaderboard, maybe forcing stricter decay on higher rated players and not so much on lower tiers is the only way to make sure platinum+ rated players have to continue playing the leaderboards.

Yeah totally sounds good. Decay starting to kick in faster at Platinum's 1500+ is totally not a bad idea to keep that demographic queuing a bit more.

Platinum players are also not just the top percentage. With a healthier population like EU, you're nowhere in the top 250 with just a Platinum badge.

So maybe as an example decay at low tier (Bronze) take only 1-2 matches to clear if u start to decay but when in platinum+ it could take up to 30 matches to clear decay if you let it kick in ?

I'm all for any idea that gets 1500+ players queuing up to help fix the current catch 22.

In my opinion, it's a bit of a negative reinforcement instead of a positive one, but potentially one of many changes. Great suggestion

But if you want these exotic higher tiers rewards its needs big draw backs for not competiting consistantly ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Chaith.8256" said:Toxic. Yes, exactly as stated, MY "GRAND" IDEA, THE ONLY GOOD IDEA. /s. As you can see, I just said my rattled off list of suggestions are not exhaustive. What d'ya want me to do, theorycraft for an hour so you can sit on your butt & nitpick more lol

Does criticism annoy you to the point where you'd stray away from critical thinking for more than a few minutes? At least you'd be theoretically getting somewhere

@"Trigr.6481" said:The only way ranked conquest is getting any better is with a few thousand players so the matchmaking can actually do its job properly.

Agreed. How do you think the matchmaker can do it's job? A healthy population. We're on the same page, more like I'm thinking about the next step.

I'd say we need a new game mode with less people on each team than conquest for several reasons.

  • Less people per team = more teams with the same population at launch "assuming everyone from conquest joins until new players show up"
  • Less people per team = easier to make a group
  • less people per team = less time in que-less time in que = faster games
  • if it's a 2v2 game mode for example, you can create your entire competition, "no more randoms messing up your games"

Now you're going to respond with something along the lines of "it will fragment the playerbase because you have before" or something like that. A-net has been saying that for years, even before they made stronghold "which by the way nobody asked for, but they made it anyways because they were trying to cash in off the moba hype that was swirling around at the time and thought for whatever reason they struck gold", and what does conquest have to show for it by not splitting the playerbase? It's called stagnation. The same, or arguably worse. There is literally nothing to lose at this point by going through with it. They give one smaller game mode that's balanced, with a ladder, that you can que with a friend, that is not time gated, and people will come. Gw2 SPvP is the easiest game to rejoin since there's no grind, the ease of entry is literally non existent. It will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@skillze.7689 said:

@skillze.7689 said:Decay is a big reason to why higher ranked players need to keep playing the game mode and does nothing to help the low tier rated players climb the leaderboard, maybe forcing stricter decay on higher rated players and not so much on lower tiers is the only way to make sure platinum+ rated players have to continue playing the leaderboards.

Yeah totally sounds good. Decay starting to kick in faster at Platinum's 1500+ is totally not a bad idea to keep that demographic queuing a bit more.

Platinum players are also not just the top percentage. With a healthier population like EU, you're nowhere in the top 250 with just a Platinum badge.

So maybe as an example decay at low tier (Bronze) take only 1-2 matches to clear if u start to decay but when in platinum+ it could take up to 30 matches to clear decay if you let it kick in ?

I'm all for any idea that gets 1500+ players queuing up to help fix the current catch 22.

In my opinion, it's a bit of a negative reinforcement instead of a positive one, but potentially one of many changes. Great suggestion

But if you want these exotic higher tiers rewards its needs big draw backs for not competiting consistantly ?

Question or a statement? From my perspective, any mechanic that gets everyone playing more games per season is worth trying. I'm just hesitant to load up on drawbacks and punishment for not playing many games per season.

If a player is being consistently whipped and told to play more games, that player might just quit the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaith.8256 said:

@skillze.7689 said:Decay is a big reason to why higher ranked players need to keep playing the game mode and does nothing to help the low tier rated players climb the leaderboard, maybe forcing stricter decay on higher rated players and not so much on lower tiers is the only way to make sure platinum+ rated players have to continue playing the leaderboards.

Yeah totally sounds good. Decay starting to kick in faster at Platinum's 1500+ is totally not a bad idea to keep that demographic queuing a bit more.

Platinum players are also not just the top percentage. With a healthier population like EU, you're nowhere in the top 250 with just a Platinum badge.

So maybe as an example decay at low tier (Bronze) take only 1-2 matches to clear if u start to decay but when in platinum+ it could take up to 30 matches to clear decay if you let it kick in ?

I'm all for any idea that gets 1500+ players queuing up to help fix the current catch 22.

In my opinion, it's a bit of a negative reinforcement instead of a positive one, but potentially one of many changes. Great suggestion

But if you want these exotic higher tiers rewards its needs big draw backs for not competiting consistantly ?

Question or a statement? From my perspective, any mechanic that gets everyone playing more games per season is worth trying. I'm just hesitant to load up on drawbacks and punishment for not playing many games per season.

If a player is being consistently kitten and told to play more games, that player might just quit the system.

"Question or a statement?" It was a bit of both really.

The amount of games per season to get on the leaderboards would be the same but if you let decay kick in it would take you more to get back the position you had on the leaderboard not really the amount of games to keep you on it but it would make sure you have to keep playing or lose the position you held.

Anyway just an idea maybe @ArenaNet Team.4819 can develop the idea more ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to develop this idea a little more they could use the participation system to make sure that you complete enough matches per day to stop decay kicking in, which will decrease over time, maybe base the participation system to work with the average players time per day to make it work reasonably well so more participation = better rewards and with scalable decay it would benefit you more for continued play than broken play time over 3 days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Trigr.6481" said:

  • if it's a 2v2 game mode for example, you can create your entire competition, "no more randoms messing up your games"

I liked 2v2. I climbed to a high rating, and my most memorable moment was taking a legit round off of the undefeated comp FB/Rev when played extremely well by Naru & Helio/Mark, while using a double Scrapper comp and not cheesing the stall mechanic.

Picking your team, it's a nice perk of 2v2 that improves match quality, but comes with new drawbacks that reduce match quality which I'll be happy to point out.

Now you're going to respond with something along the lines of "it will fragment the playerbase because you have before" or something like that. -snip stronghold rant- There is literally nothing to lose at thisSPvP is the easiest game to rejoin since there's no grind, the ease of entry is literally non existent. It will work.

We don't really have to guess much more as to how it would go, we had ranked queue into 2v2 for a whole off season which was great for gathering data.

So no, I'm not going to tell you it will fragment the playerbase. Based on my findings and info gathering, what happens was that it put such a magnifying glass on bad profession balance that it has a significant negative effect on people's desire to play that worked against the hype of a new game mode where you choose all your teammates.

For example Countless, how fair was 2v2 for you? For the builds you are proficient in, I doubt you could beat the most mediocre FB/C-Rev, or double Necro at the time. You barely even played AFAIK.

It's for reasons like this I feel focusing balance on 5v5 is necessary, but also adding refreshing off season content and other game modes can only be a good thing to add on the side.

That's why I'm not hopping on the new game mode train until I've seen a better option than conquest, I'm open minded though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can't fix stupid" - Ron White

The people gaming the system will always game the system because they are unable to understand or simply don't care about the knock on effects.The solution completely misses the problem (assuming that the assumption is correct in the first place) as the problem is low population during off peak hours and that high rated players are gaming the system. This "solution" does nothing to address that at all as it's tied to the platinum rank and not the time of the day.

What you would be better off asking for is a modification on the "outmanned" buff WvW has where when there's less players you get more stuff and accelerated progress.

Personally I think this is all missing the real issue which from what I've seen is that the NA population ranges between potentially braindead, decent player and try hard with most of the population at the brain dead end of the spectrum. The solution is to try and upskill the players and in my opinion the best way to do that is to bring back real tournaments and ESL. This gave people a reason to try, a reason to get better and a reason to not be a scumbag manipulating matches for an easier time at the top if you wanted a share of the real pie.

Oh and maybe perma ban the people selling slots on the leaderboard for real money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@"TeqkOneStylez.8047" said:Imo I think conquest should just be over as a main gamemode for ranked in favor of a mode that supports teams of 2 or 3 at most where you can full premade and not have to worry about Pug lottery.

yEah because allowing full premade against randoms wont kill whats left of the playerbase.. lul.

It does't have to be premade vs pug. My whole point is that conquest is trash unless you get to play it how it should be played. teams of 2 requires less people so it would be easier on the "low population" problem. But I don't know what to tell you if you don't have 1 friend considering that was your first thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TeqkOneStylez.8047 said:

@TeqkOneStylez.8047 said:Imo I think conquest should just be over as a main gamemode for ranked in favor of a mode that supports teams of 2 or 3 at most where you can full premade and not have to worry about Pug lottery.

yEah because allowing full premade against randoms wont kill whats left of the playerbase.. lul.

It does't have to be premade vs pug. My whole point is that conquest is trash unless you get to play it how it should be played. teams of 2 requires less people so it would be easier on the "low population" problem. But I don't know what to tell you if you don't have 1 friend considering that was your first thought.

I think you are missing the point to this discussion! It not about how many people are in the team its about getting people to play consistantly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"apharma.3741"

Actually I'm quite convinced the best way to improve match quality is to have those decent players play way more games.

1.) An outmanned debuff where increased rewards for playing off-peak hours could also help, which I think is great, but can't help but point out you're saying "increased rewards completely misses the problem" and then suggest increased rewards.

2.) E-sports return to motivate players to get better. I'd be all for that, because I'm the only one in this thread who realizes that improvements aren't mutually exclusive, even if I think the evidence it will work is dubious, like e-sports increasing the yolo Q match quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaith.8256it basically something like this.

just to develop this decay idea a little more they could use the participation system to make sure that you complete enough matches per day to stop decay kicking in, which will decrease over time, maybe base the participation system to work with the average players time per day to make it work reasonably well so more participation = better rewards and with scalable decay it would benefit you more for continued play than broken play time over 3 days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaith.8256 said:

@"Trigr.6481" said:
  • if it's a 2v2 game mode for example, you can create your entire competition, "no more randoms messing up your games"

I liked 2v2. I climbed to a high rating, and my most memorable moment was taking a legit round off of the undefeated comp FB/Rev when played extremely well by Naru & Helio/Mark, while using a double Scrapper comp and not cheesing the stall mechanic.

Picking your team, it's a nice perk of 2v2 that improves match quality, but comes with new drawbacks that reduce match quality which I'll be happy to point out.

Now you're going to respond with something along the lines of "it will fragment the playerbase because you have before" or something like that. -
snip stronghold rant
- There is literally nothing to lose at thisSPvP is the easiest game to rejoin since there's no grind, the ease of entry is literally non existent. It will work.

We don't really have to guess much more as to how it would go, we had ranked queue into 2v2 for a whole off season which was great for gathering data.

So no, I'm not going to tell you it will fragment the playerbase. Based on my findings and info gathering, what happens was that it put such a magnifying glass on bad profession balance that it has a significant negative effect on people's desire to play that worked against the hype of a new game mode where you choose all your teammates.

For example Countless, how fair was 2v2 for you? For the builds you are proficient in, I doubt you could beat the most mediocre FB/C-Rev, or double Necro at the time. You barely even played AFAIK.

It's for reasons like this I feel focusing balance on 5v5 is necessary, but also adding refreshing off season content and other game modes can only be a good thing to add on the side.

That's why I'm not hopping on the new game mode train until I've seen a better option than conquest, I'm open minded though.

Personally I thought 2v2 was pretty fair to me, when I did play it was mostly with reckless, and a few with arken here and there. With reckless we were able to beat a fair portion of comps. With arken it was more just going in guns blazing not really giving a fuck about rating, but still fun nonetheless. That being said, the current 2v2 has quite a few problems, and I wouldn't call it finished by any stretch of the imagination. The maps, are small, you should be locked into your comp when you que, class swapping or class stacking shouldn't exist, perhaps limiting tanky amulets to only 1 player, etc. Since we're on the topic, I do like the idea of 3v3 as well, because you can't technically cheese a comp the same way you can with 2v2, but that's another bag of worms that I'd doubt you'd want to get into.

But the reason I didn't play too much was because it was time gated. I don't really wanna get too attached to something that I'm not going to be able to play for months, or ever, knowing a-net they will delete it from the code because people enjoyed it too much over their sacred circle jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of things I thought of.We get +2 pips when plat+Make it +2 at plat 1, +3 at plat 2, +4 at plat 3 and +5 at legend.Give end of season rewards, that increase based on rank AND games played.Mb that will keep high ranked people play more, and lower ranks too, and give some incentive to try and climb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@skillze.7689 said:

Give end of season rewards, that increase based on rank AND games played.

Think this would incourage to much grind and bots would be rewarded for contributing nothing but just playing unless these rewards for end of season were only for legend rated players

they dont have to scale all that well, for example just for silver you get 10g, but for silver with 200+ games you get 12g.and bots are going to bot, one way or another

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

Give end of season rewards, that increase based on rank AND games played.

Think this would incourage to much grind and bots would be rewarded for contributing nothing but just playing unless these rewards for end of season were only for legend rated players

they dont have to scale all that well, for example just for silver you get 10g, but for silver with 200+ games you get 12g.and bots are going to bot, one way or another

Im going to have to disagree with this as gold is the only resource that botters care about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i kinda agree with you, but you gotta give these players some they value more than their ranking in leadorboards

the punishing system is also a problem, where high plat players get 6-11 if they win and lose 19+

I dont think your rewards are appealing to most of them, but I feel it's a good idea it just needs some more attractive rewards

if you watch streams you see most of those high players match also want more balanced matches like ATs, sindrener said, if he had more ATs to play I'd be farming noobs less time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...