Rating Decay/Creep Idea — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Rating Decay/Creep Idea

Bibby.7859Bibby.7859 Member ✭✭

So after watching the past few seasons unfold something has been sticking out to me and I wanted to share even though it may not be taken well or go very far. In the NA brackets (na omegalul) Ive noticed that out of the displayed top 250 you have the Top 3-5 players in the Legend bracket with everyone else being in Plat or even high gold. I think that the current decay system is great and would even wonder how losing actual rating after prolonged periods of time would look to avoid rating camping.

On the other side of the coin I wanted to talk about what an essential rating creep would look like throughout the season. Another popular MMO introduced this type of system to help this kind of gap/problem from occurring in the past and it seemed to work great. As the season goes on, MMRs get higher and higher ratings are obtained. Now of course we are limited here to a 2100 ceiling, but I think there would be room for adjustment etc. Im also not trying to suggest a full slide to where the entire displayed leaderboard is all in Legend, but I think having more than 3-5 people per season in the "bottom tier of legend" looks very poor to new players trying to start pvping imo.

Again just my two cents. I could have a majority disagreement but I think there is room for improvement on the current system. Open to any discussions or other ideas as well and would love to see this thread develop into more ideas about how to possibly improve the PVP experience instead of the typical class OP threads or balance issue threads

Comments

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Decay points="700" grace-period="3d" decay-period="1w" recover-per-game="1d"

    ^ that is the current decay. perhaps with your idea it could look like this:
    Decay points="500" grace-period="2d" decay-period="5d" recover-per-game="1d"=rating-loss-after "5d" (20?) per-day
    or something like that. not so sure if the current system needs changes tho.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • Bibby.7859Bibby.7859 Member ✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    Decay points="700" grace-period="3d" decay-period="1w" recover-per-game="1d"

    ^ that is the current decay. perhaps with your idea it could look like this:
    Decay points="500" grace-period="2d" decay-period="5d" recover-per-game="1d"=rating-loss-after "5d" (20?) per-day
    or something like that. not so sure if the current system needs changes tho.

    My intention was to avoid people sitting at a ranking and milking it by playing 1 game every X days. Im guilty of it as well, but I don't think that encourages fun constant game play and competition. If anything it just encourages people to have multiple accounts and take more slots. Sure there is unranked pvp but to me ranked seems more enjoyable as in most games where people are taking it a bit more seriously and you don't run into fully stacked premades nearly as much.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bibby.7859 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    Decay points="700" grace-period="3d" decay-period="1w" recover-per-game="1d"

    ^ that is the current decay. perhaps with your idea it could look like this:
    Decay points="500" grace-period="2d" decay-period="5d" recover-per-game="1d"=rating-loss-after "5d" (20?) per-day
    or something like that. not so sure if the current system needs changes tho.

    My intention was to avoid people sitting at a ranking and milking it by playing 1 game every X days. Im guilty of it as well, but I don't think that encourages fun constant game play and competition. If anything it just encourages people to have multiple accounts and take more slots. Sure there is unranked pvp but to me ranked seems more enjoyable as in most games where people are taking it a bit more seriously and you don't run into fully stacked premades nearly as much.

    punishing ppl for doing things on the weekend is dumb tho.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • Bibby.7859Bibby.7859 Member ✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Bibby.7859 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    Decay points="700" grace-period="3d" decay-period="1w" recover-per-game="1d"

    ^ that is the current decay. perhaps with your idea it could look like this:
    Decay points="500" grace-period="2d" decay-period="5d" recover-per-game="1d"=rating-loss-after "5d" (20?) per-day
    or something like that. not so sure if the current system needs changes tho.

    My intention was to avoid people sitting at a ranking and milking it by playing 1 game every X days. Im guilty of it as well, but I don't think that encourages fun constant game play and competition. If anything it just encourages people to have multiple accounts and take more slots. Sure there is unranked pvp but to me ranked seems more enjoyable as in most games where people are taking it a bit more seriously and you don't run into fully stacked premades nearly as much.

    punishing ppl for doing things on the weekend is dumb tho.

    I agree. The numbers and increments of when an actual rating loss would occur would have to be longer than the standard decay period for it to be reasonable.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 29, 2019

    Didn’t Anet stated that they don’t want players to decay that much in thebpast??

    Somehow i feel some would drop since they can’t maintain ranks ???

  • I think it's good to draw attention to these less talked about problems, but; gotta say...

    Without accusing anyone of anything, 4 of those top 5 players played close to or exactly the bare minimum games necessary to stay on the leaderboards, and tbh that's kind of fair.

    Like @Stand The Wall.6987 was saying we can't always be playing PvP, we have other responsibilities and things to do. To play 120 games in a season without decaying is arguably reasonable, and a mixture of that leaderboard requirement and decay as is, pushes people to play.

    Where things get kind of sketchy and what really isn't fair is looking at the winrates of those same top players, specifically 3 of them. Not only did they play close to or exactly the bare minimum necessary, they're also carrying an average 85% winrate. Scroll through the rest of the leaderboard and you'll find practically everyone else is a close to an even 50/50-60/40 regardless of games played.

    If you follow... I don't think increasing the rate at which those top players decay is going to do much to stop what they're doing, or anything else that would otherwise prevent them from camping out their rank. What really might be necessary, is an investigation if you ask me.

    Remove Ranked DuoQ pls&ty

  • Bibby.7859Bibby.7859 Member ✭✭

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:
    I think it's good to draw attention to these less talked about problems, but; gotta say...

    Without accusing anyone of anything, 4 of those top 5 players played close to or exactly the bare minimum games necessary to stay on the leaderboards, and tbh that's kind of fair.

    Like @Stand The Wall.6987 was saying we can't always be playing PvP, we have other responsibilities and things to do. To play 120 games in a season without decaying is arguably reasonable, and a mixture of that leaderboard requirement and decay as is, pushes people to play.

    Where things get kind of sketchy and what really isn't fair is looking at the winrates of those same top players, specifically 3 of them. Not only did they play close to or exactly the bare minimum necessary, they're also carrying an average 85% winrate. Scroll through the rest of the leaderboard and you'll find practically everyone else is a close to an even 50/50-60/40 regardless of games played.

    If you follow... I don't think increasing the rate at which those top players decay is going to do much to stop what they're doing, or anything else that would otherwise prevent them from camping out their rank. What really might be necessary, is an investigation if you ask me.

    Definitely agree about the decay. I seem to forget how much content there is to do in this game already. So on the other hand, looking at the rating difference what would people's thoughts be on the slow gradual increase in MMR/points earned per game as the season goes on. You can also increase the points lost but im still very concerned that only 3-5 people per season are actually making it into the "Legendary" bracket for NA.

  • Vancho.8750Vancho.8750 Member ✭✭✭

    I think they should implement something like League of Legends system where you have qualify games in getting to higher tier and when reaching the bigger tiers you get less lose less rating so it decreases the volatility of games, also the top players don't play on their main account cause one loss costs them from 20 to 50 points this feeds into most people mentality and you get people doing shady things to knock off other players or gain more rating. The way it works now it promotes playing less since you have a lot to lose and almost nothing to win and playing more evens out your win ration to around 50% , which is pulling everyone to the middle in G2 and i think this is not fun for anyone. Someone might have dropped to lower tiers for several bad games and now is trashing lower ranked players or someone got lucky and now is put with the big boys and pulling everyone down with him. The system evens it out after X amount of games but that puts the 9 players in multiple games in loop sided matches for a long time. This is caused by the low population, which the system in turn causes even more players to leave and this feeds into a cycle. The game just doesn't want it to be played.

©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.