Can we go back to the 1st season system?

[Fueki.4753]

6 hours ago, shion.2084 said:

Sure, but probably means you played

Top scores don't always mean something, nor are they always applied properly.

I once got top damage on a Water/Arcane/Tempest Healer build, on the winning team.

If I really had done the most damage, how'd would a team win that does less damage than an average player on a heal build?

[Sahne.6950]

3 hours ago, Fueki.4753 said:

Top scores don't always mean something, nor are they always applied properly.

I once got top damage on a Water/Arcane/Tempest Healer build, on the winning team.

If I really had done the most damage, how'd would a team win that does less damage than an average player on a heal build?

The MVPs are applied properly.

you probably had 4 bunkers in your team. Also a good supportTempest can do some serious damage... altho i am not sure what weird "support" build you were playing with Water/arcane...

How would a team win that does less damage than their healer?

conquest is about holding points and not about doing damage. Theoretically you can win without doing a single point of damage, should you just have 1 bunker sitting on home and 4 bunkers sitting mid and just sustaining. This gives me flashbacks to the good´ol Chronobunker days xD

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Bazsi.2734]

In the first 2 seasons rating wasn't even implemented yet, and everyone was legendary towards the end, as you couldn't lose a tier once you reached it... you want to go back to that?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

19 hours ago, Fueki.4753 said:

Not everyone has a balanced win/loss ratio, there are always people who lose significantly more often than they win.

With your idea, they'd get significantly less in return for their effort and thus they leave the mode behind. With losing these people, sPvP dies a little bit more. That's not a sacrifice that would give any benefit to sPvP. It'd be a direct net loss.

Meanwhile, AFK people continue getting their kicks out of the thought that they made four others feel bad.

so this games pvp and games in general should build their infrastructure around the bottom 30%? really? thats essentially what you're saying.

[Fueki.4753]

11 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

so this games pvp and games in general should build their infrastructure around the bottom 30%? really? thats essentially what you're saying.

At this point, it's probably the "bottom" 80% for GW2.

It's likely that the remaining people who seek competitive play are a minority. Most competitive players already moved onto games that have an actually competitive scene.

 

[Sahne.6950]

15 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

so this games pvp and games in general should build their infrastructure around the bottom 30%? really? thats essentially what you're saying.

That is not what he was saying. You are exagerating it to a degree never heard of.

Also you should hit up Wikipedia and check what "Infrastructure" is 😉

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Stand The Wall.6987]

22 minutes ago, Fueki.4753 said:

At this point, it's probably the "bottom" 80% for GW2.

It's likely that the remaining people who seek competitive play are a minority. Most competitive players already moved onto games that have an actually competitive scene.

 

in my example of the 40/60 win loss ratio where such a ratio would achieve the same rewards as what we have now, i was assuming that the bottom 30% i.e. people with 30/70 would be left behind. that was probably a false jump to make, but regardless, assume that 30% of the player base is at 30/70. should anet build pvp around this 30%? and no, theres no way its close to 80% and maintaining a 40/60 ratio doesn't make you 'competitive' it makes you competent. 

[ShadowInTheVoid.9183]

17 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

in my example of the 40/60 win loss ratio where such a ratio would achieve the same rewards as what we have now, i was assuming that the bottom 30% i.e. people with 30/70 would be left behind. that was probably a false jump to make, but regardless, assume that 30% of the player base is at 30/70. should anet build pvp around this 30%? and no, theres no way its close to 80% and maintaining a 40/60 ratio doesn't make you 'competitive' it makes you competent. 

 

Worth remembering that if you are getting a win rate much outside of 50:50 then that is proof that match making isn't working correctly.

 

But also, if it is working and your rank is correct for your still level, yes you should be winning about 50% of your matches regardless of skill level or participation. The current system of rewards is more random then skill based.

There should be a better way to base rewards on participation based on doing "good" things like contributing to kills, damage and healing output, capturing and defending points. 
It doesn't need to be one person who is best get's all the rewards, it can just be points for home much you have done.
The winning side should still get more rewards because they're going to be the team who captured and held most points and made most kills but no mater how badly a match is going you are always better of trying your best then giving up.

[Hotride.2187]

Honestly even the win pips cant make me go into ranked, so change whatever.

[Fueki.4753]

42 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

in my example of the 40/60 win loss ratio where such a ratio would achieve the same rewards as what we have now, i was assuming that the bottom 30% i.e. people with 30/70 would be left behind. that was probably a false jump to make, but regardless, assume that 30% of the player base is at 30/70. should anet build pvp around this 30%? and no, theres no way its close to 80% and maintaining a 40/60 ratio doesn't make you 'competitive' it makes you competent. 

I've already said it, the mode should not need to lose any more players. If people only play for the rewards, it's fine. The mode needs those players.

Even many of the "top" players play for quicker rewards, rather than trying to have competitive matches (them queue dodging each other is a telltale sign for that).

You can't simply cut out a substantial percentage of players and hope the mode becomes healthier in the process - it factually does not. THe population simply isn't stable enough for that. We already have matches that have platinum players win with landslides against silver players.

Do you really want cut the rewards, remove an important percentage of players and make the matches worse in the process? Unless you have an unreasonable hate for sPvP, you should not wish for that.

And don't forget, increasing rewards for winning does not make up for the loss of participation rewards. All it would lead to is the better players searching - and finding - even worse methods to farm weaker players.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Fueki.4753

[Shao.7236]

14 hours ago, Sigmoid.7082 said:

The things top scores are given for aren't always indicative of behaviour that would win a match. Promoting them also would drive unwanted behaviour and send a strange message. 

They aren't always but on average they are. Anet should isolate their options with the gamemode rather than going on with whatever here's your pips mentality. It's PvP, there will be winners and losers, if you take away the incentive to play because "Oh gg next" nobody ever strive to try and get better at anything because "whatever" is the mentality here, you're not reminding players that "Hey if you play well you get not only something out of it but increase your odds of winning by actually trying." And that's how most games try to have it anyway.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

25 minutes ago, Fueki.4753 said:

I've already said it, the mode should not need to lose any more players. If people only play for the rewards, it's fine. The mode needs those players.

Even many of the "top" players play for quicker rewards, rather than trying to have competitive matches (them queue dodging each other is a telltale sign for that).

You can't simply cut out a substantial percentage of players and hope the mode becomes healthier in the process - it factually does not. THe population simply isn't stable enough for that. We already have matches that have platinum players win with landslides against silver players.

Do you really want cut the rewards, remove an important percentage of players and make the matches worse in the process? Unless you have an unreasonable hate for sPvP, you should not wish for that.

And don't forget, increasing rewards for winning does not make up for the loss of participation rewards. All it would lead to is the better players searching - and finding - even worse methods to farm weaker players.

 

ugh, starting to feel like you're evading. lets talk about an entirely different game. should the devs of that game cater to the bottom 30% and focus on retaining them?

[Fivedawgs.4267]

6 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

everyone was legendary towards the end,

You are exaggerating a bit there. Maybe Anet should cap the number of spots in legendary (to 50, perhaps)? Make it like challenger on league of legends. 

Players ought to be protected from elo hell.

[Fueki.4753]

57 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

ugh, starting to feel like you're evading. lets talk about an entirely different game. should the devs of that game cater to the bottom 30% and focus on retaining them?

At this point, it's not about catering towards players but actually keeping them in the game mode.

Having participation rewards for everyone is not catering towards a specific groups, unless you count everyone as that specific group.

And you can't compare GW2 to an illusive different game. At least try to come up with a specific real game, whose sPvP scene is in similar peril to GW2's. Bigger games with a more lively PvP scene have less problems cutting of big percentages of their player base, because they have enough players to buffer that loss. GW2 does not.

But let's assume only Winners get rewards and 30% of the players leave sPvP. Suddenly, players who should be in Silver, are placed in Bronze. Likewise, Gold and low Platinum players slide down. Meanwhile, the  top players have an easier time than they ever had to farm others. This causes EVEN MORE players to leave the mode because they don't receive rewards anymore, because winning has become far too rare to be worth it. This downward spiral will continue until former gold and even platinum players will be place in Bronze. At this point, there might not even be any matches outside of prime time anymore, because there are not enough players and the waiting times got too long. Eventually, only the very rare people that play sPvP for the sake of playing sPvP, and those who farm others with easy, remain. That's not enough to sustain the mode.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Fueki.4753

[maxwelgm.4315]

Until we have an option to /gg or /surrender in order to save the 15 to 20 min we lose fighting a snowballed game, I can only vote for more pips after losing 😛 

[Bazsi.2734]

1 hour ago, Fivedawgs.4267 said:

You are exaggerating a bit there.

I'm not. My PvX guid had 2 kinds of players: legends and those who do not play PvP. Same for my friendlist. If you played enough games, you lucked out sooner or later and climbed a tier. The badge was meaningless.

 

1 hour ago, Fivedawgs.4267 said:

Players ought to be protected from elo hell.

I cannot understand this entitlement. If you are "protected" from bad rating, whats the point of the rating system? It assigns a number to your performance, and ranks you based on that. 
Also it's subjective. To me gold 3 is a kind of hell. Full of people making suboptimal rotations, mechanical errors, and generally not being perfect, predicatble machines. It's subjective, but this annoys me. 10 year old game, blablaba. Most players would be happy to get into gold 3, I'm annoyed by it, as I have to climb back into 1650+ again.
Should I be protected from ever being below plat 2? Or how the hell would this work? What's the achivement in me being up there if I'm protected from being down there?

Just... no. Get rid of this idea. It kills competetiveness in a game that's not just about a ladder like LoL.

[shion.2084]

12 hours ago, Fueki.4753 said:

Top scores don't always mean something, nor are they always applied properly.

I once got top damage on a Water/Arcane/Tempest Healer build, on the winning team.

If I really had done the most damage, how'd would a team win that does less damage than an average player on a heal build?

Have you ever gone AFK at the beginning of a match and received top scores? No? then that's already an improvement... because someone going AFK at the start of a match will get no pips.

To your point, as stats become more load bearing, it does behoove Anet to get them working mostly right.   At the moment I'd say they're 80/20 at least for what they intend to measure.

The stats are a mechanism for determining players who did something.   You could also do things like say that to get pips you had to do some damage in each fifth of the game above a threshold.   

ITs not about the stats, its about the notion that to get them you have to be playing.  And the idea that if you give up early, your probably not going to have enough credit to get credit.   It is to entice people to play hard even if you are losing, as there is some reward in it.

Similarly offering anyone who has 4 top scores... will entice people to go for that so they don't lose rank. It also offers some hope against the horrible match making you can get stuck with.  We've all been there... you're winning 1 v 3's on point, you look over and .... your team is wiped and they have two caps.  You end up with 4 or 5 top scores... and there is literally nothing more you could have done.   Why should you lose rank when you were vastly outperforming the rest of your team.   It was clearly crap matchmaking.  no matchmaking should rely on you single handedly being able to compensate for 4 AFKers

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by shion.2084

[Fueki.4753]

5 minutes ago, shion.2084 said:

Have you ever gone AFK at the beginning of a match and received top scores?

I definitely had some instances of needing to AFK at the start (like when the door bell rings) and received top stats at the end.

But I never was afk for an entire match (which I suppose you meant), so I couldn't ever have received top stats for doing that.

[shion.2084]

In any system of reward by metric, you must be very careful.  The participants will invariably try to achieve the metric by which they are being measured.  So you really need to ensure that the metric in question actually correctly promotes the behaviour you are looking to reward.

What is needed here is a metric that rewards those who don't give up and contribute to the best possible outcome the losing team could achieve.  Then it would be appropriate for them to receive a lesser pip recognition.

Similarly in the event that you dramatically outperform everyone around you, but happen to be on a losing team... it probably is dumb to drop your rank.   Hence 4 top scores or more and no rank loss.  Agreed there may need to be tweaks to how those top scores are measured... but its the notion.  

[shion.2084]

9 minutes ago, Fueki.4753 said:

I definitely had some instances of needing to AFK at the start (like when the door bell rings) and received top stats at the end.

But I never was afk for an entire match (which I suppose you meant), so I couldn't ever have received top stats for doing that.

and I'd be ok with you getting pips.   I mean you guys lost... but if those stats were tweaked to actually measure contribution, then despite your 1 min door dip, you still outdid the rest in some areas.   Now in a perfect world if the score was close... well you might have been the fault.  But I'm willing to deal with not being perfect for an 80/20 near approximation.

[Fivedawgs.4267]

3 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

I cannot understand this entitlement.

I should have specified. I was referring to the elo decay on our account after a brief period of inactivity. 

 

Also, during season 1 - everyone started at ruby (or whatever the beginner level was).