Score based rating instead of mmr

[The Ace.9105]

Currently in pvp the rating gained and lost is based on player mmr. When the match starts the system has already fixed the value of ratings gained and lost and it's up to you to either earn or lose that fixed value. This can cause the matchmaking to give +5 mmr for winning and -20 for losing when the matchmaking is expanded. Should we have this system or should we have ratings gained based on the score of the match and how you and your team plays?

Edit:

1. Anet does have the tech to do this and Ben asked in ama if he should switch to the score based rating system.

2. Also to clarify this poll, this poll is not about personal stats during the game. This is about rating gained based on how well you performed with your team to earn score vs the enemy team performance thus making the rating based on skills during the game. This is a skill-based rating system where if you carry a losing team you loose less mmr and if you hard carry your team you'll earn more mmr. This could make people try to do their best during the matches in every situation.

3. This system would allow bad players to drop out from good mmr matches more quickly and good players to climb more faster and thus would make the matchmaking better.

[HeadCrowned.6834]

Obviously the first. In a 5-man team game like GW2 pvp that way of scoring is much more realistic. Getting -20 for losing because teammates don't know what to do is unfair, just like getting +15 when you 500-0 is unfair as well.

[Dawdler.8521]

@HeadCrowned.6834 said:Obviously the first. In a 5-man team game like GW2 pvp that way of scoring is much more realistic. Getting -20 for losing because teammates don't know what to do is unfair, just like getting +15 when you 500-0 is unfair as well.Unfair?

That's what some people have been saying for years but Anet is obviously happy with how score is handed out. According to them, loosing a horrid match 50v500 where half your team gave up after the first wipe on mid and are jumping around in circles somewhere is exactly the same as loosing a match 490v500 where everyone go GG after a great fight. And of course, same thing is true for winning. Apparently it deems that you are just as good when the matchmaker fail horribly and match you against the worst team imaginable as you are when the matchmaker match you against equally skilled opponents. Or rather, it deems that your team is good. Scoring got nothing to do with you. That's why I find MMR hilarious to begin with. It's not player rank in any way.

That they would change anything now or in the future seems rather unlikely.

[yanniell.1236]

Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

[otto.5684]

I would love that. I seriously doubt Anet has the tech to do such a task.

[otto.5684]

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

[Morwath.9817]

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

[Crinn.7864]

So basically you want to get rid of a mathematically sound rating system, in favor of a system that provides nothing except massaging your ego.

[Falan.1839]

I'm really against score based ratings, because score can snowball fairly easily even in a close match when the winning team rotates well. Also, Afkers and trolls could punish you even harder than they can now.

[HeadCrowned.6834]

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

The issue he points out has nothing to do with whoever has topmedals and who doesn't. The issue here is the fact that players that did perform well in a losing match are relatively punished harder for losing than the rest. We all know already that you can't judge someones performance based on top medals.

[otto.5684]

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

I used an example of a game were I lost where my performance was substantially better than the team I played against. It is not really a question of how many medals obtained.

The question is why should I be punished because my allies sucked, and why should the other team be more rewarded even though they were out performed.

This is in essence why determing rating on win lose is an extremely poor measure. We need to move to performance based measure.

[Morwath.9817]

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

I used an example of a game were I lost where my performance was substantially better than the team I played against. It is not really a question of how many medals obtained.

The question is why should I be punished because my allies sucked, and why should the other team be more rewarded even though they were out performed.

This is in essence why determing rating on win lose is an extremely poor measure. We need to move to performance based measure.

Ooo, point was there are many factors that allow you to achieve "top performance" and to "outperform" your allies, regardless if you're winning or losing.

[BikeIsGone.8675]

Option:2 ....obviously.Since "player performance" is not something than can only be described by numerical values, there is no way for any kind of algorithm to fairly judge people in this "performance"-based system you are talking about. And that is why literally all competitive team based games rate players merely on win/loss statistics.

Also ....A performance based system that uses specific stats for their rating-formula is bound to get exploited.

[otto.5684]

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

I used an example of a game were I lost where my performance was substantially better than the team I played against. It is not really a question of how many medals obtained.

The question is why should I be punished because my allies sucked, and why should the other team be more rewarded even though they were out performed.

This is in essence why determing rating on win lose is an extremely poor measure. We need to move to performance based measure.

Ooo, point was there are many factors that allow you to achieve "top performance" and to "outperform" your allies, regardless if you're winning or losing.

And these factor should be utilized to determine your rating instead of wining or losing.

[Strider.7849]

I'm up for score based/contribution based pvp. As a support class I often end up with the majority of top stats in a game almost every game (top offense/defense/damage/healing/kills). Unfortunately you can't turn the tides of a game if your team doesn't know how to capitalize on the fact you are holding 1v2-3 or they are struggling 4v2. Feels like the only way to move beyond gold is being a roaming high dps class like thief/mesmer/holosmith where you can make it to many places at once and fast since you have to carry players that cannot fight even or outnumbered battles (in their favour).

Edit: attached just one example, but I have a ton of hard carrying teams but still resulting in heavy losses.http://i65.tinypic.com/t6t1sg.png[/img]

[Abelisk.4527]

It is absolutely ridiculous to lose a huge amount of rating simply because your team was vastly inexperienced or bad, especially if the scores were really tight together. Despite having four bronze-silver players on your team (you're plat) and losing a 499/500 game, you lose around 28 rating? Or more? How does that sound rewarding at all.

[Jacobin.8509]

Better in line with the conquest game mode which is abysmal competitively (constant re-spawns) but it would require a complete overhaul which will not happen.

[The Ace.9105]

@otto.5684 said:I would love that. I seriously doubt Anet has the tech to do such a task.

@Jacobin.8509 said:Better in line with the conquest game mode which is abysmal competitively (constant re-spawns) but it would require a complete overhaul which will not happen.

Actually in the recent pvp ama ben asked if he should switch to score based rating system so they do have the tech already.

[Felipe.1807]

Oh God no....do you guys even play sPvP? Horrible idea, really easy to exploit...you guys think is bad seeing dual cap on lower tier? Get something like this and I bet you would see this behavior even on higher tier, after all, winning would make no diference on the rating, but only your total score on the match. People allready find ways to exploit the rating system the way it is now, if we changed to this way that you are saying, I guarantee that the situation would get like 10 times worse.What we have right now is pretty good, the problem of this game is not the matchmaking, but population(and balance ofcourse, is what drove away all the players on the first place).

[Aeolus.3615]

option one feels a bit ilogical :\ or im having issues understanding that sentence.

MMR and score both should be taken into account while score means u might drop from a tier to a lower tier if u loose to much score, mmr should try to make u to fight your lvl quality of adversaries.

[Morwath.9817]

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

I used an example of a game were I lost where my performance was substantially better than the team I played against. It is not really a question of how many medals obtained.

The question is why should I be punished because my allies sucked, and why should the other team be more rewarded even though they were out performed.

This is in essence why determing rating on win lose is an extremely poor measure. We need to move to performance based measure.

Ooo, point was there are many factors that allow you to achieve "top performance" and to "outperform" your allies, regardless if you're winning or losing.

And these factor should be utilized to determine your rating instead of wining or losing.

...but these factors are often independent from your actions.

[otto.5684]

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Morwath.9817 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@"yanniell.1236" said:Until matchmaking is functioning perfectly, winning and losing the same amount, or even winning less, is just unfair and tiring.

To avoid exploitation, they should award a little more if you win by a large margin, and take away a little less if you lose by a small margin. That way, both teams (even more the losing one) have reasons to fight till the end. Let's imagine a match where the teams average winning/losing will be +10 -10 points:

500~460 (close game, the defeated team loses less) = +10 -8500~100 = (blowout, the winning team gain more) = +12 -10

This way you kinda take away the "one step forward, one step backwards" feeling and rewards BOTH teams to keep trying till the end of the match. Even if you're losing, you want to score as much as possible, therefore, less AFK people after the first mid fight loss.

Right know, it's just pure randomness, based purely on mmr.

I played a ranked game yesterday where I did 41% of our team damage (19% of the game) and 35% of our team heals (15%) of the game and led as well in revives. We lost the game with 100 points.

I clearly was the mvp of the game and the only reason why our team reached 400 points. Why should I receive any negative mmr? In fact, I should have received the highest rating.

I am not a super skilled player, but the issue is I lost ratings for a game I clearly was the best player in, by a large margin.

Ooo, thats pretty wrong way of thinking, lets try to look at bigger picture.Fooooo-for example imagine Quaggan is playing Druid and following things happen:

• Quaggan is the top defender, as hes the only one defending (no other nodes are contested for long) ;
• Since Quaggan is fighting for the longest time hes top damage, even when hes playing Mender, but his 1 v 1's is lasting for sooo long ;
• Quaggan also gets top healing, for same reason as he gets top damage, regardless of fact he has Firebrand in team, but fights fought by Firebrand are fast paced so he doesn't do that much healing ;
• Quaggan gets also the top revives, because the only revive that happens is by Quaggan.

I used an example of a game were I lost where my performance was substantially better than the team I played against. It is not really a question of how many medals obtained.

The question is why should I be punished because my allies sucked, and why should the other team be more rewarded even though they were out performed.

This is in essence why determing rating on win lose is an extremely poor measure. We need to move to performance based measure.

Ooo, point was there are many factors that allow you to achieve "top performance" and to "outperform" your allies, regardless if you're winning or losing.

And these factor should be utilized to determine your rating instead of wining or losing.

...but these factors are often independent from your actions.

Whatever the factors you deem indication of performance should be used. Not win or lose cuz they rarely are indication of player performance.

[LeBub.9053]

Its funny how this duo/solo Q System was introduced as a Test, based on a Forum Vote back then.Anet wanted to repeat the Vote but they still owe that.Too many people were blinded by shorter queues and completely ignored that the Solo/Duo Q practically threw teamplay out of the Window.Match Quality went down the toilet.We are forced to play with people we dont know in a teambased Mode(btw, the ONLY Mode in the whole game where Teamplay is restricteded: PvP. Let that sink in).On top of that you get punished with -20 or more pts on a lose, while getting around 2-3 on a win if you group up with a lower rank player.This literally destroyed playing Ranked together with friends.One of the main Aspects of this game is Teamplay and its just sad to see how Anet misses the chance to fix this huge (randomized) Problem in PvP.The PvP-Community already has the worst Reputation in the game (some say they are worse than the toxic LoL Community) and Anet is either not capable to react properly or they are just narrowminded, ignoring all the Suggestions from dedicated PvP Players here in the Forums over Years.Its just frustrating for everyone, when you did a great Performance, you get all the top stats in your team, just to see that you get smashed in the Face with -18+ Pts, because your Team had drunk, drugged, dumb, raging, clueless or simply frustrated Players giving up too early.There are even People lose on purpose because they want to drop in their Division to get easier wins for the rewards they aim for....Why do they get rewarded for ruining matches on purpose?No matter how good you play, no matter how many top stats you get, it doesnt mean anything.
In the so called "personal rating" is absolutely no personal stat included, beside the bold wins and loses you earn when you join another generated team. where no one gives a damn about teamplay.

I would accept solo/duo que if it had a fair personalized system, which rewards good gameplay by adding top stats (in much more different categories than we have atm.....i wanna see the best rupter, the best bunker, the best healer, the best decapper, and not only my own stats) as a bonus to the final rating of the match.Another nice thing to do would be removing penalty points in general.
They create a lot of frustration and thus a lot of Toxicity.When you lose a match, you should gain no points at all (maybe a small bonus for good gameplay if u get top stats in case you lose), but you would not lose any either.There would be way less toxic people, much more motivated people due to less punishments, more weight to personal stat rewards AND people would start to play with friends again without the fear to lose too many points on a losing match, even if they might be lower in rank....People would not give up early because they would know that they can pull out some points if they play well even if they lose and they would aim for a certain playstyle to earn a certain Topstat.People would start to care.Result:Much happier Pvp Faction = gets more populated = maybe 5v5 returns due to revived PvP Community..........yes i am dreaming, but hope is still not dead, even if its already crawling on the floor....

I play this game since Day 1 and PvP was very early my main playfield to this Day.Its just frustrating for me to see how egoistical and ignorant many of the people in PvP are.Simple communications are almost impossible because of people ignoring all pings and chat.Aiming for Rewards only, farming for this nonsense Backpiece while ruining matches, just because they are playing that mode for fun. and the challenge of Teamplay?Nope .Just for the Loot.

If this system stays and if Anet doesnt add any more (true) teambased Content to PvP, i see no reason why i should stay in this game anymore.Even the best PvP Map gets boring after being played thousands of times.Path of Fire didnt bring anything new to PvP, beside that mess of a Scrouge.Would be nice to finally see some love for PvP.How about a PvP exclusive Legendary Armor SKIN as a start?Just upgrading Ascended Gear to Legend without any visual skin upgrade feels so...lazy!It looks as if no one at Anet has the motivation to grab and solve the issues surrounding PvP at the Moment.

ps: sry for my bad english

[Daishi.6027]

I may misunderstand, but wouldn't there be build bias?I'm very open for a system that uses skill and what actually happens in the match to determine rating, but I feel like hard carry builds in team fights will leave everything else in the dust. This isn't to terrible, but in a solo queue environment I'm a bit skeptical for the way this could impact player behavior.

[Dreams.3128]

I'm..on the fence about this.

At first I thought performance /WOULD/ be good, but it is terribly flawed. The reason? How can you just performance. It is very subjective. With the system we have now we do take the toll for 'bad' players on the teams, but it is better to have accurate, logical, and solid numbers then simply subjective algorithms that could be more exploitable than mathematical, solidified calculations.

The issue is not with the caculation of performance or even how much you lose or gain, but the sheer fact that depending on the roll you take is not being taken into account.

For example, DPS usually have more 'positive' scores and top stats compared to supports. What a support does should be taken into account just as much as the DPS. Yes, the system already does that, but it needs to be more than just simply how much you healed.

For example, league or solid moba game does that well. It takes in the fact that you are not the highest damage dealer, but has shown the fact you supported through the variety of tools that you had. I personally feels it just needs to show more to the players that you can be just as 'glorious' as a support/tank compared to DPS.

Though, regarding the loss/gain because of bad teammates..hate to break it to you guys, but that's in every competitive mmo or game. League has it, Smite has it, Overwatch has it. You can't get rid of them. You literally would not have a system.