Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Regarding PVP ranking.


Nappa.1904

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Anet, can you please make the pvp ranking system to entirely be based on your personal performance as a player rather than the win/lose ration of your team.It would make a lot more sense to have your rank increase/decrease based on your Offensive/Defensive/Kills/Deaths/Kill assists and so forth (Similar to how you get top stats after a match), rather than your own rank being the performance of your 4 other teammates who you have no control over. If they you tell them to do something and they refuse to do it, there's nothing that can be done about it and that can cost you a match and hence lower your rank.One of the biggest reasons I believe that the match making system is so flawed and therefore would be improved is by matching players of similar rank (which is based on their own personal performance rather than their previous wins/losses of the team that they were with).

Thank you.

Ps: I really hope you will take a stronger stance on PvP balance and improvements in the future. I believe it would attract many more great players if the pvp was cared and worked on a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't work.Otherwise people could farm the objectives that give them rank points. For example multiple people standing on a node, despite it adding no benefit, in order to increase their Offensive/ Defensive stats.This was the problem pvp ranking had when points were awarded on the basis of particular objectives e.g. 10 points for capping/ decapping. People would all rush close and 5 man cap it at the start to get the 10 rank points rather than caring about playing in the best way to win the match.

I think the best solution is to change how much you win/ lose depending on how close the score is. That way people are encouraged to play as well as they can for the whole match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CURRENT iteration of performance does not work. However, the idea that ranking should be based on personal performance is sound. It's just a matter of whether there are smart enough people out there to figure out how to make it happen. If a computer learning is advanced enough to judge a player's performance based on the past 1000000 performances--or something like that--then it might be doable.

The real question is whether or not it's worth the investment. Sadly, I don't think it is.

I think a BETTER solution would be to remove solo-q ranked entirely and give pips/chests for unranked (ideally with more game modes than conquest even if that happened gradually). Then, ranked would be free to be a 5-man team only mode that is even more rewarding.

As is, the solo-q ranked experience is just not a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nappa.1904 said:If they you tell them to do something and they refuse to do it, there's nothing that can be done about it and that can cost you a match and hence lower your rank.

This isn't going to change much with what you suggest. If my team is playing normally, but refuse to go on a tranq buff for example or is going to lord rush at 200-200, it is very likely the match is going to be a lose, but individual performance is going to be pure luck since it is hard to get back from a tri-cap usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nappa.1904 said:

Ty! I love PvP aspect of this game and I really want it to be improved.Everyone is welcome to add feedback and suggestions to this thread.

THIS! This is the behaviour I would love to see by many many more players. Instead of crying and pointing to tohers make a step and do their best do get the mode more popular. I bow before you my good Sir / Ma'am.

About your topic. I think it would work BUT the current statistics need to be improved more. The game should need to track your movement on the map. How much you have helped your team to survive fights. How much you have helped with giving boons ,clearing conditions and so on.

I do think this can work but needs to be deeply analysed. It would be great if ANet would check what a good team / player is doing when they are winning a match and what the loosing team has done to loose a match carefully to do a better system than most healing done most damage done etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way it currently works is that, despite one match having many variables of which you do not have control, if you look at the whole spectrum and analyze a decent number of matches, the constant is you. That does work in theory (it is statistics, afterall) but it can be frustrating as it takes quite a few matches to see results plus having losses that are completely out of your control, because stastics is always subject to abnormal results if we are looking at not large enough samples. And honestly, as players, what we experience is one match at a time, which is really hard to endure sometimes.

In all honesty, despite all that, i don't think there is a way that is more efficient to infer a player's real skill rating in a team game. Current top stat are not a good representation of what makes a player good. For example, if you get top offense and top damage you could just be on an enemy node far point bashing against a druid for the entire game. If you analyze ranking through that, it would incetive players to seek THOSE objetives, instead of the objective of winning the game.

A different system for measuring skill would be necessary but i'm not sure if that is possible through top stats. Considering the same play could make or break a game, depending on the big picture. Plus we can't have anything such as "Amount of decaps" or "Burst damages" because that would incentive players playing a specific way in order to get those top stats, instead of playing for winning the game.

I think that, considering the kind of balance GW2 has and game mode that it offers, our current system works, despite being quite punishing sometimes. As somebody mentioned, those +4s and -17s, despite usually being a consequence of small player pool, can be a real demotivator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with the system we have i see only one thing that would be needed to make it even out in the long run.--> mixing Q size works against this. We would need pure solo or pure 5 man premade.

Another point is that your MMR is compared to the oponents average for MMR gain/loss. This is higly unfair with such random team/skill compositions. You can have 300 MMR over that average and get a blowout due to team comp and/or human factors... the MM evens out chances on average MMR so in Theory you get abot 50% win rate regardless of your MMR. So as soon as you play off maintime where ppl MMR is not close it will be luck. People advance because they pick classes and strategies that increase their chances the rest is random luck how your team performs.But! If you optimize the system to have a 50% winrate + measure on average MMR advancing will be a crawl no one realy wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Meteor.3720 said:I think the best solution is to change how much you win/ lose depending on how close the score is. That way people are encouraged to play as well as they can for the whole match.

I agree, a close finish should reflect on the pip's lost. I think a close match should warrant both regular gains AND less loss as it proves that the match was more even/ well played by both teams. Especially with how easily snowballing can and does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of trying to figure out some complicated way to make 5v5 matches a single player game, just make a PvP game mode with smaller teams. So much work has gone into taking the team factor out of 5v5 team PvP, when everyone would have been much better off if they had simply moved to a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or w/e game mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite easy to calculate an individuals contribution. Doing so would protect ranking against match throwing as those cheated would lose nothing, but the thrower would lose everything for the team. There are some rare moments when doing something that doesn't add to stats results in a win, but even in the system described it is worthwhile to win because the winning team takes points while the losing team gives points.

Easy setup:

  • 50 ranking points (RP) up for grabs each match (winning team takes 50 losing team loses)
  • Damage, Healing, Kills, Res, Defense, and Offense are good and Deaths are bad
  • Offense, Defense, and Res are more important than Damage and Heals
  • Contributions calculated off percentage of team
  • Perentage of Team calculated off of sum of individual credits

The equation is thus just a simple weighted calculation.

Individual Ranking Change (win) = (RP/13) (%Dam+%H+%K+5%Res+5%Off+5%Def-5*%Dth)

For loses, the amount lost is just an inverted equation. There would then just need to be a small logic input that if an inividual's contribution was less than 10% of the team total they lose all 50 Ranking Points and no one else loses anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chum Chum.7234 said:It is quite easy to calculate an individuals contribution. Doing so would protect ranking against match throwing as those cheated would lose nothing, but the thrower would lose everything for the team. There are some rare moments when doing something that doesn't add to stats results in a win, but even in the system described it is worthwhile to win because the winning team takes points while the losing team gives points.

Easy setup:

  • 50 ranking points (RP) up for grabs each match (winning team takes 50 losing team loses)
  • Damage, Healing, Kills, Res, Defense, and Offense are good and Deaths are bad
  • Offense, Defense, and Res are more important than Damage and Heals
  • Contributions calculated off percentage of team
  • Perentage of Team calculated off of sum of individual credits

The equation is thus just a simple weighted calculation.

Individual Ranking Change (win) = (RP/13) (%Dam+%H+%K+5%Res+5%Off+5%Def-5*%Dth)

For loses, the amount lost is just an inverted equation. There would then just need to be a small logic input that if an inividual's contribution was less than 10% of the team total they lose all 50 Ranking Points and no one else loses anything.

This is essentially what I had in mind by making my post, I just wasn't sure how to put it in words.

Thank you all for suggestions. I suppose no matter how good is the system, there will always be a way to exploit it by someone who is willing to do it.However, I'm sure that Anet's PvP staff are a lot smarter than I am and therefore they sure could come up with a decent system improvements to reduce exploitation and improve overall pvp experience.Frankly, I am excited for the upcoming 1v1 and 2v2 modes that they have promised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...