Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Change Rating gain/loss


Recommended Posts

I think many players would agree that losing more rating than winning is a bit disheartening. You could win one game, but lose more in one loss.Currently, a 66% win-rate is essentially a 50% win-rate in terms of rating, and the ratio decreases the higher you go up on the ladder.

There are adverse effects of this situation. For example, a player will refrain from playing beyond the required amount of games necessary to place on the leaderboards because of the effect of one loss. The risk of losing outweighs the gain from winning, so there is no incentive to play more PvP.

In my opinion, changing the ratings gain/loss would let players be unafraid of the risks of losing, and continue to play and hope they will net a positive ratings change, boosting the PvP population beyond what it is currently.

I don't think the inflation in rating would adversely affect the quality of games in any division. It should be the same regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've proposed this before, I think it's a great idea.

Especially when you consider things like an AFK teammate or a bot losing potentially less rating than the other 4 players that tried purely out of RNG.That is totally unfair to people who actually try.

I understand that your rating in comparison to the rating of other players in your game should have some influence, but that shouldn't be the only factor in determining rating gain/loss like it is now.If the scoreboard could actually semi-accurately reflect what matters in a game of conquest, then actual personal performance could play some part in calculating rating gain/loss.

This is the case with many other competitive games where you will not be as successful and you will be punished worse if you do not carry your own weight in conjunction to the other players on your team and in your lobby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, with your proposal, players with win-rate greater than 50% will keep on gaining rating infinitely.

This means that rating just becomes a measure of "games played" rather than "skill".

A gold-3 who plays 500 games will have a higher rating than a legendary mAT winner who only plays 200 games.

You might as well just get rid of rating all together, and just have a "number of games played" leaderboard.

Do you want this?

Think things through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see generally the same people at the top, season after season.

So, there must be something that causes that to happen.

Yeah, they can shuffle about +/-30 slots on the board, but it's the same people almost every single time.

They consistently get to that top 50 margin.

If we believe we are as good as them, then why would we need to change the system.

If they can do it, and we are as good as them, we should be able to do it.

Here is where the bitter comes in:

Some of us believe that those top 50 are abusing duo q, multiboxing matches to throw for themselves, and abusing non primetime hours to farm bad ping and lower quality players.

Is this true?

If we say no, then the problem is us, and we need to get better at the game.

If it is true, then the system has some flaws, but not necessarily in how you are rated, and those should be addressed.

  1. Afk: not playing, multibixing, grieving, ect.

(Need a viable solution to this)

  1. Playing in hours not primetime to gain easy matches, gaming the system.

(Some people travel..what about them; they cant play?)(Need a viable solution if this is a problem)

  1. Duo Q, playing with friends.

(For the record, the same top dogs that advocate for duo q, were also top dogs when it was solo)

(it seems that many players want this feature removed)

You should lose more than you gain, but if you are gaining 5, and losing 20, it says you are probably playing in graveyard hours and the strategy is not working for you.

The top players are actually just very good at the game.

Maybe they can lawyer their way through a season and get 90% win rates, but they will still be above most players if everything was somehow locked.

You have to remember, those rules would apply to you proportionally.

They would drop to high 60s and low 70s % win rates, and the bad would go well below 50, into 30-40% win rates, because that is what they were during solo as.

So if you are plat 1 now, you would be in low gold top silver.

Notice how many players posted or bragged they finally made it into such and such rating....it happened after playing with friends came back.

Golds would fall into silver.

And the bronze population would be grown once again.

The game mode was designed from the ground up with team play in mind.

It will never work as you envision it because this is the case.

Many other games have players that say the same thing we say here in gw2 about match quality.

Leaderboards exist to drive people to play a game, but they are only going to be so accurate in judging a single players skill if the game mode is a team based effort.

Michael Jordan said you shouldn't be asking who the best player is, but what was the best team.

Of course that was the 90's Chicago bulls.

Swiss won't be solo q, and once it is fully implemented maybe some flavor for how pvp was supposed to be supported will be fulfilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tycura.1982 said:I think it's more a problem of population than system currently. If there were more people closer in rating then the changes wouldn't be so dramatic.

Hopefully population would boost a bit due to the change. It would give more incentive to play more games, rather than just fulfill the required minimum amount of games needed to play.

@hotte in space.2158 said:Winning against a higher ranked team is harder than winning against a lower ranked team. Why shouldnt this be regarded?Matchmaking isnt balanced sometimes, hence the current mode makes sense

The variance in rating gained/lost would still be the same if you play vs easier or stronger players. For example, in equal matchmaking, you would win 10 and lose 10. As matchmaking becomes more imbalanced, you would see a variation of +/- (1, 2, 3) in the gain/loss.

@"Zenix.6198" said:Having a poll about a "system change" and then not even coming up with an alternative or example for a new system is absolutely pointless.There are lots of reasons for why the current system works as it currently works (and rightfully so)

It's not a full system change, just a ratings change, more like a reward change.

@Tharan.9085 said:Everyone faces the same problems and yet you are crying

What?

@"Ragnar.4257" said:So, with your proposal, players with win-rate greater than 50% will keep on gaining rating infinitely.

This means that rating just becomes a measure of "games played" rather than "skill".

A gold-3 who plays 500 games will have a higher rating than a legendary mAT winner who only plays 200 games.

You might as well just get rid of rating all together, and just have a "number of games played" leaderboard.

Do you want this?

Think things through.

At a certain point, the gold 3 player will reach a cap of winning 50% of the time. A gold 3 player with a higher rating will be playing against players who are consistently plat 3. They won't achieve a 50%+ winrate consistently, rather, they'll see their winrate going lower and lower. If we set ratings gained and lost equal to each other, at 50% winrate, that player will stop climbing.

@"Sikieiki.3189" said:We already had the system you are proposing in season 1-4 and it got changed to the current systetm because people took the leaderboards as a joke grindfest.

But the top players were still on the top, and the average players were still at average rankings. Not to mention we have better rewards for participating in PvP.

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:it should be changed for less loss and gain the higher you are, but you shouldn't be able to grind rating and reach legendary by the end of the season.

Well yeah, that happens now and should continue to happen. Maybe implement a hidden MMR system so that the change in ratings isn't based on what tier/division you are in, but how many games you have played and how the matchmaking was in those games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Crab Fear.1624" said:I see generally the same people at the top, season after season.

So, there must be something that causes that to happen.

Yeah, they can shuffle about +/-30 slots on the board, but it's the same people almost every single time.

They consistently get to that top 50 margin.

If we believe we are as good as them, then why would we need to change the system.

If they can do it, and we are as good as them, we should be able to do it.

Here is where the bitter comes in:

Some of us believe that those top 50 are abusing duo q, multiboxing matches to throw for themselves, and abusing non primetime hours to farm bad ping and lower quality players.

Is this true?

If we say no, then the problem is us, and we need to get better at the game.

If it is true, then the system has some flaws, but not necessarily in how you are rated, and those should be addressed.

  1. Afk: not playing, multibixing, grieving, ect.

(Need a viable solution to this)

  1. Playing in hours not primetime to gain easy matches, gaming the system.

(Some people travel..what about them; they cant play?)(Need a viable solution if this is a problem)

  1. Duo Q, playing with friends.

(For the record, the same top dogs that advocate for duo q, were also top dogs when it was solo)

(it seems that many players want this feature removed)

You should lose more than you gain, but if you are gaining 5, and losing 20, it says you are probably playing in graveyard hours and the strategy is not working for you.

The top players are actually just very good at the game.

Maybe they can lawyer their way through a season and get 90% win rates, but they will still be above most players if everything was somehow locked.

You have to remember, those rules would apply to you proportionally.

They would drop to high 60s and low 70s % win rates, and the bad would go well below 50, into 30-40% win rates, because that is what they were during solo as.

So if you are plat 1 now, you would be in low gold top silver.

Notice how many players posted or bragged they finally made it into such and such rating....it happened after playing with friends came back.

Golds would fall into silver.

And the bronze population would be grown once again.

The game mode was designed from the ground up with team play in mind.

It will never work as you envision it because this is the case.

Many other games have players that say the same thing we say here in gw2 about match quality.

Leaderboards exist to drive people to play a game, but they are only going to be so accurate in judging a single players skill if the game mode is a team based effort.

Michael Jordan said you shouldn't be asking who the best player is, but what was the best team.

Of course that was the 90's Chicago bulls.

Swiss won't be solo q, and once it is fully implemented maybe some flavor for how pvp was supposed to be supported will be fulfilled.

The top players would still be top players. With a hidden MMR system and soft rank reset between seasons, it shouldn't be possible for average players to rank higher than better players. In our current system, top players gain more / lose less during the start of the season to quickly place them. So for example, a Plat 3 player at the start of a season wins 30, loses 20. As they reach Plat 2, their ratings gained / loss change into 10 for a win, 15 for a loss, and becomes more and more unequal the higher they climb.

So with a change in the reward system, in the previous example, the first part stays the same. But then the change would be 15 for a win, 15 for a loss, and this ratings number falls the more you play. Now let's take a Gold 3 player. Say they place in Silver 3 after placements, and start winning 30 and losing 20. They finally reach Gold 3 after 25 games. So now they start winning and losing 15, and after a lucky streak, reached Plat 1 in 7 games. So now they are winning 10 and losing 10, but they're matched with Plat 1 and sometimes Plat 2 players. Now they won't be able to maintain a 50+% winrate, and will drop back down to Gold 3.

I do think that generally, there would be a shift in ratings for all players, pushing them up a division (G3->P1, P1->P2). The benchmark of being a decent player would just move up a division as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@nativity.3057 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:So, with your proposal, players with win-rate greater than 50% will keep on gaining rating infinitely.

This means that rating just becomes a measure of "games played" rather than "skill".

A gold-3 who plays 500 games will have a higher rating than a legendary mAT winner who only plays 200 games.

You might as well just get rid of rating all together, and just have a "number of games played" leaderboard.

Do you want this?

Think things through.

At a certain point, the gold 3 player will reach a cap of winning 50% of the time. A gold 3 player with a higher rating will be playing against players who are consistently plat 3. They won't achieve a 50%+ winrate consistently, rather, they'll see their winrate going lower and lower. If we set ratings gained and lost equal to each other, at 50% winrate, that player will stop climbing.

No.

The system is already supposed to do that. It is already supposed to try and normalise matches to 50% winrates. It doesn't work.

It could only work if the pool of players looking for games at any given time was in the 10s of thousands, not the low hundreds.

It is already the case that most matches are a hugely varied mixup of people being paired with others 3-4 divisions away from their own rating. Because the matchmaker can't find anyone closer.

Simply changing the +/- isn't going to change that. Plat 2/3/Leg players are ALWAYS going to be getting ~60%+ winrates, because there simply aren't enough people above them to match with. The matchmaker must inevitably put them with golds and lower.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Plat 2/3 player. I'm not even top-tier. But the ONLY thing that is restricting me from gaining INFINITE rating is the fact that I get -20 for a loss and +10 for a win. Because I'm already getting matched against the very best players. I am already being put in the same matches as the top 10. There are not any more difficult opponents for me to get 'promoted' to go against. Gaining rating will do NOTHING to my win-rate. But if we went with your proposal, then I could just grind-farm matches to out-rank the genuinely top-tier players. Which would be stupid.

Your argument rests on the principle that "gaining rating = get put in harder matches". This principle is not reflected in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've always wondered is that why don't we have a rating system based on the score of the game? Let's say that the maximum amount of rating you could earn is 20 and the minimum amount of rating is 5. If you win the match 500-0 you gain +20 and If you lose 500-0 you'd lose -20 rating.

Then the rating would be scaled based on the points your team gets vs the points of the enemy team so that if you lose the match for like 450-500 you'd lose -5 and if you lose 400-500 you'd lose -7 etc. and the winning team gets that amount of rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Ace.9105 said:What I've always wondered is that why don't we have a rating system based on the score of the game? Let's say that the maximum amount of rating you could earn is 20 and the minimum amount of rating is 5. If you win the match 500-0 you gain +20 and If you lose 500-0 you'd lose -20 rating.

Then the rating would be scaled based on the points your team gets vs the points of the enemy team so that if you lose the match for like 450-500 you'd lose -5 and if you lose 400-500 you'd lose -7 etc. and the winning team gets that amount of rating.

That would mean, having an afk-player in team, we get punished even double then. Very bad idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exactly know how it works atm. Between silver 1 and gold 1 where I played I seemed to lose about the same as when I won. Sometimes it was 0 ... most of the time between 11 and 14. In rare cases lower than 10 and only a few times higher than 15 (15-20).

Seemed fine to me. Only the occasional loss streaks are annoying. I have a problem with losing the same amount of rating when we lost 494 to 504 or so and 150 to 500. When it was pretty close in 494 to 504 I think both have played well and we should lose only little (almost nothing) ... except the enemy team was considered a lot weaker and the system expected us to win by a high margin. (That would mean we played below our current rating and a huge rating loss is okay.)

But to me it does not seem like the system currently is taking this into account. (If it were ... then this would encourage more to play even if it seems you lost ... if every single victory point towards the 500 counted.)

Edit: @ the poster above me: Not if the normal rating gain/loss we have now was the maximum in the example the other guy explained. With ... or without afk ... in the current system losing that amount ... in the other suggested system the option to lose less. With the afk guy it will be harder to lose less. But there would still be the option while in the current system it would not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ragnar.4257 said:

@Ragnar.4257 said:So, with your proposal, players with win-rate greater than 50% will keep on gaining rating infinitely.

This means that rating just becomes a measure of "games played" rather than "skill".

A gold-3 who plays 500 games will have a higher rating than a legendary mAT winner who only plays 200 games.

You might as well just get rid of rating all together, and just have a "number of games played" leaderboard.

Do you want this?

Think things through.

At a certain point, the gold 3 player will reach a cap of winning 50% of the time. A gold 3 player with a higher rating will be playing against players who are consistently plat 3. They won't achieve a 50%+ winrate consistently, rather, they'll see their winrate going lower and lower. If we set ratings gained and lost equal to each other, at 50% winrate, that player will stop climbing.

No.

The system is already supposed to do that. It is already supposed to try and normalise matches to 50% winrates. It doesn't work.

It could only work if the pool of players looking for games at any given time was in the 10s of thousands, not the low hundreds.

It is already the case that most matches are a hugely varied mixup of people being paired with others 3-4 divisions away from their own rating. Because the matchmaker can't find anyone closer.

Simply changing the +/- isn't going to change that. Plat 2/3/Leg players are ALWAYS going to be getting ~60%+ winrates, because there simply aren't enough people above them to match with. The matchmaker must inevitably put them with golds and lower.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Plat 2/3 player. I'm not even top-tier. But the ONLY thing that is restricting me from gaining INFINITE rating is the fact that I get -20 for a loss and +10 for a win. Because I'm
already
getting matched against the very best players. I am already being put in the same matches as the top 10. There are not any more difficult opponents for me to get 'promoted' to go against. Gaining rating will do NOTHING to my win-rate. But if we went with your proposal, then I could just grind-farm matches to out-rank the genuinely top-tier players. Which would be stupid.

Your argument rests on the principle that "gaining rating = get put in harder matches". This principle is not reflected in reality.

We always chalk up the issue of PvP as a population issue, but without some changes, I don't see how the population will grow. IMO keeping things the same would just lead to the slow death of the game mode. Balance changes won't address the population issue as well, since a meta always develops and the initial enjoyment of a fresh meta can't carry through entire seasons.

For a majority of players, gaining rating would be equivalent to getting matched in harder games. So saying a Gold 3/Plat 1 player would end up in Plat 3 or even Legendary is unfounded.

I guess in my proposal, off-hour queuing would become a larger issue for Plat 2/3+ players. You could queue off hours only and try to get rank 1. But you also wouldn't be the only one trying this method, and you'll probably match up with a similar player of caliber during those hours. Not to mention, the number of players in this division is so small, you constantly play against the same players. So in this proposed system, you could play during peak hours and go blow for blow with similar players in rankings, or play during off hours and achieve a higher ladder placement.I would think doing the latter would just burn you out, since you're not playing PvP, just gaming the system. And I don't think that's a sustainable form of entertainment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Just because the current system isn't perfect, doesn't mean that any change is worth doing.

If your house is flooded, setting it on fire just because "without some changes, I don't see how things will get better" is not smart.

I mean, if you want to wait for your insurance to cover the damages, you can spend the next few years homeless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@hotte in space.2158 said:

@The Ace.9105 said:What I've always wondered is that why don't we have a rating system based on the score of the game? Let's say that the maximum amount of rating you could earn is 20 and the minimum amount of rating is 5. If you win the match 500-0 you gain +20 and If you lose 500-0 you'd lose -20 rating.

Then the rating would be scaled based on the points your team gets vs the points of the enemy team so that if you lose the match for like 450-500 you'd lose -5 and if you lose 400-500 you'd lose -7 etc. and the winning team gets that amount of rating.

That would mean, having an afk-player in team, we get punished even double then. Very bad idea.

The system would reduce the amount of afk players cause it would matter to gain more score to not lose so much rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Ace.9105 said:

The system would reduce the amount of afk players cause it would matter to gain more score to not lose so much rating.

Today I had a troll player in my team who was following me the whole match, but without fighting. He used very obscene names for his ranger pets btw.Eventually a bot ??? I dont know, but the next match he was in the opponent team and he was actively playing then.These kind of players dont care about loosing rating, and I think afk players in generally dont care for anything.

Apart from that, imagine you win 3 close matches, hard ones. And then you loose one very high, no matter for what reason. You would have won 0 points then. lolI would rather knit myself a bobble hat then

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tharan.9085 said:Everyone faces the same problems and yet you are crying

OP isn't crying. If your only purpose is to incite an argument, then just don't. In any case, I understand why OP, and others want the rating system changed. I like the rating system as it is. It actually is a really good system and accounts for facing people of higher and lesser rating than yourself, as it should be. Even matchmaking algorithm is really good in this game. The problem is the community is just very small. When the population isn't large enough, it can make mmr seem unfair.

Link to post
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...