+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Another Failure

  1. #11
    sure, that applies to any system based on some kind "points" awarded for winning/taken away for losing. that said, if rank was based solely on your win rate (impossible with this size of the player base but bear with me), the 100% guy with 100 games would ALWAYS come out on top as you (obviously) can't achieve 100% performance with a sub-100% win rate no matter how many games you play.

    so the challenge is to make a system that balances these two factors and feels as close to equally rewarding to those who play well as those who dedicate their time and play a lot as possible.
    The one thing that could cause cowboys and Indians to join forces is their mutual enemy: dinosaurs.

  2. #12
    You only stated ranked contender... so I assumed that's all 3 categories, there's no need to insult.

    Someone was throwing the idea of at Master or higher you get the same points +-30 plus the hidden MMR difference. That's sort of the middle ground instead of all based on MMR. If it was a full team vs full team I don't mind the point loss/gain be based purely on MMR though. It's tough to balance though, for example someone who could be high MMR with 3 newbies loses to a team with average MMR. He loses 30 points + 10 or whatever.

    Another idea is almost static point loss/gain but with a twist. You lose, 30 points, you win, 31 points... increases by 1 each successive win. It should reward people with higher than 50% win rate.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Karas View Post
    Isn't that the same for any ranked game mode thopugh? I could play 100 games of LoL and have 100% win rate, but I'll still not be able to match the guys that have 60% with 1000 games played. I'm not saying that ranked isn't flawed, just saying that blaming it on having to play more games pretty much covers the entire online ranked gaming community.
    If you had 100% winrate in 100 games you would definitely be in Challenger.

    If in Lol you have a 60% winrate in diamond 1 that's considered pretty insane as it is because you're only playing against the top 0.5% of the community; because of this hard matchmaking system it's expected you get a much lower winrate which reflects the difficulty of each match increasing as you climb. Just to make it clear with numbers in LoL, if you're in diamond 1 you usualy win/lose 20/+ -5 depending on the ranks of your average opponent against yours ( if they are averaging higher than you you gain more and vice versa), but these players are also the same division as you therefore (roughly) the same skill level. That means over a balanced number of games it requires a respectable winrate to climb and the higher you climb the harder your games get.

    For the following example the amount of games is only included for after you achieve master tier.
    To use Atlas as an example, in contender you gain 30 points a win and lose 20 per loss, against any opponents. Lets say I manage to play 1000 games, if I win 50% (which would probably mean I'm an exceptionaly average player) of the time I have (15000-10000) points giving me the #3 spot on the leaderboard right now for literally just spamming the **** out of ranked.
    Now lets say I can only play 300 games this season, but I get a 70% winrate (You have to be good) so (6300-1800) 4500 points. Which player is better?
    Surely this shows you how busted the system is, I don't know any other game where that kind of spamming is possible.
    Consider the fact that by being in to the 50% of players you should expect to get over a 50% winrate since you can play against anyone who queues up it makes the whole idea laughable to me.

    Eco, I like your post a lot, the problem being like in every game stats don't reflect everything, however it would be a step forward in the right direction. Personally I think the way matches are found needs some limitations or perhaps winstreak rewards (so the more wins in a row you have the more you gain!).
    Also as a side note I do dislike your playstyle, I think it would suck against good players (turn 2 dash anyone?). But since you don't get matched against many it does seem to roll over the weaker ones, so I guess it's smart as long as you know why it's working!

    Lastly, Karas. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying, Whilst I do think I am in the top flight of players (not difficult tbh) currently there are plenty that warrant being at the top of the leaderboard above me, if there are 20 players better than me then that's fine, they deserve the top spots. But the ranked system doesn't support that happening if they can't spam 600 games a season which is my point.
    The age of the game should not be an excuse for a terrible system of ranking players.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    112
    So just to expand a bit more of what i was thinking : For poops a giggles lets see how this wiggles.

    each merit of bronze .25 points
    each merit of silver .5 points
    each merit of gold .75 points

    Accolades: 2 points per catagoy and 10 if you sweep them

    each kill .5 points
    each assist .25 points

    2nd death taken per match -5 points which negates with 2 or more kills
    3 deaths in a match with less than 2 kills -15 points

    These points are always added to the win loss set base amount of lest say 30 per win and 25 per loss with a loss only adding half of the total merit modifiers

    only adjusted for solo and duo and maybe throw in an extra .25 percent to solo modifiers for a win.

    would really help the players that are good and not require a spam approach even though you do still need to win more than you loose in its current state. It is a team game but very dependent on end user awareness and that awareness should be beneficial tho whom ever is most aware and would make a carry much more rewarding.

    I do understand you feeling on the dash and i often only do it because I know i can get away with it but i does give great vision and often positions me for later turns.

    a win streak mod would also be pleasing

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    12
    I'd love to see a return to a more MMR-based ranking system. Season 3's is rather... grindy, as others have pointed out.

    That said, I would be wary of doing anything resembling "individual contribution measuring" such as the sort Ecoclone has mentioned, because games with these systems almost inevitably lead to certain characters and playstyles getting more credit than others, even though they don't actually lead to higher winrates. For example, in Overwatch's early seasons this rather infamously led to pro support players getting far lower ratings than their teammates, essentially punishing players for picking the crucial role and playing it well. Another issue is that such systems sometimes encourage players to use selfish tactics which boost their stats, but not necessarily their chances of winning (for example, using Probe might not get you the Devastator accolade, but it can make the difference between a win and a loss). The focus of the game should be on winning matches, not on farming a few select stats.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    112
    I guess charater selection could make a differance although i often get accolades for all 3 lancer types but that has more to do with my understanding of positioning 2 to 3 turns in advance.

    either way whatever ends up happing im almost positive it shouldn't effect me all that much but i would like to see some form of change. I still belive if you are getting killed 3 times in a match that you should be reciving more of a point loss than the others on the team due to poor understanding of how cover works espically if they only manage 150 damage done with those 3 deaths. I cant rember the last time i got killed 3 times in a match but im sure it has happened but normally im only taking one death per match if that even. An additional point gain for the people that do well doesn't seem that unfair and an additional point loss to those that loose on purpose would keep them out of the running or out of rank completely cause the only thing worse than a bad player is a bad player that does it intentionality which i have seen happen but i have learned to adapt my play stlye around it or ill drop the match since being banned for a brief time is better than loosing the points due to foolish trolls

  7. #17
    Every ranking system that exists has flaws. If you know one that is perfect for the size of the ranked community that we are playing with then you should suggest it. The leader boards are fine and just like in many other competitive games the very best players don't need to be in the ranked boards. This game doesn't require a player to develop muscle memory to play it like a majority of the competitive games that exist. It's also completely a team game. Once a player understands how the game works there is little need to continue to play as a single player if you are just looking to play on a team. The game at the highest level is all about having all of the players on the same page.

  8. #18
    This system promotes players to keep playing and the mmr system promotes you to stop. I wouldn't mind a compromise because I've always had a higher than 60% win rate in ranked but there really isn't any reason for Trion to reward me for just being good at the game. The people that spam are the people that are giving you the ability to have a ranked mode at all, so I see no problem letting them have their spot light.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts