15 replies to this topic

[Luxiom]

Am I missing something or did Anet really implement a really weird system?

As far as I can tell, the rankings on the leaderboards are based on accumulated Qualifying Points instead of the more common relative ladder ranking in some sort of ELO manner or variant.

In my opinion this is stupid. Really stupid. It is like the now old and forgotten WoW PvP Warlord or whatever it was called 24/7, 7 days a week grind kind of stupid.

In essence this means that grind and time invested wins over relative skill.

Lets make an example of what I mean:

Say you have a team called "Top Dogs". It is a perfect team, they always win, against anyone. They are clearly superior to any other team and would win any competition. It is a team of Michael Jordan's. But. They only play three nights a week and 2 tournaments a night.

Say you have this other team that are called "The Realistic". They are also a good team. The second best team actually. The can beat any team they face on a good day except for the "Top Dogs". When they run a paid tournament they win the whole thing 1/2 times and always makes it to the finals. The play a decent amount. 4 times a week, 3 runs per night,

Then there is this third team. "College Drop-Outs". The big thing about this team is that they play a lot. 5 nights a week. 4 runs per night. They are not as good tough (still decent). They get to the finals half of the time and wins half of the times they get there (so 1/4), the rest of the games they get 3th or 4th place. Btw, they always lose against both "Top Dogs" and "The Realistic"

So what happens?

Team Top Dogs gets 6x5 = 30 Qualifying Points per week.
Team The Realistic gets 6x5 + 6x3 = 48 Points per week.
Team College Drop-Outs gets 5x5 + 5x3 + 12x1 = 50 Points a week.

So.... .... ... Is this how it works? Team "College Drop-Outs" would actually win the rankings?

If it is, anyone should be able to see it is a rather stupid system. If it only works on accumulated points real skill isn't represented at all. Any gamer interested in competitive PvP (regardless if you just spectate or play yourself) should in this case be upset and questions this.

Edit:
Before anyone asks, a better solution in every way in my opinion would be a laddered based ranking system that uses any kind of ELO variant or a modern ranking system based on the same principles of relative skill. To avoid the in some systems theoretical scenario of "Quitting when on top" and becoming unreachable a simple decay of ranking can be implemented for inactivity and/or a minimum amount of games played before you're eligible for an official ranking.

Edit2:
I still like the game and will continue to play it for sPvP. I will never compete in the rankings anyways so it doesn't matter for me personally. But in the long run this hurts any decent PvP community and eventually will make the large portion of the kind of PvP gamers you want to have around in your game move on to other things. Taking away that solid base of players and "buz" any successful game needs.

[Lailendil]

I understand what you mean but, at some point, frequency of play and time investment should also be taken into account. It's the same with a lot of competitions: if you don't play, you don't get point (like tennis for example). Moreover, as experience is increased by playing more and more, I wouldn't be surprised that your "College Drop-outs" eventually beats "Top dogs".

[Happiness Factory]

Well i dislike the QP leaderboard because it's pretty hard to catch up and it doesnt help solve the skill disparity between teams. But I dont think a team of less skill will be on top of the leaderboard just because they play alot. One of the major reasons is because they'll run out of tickets.

With the teams you mentioned none of them will probably run out of tickets, but I feel realistically that's not how it will turn out. Generally the team that plays the most together will be the most skilled. If you think you can kick back and play a few days a week and still be the best seems a tad unrealistic.

But I will agree with you in the sense QPs is a bad system as it gives absolutely 0 benefit to the tiny pvp community that we have. We can see who are the best at grinding paid tournaments, but to people who arnt on the leaderboard it means zip nothing nada. I mean someone who tries to get on the leaderboard looks at the #1 spot and says "damn I'll have to win at least 100 tournaments... in a row... against the beast teams in north america... to even come close to those guys" and then they'll probably play a few for gems and go back to doing whatever they felt like doing before.

Honestly, I'd much prefer if Anet would stop trying to think outside of the box when they're already way the * out there and take what works for once. I mean imagine what kind of situation sPvP could have been in if it had a matchmaking/spectator/dueling function to cater to casual players. ahhh well guess we gotta deal with what we got cuz its still really fun to play at least even if we're missing all the good features.

[Luxiom]

Lailendil, on 20 November 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I understand what you mean but, at some point, frequency of play and time investment should also be taken into account. It's the same with a lot of competitions: if you don't play, you don't get point (like tennis for example). Moreover, as experience is increased by playing more and more, I wouldn't be surprised that your "College Drop-outs" eventually beats "Top dogs".

I understand what you are after but it doesn't really detract from my point

If you read my "edit" frequency and volume of play can be used in ELO or similar rankings and should always be used to some degree to make sure that rankings are based on active players. There is also no disparity in "uping the ante" and demand high amounts of play time for higher rankings either.

The thing that should never happen tough is if time and "grind" can trump skill. I don't know of any sport that has a system like that. Most sports use ELO-variants for starters or just single elimination big tournaments.

You can't do this in Tennis, so it isnt' a good example. You can't play more tournaments and in that way get "ahead". It is a set amount of competitions that determines the ATP ranking. But you can in GW2.

And if the "bad" team eventually gets better and start beating the "good" team then they are the best team So that didn't really say anything.

[Luxiom]

Happiness Factory, on 20 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

[... snip ...]

I agree actually. In practice right now this probably isn't a aig issue in GW2 as far as ranking goes. The tops team the we see currently are most likely the best.

If you would do a data model and say split the playerbase into 10 brackets I'm sure that over time I and you would be placed in the same bracket in both this kind of system and in a ELO system. Instead, the big difference is between close teams, and usually at the top the skill gap is small.

It is just bad design! What if two of the top teams are really super equal in skill? Like a 49-to-51 win ratio. In this system the team that plays slightly more against other worse teams below them will eventually win out, not because they are better, just because the play 2 more games a week. In a ELO system a actual winner would eventually emerge in the sense that they get the top spot because they are the most likely winner of any matchup.

[Gaaroth]

The easiest and fairest fix would be make a ranking based on QP / # of PTourney played

More time played means more QP and if you are good you're going to win those, which means goin further in the ranking.

Ain't that hard IMO

Edited by Gaaroth, 20 November 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[FoxBat]

QP is called "qualifying points" for a reason. The long-term purpose is that you just need to earn X a month to qualify for monthly tournaments, which Anet could not be bothered allocating the resources to get implemented several months after release. It's not supposed to prove you have skill, it's merely supposed to give you the opportunity to prove you have skill (i.e. place highly in the tournament.)

[GammaWolf]

QP is a leader board, not a ladder that is based on matches against opponents with similar skill levels. All it really shows is how small the number of people who enjoy tpvp really is.

My suspicion is that Anet was forced to throw something up out of desperation to try and keep at least some people playing since an actual ladder is probably months away.

Edited by GammaWolf, 20 November 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Garethh]

Qualifying points are quallifying points, not a ladder.

Using them as their sort of ladder atm while actually making a real one, makes sense, the fact that a game aiming to be an Esport but doesn't have a legit ladder system off the bat... doesn't though...

They released this game months before they should have.
I find it laudable that they are still working threw class bugs...

Happiness Factory, on 20 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Honestly, I'd much prefer if Anet would stop trying to think outside of the box when they're already way the * out there and take what works for once. I mean imagine what kind of situation sPvP could have been in if it had a matchmaking/spectator/dueling function to cater to casual players. ahhh well guess we gotta deal with what we got cuz its still really fun to play at least even if we're missing all the good features.

I honestly don't know how much that would help.
The pretty hardcore PvP'ers I usually play with found GW2's PvP worse than even Rift's to play threw... and well short of WAR's... which barely even touchs LOL's...
GW2's PvP, the combat and encounters themsleves, just seemed lacking.

Edited by Garethh, 20 November 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[Aodan]

Happiness Factory, on 20 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Well i dislike the QP leaderboard because it's pretty hard to catch up and it doesnt help solve the skill disparity between teams. But I dont think a team of less skill will be on top of the leaderboard just because they play alot. One of the major reasons is because they'll run out of tickets.

With the teams you mentioned none of them will probably run out of tickets, but I feel realistically that's not how it will turn out. Generally the team that plays the most together will be the most skilled. If you think you can kick back and play a few days a week and still be the best seems a tad unrealistic.

But I will agree with you in the sense QPs is a bad system as it gives absolutely 0 benefit to the tiny pvp community that we have. We can see who are the best at grinding paid tournaments, but to people who arnt on the leaderboard it means zip nothing nada. I mean someone who tries to get on the leaderboard looks at the #1 spot and says "damn I'll have to win at least 100 tournaments... in a row... against the beast teams in north america... to even come close to those guys" and then they'll probably play a few for gems and go back to doing whatever they felt like doing before.

Honestly, I'd much prefer if Anet would stop trying to think outside of the box when they're already way the * out there and take what works for once. I mean imagine what kind of situation sPvP could have been in if it had a matchmaking/spectator/dueling function to cater to casual players. ahhh well guess we gotta deal with what we got cuz its still really fun to play at least even if we're missing all the good features.

This and this is why many are sore about Custom Arena's and An Observer mode isn't out or said to be almost done/in the works.

When the community can run ladders/tournaments much like the SC2/CS communities, then you will really see who's top, it will give teams a chance to play many different teams that they may not play due to other variables and it allows the community to grow as there can be lower bracket tourny's/ladders for new teams.

Think OGL, CAL o, Gamebattles, etc leading into the higher ladders.

Jowst, Fragged Nation, etc sites/ladders and big gaming communities like vVv would host tourny's, are prepared to do this, but the tools are not in the game yet.

[Klotz]

I think we are jumping the gun here. I believe anet said that this was just a makeshift leaderboard using qualifying points while they work on a real ranking system

[Happiness Factory]

Garethh, on 20 November 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I honestly don't know how much that would help.
The pretty hardcore PvP'ers I usually play with found GW2's PvP worse than even Rift's to play threw... and well short of WAR's... which barely even touchs LOL's...
GW2's PvP, the combat and encounters themsleves, just seemed lacking.

That's a matter of taste i think, because myself and a lot of other people that i play with cant get enough of the interactive MMO style. I never played rift but i played LoL and WoW both for a very long time and I very much prefer GW2 PvP over both of them. I became tired with LoL because of the stagnated meta and farming creep is honestly very mindnumbing, and when I spectate games the only time they are interesting is when the gold difference under 1000. Of course there are exceptions but i find that to be a general rule.

And for WoW I'm sure most people on this forum would agree that it's a FoTM based game thats hardly ever balanced around PvP, while even then you spend most of your times watching addons so you can watch timers/cast bars/cooldowns. I watched some of the WoW championship and i honestly just lost track of the character and watched the pretty colors and animations.

Anyways what I'm trying to say here is that taste is personalized and I'm sure lots of people like and even prefer GW2 PvP over other games.

[Dirame]

I think Qualifier points work to then enter an ELO system which the yearly tournies or monthly tournies would use. This is just people trying to qualify for a championship spot. If you want a spot, play more and play well apparently.

Edited by Dirame, 21 November 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[IDarko]

They added QP's too early basically but i guess they wanted some sort of reward (paid tournies) and temporal ladder.

Eventually, when monthly tournaments are up and running. Teams simply need a X amount to enter it. I assume the QP will reset every month then.

But that is far in the future.. First we need observer mode and a ladder imo. Get those community tournaments going!

Arenanet really needs to roll this stuff out faster (i know they said they will). The PvP content in this game is really lacking right now and it's costing you players. On top of that, casuals can barely progress in tournies which demotivates them aswell.

Hurry!

Edited by IDarko, 21 November 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[Garethh]

Happiness Factory, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

And for WoW I'm sure most people on this forum would agree that it's a FoTM based game thats hardly ever balanced around PvP, while even then you spend most of your times watching addons so you can watch timers/cast bars/cooldowns. I watched some of the WoW championship and i honestly just lost track of the character and watched the pretty colors and animations.

WAR not WoW, warhammer online. It was a purely PvP game.
But yeah I'm not saying people can't like GW2, just that the slow development doesn't seem to be the only problem.  There's a line between taste and just generally displeasing, it could just be the people I play with though, a few were extremely competitive players, but just didn't find this games PvP setup all that appealing.

Edited by Garethh, 21 November 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[nurt]

Yes, this is how it works.  You get the same amount of QPs for winning a tournament against the #3, #2 and #1 team back to back as you would for winning a tournament full of teams trying paids for the first time.  There's no penalty for losing, and no penalty for losing to a much lower ranked team, so more games played = more chances to win = more QPs.  I hope they add a ladder eventually.  

That's not to say that the teams who play a lot aren't good, but ultimately any system that doesn't weight your wins based on the estimated skill of your opponents and doesn't punish you for losing is going to be a much less accurate representation of skill.

Edited by nurt, 21 November 2012 - 09:01 PM.