I have another thread that I started today discussing the problems with the rating system in solo ranked. I think I like your idea. I keep trying to think of significant disadvantages, but I am having trouble thinking of any. Obviously, it could discourage some marginal players from putting forth max effort. But all that will do is make it even harder to get said reward. It could discourage players that lose a lot of matches consecutively. But the ELO system does that as well.

I think that would definitely help, alot. But I still don't think you would have enough control over your win/loss ratio for the system to be accurate, or at least for the system to work as intended. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the ELO system was designed to rank chess players. In chess, there are no outside variables (for which you cannot prepare) that affect your performance against an opponent. I just think when you "randomly" group players together, the ELO system starts to break down.

There are too many unknown variables that contribute to your rating, i.e., the quality and composition of the group with which you are placed . In fact, I would argue that the quality/composition of your group is the largest determining factor in your win/loss percentage. Thus, the biggest contributing factor to your rating is essentially out of your control. Obviously, the adjustment to rating loss/gain, as determined by the cumulative rating of the opposing team versus yours, does help to diminish this. But I don't think that is enough to sufficiently mitigate the margin of error. So i think there should be some adjustment, however minor, to your rating loss/gain based on individual performance. Again, only for solo ranked. Of course, I know this would be difficult, and there is no simple solution. But I don't think it is accurate enough in its current form. Thoughts?

Take away DOT spread and nerf defensive CD's slightly. Shouldn't be able to absorb as much damage as they do when you are a stealth class that wears light armor. So either lower survivability slightly by nerfing defensive CD or tweaking self healing abilities, in addition to taking away DOT spread on other targets.

I'm not talking about randomly queing. I mean one group of poorly geared alts, queing up against another group who is well geared at low que times (i.e., so they repeatedly get matched together intentionally), but trying to win to the best of their ability despite the fact that they know they will never win. As long as the group of poorly geared alts is trying to win, this should not be "win trading" correct? And regardless of its classification, is this within the TOS?

I understand what you're saying, but is that a violation of the TOS? I don't see how it can be as long as you are legitimately trying to win, even though you know you are going to lose. For example, I have a sniper alt with zero PVP gear, and I almost never play him. So I am clueless as to ability rotation and/or PVP strategy. But I would love to que up with him against guildies on the oppsoite faction at low que times, even though I know I am going to lose, just because I would have fun playing him. In doing so, my guildies will get ranked wins and ranked comms. Why should I/they be penalized for that? I am legitimately playing on one of my alts, even though I know we are going to lose. I guess what I am saying is that, I think the line should be drawn according to players' effort in actually trying to win in a given arena match, but I would like clarification on whether that is the determining factor as to whether you are engaging in "win trading."

Well it would be nice to get clarification on this from Devs. I mean as long as you are playing to win on your alt, I don't see how it can be against TOS.

Exactly. I am trying to figure out if their is some line drawn between taking advantage of low que times and "win trading". Or is there even a legitimate way to take advantage of low que times? Is that against TOS?

What if those alts were genuinely trying to win, i.e., not just standing there or typing/stuck? In other words, your alts are making every effort to win despite the obvious futility of same?

Makes sense. So if everyone is actually trying to win the match, then it shouldn't be considered win trading is what you are saying? So as long as players aren't purposely losing? I ask because, while I have never tried it, I have thought about getting some guildies late at night to que grouped ranked to play against each other to test out various group compositions and possibly earn some ranked comms in the process. What if you kept queing the same two groups and one group was clearly going to lose every time, despite their best efforts to win? Obviously then, it would appear like win trading. But it doesn't seem to me like that should be illegal.

...you and seven of your guildies all que up for solo ranked at at a time when you know no one is in que, i.e., like at 4:00 a.m. in the morning? What if you don't know which of your guildies you will get placed with or whether you will beat the opposing team, but you like playing with/against your friends? Is that considered win trading? And what if you do the same thing but you have two teams que for grouped ranked instead of the solo ranked que? Would that then be considered win trading since its the same two teams going up against one another? Would you need to constantly switch team members in and out to avoid "win trading"? Maybe this is a stupid question. I am just a little confused.

You people calling for bans; I can't tell if you are naive, stupid, or just trolling. This is a business. I would love to see Bioware execs explain to EA in a shareholders meeting that they purposely decreased revenue by issuing temp/perm bans for players exploiting a bug that THEY left in the game. That would go over real well. Issue warnings to first timers, harsher punishments to repeat offenders, and move the f**k on. Stop worrying about how the person next you you got his 192 mod as opposed to your 186.

I saw the PVE guide on Dulfy. Wanted to see if anyone knew of a thread or website with a 3.0 PVP guide? Newly leveled Shadow. Want to see what all the fuss is about. Thanks.

I don't know if that's entirely true if you spend a point in Purifying Sweep, which is worth a point when you consider the other utility abilities in the Masterful group. Thoughts?

I feel like Smash spec for Juggs/Guardians has been over nerfed. I cant speak for Sents/Mauraders because I haven't ever played one. But with the reduced AOE effectiveness of Smash for Juggs and Guardians, Vig/Veng spec is superior in almost every way. The reduced AOE damage from basically our only AOE ability is not enough to justify Focus over Vig/Veng. My suggestion, add a little more AOE, even if that means reducing our single target output, i.e., increase damage and reduce costs for Sweeping/Cyclone Slash, and make Blade Storm/Force Scream a wide cone. Thoughts?

On another note, should smashers now start thinking about adding crit??

Yea but I actually like that change. Before, if you were out of focus, Focused Defense was pointless. Now we get a 4% heal every second, regardless of how much focus we have. It could give us better single target survivbility compared to Sentinals/Marauders, which is needed.

I am not so much complaining. I play Vig often and like it. I also understand that everything is a L2P issue. I just worry about not wanting to play Smash anymore after the changes. The defense and single target sustained DPS offered by Veng/Vig I think will outperform Smash across the board after 2.7. That's what I am worried about. Not complaining about the nerf. I understand it was a long time coming. Just concerned about it's future viability.

I'm worried that the changes to Smash for Jug/Guard coming in 2.7 will make the spec obsolete compared to Vigilance/Vengeance spec. Please someone tell me that I am wrong. It's just that, as a single target spec, Vig/Veng will outperform Smash in my experience. So, by gutting the aoe on Smash, where does that leave the spec, other than as just an inferior single target spec??

With the continued expansion of offerings on the Cartel Market as well as the addition of GS, I think the subscriber monthly Cartel Coin stipend should be increased, maybe by about 200 Cartel Coins. I am pulling those numbers out of my wookie wormhole, but I just feel like it needs an increase.

Thanks!

Thank you but you misunderstood my question. What I am wondering is if there is any reason to own more than one type of ship, i.e., 2 strikers or 2 scouts, other than for how they look? For example, right now we have access to 2 different scout ships and 2 different striker ships. Does one of those ships have access to different and/or more powerful upgrades than the other?

In other words, do some of the ships offer more powerful upgrades than another? My understanding was that different ships had different components, etc. initially unlocked, but that once mastered, any one type of ship is as powerful as any other of that same type of ship. Essentially, I am wondering if, once you master a ship, is there any reason to buy another kind of that ship, other than for how it looks??

Fair enough. But I have heard this argument before about the medal count, and while I am aware of the possibility of players in a WZ medal farming, I have generally found that the better players tend to have more medals. Just a personal observation from a frequent PVP player. And I will also add that there is much less time and/or opportunity to medal farm in a ranked 4v4, than in 8 man regs. But more importantly, I don’t want to get sidetracked on the issue of medal counts being used to calculate your rating. As I previously stated, I was only suggesting that the medal count be included as a very small component of your score; that was to say that, I think there should be a way of trying to establish a measure of a player’s performance in a solo ranked WZ that should be calculated into his score, regardless of whether he was on the winning or losing team.

I think your comment was addressed earlier in this thread. I read the articles that you posted. The problem is that, as a previous post pointed out, the Elo rating system was created for competition between 1 v 1, or 1 team v 1 team (i.e., group ranked). And for that competitive dynamic, it works well. The problem is when you are rating 8 random players individually that are teamed up together against each other that the system breaks down. Let me try to explain. The Elo system is based on the presumption that your skill as a player, or as a team, is the only variable in your ability to defeat your opponent. The problem is that, in solo ranked (not grouped obviously), the matchmaking system is too large of a variable in your ability to defeat the opposing team. That causes the Elo system to break down in solo ranked. Now, I am not arguing that improvements to the matchmaking system couldn't somewhat address this issue, but when you factor in server population, and the randomness of the pool of available players on each faction that are qued at once at any given time, I don't know that improvements to the matchmaking system are viable. In fact, it could potentially decrease the already declining rate of solo ranked matches.