Rated PVP Win:Loss numbers

[Sintifa]

Rights, gona get flamed to **** about this, but im on my lunch so go ahead and entertain me. Would appreciate some people constructive thoughts/opinions on this though.

 

1900+ (70 games, (for arguments sake, 3 losses)) rated team at the moment. Anyone who is around 1600 (possibly lower) will know that a win will net you around 4-6 rating. Now 1900+ its very very rare you will steamroll a team, and they usually take the full WZ duration. Around 15mins a game. Before i go on, this isnt a maths lesson. So lets say your lucky and have instant ques right. 4 games an hour right? so lets say you get 6 rating per win in that hour, and you win every game. thats 24 rating per hour. That can be a pretty stressful hour as well, you have to be top of your game.

 

So after your tense/stressful/(fun??) hour of 6 rating for 4 wins youve gained 24 rating. Yay Then you get a loss. Now ive not had many of these (see above) but we lost 16 rating. Regardless of how we lost (combination of crap communication/ and lag) end of the day, a loss is a loss and we knew it was comming. Cant win everything right? My 'issue' so to speak is the fact that a whole hour has been spent gaining 8 rating. Now this is best case scenario. In actual fact, our 4 wins last night were 4 per win, and 16 loss, so as a team, we gained nothing after about 1h40mins. Add to that we lost our 2nd game straight after, we spent the rest of the night trying to get back to where we started. 4h.30mins of PVP last night to finish exactly where we started seems harsh.

 

No im not asking for 'free loot' or any of the usualy ***** this community usually claims people are asking for, i like to earn my gear. I just feel the numbers from either winning OR (preferably) losing are adjusted

 

TL : DR Anyone else think either the reward for winning, or cost of losing is too low/high? Id be fine with losing the equivalent of 2 games worth of rating, but 4 seems too much imo.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Sintifa

[Goldenstar]

It's an ELO ranking system...it's meant to have steap diminishing returns once you get to a certain rating. Everyone CAN'T be at the top of a ladder system =\

[Ahhmyface]

Well, that's the thing.

 

It's not a grind. Unlike everything else in this game, it's a measure of skill. You actually have to be BETTER than your opponents to increase in rank. It's not a matter of massing games, it's a matter of improving your win ratio.

 

As for the numbers themselves, it just means the rating of the other players must have been lower, in both cases. For example, beating lower ranked players gives u 4 points, while losing to them gives you 16. If they were your rating, I believe that you should (given you're not just starting out) more or less stay constant.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ahhmyface

[Mcmassacre]

I'm disappointed that teams are already over 1600 at this point. If anything, it should be harder than what it is. What's the point if teams are going to be capped or near capped in 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks?

[SgtBranham]

It's an ELO ranking system...it's meant to have steap diminishing returns once you get to a certain rating. Everyone CAN'T be at the top of a ladder system =\

 

What this person said. I don't know what K-Value (the max amount of points that can be won/lost) they use here in SWTOR but it factors into the equation like this. Lets say for arguments sake the K-value is 32. This means that if you beat a team that is much better than you (i would assume ~300+ points (made up for our example because i dont know what the cuffoffs are for this game) you receive max value of 32. If you are only getting sub 10 points in this senario, then you are playing teams that are significantly below you in rating (prob in the 1700 or 1800 if your in the 1900s).

 

What is happening in the senario you are expressing is that you are playing 4 matches against these teams (getting only 6 points a match) and then playing a team of equal rating and losing half the K-value (16 points in our 32 k-value example). In an evenly rate match, you win/lose half the K-value

 

There are some teams that are lagging behind in rating because of slow starts or they maybe good but small and cannot field 8 men teams at all times. They will eventually settle at their appropiate rank (ie they maybe 1700 rank right now but based on skill should be at a 2000 ranking level. They just haven't gotten in enough games in ranked to catch up to their skill). As time passes these will adjust and RWZ will be less "Spikey".

 

For some perspective, if a grandmaster in chess loses to a non-grandmaster, they lose enough points that they are no longer ranked a grandmaster.

 

In closing, If you beat who you should beat and are competitive with those that are of equal skill you will be just fine.

[Pekish]

it's a pre-season it's a test

 

until it stay "server bound" it's honestly dog pup

 

this system will work only cross server when the top of one server can fight the top of another server otherwise staying "server bound" you will always fight the same exact people they will always lose you will always win they will stop queue and ranked will die there in 1 week or so

 

they didn't do it cross-server because they are not ready yet don't buy the LIE of "we want to strength the community" read it as "we can't yet program it without bug it bug in server people go offline think about cross-server..."

 

but until they don't fix it cross-server it will be just a test

 

in my server it takes 20 minute to put a group together and usually 20 minutes wait and 20 minutes match it means in 1 hour u do 1 match and gain 100 ranked comm more or less

 

in normal in 1 hour i can do 4 warzone that start non stop and i get 400 normal commendation finish my daily

 

so actually i make way more ranked commendation in normal

Edited July 3, 2012 by Pekish

[SweetNausea]

Welcome to an ELO system.

[Anniepants]

Pre-Season ratings will be wiped once the real season 1 begins so why are you worried about it anyway?

[spaace]

I'm disappointed that teams are already over 1600 at this point. If anything, it should be harder than what it is. What's the point if teams are going to be capped or near capped in 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks?

 

Never pvp'd or anything before in your life?

 

200+ games in, 2000 should NOT be a problem.

 

I'm 78-4 1784

 

Take "Wow "for instance... 20 wins will net you 1500... 40-0 will net you around 2100.

[Goldenstar]

For people interested in how an elo system works, check out this page on the elo system for GW1:

 

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Elo

 

The system is the same in Ranked Warzones, though we don't know what the K-value is. My guess is that it's ~16. since that appears to be the highest amount of points people are getting for winning a match

Edited July 3, 2012 by Goldenstar

[RendakFel]

I am fairly skeptical that Bioware has included any matchmaking coding. Easily 60% of our games are against unranked pug teams that have no real business being in ranked warzones. How do you figure that we have never faced 2 of the teams around our rating on our server, yet constantly get 1400-1600~ teams. Yes, i know some people que dodge, but it seems much more likely that it just matches the next available team up rather then do any form of match making based on ratings.

[Mcmassacre]

Never pvp'd or anything before in your life?

 

200+ games in, 2000 should NOT be a problem.

 

I'm 78-4 1784

 

Take "Wow "for instance... 20 wins will net you 1500... 40-0 will net you around 2100.

 

Your statement changes nothing in my statement... I don't care about wow. What is wow the golden rule? It has to match wow exactly? If you can read, all I said was that I'm disappointed that teams are already as high as they are.

[olagaton]

I am fairly skeptical that Bioware has included any matchmaking coding. Easily 60% of our games are against unranked pug teams that have no real business being in ranked warzones. How do you figure that we have never faced 2 of the teams around our rating on our server, yet constantly get 1400-1600~ teams. Yes, i know some people que dodge, but it seems much more likely that it just matches the next available team up rather then do any form of match making based on ratings.

And this is exactly why the ranked wz's system doesn't really provide any evidence that a team that is 78-4, for example, is a skilled team.

 

Unfortunately, its all about what teams are available at any given time.

[DarthOvertone]

this system will work only cross server when the top of one server can fight the top of another server otherwise staying "server bound" you will always fight the same exact people they will always lose you will always win they will stop queue and ranked will die there in 1 week or so

 

Agreed. It's already pretty obvious that RWZs without XServer isn't going to last too long. Maybe I'm just logging on at the wrong times or something, but I've only been seeing the same 4-5 teams over and over for the past 3 days with an occasional Pug mixed in and that's on The Bastion.

 

Not sure what happened to the Imps on our server, but I've only seen one Imp team in two days. The rest of the matches have been against Pubs. Might have to do with Don't Panic being active during my primary playtime. Considering they have only one loss, peeps may be avoiding the queue because they don't want to risk losing.

 

 

I am fairly skeptical that Bioware has included any matchmaking coding.

 

There is no matchmaking as far as I can tell. I think the whole matchmaking system is a load of bs, to be honest. Right now the top rated teams on our server are just feeding on Pugs.

[Astarica]

If there is no matchmaking then obviously the highest ranked team would be the one that can grind out the most games against unranked teams who literally have no chance of winning while hoping every member of your team has 100% solid Internet connections and no bugs that cause them to drop/crash/leave the game.

 

ELO system without matchmaking is pointless. The idea of the system is that if you've a good rating you're supposed to be playing people who are at least somewhat in your ballpark in your skill. Having records like 78-4 is absolutely ridiculous in a working ELO system which suggest that the system is NOT working. Go look at Warcraft 3's 1on1 ladder and look at the top ranked players only win about 60% of their games. I can assure you this isn't because the top ranked Warcraft 3 player only wins 60% of the time against an average guy, but rather the matchmaking guys ensures he gets matched up with someone who has a good chance of beating him every single time.

 

But then like I said another thread I don't see how a server can possibly have enough people to make the matchmaking work, and without enough people matchmaking can never work. If you're the only 2000+ team on your server and everyone else is less than 1800, there's no possible way for any matchmaking system to match your team against someone who is comparable to your team's skill because there is no such team.

[olagaton]

Bioware didn't do the system any favors by limiting the ranked system to 8-man teams either. That alone limits the number of teams that are going to participate, even if cross-server queueing is implemented.

[Pekish]

they dont have the population server wise to keep this going "server only"

 

ranked like this will die there is no point at all i understadn pre-season but that is not even testing anything normal PVP it's okey server based but ranked server base in server with so little people 8vs8 it's just silly

 

as someone said you make a 2vs2 3vs3 u can make it server only but 8vs8 where the hack do we go find all that people to make at least 60 decent team (that means 5-6 online at same time)

 

and i dont like 2vs2 or 3vs3 but server bound is the only thing that has any sense

 

personally i am for the 8vs8 cross-server and an honest 6vs6 solo queue ranked in server

Edited July 3, 2012 by Pekish

[Astarica]

they dont have the population server wise to keep this going "server only"

 

ranked like this will die there is no point at all i understadn pre-season but that is not even testing anything normal PVP it's okey server based but ranked server base in server with so little people 8vs8 it's just silly

 

as someone said you make a 2vs2 3vs3 u can make it server only but 8vs8 where the hack do we go find all that people to make at least 60 decent team

 

and i dont like 2vs2 or 3vs3 but server bound is the only thing that has sense

 

personally i am for the 8vs8 cross-server and an honest 6vs6 solo queue ranked in server

 

Well, the top Warcraft 3 4on4 team is something like 9-1. I don't know how many people play Warcraft 3, but I'd assume it's still a lot and comparable to the number of SWTOR players and there are only 4 'servers' for Warcraft 3. You go from say 2on2 where the top team is 500-250 to 4vs4 where the top team is 9-1 and that gives you an idea of how hard it is to find qualified teams as you move up the # of people. And of course SWTOR currently would be the equivalent of 8on8, and there's no way these servers, even after the merges, are comparable to what counts as a server for Warcraft 3 in size (one covers all of USWest).

 

The number of people you need to make 8on8 feasible is just staggering. I suspect even if you only have 4 servers in SWTOR like they do in Warcraft 3, it'd still be pretty hard to get a good matchup going for 8 man teams.

[Pekish]

crosserver is THE ONLY WAY and i hope they knows it and i really hope they didnt do it just because of some technical issue and not because they wanted it this way (the lie they tried to sold us "community bla bla bla") otherwise it would only show their incompetence thinking that a single server can sustain a 8vs8 ranked warzone

 

i bet it was just a server problem in dealing with moving people from different server togehter i really hope so.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Pekish

[spaace]

Your statement changes nothing in my statement... I don't care about wow. What is wow the golden rule? It has to match wow exactly? If you can read, all I said was that I'm disappointed that teams are already as high as they are.

 

rage pls.

 

i used wow as a reference because most crybaby tards like you roll on to that as an excuse.

 

 

 

 

if anything team should be higher then what they are.