Wow ranked is toxic

[TacoClaw]

Regs exist. Why ruin people's rating?

 

What do you propose people do if the game calls for everyone to solo rank for weekly?

 

There will always be better players so you will always be letting someone down. Always. Also, so much of what happens is out of your control when you are on a team. To care about a ranking when it can be so out of your control is to set yourself up for disappointment. The biggest problem with this game is not bad players, it’s the really good players who care too much about winning and then lash out when their expectations aren’t met.

[cagthehack]

Let me point out that all pvp in ALL games, the community is toxic. Every play PUB, or Fortnite? And those are recent games... try COD - hell I was cursed out once in MP ME3!

 

It's the nature of the beast. PVP = drama. It's worse than RP drama. But you have a choice.. don't play.

 

Regs are usually ok. I mean, we all see that one guy cursing at everyone telling us all how we suck.. and of course he's usually hiding someplace. Or have never taken a node, of any defense. Most of these guys don't want to help the team win. They just there getting their kicks trolling folks. I ignore them.

Edited April 18, 2018 by cagthehack

[TrixxieTriss]

What do you propose people do if the game calls for everyone to solo rank for weekly?

 

Or is the only pvp avenue to get mats?

[TrixxieTriss]

Let me point out that all pvp in ALL games, the community is toxic. Every play PUB, or Fortnite? And those are recent games... try COD - hell I was cursed out once in MP ME3!

 

It's the nature of the beast. PVP = drama. It's worse than RP drama. But you have a choice.. don't play.

.

 

I always found WoW to be good. Rarely did I see trolls or people raging.

[septru]

What do you propose people do if the game calls for everyone to solo rank for weekly?

 

There will always be better players so you will always be letting someone down. Always. Also, so much of what happens is out of your control when you are on a team. To care about a ranking when it can be so out of your control is to set yourself up for disappointment. The biggest problem with this game is not bad players, it’s the really good players who care too much about winning and then lash out when their expectations aren’t met.

 

Solo ranked isn't the only way to get matts. You can also get them by doing the group ranked weekly. And unlike solo ranked, group ranked dailies also give charged matters.

 

But besides that, if you que solo ranked for matts prepare yourself for the toxicity. Be queuing solo ranked with less than par skill YOU are costing your team elo. This can be very frustrating when solo ranked is already a struggle with, throwers, wintraders, leavers, and matchmaking.

 

The way I figure is this. You can go into solo ranked, at this point of the game there is nothing to discourage players out of ranked, but if you do either expect the toxicity or learn to bear with it.

[TacoClaw]

Solo ranked isn't the only way to get matts. You can also get them by doing the group ranked weekly. And unlike solo ranked, group ranked dailies also give charged matters.

 

But besides that, if you que solo ranked for matts prepare yourself for the toxicity. Be queuing solo ranked with less than par skill YOU are costing your team elo. This can be very frustrating when solo ranked is already a struggle with, throwers, wintraders, leavers, and matchmaking.

 

The way I figure is this. You can go into solo ranked, at this point of the game there is nothing to discourage players out of ranked, but if you do either expect the toxicity or learn to bear with it.

 

Yours is a good post, I agree with most everything you say.

 

I really don't care if I win or lose, and I don't care if someone is toxic, and I don't care about elo, and I don't care about anything except if I have a fun time playing and I just hope it's fun and close. If not, no big deal. And if I win great, and if not, great. There are two separate issues: trying and caring. I'm all for the former but not the later. If someone cares about their elo and ranking enough to get all bent out of shape, then that's their problem and opportunity to figure out what's wrong with them. This is an inherently unbalanced and flawed game. Getting emotionally invested in the results is a failure of intellect and character.

 

As the old saw goes: the first person to get mad loses.

[DARKheartLAND]

Git gud, that's all there is to it. Ranked players don't want to carry baddies that take 5 seconds to press an ability or objective baddies who can't pull dps. Edited April 19, 2018 by DARKheartLAND

[kissingaiur]

I think what DarkHeart is trying to say bluntly is that ranked pvp in swtor is endgame pvp content. Players who are doing it for fast mats or don’t care shouldn’t be playing it. You don’t see pvpers joining raids and refusing to do mechanics and expect players to carry them anyways. It’s really rude and I can understand the frustration of getting players who have this mindset on your team. Ranked should be only for players who want Elo and to advance their pvp talent, not for dead weight.

[Elusive_Thing]

I think what DarkHeart is trying to say bluntly is that ranked pvp in swtor is endgame pvp content. Players who are doing it for fast mats or don’t care shouldn’t be playing it. You don’t see pvpers joining raids and refusing to do mechanics and expect players to carry them anyways. It’s really rude and I can understand the frustration of getting players who have this mindset on your team. Ranked should be only for players who want Elo and to advance their pvp talent, not for dead weight.

The bolded part is just untrue. Seen plenty of people like that, including some some PvPers. Luckily the mechanisms for getting rid of them is a lot easier.

[kissingaiur]

The bolded part is just untrue. Seen plenty of people like that, including some some PvPers. Luckily the mechanisms for getting rid of them is a lot easier.

 

Regardless both are annoying and worthily of rage. At least when it comes to ops you can easily see a person who is unwilling to particpate and kick them from group. In solo ranked there is little to no good options on how to handle these kinds of people, you just have to tolerate them.

 

I have very little sympathy for players crying about being bullied in ranked because they are there to farm/don’t care about winning. They don’t belong in endgame pvp content. Just as players who want to farm mats in hard modes/nightmare don’t belong there.

Edited April 19, 2018 by kissingaiur

[TacoClaw]

I think what DarkHeart is trying to say bluntly is that ranked pvp in swtor is endgame pvp content. Players who are doing it for fast mats or don’t care shouldn’t be playing it. You don’t see pvpers joining raids and refusing to do mechanics and expect players to carry them anyways. It’s really rude and I can understand the frustration of getting players who have this mindset on your team. Ranked should be only for players who want Elo and to advance their pvp talent, not for dead weight.

 

A couple of issues here. First if you look at my post I explicitly state that I place value on trying. Trying is good. I care that people try.

 

Second: The game by design is encouraging everyone level 70 regardless of gear and ability to come play. I'm not doing this. The game design is doing this. So when people in 230 show up a little shaky on their abilities, don't be surprised. Blame the game designers not the player. I'm not here to debate if this is how it should be, I am telling you simply that this is how it is.

 

Third: (Here is the hard truth that people on this board can't seem to get their heads around) The problem is we do not have enough players for elo to function as a leveler. With the small number of pops and the massive disparity of skill, there is no way to set a meaningful k-factor in the elo algorithm and therefore no way to get good matchmaking via elo. Be clear, chasing elo in this game is fools gold. The toxicity comes from the elite community trying to force out bad (new) players to create their own balancing in the absence of a functioning elo. This is a perfectly human thing to do and is entirely predictable.

 

Fourth: When you put my second and third points together you have a problem akin to throwing fat in the fire. You have a perfectly natural toxicity and a steady feeder of new people to fuel and be the target of that toxicity.

 

What I am suggesting is that in light of these truths it is the foolish person who becomes EMOTIONALLY invested in THE OUTCOME of a game with this architecture. I am saying caring is dumb, bad, foolish, self-defeating and pointless. Try hard, but don't get too emotionally invested. And have fun. Because that's all that this game is effectively designed to offer.

 

There are other games that are designed for balance and test of skill, have a level field, and have functioning elo. Go play those games if that is your thing. But this game isn't that.

 

Try, but don't become attached to outcome, at least not too much. That's my advice. But, hey, feel free to get as angry and salty as you choose to, but be aware how silly a choice that is here.

Edited April 19, 2018 by TacoClaw

[DavidAtkinson]

Regardless both are annoying and worthily of rage. At least when it comes to ops you can easily see a person who is unwilling to particpate and kick them from group. In solo ranked there is little to no good options on how to handle these kinds of people, you just have to tolerate them.

 

I have very little sympathy for players crying about being bullied in ranked because they are there to farm/don’t care about winning. They don’t belong in endgame pvp content. Just as players who want to farm mats in hard modes/nightmare don’t belong there.

 

I am pretty sure that the guy who started this thread wasn't referring to the farmers throwers because those are a totally different category and not worth speaking about...

 

The OP was referring tot he people who have an understanding of game mechanics and are TRYING to get into ranked.

If you want ranked to go on, you need to change your attitude because at the end of the day who will que for it ? waiting 30 mins in que to then lose 15 elo won't be anyone's desire.

[TacoClaw]

Rereading my post, I think I fail to make clear an important distinction:

 

I think you should try hard and care about the match you are in. I am saying don't care too much about the outcome of any match vis a vis climbing an elo system or ranking ladder, because the elo system here is mathematically unstable and outcomes are too subject to chaos influences because there is not a large enough participation rate to cover the elo measure of skill. (Add in the elo gaming and throwing and other nonsense, and you really don't have a ranked, in fact). If climbing a ranked ladder within an elo system is what gets you excited (presumably for better matched play and ego stroking) then you need to look elsewhere. Getting upset about a result vis a vis elo here doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and lashing out at those who tilt an already broken elo ranking with subpar play is just nuts. I wonder if some players are in denial about the state of the pvp game?

Edited April 19, 2018 by TacoClaw

[DARKheartLAND]

Rereading my post, I think I fail to make clear an important distinction:

 

I think you should try hard and care about the match you are in. I am saying don't care too much about the outcome of any match vis a vis climbing an elo system or ranking ladder, because the elo system here is mathematically unstable and outcomes are too subject to chaos influences because there is not a large enough participation rate to cover the elo measure of skill. (Add in the elo gaming and throwing and other nonsense, and you really don't have a ranked, in fact). If climbing a ranked ladder within an elo system is what gets you excited (presumably for better matched play and ego stroking) then you need to look elsewhere. Getting upset about a result vis a vis elo here doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and lashing out at those who tilt an already broken elo ranking with subpar play is just nuts. I wonder if some players are in denial about the state of the pvp game?

 

Thanks for clarifying that, I was about to reply because it looked like you were trying to say that people shouldn't try just because the population isn't big enough and the elo system is flawed. I get what you're saying now though.

Edited April 19, 2018 by DARKheartLAND

[Morteistno]

I think what DarkHeart is trying to say bluntly is that ranked pvp in swtor is endgame pvp content. Players who are doing it for fast mats or don’t care shouldn’t be playing it. You don’t see pvpers joining raids and refusing to do mechanics and expect players to carry them anyways. It’s really rude and I can understand the frustration of getting players who have this mindset on your team. Ranked should be only for players who want Elo and to advance their pvp talent, not for dead weight.

 

If ranked was only for people who want elo and are really good it would be dead again in no time. The essence of the elo system is that you need below average (in terms of elo compared to the average player) people actively participating in order to be able to gain elo.

 

Now I do agree that people who will not even try their best or are clueless about the game should not play ranked (unless they form a team of likeminded people and play teamranked) but you do need people in the pool that are below average compared to the average person participating for the system to work, which also means that they need an incentive to participate. (and I do think the mats pushed a lot of people in ranked, but I see this as overall a very good thing. Sure the average skill is probably down a lot, but if you are a good player this is only to your advantage.

 

Face it: if you are good there are only 3 spots left on your team for potential bads. The other team can all be bads. Ie statistically your odds of this working in your favor are quite high. (and then obviously you also get much more pops).

 

No low elo players in ranked = no way to gain elo.

 

Or otherwise said:

 

Let's assume you put a hypothetical cap and remove all the players below 1200 rating from the pool playing ranked. Even if ranked where still to pop with the now much better players remaining after a bit of time half of the players will be below 1200 again, (in the very unlikely scenario they would keep on playing)

 

Ranked can not survive as a system without people with below average skills actively participating,

[TacoClaw]

Ranked can not survive as a system without people with below average skills actively participating,

 

Sorry for all the posts. I have an acquaintance who is doing a doctoral dissertation on social dynamics within mmos, with a focus on how culture devolves over the course of a game's life. The hypothesis is that the same toxic culture that evolves relatively quickly in mmos also evolves in other institutions and results in bureaucratic stasis ( a form of end game in real life). One interesting development during his research was the game OW and its retooling of its elo system that led to a mass toxic culture eruption (the so called elo-hell episode). The interesting takeaway was how this intersected with the Dunning-Kurgger effect which was coming under fire at the same time. The general takeaway was that the new elo system in OW actually degraded game parity to the point that overcame any perceived benefit of " the satisfaction of leveling". This should have been obvious, but is actually quite insightful. It tells us the purpose of elo is not to "create a challenge to level up", the purpose of elo is to create matchmaking so that players enjoy playing with people at their level.

 

The critiques of the Dunning-Krugger effect actually validate many of the gripes expressed in these forums. However, elements of the Dunning-Krugger are valid and observable. In short, the purpose of elo ranking isn't primarily to inspire players to win the ranking (after all it is zero sum), it's to find people who play at your level, because that is what makes for meaningful game experiences. Also, people are actually not that bad at assessing where they should be after all.

 

With regard to swtor, for which I was his liaison, the conclusion was that swtor doesn't really have a viable ranked at the moment, simply because elo doesn't have a large enough participation rate to sort players. Without a meaningful K-factor in the elo algorithm, ranked is not really meaningful. In other words elo at the moment doesn't provide any information, or any match making benefits. However, as the critiques of the Dunning-Krugger theory observe, experienced players are savvy enough to sort players with or without elo to a "good enough" degree.

 

One hypothesis of the moment is that absent effective matchmaking by way of elo, clique or insular culture will use ostracism to exclude the inferior players. In other words, the community becomes toxic. With a working elo, players of all levels would be playing with other players of their level and a different culture evolves, more varied, overall less toxic.

 

Anyway, I hope some find this interesting. And I am truly sorry if I hijacked this thread, or if this post is out of line. There have been so many insightful comments here, I thought that at least some of you may find this of interest.

[Lundorff]

Anyway, I hope some find this interesting. And I am truly sorry if I hijacked this thread, or if this post is out of line. There have been so many insightful comments here, I thought that at least some of you may find this of interest.

 

I have read all your posts, and I find them highly interesting - although, objectively speaking, I certainly have a bit of confirmation bias going on. I still maintain that a 1 vs 1 queue would be the better option for this game. Simply exclude healers and install some type of stealth-out timers to deal with stealth classes (like a 10-20 second buff you had to buy beforehand), and you would avoid a lot of problems:

 

 

• Wintrading would be much harder to accomplish
  
• No more 4 v 3, or healer vs. no healer
  
• No more queue sync
  
• Mat farmers and trolls would only annoy themselves
  
• Elite rage-heads would only have themselves to blame
  
• Much faster queue pops
  
• A better working elo-system (I think)
  

 

Yes some classes would overperform, there is no helping that in this game, but I still think it would be a better format with such a low population.

[benmas]

I still maintain that a 1 vs 1 queue would be the better option for this game..

 

i just wouldn't be though.

what you have to remember is that 4vs4 is team based (solo ranked less so but the point still stands). by making a 1vs1 queue not only are healers excluded but the skills needed are going to be different. even in a full DPS match up you'll be throwing out CC,offheals peels etc, in 1v1 you basically need to be good at duelling, and not all ranked players are good at duelling.

 

It also wouldn't do anything to the meta, if anything it would be more unbalanced than 4s are.

Edited April 20, 2018 by benmas

[Lundorff]

i just wouldn't be though.

what you have to remember is that 4vs4 is team based (solo ranked less so but the point still stands). by making a 1vs1 queue not only are healers excluded but the skills needed are going to be different. even in a full DPS match up you'll be throwing out CC,offheals peels etc, in 1v1 you basically need to be good at duelling, and not all ranked players are good at duelling.

 

It also wouldn't do anything to the meta, if anything it would be more unbalanced than 4s are.

 

Yes I would exclude healers, but I am not saying to remove 4 vs. 4 queue - just add a 1 vs 1 queue for those who would like to try it. And yes it would absolutely be about dueling, and proving if you are any good with your class 1 vs. 1. Sure some classes would be at a disadvantage like a dps jugg vs. an engineering sniper, but I bet many juggs would still be able to prevail and win some of those matches.

 

The only problem Is foresee are stealth classes, and those would require a bit of coding to include, but it's not impossible. The simplest way would be to add a consumable item that you would bring to the arena, and once you eat it, you would be able to detect stealth for X seconds, but you could only consume 1 of these every minute or every 2rd minute or something like that.

 

If other games can have a 1 vs 1 queue, then surely this game could make it work as well.

[TacoClaw]

Yes some classes would overperform, there is no helping that in this game, but I still think it would be a better format with such a low population.

 

Thanks for the good words Lundorff.

 

Unfortunately there is not a lot of evidence that I know of of a game coming back once elo breaks down.

 

Here is my two cents: If I were charged with reviving elo in this game (with hopes of restoring matchmaking and building the community up) my biggest overall guiding principle for all changes would be to ask whether it narrows the elo K-factor. Right now the game actually rewards better players with more mats, pushing the elo range in the wrong direction by widening the potential performance differential. An alternative system would be like golf, where the worse players actually get strokes.

 

Wait, don't freak, just hear me out....

 

I am suggesting we move in the direction of completely turning the gearing economy upside down. There is a huge difference between 248 and 230 gear. Why do we give the better players the better gear? I mean I know why, but why? Before dismissing this out of hand, think of the game where your worst teammate or your healer gets globaled and killed all in the first 15 seconds before he can even get his bearings. This sucks for everyone.

 

In one extreme of this, everyone would start out with 248 gear, and the higher your elo tier, slowly your gear ranking drops. Crazy right? But if you look at what we have now, we already have that, but in reverse. Which is more crazy? This is just one idea, but you get the gist. In chess people do this. If you play against a much much better player often the better player will pull pieces off the board as a handicap to make the game a challenge for both players so to make it fun and interesting. Here in swtor we give the grandmaster an extra queen and then force the grandmaster to play against any unsuspecting newbie who ponies up $15. And then we wonder how it all goes wrong.

 

Anyway, I'm keenly interested in other ideas about how to narrow K-factor if anyone cares to share.

 

Also a confession, I lied about not caring about the toxicity and what people say in game. I actually don't handle it very well at all, especially the misogynistic stuff, it really brings me down and I have seen some pretty awful stuff in ranked. And it has driven me largely away. I miss it and would love for this to get better

[Lundorff]

Ahhhh you gotta love it

 

We had a tank troll on our side, so naturally I called it a 4 v 3 and quite unwinnable. Not that I gave up, but apparently this merc took umbrage at the prospect of losing. Oh and I took about 650k damage whereas he took about 730k heh. Some people just need to rage.

[Alec_Fortescue]

1 v 1 Queue would be so great if the game would make it SAME CLASS vs SAME CLASS and allow for dps and tanks only. It would be really interesting to see and probably easy to implement even with giving an option for same class and mixed class queues (with separate brackets for stealth and non-stealth). There'd be ton of participation.

[Lundorff]

1 v 1 Queue would be so great if the game would make it SAME CLASS vs SAME CLASS and allow for dps and tanks only. It would be really interesting to see and probably easy to implement even with giving an option for same class and mixed class queues (with separate brackets for stealth and non-stealth). There'd be ton of participation.

 

Yes, yes there would. And I am seeing far, far more advantages than disadvantages - heck I bet most mat farmers would actually chose a 1 vs. 1 queue for the speed, and thus not annoying people in the 4 vs. 4 queue.

[Alec_Fortescue]

Yes, yes there would. And I am seeing far, far more advantages than disadvantages - heck I bet most mat farmers would actually chose a 1 vs. 1 queue for the speed, and thus not annoying people in the 4 vs. 4 queue.

 

Win trading would be also much harder because pool of participants would be much greater but there'd be only two available spots per match.

 

So the only way would be playing with a buddy of same, unpopular class on some dead server / hour and that'd be easily tracked compared to what's going on in 4 v 4.

[septru]

I understand y u want a que system that is 1v1. You want it to be ENTIRELY about your skill level. But 1v1s are not the solution.

 

Tanks in duels are OP.

 

OPs in duels are OP.

 

 

Please go online and find some recent dueling tournament videos before blindly promoting something you have no idea the effect of. I am an operative and I dont even want 1v1 ranked. If you want to try 1v1s go enter a tourniquet.

Edited April 21, 2018 by septru