Meme post from meme player. How to farm solo rating!

[Alec_Fortescue]

Meme player. Kek. We all know who Rageriper is. .

 

Also alt-f4 is back? Lmao

 

This post is just perfect. So accurately exposes the state of ranked pvp and top ratings.

 

Also happy of not being ackwnoledged and associated with the names on the list

 

Can you elaborate on how they backfill into solo ranked?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Alec_Fortescue

[kiretana]

Meme player. Kek. We all know who Rageriper is. .

 

Also alt-f4 is back? Lmao

 

This post is just perfect. So accurately exposes the state of ranked pvp and top ratings.

 

Also happy of not being ackwnoledged and associated with the names on the list

 

Can you elaborate on how they backfill into solo ranked?

 

Check PM alec.

[Mournblood]

6. Decline all guild invites! Remember if guild master is pvp player he created guild only for himself! Not for you!

7. Never trust pvp guild masters! They want you in guild only for monitoring you! And if they have chance they will report you.

 

I'm sorry you've had some apparently very bad experiences with PvP guilds, but as the GL of a well-established, veteran PvP guild that's been around for nearly 6 years, I can tell you that this is absolutely not true of all them, certainly not mine. We have a guild member who was top ten in season 6 or 7, and I've never sabotaged anyone's ranking for personal gain. (I haven't played Ranked competitively since 8v8 Ranked, actually.)

[MackPol]

Quite funny post and the names tho Starpamon should be best sage EU and not 900 elo

 

There seems to be definitely some truth to the post and if so then it shows how sad state solo ranked is in atm..

wish system would aim for equal match ups for competitiveness sake.

Que seems dead anyway, especially on Rep side.

 

Hopefully Bio will encourage more to play Team ranked. And fixes whatever exploit there is as mentioned in other post.

Yesterday in TR my 13xx semi pug group had 4 games against 1800s.

Edited April 4, 2018 by MackPol

[TrixxieTriss]

One thing I’ve never understood is the rating system. It only encourages people to play the system because it’s highly unfair to lose elo through no fault of your own skill.

 

The system is broken and should be overhauled.

*you should only get rating for winning

*you should not lose points for losing (solo)

*rating points could be added to winning and possibly losing players based on medals

*the medal system would also need an overhaul to make this work

*winning against a much higher rated teams or individual players could give you a small boost in points.

*show win loss ratio and games played as part of the rating system

*at the end of the season, the tier prizes are worked out based on percentages vs games played

 

Yes, all it would take is more people queuing to get a higher rating. But isn’t that sort of what happens now with wintraders?

 

At least with the above sort of system, you could add a sort feature based on how many matches people played. We could then more accurately see who really deserved the ratings. Bioware could add some other calculating factors based on games played vs win vs loss vs medal vs playing better people, to actually work out a rating system.

 

On a side note, also have people now who hit a target elo and just stop playing on that Alt because they don’t want to ruin their elo. That doesn’t encourage more people to play or continue to play. IMO, it’s why people want shorter seasons.

Edited April 4, 2018 by TrixxieTriss

[Lundorff]

The system is broken and should be overhauled.

*you should only get rating for winning

*you should not lose points for losing (solo)

*rating points could be added to winning and possibly losing players based on medals

*the medal system would also need an overhaul to make this work

*winning against a much higher rated teams or individual players could give you a small boost in points.

*show win loss ratio and games played as part of the rating system

*at the end of the season, the tier prizes are worked out based on percentages vs games played

 

I have come up with a modification of this, that aims to take the best of both worlds. It is a simple point based system that rewards good players while not completely annihilating mediocre players . It goes something like this:

 

You start with 1200 points and your Base is 0. You play a match and win and are rewarded 3 points. Now your Base is 3. You play again and win again and gain 6 points. Then you play and lose the match, but you do not lose any points. Instead you are reset to Base 0 (the earning rate, not your points).

 

Example:

Won: 3 points

Won: 6 points

Won: 9 points

Won: 12 points

Won: 12 points

Won: 12 points

Lost: 0 points

Won: 3 points

Won: 6 points

Lost: 0 points

Lost: 0 points

Lost: 0 points

Won: 3 points

Won: 6 points

Lost: 0 points

etc.

 

This hypothetical player would now have 1272 points in total.

 

The max you can ever win is 12 points and good players will go on longer winning sprees and collect 12 points quite often, and mediocre players will often find themselves reset to Base 0.

 

This will sorta negate the need of wintraders and queue syncs, as you are not at risk of losing hard earned elo due to factors beyond your control.

 

Yes this will rewards players who simply plays a lot, sure, it is not perfect, but good players would still get far ahead of the rest. With this they could also change the tiers and make them even hard to reach. Or add a platinum tier or something like that.

 

[All of this could easily be modified with minor negative numbers for losses like -1, -2, -3, -4, -4, -4. As long as people feel a sense of progression they will keep on playing *hint hint *bw ]

Edited April 4, 2018 by Lundorff

[kiretana]

Yes, 3-4 month is optimal for season. 1 year is too long.

Losing 0 elo it is not ok, but +5 elo for every pop will save solo q.

+15 every pop like backfillers did is too much, but +5 for everyone is ok

[Alec_Fortescue]

Sad. I can't believe this thread got so little attention. This is big but barely anyone left to care.

[Klaus]

One thing I’ve never understood is the rating system. It only encourages people to play the system because it’s highly unfair to lose elo through no fault of your own skill.

 

The system is broken and should be overhauled.

*you should only get rating for winning

*you should not lose points for losing (solo)

*rating points could be added to winning and possibly losing players based on medals

*the medal system would also need an overhaul to make this work

*winning against a much higher rated teams or individual players could give you a small boost in points.

*show win loss ratio and games played as part of the rating system

*at the end of the season, the tier prizes are worked out based on percentages vs games played

 

Yes, all it would take is more people queuing to get a higher rating. But isn’t that sort of what happens now with wintraders?

 

At least with the above sort of system, you could add a sort feature based on how many matches people played. We could then more accurately see who really deserved the ratings. Bioware could add some other calculating factors based on games played vs win vs loss vs medal vs playing better people, to actually work out a rating system.

 

On a side note, also have people now who hit a target elo and just stop playing on that Alt because they don’t want to ruin their elo. That doesn’t encourage more people to play or continue to play. IMO, it’s why people want shorter seasons.

100% agree with u!!! this is the best way to fix it! people will regain their trust in ranked!

[Ed-ward]

Check PM alec.

 

Can I get the explanation too, please?

[DavidAtkinson]

I was just giving my thoughts on getting to 2K being 60% "knowing how to queue." As I said, how does a thing you don't have to do eat up 60% of it? As opposed to things like a modicum of skill (this is heavily modulated by the spec you're playing, of course) or playing enough games (you will almost certainly need at least 100) - these are examples of things you really must have in order to hit 2K.

 

To your point: I have absorbed a LOT of unwinnable games. They're inevitable. But I have also largely (perhaps even completely) counter acted those losses with games I could scarcely have lost. And, most importantly, I win a very significant portion of my toss up games (the ones I don't irk me far more than the unwinnable/thrown games do). And remember, we ourselves are major part of why a given game is probably a loss, probably a win, or a toss up. A game that was more of a toss up suddenly becomes a very probable win because you loaded in instead of average joe.

 

Perhaps. That still doesn't make "knowing how to queue" something you *have* to do. Helpful? Unquestionably. But still not necessary.

 

Reading your posts about how the que works is simply amazing....

 

By getting some divine intervention you somehow win 90% of ranked games or at least that's what your are suggesting and you blatantly dismiss the fact that you have to know when to que and when to stop.

 

What do you do when you 3 games in a row ? Don't tell me it never happened because it means you are just lying and trying to make yourself look good. IF you lose 3 games how many do you need to come even or improve rating ? 5 or 6 wins in a row ?

 

You know I had nights when I won like 15 games in a row and I improved 150-170 points or more .Was i god mode ? was i Playing good ? No idea, but I can surely state that I lost everything I gained in the upcoming week and after because I had no control over anything.

I already know what you gonna say,.. it's what most people say: " well m8 you got carried for 15 16 games or whatever which is bs, but whatever.

 

When you lose 3 games it's quite possible you stop queing and roll on another char. That's what knowing how to que means.

[Lundorff]

First 6 games on a new sin and lost 5 due to utterly retarded, stupid "match making". You know it's bad when you take 200k damage on a sin while going through your defenses, correctly cloack out, goes to heal and then EVERY SINGLE *********** member of your "team" manages to die while you run back. How is that **** even possible lol

[DavidAtkinson]

First 6 games on a new sin and lost 5 due to utterly retarded, stupid "match making". You know it's bad when you take 200k damage on a sin while going through your defenses, correctly cloack out, goes to heal and then EVERY SINGLE *********** member of your "team" manages to die while you run back. How is that **** even possible lol

 

By the logic of Yellow and some other players here you will gain 2k rating in this way:

 

blind que all the time, play like 700 games on your char. If you are a good player you will win enough anyway to have 2k or 1.8k ELO after you finish yuor 700 or 1000 games.

[Lundorff]

By the logic of Yellow and some other players here you will gain 2k rating in this way:

 

blind que all the time, play like 700 games on your char. If you are a good player you will win enough anyway to have 2k or 1.8k ELO after you finish yuor 700 or 1000 games.

 

I am actually going to test this hypothesis. I have decided to run 500 games on my 1089 sin and track the progress (or lack thereof). I will rate every lost match based on these criteria:

 

TW (Troll / Wintrader: Basically if someone leaves.)

UM (Unbalanced match: If my side has 3 juggs vs. mara/snipers. Or just one bad player.)

GM (Glitched match: starting 4 v 3 or without a healer when their side has one etc.)

MF (My fault: When I mess up and should have played better.)

FF (Fair Fight: Sometimes everybody plays well but you lose anyway.)

 

My own hypothesis is that player skill can not make up for these factor, even across 500 matches as the elo loss is often greater than the gain. But we shall see who is correct.

[DavidAtkinson]

I am actually going to test this hypothesis. I have decided to run 500 games on my 1089 sin and track the progress (or lack thereof). I will rate every lost match based on these criteria:

 

TW (Troll / Wintrader: Basically if someone leaves.)

UM (Unbalanced match: If my side has 3 juggs vs. mara/snipers. Or just one bad player.)

GM (Glitched match: starting 4 v 3 or without a healer when their side has one etc.)

MF (My fault: When I mess up and should have played better.)

FF (Fair Fight: Sometimes everybody plays well but you lose anyway.)

 

My own hypothesis is that player skill can not make up for these factor, even across 500 matches as the elo loss is often greater than the gain. But we shall see who is correct.

 

Gosh damn..

 

You are serious aren't you ? I would like to know the result of your study..

[Lundorff]

Gosh damn..

 

You are serious aren't you ? I would like to know the result of your study..

 

I have been contemplating this for awhile so yes, full on serious . And I will post the results here, unless I end up destroying the computer in the process.

[Elusive_Thing]

I am actually going to test this hypothesis. I have decided to run 500 games on my 1089 sin and track the progress (or lack thereof). I will rate every lost match based on these criteria:

 

TW (Troll / Wintrader: Basically if someone leaves.)

UM (Unbalanced match: If my side has 3 juggs vs. mara/snipers. Or just one bad player.)

GM (Glitched match: starting 4 v 3 or without a healer when their side has one etc.)

MF (My fault: When I mess up and should have played better.)

FF (Fair Fight: Sometimes everybody plays well but you lose anyway.)

 

My own hypothesis is that player skill can not make up for these factor, even across 500 matches as the elo loss is often greater than the gain. But we shall see who is correct.

Why not rate the wins? Looks like you are just creating a tremendously biased study on purpose.

 

Edit: Meant wins as well, so wins and losses both.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Elusive_Thing

[kissingaiur]

I am actually going to test this hypothesis. I have decided to run 500 games on my 1089 sin and track the progress (or lack thereof). I will rate every lost match based on these criteria:

 

TW (Troll / Wintrader: Basically if someone leaves.)

UM (Unbalanced match: If my side has 3 juggs vs. mara/snipers. Or just one bad player.)

GM (Glitched match: starting 4 v 3 or without a healer when their side has one etc.)

MF (My fault: When I mess up and should have played better.)

FF (Fair Fight: Sometimes everybody plays well but you lose anyway.)

 

My own hypothesis is that player skill can not make up for these factor, even across 500 matches as the elo loss is often greater than the gain. But we shall see who is correct.

 

You do realize everyone else is playing under the same system right? Consistently the same talented players always excell at solo ranked regardless of the seasons meta.

 

I know this is going to be hard to stomach but some people lose a lot in solo ranked because they are not good enough. Solo ranked isn’t easy, if you can’t carry every game you will not gain rating, it’s always been like that.

[Klaus]

Meme player. Kek. We all know who Rageriper is. .

 

Also alt-f4 is back? Lmao

 

This post is just perfect. So accurately exposes the state of ranked pvp and top ratings.

 

Also happy of not being ackwnoledged and associated with the names on the list

 

Can you elaborate on how they backfill into solo ranked?

I can remeber 2 games, in which u quit in the beggining...games even didnt started! I'm curious if u knew someone in the opposite team or what?!? U cost us some points and i'm pretty sure that in 4 we would have won! But in 3 we didnt stood a chance! Edited April 6, 2018 by Klaus

[Lundorff]

Why not rate the wins? Looks like you are just creating a tremendously biased study on purpose.

 

Edit: Meant wins as well, so wins and losses both.

 

I get what you are saying, and yes I might include wins in this statistic. Theoretically I should end up with just as many unwinable matches as sure-thing matches. I would be fun to see how it actually is.

 

 

You do realize everyone else is playing under the same system right? Consistently the same talented players always excell at solo ranked regardless of the seasons meta.

 

I know this is going to be hard to stomach but some people lose a lot in solo ranked because they are not good enough. Solo ranked isn’t easy, if you can’t carry every game you will not gain rating, it’s always been like that.

 

People are clearly not playing under the same system. There are a lot of obvious and not so obvious shenanigans going on, and I suspect there is little room for actual legit players such as myself. I am not say that "I would totally be gold tier or even +2k if everyone was legit", but I don't accept the premise that player skill is everything - especially not for dps classes. Only very few player (like Luigi Riser) can consistently overcome and carry a bad team, and his rating reflects this. But most players I run across are not epic like that; some are slightly better than me and others are slightly worse, and yet many players seems to reach gold level anyway.

 

I am not certain what playing 500 matches will prove. If a large percentage of lost matches is cause by factors beyond my control, well, these same problems would be similar for other players.

[Alec_Fortescue]

I can remeber 2 games, in which u quit in the beggining...games even didnt started! I'm curious if u knew someone in the opposite team or what?!? U cost us some points and i'm pretty sure that in 4 we would have won! But in 3 we didnt stood a chance!

 

Because we fought against people this thread is aimed at, we had a crap comp and zero chances against them. And I didn't want to feed them elo. All of you should have left.

[kissingaiur]

I get what you are saying, and yes I might include wins in this statistic. Theoretically I should end up with just as many unwinable matches as sure-thing matches. I would be fun to see how it actually is.

 

 

 

 

People are clearly not playing under the same system. There are a lot of obvious and not so obvious shenanigans going on, and I suspect there is little room for actual legit players such as myself. I am not say that "I would totally be gold tier or even +2k if everyone was legit", but I don't accept the premise that player skill is everything - especially not for dps classes. Only very few player (like Luigi Riser) can consistently overcome and carry a bad team, and his rating reflects this. But most players I run across are not epic like that; some are slightly better than me and others are slightly worse, and yet many players seems to reach gold level anyway.

 

I am not certain what playing 500 matches will prove. If a large percentage of lost matches is cause by factors beyond my control, well, these same problems would be similar for other players.

 

Your assuming just cuz your not 2k rated that it’s the systems fault when there is players who have been playing solo ranked every since they released it and still are able to be constantly high rated. This isn’t luck, this isn’t “shenanigans”, these players do it by playing well and carrying. I know because I know and/or know of almost all of them. All the top ranked players in solo ranked who play with each other and against each other constantly. They aren’t getting rating by exploiting or whatever you want to say is happen, just like you they just play through the good games and the bad but actually win more then they lose.

 

Just cuz you personally cannot get rating maybe you might have to consider that it could be your skill level. To be constantly being 2k rated you have be to more then a average player or an above average, you have to be great pvper. My friends who constantly get t1+ on multiple toons constantly have to win 1 v 2 or even sometimes 1 v 4. If you cannot pull 200% of your ability you won’t get rating. There is no magic to getting rating, you have to get good, carry and win.

Edited April 6, 2018 by kissingaiur

[Lhancelot]

I am actually going to test this hypothesis. I have decided to run 500 games on my 1089 sin and track the progress (or lack thereof). I will rate every lost match based on these criteria:

 

TW (Troll / Wintrader: Basically if someone leaves.)

UM (Unbalanced match: If my side has 3 juggs vs. mara/snipers. Or just one bad player.)

GM (Glitched match: starting 4 v 3 or without a healer when their side has one etc.)

MF (My fault: When I mess up and should have played better.)

FF (Fair Fight: Sometimes everybody plays well but you lose anyway.)

 

My own hypothesis is that player skill can not make up for these factor, even across 500 matches as the elo loss is often greater than the gain. But we shall see who is correct.

 

Do eet! I would love to see the results too.

[septru]

People are clearly not playing under the same system. There are a lot of obvious and not so obvious shenanigans going on, and I suspect there is little room for actual legit players such as myself. I am not say that "I would totally be gold tier or even +2k if everyone was legit", but I don't accept the premise that player skill is everything - especially not for dps classes. Only very few player (like Luigi Riser) can consistently overcome and carry a bad team, and his rating reflects this. But most players I run across are not epic like that; some are slightly better than me and others are slightly worse, and yet many players seems to reach gold level anyway.

 

I'll be frank. You don't sound like a elite player and definently mot a 2k rated player. Not to be disrespectful but that's just how it's coming across. 1) is the fact that u accuse everyone or at least most people of cheating for their elo. I'm not saying that solo ranked is a Christian innocent community (I know of a lot of people that got their elo by cheating) but the difference is I KNOW ABOUT EVERYONE that got their elo by cheating. It's not like how you just assume everyone cheats, good players know another. We know who cheats and who plays legit. You just assume because players have better elo that they can't be legit. 2) good players know at some point that skill matters. We can talk about que dodging and knowing how to que but at the end of the day you're gonna get games that are unbalanced. Matchmaking is not perfect. AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU WANT TO BE 2K YOU NEED TO CARRY. 3) you say that you don't see a lot of people being able to carry but maybe that's because you don't notice it. Not to be disrespectful but it takes skill to see skill. If you don't know what too look for, then you won't see it when you look.

 

 

Look buddy. At this point you can continue ignoring the advice of good players, you can accuse anyone good of hacking or cheating, you can do your experiment to see how far blind queing will take you, but at the end of the day you will sit at 1400-1700 elo. If you want to go over you need to open yourself to criticism. Good players want to help, but we can't help if you are narrow minded, inconsiderate of the facts, and blatantly accuse every high rated player of hacking.

[RACATW]

Your assuming just cuz your not 2k rated that it’s the systems fault when there is players who have been playing solo ranked every since they released it and still are able to be constantly high rated. This isn’t luck, this isn’t “shenanigans”, these players do it by playing well and carrying. I know becahsd I know and/or know of almost all of them. All the top ranked players in solo ranked constantly play with each other and against each other constantly. They aren’t getting rating by exploiting or whatever you want to say is happen, just like you they just play through the good games and the bad but actually win more then they lose.

 

Just cuz you personally cannot get rating maybe you might have to consider that it could be your skill level. To be constantly being 2k rated you have be to more then a average player or an above average, you have to be great pvper. My friends who constantly get t1+ on multiple toons constantly have to win 1 v 2 or even sometimes 1 v 4. If you cannot pull 200% of your ability you won’t get rating. There is no magic to getting rating, you have to get good, carry and win.

 

It might be possible to 1v2 two dps juggs or pts as a sniper, merc or any of the other ranked viable classes. It isnt necessarily indicative of skill. It is simply using every advantage you can including playing fotm classes.

 

1v4 on the other hand would mean you take 180k damage over 30 seconds from people doing 1.5k dps. And we all know 1.5k dps is very respectable. You on the other hand have to do only 16k dps to kill people not using dcds in 30 seconds.