Get rid of the solo rating system. Go the Fortnite route....

[DarthWoad]

Solo ranked is still a mess. Win traders, queue dodgers, undergeared people, leavers, AFKers, bad players, all have an affect on your SOLO rating. A bit strange that your solo rating is determined by 7 other people. If ranked were 1v1 then that's understandable.

 

I think you should do what fortnite does and add bonuses by how many matches you win. You go up ranks by winning matches, and these ranks give you special rewards, just like Fortnite. Zero consequences for losing the game. No points loss or anything. It should be simply how many wins you get. I think this will increase participation in ranked, reduce the toxicity in ranked. People won't be as determined to wintrade or cheat to get a rank they don't deserve.

 

Group ranked should still have the rating because you can decide who's on your team etc.

Edited August 13, 2018 by DarthWoad

[-Bob-]

. People won't be as determined to wintrade or cheat to get a rank they don't deserve.

 

Of course they will, it's one of the symptoms of being human.

[DarthWoad]

Of course they will, it's one of the symptoms of being human.

 

Well, I implied less people would be likely to do it. In order to get a high rating for some they have no choice but to resort to win trading or cheating, because they, along with many others, don't like the randomness of the groups.

 

I was implying that if we base rewards and stuff on wins, rather than an ELO system, people would be less inclined to cheat.

[ace_boogie]

Well, I implied less people would be likely to do it. In order to get a high rating for some they have no choice but to resort to win trading or cheating, because they, along with many others, don't like the randomness of the groups.

 

I was implying that if we base rewards and stuff on wins, rather than an ELO system, people would be less inclined to cheat.

 

But... you gain ELO by winning. I am confuse.

[omaan]

Solo ranked is still a mess. Win traders, queue dodgers, undergeared people, leavers, AFKers, bad players, all have an affect on your SOLO rating. A bit strange that your solo rating is determined by 7 other people. If ranked were 1v1 then that's understandable.

 

I think you should do what fortnite does and add bonuses by how many matches you win. You go up ranks by winning matches, and these ranks give you special rewards, just like Fortnite. I think this will increase participation in ranked, reduce the toxicity in ranked. People won't be as determined to wintrade or cheat to get a rank they don't deserve.

 

Group ranked should still have the rating because you can decide who's on your team etc.

 

Trying to make it easy so u could just queue 24/7 and get your rewards just by clicking random keybinds? This only-win-system sucks and only makes things good for noobs who queue 24/7 for enough wins to get rewards. Thats why fortnite is full of school kids and students who have tonnes of free time to grind wins without having any skill.

 

What next? You will start getting wins even if you loose lol?

[DarthWoad]

But... you gain ELO by winning. I am confuse.

 

Ah maybe that is a bit confusing. I mean by instead of thinking about losing or winning ELO, we could remove that and have everyone think about their wins. How many wins the need to reach the next tier, rather than have a system where you could lose 10 games in a row and essentially make it near impossible for you to reach gold or silver rating due to the sheer luck that goes with solo ranked atm.

 

Obviously there wouldn't be much of a penalty to losing, the only penalty would be that you don't reach the tier limits in time and you miss out on the rewards.

[DarthWoad]

Trying to make it easy so u could just queue 24/7 and get your rewards just by clicking random keybinds? This only-win-system sucks and only makes things good for noobs who queue 24/7 for enough wins to get rewards. Thats why fortnite is full of school kids and students who have tonnes of free time to grind wins without having any skill.

 

What next? You will start getting wins even if you loose lol?

 

What are you on about? How can you win a game if everyone just click random keybinds.

 

My point is that there are so many problems with ranked and the ELO system it should be scrapped entirely. You may laught at Fortnite that it's full of schoolkids, but the fact is it's the most popular game in the world right now.

 

By making a tier rating similar to fornite for ranked PVP, more players would be playing the game, more will be queuing warzones, there will be less toxicity.

 

You could win 200 games of ranked and never reach bronze or silver tier because things have gone wrong with the matchmaking. I think the rewards sohuld be based on time played and wins, and maybe MVPs.

[omaan]

What are you on about? How can you win a game if everyone just click random keybinds.

 

My point is that there are so many problems with ranked and the ELO system it should be scrapped entirely. You may laught at Fortnite that it's full of schoolkids, but the fact is it's the most popular game in the world right now.

 

By making a tier rating similar to fornite for ranked PVP, more players would be playing the game, more will be queuing warzones, there will be less toxicity.

 

You could win 200 games of ranked and never reach bronze or silver tier because things have gone wrong with the matchmaking. I think the rewards sohuld be based on time played and wins, and maybe MVPs.

 

Your system benefits quantity over quality. More you play - better rewards you get. Noobish Schoolkids and students will get rewards just because they will play tonnes of time and get carried most of it. Those who play less but have great skill will be in bad situation since they wont have enough time to get needed wins even though they are 2000x more skilled than those who will get tonnes of games by spending tonnes of time.

 

Indeed, sr has many problems but i got 6 characters to 2k+ in both sr and tr during this season without cheating and wintrading. If you have good skill you will get at least gold no matter what happens. If you depend too much on your team mates then yeah, gold is not for you whatever is happening in sr.

 

DEvs must be more cosious and vigilant and start doing their job by punishing win traders, cheaters etc. If they wont do it even only-win system won't save ranked in this game.

[DarthWoad]

Your system benefits quantity over quality. More you play - better rewards you get. Noobish Schoolkids and students will get rewards just because they will play tonnes of time and get carried most of it. Those who play less but have great skill will be in bad situation since they wont have enough time to get needed wins even though they are 2000x more skilled than those who will get tonnes of games by spending tonnes of time.

 

Yeah. Better quantity than the low quality that is provided. Of course the more you play, the more rewards you get. That's one reason why fortnite is so successful. Their premium pass season method keeps people playing.

 

And so what if they have great skill but play less? What if the best player in this game lost 15 games in a row because his team mates were really bad? What happens if he ended up with a bad rating, not even in the top 3. Surely the best players should be at the top right? But he isn't because so many other factors other than their own personal skill comes into play.

 

Indeed, sr has many problems but i got 6 characters to 2k+ in both sr and tr during this season without cheating and wintrading. If you have good skill you will get at least gold no matter what happens. If you depend too much on your team mates then yeah, gold is not for you whatever is happening in sr.

 

That doesn't mean anything to me. You got 2k+ rating on 6 characters great (strange that you bring up the problem of people having no time to play in the previous quote). How many games in total did you play? How many games were you lucky enough to get a good team? How many games did team mates leave or were undergeared. If thats what you claim, then I consider you lucky. Not just "skilled". Lucky you didn't get as many of these problems as the rest of us.

 

Someone could get 2k rating with 200 games won, or they could get it in 50 games won. It's all down to luck.

 

DEvs must be more cosious and vigilant and start doing their job by punishing win traders, cheaters etc. If they wont do it even only-win system won't save ranked in this game.

 

I agree, but it's taken them up to season 9 to permanently ban them... Nothing will save ranked the way it is atm. A change is needed imo.

[DarthWoad]

It's amazing to see that in less than 10 wins you can get a 1500+ rating, yet people will get hundreds of wins and never reach that number because their ratio is closer to 1.

 

Win lose win lose win lose win lose...happens to a lot of people.

 

1. Class set ups - some classes are better than others, and when you have a grup of 4 players all of the better class it can make a difference

2. There's no gear requirement to join ranked, meaning you can lose because your team mate is undergeared

3. Ranked matches are too toxic

4. Ranked mat farmers can make you lose - why give good materials for ranked warzones?

 

 

The solo rating system is a complete joke. It needs to go. It doesn't work. There should never be this many factors to determine your rating. If you create a true 1v1 mode where it's actually SOLO ranked, maybe that will work.

 

You will never get rid of win traders or queue syncers...so what if they get banned, are the people that lost their rating going to get their rating back? I think not.

 

Delete solo ranked rating system. Ditch it. Ditch the ratio system.

 

Instead make the rewards or rating apply to number of wins only, where a loss doesn't affect your rating. Yes people who play more will get better rewards - there's zero problem with that.

 

Yet right now if you play more, you may never reach a rating that someone got in 10 wins.

[Lhancelot]

It's amazing to see that in less than 10 wins you can get a 1500+ rating, yet people will get hundreds of wins and never reach that number because their ratio is closer to 1.

 

Win lose win lose win lose win lose...happens to a lot of people.

 

1. Class set ups - some classes are better than others, and when you have a grup of 4 players all of the better class it can make a difference

2. There's no gear requirement to join ranked, meaning you can lose because your team mate is undergeared

3. Ranked matches are too toxic

4. Ranked mat farmers can make you lose - why give good materials for ranked warzones?

 

 

The solo rating system is a complete joke. It needs to go. It doesn't work. There should never be this many factors to determine your rating. If you create a true 1v1 mode where it's actually SOLO ranked, maybe that will work.

 

You will never get rid of win traders or queue syncers...so what if they get banned, are the people that lost their rating going to get their rating back? I think not.

 

Delete solo ranked rating system. Ditch it. Ditch the ratio system.

 

Instead make the rewards or rating apply to number of wins only, where a loss doesn't affect your rating. Yes people who play more will get better rewards - there's zero problem with that.

 

Yet right now if you play more, you may never reach a rating that someone got in 10 wins.

 

I actually never knew Fortnight used this system but more than once in the past half-jokingly said they ought to go to a win count method for rewards instead of this so-called rating system on swtor.

 

The end of this last season was awful. My first 4 matches had match droppers, and matches that began with our team of 3 versus their 4. Not one match my first night in solo ranked ended with my team having 4 members.

 

It's hard to remain encouraged when your rating is determined by so much out of your control, to say it was frustrating would be an understatement.

 

I wholeheartedly agree the present rating system particularly for solo ranked hardly indicates the skill of individuals accurately with so many variables that determine said rating that's supposed to represent the players skill.

 

I think the present system is too easy to game and those who have mastered exploiting the present rating system would never agree to having rewards based more on number of wins. That would require them having to put more effort and time into gaining rewards whereas now they can use a plethora of ways to get high rating, many of which have nothing to do with winning fair and square.

 

Claiming this change would drop the quality of solo ranked PVP is hilarious, because I saw zero evidence solo ranked had any semblance of quality PVP, not one bit. What a joke.

[TrixxieTriss]

due to the sheer luck that goes with solo ranked atm.

 

This is one thing that has always vexed me about this system. “Luck” or RNG team members.

Solo Ranked rating is supposed to be about your independent skill. Your ability to measure that skill and be rewarded for being a better player.

 

Luck shouldn’t even be part of the equation, but it’s a major part and doesn’t reflect players real skill lvl.

You should only be rewarded for how many wins you get, not demoted on how many losses you have when you have zero control over who is on your team.

 

I’ve never understood this for solo ranked, it makes sense (sort of) for team ranked.

People will say that it’s easier to WinTrade, but it’s not really. And even if they do WinTrade, it doesn’t have a negative affect on their other team mates the same as losing points.

The system should be changed to only record your wins as part of the rating. If you play 100 matches and win 10, 50 or 80, that is what it records.

 

Sure if you aren’t that great and only win 10% of your matches but have the time to play 1000 matches, you will be higher than someone who wins 50% of their matches and only plays 100 matches. But that is also part of the incentive to get more people to play more ranked. Bioware could also reduce the rating unbalanced in a situation like that by making the season much shorter and possibly even capping how much rating you can get for a week based on how many matches you can play. Nothing too restrictive, just something that stops the 24/7 bad player from playing 1000 matches to top the charts.

 

There has to be a better system than the current one. I know mine isn’t perfect, but they could easily build on the idea and tweak it to still have it more represent skill instead of luck.

[begemotamus]

In general I agree with the sentiments in this thread. However, I don't think the system should be dumbed down to allow anyone to reach gold or top three standing simply by q'ing all the time.

 

The ELO rating system has been created (for chess originally) to reflect a person's performance in individual sports. It can still be used for team sports/games provided a large enough population exists. This is certainly not the case in SWTOR. And this system doesn't work well in solo ranked environment where the outcome depends more on your team's composition, enemy team's composition and miscellaneous trolls/leavers/decliners, than it does on your performance.

 

Without having the raw numbers (population), it's hard to suggest what should be done with the system. I just want BW to maybe look into the matter. I think the fairest system is one that rewards individual performance. Such that even when you lose, rating reduction may be minimal compared to the troll/noob on your team that caused the loss. Conversely, the best player on the winning team should get more rating than the scrub that got carried.

 

I realize the chances of this happening are negligibly small, since it would require BW to actually put some effort into the game. I guess I'm just here to vent coz of all the bad pubs in q.

[PhatMcMuffins]

Rating system would theoretically work if we had a good population so that people actually would play with/against similarly skilled players (and if people weren't toxic but that never happens in any video game unfortunately.)

 

But for the population size and attitude of swtor, it definitely needs to be changed. Overwatch has a much better system that takes into account your actual performance and not just wins/loss and your elo vs. theirs. It also has a better system for leavers/throwers etc. Amove towards a system like Overwatch's could be a good step imo

 

There should also be decay at higher elo. This would incentivize people to keep playing to maintain that rating and also make it more difficult for those backfillers etc who have very little wins with high elo. They'd have to maintain it.

Edited August 13, 2018 by PhatMcMuffins

[TrixxieTriss]

In general I agree with the sentiments in this thread. However, I don't think the system should be dumbed down to allow anyone to reach gold or top three standing simply by q'ing all the time.

 

The ELO rating system has been created (for chess originally) to reflect a person's performance in individual sports. It can still be used for team sports/games provided a large enough population exists. This is certainly not the case in SWTOR. And this system doesn't work well in solo ranked environment where the outcome depends more on your team's composition, enemy team's composition and miscellaneous trolls/leavers/decliners, than it does on your performance.

 

Without having the raw numbers (population), it's hard to suggest what should be done with the system. I just want BW to maybe look into the matter. I think the fairest system is one that rewards individual performance. Such that even when you lose, rating reduction may be minimal compared to the troll/noob on your team that caused the loss. Conversely, the best player on the winning team should get more rating than the scrub that got carried.

 

I realize the chances of this happening are negligibly small, since it would require BW to actually put some effort into the game. I guess I'm just here to vent coz of all the bad pubs in q.

 

They could also add an extra mechanic to my idea. (Bare with me, I’m just throwing ideas out there that would need to be tweaked or changed to suit the system)

 

They could sort it by percentages of matches played to get into specific tiers based on games played.

 

Add tier reward brackets like they have for conquest planets. But the rewards aren’t crappy, just different.

Each bracket has desirable rewards and people would need to decide what rewards they wanted to go for.

Each bracket would have its own titles.

ie, Top 10% 1st Tier.

This shows you were a good player, but either didn’t have time to play 1800 matches or decided to go for the 1st rewards instead.

 

If you have time to play 1800 matches to try and go for the top tier rewards bracket and only win 10%, it won’t affect those in the higher bracket or those in the lower ones. People will still be able to see how people skills stacks up against others.

 

Each tier has its own specific and enticing rewards. But you can’t claim all three tiers. (I’ll elaborate further on).

 

This is based on a 3 month season.

 

Instead of ranking individuals (except the top 10) in each bracket. They rate it on percentage of wins. And different percentages, get different rewards in each tier.

But people who cap out each tier and move to the next do get a title to show they progressed to the next tier,

Even if you cap a tier, it will still show what percentage of matches you won for that tier.

If you cap out games played in the last tier, you get some silly title to show you have no life but swtor

 

The top 10 players who qualify for each tier, get some sort of extra title and some extra ranked Comms.

 

Once you play the maximum amount of games for a tier, you automatically get pushed into the next tier. That means you are now going for that tiers rewards and had passed on the previous tiers rewards.

 

1st Tier - Games played is capped at 200

2nd Tier - Games played is capped at 450

3rd Tier - Games played is capped at 1800

 

Rewards are not only based on the number of matches played. They are also based on how many you win.

That means you can get close to the first cap and only win 10% of your matches and it will show that. Or you can win 90% of your matches and it will show that.

 

Having 3 tiers could also encourage Alt play. Meaning you might play 3 different alts in the season to get the 1st Tier rewards for all.

Edited August 13, 2018 by TrixxieTriss

[DarthWoad]

In general I agree with the sentiments in this thread. However, I don't think the system should be dumbed down to allow anyone to reach gold or top three standing simply by q'ing all the time.

 

 

Which is why they should scrap the top 3 rewards, and keep the gold/silver/bronze brackets.

 

 

The ELO rating system has been created (for chess originally) to reflect a person's performance in individual sports. It can still be used for team sports/games provided a large enough population exists. This is certainly not the case in SWTOR. And this system doesn't work well in solo ranked environment where the outcome depends more on your team's composition, enemy team's composition and miscellaneous trolls/leavers/decliners, than it does on your performance.

 

Without having the raw numbers (population), it's hard to suggest what should be done with the system. I just want BW to maybe look into the matter. I think the fairest system is one that rewards individual performance. Such that even when you lose, rating reduction may be minimal compared to the troll/noob on your team that caused the loss. Conversely, the best player on the winning team should get more rating than the scrub that got carried.

 

I realize the chances of this happening are negligibly small, since it would require BW to actually put some effort into the game. I guess I'm just here to vent coz of all the bad pubs in q.

 

I kind of agree, however even with a bigger population there are still too many factors which determine your SOLO rating. The ELO system right now just doesn't work, even if this game had millions of people playing ranked. The whole concept is just wrong.

[yellow_]

Everyone making these threads every season is far too emotionally invested in each individual game. It's been a week. Relax. If you're a strong player you WILL climb if you keep playing.

 

ELO *obviously* functions - the known top players rack up golds every season. This board just doesn't understand that ELO is probabilistic.

 

Is it perfect? Obviously not. Are top 3s a meme? Yes. Can you conclude much of anything based on small differences in rating over small numbers of games without context? No.

 

But you absolutely can make conclusions based off large ELO differences, coming from large numbers of games/characters, and seasons. Jedija (or insert whatever top player you want here) accumulates rating quickly and reliably because he's active and better than you. Again, rating is probabilistic. Relax and keep queuing.

 

I look forward to all the usual red herrings and excuses in reply to this post.

 

There should also be decay at higher elo. This would incentivize people to keep playing to maintain that rating and also make it more difficult for those backfillers etc who have very little wins with high elo. They'd have to maintain it.

Decay would be really, really nice for exactly the reasons you've outlined here. Also just more competitive games. Good players on low rated alts, because they haven't played them enough to get ELO yet, really **** with matchmaking until they start to accumulate some rating to reflect their impact. Edited August 13, 2018 by yellow_

[DarthWoad]

Everyone making these threads every season is far too emotionally invested in each individual game. It's been a week. Relax. If you're a strong player you WILL climb if you keep playing.

 

 

Exactly how does one "climb" when your games consist of "win lose win lose win lose win win win lose lose lose win lose.

 

Please explain to me how someone can climb the leaderboard - without win trading, without queue syncing.

 

ELO *obviously* functions - the known top players rack up golds every season. This board just doesn't understand that ELO is probabilistic.

 

And do you have any evidence to suggest they are NOT exploiting the system by win trading, queue syncing etc?

 

But you absolutely can make conclusions based off large ELO differences, coming from large numbers of games/characters, and seasons. Again, rating is probabilistic. Relax and keep queuing.

 

Really? What conclusions?

[yellow_]

Exactly how does one "climb" when your games consist of "win lose win lose win lose win win win lose lose lose win lose.

 

Please explain to me how someone can climb the leaderboard - without win trading, without queue syncing.

By being active and pulling a lot of weight. I had 8 dps golds in solo ranked last season, without win trading or queue syncing. I had terrible days, mediocre days, and good days like everyone else. But if you, ON AVERAGE, are a major positive impact on your teams you will climb.

And do you have any evidence to suggest they are NOT exploiting the system by win trading, queue syncing etc?

Cheaters are a separate issue. You can't bring up the existence of cheaters as evidence that ELO doesn't function for *anyone*.

 

And yes, in many cases who is legit and who is not is well established. And I can certainly know that I'm not cheating.

Really? What conclusions?

Like I said, this is all probabilistic.

 

If two players each have 30 games played and a rating difference of 200, this is easily explained by RNG or class balance. The odds between which is the better player is probably like 52/48 - basically 50/50.

 

But the odds that Jedija, who easily accumulates t1 or 2K+ characters in both solo and team ranked, is better than some guy who is stuck at 1400 on all his characters every season even after playing hundreds or thousands of games is basically 99%.

Edited August 13, 2018 by yellow_

[DarthWoad]

By being active and pulling a lot of weight. I had 8 dps golds in solo ranked last season, without win trading or queue syncing. I had terrible days, mediocre days, and good days like everyone else. But if you, ON AVERAGE, are a major positive impact on your teams you will climb.

Cheaters are a separate issue. You can't bring up the existence of cheaters as evidence that ELO doesn't function for *anyone*.

 

 

Well I consistently deal the most damage in ranked, almost every game I do. I pull my weight. I am always the first to suggest tactics. I have played my character for almost 7 years, so I know how my class works, yet I have not got above 1400 rating due to losing many games in a row, and never winning many games in a row. I would say I am a well above average player, but the reason I can't climb above 1400 (same has happened on previous seasons) is souly because of other players. It's because losing happens more than winning. The responsibility is not on me. On this character I have payed thousands of games over the seasons. Why am I not in the Top 10? It's because of other players, other factors than simply my "skill level".

 

If two players each have 30 games played and a rating difference of 200, this is easily explained by RNG or class balance. The odds between which is the better player is probably like 52/48 - basically 50/50.

 

 

Completely disagree. There is no way to determine which player is better. But I agree that it is RNG.

 

 

But the odds that Jedija, who easily accumulates t1 or 2K+ characters in both solo and team ranked, is better than some guy who is stuck at 1400 on all his characters every season even after playing hundreds or thousands of games is basically 99%.

 

Again I disagree. There is no way to determine individual skill level through rating. If that person 1v1's another, then we will know for sure. But of course we have class imbalance.

 

Your solo rating is not reflective of your skill level. It is reflective of the luck you get.

[yellow_]

Completely disagree. There is no way to determine which player is better. But I agree that it is RNG.

 

 

 

 

Again I disagree. There is no way to determine individual skill level through rating. If that person 1v1's another, then we will know for sure. But of course we have class imbalance.

 

Your solo rating is not reflective of your skill level. It is reflective of the luck you get.

You seem to not understand what probabilistic means.

 

Oh well - I tried. You're not the first poster here to tell themself that it's all luck to feel better, and you won't be the last.

[DarthWoad]

You seem to not understand what probabilistic means.

 

Oh well - I tried. You're not the first poster here to tell themself that it's all luck to feel better, and you won't be the last.

 

Then you'd agree with me its entirely down to chance.

Edited August 13, 2018 by DarthWoad

[yellow_]

You seem to not understand what probabilistic means.

 

5 char

[DarthWoad]

5 char

 

I know what it means, why the attacks?

[DavidAtkinson]

Exactly how does one "climb" when your games consist of "win lose win lose win lose win win win lose lose lose win lose.

 

Please explain to me how someone can climb the leaderboard - without win trading, without queue syncing.

 

 

 

And do you have any evidence to suggest they are NOT exploiting the system by win trading, queue syncing etc?

 

 

 

Really? What conclusions?

 

What he means is that if you are good, you will slowly but steadily climb rating in the long run no matter what.. If you are not, then you will be stuck or go down to the rabbits hole.

 

In other words some games are lost before they start, but you absolutely must bring out the maximum of the winnable ones, ie... you must make a difference.

 

You seem to stress yourself too much over it, which isn't very good.... You will suck even more if you are stressed, believe. If you can't climb that much, just keep farming the comms and you will buy the same rewards as the others.

 

Keep in mind that the rewards were again very poor, and imo.. it isn't really worth it to be a try hard in SR now. The rewards were sub mediocre. Have fun, it's a game after all.