Is It Time To Get Rid of Ranked for Good?

[omaan]

one quick comment here, to OPs question.

 

I would 100% cancel my sub and never come back if this happened. and I have an excellent reason for such a reaction. I do not login to swtor in 2019 to do anything but ranked. I dont do regs, I dont do story, I dont do gf, or ops. I login, I do ranked and I logout till it pops again. my sub and time would be better spent cleaning out my cats litter box if ranked disappeared. I would unsub and never look back at this game for anything.

 

This. Even though ranked is in a bad shape it can become much better with proper adjustments. If solo and group ranked will be removed, i will also unsub and delete this game. Nothing else to do here

[sharkfishman]

I mean, I mostly agree. I'm one of those players with hundreds of wins.

 

Oh, and congratulations. My respect for you has just increased exponentially. You are the kind of player I think should be rewarded by ranked-type play.

[sharkfishman]

This. Even though ranked is in a bad shape it can become much better with proper adjustments. If solo and group ranked will be removed, i will also unsub and delete this game. Nothing else to do here

 

How?

 

What adjustments?

 

I'd be all for them, if realistic.

[JediMasterAlex]

This is your personal perception, nothing more.

 

Take a quick look at the leaderboards. Tell me how many players with 1500 rating or above have even 100 wins. How many have more than 50 wins?

 

You want to tell me they're at 1500 because they're better than the ones with 200 wins?

 

I mean, lol, how many players above 1500 rating can you even find that HAVE 200 wins?

 

Again, I pretty much agree with you. Once you start talking over 1500, there is luck involved, and most of those people don't queue a lot, because if they did, they would probably drop below 1500 pretty quickly.

 

Let me give you a more concrete explanation of what I'm saying. I queue solo ranked a lot, and I know other players that queue solo ranked a lot. Some are better than others and their ratings reflect it. It's rather simple. There are some players that queue a lot and their rating always hovers around 1200. Maybe sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower. There are also players that queue a lot that hover around 1400. That is a big gap in rating, and I am telling you that it coincides with a gap in skill. Sure, that is just my perception, but it's my perception based on queueing ranked more than anyone on star forge. Playing against a 1400 merc is a whole different experience from playing against a 1200 merc.

 

So, again, just to be clear. I'm not saying rating is always perfectly accurate. I'm not saying people can't get lucky or unlucky in what their rating happens to be at any given time. Plus, what class you play obviously matters as well. I'm only arguing against the suggestion that rating means nothing at all and has no correlation with skill level.

[Lhancelot]

How?

 

What adjustments?

 

I'd be all for them, if realistic.

 

Most likely wants moderators to watch games and actively discipline the offenders quickly. Also, create a better petition system to support the process of reporting someone.

 

Problem is, BW has already proven they are not going to have active GMs patrolling ingame to catch cheats/hacks etc.

 

That's why my stance is to just gut the scoring system.

 

If they can't maintain structure in the contest so people can actually get somewhat of an ELO that actually does represent their skills, then exactly why is this ELO system still here?

 

I believe the only way to improve ranked is to really renovate the entire setup with how they score and reward people.

[Seterade]

I have a very simple solution.

 

1 win grants 20 ranked currency

 

1 loss grants 8 ranked currency.

 

lets call it.... UC!

 

then ranked vendor mount cost 100k UC

 

how does this help? because people only care about winning because of the rewards.

Edited May 16, 2019 by Seterade

[sharkfishman]

I have a very simple solution.

 

1 win grants 20 ranked currency

 

1 loss grants 8 ranked currency.

 

lets call it.... UC!

 

then ranked vendor mount cost 100k UC

 

how does this help? because people only care about winning because of the rewards.

 

Sounds good to me, lol.

[Rion_Starkiller]

With the current system, the more games you have played mitigate the high Elo loss/gain per match. So IMO what really matters is your win/loss records and percentage. Edited May 16, 2019 by Rion_Starkiller

[Banderal]

With the current system, the more games you have played mitigate the high Elo loss/gain per match. So IMO what really matters is your win/loss records and percentage.

 

You know, on this note (the "more games" part )... everything, I mean EVERYTHING in this game is a grind. Why should ranked ELO and rating be any different? Kinda supports the idea that you don't get your super high rating and any rewards for it unless you actually have some high "X" number of wins. Like 300 or something. Sure, it means you would be forced to queue up over and over and over all season, and for those that don't have the time or inclination to play ranked that much, they would not be able to earn the rewards.

 

But, so what? I can't earn 5 billion credits, because I don't have the time or desire to play that much crafting-game or whatever. Yes, it means that people that play on off-hours would not be able to get the high-ranked-rewards as easily (or at all). Sorry trixxie, and other off-prime-time players. Not sarcastic - actually sorry - it might be the price to pay for having a more meaningful ELO - you know, if bioware foolishly decides to stick with ELO.

[Banderal]

What is the difference between ranked arenas and regular arenas?

 

In my experience from a couple months ago, the main difference is that people in ranked are actually trying to win. People were trying to follow strategies, or coming up with them. Almost never did I have a game where people were just off doing their own thing. In regs, it's almost exactly the opposite in my experience. It's almost always that 1/2 the team or more is off doing their own thing.

 

In regs, more often than not, it's dead silence before an arena starts. Or even if I suggest something, <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> by way of reply. In ranked, that almost NEVER happened. Either someone knowledgeable would give us a strat, or I would suggest something (because for some ridiculous reason it marked me as leader I think 80% of the time - even though I know that means nothing I still feel like it means I should make a suggestion if no one else does ), and then someone knowledgeable would correct me (until I learned - "oh, just go jugg first ).

 

I've almost switched back to ranked a few times, just to get people who actually care in my group - even if they do get a bit irked that a "ranked bad" like me is there. I don't care about rank or ELO (well, I care about messing up other peoples rank or ELO, but I don't care about mine) - but I do care about getting games where people care about actually winning the match. I'm not going to speculate why ranked is "more focused", but I will speculate that if we get rid of ranked, we'll lose that good part of it along with the bad. I'd rather keep that good part and find a way to fix the bad.

[sharkfishman]

In my experience from a couple months ago, the main difference is that people in ranked are actually trying to win.

 

This is mainly because there are no rewards for winning in regs.

 

Things were far different years ago, when you actually needed WZ comms for gear (note: I am not suggesting bringing back PVP gear, which is a discussion for another thread). That's why I believe that delivering appropriate rewards would have a positive effect.

[Banderal]

This is mainly because there are no rewards for winning in regs.

 

Things were far different years ago, when you actually needed WZ comms for gear (note: I am not suggesting bringing back PVP gear, which is a discussion for another thread). That's why I believe that delivering appropriate rewards would have a positive effect.

 

Maybe (about needing to win). I mean, people claim that "mat farmers" pollute ranked. Technically I was a mat farmer. I only started ranked because that was the most attractive of the 2 ways to earn ossus rep and monumental crystals. And technically, "mat farmers" could just not even try, and wait the 50 matches and still get rewards (so it's not exactly zero for losing). But in my experience, no one did that. Maybe it's because 50 matches vs. 10 matches. Or maybe people are paying attention to "I'm in ranked, I better behave!" I'm not sure. That's the part I didn't want to speculate about.

 

And I'm not sure I believe that back when WZ comms were a thing it was much different in regs. I played back then too, and there were plenty of games where people didn't really care about winning. I distinctly remember chat messages like "I'm fully geared already, win or lose the rewards don't matter, I'm just here getting the XYX achievement". I don't remember that being rare. Maybe not quite as much as now - but I think now it's because we have 3 HB maps + OPG, and people just love to deathmatch on those.

 

[Edit: 'course, tonight's proving me wrong. I've had some pretty good regs matches. I even just had a huttball match where people were RUNNING AHEAD FOR PASSES... I mean, people besides me. :faint: ]

Edited May 16, 2019 by Banderal

[Seterade]

if you started doing ranked because of 5.10 grind, they altered the weekly to grant 5 for a win and 1 for a loss. you dont see many "farmers" because they cant be bothered to sit through 50 matchs.

[TrixxieTriss]

You know, on this note (the "more games" part )... everything, I mean EVERYTHING in this game is a grind. Why should ranked ELO and rating be any different? Kinda supports the idea that you don't get your super high rating and any rewards for it unless you actually have some high "X" number of wins. Like 300 or something. Sure, it means you would be forced to queue up over and over and over all season, and for those that don't have the time or inclination to play ranked that much, they would not be able to earn the rewards.

 

But, so what? I can't earn 5 billion credits, because I don't have the time or desire to play that much crafting-game or whatever. Yes, it means that people that play on off-hours would not be able to get the high-ranked-rewards as easily (or at all). Sorry trixxie, and other off-prime-time players. Not sarcastic - actually sorry - it might be the price to pay for having a more meaningful ELO - you know, if bioware foolishly decides to stick with ELO.

 

I don’t disagree in principle and that’s how it should work. But how about these people who play so few games and end up with a huge ELO?

If it worked the way it should, these people would never have a high ELO. Nobody can be that consistently lucky every season because teams in solo queue are supposed to be matched and you can’t choose your team mates.

 

I very much like all of Snave and Krei’s ideas on how to change the system. Having to play x amount of matches to reach a bracket and also diminishing ELO if you stop playing. That would make the system more fair and then it should work the way you described. The more matches you win over a period of time, the higher your ELO should be.

 

I also like Set’s idea on a currency and that could be added to Snave/Krei’s ideas as well.

 

As for myself and other players who can’t get matches outside of prime time, I’ve basically given up that this will ever change. It’s not the ranked system that’s the problem, it’s the shrinking population and nothing anyone can do.

People in my position are not a priority for Bioware. I just hope more people don’t end up like me due to Bioware ignoring the problems that lead to more people leaving the game.

[Lhancelot]

This is mainly because there are no rewards for winning in regs.

 

 

Or, no reason not to lose. People simply play their own game mode in regs now with nothing to lose but the patience and respect of other players. No one cares about that anymore, I guess.

[Rion_Starkiller]

I don’t disagree in principle and that’s how it should work. But how about these people who play so few games and end up with a huge ELO?

 

These people with huge Elo from their first several matches will more than likely crash hard if they continue queueing, unless they have the skill/hax/wintrades/backfills to keep it going. In this system, everything will eventually average out. How many games is that? 200? 400? 1000? I don't really know.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Edited May 17, 2019 by Rion_Starkiller

[TrixxieTriss]

These people with huge Elo from their first several matches will more than likely crash hard if they continue queueing, unless they have the skill/hax/wintrades/backfills to keep it going. In this system, everything will eventually average out. How many games is that? 200? 400? 1000? I don't really know.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

 

That’s why they stop playing and let their high ELO stay there. It’s why I am such a fan of Snave and Krei’s suggestion on diminishing ELO if you don’t keep playing.

 

Edit:

I just finished reading the link you provided and it was really interesting (thanks).

Edited May 17, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

[Banderal]

That’s why they stop playing and let their high ELO stay there. It’s why I am such a fan of Snave and Krei’s suggestion on diminishing ELO if you don’t keep playing.

 

Yeah, I was also thinking diminishing ELO originally, but wasn't it also a problem in the past where people would do shenanigans during the last few days (hours?) to artificially inflate their egos... I mean elos. But I see you also said they had a min-win suggestion for certain teirs. I forgot about that. If the min-wins was set high enough... well, basically that's what I meant I guess. Dang, I thought I had an original suggestion... should have known better.

[TrixxieTriss]

Yeah, I was also thinking diminishing ELO originally, but wasn't it also a problem in the past where people would do shenanigans during the last few days (hours?) to artificially inflate their egos... I mean elos. But I see you also said they had a min-win suggestion for certain teirs. I forgot about that. If the min-wins was set high enough... well, basically that's what I meant I guess. Dang, I thought I had an original suggestion... should have known better.

 

It was a long twitch feed to watch it all in one hit.

[Rion_Starkiller]

Agree with that. Many MP ladders have a rule for inactivity. Something like "you lose X Elo rating after Y days of inactivity."

[foxmob]

Yeah, I was also thinking diminishing ELO originally, but wasn't it also a problem in the past where people would do shenanigans during the last few days (hours?) to artificially inflate their egos... I mean elos. But I see you also said they had a min-win suggestion for certain teirs. I forgot about that. If the min-wins was set high enough... well, basically that's what I meant I guess. Dang, I thought I had an original suggestion... should have known better.

 

diminishing ELO is onerous and overkill. raising the floor for minimum number of games played, however, is perfectly reasonable. at least 50, imo. I wouldn't object to 100, but 100 is actually quite high for a casual player with 2-3 toons (even if he only does pvp, but he likely has a real and cyber-life outside of arenas).

Edited May 17, 2019 by foxmob

[JediMasterAlex]

diminishing ELO is onerous and overkill. raising the floor for minimum number of games played, however, is perfectly reasonable. at least 50, imo. I wouldn't object to 100, but 100 is actually quite high for a casual player with 2-3 toons (even if he only does pvp, but he likely has a real and cyber-life outside of arenas).

 

Both of those numbers are far too low. Arenas are very fast and the seasons are rather long. If you queue with any degree of regularity, you will play hundreds of games.

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

Both of those numbers are far too low. Arenas are very fast and the seasons are rather long. If you queue with any degree of regularity, you will play hundreds of games.

 

Alex I'm sure I probably missed it ,you already saying so, but I was just wondering what you think would be a good way to revamp rank's elo system or on favor of a new one entirely. I been gone a while I've been trying to play catch up with posts so I may have just missed your earlier suggestions.

 

Points for win, no loss of points for losing,etc. etc.?

Edited May 18, 2019 by WayOfTheWarriorx

[JediMasterAlex]

Alex I'm sure I probably missed it ,you already saying so, but I was just wondering what you think would be a good way to revamp rank's elo system or on favor of a new one entirely. I been gone a while I've been trying to play catch up with posts so I may have just missed your earlier suggestions.

 

Points for win, no loss of points for losing,etc. etc.?

 

Sure, I'm in favor of a points based system to replace elo. I'm not necessarily crazy about the idea, but it probably would end up rewarding the players that are consistently good at ranked better than the current elo system. And it would also probably be harder to manipulate.

 

As for the current system. There are a few easy changes that many have pointed out, such as rank decay (which would really only affect top 3, because everyone else gets rewarded based on highest earned anyway), minimum number of games to qualify for rewards, prevention of class stacking, and prevention of different role backfilling. Those are all pretty easy things that would be a big improvement. They also really need to nerf merc dcds and buff pt dcds, and there are some other class balance changes that would be nice too, and hopefully that will happen with 6.0.

Edited May 18, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

[sdom]

SWTOR do not care one single bit about PvP players, and it's sad. I can't see the statistics but I'd imagine we are the majority of players since unranked PvP is never not populating in Star Forge.

 

I think its important to highlight: you have the wrong impression of ranked.

Its not for elite or skilled players.

You get them in ranked, but to have a properly good rating - its all about the queue. Skill in the fight its self doesn't matter so long as you do the average numbers for the fight and keep on the right side of the queue.

 

Also, the balancing algo bases things on gear to a certain extent too.

Don't believe me? Go on one of your 250 + toons and queue, but take off your sabers.

9 if not 10/10 times you will find yourself on a lowly geared team and its all the proof you need.

 

Ranked is mainly about being scared to lose, and about strategy, feeling out who is playing and how you want to position yourself. - running when you get too many losses to a ratio of wins.

I think that's reflected in what ranked players tend to do in unranked.

They realise fast when queued solo that even in unranked you're no real power even in 258 gear. You can be killed in a 2v1 like everyone else.

 

And that's something ranked players can't handle, they all think they're gods gift.

So they team up in groups of 4 and just farm everyone with the aid of 4 players in heavy gear.

 

There is only one fix.

1. Bioware needs to learn to code a balancing algo, and standard grade maths. This way matches will become less one sided and ranked will become fair and about skill again, and less about hitting the queue when you know the low gear CMT farmers are playing.

2. Bioware needs to limit the number of players who can queue together for unranked pvp to 2.

I think it would be stupid to take away the abiltity for people to queue for pvp with friends on account of a few players who abuse the privilege of being able to take 4 as a sub in order to beat the balancing algo.

This solution means you can still queue with your buddies, but its unlikely you can turn the tide of an entire match, at worst you would be dealing with a 2 man band.

 

Two simple things for any gaming company to implement and probably the easiest way to start making changes.

Edited May 18, 2019 by sdom