Allow us to see our rating NOW

[Tasaas]

I believe that the premade/solo queue issue would be understood better if we were able to see what ranking/rating our toons hold for match making purposes.

 

I believe that this could finally show the players what type of match making SWTOR has been doing.  Let the chips fall where they may, we need to know.

 

I believe this is greatly needed and needed in quick fashion. 

 

We need this for transparency and understanding.

 

 

**** Knowing our rating could also give another stat to grind on

Edited April 21, 2023 by Tasaas

[_Miriya_]

I once had the same thinking than you, I wanted to know how that ELO is created, so I could understand why I was getting these kind of players by my side randomly.

Then someone pointed out that if BioWare tell us that number, then the typical exploiter that prefers to be always on the easiest situation possible would start to do his best to exploit this system aswell. At this point there is a high chance they are already doing it, because is not so difficult to imagine from where that rating number comes, the only number that BioWare always had of us in warzones: wins. If you win, you get paired with players who don't. Then they prolly mix it with some other random stat that doesn't mean anything, to get a very debatable rating number.

[septru]

2 hours ago, _Miriya_ said:

Then someone pointed out that if BioWare tell us that number, then the typical exploiter that prefers to be always on the easiest situation possible would start to do his best to exploit this system aswell. At this point there is a high chance they are already doing it

 

No one is doing that. This game is extremely casual. No one simply cares enough.

[Headstylez]

3 hours ago, _Miriya_ said:

Then someone pointed out that if BioWare tell us that number, then the typical exploiter that prefers to be always on the easiest situation possible would start to do his best to exploit this system aswell.

If a rating is based on a combination of an individual’s performance in addition to wins, people will be incentivized to maintain a high level of individual play in addition to doing what it takes to win.

You have warzone damage farmers because their only incentive is to be at the top of the damage charts for a single game.  You also have objective campers who don’t focus on improving their individual play because they’re doing the easiest thing they think they can do to win and get points.

The ranked arena system was easily exploitable because of the small population and because that ranking was pretty much just based on wins so it was easy to make wintrading arrangements since no one had to be concerned about maintaining individual performance.

An ongoing player skill rating based on all relevant individual performance areas in addition to wins would not be easily exploitable because there would be too many factors that feed into the rating.  The amount of work it would take to try to cheese them all would not make sense.

The real exploit would be improving individual performance while doing everything you can to ensure a team win…which I assume is what most people want.

[krackcommando]

10 minutes ago, Headstylez said:

The ranked arena system was easily exploitable because of the small population and because that ranking was pretty much just based on wins so it was easy to make wintrading arrangements since no one had to be concerned about maintaining individual performance.

that system was working just fine.

 

11 minutes ago, Headstylez said:

An ongoing player skill rating based on all relevant individual performance areas in addition to wins would not be easily exploitable because there would be too many factors that feed into the rating.  The amount of work it would take to try to cheese them all would not make sense.

🙄

are you talking about group rated arenas? solo rated arenas were working perfectly well. as has been stated many times, solo ratings amounted to how well or how much you could carry. weak players were carried in individual matches. however, over a course of a reasonable sample size (100+ matches) the wheat was clearly separated from the chaff. even with players throwing game.

removing rated arenas was the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. nothing about the rating system itself was fundamentally broken.

16 minutes ago, Headstylez said:

You have warzone damage farmers because their only incentive is to be at the top of the damage charts for a single game.  You also have objective campers who don’t focus on improving their individual play because they’re doing the easiest thing they think they can do to win and get points.

• you have WZ dmg farmers b/c they don't care about winning.
• you have WZ dmg farmers b/c they don't consider pvp to involve any sort of activity or strat that includes doing anything other than killing red plates to be "pvp."
• you have WZ dmg farmers b/c the rewards for winning are immaterial to them.
• you have "objective campers" b/c they don't know the game (misunderstand how the map works - the guy who stealths in the HB EZ and spends the match yelling at his team to pass him the ball comes to mind)
• you have "objective campers" b/c they are afraid that they don't know how to fight in pvp, but they can still be constructive toward a win by doing things like camping objectives and calling for help when necessary (which is somewhat true)
• you have "objective campers" b/c the game give players "individual performance rewards" (medals) for vegging out next to an objective (ironically, this is an example of what players in another recent thread are asking for: rewards for doing "constructive" things outside of just winning. 😆

[Headstylez]

3 hours ago, krackcommando said:

removing rated arenas was the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. nothing about the rating system itself was fundamentally broken.

I agree that ranked arenas should not have been removed without leaving some persistent skill-based competition mechanic. What I’m saying is that a persistent player rating based upon a combination of individual metrics and team wins could work in the current state of pvp since they use ratings like this to match players as it is, they just don’t reveal it.  The people who don’t care either way, still don’t have to care.  But the people who did enjoy measurable, performance-based competition could have something tangible to work on.

The reason I think they should implement reward-based player rating and skill score calculated by both individual performance and group wins is that it will help force people to put effort in all aspects of PvP match.  You wouldn’t be able to sit on objectives and expect to get rated highly if other stats feed into your rating.  Similarly, you couldn’t just damage farm and not care about winning without it affecting your overall rating.

This would work differently in arenas of course since there are no objectives.  But same principle…it’s not enough to win the arena, you’d have to perform well relative to other players in your class to maximize rating potential.  The overall idea is that people who get carried to a win don’t reap as much benefit, and people who do the carrying get rewarded even more because individual performance would also feed into their rating.  Also, rating would be based on performance relative to other members of the same class, so DPS players that are high in kill order would only be competing against members of the same class.

They wouldn’t have to make ratings visible to other players, but could have a tiered reward system not unlike ranked before.  So the people who reach certain tiers can flaunt their rewards, and people who don’t do as well don’t have to worry about it being public.

It wouldn’t have to be season-based, and the rewards could work such that once you reach a certain tier you keep that reward forever.  So if people sweat enough to get what they want, they can screw around however they want after.  But I suspect a lot of people will continue to care a lot more just by seeing an overall skill number tied to them that goes up and down after each game.

I mean I don’t think they’ll ever do this, but there are other games that do and it makes it more fun and definitely helps encourage people to play their best.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Headstylez

[krackcommando]

2 hours ago, Headstylez said:

I agree that ranked arenas should not have been removed without leaving some persistent skill-based competition mechanic. What I’m saying is that a persistent player rating based

<snip>

winning is all that matters. winning is all that should be "rewarded." the problem is the fact that at least as many people DON'T care about winning WZs as DO.

I think rewarding 3:1 for winning vs. losing is fine. anyone willing to sit there and do nothing 36 times for their seasonal weeklies (but still move around and be active enough to not get kicked for inactivity) has worked a lot harder than trying to actually play the game. I know I don't have the patience to monitor all that. there isn't even enough youtube content to watch on the second screen.

so no. I see no merit whatsoever in micro-managing crap. it's a team game. in a team game, players get carried all the time. Aaron Judge carries Aaron Hicks every night. No one thinks they're equal, but they both get the same record. that's just how team sports work. (feel free to turn that analogy to amateur sports if you wanna say something about their disparate salaries).

the problem is that players don't care about winning, particularly about winning WZs. many players have argued that this is because BW did away with rated WZs ages ago, and WZs just deteriorated from there. I don't know if that's the case, but WZs have been hot garbage for a while, and the 7.2 changes do attempt to address this, but these changes haven't had a noticeable impact in my experience.

the players who are good and really good don't do much of anything. others don't bother communicating at all. and frankly, I don't blame them, because the ppl who do talk just spew drivel like "run orbs" or "i'll be in the end zone all game." or they start cussing out players for not feeding the other team kills at "mid." and these are just the players who care. lul

and, if prum is to be believed, the really good players actually get punished for performing well in WZs by getting slapped with uncommonly long wait times...just so they can get a pop into a meaningless WZ.

 

[Skolops]

3 hours ago, Headstylez said:

I agree that ranked arenas should not have been removed without leaving some persistent skill-based competition mechanic. What I’m saying is that a persistent player rating based upon a combination of individual metrics and team wins could work in the current state of pvp since they use ratings like this to match players as it is, they just don’t reveal it.  The people who don’t care either way, still don’t have to care.  But the people who did enjoy measurable, performance-based competition could have something tangible to work on.

The reason I think they should implement reward-based player rating and skill score calculated by both individual performance and group wins is that it will help force people to put effort in all aspects of PvP match.  You wouldn’t be able to sit on objectives and expect to get rated highly if other stats feed into your rating.  Similarly, you couldn’t just damage farm and not care about winning without it affecting your overall rating.

This would work differently in arenas of course since there are no objectives.  But same principle…it’s not enough to win the arena, you’d have to perform well relative to other players in your class to maximize rating potential.  The overall idea is that people who get carried to a win don’t reap as much benefit, and people who do the carrying get rewarded even more because individual performance would also feed into their rating.  Also, rating would be based on performance relative to other members of the same class, so DPS players that are high in kill order would only be competing against members of the same class.

They wouldn’t have to make ratings visible to other players, but could have a tiered reward system not unlike ranked before.  So the people who reach certain tiers can flaunt their rewards, and people who don’t do as well don’t have to worry about it being public.

It wouldn’t have to be season-based, and the rewards could work such that once you reach a certain tier you keep that reward forever.  So if people sweat enough to get what they want, they can screw around however they want after.  But I suspect a lot of people will continue to care a lot more just by seeing an overall skill number tied to them that goes up and down after each game.

I mean I don’t think they’ll ever do this, but there are other games that do and it makes it more fun and definitely helps encourage people to play their best.

This would basically be a matter of "grading on a curve" for the ratings, which would come with the same benefits and drawbacks as grading on a curve has in academic settings - the drawbacks being significant (I am a math teacher and so I have examined this issue for my work). 

Teachers don't grade on a curve much anymore below the college level, and even at the college level they do so much less commonly than in the past. One reason is that there is the potential for pretty significant unfairness. Say that everyone in the class gets more than 90 questions right out of 100 on an exam. That would naturally work out to everyone getting an A or and A-, but grading on the curve might mean that if you got, say, 93 out of 100 correct while most other people scored 95 or higher out of 100, you could wind up with a C- for your grade! Students hate this and consider it unfair, understandably so. 

The same problem would be at play with the system as described. A player may put up objectively great performances but if enough other players also put up good performances then the player who did a good job could wind up being ranked poorly. 

Another problem is that grading on a curve does a decent job of comparing a particular individual to others rated around a similar time, but makes it more difficult to compare their performance to an objective standard. A class may one year be one of the most intelligent groups to ever attend the school but the next year that class may be one of the weakest. The students that perform the best relative to each group will each have an A+ on their resume even if one of them is a far, far, far more intelligent student than the other. Once the grade is on the books, it becomes impossible to really know the difference between the two.