Change the minimum lvl for competitive matches from lvl 5 to lvl 10

(gg2ez) #21

There are people that are actually good at FPS (definitely not me) that do well from level 5 and up. I don’t think they’d be too happy.

(Glot) #22

they should just fix the ELO ranking from being incorrect, to …well…being correct! Its not about levels. A ET veteran would be ready for MM even at lvl3. While some ppl do not know the core elements even at 15lvl.

Look at quakelive, their ELO represents skill very nicely. I could never beat someone with +500 ELO above me, as well as i would never loose to -500ELO. But in DB i constantly see Golds that are as good as cobalts, and Silvers that are as good as Golds. ELO numbers are very shrinked and tights thus not representing actual gap in the skill department.

(Halosheep) #23

[quote=“Glottis-3D;88705”]they should just fix the ELO ranking from being incorrect, to …well…being correct! Its not about levels. A ET veteran would be ready for MM even at lvl3. While some ppl do not know the core elements even at 15lvl.

Look at quakelive, their ELO represents skill very nicely. I could never beat someone with +500 ELO above me, as well as i would never loose to -500ELO. But in DB i constantly see Golds that are as good as cobalts, and Silvers that are as good as Golds. ELO numbers are very shrinked and tights thus not representing actual gap in the skill department.[/quote]

Definitely this. I play with some players who are definitely cobalt, and maybe even elite skill, and commonly play in DBN and other pugs. I have one friend specifically that’s just leagues above me in skill but both of us are Gold-2 in the current ranking system. He’s both played significantly more games than I have and consistently does better in the ones we play together in. Obviously the way it works right now is very broken.

(Ardez1) #24

[quote=“Halosheep;88708”][quote=“Glottis-3D;88705”]they should just fix the ELO ranking from being incorrect, to …well…being correct! Its not about levels. A ET veteran would be ready for MM even at lvl3. While some ppl do not know the core elements even at 15lvl.

Look at quakelive, their ELO represents skill very nicely. I could never beat someone with +500 ELO above me, as well as i would never loose to -500ELO. But in DB i constantly see Golds that are as good as cobalts, and Silvers that are as good as Golds. ELO numbers are very shrinked and tights thus not representing actual gap in the skill department.[/quote]

Definitely this. I play with some players who are definitely cobalt, and maybe even elite skill, and commonly play in DBN and other pugs. I have one friend specifically that’s just leagues above me in skill but both of us are Gold-2 in the current ranking system. He’s both played significantly more games than I have and consistently does better in the ones we play together in. Obviously the way it works right now is very broken.[/quote]

This has been discussed by the Devs and they have stated that there are definitely problems with the ranking system. There wasn’t nearly as much separation as there should have been during placement. They are working on this, but it isn’t that big of a priority for them right now. It has been mentioned on the Splash Damage forums by Anti that this would be rectified, just not very soon.

(Glot) #25

Well, we could have helped more, if i actually saw the ELO stats every match. Because i donot know who’s team elo is bigger, what was he ELO increase for winner. I mean i am gold2 forever, no matter how much i win or loose to any kind of opponent skill. I spoke with Anti several times on this, but he seems to be not wanting to share the numbers =))

(Sir_Slam) #26

Level ten minimum for certain, but doing that now would be pointless. The games pool is too small and match making is too borked. They’re too busy trying to get content out, which makes complete sense.

Once all the mercs are out and DB has a larger following, I imagine that’s when we’ll be seeing better comp queuing.

(Amerika) #27

In the past the requirement was level 7. I actually thought that was a good level because by then you’d have quite a few hours into the game and would have definitely seen most of the maps a few times and learned a couple of mercs. If you weren’t an ET or similar vet you might not be the best player in the world but you might be OK enough for low level non-serious ranked MM. But due to low pop at the time in closed beta and literally no incentive to play the mode as it hampered your somewhat low chance already of getting credits at the time (this was back when you only got 3 missions per 24 hours) it was changed to level 5.

When the entry level was set to 7 we got tons and tons of threads like this saying that 7 was way too high and people couldn’t play or play with their friends. It gets set to 5 and we get tons and tons of threads about how that is too low (which I agree with…it took me two Stopwatch matches to hit 5). So it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Personally I think it should use a system similar to this (not exactly of course) where you have sort of a mini-achievement system setup where you need to play OBJ on both sides of every map twice, SW on every map twice and have X amount of time played with each starter merc and at least one other free merc. Maybe throw in things like Y amount of revives or heals or ammo thrown. That would not only teach people how to play better but give them a goal to go for so they can play ranked and make them slightly better to compete at the start.

It would definitely be more work but it would be better than the account level system we have now which measures/teaches nothing.

(Sir_Slam) #28

This ^
But I don’t think it’s a priority right now, and shouldn’t be until the game is nearing completion.

(Litego) #29

[quote=“Jurmabones;76358”][quote=“Funkmaster_Rick;76355”]The amount of time required to hit level 10 is a huge, gaping chasm; nobody’s going to make that trek, not for a game as new and small as Dirty Bomb, though it might make sense in the future if things change.

There’s this whole ranking system and everything, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t do much for the actual matchmaking. This may be an artefact resulting from a limited competitive pool. That’s probably the issue, rather than the minimum rank required to play in comp. I know I certainly wouldn’t have stuck around long enough to reach competitive if rank 10 was required - the rewards in non-comp are egregiously small.[/quote]

If “they” (no one) has the will to even hit level 10, what the hell are they doing playing COMPETITIVE?[/quote]
Nothing wrong with wanting to play with and against people on your own skill level. You don’t have to be a competitive player to play competitive, it’s just ranked, don’t take the name so seriously.

I don’t see a problem with level 5’s playing ranked. The problem is level 5’s playing with me/us in ranked. It’s all about the ranking system being broken, nothing else. Though I don’t mind it being raised to 7 as Amerika suggested. 10 however is way too high. You shouldn’t have to play 60 hours before you can enjoy a balanced match (if it was working). After let’s say 5 hours, you should have a fairly good understanding of the game. Good enough to test the waters in comp with and against appropriate skill levels. Maybe it should base the starting rank in comp around your casual performance so it’s not a complete shot in the dark (for the matches before it’ll show you your rank).