A while ago all of my ranked progress was beaten down by a series of unfair stomp matches against me. Now the universe seems to think that I need a lot of unfair wins now in order to make up for that.
What do I mean by a lot?
SIX wins out of SIX games. All easy victories against teams that got stomped.
This is an urgent matter that needs attention.
I feel like I’m hurtling towards getting matched with elite DB players who are out of my league.
Even if I lose half of my remaining matches before finishing my initial 10, that will still be 8 wins to 2 losses. Where does that place me rank-wise? TELL ME DOCTOR, IS IT BAD? DO I PANIC? JUST BREAK THE NEWS TO ME QUICKLY
Not sure what the problem is ^^. You will be placed above those that you won against sofar till you stop winning constantly. If you start to loose several games in a row against people clearly better, you will loose some ranks. Till you reach a point where you face players that you win and lose at a 50/50 rate and the amount of draws will increase.
Ofcourse always assuming that their are enough players active at the same time you are playing at your skill lvl and in your server area.
I do think current system does give little too much credit for win/lose, taking barely into account a) how close the game was nor b) individual’s score and his performance as certain class (specific exp like support/combat)
For example, we had this one game on Bridge where each team were fairly good, your usual “have 3 of these fellas in one pub team and its a steamroll” on both sides. First half took around 10 minutes, intense battle and last delivery was prevented teeth-gritting 4 times.
Second half, we struggled like mad to get the EV repaired but once we got it, oh boy did we 420 blaze it through the map, managing to destroy generator very quickly too. Only to be stuck in last objective again.
1,5minutes on the clock, morale is still high, comms are (oh my, comms with randoms?!) thrown left and right, our Sporks manages to snitch 1st objective and soon after we grab the second too. Time is 15seconds now. I rush balls on foam, legs on fire to the delivery, start the interaction. Not enough, once cinematic screen hits and our loss is announced, simultaneously is my last-effort delivery too as a point on top of the humiliating i. GG’s are given, WP’s are exchanged. Tensest game I’ve ever had.
However, despite the even matching and us being on top3 of our team, me and fella I was duoqueing with lost whopping 1/3rd of our progression bar, leaving us baffled as we were playing with silvers like us. Knowing this due us having a conversation in midgame and review screen.
[quote=“bontsa;153866”]I do think current system does give little too much credit for win/lose, taking barely into account a) how close the game was nor b) individual’s score and his performance as certain class (specific exp like support/combat)
[/quote]
Well that’s quite hard to give credit for those two points.
First, “how close the game was” would mainly consider the game length and intermediate times. And they do not reflect how the game ran solely. A full 30 min stopwatch game is not necessarily close. And 10 min one is not necessarily unbalanced. I’ve played numerous games where both teams were actually good on attack stomping the enemy and achieving good times, let’s say 5 to 8 mins to do the full map. And the second round was the opposite where the previous defending team manage to do just as good/better. So the whole 2 rounds game could just length below 15 min but be perfectly balanced. And with the score discrepancies that currently exists, with mercs like skyhammer hammering with xp/min stats for anyone who has minimum knowledge with him, it’s hard to conclude that a game is close or not just by looking at xp scores.
And the second part, sorting individual scores depending on the class used is a very touchy subject that’d lead to some kind of segregation. Inevitably, everyone would use the merc class that brings more credits/potential ranking improvements. In my opinion, every merc class (combat/support/medic/engineer/recon) bring its usefulness to the team. And giving different rewards depending on the class you’ve played would definitely end in specific classes more used just as rewards/credits grabber. This would defeat the whole purpose.
And this is pretty much the same for personal performance being taken into account. Your team won, not you solely. In my opinion, that’d only lead to a Skyhammer ammo drop race.
I can tell you this… if your rank is high now you will get low teammates and you need to carry… the ranked game now is about who has the better teammates… if you reach cobalt… they put lvl 7 guys in your team that are aiming in the sky or learning the map just now… it’s ridiculous and btw maybe they should add that lock merc already because playing without medics and 4 naders in ranked is just a waste of time. Also if someone leaves the game in the beginning or mid-game doesn’t matter when another person should take his spot now that is only solo and duo Q I think this is a good idea because many people disconnect in the beginning which makes the game uneven and losing rank just because your nerd teammate decided to ragequit… For quitting ranked match the penalty should be -10 000 credits not 30min ban from ranked…
And also minimum lvl for playing ranked shouldn’t be 7 but 20 because @ level 7 they don’t have an idea what to do in ranked… either that or when you click a ranked match you get to see a tutorial which shows you the idea of the ranked game… a bit of tacs and what to do… that you need two medics and to support your team and not one man wanna be rambo bs…
That’s a pretty good idea. SD should make it so that a loss doesn’t count for the guy who joined late but a win does. There’s an incentive to win but no punishment for trying to help out.
Maybe make it optional by ticking a checkbox before searching.
Matches that are uneven don’t count for the remainding players as far as I know (there is even a message that tells you that it is save to leave after a while) so our precious rank shouldn’t be in danger when someone flees the battlefield. And noone likes to join in a game that is already running/loosing no matter the incentive.
Dishing out harder punishments for leavers I wouldn’t mind. To be honest haven’t had one so far (since the new season that is). Unfortunaly with the lack of cool stuff to spend ingame currency I fear taking away credits becomes less and less efficient tho.
But in any case there is a surrender vote in case the team becomes uneven and you want to cut the match short. Don’t use it in any other case tho. Just yesterday I played a match. Someone casted a surrender vote 3 minutes before the end of round 1. We planted the final objective (underground) with overtime and managed to defend well in the second and took the win… just a friendly reminder that the match is played over two rounds for a reason.
[quote=“B. Montiel;153883”][quote=“bontsa;153866”]I do think current system does give little too much credit for win/lose, taking barely into account a) how close the game was nor b) individual’s score and his performance as certain class (specific exp like support/combat)
[/quote]
Well that’s quite hard to give credit for those two points.
First, “how close the game was” would mainly consider the game length and intermediate times. And they do not reflect how the game ran solely. A full 30 min stopwatch game is not necessarily close. And 10 min one is not necessarily unbalanced. I’ve played numerous games where both teams were actually good on attack stomping the enemy and achieving good times, let’s say 5 to 8 mins to do the full map. And the second round was the opposite where the previous defending team manage to do just as good/better. So the whole 2 rounds game could just length below 15 min but be perfectly balanced. And with the score discrepancies that currently exists, with mercs like skyhammer hammering with xp/min stats for anyone who has minimum knowledge with him, it’s hard to conclude that a game is close or not just by looking at xp scores.[/quote]
Good point about the time, but game does keep track of objective progression, which could be more fitting in my opinion for evaluating how “tight” win or loss was. Agreed that I haven’t tought it much, but rough idea below.
[spoiler] 3 scenarios, from most even to least.
1st the example I gave in post above. Losing team, 2nd Attackers, were literally 0,5 seconds too late from managing to progress just as much as 1st Attackers. Is loss nevertheless, gotta suck it up, but much softer rank loss if opponents are of same rank as there, and in all these 3 examples.
1st Attackers got through EV repair and escort with 5 minutes on clock, but failed to deliver even one can? 2nd Attacker pushes escorts EV with considerably less time, lets say 1min on clock but still deliver 1 can? 2nd Attackers progressed clearly more in objectives overall despite the time of first 2, “normal” rank loss.
Most rank loss would happen if either 1st Attacker goes through all objective stages, while manage to defend all or least 2 of them (as in stop EV from being repaired or stop escort leaving it unfinished) or when 1st Defender full or almost full holds and then proceeds to blaze through 1st stage and gain some distance for 2nd, while it’s their turn to attack.[/spoiler]
Overall it could be more of a “softer” loss rank-wise to manage to clear almost the same progression in objectives rather than absolute loss where losing team is clearly outpaced. Not time that much, but progression would be mattering factor.
Every merc class is definitely bringing their own usefulness, which is exactly why I thought initially looking into different exp progression as a “bumper” for rank loss (as in if you’ve done considerably well even in losing team, rank loss wouldn’t be so harsh). Could as well be done with total exp I guess as in some situations lack of teamwork could result in doing stuff outside of your class’s “main” job (fire support merc engineering / combatting etc.)
Point being that something could be done to ease rank loss in situations where you perform well but team synergy (which is quite random in solo/duoQ after all) is lacking a lot. For this idea to work though exp gain should be more even across the class board. I agree some classes do gain exp much easier than others, even while doing what their role suggests.
[quote=“B. Montiel;153883”]And this is pretty much the same for personal performance being taken into account. Your team won, not you solely. In my opinion, that’d only lead to a Skyhammer ammo drop race.
[/quote]
Ideas I threw here were mostly considering losing team. But now thinking of it, if deranking is made too rare it kinda kills the idea of fast movement accross the rank board so people stay around the same rank level their skill usually indicates.
All in all, I have no experience in game developing or anything, just opinionated that there should be something else than only winning or losing taken into account when determining rank. As for now it seems it is pretty much the only factor.
Interesting view indeed. But, in my opinion, “alleviating” loss cost if you’ve done well would not fit with the division system currently built. That’d perfectly fit with a system similar to the former rocket league ranking system or survarium one. In another terms, a proper ranked ladder with no upper limits.
I don’t have any game designing knowledge either. I’ve seen quite a lot of systems in different games. But one thing I think is interesting with the current format is that you’re somehow accurately placed in the long run. With ladder systems (which usually give less weight to a loss) , someone who is reliable enough throughout his ranked sessions will inevitably climb more than he’ll go down. So there’s no true ranking-skill relationship at the end. From my point of view, that the least a ranking system should do.
So currently, I feel like that’s a good basis. It can be improved of course. But a loss is a loss, and a win a win. Hopefully, they’ve done things right and you’ll loss less if there’s a significant level gap between the two teams (or win more if you successfully beat a team which had an average level higher than yours).
[quote=“Gi.Am;153926”]Matches that are uneven don’t count for the remainding players as far as I know (there is even a message that tells you that it is save to leave after a while) so our precious rank shouldn’t be in danger when someone flees the battlefield.
[/quote]
The message explicitly tells you that the result of the match still counts towards your rank. Only penalties for abandoning are disabled so you can leave and requeue right again.
I’m kidding.
Only penalties for abandoning are disabled so you can leave and requeue right again.