LUST.7241

> @Morwath.9817 said:

> What about giving more points for kills and less for dancing in circles?

I remember a suggestion like this before...essentially it would trust the "Top Stats" system in that case. Would have to value each "top stat" differently/justly (ex. Is Kills as valuable as Offense?).

> @Vertep.2498 said:

> all very nice as why should get that much point good team against bad when this gap is really large and more revarding lesser gap to also not punish for lose with high amount of points

> but why 250-349 point gap:

> Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)

> Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

>

> is that punishing losers? if this gap is counting just as: enemiesr are really good against players with problems with cooperate

Yeah, I'm assuming something of the match. Maybe the losers were incorrectly placed and actually versing people at that rating...rather than the matchmaker just picking whoever is queuing after 4minutes of trying.

> @"Alek Seven.2374" said:

> Test/10chars [https://imgur.com/a/Hy2jq](https://imgur.com/a/Hy2jq "https://imgur.com/a/Hy2jq")

> @"Alek Seven.2374" said:

> Testing 10/chars  "")

>

Here's what is wrong (remove highlighted characters, second line is the final result):

![](https://i.imgur.com/UDqKPLY.png"")

> @Shaogin.2679 said:

> Your suggested changes will cause bad matches to be drawn out and add some serious trolling. If Red Team is mopping the floor with Blue Team, why would the end the match with a 300-400 point lead? Instead they'll let Blue Team catch up a bit then slap them around, let them catch up more then slap them around some more, insults flooding map chat the entire time. Some on Blue Team just want the match to end, others want to lose less points, it's just a mess.

>

> Your solution creates way more problems than it solves.

True.

But...

* That's assuming both sides actually agree on the plan. Currently, one side rarely agrees on anything amongst themselves.

* AFK trolls would be less effective in tanking opponents ratings (especially cases of match-manipulation off-hours). Wouldn't have to play 3 games to come back from a game that a thief decided to AFK because he decapped too late.

* Plus, there is still a match timer in play. Would take some serious coordination to abuse the system...whereas in the current system it is stupidly easy to abuse the system because everything is valued the same.

> @Crius.5487 said:

> You want teams that play better to receive less points?

I want close games to be more valuable than stomps (which is because of terrible matchmaking). Games which aren't full stomps (151-249) would award the same as it is now; games which are borderline stomps (250-349) would give slightly less than default.

This is a discussion. I just want closer games to happen more often because they are fun as heck.

I think when a close game is valued the same as a complete stomp...there's a problem and it can be discouraging.

At the same time, people play some really close games...only to lose so much...also discouraging.

Right now the ratings gain/loss is based on ratings...and that's fine. But a Legendary is only getting +6 for good close games then losing -18 for really close games...recovering is hard. So, some of them just play off hours to pad stats a bit and recover.

Maybe a "bonus" calculation needs to be added to rating adjustment? This would essentially make closer games more valuable than having everything count the same and discourage off-hours farming. Plus, ideally, this would more accurately place people in ratings.

_Just examples (assume the default gain/loss is 10 for both):_

**1-50 point gap:**

Winners: Gain slightly more (+15)

Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

* Both sides played a good and close game, showing that they were equally matched. Rematch?

**51-150 point gap:**

Winners: Gain slightly more (+12)

Losers: Lose the default (-10)

* Both sides played an occasionally good game, but crucial mistakes were made on one side. The better team reigned supreme. Better luck next time.

**151-249 point gap:**

Winners: Gain the default (+10)

Losers: Lose the default (-10)

* Zone of Git Gud.

**250-349 point gap:**

Winners: Gain slightly less (+7)

Losers: Lose slightly more (-15)

* Clown fiesta. Don't think one team can compete at this level yet.

**350-500 point gap:**

Winners: Gain significantly less (+5)

Losers: Lose significantly less (-5)

* Matchmaker clearly failed. Error. Try again later. Wtf.

Disconnects only prevent rating decline (if you lose).

You still take a loss.

I'd say you are fortunate to have prevented rating loss in placements.

And here I am just wanting the **default harvesting animation** with a little pizzazz.

Honestly, I wonder why they chose Amazon over Azure.

Also a good tutorial to learn how to be down by 200+ points.

Condi output is geared toward PvP speed while Condi Cleanse is geared toward PvE speed.

One thing that may work is: Is if all the condi cleanses were brought to PvP speed levels...there'd might actually be a somewhat decent counter.

If the opposite thing is done, you get PvE raging over their QTFY benchmark. That's a no-no. Can't have PvE upset.

If I do type into chat at start...it's usually along the lines of:

* _I'll grab home_ - I play Holosmith, they can grab home just as/almost as fast as a Thief or Mesmer

* _Mesmer, portal?_ - I'd like to know.

This isn't really stuff I type into chat...but really just advice:

* Thief (Daredevil), Mesmer, and Holosmith (Rifle, Boots) have excellent mobility. Exploit that advantage by decapping empty points when you are being outnumbered at another.

* If you are a Thief, Mesmer, or Holosmith and have a Thief, Mesmer, or Holosmith on your team, coordinate rotations. For example, depending on the match up, a Holosmith can grab close/home while Thief/Mesmer poke outliers mid, threaten far, or have a positional advantage to decap far faster than usual...rather than keeping strong 1v1'rs (Thief/Mesmer) home early.

* If Mesmer, portals enable you to keep map control between two points and provide excellent engage/disengage for teammates. Not using portal can handicap you and your team.

* Campers are bait. Don't fight bunkers camping a point. It's a waste of time. You are better suited outnumbering another point with your team that is way easier to take and rotating between the points the camper isn't sitting on.

* Practice new builds in Custom Arenas or Unranked...not Ranked or Automated Tournaments.

* Be informed of what the meta currently is. Use the forums, ask in the PvP Lobby chat, ask top Streamers, or look at [Metabattle](https://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki "Metabattle") for an idea.

* Don't trickle into a fight where the enemy team outnumbers you 1-by-1.

* Don't micromanage your team. Yes, that Deadeye Rifle is probably a huge handicap...but instead of blaming them all the time, try to work around it. You'd be surprised how you can enable teammates.

Firebrand.


> @TheQuickFox.3826 said:

> I'm still pondering wether I should account-bind a TP-purchased Kraitkin. The weapon looks great but the amount of usefulness is close to zero.

>

I haven't made a legendary weapon, and have no intention to (5+ years)...but I've told my former guildmates, if I ever do: It would be an underwater legendary...even if it is just for the Underwater Fractal.

That's how much I enjoy/prefer/like underwater content. Land isn't worthy.

Just use https://plays.tv/ and hit the hotkey save after each match.

That's what I do. Works with any setup now (AMD, Nvidia, Intel Integrated)...Shadowplay might have a similar feature but exclusive to Nvidia.

Alternatively, Windows 10 Game DVR...

> @Wesa.3580 said:

> Just like in LoL, aye.

> Sounds good, will barely happen.

> +1 from me anyway.

Or...

AoE, SC1, WC3, SC2, HotS...anything inspired off the RTS genre.

_Sorry, me just being salty by reading LoL trying to be passed off as "unique". c:_

Most games with solo queue have this problem. It's not unique to GW2. **I do wish close games hurt less than full-blown stomps though (250+ point gap, lose more rating than a 1-point gap). Right now they are valued the same**...which makes ranking up more of a luck-based-grind for those not in HS/freshman in university/one with no responsibilities and able to stay up 4-7AM to verse people 400 rating below you. :bleep_bloop:

However, let's take the closest example of a game that is very objective-based and heavily focuses on teamplay: Heroes of the Storm; which in my opinion has the best Solo Queue in any game I've played that has **A**) Objectives and **B**) Teamplay (you can't solo carry like other "MOBAs")

* Heroes of the Storm (HotS) handles Solo Queue (Hero League) extremely well. If you never played Ranked before (Hero League), and If you have an Unranked MMR (played Unranked), it takes that into consideration for your placements in Ranked. If you don't have Unranked games, it takes your Quick Match MMR. Quick Match/Unranked never get reset. While Ranked does if you skip a season. This makes "ranking up" in HotS actually compliment where you are skill-wise in all modes. For example, I placed in Plat 5 and ended in Plat 1 Season 1 2017 (HotS). This current season, the placement matches would pair me with people around Plat, and go up/down from there. The highest you can place is in Diamond (if you played the previous season and no matter your previous ranking), and the highest you can go is Grandmaster (where the leaderboard starts).

Does HotS still have problems? Yes, even with all this you still run into players that just try to micromanage everyone else. There are a lot of Heroes, a lot of maps, and a lot of possible playstyles for heroes. Some maps are better suited for certain heroes over another. A bad Hero pick on a certain map is almost as handicapping as a Thief running deadeye rifle.

At the same time, GW2 doesn't have that many factors for placements:

* Every season everyone gets a soft reset: (Previous Rating + 1200) * 0.5

* Unranked doesn't matter

This makes placements especially bad when coupled with the [matchmaking algorithm](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm "matchmaking algorithm"). You can play at the right time and go 10-0, or play at the wrong time and go 0-10. Neither really accurate of where one should be placed. I've seen really good Plat players place in Gold 1 or really bad players placed in Plat. Eventually, they'll drop as long as they continue playing games...but there are many who just sit where they placed and play very minimally or off-hours to pad their stats.

That being said, there's a time for beasts and there's a time that you likely are more valuable helping your team capturing points before taking beasts. At the end of the day, the most decisive factor to rating up is: You. Sure it isn't easy to solo queue (literally all I do), but you can really see the limits of what you can accomplish this way and that's something most players ignore and just blame the team instead.

> @Ithilwen.1529 said:

> Thanks for that. Is there a current version of the code or pseudo code posted? I'd like to see it. Also, why doesn't the matchmaker take match history into account? After all, loss streaks are one of the biggest causes of toxicity.

Probably not updated with the 1600 restriction.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm

Blame Scourge.

Everything Engineer has is Scourge candy since a majority of viable Engi tactics are near-melee range...and there are just no shortage of Scourges these days.

I voted for Conquest with less because it could be an opportunity to have [ATs for 2v2, 3v3](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15821/ats-for-2v2-3v3#latest "ATs for 2v2, 3v3") and make a full Solo Queue a reality. There's already unused/old maps that can be reworked (like the deathmatch maps).

> @MichalAniol.5807 said:

> > @LUST.7241 said:

> > This is especially triggering when you load in and you see a Firebrand spamming boons at spawn.

> >

> > Then again, there are so many skills/traits that apply boons on any profession that Scourge always has a field day. Way easier to get boons than to cleanse condis, it's ridiculous.

>

> So basically Firebrand is useless in pvp atm? I am honestly dissapointed by this "elite" spec performance in this mode. I love the idea of it, I want to play it, but it's "kitten you, pvp is not for you if you play FB".

No, they are really good...if they use the right build. [bunker Firebrand](https://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Firebrand_-_Mantra_Bunker "Bunker Firebrand") is stupidly sustainable. Problem is, there are Firebrands that don't follow the build which just severely handicaps your team.

It started with how HoT was implemented and how the PvP team saw balancing...which is still proven with the fact even today that Scourge is still a problem. There is no sense of urgency to balance in a timely fashion and the scene just starts to die off because of it.

The issue with Rewards is mainly to how it was executed. While not the root cause to decline, still a small factor.

* Year of Ascension, which is still the most terribly designed Legendary Backpack "collection", promoted AFK and inexperienced profession play for rewards. Plus, all the [prerequistes are all over the place](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/823/prerequiste-lock-on-year-of-ascension#latest "prerequistes are all over the place").

* League Reward Tracks originally didn't give pips on losses (S1-4), but then was changed (S5+)...which further promoted AFK play.

Plus, the PvP algorithm tries to bite off more than it can chew which is the silent killer.

This is especially triggering when you load in and you see a Firebrand spamming boons at spawn.

Then again, there are so many skills/traits that apply boons on any profession that Scourge always has a field day. Way easier to get boons than to cleanse condis, it's ridiculous.

I'm one to always blame myself, but yeah there are times where teammates do some of the dumbest things that make the win improbable (like even top streamers spot it and call it out). On top of hard match-ups (i.e. certain profession v profession) and trying to do what you expect another profession should be doing ...you can only do so much depending on your profession.

The way I see "carrying", and this is probably some super dumb way of thinking about it, the average player has to give 100% and meet the assumed expectations at the very least. That means each player (if playing at 100%), contributes 20% to the win.

* When one player, say a Warrior, has to play the map to keep the team in the game instead of the Daredevil, that contribution for both those players is skewed unfavorably and the Team Effectiveness is no longer 100% (each player 20%).

* For example: Average Warriors can sit in fights to buy time longer than an average thief, instead the thief is staying for 90s+. My assumption: if an average thief isn't in and out in 20-30s at most, they aren't effectively contributing (maybe 10% from them, giving an overall 90%). That 10% contribution negatively effects your teammates from performing at their 100%, which then lowers their contribution as well.

* Then they negatively perform, everything falls into chaos. To reduce this: **You **got to play your best. Know **your **profession. Know **your **role. Do it right. Yes, there is some wiggle room to carry, but it's harder for some professions. Know what carrying would entail (expertly stretch the usefulness of your profession/role--meaning: playing at 120%, overall contributing 40%).

That being said, the best way is obviously playing significant game changers that have higher chances to carry. I can think of 2 options:

* Play Thief or Mesmer (portal is important) if you can play the map (to split them, so you can outnumber when one of them goes to re-cap)--which depends if you have a team that can hold points long enough so you can decap/+1 1v1 fights. This is harder at the volatile ratings (Plat 1, Gold 3, Gold 2) because a lot of players are incorrectly placed into here.

* Play Firebrand (Bunker/Healer) or Scourge if your team is patient and can stick to just holding 2 points (instead of getting greedy and throw it all away to get a 3rd)--which is rare. This is harder at higher ratings (Plat 2+) because most established players there aren't dumb enough to waste time fighting bunkers for X minutes and getting no where...but easier at lower ratings because players are dumb enough to waste time.

* Other professions can overlap these options in ways that help the more dominant professions of the two options. For example, Holosmith can play the map or Ranger can somewhat bunker. Ideally, this really means professions that can give that complimentary edge to get secure kills fast--Like a stun on Engi so the Thief can swoop on in and burst him like a bubble. This leads to less time standing around and more time enabling the team to control the map everywhere (forcing the other team to either re-group or continue to fail going in one-at-a-time).

Side note:

* Micromanging your team (telling them what to do) usually comes off as "I want to be a leader. You have to do this for me. ". Most think they are a better leader and just end up letting their ego control the outcome...aka, you aren't the leader and everyone just plays like they want. Rarely you get players that **all **agree on a strategy...no matter how polite the "ask" was.

* Solo is harder, but it's way better to see what it takes for YOU to play your best. I'm not perfect and I do get salty at times, but I'm very critical of my gameplay and I do watch replays/others to improve myself.

* This is probably all terrible advice and someone notable will rightfully disagree with me...or say it better (i.e. ELI5).

I get that people want to play with friends and they should have a separate team leaderboard (party of 2,3,5), but there are significantly less duo+ than solors (any game can prove this, not only in GW2) while full parties of 5 stick to AT. Few people against the block to Duo past 1600 don't understand that duo'ing is a huge problem for rating accuracy since the matchmaking algorithm handles it terribly. Just look how predictable playing off-hours is for leaderboard masters and how some people are placed way higher (or rarely lower) than they should be.

Honestly, they could just have ATs for 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5. Rework the deathmatch PvP maps for 2v2 and 3v3. That's the realistic option.

Make the current ranked fully solo, profession lock (reduce the RNG of getting stuck with 2 core thieves) and have ATs for 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5.

Likely a question for Support: https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us

I'd assume that since tokens are unique to an account, it's not as simple as just copying it over to another. That'd likely be problematic.

They could, possibly, transfer the game keys? So the expansions can be disabled on the new account and used on your old (character data cannot be transferred). However, that's just my assumption that they have a dynamic system.