Legendary Threshold Should be Lowered

[Ryan.9387]

We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

> @"Ryan.9387" said:

> We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

 

No.

 

EU has a number of players in Legendary, it shouldn't be lowered just because the state of NA sPvP is a disaster. Honestly the ones who got banned for the wintrading and other things brought this on, and personally I'd rather no one in NA get to Legendary if it means Ranked gets looked at once more and things either change with the game mode or NA gets its act together.

[Rufo.3716]

So many players are ranked nowhere near where they should be, both to high and to low. At least on NA. Pip farmers makes it hard to climb if you are placed low.

[Toll Booth Willie.6723]

Was wondering if this was gonna be a thing. I agree it's odd that no one has reached legendary, though I don't really feel it's due to any sort of game mechanics. Unless they did some sort of bell curve with the stats I don't think it would be fair, and that itself seems sillier than just having no one get that high of a ranking. It is a metric after all.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Toll Booth Willie.6723" said:

> Unless they did some sort of bell curve with the stats...

 

The glicko2 rating system actually distributes rating across a bell curve.

 

 

[Poelala.2830]

No. As a plat player I can tell you 98% of players are below garbage tier and no one should be a legend.

[shadowpass.4236]

This is a population issue. Less players = less rating going around.

[BeLZedaR.4790]

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> This is a population issue. Less players = less rating going around.

 

True but not only.

Soft resets bring rating down more and more because once people start reaching top spots they start to camp them, or atleast play less, instead of spamming games.

 

[Jalal.6783]

Fix the whole concept of once you reach so high (plat 2) you start to lose significantly more than you win. This alone will mean many more players will be able to reach their deserved rank as opposed to being held down by such an oppressive system

[Kathul.1280]

Since GW2 isn't even considered as an, or possible E-Sport, in todays E-Sport market there is alot to do in order to make it so.

 

IF ANET wanted that kind of challenge to their business model they would put more effort into that direction.

 

As is, the community should be more patient with the development staff and encourage them to promote what it would take to make PvP an actual , recognized competitive mode.

 

Until WE as a PvP community accept any and all changes that require structured game balance that promotes competition it is we the community that will suffer for poor choices. (i.e. not supporting Stronghold and not wanting both a solo que, AND team que with NO profession swap. )

 

There are multiple examples of such mistakes in the past and current mistakes. Other competitive sports exist with more structure and balance than what our PvP experience is, yet, The game developers are it seems haven't even set foot in their own game in years as far as PvP goes. The PVE is great and so is the combat system. making both come together in PvP or WvW HAs to be rough.

 

PvP should be completely seperate from WvW and PvE from the ground up. All professions, skills, traits, runes and sigils HAVE to be reworked for PvP. As well as WvW. PvE , IS, the draw to GW2. BUT, a totally fresh look and revision of their amazing franchise in ALL game modes would be amazing.

 

I applaud the hard work the staff does. Nothing is perfect. Anet employees so far are doing a great job with what they have and as gamers we are hard to please. FUN is the motive for us being here. The staff should get a chance to have fun as well as developers of an amazing franchise. So to the staff that is in charge of PvP, Come play some matches with us and experience the game as fun for yourselves.

 

As far as OP goes. Legendary should be a ghost town. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE !!

[LucianTheAngelic.7054]

The whole system just needs to be structured around percentages honestly, would make it much better and flexible.

[Ashkew.6584]

I like the fact that getting into legendary is " hard ". I like to try and get to legendary, and i like the fact that its not that easy. that being said, i stopped playing this season anyway until balance happens cuz this is season is kitten

[Evalia.7103]

It's not really "Hard" if there isn't a single player getting it. It's more like "Stupid". Keep in mind that on EU at the moment, there isn't a single Legend also.

 

Rather than making Legend require an obscenely high Skill Rating, it could be issued to everyone in the top 250. With 3 tiers to it, perhaps? Top 50 and top 10 maybe.

 

Also the overall skill rating inflates whenever a person dodges? What kind of crap is that? 5 people get the skill rating, but only 1 person - the leaver - loses some.

 

[zoopop.5630]

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > @"Ryan.9387" said:

> > We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

>

> No.

>

> EU has a number of players in Legendary, it shouldn't be lowered just because the state of NA sPvP is a disaster. Honestly the ones who got banned for the wintrading and other things brought this on, and personally I'd rather no one in NA get to Legendary if it means Ranked gets looked at once more and things either change with the game mode or NA gets its act together.

 

EU is a fucking joke compared to NA rank.... It is fucking easy to reach 1700-1800 in Eu compared to Na. Comparing both and saying X has Y wouldn't make any sense when it's been shown a few times that Na Gold players can reach Plat 2 fairly easily in Eu.

 

The WHOLE rank rating system should be Reworked/Knock down a bit.... but then again who cares about rank with the way it's been the last 5 seasons.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

 

@"zoopop.5630"

They are more able to reach Plat ranks and subsequently higher Plat ranks because they **actually have players to play against**. NA sPvP playerbase is smaller, which makes it more difficult to actually get matches that will positively affect your rating the higher it is. Adequate population isn't a thing NA has right now due to a dwindled interest in sPvP, fewer players actually playing sPvP and even fewer players who actually attain Plat 2+.

 

If the point you're bringing up is that "EU players are worse compared to NA players" then I'm going to have to suggest you hop off the high horse, because they really aren't. There are just more players available that actually play at a Plat level so that people who actually achieve Plat in NA don't fall right back into Gold because Anets matchmaking, to shorten que times, will pair Plat 1 and such ranked players with Gold players.

 

The bottom 30 of NA's top 250 are **barely** in Plat 1 division. Literally one loss for most of them would drop them right back into Gold 3. Whereas the bottom 30 of EU's top 250 are 1,569 rating and above which rather firmly secures them in Plat 1 and Plat 2. Just the disparity between NA's top 250 and EU's top 250 should tell you the lack of players available on NA compared to EU.

[Malediktus.9250]

They should just make legendary div = top 10

then you could also quickly see if you have someone from the top 10 infront you

[Aktium.9506]

> @"Ryan.9387" said:

> We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

 

this is an NA problem though. i was legendary last season and ended the season at like #32 or some such on the leaderboards.

thats a good amount of leggy players.

 

lowering the threshold would just feel bad. i remember that one season way back where anet had that brilliant matchmaking algorithm that actively matched teams on a losing streak against teams on a win streak. i went like 95-5 that season and it felt so undeserved. everything feels better if you have to struggle a little to get it.

[milego.4830]

It isn't a struggle if nobody can do it, it's just unreasonable.

 

As said before, the rank system need to be reworked from the ground. You need to give people a reason to want to push that "Rank" button. Most of the time I'm about to do that, I think to myself: "well, if I win, I get like 10 points, If I lose, I'll lose at least 12, so the next match after this one will just be to get back some of that lost rating... what a rewarding feeling, cant wait for that..."

 

It's just boring. Once I get to Plat 1/2, I just play the minimum needed to avoid decay. And that's it. The whole system, that was supposed to keep players playing and interested, do exact the opposite. That's just bad design.

[Sampson.2403]

> @"Aktium.9506" said:

> > @"Ryan.9387" said:

> > We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

>

> this is an NA problem though. i was legendary last season and ended the season at like #32 or some such on the leaderboards.

> thats a good amount of leggy players.

>

> lowering the threshold would just feel bad. i remember that one season way back where anet had that brilliant matchmaking algorithm that actively matched teams on a losing streak against teams on a win streak. i went like 95-5 that season and it felt so undeserved. everything feels better if you have to struggle a little to get it.

 

Do you live in the states? Are there any ping issues playing in Europe? Id play on Euro servers for the bigger pvp pool but i think the peak playing times would be an issue for someone living in the states.

[zoopop.5630]

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

>

> @"zoopop.5630"

> They are more able to reach Plat ranks and subsequently higher Plat ranks because they **actually have players to play against**. NA sPvP playerbase is smaller, which makes it more difficult to actually get matches that will positively affect your rating the higher it is. Adequate population isn't a thing NA has right now due to a dwindled interest in sPvP, fewer players actually playing sPvP and even fewer players who actually attain Plat 2+.

>

> If the point you're bringing up is that "EU players are worse compared to NA players" then I'm going to have to suggest you hop off the high horse, because they really aren't. There are just more players available that actually play at a Plat level so that people who actually achieve Plat in NA don't fall right back into Gold because Anets matchmaking, to shorten que times, will pair Plat 1 and such ranked players with Gold players.

>

> The bottom 30 of NA's top 250 are **barely** in Plat 1 division. Literally one loss for most of them would drop them right back into Gold 3. Whereas the bottom 30 of EU's top 250 are 1,569 rating and above which rather firmly secures them in Plat 1 and Plat 2. Just the disparity between NA's top 250 and EU's top 250 should tell you the lack of players available on NA compared to EU.

 

not once was it aimed toward the "players" on who better then who in terms of Na/Eu. It was targeting the rank system in general, which you clearly understand as to why it's so much easier to climb in Eu then Na. Why the whole system should be reworked completely at least in NA.

[Vegeta.2563]

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > @"Ryan.9387" said:

> > We're looking at a second season in a row where at least in NA, not a single person will reach legendary. The threshold should be lowered again, at least by 100 points.

>

> No.

>

> EU has a number of players in Legendary, it shouldn't be lowered just because the state of NA sPvP is a disaster. Honestly the ones who got banned for the wintrading and other things brought this on, and personally I'd rather no one in NA get to Legendary if it means Ranked gets looked at once more and things either change with the game mode or NA gets its act together.

 

Sounds like if someone wants Legendary, transfer to EU :grimace:

[jcbroe.4329]

> @"BeLZedaR.4790" said:

> > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > This is a population issue. Less players = less rating going around.

>

> True but not only.

> Soft resets bring rating down more and more because once people start reaching top spots they start to camp them, or atleast play less, instead of spamming games.

>

 

This is how basically every matchmaking algorithm works though, it rewards highly rated people for playing the bare minimum amount of games in order to retain their high rating.

 

Then, because the highly rated people can only climb by being matched against each other and they barely play, it puts a roadblock on any new or lower placed players looking to try to climb because they can't match up against higher and higher rated players to continue to climb and gain rating, causing the outcome where 1 loss drops them 2-5 wins worth of rating.

 

Glicko2 TRIES to alleviate this by using standard deviation to create a rating range in which to use to match people up, which in theory works, except that ANet doesn't let the matchmaking +- range shrink low enough and stay tight enough to give people confidence in the matchmaker that it will create good matchups, which further reduces the population and the amount of games people are willing to play per season.

 

On top of that, Glicko2 requires HUGE datasets to actually be accurate. The whole idea is for it to collect enough data for the standard deviation to reduce as much as possible in order for it to be as confident in your score as possible and create good matches. I believe in chess, we'd be talking hundreds upon hundreds upon even thousands of games before you have a strong, confident rating. GW2 makes you play 120 games and then resets, even if only partially, all that collected data. On top of being loose with the deviation ranges it uses to make matchups mentioned above.

 

Anybody looking to be super serious about the quality of their matches and climb wouldn't even stay in the queue after the 3 minute marker after interpreting the matchmaking logic available on the wiki. And after 5 minutes? You'll be plat2 playing with people straight out of Queensdale with no dodge key bound that blame losses on defending points and killing players instead of killing beasts.

 

If ANet were truly serious about keeping the game competitive at all, they'd tighten up the standard deviation range of the matchmaking and/or extend that 3 and 5 minute interval where than ranges expand out to 5 and 8 minutes minimum, but preferably 8 and 10, and lastly but maybe most importantly, **they'd remove the players ability to see the leaderboards until the last days or maybe full week of the season.**

 

Being able to see the Leaderboard gives players the ability to self-measure there performance so that they can control the amount of games they put into the system as well as control when they queue so they can try to sync who they queue against. This behavior is gaming the system.

 

Without a visible Leaderboard, theoretically, instead of motivating people to play the bare minimum amount of games at the right times against the right people, people would be encouraged to play as much as possible while attempting to produce a high win rate. In the last week, the leaderboard could be revealed, which at that point could motivate people to play a last game stretch in order for the last minute climb, instead of now where people try to make a last minute peak 72 hours out to then hold their position.

 

Anyhow, I know it's a lot, but tl;dr, current system broken/ineffective.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@"zoopop.5630" I mean I do agree that sPvP needs to get reworked, their matchmaking needs to be improved, they need to figure out how to properly distribute rating on a per match basis so people can actually get some steps ahead from wins rather than take one step forward and two steps back, which is essentially how it tends to work now.

 

Conquest as a game mode itself needs a rework if only just because compared to Classes and the mechanics that have been added to them over time, the Conquest game mode itself is **severely** outdated and in need of updating to accommodate these shifts in the actual gameplay of GW2. Which honestly should include the return of 5 man premade groups for Ranked, appropriate matchmaking for these groups and maybe **un**-gut sPvP because thats all they've done to it over time, just disemboweled it. Thats what has lead to the excess of cheese builds and how they are pretty often just entirely built to "abuse" how Conquest as a mode works.

 

@"Vegeta.2563" Haha yeah, yes and no. If you're in the I'd say...Plat 2+ range then yeah, you could probably do well there, but more often than not anyone in the Plat 1 range on NA is actually a Gold player which again thats really just a product of the lack of population for sPvP on NA. Kinda makes getting Plat 1 a bit less...awesome on NA.

[dagger dave.5201]

The gameplay on NA isn't worth legendary status tbh.

[Devilman.1532]

until they fix the rating system or config it correctly, address balance in a major way that doesn't completely defy logic, and overhaul completely how AFKers are dealt with ranked will always be a joke.

 

Not to mention the still rampant throwing and other types of match manipulation.