A serious suggestion

[Ithilwen.1529]

**Every successful system of competition is moderated to some extent. Whether that be in gaming or in politics or economics.**

 

One doesn't set an MLB team against a little league team. The MLB team is certainly more skilled and able.. so it's their right to curb stomp the little league team, right?

 

Of course not. Why not? Because such a matchup would be unfair and unsporting.

 

I'm not proposing a redistribution of "wealth." I'm proposing that the little league teams play in little league.

 

 

[BlackTruth.6813]

The system is already trying it's best to do that.. maybe if we had more people to play with then the system can adjust itself. But yeah separating team ques and solo ques will literally have 10 minute ques because again we need people to come first.

 

I've been trying to get new friends to play this game too, and they keep saying "GW2 is old, why not play a new game"

 

So obviously "fixing" matchmaking isn't the only way to get new players.

[Chaith.8256]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"Chaith.8256" said:

> > Something a lot of people (and OP) are getting wrong, the matchmaker absolutely does not take past matches into account for the matchmaking of your next match and it never has.

> >

> > Each match is independently balanced as best as possible with who is available, expanding to putting bad, good, and average players together as long as the teams are balanced team MMR.

>

> Incorrect. During the "competitive" matchmaking seasons of The Year of the Ascension, The matchmaker encouraged win streaking. This was expressly done by weighting the teams based on whether the players won or lost the last match.

>

> This was explained by ANET.

 

The leagues rewarded win streaking with additional pips.

 

That's not the same as getting a boost to your team's MMR cap based on how many players won their last game(s), creating intentionally stacked teams.

 

That's actually a preposterous mechanic that never existed, so to suggest that be put in the game but "inverted" is just more twisted than the reality was.

 

Feel free to cite the post where ArenaNet explained how they take into account your wins/losses when determining whether to stack one team or the other.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> **Every successful system of competition is moderated to some extent. Whether that be in gaming or in politics or economics.**

>

> One doesn't set an MLB team against a little league team. The MLB team is certainly more skilled and able.. so it's their right to curb stomp the little league team, right?

>

> Of course not. Why not? Because such a matchup would be unfair and unsporting.

>

> I'm not proposing a redistribution of "wealth." I'm proposing that the little league teams play in little league.

>

>

 

The game already does this.

 

You're suggesting something that is already implemented, and arguing against something from years ago.

 

Why is anyone agreeing with this, or arguing against it? Do you not know how the game functions today?

[Gamadorn.2670]

The real root of the issue is the type of pvp style that is being used in ranked.....Conquest......

 

it is not simple to learn, and even those that have learned it still argue about what is the "right" tactic and what is not...

 

watch streamers playing the same game and they are talking shit about each other lol. When we get a proper game mode that is easy for new people to understand their role in and becomes better as people master their role in more advanced ways, then matchmaking will improve IMO

[JonnyForgotten.4276]

> @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:

> > > @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > > Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S **Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)**

> > >

> > > Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

> > >

> > > It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

> > >

> >

> > "Triggered"? Nonsense! Let's have some fun!

> >

> > Capitalism is about responsibility and hard work? Hah! My friend, I would say the opposite! If anything, capitalism rewards the _irresponsible_., such as wall street and the pharmaceuticals. Charity in capitalism is also pretty dishonest because it is done with the expectation of a return, which goes against the concept of charity! That billionaire doesn't just give away stuff from the bottom of his heart! Capitalism has no virtues, it is merely a system that perpetuates to make as much money as possible.

> >

> > As far turret engi and mirage, go, I don't support that nonsense. I've fought against them. I don't support the post-HoT powercreep that has infested pvp.

> >

>

> Capitalism doesn't always mean greed. As I've said before, more compettion means people are going to want to improve and in turn better services and products are made. But then, if you redistribute wealth to the poorest schmuck, that isn't exactly competition if the schmuck starts going back to their old ways, no? And sad reality is, when you are charitable you are lowkey hoping that people try to do to others what you have done for them. Doesn't mean it's wrong to hope for people to give something in return to society if not back to yourself.

>

>

> And then in socialism you get taxed at high rates (and the government never tells you where they are spending the money into). What's the point of getting rich in Venezuela? What is the point of improving goods and services by that logic if wealth will simply be redistributed so that the poorest schmuck will be "as rich" as those who worked harder? How will that poor schmuck understand the error of his ways, because some poor people ACTUALLY do not like to work hard and are bad with money? Redistributing wealth doesn't ALWAYS mean there will be good coming out of it because you redistribute wealth to the most lazy schmuck then the cycle repeats itself. How do the people on top find a way to improve their business when their wealth will simply be taken away from them? You realize that people on the top are the ones that provide jobs as well right? If they get taxed high because people want to implement socialism, they will simply cut jobs and contribute to unemployment. You have poverty so much, then you have to understand that what socialism does can lead to that as well.

>

> Socialism shuns improvement, effort, and people start to not accept reality for what it is once they start truly believing this ideology.

>

> At least you agree with me that turret engi and condi mirage is garabge in design though.

 

So, for my two cents, I would argue that the core problem in Venezuela/Soviet Russia/Vietnam, etc wasn't/isn't socialism, it is authoritarianism. Look at the effect non-authoritarian social safety net policies have had in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the US. Taking care of the basic needs of a population up front tends to cost less resources overall than just letting people starve or be sick.

 

As a counter example, look at what happened to Spain under Franco. Wrecked economy, impoverished population, destroyed infrastructure. . . all under a decidedly anti-communist, pro-capitalist, but highly authoritarian regime.

 

The problem isn't socialism or capitalism, it's selfish kittens who gain power.

[BlackTruth.6813]

> @"JonnyForgotten.4276" said:

> > @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:

> > > > @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > > > Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S **Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)**

> > > >

> > > > Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

> > > >

> > > > It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

> > > >

> > >

> > > "Triggered"? Nonsense! Let's have some fun!

> > >

> > > Capitalism is about responsibility and hard work? Hah! My friend, I would say the opposite! If anything, capitalism rewards the _irresponsible_., such as wall street and the pharmaceuticals. Charity in capitalism is also pretty dishonest because it is done with the expectation of a return, which goes against the concept of charity! That billionaire doesn't just give away stuff from the bottom of his heart! Capitalism has no virtues, it is merely a system that perpetuates to make as much money as possible.

> > >

> > > As far turret engi and mirage, go, I don't support that nonsense. I've fought against them. I don't support the post-HoT powercreep that has infested pvp.

> > >

> >

> > Capitalism doesn't always mean greed. As I've said before, more compettion means people are going to want to improve and in turn better services and products are made. But then, if you redistribute wealth to the poorest schmuck, that isn't exactly competition if the schmuck starts going back to their old ways, no? And sad reality is, when you are charitable you are lowkey hoping that people try to do to others what you have done for them. Doesn't mean it's wrong to hope for people to give something in return to society if not back to yourself.

> >

> >

> > And then in socialism you get taxed at high rates (and the government never tells you where they are spending the money into). What's the point of getting rich in Venezuela? What is the point of improving goods and services by that logic if wealth will simply be redistributed so that the poorest schmuck will be "as rich" as those who worked harder? How will that poor schmuck understand the error of his ways, because some poor people ACTUALLY do not like to work hard and are bad with money? Redistributing wealth doesn't ALWAYS mean there will be good coming out of it because you redistribute wealth to the most lazy schmuck then the cycle repeats itself. How do the people on top find a way to improve their business when their wealth will simply be taken away from them? You realize that people on the top are the ones that provide jobs as well right? If they get taxed high because people want to implement socialism, they will simply cut jobs and contribute to unemployment. You have poverty so much, then you have to understand that what socialism does can lead to that as well.

> >

> > Socialism shuns improvement, effort, and people start to not accept reality for what it is once they start truly believing this ideology.

> >

> > At least you agree with me that turret engi and condi mirage is garabge in design though.

>

> So, for my two cents, I would argue that the core problem in Venezuela/Soviet Russia/Vietnam, etc wasn't/isn't socialism, it is authoritarianism. Look at the effect non-authoritarian social safety net policies have had in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the US. Taking care of the basic needs of a population up front tends to cost less resources overall than just letting people starve or be sick.

>

> As a counter example, look at what happened to Spain under Franco. Wrecked economy, impoverished population, destroyed infrastructure. . . all under a decidedly anti-communist, pro-capitalist, but highly authoritarian regime.

>

> The problem isn't socialism or capitalism, it's selfish kittens who gain power.

 

Wasn't the propaganda socialism/communism though? I agree that it's specifically "corrupt people" that is the true roots of the problem. But didn't their leaders market themselves under that guise and people actually bought it? Though military take over makes sense too in the latin american states.

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"Chaith.8256" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"Chaith.8256" said:

> > > Something a lot of people (and OP) are getting wrong, the matchmaker absolutely does not take past matches into account for the matchmaking of your next match and it never has.

> > >

> > > Each match is independently balanced as best as possible with who is available, expanding to putting bad, good, and average players together as long as the teams are balanced team MMR.

> >

> > Incorrect. During the "competitive" matchmaking seasons of The Year of the Ascension, The matchmaker encouraged win streaking. This was expressly done by weighting the teams based on whether the players won or lost the last match.

> >

> > This was explained by ANET.

>

> The leagues rewarded win streaking with additional pips.

>

> That's not the same as getting a boost to your team's MMR cap based on how many players won their last game(s), creating intentionally stacked teams.

>

> That's actually a preposterous mechanic that never existed, so to suggest that be put in the game but "inverted" is just more twisted than the reality was.

>

> Feel free to cite the post where ArenaNet explained how they take into account your wins/losses when determining whether to stack one team or the other.

 

I stand corrected. I have researched the matchmaking at that time.

 

One of the devs stated at that time ( on guild chat I believe ) that the system was deliberately unfair and that losing would make the next match harder. Those words still ring in my head.

 

I maintain my point. Newcomers need to have a good experience and be protected from being matched outside their skill range.

 

**The pip matching system allowed teams of any MMR to face one another. Particularly at the beginning of the season when Pro teams could face and did face Bronze. This approach was unsuccessful and turned away many new players.**

 

I propose instead, that new players should be given a very low MMR initially. This would ensure that new players face new players.

[Chaith.8256]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> **The pip matching system allowed teams of any MMR to face one another. Particularly at the beginning of the season when Pro teams could face and did face Bronze. This approach was unsuccessful and turned away many new players.**

>

> I propose instead, that new players should be given a very low MMR initially. This would ensure that new players face new players.

 

We did away with that system long ago and don't need a proposal to save the early season match quality anymore.

 

But you seem to have done some homework and see now that matchmaking based on win/loss history is a bad thing to implement, I think that's /thread for me.

 

[Pakkazull.6894]

Year of the Ascension wasn't a festival and the pip system of matchmaking is dead and buried. Furthermore the current matchmaker already "pushes" people towards a 50/50 win/loss ratio (though not by artificial means as some people seem to think). Nothing in this post is relevant to anything, I'm sorry to say.

[Noir.8561]

You wouldnt loose pip and drop in tier 1+2 (newcommers tiers)

You would get extra pip for streak winning and you wouldnt loose a pip in your 3rd loss .

You would loose massive amount of Pips in the 2 highest tiers (out of 6 tiers)

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"Pakkazull.6894" said:

> Year of the Ascension wasn't a festival and the pip system of matchmaking is dead and buried. Furthermore the current matchmaker already "pushes" people towards a 50/50 win/loss ratio (though not by artificial means as some people seem to think). Nothing in this post is relevant to anything, I'm sorry to say.

 

I would also like to make some serious proposals:

 

* Being able to equip 2 weapons and swap between them

* Choice of traits and gear which affect character performance

* Using the "internet" to allow players to interact with other players

* Using a spark in combination with fuel to generate heat

* Leaving the ocean and colonizing the "land"

 

I have put a lot of thought and research into these proposals, and have concluded that these are must-haves for any future pvp events. Please forward to Mike O'Brien.

[JonnyForgotten.4276]

> @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > @"JonnyForgotten.4276" said:

> > > @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:

> > > > > @"BlackTruth.6813" said:

> > > > > Oh god what have I done LMAO the socialists are getting triggered. Capitalism is ALSO about responsibility, charity, and HARD WORK. Because there is competition, people want to work hard. There are multiple interpretations of it and if you want to go around saying some rich people are evil because some of them worked hard, go ahead. That's your opinion, and it's my preffered ideology. P.S **Communism/socialism killed more people than capitalism (i.e stalin's Russia, Venezuela)**

> > > > >

> > > > > Those who work the hardest should eat the most, therefore Turret Engi is wrong, Condi Mirage is wrong. That's why you see people complain about garbage socialist mechanics like that. Not to mention in GW2, terms? Those builds were NEVER fun to fight against, and the whole point of the game is to have fun. Do you HONESTLY believe people are going to have fun against builds that take ZERO effort while they have to work hard to be equal to it? That's how bad socialism is in GW2 terms.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's great that we agree on that there are better solutions though. We could also make new game modes that new people might like because conquest got boring along with separating solo que and team ques.THAT my friend is realistic, I also agree that team que should be the way to go but we need a population first and maybe an expansion that ISN'T garbage and imbalanced for once.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > "Triggered"? Nonsense! Let's have some fun!

> > > >

> > > > Capitalism is about responsibility and hard work? Hah! My friend, I would say the opposite! If anything, capitalism rewards the _irresponsible_., such as wall street and the pharmaceuticals. Charity in capitalism is also pretty dishonest because it is done with the expectation of a return, which goes against the concept of charity! That billionaire doesn't just give away stuff from the bottom of his heart! Capitalism has no virtues, it is merely a system that perpetuates to make as much money as possible.

> > > >

> > > > As far turret engi and mirage, go, I don't support that nonsense. I've fought against them. I don't support the post-HoT powercreep that has infested pvp.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Capitalism doesn't always mean greed. As I've said before, more compettion means people are going to want to improve and in turn better services and products are made. But then, if you redistribute wealth to the poorest schmuck, that isn't exactly competition if the schmuck starts going back to their old ways, no? And sad reality is, when you are charitable you are lowkey hoping that people try to do to others what you have done for them. Doesn't mean it's wrong to hope for people to give something in return to society if not back to yourself.

> > >

> > >

> > > And then in socialism you get taxed at high rates (and the government never tells you where they are spending the money into). What's the point of getting rich in Venezuela? What is the point of improving goods and services by that logic if wealth will simply be redistributed so that the poorest schmuck will be "as rich" as those who worked harder? How will that poor schmuck understand the error of his ways, because some poor people ACTUALLY do not like to work hard and are bad with money? Redistributing wealth doesn't ALWAYS mean there will be good coming out of it because you redistribute wealth to the most lazy schmuck then the cycle repeats itself. How do the people on top find a way to improve their business when their wealth will simply be taken away from them? You realize that people on the top are the ones that provide jobs as well right? If they get taxed high because people want to implement socialism, they will simply cut jobs and contribute to unemployment. You have poverty so much, then you have to understand that what socialism does can lead to that as well.

> > >

> > > Socialism shuns improvement, effort, and people start to not accept reality for what it is once they start truly believing this ideology.

> > >

> > > At least you agree with me that turret engi and condi mirage is garabge in design though.

> >

> > So, for my two cents, I would argue that the core problem in Venezuela/Soviet Russia/Vietnam, etc wasn't/isn't socialism, it is authoritarianism. Look at the effect non-authoritarian social safety net policies have had in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the US. Taking care of the basic needs of a population up front tends to cost less resources overall than just letting people starve or be sick.

> >

> > As a counter example, look at what happened to Spain under Franco. Wrecked economy, impoverished population, destroyed infrastructure. . . all under a decidedly anti-communist, pro-capitalist, but highly authoritarian regime.

> >

> > The problem isn't socialism or capitalism, it's selfish kittens who gain power.

>

> Wasn't the propaganda socialism/communism though? I agree that it's specifically "corrupt people" that is the true roots of the problem. But didn't their leaders market themselves under that guise and people actually bought it? Though military take over makes sense too in the latin american states.

 

The flavor of the propaganda matters less than the actions and intent of the leader(s) in charge. Venezuela is actually a pretty good example of this. Under Chavez, the living standards there did rise, massively, for a very large portion of the population. Under Madero, there has been a massive crisis, but I would argue that the crisis wasn't caused by "socialism". It was caused by mismanagement of the countries assets and monetary policy, along with a hefty drop in oil prices which gutted the state's revenue. Add a strongly militaristic outlook that makes it hard to replace Madero, and you have the current crisis. So again, militarism, authoritarianism, and mismanagement are the problem, not a desire to give everyone a basic standard of living.