I don't think that actually happens though. I have the most wins of anyone currently 1500+ and I got over 1500 within my first 30 games of the season.

 

But we know for a fact that there are people getting lucky in their first 20-30 games.

 

 

 

It's not mat farmers. The reason it's harder to climb now is because the teams are actually fairer due to cross faction and the new matchmaking. That's a good thing.

 

And I understand queue testing, though I don't do it myself. But the point is, Bioware has the power to change ranked in various ways. Why should we care about people playing on loads of alts? There's no reason to have 10 mercs at 1500+. Surely 2 or 3 is sufficient.

 

Dudes getting lucky/getting carried after hundreds of games happens certainly for T1s (especially on FOTM), and sometimes Top3s. They just seem somewhat more deserving because they put in more time.

 

Luck is involved in both the very low win and very high win scenarios, they almost negate each other in that regard IMO which is why I didn't mention it.

 

Not weighing the first 10 so heavily or weighing it differently for sure might not be a bad idea to negate initial lucky breaks and lessen the amount you get from luck and/or skill streaks.

 

The mat farmers and new players forced into solo ranked are certainly a factor, and a large one. The player quality the past few seasons is more of a detriment RNG wise than any other season IMO, as I have stated before.

 

 

I mean do you want to put a limit on alts in ranked? There isn't really a reason to have that many, but there isn't really a reason not to (besides like the time investment, which is next to nothing now with the tokens).

 

Some players just do it as a statement. There are quite a few dudes (especially EU dudes) that have multiple claims to single Top3 spots that do it just as the obvious skill dab, for example: "In the time it took you to do a T1, I took all 3 Top3 spots." or "I had 5 T1s." etc, etc.

Luck is involved in both the very low win and very high win scenarios, they almost negate each other in that regard IMO which is why I didn't mention it..

this strikes me as delusional.

 

the larger the sample size, the more reliable the data. I have reset with many fotm classes. some have over 200 games. others 100. others 50 or fewer. the pattern is always the same. it's incredibly easy to luck into a high rating in the first 10-20 games. it's significantly more difficult to do so over the course of 50 and more so for 100 and again for 200. you get the idea. I genuinely cannot fathom how you rationalize doing well over a larger sample size as reflecting a higher degree of luck.

 

you can queue dodge. but luck? no.

this strikes me as delusional.

 

the larger the sample size, the more reliable the data. I have reset with many fotm classes. some have over 200 games. others 100. others 50 or fewer. the pattern is always the same. it's incredibly easy to luck into a high rating in the first 10-20 games. it's significantly more difficult to do so over the course of 50 and more so for 100 and again for 200. you get the idea. I genuinely cannot fathom how you rationalize doing well over a larger sample size as reflecting a higher degree of luck.

 

you can queue dodge. but luck? no.

 

Generally the larger the sample size the more reliable it is, but heres what I often seem to see happen:

 

The streaks tend to be what make and break you rating wise. Most often, especially nowadays, you end up doing a win 1 lose 1 type thing, assuming average queue quality and roughly average gameplay on your part.

 

The more you play the more likely you are to get in streaking situations where all the factors align in your favor and you climb much more than normal.

 

Once you get to a certain rating (assuming its not too high) you tend to hover roughly around the same rating until you streak again.

 

Streaks can go in the opposite direction, but most players (even the not so great ones) tend to have the sense to not queue after taking generally 1-2 losses to prevent falling in a hole.

 

The more games you play the more likely you are to get into streaking situations and over time just conserving gains and mitigating losses from streaks can gets you up there in rating, even if your play skill wasn't what caused you to climb in rating.

 

The luck effect needs to be mitigated on the low win end for sure to some extent, but it can't be overlooked as a factor on the high win end as well IMO

Not weighing the first 10 so heavily or weighing it differently for sure might not be a bad idea to negate initial lucky breaks and lessen the amount you get from luck and/or skill streaks.

 

Yeah, that's a change myself and others have advocated for in the past. Should be pretty easy to implement too.

 

I mean do you want to put a limit on alts in ranked? There isn't really a reason to have that many, but there isn't really a reason not to (besides like the time investment, which is next to nothing now with the tokens).

 

Of course I don't want to limit alts, but nor should we be protecting them. So, let's say Bioware puts a 100 win requirement for the highest tier. That will somewhat discourage playing many alts in ranked. So be it. They don't need to be playing all those alts anyway. And they still can, they'd just need 100 wins on each one to reach the highest tier. In other words, it's not a worthwhile objection to higher win requirements.

 

but heres what I often seem to see happen:

 

Do you though? Looking at the leaderboards, most of the people with hundreds of wins aren't gold. Plus, you generally lose more elo than you gain, so the more you play, the more you have to win to keep climbing. I don't think lucky streaks are all that common with the new matchmaking system. Everything you're saying could sort of be true in theory, but I don't think it really happens.

 

If someone plays hundreds of matches and gets to gold eventually, it's much more likely that they improved over the course of the season and fully deserve it by the time they get it.

Edited August 30, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

Yeah, that's a change myself and others have advocated for in the past. Should be pretty easy to implement too.

 

 

 

Of course I don't want to limit alts, but nor should we be protecting them. So, let's say Bioware puts a 100 win requirement for the highest tier. That will somewhat discourage playing many alts in ranked. So be it. They don't need to be playing all those alts anyway. And they still can, they'd just need 100 wins on each one to reach the highest tier. In other words, it's not a worthwhile objection to higher win requirements.

 

 

 

Do you though? Looking at the leaderboards, most of the people with hundreds of wins aren't gold. Plus, you generally lose more elo than you gain, so the more you play, the more you have to win to keep climbing. I don't think lucky streaks are all that common with the new matchmaking system. Everything you're saying could sort of be true in theory, but I don't think it really happens.

 

If someone plays hundreds of matches and gets to gold eventually, it's much more likely that they improved over the course of the season and fully deserve it by the time they get it.

 

Its not necessarily gold that people eventually get to from playing many games, its just possible to get to that point.

 

The more games you play the more likely you are to peak at some point to a new high point assuming you conserve gains and mitigate losses to some degree. You may play at a bronze level and peak to silver at some point after many games, for example.

 

Just saying luck is involved to some degree all around.

Personally feel like Bronze should be 1250-1350

I say that because in solo ranked, trolls and throwers dominate the queues. Since there is no gear requirement, and only a valor level to entry it makes it extremely hard to do any kind of climbing. I've found that the top players on SF seem to be the same constantly. even at 20+ wins is rare to reach that silver threshold. some people ONLY queue for the gear stuff. which means they aren't playing to improve or win. They just see it at as a way to get gear, which directly impacts the other team members who are trying to climb for rewards.

Those who has less than 60 wins in tr should not get anything at all. Those are obvious wintraders who played against their friends/guild mates or randoms who joined loosing team for credits

Those who has less than 60 wins in tr should not get anything at all. Those are obvious wintraders who played against their friends/guild mates or randoms who joined loosing team for credits

 

That would probably be a good idea. The problem is that only 15 characters have 60 or more wins (including a whopping 0 from Star Forge, where the highest win total is 53). Considering how dead group ranked is, there is good reason to rethink the rewards.

Edited September 7, 2019 by JediMasterAlex

Or they could just give out class titles to tier one as well as top 3, then everyone would be happy