Jump to content

A solution for Solo/Group Ranked disparity for Season 11 rewards


Sertar

Recommended Posts

Hello players and developers,

 

Season 11 is gonna end soon™, so it’s time to take a look at the Leaderboards to see what reward brackets would make sense and check out the current state of Top 3 spots. One note beforehand: Season 11 had the same rules and matchmaking system in Solo Ranked that we had in Season 10, so we have to use the Season 10 reward breakdown as guideline.

 

First of all we can see a huge activity difference between Solo Ranked and Group Ranked. In fact, Group Ranked in Season 11 is the most dead it has ever been. It rarely ever popped on only a few servers so competition was extremely low already and on top of that a big chunk of the games played are „mixed teams“ „playing vs friends“ maybe with maybe without a little bit of rating shenanigans. So what do we end up with? Elo numbers with the smallest meaningfulness we have seen in this game so far.

 

So at first I would find it tempting to just don’t give any rewards for Group Ranked. Or at least no Top 3s, as you see some players sitting on Top 3 spots with less than 1500 Elo and less than 20 wins. That is just not even close to be in line with Group Ranked Top 3s of S9 and S10 and it’s also not in line with Solo Ranked Top 3s in S11. The idea of not giving out Top 3s in Group Ranked was actually already brought up in this thread: here

 

But I thought about this for a while and I think I found a very elegant way to breakdown tiers without having to create differences between Solo and Group Ranked, and also still reward the players that played Group Ranked legit and as actively as possible:

 

 

Bronze Tier - requirement: Rating 1250-1399

 

Silver Tier - requirement: Rating 1400-1549 and 20+ WINS

 

Gold Tier - requirement: Rating 1550+ and 40+ WINS

 

Top 3 - requirement: Rating 1600+ and 60+ WINS, and obviously only the 3 highest rated characters that meet these requirements get Top 3 rewards. If less than 3 players meet this requirement the Top 3 title in this category (e.g. Mercenary Group Ranked) will NOT be given out 3 times!

 

 

Let me know what you guys think, especially @MikeBradley, but this is the most elegant and easy to implement solution I can think of, that gives the most players the rewards they truly earn and can feel proud of, and at the same time eliminates a lot of wintraded Golds and Top 3s that revolve around utilizing placement games for „low amount of games, high amount of elo“.

 

Please get rid of placement games in S12 btw, thanks. Because then there is no more need to look at every person that got 1550 with only 15 wins, if that is „legit and just lucky“ or straight up wintraded within one night. Either way not worthy of Gold rewards, that’s why a minimum amount of wins is a good additional requirement to Silver and Gold Tier too, not only Top 3.

 

Looking forward to get feedback on this, especially some in yellow color. ;)

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of no Top 3s for group ranked that makes perfect sence. What is good is also the idea of 40+ wins for rewards. I dont agree with the Tiers, I would keep the tiers as in Season 10 cause of how the leaderboards look like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello players and developers,

 

Season 11 is gonna end soon™, so it’s time to take a look at the Leaderboards to see what reward brackets would make sense and check out the current state of Top 3 spots. One note beforehand: Season 11 had the same rules and matchmaking system in Solo Ranked that we had in Season 10, so we have to use the Season 10 reward breakdown as guideline.

 

First of all we can see a huge activity difference between Solo Ranked and Group Ranked. In fact, Group Ranked in Season 11 is the most dead it has ever been. It rarely ever popped on only a few servers so competition was extremely low already and on top of that a big chunk of the games played are „mixed teams“ „playing vs friends“ maybe with maybe without a little bit of rating shenanigans. So what do we end up with? Elo numbers with the smallest meaningfulness we have seen in this game so far.

 

So at first I would find it tempting to just don’t give any rewards for Group Ranked. Or at least no Top 3s, as you see some players sitting on Top 3 spots with less than 1500 Elo and less than 20 wins. That is just not even close to be in line with Group Ranked Top 3s of S9 and S10 and it’s also not in line with Solo Ranked Top 3s in S11. The idea of not giving out Top 3s in Group Ranked was actually already brought up in this thread: here

 

But I thought about this for a while and I think I found a very elegant way to breakdown tiers without having to create differences between Solo and Group Ranked, and also still reward the players that played Group Ranked legit and as actively as possible:

 

 

Bronze Tier - requirement: Rating 1250-1399

 

Silver Tier - requirement: Rating 1400-1549 and 20+ WINS

 

Gold Tier - requirement: Rating 1550+ and 40+ WINS

 

Top 3 - requirement: Rating 1600+ and 60+ WINS, and obviously only the 3 highest rated characters that meet these requirements get Top 3 rewards. If less than 3 players meet this requirement the Top 3 title in this category (e.g. Mercenary Group Ranked) will NOT be given out 3 times!

 

 

Let me know what you guys think, especially @MikeBradley, but this is the most elegant and easy to implement solution I can think of, that gives the most players the rewards they truly earn and can feel proud of, and at the same time eliminates a lot of wintraded Golds and Top 3s that revolve around utilizing placement games for „low amount of games, high amount of elo“.

 

Please get rid of placement games in S12 btw, thanks. Because then there is no more need to look at every person that got 1550 with only 15 wins, if that is „legit and just lucky“ or straight up wintraded within one night. Either way not worthy of Gold rewards, that’s why a minimum amount of wins is a good additional requirement to Silver and Gold Tier too, not only Top 3.

 

Looking forward to get feedback on this, especially some in yellow color. ;)

 

Cheers

 

I fully support not giving top 3 rewards to team ranked players unless they have 60+ games and 1600 + elo. In fact 4 of my friends while speaking in discord didn't even hide they asked their guild mates , pve mates to queue against them and wintraded (since these "mates") barely did anything in those fights and didnt try to win. This is not fair and i doubt devs can punish them since such wintrade is too subtle and doesnt include any bots. At least 4 players wintraded their 10-25 games against different combinations of their pve and guild mates and iam more than sure there are many more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of no Top 3s for group ranked that makes perfect sence. What is good is also the idea of 40+ wins for rewards. I dont agree with the Tiers, I would keep the tiers as in Season 10 cause of how the leaderboards look like.

 

I really agree with you! The tiers should just be where they were in S10!

 

Let me point out why:

 

1) The lowered tiers in S10 were the reason that more players actually have begun or restarted their solo ranked career, because they saw that gold elo is available for normal players who don't have the time to spend like 20 hours a day with queuing for solo ranked.

 

2) Atm group ranked is dead af and no one is playing it. So it's obvious that more people have characters over 1500+ in solo ranked. Just maths, dudes.

 

3) The fact that more people are having the gold elo so far is because that the season has been lasting too long yet like it is the same in every season. More time = more people getting gold elo.

 

4) You should not forget, that many people were fighting and grinding so hard to get gold elo like 1500. I know many guys who played like 300 + games and working their way up step by step, getting A BIG HIT OF THOSE THROWERS AND TROLLERS every and every time.

 

5) Setting those tiers up again like they always do would trigger the playerbase, which is not that big in ranked gameplay so far, in a bad way. They need every subscription and to point it out, setting those tiers up would cause a massive bye-bye-train for many players getting hits in the face by the developers every time.

 

6) Having those people crying about that gold elo has to be "exclusive" for somehow cannot be the point to set it up. Those people are the players who have like 5 characters in gold elo in every season farming everyone. It does not seem too hard for them to get gold, but like i said before, many people don't have that amount of free time to grind and grind and grind. And, obviously, ranked cannot be that competitive atm having trollers, traders and throwers ruining the days of players who just wanna climb in a fair way. There are some other issues that have to be fixed for sure. And furthermore i know manye very good players who play in a fair way and don't get to 1500 so far, having like 100000000 games done yet.

 

7) If you breakdown the numbers of people having gold atm to the amount of the last given servers wordlwide, it seems to be okay to have those numbers. To this you can see what classes are more played atm and don't trigger the playerbase like Sins or Powertechs (low number in gold elo).

 

Please bioware, be clever!

Edited by Zimlon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, they should sell class titles

 

I think, if they want, they should sell bronze, silver and gold titles but not the top 3 titles.

If you are the top 3 , It means that you are a good player ( or a wintrader ) but the title is unique so it shouldn't be sold.

 

I agree with Mero, they should take s10 tiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, if they want, they should sell bronze, silver and gold titles but not the top 3 titles.

If you are the top 3 , It means that you are a good player ( or a wintrader ) but the title is unique so it shouldn't be sold.

 

I agree with Mero, they should take s10 tiers.

 

The flair is more unique than the title, it often stands out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello developers again,

in the latest stream you said that Tier Brackets depend on Player ELO distribution, so I'm not gonna bother with the example numbers I used anymore. But please introduce a WIN requirement to at least Gold and Top 3 rewards! It's important that it is a WIN requirement and NOT a GAMES PLAYED requirement (because then people could 10-0 their Gold (lets say 1500) to then stuck their way to e.g. 10-50 (lets say that is 910) and would still get Gold rewards because of their 1500 highest. It has to be a WIN requirement.

 

Here once again my suggestion:

 

Bronze Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ

 

Silver Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ and 20+ WINS

 

Gold Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ and 40+ WINS

 

Top 3 - requirement: Rating 1600+ and 60+ WINS, and obviously only the 3 highest rated characters that meet these requirements get Top 3 rewards. If less than 3 players meet these requirements the Top 3 title in this category (e.g. Mercenary Group Ranked) should NOT be given out 3 times!

 

Once again, the main purpose is to respect the huge disparity between Solo and Group Ranked activity in S11, while still rewarding the people that actively played Group Ranked while it popped. In addition, for Solo Ranked it rewards consistent play and eliminates fast "one night trade" Golds or Top 3s.

 

Just do it. This can not be hard to implement.

 

Everyone that agrees, feel free to push and bump this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello developers again,

in the latest stream you said that Tier Brackets depend on Player ELO distribution, so I'm not gonna bother with the example numbers I used anymore. But please introduce a WIN requirement to at least Gold and Top 3 rewards! It's important that it is a WIN requirement and NOT a GAMES PLAYED requirement (because then people could 10-0 their Gold (lets say 1500) to then stuck their way to e.g. 10-50 (lets say that is 910) and would still get Gold rewards because of their 1500 highest. It has to be a WIN requirement.

 

Here once again my suggestion:

 

Bronze Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ

 

Silver Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ and 20+ WINS

 

Gold Tier - requirement: Rating XYZ and 40+ WINS

 

Top 3 - requirement: Rating 1600+ and 60+ WINS, and obviously only the 3 highest rated characters that meet these requirements get Top 3 rewards. If less than 3 players meet these requirements the Top 3 title in this category (e.g. Mercenary Group Ranked) should NOT be given out 3 times!

 

Once again, the main purpose is to respect the huge disparity between Solo and Group Ranked activity in S11, while still rewarding the people that actively played Group Ranked while it popped. In addition, for Solo Ranked it rewards consistent play and eliminates fast "one night trade" Golds or Top 3s.

 

Just do it. This can not be hard to implement.

 

Everyone that agrees, feel free to push and bump this thread.

 

I agree with this suggestion, except the win requirement should be much higher than 20+, 40+, and 60+ in my opinion.

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 wins for placement and for qualifying for tier rewards/titles, imo. I would like to see at least 100 wins for anyone in the top 10 on each server, but cutting that in half is, I think, entirely reasonable. Check this out:

 

it's pathetic that only 3 of the top 10 merc/mandos on my server have 50+ wins at this point in the season. I'm all for playing different toons, but that wins total for a season that drags on forever is unacceptable, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's pathetic that only 3 of the top 10 merc/mandos on my server have 50+ wins at this point in the season. I'm all for playing different toons, but that wins total for a season that drags on forever is unacceptable, imo.

 

Exactly. Ranked games are short and the seasons are long. It's trivial to rack up hundreds of wins on one character if you even play semi-regularly over the course of a season, or if you just play a lot for like two weeks. I'd love to see the people that actually play ranked get rewarded (again, I am biased because I play a lot of ranked lol).

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Ranked games are short and the seasons are long. It's trivial to rack up hundreds of wins on one character if you even play semi-regularly over the course of a season, or if you just play a lot for like two weeks. I'd love to see the people that actually play ranked get rewarded (again, I am biased because I play a lot of ranked lol).

 

When they remove losing rating for not winning then people like you will be rewarded.. Otherwise it's just gambling with who is in que and pick the best times and classes for queing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to do something about top 3 titles, the fact of the matter is that people are wintrading in their placement games for the reward. Which results in a low amount of games and a high elo. Increasing the amount of wins would work for future seasons but for this season it might be too late. I wouldnt be opposed to it but I have some t1 toons (assuming t1 is 1500) that only have 20ish wins, which ultimately wouldnt matter because it tracks highest earned but it would take time away from working on other toons. I still think adding another tier or selling the class titles would be the best option and would combat most of the nonsense that occurs in the q and off hours of the normal pop time.

 

Another suggestion, is to have time-gated ranked ques (like fortnite) which allows everyone to q within a 3 hour time period with a max game capacity. This would most likely be the most effective way to shut down all cheating and would be very easy to track for Bioware. The problem is that it would require work for Bioware and time, neither of which I tihnk they can/want to spare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 wins for placement and for qualifying for tier rewards/titles, imo. I would like to see at least 100 wins for anyone in the top 10 on each server, but cutting that in half is, I think, entirely reasonable. Check this out:

 

it's pathetic that only 3 of the top 10 merc/mandos on my server have 50+ wins at this point in the season. I'm all for playing different toons, but that wins total for a season that drags on forever is unacceptable, imo.

 

Keep in mind 2 people hold 7 or 8 of the titles for that top 10 merc/mando on your server though...

 

Many just play multiple chars to see how many they can get to T1 or higher, Dean is one for example that does it on your server.

 

Having an enforced amount of games as high as 100 seems a bit much, at least for solos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind 2 people hold 7 or 8 of the titles for that top 10 merc/mando on your server though...

 

Many just play multiple chars to see how many they can get to T1 or higher, Dean is one for example that does it on your server.

 

Having an enforced amount of games as high as 100 seems a bit much, at least for solos.

 

I know dean's on there. infowars is also dean. it's really easy for someone who plays (10%) as often as he does to hit 50 wins. he's just done what was necessary on some of those toons, while others he's logged a lot of matches on. my contention is that you shouldn't even get a placement until you hit 50 games. if you're gold tier, then 50 wins is 75 games or less (since leaderboard doesn't show games played, I have to go by wins). it's really really easy to achieve without forcing anyone to play every day or sit on the same toon.

Edited by foxmob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many just play multiple chars to see how many they can get to T1 or higher, Dean is one for example that does it on your server.

 

But why cater to such a playstyle? There's no point playing more than a handful of alts at most of one class other than to protect the ranking of your main(s), or maybe as a challenge as you point out.

 

If there were high minimum win requirements to get certain rewards, then some players would be forced to play less alts and focus more on their mains, which would obviously be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know dean's on there. infowars is also dean. it's really easy for someone who plays (10%) as often as he does to hit 50 wins. he's just done what was necessary on some of those toons, while others he's logged a lot of matches on. my contention is that you shouldn't even get a placement until you hit 50 games. if you're gold tier, then 50 wins is 75 games or less (since leaderboard doesn't show games played, I have to go by wins). it's really really easy to achieve without forcing anyone to play every day or sit on the same toon.

50 wins still seems excessive to me for tier 1s. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to older seasons where you could grind out T1 in a day within 15 games due to how reliable queues were.

 

I can maybe understand a mandatory amount of wins for top3... more so for granked, but T1s have always been easy to get if you know what you are doing and forcing you to endure more RNG seems cruel and unusual, especially in these past two seasons where RNG is worse than its ever been.

 

Low wins can be a sign of dodging (especially in granked) or a wintrade... but the other legit half of the coin is that low wins hint at how quickly one climbs due to skill, something you shouldn't necessary be punished for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 wins still seems excessive to me for tier 1s. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to older seasons where you could grind out T1 in a day within 15 games due to how reliable queues were.

 

This kind of blows my mind. 50 wins is excessive? You can get to 50 wins in a matter of days. The season is 6+ months long. I think 200 wins is a conservative and reasonable amount. There is no other game where you can play so little games and get to the highest ranks.

 

Low wins can be a sign of dodging (especially in granked) or a wintrade... but the other legit half of the coin is that low wins hint at how quickly one climbs due to skill, something you shouldn't necessary be punished for.

 

Low wins also indicates luck, assuming they're legit. I don't think it would be "punishing" to reward people that actually play the game rather than people that just get lucky in their placements (and I've been that person getting lucky in placements and getting gold at the start of a season).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 wins still seems excessive to me for tier 1s. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to older seasons where you could grind out T1 in a day within 15 games due to how reliable queues were.

 

I can maybe understand a mandatory amount of wins for top3... more so for granked, but T1s have always been easy to get if you know what you are doing and forcing you to endure more RNG seems cruel and unusual, especially in these past two seasons where RNG is worse than its ever been.

 

Low wins can be a sign of dodging (especially in granked) or a wintrade... but the other legit half of the coin is that low wins hint at how quickly one climbs due to skill, something you shouldn't necessary be punished for.

 

you understand that low wins is a sign of luck and selective queuing rather than skill, right? I absolutely know dean belongs up there. however, as a rule, it's literally the opposite of how you have it. fewer wins = higher likelihood of luck rather than skill.

 

as an example, I went 7-3 and started out just under 1400. I'm a 1300s merc. period. but in a small sample size, I can easily walk into 10 fortuitous matches and get an intial rating that gives me a huge advantage and vice versa.

 

edit: furthermore, when a lot of maras are in the q, my rating sinks. when it's sorcs, juggs, and other mercs, it rises. sins and ops don't really move the meter. at least pushing initial rating out to 50 games prevents me from farming one night of a weak queue.

Edited by foxmob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you understand that low wins is a sign of luck and selective queuing rather than skill, right? I absolutely know dean belongs up there. however, as a rule, it's literally the opposite of how you have it. fewer wins = higher likelihood of luck rather than skill.

 

More wins can also be an indication of luck, the more games you play the more likely you are to get a lucky streak. Players that would otherwise never be gold can play hundreds of games and get to gold eventually by mostly RNG and playing at least at an average level.

 

In the past few seasons if you arent selective when you queue in solos, especially at high elo, you are assured a loss by matchmaking. Queue testing is a common practice for those that actually want to climb. Its an adaptation to the forced inclusivity of mat farmers and the like in recent seasons. The days of being able to constantly queue on one character and hope to climb by skill are mostly over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why cater to such a playstyle? There's no point playing more than a handful of alts at most of one class other than to protect the ranking of your main(s), or maybe as a challenge as you point out.

 

If there were high minimum win requirements to get certain rewards, then some players would be forced to play less alts and focus more on their mains, which would obviously be a good thing.

 

Most play multiple characters for the reasons you outlined.

 

I addition, that type of playstyle has also been more forced on players with the degradation in solo queue quality around S9 with all the forced inclusivity of mat farmers, etc. There are times when you really just have no hope of climbing, and testing that out to the best of your ability is in your best interest if you care to climb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More wins can also be an indication of luck, the more games you play the more likely you are to get a lucky streak. Players that would otherwise never be gold can play hundreds of games and get to gold eventually by mostly RNG and playing at least at an average level.

 

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.

 

Most play multiple characters for the reasons you outlined.

 

I addition, that type of playstyle has also been more forced on players with the degradation in solo queue quality around S9 with all the forced inclusivity of mat farmers, etc. There are times when you really just have no hope of climbing, and testing that out to the best of your ability is in your best interest if you care to climb.

 

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.

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...