Do you think the ranked matchmaking needs to be tighter, and with less swingy point gains/losses?

PinkApple

confettibae

Yes

Probably? In a few days I went from being in the top 5 to 900, and in the hour or so since we last spoke I'm back up to 175.

I would honestly be happy if we were matched based closer to where we are on the leaderboards at the time of the matches. I am almost always only matched with the top 10 players and although I might be a frequent visitor I have never stayed there longer than 24 hours….. which is fine really. I’m not really fussed about about being on the list and I don’t need the transmutes.

But repeatedly having poop luck against the best players while they are on a massive win streaks which is more or less the only people I’m ever paired with is incredibly demoralizing. I still lose hundreds sometimes when I’m above 700 in rank, and have both lost/gained 0 when I’m lower (in both wins and losses- ie, someone else winning harder while I’m in a game and passes my points so I have LOST points high on the leaderboards WINNING games as well)

Even for someone who’s not super competitive it feels like a broken system.

Veryamedliel

Yes

confettibae wrote: »

Probably? In a few days I went from being in the top 5 to 900 in a couple days, and in the hour or so since we last spoke I'm back up to 175.

I would honestly be happy if we were matched based closer to where we are on the leaderboards at the time of the matches. I am almost always only matched with the top 10 players and although I might be a frequent visitor I have never stayed there longer than 24 hours….. which is fine really. I’m not really fussed about about being on the list and I don’t need the transmutes.

But repeatedly having poop luck against the best players while they are on a massive win streaks which is more or less the only people I’m ever paired with is incredibly demoralizing. I still lose hundreds sometimes when I’m above 700 in rank, and have both lost/gained 0 when I’m lower (in both wins and losses- ie, someone else winning harder while I’m in a game and passes my points so I have LOST points high on the leaderboards WINNING games as well)

Even for someone who’s not super competitive it feels like a broken system.

While I don't disagree with you, you have to take into account that not everyone's online all the time. people 10-15 places around you may not be online to play against so it makes sense you're being put against either a much stronger rated player or a much weaker if that player is online. Things like that throw off your perception of your opponents.

Personofsecrets

Yes

Should sky be blue? Grass be green?

redspecter23

Yes

At the bare minimum, ZOS should share with us how it actually works.

Treeshka

The points we get or lose can be calculated based on the prestige difference at the end result of the game.

redspecter23

Yes

Treeshka wrote: »

The points we get or lose can be calculated based on the prestige difference at the end result of the game.

If that's true, I'd say that is a bad way to determine points won/lost and could be manipulated by players in a least a few ways I can think of off the top of my head. If you get fewer points for a patron victory against an opponent that might currently have a massive prestige lead on you, I'd say that's a downright horrible system for points.

PinkApple

Yes

confettibae wrote: »

Probably? In a few days I went from being in the top 5 to 900 in a couple days, and in the hour or so since we last spoke I'm back up to 175.

I would honestly be happy if we were matched based closer to where we are on the leaderboards at the time of the matches. I am almost always only matched with the top 10 players and although I might be a frequent visitor I have never stayed there longer than 24 hours….. which is fine really. I’m not really fussed about about being on the list and I don’t need the transmutes.

But repeatedly having poop luck against the best players while they are on a massive win streaks which is more or less the only people I’m ever paired with is incredibly demoralizing. I still lose hundreds sometimes when I’m above 700 in rank, and have both lost/gained 0 when I’m lower (in both wins and losses- ie, someone else winning harder while I’m in a game and passes my points so I have LOST points high on the leaderboards WINNING games as well)

Even for someone who’s not super competitive it feels like a broken system.

This seems to be super common sentiment from the Rubedite playerbase. Personally, I really hope we see some clarity or changes regarding leaderboard/matchmaking in future patches.

sekou_trayvond

Yes

I just would like some clarity on how the ranking system works. I don't mind losing- many of you are quite good and I try to learn new things by watching your plays.

But it gets demoralizing when your leaderboard points swing wildly and you're left wondering why. Best I can tell atm, your ranking appears to be a composite of win rate + bonus (or punishment) points if you win (or lose) against a player outside your strata.

For example, at one point I won two matches in a row and discovered I gained one whole point. I assume they were either very new to rubedite rank or perhaps not even rubedite yet. But then I can get a nice boost by netting a dub over a player in the 50s (I haven't beaten anyone better than that, lol).

But I too have been victim to 300 or even the, gasp, 1000 point demerit for a loss. When you're not even on the leaderboard that kind of swing is super painful and makes you want to pack it in for the day.

How crazy is it for the Top 50 folks? Do you mostly get matched to each other? I can't see it being worth much to get a match with me down in the 200s where I am currently. (Then again, when this has happened, I've gotten spanked). Too much point risk, it would seem. I mean, eventually even a blind squirrel gonna find that nut

So yeah, point swings need to be smaller in order to not discourage player population, methinks.

DinoZavr

@TalesOfTribute
PinkApple,

i posted a separate topic about the wonders of the ranking system.
my guess is when the matchmaking system offers you an opponent, who is not in a Rubedite tier you are penalized with -1000 score for a loss, and generously awarded with +0 score for a win.
i consider this a bug, because my rating drops even in the case of winning, which makes no sense for me.
relevant discussion https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/612195/zenimax-please-explain-how-exactly-tot-rankings-work
Also i consider -1000 penalty to be too rough and demotivating, as it turns the rankings into a roller-coaster.
I'd like the ranking system to be explained in the very details by the developers, as it should not remain a black box.

now, the good news:
yesterday during the Bethesda_DE stream i have asked @ZOS_KaiSchober about ToT "fine tuning" and he answered they plan revising the ranking system, but also said that Orgnum patron spam issue is not on the table yet.
Danke schön, Kai!

Largomets

Yes

Won a match. Got no points. Moved down a spot. Yeah, I'd say they could probably work on the system a bit lol

Qrähe

Yes

I don't touch ranked after I hit rubadite because I don't have the time to grind out that much when you lose so much on a loss.

spartaxoxo

No

I think that the points should be changed since TOT is partially RNG, so losing to a player way below you don't mean as much as in a game that didn't have a chance element. A world champion poker player can lose to someone bad at the game on their very first day, if that person gets lucky enough to get a royal flush. It doesn't make that champion bad or the newbie good, just lucky. However, the matchmaking should remain the way it is because it ensures matches get made in a timely fashion. The win/loss rewards can be simply small if the match was uneven in terms of skill. While it's decently popular now, I imagine in the future it will the Battlegrounds route and be fairly niche. So, I think it's more important they ensure you can always find a match.

I am in full agreement on the matter of points though in rubedite rank and wish there was a better poll option to depict my opinion.

PinkApple

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that the points should be changed since TOT is partially RNG, so losing to a player way below you don't mean as much as in a game that didn't have a chance element. A world champion poker player can lose to someone bad at the game on their very first day, if that person gets lucky enough to get a royal flush. It doesn't make that champion bad or the newbie good, just lucky. However, the matchmaking should remain the way it is because it ensures matches get made in a timely fashion. The win/loss rewards can be simply small if the match was uneven in terms of skill. While it's decently popular now, I imagine in the future it will the Battlegrounds route and be fairly niche. So, I think it's more important they ensure you can always find a match.

I am in full agreement on the matter of points though in rubedite rank and wish there was a better poll option to depict my opinion.

You are correct, I should have said "and / or"!

Most of the players at the top of the ladder would not mind the current matchmaking ranges if the punishment for losing a match with a large point-gap was reduced.

Tuonra2

No

If the points are consistent, and tge 'phantom 1000' points are removed, then the rank gain are fair.
The better fix imo is a more 'patient' matchmaker that takes a little longer to give you fairer matches.