Stop removing our progress when we lose a game

kevkj

The crux of the issue is that you see it as an xp bar but it's not. It's supposed to be an approximation of your skill level. If you aren't winning more than you lose it means you belong at the appropriate rating.

In fact, with the current system you can win once per 2-3 losses and still grind it out to Rubedite as you have just recently accomplished.

You seem to think there is no difference in skill at all between players who are consistently top 50 on the leaderboards vs someone who struggles to climb to rubedite. I would encourage you to reach out to one of those players and play 10 games in a row with them. You would be lucky to win one.

The same players blowing through all opposition at the beginning of 3 seasons with a 90%+ winrate cannot be explained away by luck of the cards.

kevkj

@Dragonnord I agree with your sentiment and have been mentioning it for a while now. It's actually too easy to reach Rubedite since losses are capped at -100 but a win can award you +210, +310 and so on. In fact, even with wins only giving 110 will eventually see a player with 50% winrate float up to Rubedite provided they grind enough games.

vivisectvib16_ESO

Dragonnord wrote: »

Because, if doing what you request, with like 15 wins, every single player would be in the Rankings (regardless their real skill level) and you would have ranking matches of an expert or advanced player destroying or getting a super easy win against someone that played 200 games and won 15 and still made it to the rankings.

Even NPCs reject you if you don't have enough knowledge and level to play against them.

So, as they are now, Rankings should only have players that have enough knowledge in order not to make ranking matches really unbalanced.

Not all the server should be in the Rankings only because they played 200 games, lost 175 of those and won 15, but since losing doesn't take out points (as you request), they still made it to leaderboards.

It happens with the Arenas and Trials leaderbords too: if you die you lose points.
 

What does this matter? The rankings can just adjust then and the folks with the highest points will rise to the top regardless?

Like, I want rubedite ranking for the furnishing item. I don't care about the rankings. But I've experienced the exact same issue as the OP, and it's super obnoxious to be 100 points away and then be punished because your opponent spams the Sorc King patron.

kevkj

They should just award the furnishing item for reaching Rank 8 in ToT instead of Rubedite. A working ranked system that adjusts according to wins and losses is important for good matchmaking. The reason you lose more than you win is because the current system already allows you to rise above your actual skill level. If everyone got to Rubedite quickly, the matchmaking would be just like unranked where a Top 10 player can play against someone brand new. The new player gets demolished by vets and never gets a chance to learn the game.

Amottica

This comment comes from someone who does not play the card game. It is just not my cup of tea.

If the rank being spoken of plays into the leaderboard ranking, it makes sense for a win to increase one's rank and a loss to decrease their rank. If a loss did nothing, the leaderboard merely notes who spent the most time playing ToT and would have little meaning.

Ofc, if the ranking being spoken of here is not related to that, then it is a different story.

Zyva

losing your points you gained is demoralizing. I can understand it effecting your leaderboard score. But trying to get to Rubedite is such a freaking pain, especially when as a low level, I am matched against people who spam decks I have not even unlocked yet and can only even be obtained at max level.

Dragonnord

Zyva wrote: »

losing your points you gained is demoralizing. I can understand it effecting your leaderboard score. But trying to get to Rubedite is such a freaking pain...

As already mentioned several times, it'd be really unfair to advance in rank by losing instead of by winning.
Wouldn't be fair to lose 100 games, win 10 and get to Rubedite.

Currently, you can only lose -100 points per match, however, you can win +100, +200, even +300 points per match. So, if you are not getting to Rubedite clearly it is because you are losing way more matches than the amount of matches you are winning.

With all due respect, it's not the system fault if you are losing a lot. The system is fair since, as I just said, it always gives you more points for winning than for losing, sometimes double, sometimes even triple points.

Zyva wrote: »

I am matched against people who spam decks I have not even unlocked yet and can only even be obtained at max level.

Not really like that, since both players get the same decks. So, you can spam them too if you want.
 

SilverBride

What would it hurt to just remove half the points they currently do for a loss? Players don't receive leaderboard points until they reach Rubedite anyway. That is when the real competition begins.

EnerG

Every other point based ranking system I have ever seen has lost points upon a loss, what are you guys on that you think not losing points is a fair thing lol. Yes it's annoying but annoying doesn't equal you are entitled to the next rank, if you can't get past voidsteel, then I hate to break it too you but your skill lv is only voidsteel.

Now what DOES make sense to change is how many points are awarded and taken away, I think it should be a fixed 110 per w/l but sometimes I get up to 550 on a win and that's strange.

SilverBride

EnerG wrote: »

Now what DOES make sense to change is how many points are awarded and taken away, I think it should be a fixed 110 per w/l but sometimes I get up to 550 on a win and that's strange.

The most I have ever received for a win is 210 and that isn't every time. It's usually 110. Then if I lose a game they remove 100 points so I'm left with 10.

If I received 550 for a win and they removed 100 for a loss I'd still be ahead 450. That seems much more reasonable but I never ever even once got that many points for a win even when I was playing Rubedite rank.

I'd be happy if I received 210 for every win while still losing 100 for a loss because it would at least take more than one loss to completely wipe out one win.

deleted221205-002626

SilverBride wrote: »

I want to make this point perfectly clear.

SilverBride wrote: »

I'm not suggesting to get rid of any consequences. But to lose huge chunks of progress for one loss is beyond frustrating.

Doesnt matter how much you lose when losing, as they will be losing as much or as little as well and the leaderboard remain the same!

SilverBride

sinnereso wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I want to make this point perfectly clear.

SilverBride wrote: »

I'm not suggesting to get rid of any consequences. But to lose huge chunks of progress for one loss is beyond frustrating.

Doesnt matter how much you lose when losing, as they will be losing as much or as little as well and the leaderboard remain the same!

But others are often getting up to 550 for a win when I have never once gotten more than 210. So while we may be losing points equally we aren't gaining points equally.

We really need an explanation about how points are awarded for wins.

Dragonnord

I still don't get why people want to advance to a level they don't yet deserve.

There is a reason why different levels EXIST, so people can be in the level they belong to.

It's easy: if you can't get to Voidsteel it means YOU DON'T BELONG TO VOIDSTEEL LEVEL. So why you wan't to be on Voidsteel level if you don't belong to it yet?

Why you want to cheese the system and advance to a better rank by losing more than winning?

As EnerG said above: annoying doesn't equal you are entitled to the next rank.
 

SilverBride

Dragonnord wrote: »

I still don't get why people want to advance to a level they don't yet deserve.

No one wants to do that, but why are some players getting up to 5 times the points for a win than others? This gives them the advantage to lose 5 games before losing all the points they got with one win, whereas those of us who only get 110 a win lose most with just one loss.

Why are they getting this advantage?

Dragonnord

SilverBride wrote: »

Dragonnord wrote: »

I still don't get why people want to advance to a level they don't yet deserve.

No one wants to do that, but why are some players getting up to 5 times the points for a win than others? This gives them the advantage to lose 5 games before losing all the points they got with one win, whereas those of us who only get 110 a win lose most with just one loss.

Why are they getting this advantage?

I never saw more than 320 points for winning a match, and don't usually get that many either.

But I agree on that. ZOS should release or provide info on how the scoring works.
 

EnerG

SilverBride wrote: »

Dragonnord wrote: »

I still don't get why people want to advance to a level they don't yet deserve.

No one wants to do that, but why are some players getting up to 5 times the points for a win than others? This gives them the advantage to lose 5 games before losing all the points they got with one win, whereas those of us who only get 110 a win lose most with just one loss.

Why are they getting this advantage?

The advantage is I'm good at the game and zos is trying to hurry me back to the rank I'm supposed to be so I'm not continually stomping new players in the lowest teir. [snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

SilverBride

The best players should naturally move up the ranks by their skill alone, not by receiving more points for a win than other players, so I don't think that is what is going on. Besides ZoS addressed this for the current season by starting players at a rank determined by how well they did the previous season.

Amottica

SilverBride wrote: »

sinnereso wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I want to make this point perfectly clear.

SilverBride wrote: »

I'm not suggesting to get rid of any consequences. But to lose huge chunks of progress for one loss is beyond frustrating.

Doesnt matter how much you lose when losing, as they will be losing as much or as little as well and the leaderboard remain the same!

But others are often getting up to 550 for a win when I have never once gotten more than 210. So while we may be losing points equally we aren't gaining points equally.

We really need an explanation about how points are awarded for wins.

The first question that needs to be answered is why the amount of points earned for a win differs. There is a reason for the variation. In the end, all players earn points based on the same system but it is clear there is a question as to how it is calculated.

The next question would be how the total point reduction in a loss is calculated. There is likely a rhyme and reason and after understanding that system, it just might make sense.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Dragonnord wrote: »

I still don't get why people want to advance to a level they don't yet deserve.

No one wants to do that, but why are some players getting up to 5 times the points for a win than others? This gives them the advantage to lose 5 games before losing all the points they got with one win, whereas those of us who only get 110 a win lose most with just one loss.

Why are they getting this advantage?

The system awards you more points if you defeat a player that it assumed you'd lose or go on long winning streaks. This is because it may have rated you below your actual skill. If as a result of this boon it accidentally placed you too high, you'll start consistently losing and you'll fall back to where you belong. If you effortlessly maintain that rank, or even climb, then clearly the system was correct to boost you forward. That's how pretty much every ranking system works in video games. They don't want someone who is high skill decimating lower ranked opponents for long periods of time, because neither player is going to have fun or learn much from that. The more confident the system is that you're in the correct ranking, the less points it will award you for a win.

These ranks are not a measure of time played but of skill level. It is designed to create balanced matches so that players who are really good won't keep decimating newbies, and so people can have fair matches. There is no point to a ranked system if it doesn't measure skill and move players around accordingly.

ETA: This is why if you have a positive winrate, you'll climb. A negative one, you'll fall. And you won't make progress if it's close to 50% against people of similar skill.

SilverBride

@spartaxoxo

If this is how they do it then it's not working all that well. I have winning steaks followed by losing steaks rather than a more even distribution, which I even made a thread about. If this is happening because they move me up too far then bring me back down until I start winning again, then rinse and repeat, then it's not doing a very good job of guaging our actual skill. This only causes frustration and is certainly not fun.

To address your edit, I can have a positive winrate and it is still followed by a losing streak.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

@spartaxoxo

If this is how they do it then it's not working all that well. I have winning steaks followed by losing steaks rather than a more even distribution, which I even made a thread about. If this is happening because they move me up too far then bring me back down until I start winning again, then rinse and repeat, then it's not doing a very good job of guaging our actual skill. This only causes frustration and is certainly not fun.

To address your edit, I can have a positive winrate and it is still followed by a losing streak.

I do suspect it's not calibrated as well as it could be, and I'm sure it will get better the more matches it processes. So, I do agree with that much. But, in general that's how these systems work and it doesn't appear to be different with this one. But, they haven't given us the finer details about it. I think whether the winning streak results in bonuses is also going to depend on who you had a winning streak against. If the system was highly confident, you'd win, and then you did, they aren't going to give you bonus points for that. I suspect that's why some Rubedite players were experiencing like -1000 point losses in a single match before U35 (which still hasn't happened on console). The system was very confident they'd win the match, only for them to lose. Which is a dumb thing to have in a game that has such a big luck element to it. Anyone can beat the top players even if they play flawlessly at least once, the top players are simply people who have a greater consistency at winning, similar to poker. Anyone can get a royal flush and win automatically, but a grandmaster will win way more often than a noob.

If you aren't climbing while on the winning streak, I'm surprised by that. That doesn't right to me.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If you aren't climbing while on the winning streak, I'm surprised by that. That doesn't right to me.

I've noticed that I have to reach 80% of the progress bar in the current rank before I even have a chance of progressing. Then I have a more even win/loss and finally reach the next rank. I've been as high as 70% of the progress bar then had a losing streak that wiped out most, if not all, of my progress.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If you aren't climbing while on the winning streak, I'm surprised by that. That doesn't right to me.

I've noticed that I have to reach 80% of the current rank before I even have a chance of progressing. Then I have a more even win/loss and finally reach the next rank. I've been as high as 70% then had a losing streak that wiped out most, if not all, of my progress.

Reach 80%? How do you mean? Like an 80% winrate? Or 80% of the progress bar?

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If you aren't climbing while on the winning streak, I'm surprised by that. That doesn't right to me.

I've noticed that I have to reach 80% of the current rank before I even have a chance of progressing. Then I have a more even win/loss and finally reach the next rank. I've been as high as 70% then had a losing streak that wiped out most, if not all, of my progress.

Reach 80%? How do you mean? Like an 80% winrate? Or 80% of the progress bar?

The progress bar. I edited to clarify that.

Since I posted that this happened. I was Voidsteel rank at about 10% progress bar. I played a few games and kept winning, and got 210 then 310, which was the first time I received that much. Then I won again and hit Rubedite. This only took a few games and less than an hour, when it took a few days of playing for 3 to 4 hours at a time to go from Quicksilver to Voidsteel this season. None of this makes sense to me.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If you aren't climbing while on the winning streak, I'm surprised by that. That doesn't right to me.

I've noticed that I have to reach 80% of the current rank before I even have a chance of progressing. Then I have a more even win/loss and finally reach the next rank. I've been as high as 70% then had a losing streak that wiped out most, if not all, of my progress.

Reach 80%? How do you mean? Like an 80% winrate? Or 80% of the progress bar?

The progress bar. I edited to clarify that.

Since I posted that this happened. I was Voidsteel rank at about 10% progress bar. I played a few games and kept winning, and got 210 then 310, which was the first time I received that much. Then I won again and hit Rubedite. This only took a few games and less than an hour, when it took a few days of playing for 3 to 4 hours at a time to go from Quicksilver to Voidsteel this season. None of this makes sense to me.

In general, the AI of the matchmakers have a confidence level about your skill. If it thinks you're in the rank you belong, it will not give you any bonus points on a win. If it thinks you should be ranked higher, it will give you more points for a win to expedite the process of climbing until you're in the correct rank. In this way, they get players that the matchmaker believes are high skill out of lower ranks quickly. Last season, the matchmaker felt like you were a Voidsteel player, so you had to prove you were a Rubedite player by winning enough matches. This season, the matchmaker thinks you are a Rubedite player, so it's getting you out of Voidsteel quickly so that Voidsteel players can play against other Voidsteel players, and you can play against other Rubedite players.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Last season, the matchmaker felt like you were a Voidsteel player, so you had to prove you were a Rubedite player by winning enough matches.

This season, the matchmaker thinks you are a Rubedite player, so it's getting you out of Voidsteel quickly so that Voidsteel players can play against other Voidsteel players, and you can play against other Rubedite players.

Then why did it take a few days of playing 3 to 4 hours at a time a couple of times a day to go from Quicksilver to Voidsteel if the game thinks I should be in Rubedite?

I'm just trying to understand how this works and appreciate your explanations.

kevkj

Every season, players are sent down to quicksilver no matter how good they are. This makes it so that in the beginning of the season, there are a lot of good players in Quicksilver mixed in with the bad ones. The good ones destroy the bad ones or if unlucky face another good player. When they make it to Voidsteel and continue winning, they get quickly boosted to Rubedite.

The matchmaker seems to try to match you within your tier (Quicksilver etc.) but early in the season, the higher tiers (Voidsteel/Rubedite) are sparsely populated while everyone is still in Ebony and Quicksilver. When you are in Quicksilver and beat another Quicksilver player, that is not an amazing achievement in the eyes of the system. This is made worse if you do lose games while in Quicksilver, this tells the system you belong at that tier. However, if you do get into Voidsteel early you will most likely get matched with players in Rubedite due to the aforementioned lack of opponents for Rubedite players early in the season. You as a Voidsteel player beating a Rubedite player is a big achievement to the system so you get rewarded accordingly.

Basically, don't lose while in Quicksilver.

You need 1000 points to move up a tier, correct? Let's say you only won 2 for every defeat on average, that would still put you at a nett +120 points per 3 games. Even if you started at 0 points, it shouldn't take you more than ~30 games to move up to Voidsteel. Were you being awarded less than 110 points per win?

__________________________________________________________________________

As an aside I cannot imagine playing 3-4 hours of ToT for multiple days in a row. Even at 15 minutes per game, for 3 hours, 3 days in a row is 36 games. So the real number was likely in the 40s to 50s. That's almost half the number of games I play in a whole season, geez.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Last season, the matchmaker felt like you were a Voidsteel player, so you had to prove you were a Rubedite player by winning enough matches.

This season, the matchmaker thinks you are a Rubedite player, so it's getting you out of Voidsteel quickly so that Voidsteel players can play against other Voidsteel players, and you can play against other Rubedite players.

Then why did it take a few days of playing 3 to 4 hours at a time a couple of times a day to go from Quicksilver to Voidsteel if the game thinks I should be in Rubedite?

I'm just trying to understand how this works and appreciate your explanations.

Ah. This is all speculation, but it's how many ranked matchmakers work and I don't see any evidence this one is different so far. It's working pretty much how I'd expect it to work.

Anyway, sorry I misread that as you had an easier time this season than last season.

In general, there are a few reasons a matchmaker will give you a boost. It thinks you're in the wrong rank, you beat someone it had a high confidence you'd lose to, or you had an especially long winning streak (normal streaks don't necessarily apply). The matchmaker will do it's best to put you in matches with fairly even odds. But sometimes it will put you in a match that isn't as fair for the sake of ensuring you get matches in a timely fashion. If you lose a match it had a high confidence you'd lose, it will not effect it's confidence in your skill much. If you win that match, it will be impressed.

In general you matchmaker rating will be re-evaluated every so often, and it will be based on both your current season performance and it's overall impression of your abilities across multiple ones. So for example, it will take into account you reached Rubedite last season. It may have initially thought you were voidsteel, but then re-evaluated and decided you were rubedite. Or it could be the case that the matches you were losing were mostly against people of significantly higher rank, and thus it didn't impact your matchmaker ranking muvh. Meanwhile, you were actually not only consistently winning against other voidsteel players but sometimes beating Rubedite players it thought you'd lose too. As a result it re-evaluated it's previous assessment of your skill level and rewarded you points accordingly.

It can be difficult to pinpoint how you got those bonus points, but the main takeaways should be is because it's the matchmaker's confidence about your skill level. If you're maintaining your rank, it's because the matchmaker thinks that's where you belong. If you're climbing it's because the current assessment is that you're higher skill than your current rank (or getting really lucky). And if you're dropping ranks, it's because you were previously ranked too high (or got really unlucky).

The progress bar isn't really a progress bar in the sense of exp. It's to help you determine around where along the line you are skill wise compared to other players of your same rank. And how much you'd have to win in order to climb to a higher rank (or fall to a lower one). So you can't shift to a higher rank unless you fill it. And if it's barely filling it's because the matchmaker thinks it's where you belong, skill wise. And it will try to match you with other players around that same level of skill.

SilverBride

kevkj wrote: »

As an aside I cannot imagine playing 3-4 hours of ToT for multiple days in a row. Even at 15 minutes per game, for 3 hours, 3 days in a row is 36 games. So the real number was likely in the 40s to 50s. That's almost half the number of games I play in a whole season, geez.

I can't either and normally I only play a few games in the morning for the daily, and occasionally one or two in the evening. But it was almost like gambling. When I would win one I'd feel compelled to play another, but when I lost I felt like I had to make up the loss. It was a vicious circle.

Add to this that I didn't receive any of my trophies from last season except Rubedite, and was awarded the first 3 for this season but not Voidsteel and customer service wouldn't just replace the missing trophies and I kept looking at my collection with only one missing... well that is why I kept going.

kevkj

I will say, I don't believe the system we have currently has the kind of long term memory that @spartaxoxo is describing from other elo systems. It does not 'remember' where you placed last season. You could be Rank 1 on the leaderboard or Quicksilver last season and the point loss/gain pattern is identical. It does not attempt to 'correct' you to a rank. People get up to 550 points (never had that myself, only 310) by virtue of a long winstreak and beating a player in a higher tier most likely. A 'real' elo system would also deduct more points than 100 for certain losses (like it does in Rubedite) and drop people into lower tiers after enough losses. This does not happen so it ends up functioning like a weird hybrid tier/xp system.

Many, myself included do wish players who ranked high enough could even start off in Rubedite right away but I suppose the hard reset every season is to give everyone an equal chance to get onto the leaderboards.