The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 22:
• [IN PROGRESS] PC/Mac: NA megaserver for maintenance – April 25, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 2:00PM EDT (18:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8098811/#Comment_8098811
• [IN PROGRESS] PC/Mac: NA megaserver for maintenance – April 25, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 2:00PM EDT (18:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8098811/#Comment_8098811
Next season ranking system...
NeKryXe
✭✭✭✭✭
✭
✭
Any chance of the ToT ranking system to be adjusted/fixed for next season, so it attracts more players to join the competitive matches? I mean, a proper scoring with no 150 points removal on losses and crashes, no 0 points on victories, and a limit on repeating player in the same day. Something more competitively fair and honest. It would be really nice.
0
-
Lunatearz✭✭i definately hope so because im pretty soon done.. I lose more points in 3 loses then i gain in 8 wins.. its crazy3
-
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭i definately hope so because im pretty soon done.. I lose more points in 3 loses then i gain in 8 wins.. its crazy
I feel the same. It's becoming too tiresome due to the bad ranking system. Today I lost with one player and got 150 points removed from score, then I got matched with the exact same player, won the match, and recovered 3 points.
This is completely brainless! 3 -
Stinkyremy✭✭✭✭✭I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.3 -
Lunatearz✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
YES because the game can be based on being able to get one single card that by chance is in your turn in the tavern available.
when i can win 3 - 12 points for beating the same player that costs me 200 points its UNFAIR since the chance to get your points back in a fair amount of time against the same player is nihil keeping in mind that you can lose by chance the very same way and lose another 200 in just 2 matches thats 400 points vs if you are lucky 12 IF you get the win .
You do not get to choose who you play against so its by chance as well that you end up playing against a lower ranked. and to be fair im a top 100 player (usually) that gets kicked out of top 100 cause of too many lower-ranked players. true rank is defined by skill and not luck thats how it should be so giving such a huge advantage to a lower-ranked player is highly unfair.
Edited by Lunatearz on November 30, 2022 5:05PM2 -
Stinkyremy✭✭✭✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
YES because the game can be based on being able to get one single card that by chance is in your turn in the tavern available.
when i can win 3 - 12 points for beating the same player that costs me 200 points its UNFAIR since the chance to get your points back in a fair amount of time against the same player is nihil keeping in mind that you can lose by chance the very same way and lose another 200 in just 2 matches thats 400 points vs if you are lucky 12 IF you get the win
You should reformat that post, I cannot understand what you are actually saying.
Still, you didn't search the internet did you.
Here I did it for you
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=elo+ranking+system&va=j&t=hc&atb=v274-1&hps=1&ia=web0 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system...
...Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
It is not fair. A win should rewards X number of points and a loss should remove X number of points regardless of who is playing who. The better players will continue to move up in rank by winning more games not because the system thinks their opponent was a better player or a worse one.
This is why so many have stopped playing competitive ranked games.PCNA1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
I agree that having some sort of ELO system is fair. But this is one of the worst I have seen. You should almost never be matched against people with such a wide skill differential to begin with. And while you shouldn't get as many points for a win against #162828 as you do #1, you should never be getting 0 points.
The reason the ELO system works in other games because it is very rare to have such a lopsided match to begin with, so just winning more often than you lose is enough to climb at least a little. If I win 10 matches and lose 1, there's no other game where I would drop regardless of who I took the L against.
If this doesn't have enough players to support a proper ELO system, then it should stop trying to have one. There's no reason that anyone should play a bunch of games and not drop or climb.Edited by spartaxoxo on December 1, 2022 1:47AM3 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
I didn't even know we could choose. I've been always matched with players at my level or above. How do you set to play only with higher level players to avoid 0 points? Maybe I've been doing something wrong. Is it on settings?1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
I didn't even know we could choose. I've been always matched with players at my level or above. How do you set to play only with higher level players to avoid 0 points? Maybe I've been doing something wrong. Is it on settings?
You can't pick who you're matched against, for obvious reasons.2 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
I didn't even know we could choose. I've been always matched with players at my level or above. How do you set to play only with higher level players to avoid 0 points? Maybe I've been doing something wrong. Is it on settings?
You can't pick who you're matched against, for obvious reasons.
Oh! So, he basically explained nothing. Thanks.1 -
sekou_trayvond✭✭✭✭✭What Stinky said.Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
0 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »What Stinky said.Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
No. It doesn't apply. Not even close.
There are only 1500 players in ranked ToT, it's way less than 7445654684687868. We are all at the same level. I think that it's not even possible for a player in Rubedite level to be matched with a player on Orichalcum. So, you are probably both thinking of different games.0 -
Stinkyremy✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system...
...Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
It is not fair. A win should rewards X number of points and a loss should remove X number of points regardless of who is playing who. The better players will continue to move up in rank by winning more games not because the system thinks their opponent was a better player or a worse one.
This is why so many have stopped playing competitive ranked games.
Lets use your logic on a different scenario.
So say you want to become the heavyweight boxing champion of the world and all you have to do is beat up 100 people.
you don't have to fight mike tyson or lennox lewis or tyson fury, you can fight any 100 people and be recognized as the champ.
[snip].
Points gained and loss are vs skill level of opponent.
[snip]
The thing is with ELO rating games is that you cannot choose what skill level of opponent you will be facing so point gained vs point loss is based upon the other players rank in the ELO related to yours
I explained this to you a few weeks ago using street fighter Vs ELO rating system as an explanation as it is pretty much the best ELO system I have ever seen in a competitive video game. This ELO in ToT (seems to) work the same, though the initial orc-rubedidte ranks are a much more easier to digest version of initial matchmaking with post rubedite matchmaking being extremely varied in skill ranges of the post rubedidte leader-board ranks.
[edited for baiting/inappropriate content]Edited by ZOS_Lunar on December 8, 2022 8:02PM1 -
Stinkyremy✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
The reason the ELO system works in other games because it is very rare to have such a lopsided match to begin with, so just winning more often than you lose is enough to climb at least a little. If I win 10 matches and lose 1, there's no other game where I would drop regardless of who I took the L against.
No it is the opposite. ELO ratings are there because the varied skill of the opponents are so varied that it can be lopsided, so it is not fair for the noob to loose so much and the pro to gain so much when they go against each other and the pro wins, and the pro should loose more and the noob gain more if he wins against the pro.
This is how ELO works and this is logical sense. It works well in so many games, both video games and IRL games or sports.
Only video game I have played where it is an absolute mess is overwatch, and that is partly because blizzard are incompetent fools and mainly because it is a 6v6 team based ELO with the trinity of raid mechanics where DPS always climb and tanks/healers can never climb. It is a bloody mess in that game.0 -
Stinkyremy✭✭✭✭✭sekou_trayvond wrote: »What Stinky said.Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
No. It doesn't apply. Not even close.
There are only 1500 players in ranked ToT, it's way less than 7445654684687868. We are all at the same level. I think that it's not even possible for a player in Rubedite level to be matched with a player on Orichalcum. So, you are probably both thinking of different games.
How can you not infer comedy from that?
I assume there are more than 1500 players in ranked, there are only 100 players on the leaderboard, every other player is hidden to us, but you can assume that any player you play post rubedite rank is not in the rubedite or lower ranks and visa versa with orc-rub rankings.0 -
jcasini222ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭Played tot season 1. Haven’t played competitive again. I ran into a few plus 40 minute card games and enough that went over 20 minutes.
That’s longer than a bg and longer than I can solo clear vet fungal by a lot. No way am I going to use game time on a card game that takes so long.
I thought it’d be perfect for waiting in ques for Cyro or bg but I can’t even que up a tot game while I wait. The game length cratered the pop less about scoring.1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
The reason the ELO system works in other games because it is very rare to have such a lopsided match to begin with, so just winning more often than you lose is enough to climb at least a little. If I win 10 matches and lose 1, there's no other game where I would drop regardless of who I took the L against.
No it is the opposite. ELO ratings are there because the varied skill of the opponents are so varied that it can be lopsided,
Absolutely not true. Those games do their best to match with an opponent near your skill level, and will expand it's search only when it takes too long to quickly find you a match. Most of them also have a cutoff so that you cannot match with an opponent that's such a guaranteed win that they cannot give you any credit for a match. To use your analogy, they don't let Mike Tyson box kindergarteners in the first place.
I have never played a game where I can play a bunch of matches and the gave me me literally 0 points for every single one. But, that happened to me in Tales, so I quit trying to climb after making rubedite. They said they had fixed an error some users were experiencing where their rank couldn't update, so I thought to myself "maybe it was just bugged." And the very next match, I got another 0 points match. I gave up trying after that..
There's no point if basically every single game is a 0 points match.Edited by spartaxoxo on December 1, 2022 1:44PM1 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Stinkyremy wrote: »sekou_trayvond wrote: »What Stinky said.Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
No. It doesn't apply. Not even close.
There are only 1500 players in ranked ToT, it's way less than 7445654684687868. We are all at the same level. I think that it's not even possible for a player in Rubedite level to be matched with a player on Orichalcum. So, you are probably both thinking of different games.
How can you not infer comedy from that?
I assume there are more than 1500 players in ranked, there are only 100 players on the leaderboard, every other player is hidden to us, but you can assume that any player you play post rubedite rank is not in the rubedite or lower ranks and visa versa with orc-rub rankings.
Yes, there are more than 1500 players now. There are 1576.
And what you say still doesn't apply. Even out of top 100 I keep losing 150 point on a loss and winning 0 points on victories.0 -
rbfrgsp✭✭✭✭✭What I find most strange about the competitive ranked game is the absence of the top players. I've been playing for three months now and I see the same names playing me over and over again. But when I look at the top ranking 100, I recognise about four names from the list. Where are all the top level players playing? Do they even exist? The score system rewards grinding, and getting that high up would demand near constant playing. And yet, it seems like 96 / 100 of the top players only ever play at 3am? Very odd.1
-
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ToT has different ranks that players advance to as they earn wins and we only play others in the same rank so logically they should award the same points for wins and losses.Edited by SilverBride on December 1, 2022 4:33PMPCNA0 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭What I find most strange about the competitive ranked game is the absence of the top players. I've been playing for three months now and I see the same names playing me over and over again. But when I look at the top ranking 100, I recognise about four names from the list. Where are all the top level players playing? Do they even exist? The score system rewards grinding, and getting that high up would demand near constant playing. And yet, it seems like 96 / 100 of the top players only ever play at 3am? Very odd.
It's normal. I was on top 1% this season for a couple of weeks because I stopped playing. Then I dropped to 1,5% and decided to play. I lost two or three matches and went below top 10%. It took me ages to reach again top 10% and ended up on top 5%.
If I stood still not playing with the points I had one week ago, I would have ended in top 2%. So... most players stop playing after reaching a safe score. The ranking system is extremely bugged or badly designed and when you're at top 2% you'll always lose 150 points on a match loss or win 0 points on a victory. There's no reason to play unless you drop because someone new reached the top 2%.
That's exactly because of this that most people don't play. Some want to reach top 10% and stop playing there, others want top 2% and stop there. The ranking system doesn't reward players in top 10% and above. If you want to match with top players you need to start playing in the beginning of the season.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There's no reason to play unless you drop because someone new reached the top 2%.
I'm not even in the top 100 but I do encounter this quite a bit. I do think I could get there though, if I were willing to grind. But why would I grind when the vast majority of my matches are not actually going to move me along?!
So you know where I play instead? Casual queue. I spend a lot of time in it. I get a lot of easy wins. I have seen people complain about it on the forums about high rank players in casual queue just demolishing newbies. I also know there is someone who concedes me on sight. But, rank point frustration completely ruins comp for me. So I'll continue to spend my time in that when I should really be playing comp.
I guarantee that a lot of skilled players would be playing comp more often if the Rubedite points made more sense.2 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »There's no reason to play unless you drop because someone new reached the top 2%.
I'm not even in the top 100 but I do encounter this quite a bit. I do think I could get there though, if I were willing to grind. But why would I grind when the vast majority of my matches are not actually going to move me along?!
So you know where I play instead? Casual queue. I spend a lot of time in it. I get a lot of easy wins. I have seen people complain about it on the forums about high rank players in casual queue just demolishing newbies. I also know there is someone who concedes me on sight. But, rank point frustration completely ruins comp for me. So I'll continue to spend my time in that when I should really be playing comp.
I guarantee that a lot of skilled players would be playing comp more often if the Rubedite points made more sense.
Agree. I like competitive card games, that's why I still try. But in the last month I started to play way more casual. In casual I still try to win but there's no 0 points rewards or dealing with a crash frustration. 1 -
Lunatearz✭✭Stinkyremy wrote: »Stinkyremy wrote: »I explained this here to another user a few weeks ago.
It IS FAIR. it is called an ELO ranking system.
Search for it on the internet.
Do you really think you should be rewarded equally in points for beating number 2 in the ranking and number 7445654684687868 in the ranking?
Why play number 2 ever then! When you can just crush low levels and stay on the top by crushing low levels infinitely...
Geez.
YES because the game can be based on being able to get one single card that by chance is in your turn in the tavern available.
when i can win 3 - 12 points for beating the same player that costs me 200 points its UNFAIR since the chance to get your points back in a fair amount of time against the same player is nihil keeping in mind that you can lose by chance the very same way and lose another 200 in just 2 matches thats 400 points vs if you are lucky 12 IF you get the win
You should reformat that post, I cannot understand what you are actually saying.
Still, you didn't search the internet did you.
Here I did it for you
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=elo+ranking+system&va=j&t=hc&atb=v274-1&hps=1&ia=web
Since you are so smart I'm gonna let you figure it out yourself. I understand what you say and the system you mention. I still don't think that's fair in this game. I'm an old-school gamer and have been gaming for over 40 years.
LOL do you think sending me a link will make me change my mind?
I can think for myself and I do know that a LUCK-based game ( or RNG based game) does not define who is a "better" player.
Some skill matters in this card game BUT you can have mad skills but not get the cards/combos and you will still be the better player but lose the game.
It would be okay if the lower rank maybe win 20 more points but not over 100 points in one single match. That's just not fair.
Also as has been said we need insight into the point system and how they are being rewarded.
3 -
Lunatearz✭✭What I find most strange about the competitive ranked game is the absence of the top players. I've been playing for three months now and I see the same names playing me over and over again. But when I look at the top ranking 100, I recognise about four names from the list. Where are all the top level players playing? Do they even exist? The score system rewards grinding, and getting that high up would demand near constant playing. And yet, it seems like 96 / 100 of the top players only ever play at 3am? Very odd.
It's normal. I was on top 1% this season for a couple of weeks because I stopped playing. Then I dropped to 1,5% and decided to play. I lost two or three matches and went below top 10%. It took me ages to reach again top 10% and ended up on top 5%.
If I stood still not playing with the points I had one week ago, I would have ended in top 2%. So... most players stop playing after reaching a safe score. The ranking system is extremely bugged or badly designed and when you're at top 2% you'll always lose 150 points on a match loss or win 0 points on a victory. There's no reason to play unless you drop because someone new reached the top 2%.
That's exactly because of this that most people don't play. Some want to reach top 10% and stop playing there, others want top 2% and stop there. The ranking system doesn't reward players in top 10% and above. If you want to match with top players you need to start playing in the beginning of the season.
this is also another reason why it's not fair I am a good player usually in the top 100 and play on a daily base but it takes me 3 matches to get kicked out of the top 100 and the rest of the whole day to try to get back in.
The lower ranked players that IM matched against MORE often take TOO big chunk of points from me to be able to compete fairly in a ranking system where the game is based on randomness rather then skill.
3 -
AnduinTryggva✭✭✭✭✭
✭i definately hope so because im pretty soon done.. I lose more points in 3 loses then i gain in 8 wins.. its crazy
My take on this: Play to rubedite, then try to win a few matches until good rank achieved. Then only monitor my rank evolution by others above me dropping below my rank or vice-versa and only play again if my rank drop is too large.
It is just stupid as it is done right now with losing so much points by a lost game.3 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Well... looks like nothing changed. The same broken system remains. We continue to lose 150 points on most losses and winning 0 to 5 points on victories. Very competitive indeed - 0 points on a victory and -150 on a loss is highly appealing. 1 -
NeKryXe✭✭✭✭✭
✭Please fix the ranking system!!!
We have been asking for this since the release. The ranking system is bugged or too dumb. It really needs to be fixed.
I don't understand why we didn't get any official answer yet to this problem.
Here's another example of the horrendous ToT ranking system:
I played 4 matches today. I lost the first one -150 points, won the second +3 points, lost the third -150 points, won the fourth 0 points.
What's going on??? This is completely absurd. 2 losses -300 points / 2 victories +3 points. Really?????
Please explain us how this dumb system works. A lot has been discussed but we never got any real answer about this mess.
0 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I haven't played a single game against another player this season, ranked or casual. I only play NPCs now and honestly it's a lot more fun than the frustration of the ranking system. Even casual isn't fun for me any more due to facing a gazillion combos in a row and watching my opponent rack up 30 or more prestige in one hand.
Close games are the ones I remember and enjoyed. The ones fighting our way up to see who can get to 80 first. Those are rare though.PCNA0