Make all matches weigh the same points

Lunatearz · October 2022

With the game being as it is I suggest all matches weigh the same points.

No one should get more points from winning over another player than the other way around. if Player A beats me and gets 200+ points because I'm a higher rank that will cost me a lot of ranks and points. Gaining them back is hard with sometimes just 30!!!! points per match. Would be fairer if all wins and losses are let's say 30 .. perhaps for the top 100 it would be 50 but the difference should not be greater IMO.

SilverBride · October 2022

I agree 100%.

Amottica · October 2022

A weighted system where a lower-ranked player gets more points for beating a higher-ranked person, and visa versa, is legitimate. However, in such cases, players should know how it works.

The main issue is players do not know how it works as I understand it.

SilverBride · October 2022

It's not legitimate if the system isn't accurately assigning a player's ranking. A bad player can have a good game and a good player can have a bad game. Just defeating one particular player doesn't mean the winner is suddenly a higher rank than they really are, and losing doesn't mean they are no longer a good player.

Good players win more games than bad players. That should be enough to keep the better players moving up in rank without giving them triple the points for a win. It's very one sided and extremely unfair.

Amottica · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

It's not legitimate if the system isn't accurately assigning a player's ranking. A bad player can have a good game and a good player can have a bad game. Just defeating one particular player doesn't mean the winner is suddenly a higher rank than they really are, and losing doesn't mean they are no longer a good player.

Good players win more games than bad players. That should be enough to keep the better players moving up in rank without giving them triple the points for a win. It's very one sided and extremely unfair.

I assume you are replying to my post as that is the only change to this thread since your previous post even though the comment does not seem to address what I said.

If a good player defeats a notably higher-ranked player, it would make sense that they would receive bonus points for such a win. It is also in line with PvP in ESO since we get more AP for defeating a player that is of a rank notably higher than our character.

By the same token, when a good player defeats a lower-ranked player, they would get fewer points for the game, and the lower-ranked player who lost would lose fewer points.

SilverBride · October 2022

Rank should be based on a win to loss ratio. If a player wins 40% of their games then defeats a player who wins 80% of their games that doesn't mean they are now more skilled and should gain 3 times the points. More likely than not it was just RNG.

If the 40% player does gain 3 times the points they are then matched against higher ranked players and more likely than not will find themselves in a long losing streak because they are over their heads. This is why there needs to be a set amount of points for a win like there is for a loss.

Also, why are lower ranked players being matched with higher ranked players anyway?

Amottica · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

Rank should be based on a win to loss ratio.

This is one opinion and I respect you have such an opinion.

It is reasonable for someone to have a differing opinion where a player gains more points defeating a higher ranked person since there is the suggestion that they are facing more risk being paired with such a higher ranked person.

Neither is right nor wrong. They just differ and both are valid though only one will prevail.

But all of that is really beside the point as the last sentence in my first point is what really matters and goes beyond opinion. Players need to know how the point system works.

SilverBride · October 2022

I have asked and tagged ZoS for an explanation, as have others. I hope they give us an explanation soon because ranked is losing players.

Stinkyremy · October 2022

This is an ELO rank system.
It is a good ranking system. Lots of games use this too. Street fighter V is a great example for the rank system this game is trying to emulate.

I dont know about the point distribution in ToT but ELO rankings makes it so if a novice player beats a high rank player the novice gains much more points and the high rank looses much more.
While if a novice beats a novice the gain is quite large for a novice where if a high rank beats a high rank the gain is minimal.

Think about it, say for eg high rank players and novice rank players equally gain and loose the same points for a win or loss no matter what rank player they play against.
High rank players high ranking will increasingly climb and novice rank players will never be able to become a high ranked player because the points needed to reach high rank are ever increasing.
That just turns simply into "best player is who played the most games"
So best player is just a NEET who actually likes the game, not the person who is the actual best player at the game.

If you do some critical thinking and basic research and understanding of ELO you will see that it makes sense.
Though again, I do not know if the pojnt distribution in ToT is fair, by the looks of it it does not even give us the point gain/loss after a match past rubedidte.
In the basic orc-rub ranks there was a win streak multiplier and loss streak multiplier point distribution.

Just for an FYI many sports use ELO, it was originally designed for chess and is still used in chess but games like tennis and golf use an ELO like ranking system.

You want to see a bad ELO rank system, look at overwatch!

Heartrage · October 2022

The problem with a ranking system that doesn’t account rank is that it makes ranking high much more reliant on playing a lot. If you played a 100 games and won all 100 of them, for example, you might rank the same as someone who has played a 1000 game and only won 600 of them.

Obviously, a player that win every game is better than one who win 60% of their games, but because the score function is linear without accounting for rank instead of logarithmic, it makes playing a lot weight much more on how high the player is ranked.

NeKryXe · October 2022

It's absolutely pathetic and makes people stop playing after reaching certain point. Once you are on top 10% you lose 150 points for losing a match and win 0 to 30 points if winning. It's a really jerk system. When you are at solid position on top 10% it's better stop. It's the less competitive rank I ever knew, it's just dumb as hell.

Lunatearz · October 2022

Amottica wrote: »

A weighted system where a lower-ranked player gets more points for beating a higher-ranked person, and visa versa, is legitimate. However, in such cases, players should know how it works.

The main issue is players do not know how it works as I understand it.

that would be legitimate if i had more ppl to play against it takes me a ton of matches to get to top 10 but just 3 matches to kick me off top 100

So unless you can give me higher ranked players to play against that dont cost me a ton of points if i lose.. I pass on that

FrancisCrawford · October 2022

I haven't played ToT against NPCs, so I don't know any details about the system. However, I was a tournament chess player for a little while, 50 years ago, so I've known about Elo systems even before that was what they were commonly called.

Here's the thing. The basic premise of an Elo system is:
-- Everybody has a numerical rating.
-- Your true probability of winning a game is supposed to be an approximately linear function of the difference between your rating and your opponent's. (Of course, the function can't be perfectly linear, if for no other reason that the probability must always be between 0 and 1.)

Two numbers have to chosen by the system's designers to make it work. One is totally arbitrary: the rating gap that implies that the higher rated player should "almost always" beat the lower one. In chess that was 400 points.

The second number is the assumed probability that a player will beat somebody far superior to them in skill. In chess, if I recall correctly, that was 12.5%, which is much higher than reality. So if a player plays somebody 400 rating points lower 8 times, and wins 7 of the 8, ratings are unchanged. Given that ToT has a large luck factor, perhaps its version of this assumed probability is too low.

Amottica · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

I have asked and tagged ZoS for an explanation, as have others. I hope they give us an explanation soon because ranked is losing players.

How does one know if the card game is losing players primarily due to this aspect? I did not know we had access to the number of players playing the game let alone playing ranked.

Granted, I expect the card game would lose players as it is very much secondary to the main purpose of ESO itself. Also, I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them. But this is not an overall indicator of what is actually happening nor the reason why if it was.

SilverBride · October 2022

A professional chess tournament is one thing, but this is a card game in an MMO. Also a system that was in use 50 years ago is probably not the most up to date.

This system leaves way too much to chance. Players obviously aren't being matched with others of their same skill level or there would never be a time when a player gets matched with someone enough levels above of them to justify getting 3 times the points for a win. I know the different rank categories match up players to a degree but it's obviously not enough.

The current system is not fair and needs to be reevaluated. And we need an explanation on how it works.

SilverBride · October 2022

Amottica wrote: »

...I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them.

That was me and others commented they are feeling the same way. This is probably not the only reason others are stopping competitive play, but it is for many.

For myself the stress comes from the unfair ranking system. Losing 2 games in a row almost always plummets the player into a long losing streak. This happens so consistently that it can't be just a coincidence.

Amottica · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

...I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them.

That was me and others commented they are feeling the same way. This is probably not the only reason others are stopping competitive play, but it is for many.

The forums have seen threads over the years claiming ESO is dead or dying because of players leaving the game. Each lacked a means to actually measure what was happening and clearly time has proven those claims to be false.

So my question that was edited out still applies. That is how do you know that ranked is truly losing players and the reason why?

SilverBride · October 2022

Amottica wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

...I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them.

That was me and others commented they are feeling the same way. This is probably not the only reason others are stopping competitive play, but it is for many.

The forums have seen threads over the years claiming ESO is dead or dying because of players leaving the game. Each lacked a means to actually measure what was happening and clearly time has proven those claims to be false.

So my question that was edited out still applies. That is how do you know that ranked is truly losing players and the reason why?

I never said ESO is dying and I never said that ToT is dying either. I said that competitive ranked games are losing players which is evident by being matched with a much smaller group of players than before.

The reason why many are no longer playing competitive is the unfair ranking system, which is evident from several posts in several threads. A few of my friends in game have expressed the same concern, too. I don't claim that this is the only reason but it's definitely a factor for a lot of players.

Amottica · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

...I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them.

That was me and others commented they are feeling the same way. This is probably not the only reason others are stopping competitive play, but it is for many.

The forums have seen threads over the years claiming ESO is dead or dying because of players leaving the game. Each lacked a means to actually measure what was happening and clearly time has proven those claims to be false.

So my question that was edited out still applies. That is how do you know that ranked is truly losing players and the reason why?

I never said ESO is dying and I never said that ToT is dying either. I said that competitive ranked games are losing players which is evident by being matched with a much smaller group of players than before.

The reason why many are no longer playing competitive is the unfair ranking system, which is evident from several posts in several threads. A few of my friends in game have expressed the same concern, too. I don't claim that this is the only reason but it's definitely a factor for a lot of players.

I never said you suggested ESO was dying. My comment was clearly related to your comment that players were leaving ranked ToT without providing any real basis for the claim.

Also, we do not know if the ranking system is not fair. We do not know how the points work and it is incorrect to categorize the system as unfair when we do not know how it works.

So until we know how the points granted or taken for a win and loss are calculated it is merely guesswork as to how it works or if it is fair or not and baseless. It is only after we know how the point system works can we correctly state if it is fair or not

That means the real question that needs to be asked is how the point system works. Until we know that the rest is pure conjecture.

SeaGtGruff · October 2022

SilverBride wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

...I have seen someone post a thread explicitly commenting they would stop competitive playing as it was becoming stressful for them.

That was me and others commented they are feeling the same way. This is probably not the only reason others are stopping competitive play, but it is for many.

For myself the stress comes from the unfair ranking system. Losing 2 games in a row almost always plummets the player into a long losing streak. This happens so consistently that it can't be just a coincidence.

I stopped playing ranked games after an initial 2ish-week flirt with them, but I didn't care about my ranking before my flirt, and I still don't care about it. I didn't stop playing ranked games because they were more stressful or made me upset over how many points I gained or lost per match. It was actually more because of time considerations. I enjoy being able to walk up to an expert NPC and play a relatively quick game, versus having to queue for a match and waiting for a suitable opponent to be found and then having the game last for what feels like twice as long as a match against an expert NPC.

Oddly enough, I'm not unhappy about the 90-second timer being "too long"; if anything, I think it could stand to be a little bit longer, such as 105 seconds. But considering how many players think that 90 seconds is too long, I guess it's about right. If I were playing PvP matches for a rank, I'd want to have enough time to think about and execute my moves.

Anyway, now that I read the Wikipedia article about the Elo ranking system, I feel better about losing a lot of points by losing a match yet gaining a much smaller number of points by winning a match, since that evidently means that the game considers me to be a better player than my opponents!

SilverBride · October 2022

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Anyway, now that I read the Wikipedia article about the Elo ranking system, I feel better about losing a lot of points by losing a match yet gaining a much smaller number of points by winning a match, since that evidently means that the game considers me to be a better player than my opponents!

ZoS has not verified that this is the ranking system they are using. It may be but until they confirm it, it's all just speculation.

Either way, I find the current system unfair and will stop ranked games until it is changed. It's just not worth it to me.

SeaGtGruff · October 2022

It may be unconfirmed speculation, but apparently it's such a common and widely-used method in competitive ranking that it seems like a pretty safe assumption. /shrug

SilverBride · October 2022

I'd still like to hear it from them.

VaranisArano · October 2022

I don't play Tales of Tribute, but it's worth noting that we do have another system of ranked matches in ESO: Battlegrounds.

Why are players of vastly different skill levels sometimes matched up to fight in Battleground? Because there aren't enough evenly matched players in the queue. When the queues are small, ZOS reasonably prioritizes getting players into a match at all, rather than waiting for an even match. So you might see brand new players squaring off against someone on the BG leaderboard because the playerbase is just that small.

Why do players see the same players again and again in Battlegrounds matches? Again, there's a rather small amount of players in the queue at the same time, and since the queue tries to make even matches where it can, and makes matches at all when it can't make even ones, its very common to see the same players over and over again. Even if the resulting match is very unequal.

But Battlegrounds' match-making ranking (MMR) has some quirks.

For one, it's not based on winning. It only ever goes up, not down. BG players do not lose leaderboard ranking when they lose, since that's based on the medals they won during matches. You don't need to win to get a high MMR in BGs, you just need to play a lot.

In effect, what it does is eventually create a situation where everyone who plays a lot becomes high MMR, whether or not they are any good at BGs. So you can become trapped at an MMR level where you can't win much because you got there by playing a lot, not by being good. This is most obvious in BGs when transitioning from a low-level character to the level 50 BGs. Alternatively, you can be a very good player, create a new character with low MMR, and dominate your less experienced opponents.

For another, it doesn't actually address some of the complaints I've seen about queues. Again, like ToT players, BG players are used to getting some uneven matches. BG players will see the same players over and over. BG players at high MMR typically have a longer queue time. So a similar MMR ranking for ToT that only goes up or is based on how many games are played is not likely to solve those problems for Tales of Tribute.

Now, ZOS knows there are issues with the BGs queues. They've made a lot of changes to how the queues work to try to alleviate complaints about seeing the same groups over and over, and to get players into the game mode they prefer.

But what they've inevitably come back to each time is that they can only split the queues so much before the wait times get excessively long.

Just something to think about, when you're playing Tales of Tribute and wondering why you got matched against the same player, got an uneven match, and why ZOS made it possible to lose ranking with a loss.

Lunatearz · October 2022

again .. that point system would only be fair if you actually get ppl to play against within your ranking system. And not play against lower ranked ppl most of the time

RusevCrush · November 2022

Longtime Dominion player here. I think Tales is pretty great. They could borrow mechanics from existing deckbuilders for years and really have something here. However, the ranked play is maddening and could ruin the game. There is too much luck involved to ask someone to take a million tiny steps forward only to be dealt an unwinnable hand and be back where you started or just marginally ahead. Couple that with this ridiculous abandonment glitch and it's RIP.

Your game is really impressive, please fix the ranking system....and the deserter issue.

Lunatearz · November 2022

RusevCrush wrote: »

Longtime Dominion player here. I think Tales is pretty great. They could borrow mechanics from existing deckbuilders for years and really have something here. However, the ranked play is maddening and could ruin the game. There is too much luck involved to ask someone to take a million tiny steps forward only to be dealt an unwinnable hand and be back where you started or just marginally ahead. Couple that with this ridiculous abandonment glitch and it's RIP.

Your game is really impressive, please fix the ranking system....and the deserter issue.

THIS!!!!

NeKryXe · November 2022

Today I played a lot of matches and took notes on all. I won many matches, receiving between 0 to 12 points in each. In one of those matches, an opponent way ahead of me in rank, resigned and I got 0 points. Finally, after 7 wins that gave me 33 points, I lost one match with an opponent 90 places ahead of me and it took me 150 points. If this is not the jerkiest ranking system ever... I can't imagine what it will be.