[Ranked]Let's fix ranked games before they die.

[Fenris78]

you are a deadweight as a sm in ranked because you lack the most important tool of a tank in 6v6 - punt. punts are how to u get kills in ranked and no amount of spirit damage u can do will make up for the lack of punt.

So what, you are saying only double punt is the key to victory ?
My 30% winrate is however disagreeing with you, and the fact Blorks and SMs are still winning (sometimes).

But I have an anti-punt morale, so I guess i can perfectly count as an anti-doublepunt and make the match even. You cannot punt me away = I'm a deadwheight since I won't move.

Otherwise just delete SM and BO since they are obviously deadweight for their team...

[Qorth]

Every class is able to get above 1k MMR. Some might be better at it sure, but it is doable on any class.

This is also why there's rewards for being in top 4 of a certain class, regardless of overall leaderboard position.

But even more rewards for losing isn't the way to go really IMHO.

Keep deluding yourself. It's very healthy for the server.

[Caduceus]

You need a 50/50 win ratio to get above 1k MMR. Not a crazy high requirement exactly.

I'd invite you to test that theory, without resorting to playing the system. I think you will be surprised how difficult it is.

[BeautfulToad]

But even more rewards for losing isn't the way to go really IMHO.

For me, more rewards for losing is just the easiest way to encourage participation. I understand the point though, you want a good game mode that a subset of players want to play not a game mode that people are encouraged to grind.

Ranked Solo doesn't distinguish between players who consistently perform well in poor teams and players mindlessly grinding. The RoR team deals with this problem through rewards. For example, you get an extra emblem if you get max damage/protection/etc in an SC if you lose.

Another way to do it is through leaderboard ranking and notoriety, which I don't think is necessarily utilised enough. The point is not really about handing out stuff to people for nothing, but to give people more "fluff" features around the core gameplay.

So if the argument is that a 6v6 mode is an unapologetic try-hard mode and that will, over time, eliminate players from the competition even if that's not the most popular mode. The simplest solution to dissenters might just be to include similar ranking lists for other game types.

[oilpourer]

Make having a ranged an opt-in, ty. Why would I want to play Order if there are rdps queuing? It is an automatic handicap.

[dalen]

You need a 50/50 win ratio to get above 1k MMR. Not a crazy high requirement exactly.

I'd invite you to test that theory, without resorting to playing the system. I think you will be surprised how difficult it is.

Pre-season 2 was calculated using same system. The players that got just over 1k MMR had roughly 50/50 win rate with a decent number of games played, or have a better win rate with fewer games.

Above 1k MMR we currently have for example:
- Atelokin: 124 wins, 130 losses
- Shangryn: 68 wins, 71 losses
- Herbalessences: 100 wins, 103 losses
- Lucilla: 86 wins, 84 losses
- Gobmarley: 82 wins, 77 losses

All of those players have a win rate close to 50/50 and have still reached an MMR above 1k.

[MonkeyHead]

The fix for ranked is finding out why MMR is based on group performance and not individual metrics. i could see grouped ranked being tied to Win Loss ratio... but why is Solo tied to a group-wide metric? its almost like it was designed to cause strife and toxic behavior. This also has a name "Collective punishment" It's punishing the entire group for one player's poor play. that's an abusive system (outlawed by the geneva convention no less). Solo ranked needs a Solo metric.

[paperclipdog]

The fix for ranked is finding out why MMR is based on group performance and not individual metrics. i could see grouped ranked being tied to Win Loss ratio... but why is Solo tied to a group-wide metric? its almost like it was designed to cause strife and toxic behavior. This also has a name "Collective punishment" It's punishing the entire group for one player's poor play. that's an abusive system (outlawed by the geneva convention no less). Solo ranked needs a Solo metric.

Because the goal of ranked SC is to win the SC and all metrics that differ from that goal can incentivise behaviour that doesn't necessarily lead to winning. You don't want to incentivise players to do something other than winning.

How would you calculate a tanks performance?
Buffs shattered+protection+dmg+CC+punts?
-> Then you will have tanks just spamming those as much as possible instead of using them at the right time.

Ok so Rampage shatter gets higher contri to incentivise shattering the right stuff?
-> Now tanks don't shatter other buffs anymore, only wait for rampage even when it may be detrimental for the win to do so


Or you say: Actions that lead to or prevented kills! - what is an action that lead to a kill and how strongly do you weigh them?
Example: Both tanks punt both enemy tanks, a kill happens. Which punt counts, the one on the tank that guarded the kill-target or the one on the tank that couldn't guard-swap it cause too far away? Do they both count equally? Do I get no contri if my Punt on the 2nd tank got parried? What if I would have punted a DPS to prevent them from using CC or a healer? How long after those punts does a kill need to happen? How the **** do you even track those metrics?

And don't get me started on actions that prevent a kill... how would you even begin to calculate those since you have no triggering event to tie data collection to.

... You get the picture I hope.

[Dabbart]

...

How would you calculate a tanks performance?
Buffs shattered+protection+dmg+CC+punts?
-> Then you will have tanks just spamming those as much as possible instead of using them at the right time.

Ok so Rampage shatter gets higher contri to incentivise shattering the right stuff?
-> Now tanks don't shatter other buffs anymore, only wait for rampage even when it may be detrimental for the win to do so

...

Doesn't work like that in reality. On this server shatters/cleanses work on a first on-first off basis. So, if you don't shatter at all, then you will almost never be able to shatter what you actually want too. This is why reapplying BW/Sorc/AM/Sham/RP/Z buffs is really important. Those will be the very first things shattered, so you can help to hide the important buffs. Also why you need to cover your important DoT/Debuffs.

Your overall point is valid though. Quantifying gameplay tactics into a figure would be very difficult, but one would imagine your relative MMR/ranking and W/L is somewhat indicative of these intangibles. If you punt arbitrarily and gift immunities, you will tend to lose more games than others. If you don't assist targets, then you will tend to lose more games than those that do. Etc. Ofc, you will lose games where you played perfectly, and win games when nearly AFK. Not even Teefz is undefeated. But, your MMR/Ranking and W/L "should" balance out over time.

Ontopic: My only issue on Ranked is that I am NA, and our pop-rate is nonexistent. The few EU times I have played have been fun though. I think the currency issues can/will be solved as we progress in seasons and players just get more games in. The Dev team has always made Pre-BiS and BiS gear a journey to acquire. The difficulty and level of actual effort differs, but you wont get the goodies quickly.

Will Ranked last long-term? Seems like it would. 6v6 is still a thing, even if rare. It would be interesting to see some game data though. How many Ranked games pop on avg per day? How many individual accounts Q per day on avg? What time of day is a game most likely? For how many hours per day do we not see a single pop?

Edit: I don't get the ranked discord stuff though. No, I don't want to hop into discord with 5 randoms. Either you know how to play your class or you don't. I don't need to hear the voices from DPS that wont assist each other, or tanks that wont swap guard or use Challenge. Much less people calling for CC on immune targets, nevermind why they are always immune... But that's just me being salty. If you wanna play in a group with coms, then make a group imo.

[Caduceus]

You need a 50/50 win ratio to get above 1k MMR. Not a crazy high requirement exactly.

I'd invite you to test that theory, without resorting to playing the system. I think you will be surprised how difficult it is.

Pre-season 2 was calculated using same system. The players that got just over 1k MMR had roughly 50/50 win rate with a decent number of games played, or have a better win rate with fewer games.

Above 1k MMR we currently have for example:
- Atelokin: 124 wins, 130 losses
- Shangryn: 68 wins, 71 losses
- Herbalessences: 100 wins, 103 losses
- Lucilla: 86 wins, 84 losses
- Gobmarley: 82 wins, 77 losses

All of those players have a win rate close to 50/50 and have still reached an MMR above 1k.

You misunderstood me. I'm inviting you to get a 50/50 winrate without playing the system. Since you are of the opinion any class can get above 1k MMR, try it on a Bright Wizard.