Yup.
@N0DEZER0, you said we shouldn’t be seeing thousands of point swings after the fixes went live.
But it’s still happening. Can you explain why this is still an issue and if it will be fixed for TU3?
The loss bias is far too high. It’s not fair to lose 800>1500 (max I’ve seen) points for a loss when you can gain nowhere near that for a win.
I’ve had a 800 point loss for MVP too. The loss/gain ratio should be the same. It’s hugely biased towards loss still.
I think there are plans to remove ranked or ranked stats in January (i don’t know officially but I have heard that through the grapevine) I don’t know if that means ranked entirely - or just stat recording and placement.
However, it stopped working properly as of at least 2 weeks ago. I don’t know if it was intentional or accidental - they may not even be aware of it. Same as them not being aware that there is no map vote in ranked anymore.
When Gears 5 launched they removed the link to the ranked stats page from this web domain as well, so unless you have the URL saved it’s hard to get to it.
Ghoul,
I’d recommend posting that in this thread too. I don’t know how far out Ryan goes on the forum or if he only sticks to answering questions in this thread.
I will. Knowing me, I’ve probably said something similar there in the past already. Won’t hurt to do so again though.
Thanks
how is this even possible lol???
Please peep. ive been trying to get feed back but ive been pissing in the wind.
Your team was heavily favoured to win and you didn’t hence such a massive loss. The other team probably had similar gain
… the rank tier is largely meaningless and misleading, and is in hardly any way indicative of the players’ skills…
That’s basically it, paraphrasing what they said.
The reason they aren’t showing it because they showed it in GoW4 and people took the ranks literally and got upset when silvers beat them (“how can they be silvers, your ranking system sucks”), or how they were teamed with high ranks who sucked (“how can that be an onyx, your ranking system sucks”), etc…
So now they don’t show them, so people can’t see the ranks and be mislead by them into thinking they represent actual skill levels the system assigned to those people…
So, basically, the rank is meaningless - the person can be of much higher skill, or that skill, or a much lower skill, than the rank implies, so you can’t judge anything from just looking at the rank…
That’s the impression I got from what they said…
Anyone else wants to try and explain it differently?
I took it as the only reason ranks aren’t accurate is because good players can be on their way up / quickly passing through a tier while they make their way to the top.
Even still, I find that excuse to be weak. Someone who isn’t stupid could figure that out and I’d like to see it regardless.
It doesn’t indicate their true skill until they’ve played enough games.
I think they should reconsider though. It did more good than harm.
Gota show ranks in ranked games …been sayin this from day 1
Yes. Need to show the ranks! But the problem is with this stupid tier system. I wrote why the ranking dosent work.
Yes, and that is the huge problem with their WHOLE ranking system…
Probability and statistics doesn’t work on basis of 1 data point…
Consider their “this team is expected to win 60% of the time” thing - ok… But that means that it’s expected to lose 40% of the time! So if it loses, it CANNOT BE PENALIZED, because this could be one of those times it’s EXPECTED to lose! You cannot tell if they under/over performed from ONE game…
This would only make sense if THOSE TEAMS played some statistically significant number of games (hundreds? thousands?) and THEN you look at the number of wins/loses, if you won fewer than 60% of the games, then only THEN you could claim the team was under performing!
You cannot decide that from ONE match, and every game is unique, in terms of team compositions… So, in my opinion (and what do I know, only 2 grad degrees in IT and Finance, and a job where I work with probability theory every day), their whole basis of “if you are expected to win 60% of the time and you lose, then you underperformed” is pure BS… It’s not statistics/probability, it’s made up math…
yeah basically.
i can just type that im master of the universe at the end of a match and nobody be the wiser.
except that,oh yeah,global chat doesnt even work…lol
You have to stop making valid points before you get banned from here lol
yeah or even something to show favoured to win players so a team can send them at each other. would be nice to know if my silver 1 ■■■ is running into an on the way diamond.
I would be nice to see footage of those games/rounds.
So we can actually judge if it’s “fair” to the those point deductions.
Those end game screenshots isn’t really enough.
watched the video which explains the systems in place and played 3 games before with a better understanding. started today 51% silver one . I won 2 matches lost 1 now im 71% silver one. Think my prob is i play as expected bs the system go up a few hundred sometimes thousand but them face a team that completely destroys me and i go all the way back down to less than i started.
i now know it doesnt matter who kills you in the game but when a player has 3 times the score of everyone else, his team was favoured to win (probably stacked) and a player has a spiking 30-130, If my entire team has the same score/stats after being dominated by 1-2 players how was i expected to play?
Well said, though if you’re bringing up things they shouldn’t have changed from 4, then with Guardian as my fav mode I gotta bring up the not being able to respawn after your leader dies even if the counter already started… now I get you not coming back if noone is alive cause thats how it was on 4… but being in the process of respawning when your leader dies and not coming back is bullocks… I had so many times I clutched or almost clutched in 4 cause I came back after my leader died and always AT LEAST killed leader… now my Guardian clutches are far more rare cause more often then not Im already dead when my leader dies cause I pushed leader and got jumped by 3
It’s never fair to have a system that negates up to 5x the amount of points for a loss than a win.
That’s all that needs to be said. I’m debating the fairness of the design philosophy or the bug, whichever is the case.
I have a ton of people who can verify that I rarely if ever are not first or at worst second on the scoreboard. Not that it matters to this argument though.
I do have a lot of screenshots of the scoreboard + the point results for the match however. It’d just take a bit of time to join them together to present them here.