Forum Discussion

BlackOpsBen's avatar
5 years ago

3% rank increase?! Really?!

I just played an entire match short 1 player on my team, and we still won! It was hard fought for sure. One more shift of morale and we were toast. I get that in this case a loss for us would be half as much rank loss, but come on, a win should be TWICE the gain, if anything. Certainly not worth LESS rank increase! I feel like this rank system is incredibly primitive. Is there anything nuanced about it beyond simply, "win = good, lose = bad?"

19 Replies

  • vicvader77's avatar
    vicvader77
    5 years ago

    @Flatulent_RancorSeriosly, guys. How do you get an average of 9% on wins? Mine is 3-4% on wins, and 24% per loss. And I cannot reset the rank 'cause I already had to do it to fix the infamous rank bug. Just for info, I use to finish 1st on every match.

  • @vicvader77 Those are points changes not percentages. The percentage reported appears to be inconsistent (i.e. they don't actually reflect the rank change) so I have been recording my rank.

    I have been playing with a friend and we always same increase or decrease in rank points from the matches. It appears that the points for a win or loss is shared equally among all players of a team.

    How these points are calculated is still a mystery. How quickly you win does not appear to affect it (had one win where the other team didn't get to attack and we still only got about 4 points).

    I suspect the rank change is some function of the "skill/rating of team A" vs the "skill/rating of team B". i.e. if you beat a good team you will get lots of points, but fewer if you beat a weaker team. Similarly losing against a weak team is worse that losing against a good team.

    It could however be some function of team score (i.e. sum of individual scores) but sadly the EOR scoreboards don't persist long enough for me to track this i.e. if a player leaves at the end of a match they vanish from the score board. I suspect this is not the case however as very one-sided games do not appear to consistently score higher than balanced games.

    With so many unranked players it is hard to get a match against a strong team unless they are a full premade in which case even one noob on our team will mean we're doomed!
  • vicvader77's avatar
    vicvader77
    5 years ago

    @Flatulent_RancorThat explains a lot. Thank you, mate!

    It would be helpful from Motive to explain how these points are calculated. Nevertheless, I highly doubt that since that seems to be "top secret" from the developers perspective, generally speaking. Same thing happend with SstarCraft 2, or Rainbow6 Siege: neither company wanted to explain how they calculated the ranking points.

    EDIT: After some calculations, the percentage DOES reflect accurately the rank increase according the points given to reach the next rank.

  • snakepeaceguard's avatar
    snakepeaceguard
    5 years ago

    is this a subject of balance that gonna come in the patch of november 25th?

  • CloudWalker60's avatar
    CloudWalker60
    5 years ago

    You guys are getting more than 1% per win?

    I get 1% per win, 10% per lose, 0.75 win ratio, my guess is that ranks are distributed like this at the moment:

    • Maverick: 45% 
    • Hotshot: 45%
    • Hero: 10%
    • Valiant: < 0.5%
    • Legend: < 0.1%
    • Galactic Ace: Not even one person here

    There's something very wrong with the ranking system if with a greatly positive win ration (great win ratio in ranked is considered 0.55+ in competitive games) and there's no climb on the ladder outside of a few squad of elites together never losing a single game or people boosting with new accounts and with such a poor rank distribution. Now to know what is going wrong is a different kettle of fish that we cannot guess with out having more datas or inside peeks of how things works. One thing is sure, ranked needs a fix yet again.

  • Here is some longer term data on the points gained and lost over 170+ games...

    Gains: min = 0, average = 8.11, max = 26
    Losses (including 2 forfeit games) min = -6, average = -20.86, max = -50

    The losses are on average 2.57 times greater than the wins and you would need to maintain a win ratio of 0.61 to rank up. My win ratio of 0.87 gives me a net average gain of 5 points per game. The Hero Tier is 1000 points so it would be expected to take 200 games to reach Valiant.

    This system is also driving poor player behaviour too because the time penalty for quitting from the menu and being in the "low priority queue" is far lower than the points penalty for losing a game.

    Ranking up in this game is not fun, it is just tedious and evidently needs reworking.

    See graph attached.

  • FalconFSX's avatar
    FalconFSX
    5 years ago

    I agree, this system is broken.  I'm at Hot Shot and I have a high win rate, however I lose one game (that is close) and I take a massive loss in points.  So much so now that I'm lower then what I was initial ranked at despite winning 95%+ of my games.

  • @TrichorTTVThis right here is why I won’t touch the ranked games. The point system makes no sense at all. If you win you get points. If you lose, you gain nothing. Why wasn’t this done? OP, this was a much needed post. +1

  • CA1-PAINLESS's avatar
    CA1-PAINLESS
    5 years ago

    The Ranking is fine IMO. I'm now Legend-2 and so is another of my squad mates (Cavern Angels) . We have all been ranking up easily, post patch 3.0.

    You guys need to start concentrating on your coordination, planning, and actual gameplay, and consistently win, If you do that, you will rank up. 

About Star Wars Games Discussion

Talk with the community about EA's STAR WARS™ games.14,768 PostsLatest Activity: 6 months ago