Can we separate the 3 v3 and 5 v 5 Skill point ladder
Seems pretty stupid to keep them together honestly. They are not the same format. In other games different formats would have separate ladders.
4
- 60.8K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
Other games are running both modes at the same time. Or most of them do. Having one skill ladder every second month surely is not what you would want.
This would negatively impact those who dislike 3v3. If you do poorly in 3v3 / refuse to this reduces skill rating, but gives the opportunity of easier match ups for potential first place and promotions in 5v5. Net gain/loss is neutral. Your average daily payout would not reduce too much as you regain your skill rating during 5v5. However, should they be split. Someone could plummet during 3v3, leagues below. It would only be fair for daily payout to be reflective of the active tournament format, so daily payout would significantly be affected during 3v3 with no 5v5 to improve it. You may as well not sign up.
I also think it would worsen matchmaking during 3v3, where larger rosters continue to fall. As this ruins the mode for those who actually enjoy 3v3. Players should be gently encourage to play at their level, so sandbagging* during 3v3 should be penalised across GAC as a whole, including starting 5v5 from a lower skill level. So if someone cares about their 5v5 skill ranking they will put effort into 3v3.
*I consider it sandbagging as I think both require the same ‘skill’ and rosters are easily adapted to 3v3. So it would need to be intentional such as refusing to play to lose more often.
@Rius, your argument isn't making any sense to me.
Probably because it’s from the point of view of a competitive player (who finds it hard to understand why players sandbag), who enjoys 3v3 and does not want to deal with any more sandbaggers who dislike 3v3.
I want to play the mode, separating the format will divide player base and reduce players for matchmaking. And separating the skill rating will allow greater sandbagging in 3v3. Why else do it?
Cricket doesn't use 20 over cricket results to rank 40 over teams.
I always thought (and loved) the idea of this new format was to get an accurate set of rankings.
Unfortunately Leagues, more than 1 division demotions/promotions, 3v3 5v5 joint rankings, sandbagging, squish and hidden promotion/demotion zones are all hindering this. Don't get me wrong, it's still good, but no way truly accurate. I'm sure there are players trying there hardest, that are stronger than players of a similar GP 3...4..5 (maybe more) divisions higher than them.
I'm seeing a lot of players in a K3 - A3 whirlpool. Where they...we are continually recycling with other players.
Dont know whats hard about that:
5v5 season: you get 5v5 season rank rewards + harder matches because everyone tryhards here.
3v3 season: you get 3v3 season rank rewards + easier matches because people dont want to play which results in 5v5 players crying about how its easier to get better results in 3v3
Dont want to play 3v3? 50 carbonite fems a day for you. A whole season
I didn't notice easier matches last 3v3 season. And if '5v5 players' do well in 3v3, then they deserve their rewards.
I think your whole (and possibly Rius, I still don't get it) argument is theoretical. If.......there is such a big disparity of players trying in 3v3 vs 5v5, it would mean 3v3 isn't practical.
This doesn't really sit well with your original argument though.
'isnt skill about adapting to different scenarios?'
But now you're saying there's a disparity between the 2 and that it's easier to do better in 3v3. That doesn't feel like 'adapting' and more 'reaping'.
'Dont want to play 3v3? 50 carbonite fems a day for you. A whole season '
Who is saying I (or the OP) don't want to play 3v3? That's not what the point of this topic is. The point is that they're different enough, you shouldn't be using the same ranking system.
In the most extreme of examples of competence in one and not the other; you'll shoot up the rankings with one format, then fall down the rankings with the other. That doesn't really sit well with 'having fair and competitive match ups due to skill based MM, does it?
As for rewards, would it be much different? I think overall rewards would be similar, without as much rising and falling. And from the forum posts we get here, we all know what repeatedly losing does to a players morale.
I think its something that mainly occurs in the "lower" leagues rather than in kyber, but the number of Def-wins i and some others are experiencing are higher in 3v3.
Maybe i was based because normally when you read posts like this its because they dont want/have no interest in X. If thats the case my bad. But i think if they switched it, people would start to complain about now having to play 3v3 to get gems.
Does players not playing interfere with the "skill" matchmaking? It sure does. But thats just as it is if the only thing you are basing you matchmaking on in your WR (aka skill rating points)
"It doesn’t matter much whether you use separate ladder. Eventually you all get 50% win rate anyway:) if you are good in 5v5 and bad in 3v3, it will simply mean you have a winning record in 5v5 and losing record in 3v3."
I think the main issue or 'potential' issue with 1 ranking is the 'ethos' behind GAC; competitive (and fun) matches. If you win all..........or most of your 5v5s, but lose all/most of your 3v3s there's a loss of enjoyment/competitive matches.
So yes the record will be the same anyway 50/50. However, 50% win rate suggests.........(or should be) could go either way 50/50 match ups; not 95% chance of winning in 3v3 and 95% of losing in 5v5 (extreme cases of course).
That's just not the spirit of the game.
sloweagle wrote:
"Personally I could prefer single ladder for now as it just guarantees I stay in Kyber 1. If two ladders, who knows maybe one day I will drop to Kyber 2 in 3v3 while safely in Kyber 1 with 5v5."
Yeah, I guess that's a valid....fair point. I feel it's personal to you though and a few other; rather than being for the majority.
Frustratingly, I doubt any system suits all players.
I_JnK_I wrote:
I think its something that mainly occurs in the "lower" leagues rather than in kyber, but the number of Def-wins i and some others are experiencing are higher in 3v3.
I have empathy for the 'lower leagues'. I think sandbagging is a real problem that needs to be addressed. The problem with sandbagging is the 'spirit of the game', where the matches aren't decided by competitive play, rather whether the larger gp player attacks or not.
I don't think separating the rankings has a negative effect on 'real playing' though.
An extreme case is somebody that 'tryshard' all their 5v5, but doesn't even bother doing more than the 1 attack in 3v3. This player's ranking will be 'erratic'; climbing higher in 5v5, then dropping in 3v3. Very few of this player's games are going to be competitive match ups. Maybe, the last week of 5v5, where they get somewhere near their 'true' skill rating. So that's 15 of 18 matches that aren't in the spirit of the game and affected by sandbagging.
However, if you separate the rankings. Only 3v3 is effected, and actually it would make it easier to deal with when they drop to the very bottom of the rankings. The bottom line sandbagging does need addressing, I totally agree.
I_JnK_I wrote:
Maybe i was based because normally when you read posts like this its because they dont want/have no interest in X.
I feel I'm speaking for the OP here, because their argument resonates with me so much. It's an argument I made in the past too. For me personally, it doesn't have much of an effect at all. My win rate in 3v3 and 5v5 is very similar. I have very few match ups that are not competitive. I don't really like 3v3 very much, but I don't hate it. I will always give it my best.
I come from a country that uses league/divisional rankings for most sports. I just personally cannot see the logic in using 1 ranking to determine match making for a different format. For me it's just daft and not logical.
I_JnK_I wrote:
But i think if they switched it, people would start to complain about now having to play 3v3 to get gems.
Well, firstly they should have to play, right? The main issue with the division is people not giving there best, and causing sandbagging issues. I think personally, the most important part of GAC is the spirit of the game: good, fun, competitive match ups, rather than the rewards you get. At the end of the day, if you're not having fun playing the game............what's the point? Players have a purple fetish and get off on getting purple crystals pop up on their screen?
Also, if this is so much of an issue. So much of a tooth ache for players, then why continue with 3v3? Like why are players suffering through 3v3 to get back to playing 5v5. It's a game and should be enjoyable. If the majority of players are hating 3v3 so much that their unwilling to play it, then it should be scrapped. 3v3 has been around a long while though (it had been on hiatus) so the stats must suggest that the majority of the playerbase are willing to play 3v3 to the degree they're playing 5v5.
I hope if this is not the case, then CG will address it; possibly by decreasing the amount we play 3v3.
I_JnK_I wrote:
Does players not playing interfere with the "skill" matchmaking? It sure does. But thats just as it is if the only thing you are basing you matchmaking on in your WR (aka skill rating points)
I feel this is a totally different (and legitimate..........more legitimate even) issue. Sandbagging....non-committed playing really needs to be addressed and soon.
As I said though, I believe separating the rankings would affect less match ups (considering your argument about 3v3/5v5 commitment).
Your Win Rate isn't your Skill Rating Points though. All win Rates should be around 50% with our system. So if everybody's WR is 50%, then we would all have the same Skill Rating Points, right?
Your Skill Rating Points is your 'effective power'. How powerful your used roster is, and how effective you are in using it.
It still boggles my mind that as much damage as datacrons are doing to everything in the game, someone was dumb enough to make the decision to implement them.
Our "effective power" has become, how many level 6 and 9 datacrons we have. Everything else is irrelevant now.
This ties directly into the problems people face in GAC because DCs are used in GAC. 3v3 already was a mode where the number of GL advantage often decided the winner because many counters don't work(properly). Now with DCs this is exemplified.
I wouldn't say that was a rant but a simple statement about the effects DCs have on GAC, in this case 3v3. So right on topic since, let's check, yep it's 3v3 and the SR.
Even though, no comparisons were made? Nor 3v3 or 5v5 or even GAC mentioned?
It's fair but way way off topic and derailing.
But its in 3v3 and 5v5. So it doesnt effect having different ladders. Which is the real topic
1 skill rating ladder, players just get to choose which format they enjoy. Many players I know like either 3s or 5s and hate the other so they sandbag it. Giving the community a choice would be the biggest QOL feature for many.
It works for TB because it’s PVE, split the PVP community and MM becomes more challenging. This is a common mistake in PVP games, in FPS it results in long queue times, in games like this the algorithm will struggle to find suitable matches and poor match ups become even more common. Dislike the system now, this will get worst the smaller the guild pool.
Well this is a tactics game, not an action game; so there's no queue times for games to worry about.
Match ups also aren't a problem. Right now you play the closest players to you in the rankings. So you can actually see who your potential (7 in front/7 behind) opponents are, before the bracket is released.
The bracket isn't going to be so way out on skill points, that it would make any difference in that respect. The argument is that actually it'd be better MM as you're being matched on the same format of game (either 3v3 or 5v5 not a mixture).
So you're saying players that don't want separate ladders or don't like 3v3 are not competitive? Separating the ladders would only fracture the player base if the modes are not considered fun by the players. Remember, CG makes decision based on if it makes them money and not if players think it's fun. Being frustrated can make people do irrational things, such as give money to CG. What do you think would happen if they gave us the promised gear economy? Or if they didn't make datacringe mostly for the new and meta teams.
Sure you can separate them, but it won’t be a GAC ladder anymore.
I did not say all competitive players like 3v3. But a true competitive player would not ask to split it to preserve rewards in 5v5 and sandbag 3v3. If they really dislike it they would not play. As I asked before, why separate the skill rankings for any other reason than to sandbag in 3v3?
Competitive players do not sandbag.
Me too, I object to the idea based on wanting to prevent even poorer matchmaking.
But I struggle to see how Crystal payouts would be a fair reflection of your effort. If you are in Bronzium for 3v3 but Aurodium for 5v5 what is your daily payout?
Lots of different ways it could work.
Well if your ranking was so different in 3v3 and 5v5 your daily crystal income is going to vary a lot anyway.
With the current system your ranking will rise and fall a lot over 2 calendar months. However, with a separate ranking system. You'd get one payout one month and the other payout the other month (depending if we're on 3v3 or 5v5).
The overall payout wouldn't be much different; however, you're 2 rankings would stay much more constant. (This is in the extreme example of having 2 vastly different rankings).
Basically, instead of going up and down and getting rewards on that curve. You'd have an up and a down ranking and rewards at 2 points on that curve.
So let's say you're 5v5 top ranking is Aurodium 2 and your 3v3 ranking is Bronzium 4 (extreme cases of course). During the 2 months you're rising from Bronzium 4 with 5v5 and getting rewards from B4 - A2. Then when 3v3 comes around you're falling from A2 - B4.
The main issue is that you're a B4 3v3 player, playing vs A2 opponents. or the opposite an A2 5v5 player playing B4 opponents. In these first week of the new seasons you're likely to go 0-3 and 3-0. This isn't really in the spirit of competitive match making.
I dont know, what does this mean? Why would a 3v3 B4 player face a player that is A2 in a different rank category aka 5v5? Why wouldnt he face a 3v3 B4 player?
What??? No, by separating you get two curves with one point to get rewards at.
This one is just hard to read tbh
If someone can enlighten me why 3v3 should lower skill rating so much, if someone participates (not through refusing to play), then I may understand a need for this.
I really find you hard to understand! Your whole argument was based on this...........wasn't it???
I really don't want to respond to you anymore. Either you're clueless or your English is very hard to understand.
I'm sorry, that's rather offensive I know..........and we're both in the same hobby and brothers after all.
All the best Rius!!!
1. This isn't impossible as only one League is changed. You can jump more than 1 division at the end of the season. So the B4 (starter) can end up in A2 if they reached the top of B1 and then got enough points for a big end of season jump.
2. This extreme example was on the lines of Rius (who's judgement I don't trust) extreme hypothesis.
I in no way think this is probable for 95% of the player base.
"I dont know, what does this mean? Why would a 3v3 B4 player face a player that is A2 in a different rank category aka 5v5? Why wouldnt he face a 3v3 B4 player?"
These are the discrepancies suggested by Rius. This is under the CURRENT system, not the system if you split them.
Let's say your skill point rating is A2 for 5v5 and B4 for 3v3 (as per Rius's examples, it's extreme I know). As it works currently you do well under 5v5 and rise to A2. However, when the season ends you are in A2, but will play a 3v3 season. Therefore you are playing your first week in A2, but your 3v3 power (as per Rius' example is B4 power) so you're massively over-matched; due to your 'actual' 5v5 potential being much better than your 3v3 potential.
This is why Rius really isn't making sense to me. If and I mean 'if' there is such a discrepancy; why wouldn't you want to separate them?
"What??? No, by separating you get two curves with one point to get rewards at."
Why would there be a curve? As your rating isn't on the 3v3 that just finished, but the 5v5 of the previous month. So that rating is relevant to the matches you'll face in 5v5.
The curve is based on the changes from your 5v5 to your 3v3 (or vice versa) rating. However, if there's 2 ratings, there's no change of format curve.