Why does it matter? If you want to wager your elo you play ranked and get rewarded for playing well and punished for playing badly. If you don't you play quickmatch and you get no rewards or punishments no matter what happens.
Ranked and Quickplay share the same pool
- Thread starter DuroSVK
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why does it matter? If you want to wager your elo you play ranked and get rewarded for playing well and punished for playing badly. If you don't you play quickmatch and you get no rewards or punishments no matter what happens.
Sorry, but I just don't think "I don't want other people to have nice things" is really a good enough reason to split the playerbase down the middle.
Its even better than that, forcing quick play on everyone could potentally ruin ranked for the ranked players that so desperatly want it implemented.
Due to the sheer mass of people that do not want to play ranked but get forced match to ranked players it could screw up the stats, bringing players on top that are mediocre at best but really play a lot of games and gain points for their elo most of the time, simply by selecting ranked instead of quick play.
In Wargame if you were searching for ranked you get only other ranked matches.
Now its like, top tier player starts searching for ranked at 20:17 - no other player found that want to play ranked - he gets matched with quick play.
Mediocre player starts searching for ranked at 20:18 - the other good guy got already matched away because of quick play. Mediocre player gets a noob from quick play and levels up his elo rank. It gets even better, if the top player has a shitty internet provider and gets a disconnect counting as a loss in every 1/10 game.
If you assume that a majority of top ranked or ranked players in general is in specific timezones, you could level up easily the elo board in quick play without facing them ever if you are in a totally different timezone, since the overall playerbase gets so watered down.
Edit: Its like two gladiators that are used to arena fighting are now put in a massive army fight. Chances are high they won't find each other before they butcher their way through like 1000 other guys first
Its even better than that, forcing quick play on everyone could potentally ruin ranked for the ranked players that so desperatly want it implemented.
Due to the sheer mass of people that do not want to play ranked but get forced match to ranked players it could screw up the stats, bringing players on top that are mediocre at best but really play a lot of games and gain points for their elo most of the time, simply by selecting ranked instead of quick play.
In Wargame if you were searching for ranked you get only other ranked matches.
Now its like, top tier player starts searching for ranked at 20:17 - no other player found that want to play ranked - he gets matched with quick play.
Mediocre player starts searching for ranked at 20:18 - the other good guy got already matched away because of quick play. Mediocre player gets a noob from quick play and levels up his elo rank. It gets even better, if the top player has a shitty internet provider and gets a disconnect counting as a loss in every 1/10 game.
If you assume that a majority of top ranked or ranked players in general is in specific timezones, you could level up easily the elo board in quick play without facing them ever if you are in a totally different timezone, since the overall playerbase gets so watered down.
Edit: Its like two gladiators that are used to arena fighting are now put in a massive army fight. Chances are high they won't find each other before they butcher their way through like 1000 other guys first
Elo system disagrees with your statement. You take a particular exemple which can be reverted (The top player gets matched with Quick Play then the mediocre one gets matched with a top player in Quick Play). It's a matter of statistics. The more games will be played, the finer Elo ranks will become. With or without mixed Ranked/QP.
Moreover, you don't need to have non-mixed Ranked/QP to avoid top players. You can do the same in Wargame.
You are right if elo ranks would drop all over the board, but thats not the case atm with the current quick play system. Lets say you have a start rank of 100 and you loose 10 quick play matches then your elo stays at 100. If you play ranked and win 1 and loose 2 your elo rank will be probably lower than 100. Only ranked players will be able to drop below the initial 100 line.
Do we know this for sure? It's pretty standard for unranked matchmaking modes to have a secret rating system used to find equal opponents.
I'm going to assume that there's an unlisted rank for both ranked and quickplay members, otherwise there'd be no way to ensure that a ranked player is anywhere near the same level of ability as the quickmatch player that they're matched with, and then the system isn't actually matchmaking at all.
.png){kind=avatar}
Under the circumstances, this seems like a lesser evil versus having a borderline insufficient player base further split up.
They could split it up later if the base grows and the matchmaking improves- and it'd help a lot if they'd let players queue with decks from both factions and for multiple game sized as well. For now, having matchmaking that's even semi-functional and that doesn't distinguish between ranked and quick play players seems a lot better than having two non-functional matchmaking pools.
They could split it up later if the base grows and the matchmaking improves- and it'd help a lot if they'd let players queue with decks from both factions and for multiple game sized as well. For now, having matchmaking that's even semi-functional and that doesn't distinguish between ranked and quick play players seems a lot better than having two non-functional matchmaking pools.
I've sort of a dealt with this fact and probably shared pool is indeed a working half measure to counter the userbase split. What really annoys me is that there's no separate leaderboards for 1v1 and 2v2 ranked games. There's absolutely no need to have 3v3 and 4v4 ranked option since nobody's gonna use it anyway so the appropriate course of action would be to remove excessive ranked modes and add a toggle button between 1v1 and 2v2 modes in the top of the leaderboard.
So you think we need to split leaderboard because of another 10-20 players playing 2v2 ranked?
Yeah, I think that would be appropriate. What bad 'split leaderboard' would do, anyways?
As you remember, top 1 in wargame leaderboard got his rank through 2x2 ranked abuse, and top 2 too. And I really want separated allied/axis leaderboard with own ranks.
Razzman, SPAMbert or Faust abused 2v2 in ranked to raise for top?