PC Game News
There is article written by Lashen , which explains how the Glory works in Guild Wars 2 PvP ranking system. Basically, through his article, he points out that this system is focused more on time consuming rather personal performance. In other words, the system doesn’t penalize the loss of a game enough. So, someone with mediocre skill game-play but much more played-games, he would be on the same rank with someone with better skill game-play but less played-games.
At this point, you can argue that more practice through games, it means improvement of skill game-play. Well, this isn’t quite accurate statement in my opinion. Some people adapt faster than others and besides this, if someone plays 100 games, lets say, with no concentration, he doesn’t improve his skill game-play but takes the glory he needs and the ranks of course. So, do you think that the current PvP ranking system should work properly, or it needs some improvements ? Bellow, you can read the full article by Lashen.
A few days ago, ArenaNet posted a new video containing an interview with Jonathon “Chaplan” Sharp who is a game designer at ArenaNet.
In this video, it’s discussed that players will be matched against each other by their aggregate Glory; a point system which is awarded to participants, but more so to the winning team. When asked if Glory will essentially be the ranking system for Guild Wars 2, Jonathon Sharp replied “It’s basically the way we do ranks, yup. And that’s going to allow you to look at a player and allows us to say how much they have been playing, if they’ve been playing a lot and we can kind of just make some assumptions of how good they’re going to be and we can put them in the correct pool to get a good game.”
Now the first and most obvious criticism here (and please, this isn’t actually my main criticism, don’t read this as a “QQ about Pay2Win” but read the other points) is that Glory was originally described as a structured PvP cosmetic currency to allow players to buy asthetic upgrades in structured PvP, so for the people who have played a lot, they can show off that fact by strutting some flaming armour. So when Glory was put as an incentive to buy the Digital Deluxe edition in the form of the Challace, nobody was really concerned. However with this new piece of information given to us, it’s pretty clear that by getting this item, those player’s ranking will be initially higher and if present in the cash shop, will pretty much invalidate any accuracy of the ranking system.
However the main issue for me here is that ArenaNet are creating a ranking system that rewards persistence, not performance. By their own words, they will “make some assumptions of how good they are” based on how many games the player has played, not how well they performed in those games. If you earn 5 Glory for a loss, and 10 Glory for a win then essentially you could get to the #1 spot in the ranking (even if the rankings aren’t published) by losing excessively. People who have played 1000 games and lost all 1000 games will be matched up against people who have won 500 times as relative equals.
A lot of people are familiar with the Elo system which was originally created to help rank Chess players against others of similar skill. The idea being that given a person’s current rating, you can estimate their probability of winning based on the other person’s current rating. You can then use that probability to adjust the player’s rating after they win or lose, this means that players are rewarded for winning games, but more so if they win against somebody of higher rating, conversely they lose more rating if they lose against a player of lower rating. The mathmatics behind Elo’s rating system is actually incredibly simple, so why hasn’t ArenaNet used a system like Elo or the other variations available (Glicko2, TrueSkill, etc)?
Games have attempted to match people based on games played before and the result is always the same, you can’t “assume” skill based on number of games played. You wouldn’t be asked to be listed as a Chess GrandMaster because you’ve played a similar number of games as a Chess GrandMaster, would you? I sincerely hope this is an oversight, or misstated fact and an actual ranking system does indeed exist – perhaps when everybody gets to play during the Beta Weekend Event, we’ll be able to collect enough data to verify if this is the case.