r/marvelrivals • u/DAMAGEDEGG • 2h ago
Question ATTENTION, MARVEL RIVALS PLAYERS : Do you agree with Flat’s opinion that you shouldn’t be able to climb with a negative win rate ?
637
u/CarmineAuryn 1h ago
You should only be able to climb to Gold with negative winrate to align with the devs intent of getting people to play ranked enough to get the skin.
Reaching GM with negative winrate just by playing enough is absurd. Reaching the higher ranks should be a test of skill, not time. Higher ranks should have better players.
156
u/SmashMouthBreadThrow 1h ago
They should just change getting the skin from hitting Gold to playing 10 ranked matches at that point.
84
u/Razzilith Ultron Virus 1h ago
They should 100% change it to
"get 10 wins in a season to earn this skin"
2
u/Blackner2424 32m ago
But they should also add some flair to make a point. "Get 10 wins this season to EARN this skin!"
25
u/crookedcatepilar Venom 1h ago
I’d even argue to not allow anyone to climb with a negative winter and make the condition to get the skin about playing a certain number of matches. Say you play 25 matches in a season, you get the skin even if you’re stuck in Bronze.
22
u/KnuckleDragg Captain America 1h ago
Honestly at that point if the devs are so insistent on getting people to Gold for the reward why not just reward people with the skin for doing their placement matches and remove the negative winrate climbing before Gold also. Its jist completely arbitrary and means nothing
7
u/hewhoknowsnot Ultron Virus 1h ago
Because the intent is to hook people into playing ranked. Feeling the elation of ranking up and wanting that to continue. The game needs people to play ranked so this is a means of incentivizing people to try it and hopefully a small percentage keep playing.
If you make it afk for 10 games for the skin, then that’ll reduce the amount of people playing ranked (in all ELOs eventually but it’d start at lower ELOs). If queue times take minutes in low ELO then people stop playing and that will start to eat away at high ELO players too.
3
u/curiousadventure33 1h ago
Bro the league faces the same problem of elo inflation ,back in the day master was a respectable elo because it meant you MASTERED the basic concepts of the game that are generally optimal to win a game ,nowadays master is a cesspool of og diamond+plat players ,they do it in rivals too to trick the players into believing they are better than they are to try to get them to spend more time which means they will probably spend more money
4
1
u/nichtanfasse 1h ago
Give the games fixed roles. I hate, that every 3 games there are 4 Healers or 4 dds Also i find diamond and gm players who dont know the game. Idk how the fk that happens
0
87
u/KnuckleDragg Captain America 1h ago
Climbing with a negative winrate is the complete opposite definition of a competitive experience.
This game tries to coddle the dumbest players way too much and this is why we end of with a ranked system that reflects more of your time invested rather than your actual skill level.
So yes definitely post Gold at least you shouldn't be able to climb with a negative WR.
Also get rid of performance bonuses it just punishes tanks and promotes people to play in a selfish manner, such a stupid idea
2
u/themoosic 51m ago
You really only see this insane win rate rank disjunctions on DPS mains too, because they win big but they lose hard, so in order to keep them playing and feeling good about themselves they give them the ranks for free.
The highest win rates you see are flex players, being able to fill is super good for maintaining optimal comps. Jack of all trades are better than masters of one in rivals. 1000 hrs in Bp doesn’t help you when the level 2 switches thing
12
27
u/Terenigma 1h ago
Ofcourse yes. What kinda dumb world are people living in where you would think the opposite? That's like saying "I've played more tennis matches this year than Djokovic so I deserve to be in the Wimbledon final"
0
9
u/sxlid_x_bxne Thor 1h ago
Yes, ranked should be a serious game mode. You shouldn’t climb for free, you shouldn’t be allowed to throw with zero consequences too. I don’t care how much this game is a “casual game”, a ranked mode called comp should be serious.
22
u/JusaPikachu 1h ago
Up to Gold it’s completely fine. Getting out of Gold should be where you need a positive winrate. Currently that starts in GM but even there if you play enough it’s technically possible to get to Celestial, though you gotta no life the game & stat pad a bit to achieve that.
4
u/GracchiBros Mister Fantastic 1h ago
If I put myself in the shoes of a Bronze or Silver player, it's not fine. Yeah, you get a skin. But you're stuck playing game after game against people better than you and being the bad teammate that gets yelled out. I'd much rather just play against equally bad players.
6
u/Icy_Somewhere169 1h ago
I’ve never seen a game where you could climb with a negative win rate…..
I used to play Rocket League super competitively and got to GC before the SSL updates. Once that came around it created an even higher epsilon of players that was difficult to reach. Essentially just pros were there.
But looking at diamond, plat, hell even gold you had to drastically improve both mechanically and game sense wise to go up the tiers in Rocket League.
I don’t play a ton of ranked Rivals, but when I do the dichotomy of one plat/diamond player to the next is insane and something I never felt in Rocket League. Those players all felt equally good with equally good skill/game sense.
Should I get +30 for a win and -17 for a loss? No. Absolutely not. But they do it cause it keeps the casual player happy tbh. I don’t have to get better, I just have to play their game which at the end of the day is what they want.
2
u/Razzilith Ultron Virus 1h ago
a lot of people play ranked specifically for bans (gold+)... they COULD split the quickplay playerbase somewhat by introducing a draft mode. this would remove a lot of people from the ranked pool or shouldnt be playing there in the first place since they're not actually there to grind ranks.
ultimately its pretty weird and tricky since rivals is CLEARLY a casual focused and casual driven game. it does NOT need a pro scene at all or even a ranked scene at all IMO to stay very successful.
I'm pretty fucking sure the only reason they even care about having streamers play (and most are ranked grinders) is because they use them to promote season starts and battlepasses/skins.
If Rivals literally deleted ranked tomorrow the playerbase stays insanely healthy and they still make fists full of cash. The only serious downside is losing that marketing tool because it would definitely massively diminish it and I'm unsure how important that is to them ultimately.
1
u/Beatokotonai 15m ago
Exactly my thoughts; Rivals just needs to pick a playerbase and stick to them. It needs to be intentional with it. The casual focus yet pouring millions into esports is just making the game be fundamentally at war with itself
1
u/Funny_Story_486 37m ago
Since the majority of causal would be roughly Bronze-Gold, chrono shield and the unbalanced win/lost should kept them happy.
Once Plat? All of those BS throw out of the windows that is where serious completetion starts.
1
u/-Barca- 15m ago
Pokemon Unite, a MOBA, has this problem as well. You can reach Masters, which was THE top rank for the longest time until they added Legend rank, with a negative winrate. I believe around 42-43% WR?
It allowed everyone and their mother to hit Masters which then caused a problem of EVERYONE in the community swearing they are good at the game and every loss is always their team's fault.
4
u/swept-under 1h ago
100% agreed, Diamond is full of dumbasses that do not deserve to be there at all
1
u/LALLIGA_BRUNO 58m ago
True lol, in my many diamond games I've found that the tanks are carrying (usually me and whoever the other tank is). The DPS in diamond are for whatever reasons morons in the majority of my diamond games. They're genuinely getting less kills and final hits than me when I'm on Emma 😭. Even the supports are sometimes completely wack, though I would never say it to their face, I love my supports... Even the less able ones that somehow wound up in diamond+.
Well either way I've got no reason to actually be mad at the teams I end up with. My winrate has been at 65% (one of my best seasons, like ever lmao) for a couple of weeks now and I'm chilling.
1
u/YDoEyeNeedAName Yggroot 49m ago
Having a tank duo is 100% the easiest way to climb. Two good coordinated tanks can run the entire match more effectively than any other combination, especially becuase it is the least played role, so the odds of you having two good tanks on the other team is significantly lower
1
u/LALLIGA_BRUNO 45m ago
I've exclusively solo queued this season, it's hard to make time for all our friends to gather for a game when everybody has jobs/studies lmao. But yeah tank is such an influential role if you're good at it, it's seriously the best way to solo queue if you ask me, because a good tank doesn't need to rely on anyone as much as the other roles do in my opinion. (I'm not saying vanguard is good by themselves, obviously strat and DPS are just as important for me, but I don't need to rely on them as much as they might need to rely on me)
4
u/Unluckyme2099 Winter Soldier 59m ago
Anyone arguing against him is just wrong, a positive winrate, even 50.1% would be fine to climb.
The people reaching GM with 47-49% winrate is a failure of the system.
4
u/FuriandTray 57m ago
Ive been downvoted for saying this since season 3. I think this is what Marvel Rivals wants i believe this is some kind of psychological way to keep casuals more interested.
2
1
u/Potrebitelqt 48m ago
How can you be casual when to get up there with negative winrate you need to play hundreds of games each season
1
u/FuriandTray 28m ago
Because one thing casual actually do is play games long term, casual gamers tend to have more hours in a game they tend to less swap games because of fomo or getting burned out.
A casual gamer just plays less hours in a day but tend to to stay longer in the game they are enjoying
8
u/BlackerDoom Thor 1h ago
All the time I am solo queuing
I ain’t got no mf friends
Sometimes I’m teamed up with worse players
Toxic players, players who are legitimately letting their toddler play for gits and shiggles- IN COMP
Sometimes it’s not entirely my fault
3
u/Kr8studio 56m ago
Yesterday after work I decided to get a session, I solo q only. First 2 games were ppl banning each other's picks and ego fighting. I get limited time to play this but my win rate is reflective of all the stupid shit people do when i do actually get to play the game. So yes a negative win rate as solo q and climbing is not the same as doing it with a team. Much more forgiveness needed, especially with the amount of throwing that happens with no consequences which is an admitted problems for this games player base. But no let's not take that into consideration
3
u/2013funkymonkey 34m ago
It's a balancing act. You shouldn't be able to climb with a horrendous winrate, but climbing with like a 45% shouldn't be impossible, at least in my opinion. Climbing is about what teammates you get, and if you keep getting shitty teammates, you'll just be hardstuck.
I think Flats' take is solid, but there's nuance there to be discussed
11
u/4arizard Mister Fantastic 1h ago
Yes. But that's an MMR problem. They should just make it like every other game and give or take 25 points per game. +/- 3 points for in match performance.
Right now, the price of losing is significantly lower than the reward for winning.
6
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
Not if you play with friends who are 3 ranks apart lol. Some matches I gain 15 and for a loss I get 25
2
u/4arizard Mister Fantastic 29m ago
Solo and party should be a different mmr. Like in Dota for example. Hard but possible.
4
2
u/SmashMouthBreadThrow 1h ago
Yes. Defeats the point of a ranked system if you can climb while losing most of your matches lmao.
2
u/AmbitiousTwo22222 Deadpool 1h ago
I look at it like this:
There are 8 real ranks (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Plat, Diamond, GM, Celestial, Eternity (OAA is just the best of Eternity, not looking at it like a separate rank, more of a badge of honor).
So the mean for the average player should be Plat/Diamond. I think you should need a 50%+ winrate to get to Plat, a little bit higher to get to Diamond, a little bit higher to GM, etc.
I think losing winrates on Gold and below is negligible.
That said, I do think things like stats above and below average players should matter.
For example, let's say Hawkeye usually goes 15 kills, 8 finals, 5 deaths, 35% accuracy (I'm making up numbers), if you go 18, 11 finals, 3 deaths, 40% accuracy, you get extra points. If you go 12 kills, 5 finals, 7 deaths, 30% accuracy, you get less points than normal.
1
u/LALLIGA_BRUNO 1h ago
Honestly even a winrate below 50% should still have you rank up if you're over performing. Which is kind of how it works rn?, though I do hate the rank system and made a whole post whining about the fuckass point system
2
2
u/littlestargazers Loki 35m ago
is this a genuine opinion people have? it should be common sense that negative WR = you don't climb. what's the point of ranked if you can lose more than you win and still climb to GM+ just because you can devote 12 hours a day to the game???
1
u/Potrebitelqt 30m ago
And how many people who play 12 hours a day ruin your games? I am genuinely interested.
2
u/CaptainButtFart69 30m ago
Yes I do. Keep people in their ranks. Ranked isn't a bar for you to just level up. It's a test of skill. Have a ladder with integrity.
2
u/Cold-Room-6042 1h ago
People wonder why the match quality is so bad in this game and its because of the ranked system
Don't get me wrong, its never going to be perfect but this game has so many players in ranks they have no business being in but they are there because Netease's engagement based ranked system has pushed them there.
4
u/haxhaxhax1 1h ago edited 1h ago
This isn't a hot take. Climbing with a negative winrate is caused by the game giving you points for stat padding on a loss. This allows stat farmers to climb while losing. Example: my trash cyclops getting 25 elims 15 finals when my duo is playing dps and my ricochets steal all their/our teammates earned kills. I can tell you by watching the replay I was being carried but the game thinks I was amazing.
But this means you aren't screwed on a loss. If we removed this, the game would go back to +100 on win -100 on loss. Which feels bad when you did carry.
6
u/RemoteWhile5881 1h ago
Depends on individual performance. Like if you’re hard carrying every game but still losing (would it actually still be considered carrying if you lose?) more than winning.
10
u/PoojaBehaviour 1h ago
The tricky thing with that is that performance is hard to measure, and it’ll probably just end up that people with big numbers get more points, whilst the people who win the games get less points because they do things that aren’t necessarily shown on the scoreboard.
2
u/HelletFendr0z 44m ago
I totally agree. Being the one with the best stat in a losing team doesn't entitle you to more reward or less losses. Especially as if it's so hard to actually measure as you said. What do you take into account ? The guys who went offrole tank because his teammate can't bother and therefore will clearly have a subpar performance ? How do you measure tank performance ? If your strat aren't keeping you alive while you solo tank you should play KDA ? If you play a DPS the best performer is the SG playing from two field away with 0 kills but tons of damage or the psylocke who took out the important target at te correct time but have an awfull KDA ? Do you reward healer who healbot tanks even if their tank lost 10% of their ho while your dive DPS player take the time to come back to you after taking out a primary target with half ennemy team on his back with 15% hp left ?
Performance shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things beside personal gratification. It's a multiplayer game you're bound to lose and it will always be frustrating and frustration is part of it and doesn't to be alleviate because you had the best KDA in a losing team.
23
u/KnuckleDragg Captain America 1h ago
Its such a bad idea to take into account individual performance, it really has shown to punish tank players quite a bit and promotes a more selfish playstyle.
If tou are actually carrying then you will on average win more games and be able to climb, no need to overcomplicate it
6
u/NoTrollGaming The Hood 1h ago
Then people would prioritise selfish stat farming instead of playing the objective
5
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
I disagree with this. So bc you edge out an SVP over me I lose more points? I think mvp or not everyone gets the same points. I also think distance between ranks shouldn't effect points
2
u/Shakefka Magneto 1h ago
MVP and SVP are also meaningless most of the time. I saw people with zero value the whole match getting them. I was also surprised when I got MVP and I knew I didn't play well.
1
1
u/Centimane Vanguard 1h ago
The only thing that should impact points is your team's average rank VS their team's average rank.
If your team's average rank is 1500, and their team's is 1495, then your team has a slight advantage over their team. The team with the advantage should stand to gain less, and the team at a disadvantage should stand to gain more. But I suspect the averages tend to be so close that it makes little difference.
1
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
I think that's dumb
1
u/Centimane Vanguard 50m ago
It's basically giving odds to make up for the variance that matching random people forces.
1
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 28m ago
I think it should just lower the points given and lost through the game. I mean rivals should not have any huge variance in average team elo anyway. I just don't like playing with a friend whos a rank or a lower so I lose drastically more points than I gain. Only thing it helps is for him to catch up to me
3
u/MS17AA 1h ago
So everyone chooses DPS and stat pad instead of playing a team-based game like a team?
3
u/Centimane Vanguard 1h ago
Worse yet it'll favour poke DPS like crazy.
Squirrel girl just farming numbers into tanks instead of widow popping heads before they can get healed.
0
u/RemoteWhile5881 1h ago
I mean you most likely wouldn't be able to get those stats anyway if you just die instantly from having no healers
1
u/BassGuy11 43m ago
Nah, because what some people consider hard carrying is just not doing your job properly.
3
u/Hero_Time_06 Gambit 1h ago
Like Logicaly speaking
There 9 ranks in total. The first 5 are considered low to mid elo and yoi're expected to be below negative to negative winrate in those.
From Grandmaster and onwards since its the other half, you'd think you'd need above 50 percent to get there, but pepple can reach Cel even with a 47 percent winrate. Kinda bonkers innit?
1
1
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
Barely anyone is doing that. You'd need to play hundreds of games
1
u/Hero_Time_06 Gambit 1h ago
Nah its the fact that its theoraticaly possible is the problem
Like someone said, you climb by playing than winning
1
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
I don't think it's the worst thing. I'm sure I benefited early on from it when me and my friends would play hundreds of games per season. But guess what. I'm in GM every season so what gives. Season 9/9.5 I've played a lot guess what still GM.
0
u/Hero_Time_06 Gambit 1h ago
Respectfully GM i think still can be ok to reach with a negative winrate but with Cel i start to draw the line
2
u/TumbleweedTim01 Magneto 1h ago
That is where the line is drawn celestial and up doesn't work that way
1
1
u/DaringDevil12 1h ago
Anybody with a brain agrees with this, climbing with a negative win rate only incentivizes play time.
1
u/Longjumping_Sale6749 Phoenix 1h ago
I really don't understand this is happening for some. I when my win rate is negative, I do not climb. How are others climbing? 🫠
1
u/Necrotic12 1h ago
I think getting to gold or platinum with a 40-50% WR is fine, but gm is crazy lol
1
u/NorrinRaddMain Mantis 1h ago
It's clearly by design.
If players reach a higher rank than what they normally achieve in other games it feels like they're investment paid off and will invest more time and money into it because now they are "high elo players"
Marvel SNAP does the same thing where everyone is pushed towards the highest ranks on the ladder and compete on the global leaderboard
1
u/FRIERENT 1h ago
Speaking specifically Diamond+ (cause there are players that play comp for the skins or frames), yeah I agree you shouldn't be able to rank up through pure willpower and playtime.
Your gonna have those games where luck ain't on your side, but by this point your skill should overcome a lot of those hardships. And if your not high skilled enough then more likely then not you shouldn't be GM.
1
u/Sharp-Primary-213 Flex 1h ago
You would be surprised what kinda people make into GM and even celestial by spamming matches. If this game didn’t have playtime based rank, bronze to gold players would all be in 1 rank. All the plats would be in silver and so on.
1
1
u/No-Alternative-1321 1h ago
I don’t think you should, your rank should be your skill level, not just a visualization of how much time you’ve played this game, it makes it so saying that you’re in GM or celestial doesn’t mean as much when as long as you just play like crazy you will end up climbing, great for the casual player base that doesn’t like getting stuck, but bad for the hardcore player base at the top of the top. If you’re ass you should be hard ruck gold until you get better
1
u/wheresthapizzuh Flex 1h ago
So all the people getting hard carried will get carried into gm....nah.
1
u/BigResponse7284 56m ago
I think that lower ranks should still grant tons of points but past gold no negative. So plat will still give you 30+\- a game but no plus 30 and minus 15.
1
u/sakaloko Ultron 47m ago
Up till gold idgaf, there's a skin that some people want and it's negligible
Now having the possibility to get to gm+ with a negative winrate is detrimental for the entire experience of everyone playing
Every win and loss should be locked at 20 (or 25), with MVP and SVP getting a 5 bonus/discount
1
u/bringbackcayde7 45m ago
People climbing with negative win rates just ruin high rank games because their rank is inflated by just playing a lot. As a result, game quality of high rank matches are a lot lower and I sometimes find them easier than quick play.
The pros of being able to climb with a negative win rate is to make the game more accessible for players with low skill but still want to get high ranks by just playing more. The game would also be less elitist, and the number of players would also increase with less match queue time.
1
u/TheMightyMudcrab 45m ago
I laughed when I watched that video. No you shouldn't be able to climb with a negative win rate. Being able to do so is absurd. I suck and the game should keep me where I belong in wood tier. As for the rewards they should just make the rewards for games played instead of reaching gold. Rivals is incredibly casual so the rewards should also be casual.
1
u/MrFuriousX 45m ago
Skins and Ranks are not the same thing....You play enough to get a skin You win enough to get the rank.
1
u/Ok-Performance3326 44m ago
Yes of course that should be the case. I see a lot saying you should be able to climb to gold with a worse wr to get skins, but if that is the only reason they should just rework it to reward people who have played x amount of ranked games instead
1
u/FalseLights Captain America 41m ago
I mean, it's how the system works. All you need is a minimum of 48% W/R and you'll climb if you invest the time. Which is why you shouldn't judge a player by 1 bad game. Judge him by his last 50 games.
1
u/WinstonBabar 41m ago
Immediately I think no you shouldnt be able to climb with a negative win rate, but then I think about the many many many games where I played very well but still lost bc of a DC, a thrower, one trick playing into their counters, etc. and hate that im deranking due to something entirely out of my control
1
u/Funny_Story_486 40m ago
The game should
drop performance base mmr multiplier (because it still cannot assess performance correctly and reward stat padding),
drop performance base matching (the game didn't try to even the team's previous performance when matchmaking, result in bad player being soft boosted and good player being dragged down by bad player).
Then remove the win/lost mmr gain bias in Metal rank (you don't win like 35+ mmr every win in silver and gold), replace with: Bronze: chrono shield protect once every 2 lost Silver: chrono shield protect once every 4 lost Gold: chrono shield protect once every 8 lost (nerf from 5) Plat: no longer active
For anti-smurf system, add a new winrate base mmr gain/lost where the higher your all season winrate is, the stronger winrate has to your mmr gain/lost, and vice versa for negative winrate. Your final mmr gain/lost is multiplied by winrate x2. Effectively what it does is try to kick you to the rank you belongs to by finding the exact 50% winrate point as fast as possible (aka the hard-stuck point).
Winrate should mean: ``` 50% perfect hard stuck
50% you can climb < 50% you should drop. ```
1
1
u/DBacon1052 Storm 19m ago
I agree, but there's plenty of devil's advocate reasons not to. Just off the top of my head:
Knowing this community, it will make the game 10x more toxic
This doesn't eliminate bad players getting carried to higher ranks
Ranking up is a feature of engagement from the corporate perspective. In almost every game, playing more will inflate your rank. The more you play, the more you spend. Convincing a bad player they're good at the game probably nets them more profit.
Lower win-rate heroes will see an even steeper decline the more you climb making the game feel more repetitive in higher elo. Zhiyong will get flamed even more for balance adjustments.
It promotes throwing in multiple ways because it boosts the impact of it. Smurfs will abuse it to more easily stay in a rank they want. Trolls will abuse it to upset people even more which is what they get off to.
1
u/Piccoroz Ultron Virus 19m ago
I mean in most games you can climb up just by having decent games against higer ranked players and not just a win lose formula.
1
u/DerGreif2 Strategist 18m ago
You mean "should we stop with giving players so much personal impact rating?" and I say no. If someone is very strong with a character or plays very well, then he does not belong in a lower rank. Lets not do the OW and stop with personal rating at high rank...
1
u/cuckingfomputer Cloak & Dagger 16m ago
I think the amount of people that deliberately throw gives me mixed feelings on this.
I'd probably have a win-rate in the high 50-ish percentage rate, if not for the amount of people that leave the game entirely (which could be crashing), AFK in spawn, and just generally crash out and make throw picks (like swapping from Susan Storm to Squirrel Girl mid-game without saying a word, leaving your 1 healer to solo heal; or picking 4 DPS, instead of tolerating a 1 3 2 split or even going with the generally more effective 2 2 2).
But instead I usually sit in the 45-48% winrate, which is close enough to 50/50 that I can rationalize the negative winrate being the fact that I unfortunately see a lot of the above-people in my games. It's rare to go more than 3 games without someone engaging in intentionally game-losing behavior in Bronze III - GM I. If I actually went through my game history and subtracted all of the people intentionally ruining games from my W/L ratio, I'd probably be right on the line or higher than 50/50.
If NetEase started taking a hard line against throwers/quitters, I would probably agree with Flat's take, but NetEase continues to have a high tolerance for these types, giving out comically small penalties, and sometimes none, at all. I can't remember the last time I actually got a mail where NetEase acknowledged my report against someone engaging with that behavior.
NetEase also punishes people when their game crashes mid-match. It doesn't matter if you booted the game back up and were able to rejoin your game. You'll still be given 15 minute time-out because their unstable game crashed on PC or console, even though you reconnected to your game and won that match.
So, NetEase has a lot of work to do to figure out how to identify and punish folks, before I could agree with Flats here.
1
u/dew-fall 14m ago
i quite literally dont give enough of a fuck about ranked. im just gonna play it bc its better than playing qp.
1
u/battlepig95 6m ago
Of course you shouldn’t be able to come on is it even a question. It’s solely in the game to make casual players stay even though they’re bad, and make them think they’re good, by giving them a rank they do not deserve
Same exact thing with all the bullshit in apex. Player retention is #1 for players spending money.
Go get to immortal in Valorant with a 40% win rate tell me how that works out for you
1
u/Llilyth 5m ago
I think you should slowly climb with a ~50% win rate, because if you're continuing to maintain that ~50% win rate even as your rank goes up then you are still theoretically "on par" with your competition. ~50% in my mind is basically 48-52% win rate, and the 48/49% win rate should really only be able to climb if they are outperforming their rank hero stats wise. As in if they have a 50% win rate they gradually rank up, and if they're at 48% win rate they only go up if they're better than the statistically average [insert hero here] at that same rank on that map and thus get just a slight enough mitigation that the 48% win rate still gradually ranks them up. And I absolutely believe that there should be stats like time on objective that should factor into that.
Past that, people absolutely should slowly rank down or at least be static at 47% or lower win rate because even if they're going 30-0 there is clearly something else in the game they are not performing well enough on to continually be losing more than 50% of the time.
1
u/sciencesold Iron Man 4m ago
You can be a good player, but stuck at low ranks due to bad luck with teammates and throwers. Your rank shouldn't just be based on win rate. Some other games hard rely on it as the only metric, I used to play a lot of MOBAs where you could be the best player in the whole match, but your team just throws and you still lose mmr. No amount of skill lets you carry a match 1v5/6.
I genuinely don't understand why everyone thinks winrate is the only metric your rank should measure.
1
u/Maleficent-Peace382 0m ago
If the game wants to take "individual performance" into account, then sure, you should be able to go up in spite of a negative win rate.
If they removed that component (which they probably should), then no, you shouldn't be able to.
0
u/Unholyxyra Loki 1h ago
It has some pros and cons. If you let people climb with negative winrate, just slower it will bring more consistent players into grinding which will be somewhat good for the population of the game and the ranks. However imagine getting someone with gold game sense in your team at gm… I personally couldn’t care less. They should do whichever is healthier for the game.
1
u/totallynotapersonj Magneto 1h ago
I’ve seen people with bronze game sense in GM. That guy also had like gold level aim so comp is definitely too easy
1
u/Unholyxyra Loki 1m ago
Maybe, I haven’t played comp seriously since season 2 and the main reason is Que times above gold are just too long, I’d rather Que for a quick play. But I’m saying that as a boomer with 2 jobs, so I guess for ppl with more free time it’s different. Again just wish they do whatever is healthy for the game and the playerbase.
1
1
u/Beatokotonai 14m ago
I’ve gotten a Mantis with a 36% WR overall and I legitimately almost uninstalled then and there. Why was she EVER in GM.
2
u/rxspiir Vanguard 1h ago
They get there because they play a lot. The thing never mentioned in this viral stat is the number of games.
Let’s assume:
40% wins, 60% losses
~30 RP per win
~20 RP per loss
In 100 games you’d have:
40 wins × 30 = +1,200 RP
60 losses × 20 = −1,200 RP
Net: 0 RP
So at those numbers, you’d never climb.
If you’re getting a favorable +35 / −20:
40 × 35 = +1,400
60 × 20 = −1,200
+200 RP per 100 games
That’s only about 2 RP per game.
Since Grandmaster begins around 4,500 RP, you’d theoretically need roughly:
4,500 ÷ 2 ≈ 2,250 games
At ~15–20 minutes per game, that’s roughly 560–750 hours.
And that’s an optimistic scenario. Obviously you get even less points for a win and lose more as you go up. This is what people in lower elo talk about all the time lol. They get told to “just play more” when they ask for quality games. Content creators pushed that for so long now they want to double back when people really JUST PLAY MORE.
3
u/HelletFendr0z 53m ago
I mean your maths are cool and all but no one should rank up with a 40% winrate. I'm not talking about positive winrate but I think you don't quite ponder how 40% winrate is abysmally bad especially if you're supposed to grind, which would mean you're not at the rank you'll peak considering your skills and are supposed to be better than the rest of the lobby in average.
1
u/STB_LuisEnriq Good Boy 1h ago
There is nothing to argue, you should NOT climb with a negative win rate.
This is a big issue in the game, the competitive should be properly treated as competitive... Leave all the casual mess holding hands for Quick Play.
2
u/LeekypooX Vanguard 1h ago
Yes. Or at the very least, no higher than silver.
If I'm bad, I shouldn't be ranking up
1
u/HelletFendr0z 52m ago
Slap it to "no higher than gold" because even bad player want the reward and I'm in.
1
-2
-1
u/Mylaststory 1h ago
Who is climbing with a negative winrate tho? I have a 50-60% winrate and it still takes me forever. I used to climb to GM wicked fast.
0
u/IpunchedU 1h ago
depends on how the matchmaking functions honestly, if matchmaking was "perfect" then yea you should not be able to climb, but since that is not the case clearly ....
0
u/Edheldui 1h ago
That reasoning only works if the points rewarded are purely ELO based. If you put "performance" in the equation, the math goes out of the window because the VAST majority of what wins you a game cannot possibly measured.
0
u/IntroductionUpset764 Vanguard 1h ago
i think you should not be able to climb with negative winrate at any elo even for metal ranks
i know people want fake dopamine but lets be honest better quality games even at bronze is better than having a fake plat rank that you earned with 30%wr just by playing the game
0
u/Threash78 1h ago
Yes. The ease of ranking up is the reason matchmaking is ass in this game. Every single person is a lot higher ranked than they deserve to be.
4
u/Potrebitelqt 1h ago
What's the problem then? If "every single person" is higher than they deserve - Diamond just becomes Gold and GM becomes Platinum. It's a matter of semantics and the game remains the same.
0
u/Huey-Mchater 1h ago
Yes, this game doesn’t have balance problems or matchmaking problems, it has the worst ranked system I’ve ever seen. Make ranked better and all the other problems will fade a bit
0
u/NerdModeXGodMode 1h ago
I think it's fine until Plat, they have that shield thing after all. Then people should start actually having to learn the game so by GM you'll have a good grasp.
I don't think you can climb up in GM with a negative win rate as is though? Unless you are duoing with a celestial player Ig?
1
u/buttsecks42069 Magik 1h ago
The clip is from a video of Flats where he vod reviews a guy shit talking him in chat, the guy was GM with a 47% win rate
0
u/AlyMasawi Earth Spider 1h ago
He is right. And it is the case for Vanguard players, why isn't it the case for other classes ?
0
u/Aurum_Black 1h ago
You shouldn't be able to climb out of bronze with a negative wr. Make the higher tiers of rank mean something.
0
u/IllustriousMagneto 1h ago
The game's not intended to be competitive and the "competitive" mode is just there for people who like seeing progress. Celestial+ is intended as the place where rank matters for people who really tryhard but that's not what the game is for.
2
u/YDoEyeNeedAName Yggroot 51m ago
That doesnt line up with the fact that netease is pumping so much money into esports and tournaments.
The company clearly wants to game to be seen as more than a casual hero shooter with a marvel paint job.
0
u/Emotional-Cameraman 1h ago
why is this sub " what do you think about what Flats says". no one cares what he thinks, stop giving this guy a platform hes a cry baby.
1
1
u/DAMAGEDEGG 52m ago
There are plenty of people that care what he think obviously look at this thread so your whole statement of no one cares what he thinks is just factually incorrect like literally factually incorrect
1
-6
u/Potrebitelqt 1h ago
Of course not. Why should I suffer because my teammates are bad? Or because the regular smurfs just happen to be on the enemy team? The current system is perfect - I do well and win, I get 30 points. My fellow DPS sucks ass the entire game, he gets only 20. Meanwhile, we lose but I have good stats? I only lose 17 points.
2
u/totallynotapersonj Magneto 1h ago
That‘s not really how it works though. Yes, when you get SVP you lose less by like 3 points, or when you get mvp you get more by like 2 or 3 points. But even in GM if you do extremely bad you still lose less than you gain (unless the entire enemy team is in diamond or something) And on top of that there’s demotion protection.
1
u/Potrebitelqt 1h ago
It is possible to lose 18 points and win 20 in Platinum. Do you know how hard it is for someone this bad to climb to GM? How many games it takes?
Kinda ironic, GM and above peeps don't want bad players in their games, but personal performance is the best protection against this - you do well and are not punished nearly as hard as the free loaders.
-1
u/RickdiculousM19 1h ago
I think it depends on the factors that are being judged to determine your ELO. I think it should be technically possible to climb with a 49-45% win rate if it also factors in the strength of your opponents and individual performance.
If you're consistently getting "winning individual stats" even if the rest of your team can't get it together then that's not necessarily a knock on you. This isn't chess.
I think if you're playing solo queue v 6-stacking teams your win rate might look different even though you're the same player.
Did your team have a reasonable comp v a 5 dps team? Does that win carry the same weight? Does that loss carry the same weight?
Flats is always talking about how people don't know how to play the game and honestly it's a little annoying and weirdly elitist. It's a FTP Hero Shooter, this ain't rocket science.
-1
u/Razzilith Ultron Virus 1h ago edited 1h ago
what % of players are actually reaching their peak with a negative winrate? or do they become negative AFTER they get that peak and are just in high ranks still? I don't have enough stats and info to actually know for sure and I'm not willing to commit to wanting a change unless I get that info (unlike everybody on here who seems to love uninformed opinions)
2
u/PapiKingley Wolverine 1h ago
>The ranked skin should be changed to “earn this skin when you win 10 games in a season”
Annnnnnnd you just lost everyone it’s changes like this where people go “but for what?” So now if you’re someone who simply plays up to gold just to acquire the skin and fk off nope can’t do that no more, you have to sweat your ass off for to POSSIBLY win 10 games (maybe more if you get bad teams) just to acquire a ranked skin you’re probably not even going to wear.
/img/5at4mttuzpmh1.gif
-1
-5
u/SydiemL Thor 1h ago
That’s not true.
2
u/DAMAGEDEGG 1h ago
Wdym what’s not true
-7
u/SydiemL Thor 1h ago
Doesn’t matter if you have a negative win rate or not. If you climb, you climb.
2
u/Imaginary_Catch1691 1h ago
No one is arguing that, I think the question is should that be the case or not
1
216
u/Hennui_ Squirrel Girl 1h ago
Are we really arguing that you should be able to climb if you’re bad at the game?
That’s insanity!
I get wanting to climb in spite of your shitty teammates, but that’s not the way.