Can anyone explain the points system of hunt 2.0 please? why lose so much and win so little?


#1

I have played alot over the last day or so, points creep up slowly for each win but plumet for a loss, I LOST only 1 game and it cost me the points of at least 4 matches that I won! 3 step forward 2 steps back!

Considering the time invested in 4 games in comparison to 1 game at a loss I just wanna know what it is I’m losing based on, I have a better w/l ratio but points are what get you up in rank, Its nuts if there is no actual scale to go on, Do I lose points for how I play during the game or merely just based on the final outcome whether its a loss or win,

A loss cost me 26 points, my last win gave me 7 points, the win before that game me only 6 points, It’s just annoying as its a lot to lose in 1 match, Now I will most likely have to play 4 matches to get back to where I was which is a bit harsh for the sake of losing that once


Ranking Points
Why do so many people complain about the ranking system?
Need serious help @trs Xbox one
Ranking Points
#2

Ha! I don’t think anyone can explain it to you. Unless @The_Mastermind has an awesome theory?


#3

its insane, seems a bit harsh when you consider the amount of time spent to get points, 1 or two matches points fair enough but 4!!! is like wtf is the point to even bother.


#4

Here you go. :slightly_smiling:


#5

now what else is fuckin awesome! Game froze and it counted as a loss for me, and lost one more point! :confused:


#6

I’ve had the game kick me out of a match before which counted as a loss and I had to wait for the “cool down” to wqear off so I could join a new game. The planet Shear is a cruel mistress.


#7

Well that’s a bunch of bull


#8

had to turn the game off, played only 2 games tonight won the first match, second match repeats the same map again :confused: then loads up into another lobby and freezes and another loss, so too pissed to be bothered with it, I would have to win 4 games to get the points up and another 2 wins would bring me back to 60% w/l ratio,


#9

That explains why so many people are high bronze and low silver, cause there you got the real 50/50 ratio.
Change the system to reach the 50\50 at silver, but keep unranked players at the current one and the ranking may look much more balanced (in points, ranks and time).


#10

I was bronze highest medal until i lost 26 points, at that rate I would have to literally win every game until I reached silver,if I lose 1 of 5 games it means I get stagnant and stuck in that ratio permanently, I won 8 out of 9 game yeasterday but 1 loss took half of them, so the pressure is on to really not lose or give up and dont bother, I like the game so I enjoy it regardless but Its frustrating and I can see why people dont like this mode.

I shouldnt really complain but it needs to be a bit more reasonable with its rank system. if you get set back so far every time you meet a good team you will never get back up and get used to these good teams if you keep gettin knocked back so far, Kinda like being getting to the top of a huge stairs just to get kicked back down a few steps


#11

from @citizenphnix

And a good thread made by a friend of mine


#12

That’s why I don’t bother with Ranked when I play Evolve.

I like to play more than I’m searching and I don’t want a loss to make the last 4-6 wins I got feel like I made absolutely no progress.

Its infuriating.

Would rather just do quickplay and get angry at the randoms. At least I can fight against the crummy skills of my randoms unlike the crummy number system.


#13

You know what i love about it freezing. You can move around yhe scrne in a diaramma like geel and you get some really nice action shots


#14

Pretty much this…
I have a 3.02 win loss ratio as a monster. That means I win 3 matches for every match I lose.

While not as impressive as some other monsters, in general if a sports team or athletes win 75% of the time they are doing damn good.

With that said, I have been demoted twice now and that doesn’t make sense. The score system wants you to hit 50/50 but by demoting me it’s making me fight less skilled opponents so I win more often making me travel further and further from the 1.0 W/L ratio it wants to see.

So I believe it’s literally having the opposite effect it set out to achieve.
Am I wrong in thinking this?


#15

Hence why I bloody hate Rank so much, not only so I have to desk with uncoordinated play (which is forgiveable) but I have to deal with the damn gecko system that’s a huge douchebag for making me feel like my last four wins don’t mean shit because the servers kicks me off the game.

Also there’s no option to reconnect to a lobby you disconnected from, I can’t believe how there aren’t more “competitive games or modes” that don’t have a rejoin feature and they threat you like shit for getting disconnected.

I just hope that with TU9 more changes to the matchmaking will be made, until then I’ll stay away from hunt.


#16

It would have been much easier to understand and accept of you make it 2 points for win and - 1 point for lose regardless of everything. The hate would be over


#17

Maybe we will get a new one soon. The “thunder child” should help there too.
What kind of rank-mode do you want to get? Any ideas for a solid model that fits with asymmetric gameplay?


#18

Well, to build on the implementation of the Thunder Child data, I would hope (Dream, really) that a system could be concocted that would rank you based on your individual skill as a Monster/Hunter Class, based on accomplishing your duties compared to the global average (IE your Trapper peers!) at varying ‘levels’

For example, say there’s 5 ranks total, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond, or what have you (Examples)

Let’s use Trappers. Say the “average” Trapper, Silver, manages to land X amount of Domes on a Monster that wins at Stage 2. If he exceeds it, obviously he was doming well enough to provide his group encounters, but the rest of the team slacked behind (I cannot assume that the system could determine “good” versus “Bad” domes, so I won’t account for them here)
Anyways, his Damage is roughly average and his CC uptime was above Average (Stasis uptime, Harpoon hits, etc).

At the end of the game, despite the loss, he would see a small point gain for Trappers because he did better than the Silver Average Group in his duties by landing many domes and maintaining his CC while also throwing his DPS in there well enough between it.

Obviously, a win would net a bit more points, but I think it should be based moreso purely on how you performed, rather than whether or not you won.

Again, this is just a spitball, and is certainly easier said than done! With Evolve, the variables for any given game/encounter is all but infinite, how would the system rate a Medic who did absolutely negligable healing, but only because the group dominated the Monster? Have a sub-system in place to compare Medic Averages vs Monster Damage dished out to Hunters?

Starts getting more complicated when I think about it. Still, I dream of a system that ranks you off your peers, and solely on your skill with your tools, rather than if you straight win or lose, especially since in Evolve, it only takes one guy without a clue to break an otherwise spot on team! :wink:


#19

Just impossible to get/stay Silver when playing with randoms.
A little sad on one hand, making the game less playable on hunt 2.0 besides the not to take serious quick matches.

I also have to wait for ages when trying to find a ranked match as monster, bleh.

ps4 btw.


#20

The ranking system is is what it is, But it needs to be more rewarding, to give incentive to battle on at present is just ranking up :confused: there should atleast be a skin for reacking a milestone like get a new skin for reaching silver and another if you reach gold