So that’s how it works. Brilliant. Basically unless you get a stupid monster slightly above your level there’s no way to advance in the ranks. Great. So only victory counts. No matter if I kept the monster takes all times, done more damage than assault and kept him constantly on stasis… If in my team there is an idiot who prefers to use Hyde 's galtling instead of the flamethrower and an Hank who does not shield or someone to rage quit I get the lower score possible. That’s just unfair.
That’s how it’s working all based on luck of your team really but how else would they be able to rank you? It does suck being hunter you have to rely on good team mates being monster is easier only got yourself to blame
But it’s so stupid they could have done a score based on your individual performance minus or plus the points for loss/victory.
Like this will be impossible to ever rise in rank with pub games. And if you quit from an incompetent team you get punished with five minutes of waiting… WTF ?
I’m not even bothering with hunters anymore now that Ranked is a thing. Monster all the way. Too much stress if you are wanting a serious team.
But then you would have the issues of people that get tons of damage or shielding or whatever, but actually end up hurting the team and making them lose.
‘You can please some of the people, some of the time but not all people all of the time’
It’s been a day, just 1 single day since ranked went live. The more of the player base on your chosen platform complete their ten qualifying matches the quicker you should be teamed with similar ranked hunters to team with against the monster.
People need to give time to let ranked settle in and work. In the meantime why not askmhere in the forums for other players of your division/rank to perhaps team up with to have a better experience in ranked match ups?
That’s how it works in all team-based ranked games and there isn’t much that can be changed about it. If you get bad team members in League of Legends you lose the game and lose points.
I would also say it’s pretty much impossible to give you ranking based on personal points. What if your team won so hard that you barely did any damage because the round was so fast? What if you kited the monster around hardcore and he lost due to his hard-focus, but since you were running you weren’t using your weapon or abilities (and thus didn’t have a high “score”)? What if you had some amazing, life-saving harpoons but you didn’t spam it so your count was lower than it otherwise could have been? Just wouldn’t work.
If SBMM continues at a snails pace and hunters keep backing out I’ll change up and go monster less hassle faster MM
I enjoyed our match yesterday, was surprised to find you
Base various stats compared to average stats at your tier white taking into consideration the length of your battle compared to average battles.
It’s exploitable. But anything is if you try hard enough.
Average match is 15:00
Average revives is 3
You score 2, in a 7:30 match that you lost.
The length of your match compared to average is .5, so compare your revives (2) to .5 of the average (which is 1.5)
Your 2 > 1.5 so you should advance in points.
Edit: this is Lazarus example by the way.
My ten qualifying matches were a nightmare I had to drag teams of n00bs passing the jackal just to try it (try him on solo I say)… Just to lose hard against not so good monster. Being a ps4 player since launch I know who the good players are and I want matched with them once during qualifying…only nicknames of people I’ve never met… Assaults not using Shields for Christ’s sake! How can this give the best starting point for a ranked?
I’m going on massive loosing streaks then winning streaks I guess that’s the way this goes if you play solo a lot,I’m finding monsters really powerful to play against it seems unless their a novice monster slayer you will win otherwise you get destroyed
As others have said, the system just came out. It can’t magically find your perfect ranking without you “testing the waters” so to speak. You need to prove your skill level to the system before it will even out and find you the right spot.
Not to mention, in a perfect world, once you find your “true” ranking, your win/loss ratio should be about 50%.
Problem is I feel like the ranking system doesn’t reflect my actually skill, I play real good every game use shield protecters etc etc but if 1 or 2 aren’t up for the fight I’ll keep loosing unless I get a party,so yeah it’s not really a true reflection because some1 in bronze could be better or as good as a gold division player,it’s just they play in 4 man parties all the time so odds are higher to win
But if you lose and are placed in bronze, then you should be fighting bronze monsters. If you feel you are a gold player, you should be able to carry the team a bit more against a bronze monster. Certainly you will still lose some because the bronze monster also has other bronze hunters he can be going after, but your WLR should be higher than 50 and thus start moving you up to your true ranking.
Certainly being part of a 4-man premade that plays together and communicates more is going to net the party a better rank. Even if the individual skill levels are at (for example) a bronze level, being able to coordinate can bring the team’s overall capability to a higher level. But then whatever ranking they get is a reflection of that capability, and as such is working.
But whilst I agree that would be great, the next logical step would be ranking per hunter class, then all 18 current characters (20 with remaining T5) would need ranking as well as each monster. System would crumble under that requirement.
In time right skill level of hunter players will balance out so those more skilled and consistent in their play will be teamed with others.
Right now only playing monster because winning or losing is all on me and how I play, not relying on random hunters to know what they are doing.
in theory, the game should find you a monster at the average skill of your team and you being above that average should be able to push the team to victory.
unfortunately that is just theory and most monster players you encounter at bronze are actually experienced monsters doing their placement matches. a bronze team should be able to beat a bronze monster, but it seems there are no (or not nearly enough) bronze monsters for all bronze teams. today the game wanted to match me with 2 bronze and one unranked hunter vs a gold monster and of course i backed the hell out of it.
So picture this then…
Two friend join as a Laz and whatever else. Find a Nomad and have it keep downing the first player and the Laz player gets like 10 revives before the monster realizes they aren’t fighting and wins the game.
By your logic this Laz player just shot up the ranks for a 5 minute match with 10 revives.
If based solely on revives. Yes.
I just listed revives as an example to simplify a 300 line post compiling a detailed analysis. I honestly assumed that would be understood.
But as for your example, also take into consideration his damage, how much he healed with his wave, consider his total proportionate to the rest of the teams totals, and compare to the monsters performance.
I mean, I get your point for wanting a bit more depth…but as others have said, give it some time.
I just think it’s going to be impossible to accurately rank based on those methods.
I.E. If I’m val and do nothing but heal, I’m doing a great job as medic as long as no-one dies…but my rank will suffer because I didn’t use the tranq or snipe?
Same with Laz…in a normal game 10 revives would be amazing, especially if the game were only 5 minutes long…but how is the coding going to distinguish from people who are performing amazingly well, and those exploiting the system?
Like I said, let it play out for a bit…I think it’s better than nothing. Plus I (hopefully) won’t have the pain of winning a game of monster, and crushing the hunters…only to see they are level 10 and I feel awful about the win…