3.2 PvP: Feast Game Mode Discussion Thread.

**Februs** · 04-16-2016 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Nalien

I was thinking though, rather than provide an additional Stun, could we not just adjust how Parry works in PvP? I mean, Parry needs an overhaul in general anyway, but it would be nice if Parry was somewhat more reliable in PvP for Reprisal and Low Blows... Heck, quality of life adjustment for Dark Knight in general; Reprisal and Low Blows to also trigger from dodges, since Dark Arts Dark Dance and Dark Arts Dark Passenger are a solid evasion combo...

We might have to wait on that. SE stated in a recent live letter that they were reviewing the current Parry stat and considering making some adjustments. I don't think they said anything definitive about it yet, but it's on the table for discussion.

As for Ranking rewards being separated by jobs, how would you guys propose this be done? Match outcome doesn't quite work, because it would still be dependent on the team working as a team. Personal performance seems like a more "fair" way to determine ranking, but I don't see how they could possibly measure that for Tanks and Healers. For example, a healer might be healing HUGE numbers, but completely ignoring their utility and costing (such as sleeps, heavies, binds, etc). Does that healer deserve a higher ranking than the one who is using their CC effectively at the expense of a bit of healing? And what about tanks? Dmg mitigated isn't really a thing in PvP, because no Dps in their right mind goes after the tank unless they have no other option. Aggro is not a thing either, and Tanks don't have huge dps numbers. That leaves utility (such as stuns, debuffs, healer defense or offense, etc) ... but how does SE monitor that?

I'm all for being stacked up against the other players within my job bracket (be it job specific or even just "Tanks"), but I just don't get how they'd be able to accurately measure how well or poorly healers and tanks preform short of actually watching each match. They could just tally the matches you've won or lost, but that's no different than how it's done now, really.

**xTysonx** · 04-16-2016 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Februs

-snip-

Its a coin flip either way you determine "personal skill", you could argue the same thing [in terms of solo rank] about being on point as your role, pvp timings, etc etc and your teammates made some bad choices and your efforts would be overshadowed by your -100 ranking decrease, which I think alot of people are confused of why SE did a Top X system rather than a Top % system [for solo]. I know quite a few players who are great at their roles and lost a good chunk of ranking due to their RNG teammates not being at that same level or just making bad choices like freely aiming at any target.

It is just demoralizing and frankly you'd assume the person at the top just had a good fortune of pairings to go with their pvp knowledge

**TetsuyaHikari** · 04-16-2016 03:17 PM

So, how does the actual promotion qualifier work anyway? I reached 500 points earlier today and I immediately thought "YES! SILVER!", but was informed that the "promotion qualifier" had begun and I was still bronze, lol. I checked my PvP profile and there were suddenly 5 question marks with a number beside each of them (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively).

When I won my first match, it put a checkmark next to the 1, when I won my second match, it did the same, then when I won my third match, it promoted me to silver. I'm curious to know how this actually works though. Is it a best out of 5 thing or what? Do you automatically get promoted if you win 3 out of 5 of the matches or does it keep the question mark in place until you do win?

If you drop below 500 points during the qualifier, does the qualifier suddenly end? I didn't really get to figure all of this stuff out since I was fortunate enough to get three straight wins during my qualifier. If someone could explain this to me though, I'd appreciate it. I'd just like to know what to expect for next time.

**Februs** · 04-16-2016 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by xTysonx

Its a coin flip either way you determine "personal skill", you could argue the same thing [in terms of solo rank] about being on point as your role, pvp timings, etc etc

That's true, and I understand people's concerns with it. In theory, a player could just have gotten super lucky and advanced in rank even though they actually suck. Vice versa, they could be the best player in their given role and never advance because they get really crappy teams. It's a frustrating thing to see in practice, and I get that. My question, though, is what is the proposed alternative?

Saying that you would rather have the system judge player rankings based on top percentage within specified jobs rather than top overall is fine and dandy, but what are the criteria for making it to the top ranks? How would we be evaluated? If the answer is simply "by our overall number of wins," then not a lot actually changes. Making it a percent value rather than a strict number value simply increases the pool of qualified players (which, admittedly, is preferable), but it doesn't change the fact that your personal ranking is at the mercy of how lucky you get with your teams. You still have to win to make it to that top percentage, and you still have to put up with random players for your qualifier matches. Nothing about that would change just because the ranking rewards are determined by percentage. If you don't make it to diamond rank, then you don't get a seat at the table no matter how big the table is.

Thread: 3.2 PvP: Feast Game Mode Discussion Thread.

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Dev. Posts

Hybrid View

Tags for this Thread