The adjustment to point loss in Feast is HUGE, addresses stagnant players and MORE

[Aviars]

Most people are talking about nerfs to Dragoons and other changes however what really isn't being talked about is how Square changed how hard losses hit peoples rating.

They stated as much with the following:
-The degree to which PvP ratings may decrease at the conclusion of a rated match has been adjusted.

At first this may not seem so important, but after playing today it was pretty significant. After getting out of the non-ranked tier where you do not lose rating I played 25 games in total, 15 wins and 10 losses. In previous seasons a well 'balanced' feast according to ratings would have you gain 25 points for a win and 25 points for a loss. With this system I would be at a net positive of 125 points, +375 and - 250, and I would end up at 325 Rating after getting the free 200 rating from getting out of non-tiered.

With the new system however I would only lose 15 points in a normal 'balanced' game and as a result I end up with a net positive 225, +375 and - 150, and I end up at 425 rating for the day instead. That is a 100 point difference which is huge in Feast numbers and with losses hitting much less than before, it is much easier to maintain a higher rating and much less likely for people to experience those crushing days of tanking 300+ points and can actually mean having a winrate less than 50% can still mean you are breaking even, making the losses much more bearable for some.

This change also helps increase the point pool so much faster as previously it mostly grew due to pre bronze tier not deducting points for losses. Now every time someone wins ANYWHERE, the point pool increases by a net positive of 40 points per game. Plus 25 for each player who wins, +100, while the team that loses only loses 15 points per player, -60. Before a 'balanced' match result in -25 per winning player and -25 per losing player, a net +0. While this assumes most games are 'balanced,' this is still a huge difference.

As the season goes forward expect to see people getting higher ranks faster and MUCH more people getting into platinum and diamond than in previous seasons. If you are a gold player who never thought of getting platinum, well your time may be this season. This also includes career bronze, silver and plat players who did not think they had what it takes to get into the next tier. That may have been true for season 1, but that is clearly not true for season 2. I am optimistic that if people have the drive and willpower to get those cool titles and rewards that even gold players might be able to hit diamond themselves if people play enough to make it that way.

This seasons point system favors those who play the most, and it may very well be what makes people not sit on their rating once they get to a certain point. Who needs rating decay when you have a ladder that is basically guaranteed to grow? You can win 38 games with +25 and lose 62 games at -15 and still be positive 20 points. 38% winrate going positive, however slow, still means growth and a threat for those in the top.

I hope you all see this as a good thing like I do, I am pretty excited at the prospect of a feast being active enough to have more than 2-3 diamonds a datacenter and seeing people trying hard to get those nice titles and rewards SE is giving out.

Thank you for reading and post your opinions!

[SaveTheSunF1R3x]

Thanks for the breakdown! When i saw this on the patch notes i also thought it'll support growth within the ladder. I've yet to be able to confirm numbers though so this post basically cements that idea for me. I expect to see most if not all the top 100 in diamond this time around. Happy feasting!

[Dimitrii]

I do not believe you will actually be able to notice the difference/changes from the adjustments in point differentials yet from wins/losses until you reach gold. +25 for wins and -15 for losses sounds exactly the same as what we had last season in bronze and silver tiers. It wasn't until Gold that they started slapping you with the unfavorable weighted losses when compared to wins (stuff like +19 for wins and -29 for losses). Generally speaking, during bronze and silver tiers wins always netted you more points than losses subtracted from your rank after they made adjustments to it following the preseason which had like 95% of the player base stuck at bronze and silver.

[Curty]

Yep you need to wait to see what is like until we are gold+. Silver and below loss penalties have been very weak for a couple months now.

[l---------------l]

I don't like this change. I'll explain why, in a single line:

It benefits those who play more than others.

Not liking the explanation in single line? Going in detail.

In season 1 I managed to be always rounding the top, solely relying in my winrate... I had like 4 times or three times LESS MATCHES than the other dudes of top.... But I was still there because holding a good victory rate made it possible. With these changes my victory rate will mean nothing and healers with 1000 matches and a 44% winrate will probably be over me if I just have 300 matches but with a 60% winrate.

It's pointless, I hope in gold-ratings the losing for a balanced match would at least be of 25 again. I don't mind the trash tiers, but, gold and onward should be -25 per lose.


Let's go even more damn simple... Yesterday in my datacenter there were already 3 silver. And people that achieved to get 50 matches.... Do you know how many did I achieve? Well, of course, working and not being weekend.... 0. Does this mean that if I play mostly the weekends, with current feast, I will not manage to get in top except if I have a nearly-impossible-to-get-in-solo winrate of 70% or more? Or not even that way?

[Petite]

I don't like this change. I'll explain why, in a single line:

It benefits those who play more than others.

I don't like this change either because of this exact reason. If SE's intention was to make it so people would not sit on their ranks then I'm sure they are doing it wrong. What really kills a mode is when SE releases a new one (or a new season).

I would get 6-10 min solo Feast queues when I transferred from Exodus to Gilgamesh at the beginning of June. When Shatter came out, those literally disappeared until the very end of the season even though I tried many times because I wanted back on the top 100.

On paper, the pvp rating changes sound bad to me, but we'll have to see how it truly turns out first I guess.

[Aviars]

Generally speaking, during bronze and silver tiers wins always netted you more points than losses subtracted from your rank after they made adjustments to it following the preseason which had like 95% of the player base stuck at bronze and silver.

Yep you need to wait to see what is like until we are gold+. Silver and below loss penalties have been very weak for a couple months now.

Looking at it that way I guess you are both right. However Most of my platinum games I only lost 25 points as normal.



So I am being cautiously optimistic now that the changes might be what I said they were. Will the changes mean that my loss above would've been less under the current system or are they just getting rid of the -31 losses? We will have to see.

I don't like this change. I'll explain why, in a single line:

It benefits those who play more than others.

Not liking the explanation in single line? Going in detail.

In season 1 I managed to be always rounding the top, solely relying in my winrate... I had like 4 times or three times LESS MATCHES than the other dudes of top.... But I was still there because holding a good victory rate made it possible. With these changes my victory rate will mean nothing and healers with 1000 matches and a 44% winrate will probably be over me if I just have 300 matches but with a 60% winrate.

It's pointless, I hope in gold-ratings the losing for a balanced match would at least be of 25 again. I don't mind the trash tiers, but, gold and onward should be -25 per lose.


Let's go even more damn simple... Yesterday in my datacenter there were already 3 silver. And people that achieved to get 50 matches.... Do you know how many did I achieve? Well, of course, working and not being weekend.... 0. Does this mean that if I play mostly the weekends, with current feast, I will not manage to get in top except if I have a nearly-impossible-to-get-in-solo winrate of 70% or more? Or not even that way?

If you are a top player it should be easy for you to climb as other people climb the ladder. If you are a top player that is currently bronze then your matchmaking should be extremely favorable when you are paired with anyone who is higher up on the ladder. So you will still be on top with less games, and if I am right your occasional loss won't hamper your climb to the top as much.

[AdamZ]

Hey, sorry Aviars, just been too long since you where at bronze

The point scoring for Bronze is the same as season 1. Bronze was +25 - 15 for standard match, that went to +25 - 20 for silver, and gold was +25 -25 (Interesting that you note Plat was still +25 -25)

Hoping you are somewhat right, and we see gold not setting at a +25 -25.

When we looked at early versions of the top 100, you saw a lot of people in the Silver/Gold tier that had sub 50% win % in season 1.

[Aviars]

Hey, sorry Aviars, just been too long since you where at bronze

The point scoring for Bronze is the same as season 1. Bronze was +25 - 15 for standard match, that went to +25 - 20 for silver, and gold was +25 -25 (Interesting that you note Plat was still +25 -25)

Hoping you are somewhat right, and we see gold not setting at a +25 -25.

When we looked at early versions of the top 100, you saw a lot of people in the Silver/Gold tier that had sub 50% win % in season 1.

Of course. I only thought of this because although I was platinum I wasn't getting hit with those massive 31 point losses as frequently as others have been claiming to be normal. So if they actually adjusted how much people lose for a loss I assumed it would be the same for all tiers. I mean if there won't be a change in gold+ then what did they change exactly? We will have to see I suppose.