There is no reward for playing well.

[Valence]

I mean, I think it's clear that Square-Enix didn't really approach ranked mode from a true "competitive game" standpoint - I refuse to believe that there's no one on the team that actually understands the basics of a competitive ladder system. I think they just tried to provide a Diet Coke solution to the problem, because XIV is a game that tends to go out of its way to avoid putting its players in any kind of "you failed cuz you suck" situation unless they more or less explicitly ask for it (ultimates.) That's mutually exclusive with proper ladder systems for obvious reasons. There may also be concerns about breeding toxicity? But you can just look at your average Frontlines game chat and see that they aren't exactly avoiding that kind of thing with the game's PvP, to say nothing of chatwheel spammers present even in unranked CC games.

My firm belief is that they should have hit the ground running with two options: unranked mode, where you may queue with one friend; and formal ranked PvP Teams mode, which would launch a one or two weeks after the initial debut of the mode, so that players have time to get used to things first. I, personally, also would not have released the new PvP mode at the same time as a new savage tier - to me, PvP (particularly "serious" PvP) is something that should be held back for "in-between" patches, since a new savage tier tends to bogart the majority of "hardcore" players for weeks at a time anyway. And the ranked mode would use a typical Elo- or TrueSkill-derived system like everyone else uses.

If that would have resulted in ranked queue "dying"... then that's fine, it's proving that there isn't enough of a "hardcore PvPer" playerbase to support such a thing. At that point, split the queue into "solo" and "play with up to a full team of friends" and be done with it.

I kinda agree on the principle but I just think that if a mode is already barely meeting the number requirements for basic solo ranked, I have no idea how a team ranked or any other mode requiring people to actually get together and set up times would even work tbh. Honestly at this point, ranked and casual are already competing for numbers and queues...

And team ranked is legit my biggest wish and has always been. I could also settle for a team casual to play with my casual friendos.

[Mistress_Irika]

Something funny about CC is you actually get disproportionately punished for playing well, even beyond the degree to which it happens in other PvP games with SBMM.

The reason for that is the gcd based combat, which makes for gameplay with a very low skill ceiling. I'm sure you've noticed that when someone gets picked off, the team fighting 4v5 becomes heavily disadvantaged to win that engagement. As the odds get worse, 3v5, 2v4, it quickly becomes almost impossible to prevail. Unless you're desperate to stall the match, your best recourse is to run and regroup.

When the combat is fundamentally just rolling your gcd, it's very hard to overcome a difference in manpower. This isn't an FPS where even a single person can threaten to ace a team with raw skill, it's more like trying to do a parse run with someone dead.

As a result, the weakest player on your team controls the match outcome more than your strongest player.

This leads to situations where if you happen to be the highest ranked person queuing in your bracket, you're likely to get paired with the worst person in queue. If that person is a feeder, your winrate that session will plummet to 20 or 30% through no fault of your own. Conversely if you dodge getting put into the 'loser pool' you'll coast along with an inflated winrate and easy games. If you queue randomly then sure, in a big picture sense your winrate will average out close to 50%, but on a match-to-match basis it swings between 20% and 80% in reality. I've never seen a PvP game where so many matches are either stomps or unwinnable.

It applies to top 100 matches too. Sometimes it's beneficial to snipe someone higher ranked because they'll get saddled with crystal 0s while you get a more balanced team. Being the best player in the queue is less important than avoiding getting paired with the worst player in queue.

If you've ever felt like you've gone on a losing streak despite topping the scoreboard and having 0 deaths each time, it's likely due to the above. It takes a lot of fun out of CC for me, knowing that gaming the matchmaking affects your results way more than personal skill does.

Carries are getting harsher punishments this expansion, because the pvp kits aren't exactly designed for solo play. Sure, you can play well and get a high KDA. However, if the rest of your team is not doing so hot then you may end up getting a lackluster reward in game like stalling to a useless overtime for example. Even with classes like NIN, SAM, and, to a certain extent, MCH that can get an advantage by dealing damage according to percents those using the classes cannot escape this effect.

System just heavily rewards players who can work together in teamfights. 1v9 when it comes to cc is just about nonexistent. I dont see how that can work when almost every class has some sort of aoe ability that does about 10k dmg.

[Gserpent]

I kinda agree on the principle but I just think that if a mode is already barely meeting the number requirements for basic solo ranked, I have no idea how a team ranked or any other mode requiring people to actually get together and set up times would even work tbh. Honestly at this point, ranked and casual are already competing for numbers and queues...

And team ranked is legit my biggest wish and has always been. I could also settle for a team casual to play with my casual friendos.

I mean, if there are actual rewards and incentives to participate in ranked, and the developer actually takes an active hand against cheating... it should be fine. We've seen countless times that mounts, cosmetic gear, etc are all things the playerbase values and so they make obvious examples of the kinds of rewards you could tie to Team Ranked to incentivize participation.

People argue against FOMO, but they need to understand that you probably cannot have a meaningful ladder in a game like this without it. "The game is fun" is not by itself enough in MMOs like this, players typically need a carrot to chase. That doesn't mean you never hand out that mount or armor set in the future, but it does mean that the rank reward is an exclusive version of it - compare the default gray Construct VII mount versus the red painted version from Unreal, for example. Same mount, but you could assign an exclusive paint job to it for people who finished top 100 or top 10 or something in Team Ranked for a season.

But I don't think Square-Enix ever intended to devote the amount of effort and active participation necessary to really keep a competitive circuit alive. Maybe they shouldn't have bothered with ranked mode at all - just do solo and play with friends queues from the start. Instead of assigning the adventurer plate rewards to top 1 or whatever, instead make them X wins during the season. If you won 1,000 games during a single season, you were probably going to be near the top of players anyway, right?

Riot, Valve, and Blizzard all have a larger pvp playerbase which lets them mix things up easier, and they also don't have a pvp system where it's "winning = +1 point" and "losing = -1 point". It's usually more like "Okay, you lost, but we put you on a team with people who are all ranked lower than you, so you won't lose quite as many points this time." Granted, all of these companies have their own pvp issues, which they are handling in their own ways, but these forums are for FFXIV.

Also, this does not excuse the "WELL IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE SO IT CANT BE DONE" argument.

Yes, Riot and the others all use Elo-derived or TrueSkill-derived systems. That's what the whole "gains and losses are scaled according to rating" thing is.

And there's a *reason* it hasn't been done before. Have you considered what that reason, or reasons, might be? These companies with enormous playerbases (many magnitudes larger than the "dedicated PvPer" playerbase in XIV) to test things with, with several tens of millions of dollars in budget allowances for staffing and design, and a vested interest in running an effective and addictive laddering system haven't figured out how to define a meaningful and fair "personal performance" automated system.

And you think Square-Enix, with a shoestring budget for things like PvP and a tiny "dedicated" PvP playerbase and no real interest in a competitive and addictive laddering system will, or can? Come on, dude. Let's be reasonable here.

[Valence]

I mean, if there are actual rewards and incentives to participate in ranked, and the developer actually takes an active hand against cheating... it should be fine. We've seen countless times that mounts, cosmetic gear, etc are all things the playerbase values and so they make obvious examples of the kinds of rewards you could tie to Team Ranked to incentivize participation.

People argue against FOMO, but they need to understand that you probably cannot have a meaningful ladder in a game like this without it. "The game is fun" is not by itself enough in MMOs like this, players typically need a carrot to chase. That doesn't mean you never hand out that mount or armor set in the future, but it does mean that the rank reward is an exclusive version of it - compare the default gray Construct VII mount versus the red painted version from Unreal, for example. Same mount, but you could assign an exclusive paint job to it for people who finished top 100 or top 10 or something in Team Ranked for a season.

I never believed in rewards as a reliable tool for anything, but I won't deny that some of them, the core ones in the game, work well: xp and tomes. The rest of the rewards are just trying to plug a leak in a kitchen sink by pouring more water into it. It's forging ahead brainlessly. Introducing rewards every time for ranked means FOMO. One can try mitigating it by releasing them in the next seasons for everybody to get their hands on, which is a decent solution, but will piss off veterans to no end because they'll lose their bragging rights.

The idea that one cannot have a meaningful ladder without rewards is a ludicrous at best. Many games with a true ladder system don't rely on those, and they work fine (especially RTS games). I won't deny that them having rewards probably helps though. If the statement is that MMO players need rewards and carrots to go, then maybe they do, I haven't done any surveys on the matter. I just know I don't.

Either way it doesn't address the core issue of regular rewards to pour into the game, which means dev resources, new items in the database constantly, and oversaturating the pvp vendors over time (unless it's exclusive FOMO which everybody hates when they miss the season for whatever reason, and I do believe it's a legit reason to hate on it).

The wolf mark system is a better system, but it's a casual currency. Maybe they should start by adding a ranked ladder currency that could allow to farm for specific items, much like we have savage currencies or the silver coins in the latest criterion system for the challenging modes of the basic casual experience. If you add on top of it very expensive items (like the prestige mounts in hunts or the golden ones, or like the relic weapons) it can take a long time to get them or work on them. Especially if they also are class specific. The pvp achievements are also another way to go about it.

[Gserpent]

You need rewards for a ladder in this game, because that's how the game is designed. Sad to say, people generally don't do things "because they're fun," they do them "because I want the pony, and also it's fun." I mean, hell, how many folks do you know that engage in raidlogging, and actually *enjoy* the raids? Maybe they're fun at first, but people will be reclearing weekly for months on end because... I dunno, I guess they just want all the gear? The rewards. I know several people with the S rank hunt mounts - you think they actually enjoyed doing 1,000 of those damn hunts? Probably not, but they enjoy having the pupper.

Ladders in other games may not need rewards (but note that they still have "tiers" and profile portraits or skins or other rewards associated with doing well - it's not just a simple number), but they serve a very different kind of playerbase than the one we have here.

I don't see a "core issue" with adding new rewards to PvP series/vendor every major patch. We're constantly adding new items to the database with every single patch, Gold Saucer is up to 6 separate non-seasonal vendors (1-4, the rainmaker hairstyle vendor, and Kasumi) for the rewards they've added over time, etc. I don't see why it would be a problem for new housing items, mounts, and other things to be added to the series or vendors every major patch cycle.

As for currency, between wolf collars, wolf marks, and crystal trophies we should have the bases covered. Maybe just add a way to convert wolf marks to wolf collars, maybe more expensive than crystal trophies since crystal trophies are more limited.

[Claustrum]

Yes, Riot and the others all use Elo-derived or TrueSkill-derived systems. That's what the whole "gains and losses are scaled according to rating" thing is.

And there's a *reason* it hasn't been done before. Have you considered what that reason, or reasons, might be? These companies with enormous playerbases (many magnitudes larger than the "dedicated PvPer" playerbase in XIV) to test things with, with several tens of millions of dollars in budget allowances for staffing and design, and a vested interest in running an effective and addictive laddering system haven't figured out how to define a meaningful and fair "personal performance" automated system.

And you think Square-Enix, with a shoestring budget for things like PvP and a tiny "dedicated" PvP playerbase and no real interest in a competitive and addictive laddering system will, or can? Come on, dude. Let's be reasonable here.

Ah, so that's why there's never the ability to make pvp matchmaking better. So why do they adjust pvp balance on a shoestring budget? Why do they make pvp-exclusive rewards on a shoestring budget? Why do they bother with pvp seasons? Why did they make CC? Come on, man. Do you think they have the budget to do that stuff they did?

They are constantly adjusting pvp, their budget allows for adjusting pvp.

[Gserpent]

I just assume it's easy to increase potency on something by 1,000 or whatever, but harder to make actual changes to gameplay elements. Or they somehow, for some absolutely insane reason, believe that Resilience basically not working is okay and working as intended.

[Claustrum]

I just assume it's easy to increase potency on something by 1,000 or whatever, but harder to make actual changes to gameplay elements. Or they somehow, for some absolutely insane reason, believe that Resilience basically not working is okay and working as intended.

But how hard is it to test that the change is needed?

Edit: What I mean is: how many resources do they spend on researching how much each ability needs to change? It's not about how hard it is to actually make the change, it's about how hard it is to decide the change is needed.

[Gserpent]

Who knows? It's entirely possible they don't see it as a problem. I mean, it wasn't that long ago where Yoshida's response to complaints about lack of healers/difficulty of finding healers was "idk just play healer I guess?", which came across as pretty tone-deaf considering what a huge pain it is to gear up multiple roles at the same time with any degree of speed. It would certainly explain why Purify continues to do only half of its intended job several months down the road...

Square-Enix has gotten better about gauging opinions of players globally, but JP players are still going to be the primary place they draw information from. If JP players aren't raising hell over something, it probably gets set on the back burner. Seems to be that way, anyway. With regards to the ranking system, I'm pretty sure it's "we don't see it as a problem." For some insane reason, they deliberately decided to avoid any sort of Elo-derived system and went with the crappy system that Feast was running off of. Maybe it was just a matter of saving development time and effort, or maybe they actually believed the Feast system wasn't broken six ways from Sunday despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Who knows? Yoshida is more open about things than a typical AAA dev, but he's still going to avoid telling players the truth if it would make the company/development team look bad.

I feel like saying "we thought the Feast system was fine as-is" would make the company look bad, in light of how poorly ranked mode has gone over since CC's debut.

[RikkCavalier]

You still keep trying.

It won't happen all the time, but I have seen CC matches clawed back from having the crystal halfway into the team's goal circle.

↑ this 100%. I've seen the Crystal at 99.9% and we've turned it around and won. Dont just give up. And I personally, report the sore losers who just 'sit' out bc they're losing. It's up to square to follow-up and investigate and hopefully discipline those players with a timeout or whatever.