Jobs Store Support Register

leaderboard system is absurd

+
im only 21 and have 1 month of experience i love this game but i find the leaderboard has to be completly changed
1) to be competitive you have to play no less than 200 matches in a month and if you work you cant play so much
2 to have a good score you have to play all the factions and this for me means i have to spend a lot of money that i dont have - after 100 keggs opened i have 15% of gold cards
3) i saw players in the top 100 that have more matches lost than win !!!!!!!
4 with 30 matches played (this means for me every day after job play at least 1,5 hours ) and a score of 25 win and 5 lost im 20935 !!!!!!! in the leaderboard
what you think ?
am i wrong ?
sorry for my english and thx for help
 
In a month it is possible, but you have to be good and win a lot.

Additionally, you get carry over season to season.
 
It is really strange to see people with a 30% win rate at the top of the leaderboards.

Maybe if you threw a couple hundred matches you could be up there too.
 
The thing is, this game is not chess... ladder place is not caused by some supreme intellectual power; mainly by luck: the hand you get, and most importantly, the opponent you draw, as the variety of cards make different decks vurnerable to one kids of decks and outplaying other kinds of decks...
Access to all the cards is quite helpful...

For a victory you get +8 and for a loss -8, for me it's quite tiresome...
In a well balanced game where all opponents are really good, it is reasonable to have around 50% win rate and if you have 63% then you might be at the top...
The amout of top ladder players LOSSES is just the matter of statistics and math, it's nothing sureprising.

What is tiresome... grind... and the moment when after hours of grind you realise you're at exact same place...

if having over 50% winrate is a good result, lets say 75% is nearly best possible result (all opponents don't do misstakes because this game is not chess, it's easy; they use best possible decks the same way as you, so it's rather the matter of who counters randomly drawn opponent)

So with 3:1 winrate after 40 pvp you have +30*8-10*8 = 20*8 = +160 MMR
So if at the beginning of first season you were 1250 MMR, after 3 months of grinding 200 matches a month, assuming 0 experiments + having fun and trying new decks, just some noob decks that work well, you'd be 1730, assuming you are like the best player in game...
312 pvps to get 1250 mmr with 75% winrate with one faction...
278 if for a loss it was actually -6, not -8
Well 31 days multiplied by 12 hours is 372 hours so YEAH you totally can play over 1000 boring 20 minutes matches and get 2500mmr in 1 month, with like 75% winrate...
 
Last edited:
Yes...this, as stated by @Imm0rtaleflame

What is tiresome... grind... and the moment when after hours of grind you realise you're at exact same place...
(Yes, I realize the simple solution is just "then don't play.")

But here's the basic problem: the leaderboard only cares about your MMR. OK; fine...and I was lucky enough to make it at season's end within the top 500 (I think...) because I played a lot during the holidays and played every faction over 40 times. And yes, I had a horrible winning %. I believe I lost at least 20 more games than I won, overall.

BUT, indeed, the leaderboard is basically meaningless for that same reason! MMR only really counts for anything on the pro ladder. All that counts for those of us not on pro ladder (the majority of players...) is wins. And more wins. It could be, conceivably, by using only one faction the whole time.

I finally, somehow, got up to rank 10 last season. My reward? To be back down at rank 15. I simply could not make it up to rank 9 the last few days of the season, which would have been enough to put me into the new bracket so that I could have started at a higher rank this season.

Can I tell you how absolutely deflating it is to have to try to play my way back up from rank 15 for the third Homecoming season in a row?? (I ended the last non-HC season at the old rank 20, which put me in the rank 15 bracket.)

I sincerely hope CDPR looks at both the leaderboard system and the non-pro ranking system. The game is incredibly skewed towards pros and those who do not work full-time.
 
I sincerely hope CDPR looks at both the leaderboard system and the non-pro ranking system. The game is incredibly skewed towards pros and those who do not work full-time.
Don't hold your hopes too high. The ladder was great in beta with MMR based ranks. It was easily possible to reach rank 20-21 (21 was the highest rank) after playing 70-90 games. I know because I did that every season (I had 70-80% winrate on lower ranks and ~55-60% winrate at ranks 20-21).

With the new system copied from HS you need 120+ games to reach rank 1 (the highest now) even with 100% winrate. This is ridiculous and, obviously, favors grinding, not skill.

The problem with the new ranks has been raised on the forums many times, but there's no official reply to it. Even though they admitted some of their screw ups, this new HS-based system is not one of them.
 
Hello there,

I returned to Gwent just recently after a long delay and I'm at a complete loss with the ranking mechanics so please excuse me for possibly stupid question:
Is it correct that if I do not intend to play other factions than my favorite one I'll never make good mmr? Currently I have 19 wins for 31 plays as NR (i cannot even find where to look for my lost count so I need to subtract my wins from total plays at another stat page, madness!), zero games as other factions, my rank is 16 and and my mmr is 1307. Is it supposed to be this way for all who plays only one or two factions? Thank you in advance.
 
Is it correct that if I do not intend to play other factions than my favorite one I'll never make good mmr?
Correct. You need to play at least 4 factions to secure a position at the top. However, what do you really gain from being at the top? There is a top 200 and top 500 achievement. That's the only thing you'll miss out, if you could have gotten that far.
 
Correct. You need to play at least 4 factions to secure a position at the top. However, what do you really gain from being at the top? There is a top 200 and top 500 achievement. That's the only thing you'll miss out, if you could have gotten that far.
Thank you friend. Of course the board isn't obligatory and but why they do this... I just feel it doesn't fair to force players use all the factions while many of them have only one or two favorites.
 
I just feel it doesn't fair to force players use all the factions while many of them have only one or two favorites.
Players aren't being forced. You can still reach rank 0 with only one faction. However, if you want to climb to the top, then you do have to invest more, which is fair considering it's the best of the best for a reason. Also, it increases deck variety quite a lot.
 
Players aren't being forced. You can still reach rank 0 with only one faction. However, if you want to climb to the top, then you do have to invest more, which is fair considering it's the best of the best for a reason. Also, it increases deck variety quite a lot.
... and so it happens that current top 10 of "the best of the best" have average w/l ratio of less than one ;)
 
and so it happens that current top 10 of "the best of the best" have average w/l ratio of less than one
At the beginning of the season, the variance is greater. Also, you can cheat the system a bit by purposefully losing with one faction and then climb with the other four.
 
At the beginning of the season, the variance is greater. Also, you can cheat the system a bit by purposefully losing with one faction and then climb with the other four.
This is yet another reason to simplify leaderboard by prioritizing w/l ratio over anything else. If true, factions and other parameters/coefficients not only make the ranking mechanics more ambiguous, but also more open to abuses. I remember at Gwent beta the question of the day was why leaderboard did not reveal players' favorite factions. Seeing it from retrospective the reason was to hide strong factions imbalances that lead to dominance of one faction over other after each next patch. Like in one month I met NR in less than 10% of matches, and after the armor patch every second played NR. Now I wonder if the current ranking mechanics was implemented as the tool to hide the same issue in a more convenient way...
 
Good article about leaderbords, system is broken in my opinion when guys with more loses then wins sits on top spots ;/
And there is almost no rewards for climbing trough ranks, some scraps will do fine :)
 
What was wrong with the old ranking system? How hard would it be to revert back? A real case of it "it's not broke don't fix it". Definitely seems like this was a universally disliked change...