Was this a glitch with the ranking system?

+
I completed my mosaic for Rank 1. The very next game my opponent forfeited late in round 3. So, I won the usual amount of games to lock in the rank progression. Except the mosaic for Rank 1 was still there. I had not progressed to Rank 0. What happened? The next player I played beat me and I lost a mosaic piece for Rank 1. This seems so arbitrary and rigged.

I was going to say that completing this mosaic piece felt rigged, because I had opponents disconnect and I didn't have my usual bs opponent decks to deal with it, though the game I lost my mosaic piece to after 'completing' my mosaic + 1 win game was a real troll. Typical GWENT bs, with that game. But I suppose I learned something with that loss.
 
You must accept the PRO rank regulations before continuing to progress after reaching rank 1.

Options > General and set "Pro Rank Regulations" to "Accepted" :beer:
 
You must accept the PRO rank regulations before continuing to progress after reaching rank 1.

Options > General and set "Pro Rank Regulations" to "Accepted" :beer:

I was not notified of any Pro rank agreement after completing my mosaic and then winning my next match for Rank 1. That would have been the logical thing to do, right?

I've agreed to the terms now but I don't have a complete mosaic for Rank 1. And the season is ending very soon. WAFJ.

The way that GOG does thing is such a troll. FFS.
 
Yes, it could be as simple as being asked if you want to continue ... but it is CDPR, the logical solutions are not their strong suit. :beer:

Play Viy or Lippy and you will be there in no time, you don't even have to see your opponent's screen:smart:
 
Yes, it could be as simple as being asked if you want to continue ... but it is CDPR, the logical solutions are not their strong suit. :beer:

Play Viy or Lippy and you will be there in no time, you don't even have to see your opponent's screen:smart:

Would it make sense to have reaching Rank 0 follow the same process as reaching every other rank up until that point? I'm under the impression that pro-rank players can play GWENT in the same way that they always have up until that point.

Sure, if a pro-rank player wants to play official tournaments, then, by all means, have them agree to some additional T&Cs. If you don't want to play tournaments, then I don't see why they game just can't keep on going as it always has for you.

CDPR just seem to be trolling for the LOLs, it seems, in everything that they do. Cyberpunk for last-gen consoles? Sure, that'll work!
 
Would it make sense to have reaching Rank 0 follow the same process as reaching every other rank up until that point? I'm under the impression that pro-rank players can play GWENT in the same way that they always have up until that point.

Sure, if a pro-rank player wants to play official tournaments, then, by all means, have them agree to some additional T&Cs. If you don't want to play tournaments, then I don't see why they game just can't keep on going as it always has for you.

CDPR just seem to be trolling for the LOLs, it seems, in everything that they do. Cyberpunk for last-gen consoles? Sure, that'll work!
Let us leave that hate outside mate, this has nothing to do with the company trolling you. We have enough unnecessary bashing going around already nowadays.

I was exactly in your shoes on my first Pro Rank progress - sure, an annoying experience, but nothing that another win would not solve (after accepting the terms ofc).
I definitely agree however that a notification should at least pop up once you get to Rank 1. Losing a crucial win at the door of Pro is never fun.
 
I was exactly in your shoes on my first Pro Rank progress - sure, an annoying experience, but nothing that another win would not solve (after accepting the terms ofc).
I definitely agree however that a notification should at least pop up once you get to Rank 1. Losing a crucial win at the door of Pro is never fun.

That's the thing. For all I know, I might never get to that point again. I've often said here that the matchmaking feels rigged. Usually it's because I get an endless supply of bs decks to deal with or someone plays a deck/faction which I'll lose to more often than not.

It was an extremely rare case of luck in my favour which got me to 'pro rank' until more CDPR bs denied me that rank.

The matchmaking is so unrelentingly miserable most of the time that I want to avoid it.

I'm just saying that how CDPR does things SEEMS like a troll. It's a troll in EFFECT. They might not be doing it deliberately but that doesn't matter. They might as well be.
 
It was an extremely rare case of luck in my favour which got me to 'pro rank' until more CDPR bs denied me that rank.
Yes, I feel your frustration here. You are right to be angry for this one.

The matchmaking is so unrelentingly miserable most of the time that I want to avoid it.
Mathcmaking in CCGs usually works the same - trust me, it is not miserable. The better you get, the harder it gets. The harder it gets, the more frustraing it becomes to progress. This is how it should work to be fair.

I'm just saying that how CDPR does things SEEMS like a troll. It's a troll in EFFECT. They might not be doing it deliberately but that doesn't matter. They might as well be.
This is your personal opinion, and as such, I fully respect it. I definitely disagree on most parts of it though.
 
...Mathcmaking in CCGs usually works the same - trust me, it is not miserable. The better you get, the harder it gets. The harder it gets, the more frustraing it becomes to progress. This is how it should work to be fair.

This is your personal opinion, and as such, I fully respect it. I definitely disagree on most parts of it though.

I don't netdeck. So, you're forgetting the newies who start playing the game with netdecks and reach pro rank in a week or two.

Personally, with my runs, I can go days just not stringing any wins together or even having a very small win ratio for a day or days on end.

It's definitely miserable. The only thing more miserable than GWENT is playing MTG. I've said this before: GWENT. It's not as bad as MTG.

That's not saying much though.
Post automatically merged:

Play Viy or Lippy and you will be there in no time, you don't even have to see your opponent's screen:smart:

Fortunately Vly or Lippy decks can be defeated sometimes. If you're lucky, you'll have someone not expert in these decks who play it badly or maybe they don't have a deck optimised for these cards.

I might have to join their ranks...GWENT needs another person playing a Vly or Lippy deck who doesn't quite know what they are doing!
 
Well for me in The first time a pop UP appeared asking If i whant to accept The therms.

I accepted and voilá i was in pro rank
 
I don't netdeck. So, you're forgetting the newies who start playing the game with netdecks and reach pro rank in a week or two.

Personally, with my runs, I can go days just not stringing any wins together or even having a very small win ratio for a day or days on end.

It's definitely miserable.
Please note though, this is your choice.
Nobody is stopping you in getting some extra understanding of what is effective and what is not in a current meta. That is purely up to you to decide. If you would strictly talk about unranked games, I'd symphatize with you a lot more - you are talking about ranked ladder though. Ranked is a competitve player vs player environment - as such, it is completely understandable and reasonable for players to try to get the most effective toolsets for progression. Playing in this pool and intentionally limiting yourself to your ideas (no matter how good or bad they are when it comes to deckbuilding or understanding the game itself) can definitely act as a handicap.

This is not about matchmaking. Following this logic, I'd say getting to Rank 1 is already an accomplishment, one you should be happy about. I believe it serves as a good example that you can get to a good level if you put in the effort.

And finally, my bottom line when it comes to "evil matchmaking" topics just in general: the main principle is that your deck of choice has to be able to effectively compete in a given meta snapshot. That means, based on how the meta evolves, you'll have to adapt on a weekly basis, chaging your deck(s) or switching between them in order to progress.
Playing what you like and feel creative about is definitely a factor, but it is usually worth as much as the rank you can get to using it.
There is no such thing as playing your fav deck and gradually progressing with a stable 60%+ winrate - occasions like these are considered serious issues in overall deck balance (see 2020 Skellige months).
Post automatically merged:

Fortunately Vly or Lippy decks can be defeated sometimes. If you're lucky, you'll have someone not expert in these decks who play it badly or maybe they don't have a deck optimised for these cards.
Both of these (especially Viy) have solid counters in the current meta. Sure, the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" theory works here as well, but again, it is to be expected and normal that no deck should be able to compete vs all possible opponents.
 
...This is not about matchmaking. Following this logic, I'd say getting to Rank 1 is already an accomplishment, one you should be happy about. I believe it serves as a good example that you can get to a good level if you put in the effort...

I've said on these boards that I think that it's good that players with minimal cards available to them can get so high in the rankings. As for putting in the effort to get there, well, that usually means copying a netdeck. No effort there at all, really. But still too much effort for me to want to do.

Reaching rank 0 is more of an accomplishment. I did everything to do that. If CDPR had done the smart thing and made players become aware of extra terms and conditions for gaining this rank as soon as they are eligible for it, I would have reached that rank. Yet again, it's an example of CDPR's bad game design. It's as if they want to troll you. All the time.

...And finally, my bottom line when it comes to "evil matchmaking" topics just in general: the main principle is that your deck of choice has to be able to effectively compete in a given meta snapshot. That means, based on how the meta evolves, you'll have to adapt on a weekly basis, chaging your deck(s) or switching between them in order to progress.

Well, is GWENT's matchmaking system transparent and open to inspection? If it's not, then defending it based on you trusting CDPR to have set it up well seems a tad premature.
 
I've said on these boards that I think that it's good that players with minimal cards available to them can get so high in the rankings. As for putting in the effort to get there, well, that usually means copying a netdeck. No effort there at all, really. But still too much effort for me to want to do.
Definitely do not take this personal, as it can be said about many players around in many CCG communities, but the arguments "I don't win cause I don't netdeck" or "netdecking is all the effort that is needed" are usually made by people who otherwise don't excel in the game. If everyone who plays "netdecks" would instantly git gud, we would be looking at a seriously strong competitve mass in higher ranks. Yet, that is far from reality.

5 players out of 10 copying these decks still fail, and still never get to a spot they imagined on ranked. And they usually come raging to the forums the loudest. These are the players you can spot in unranked playing metadecks, BMing and roping everyone, trying to feel confident.
4 players out of those 10 will actually get proficient with the deck and by possessing the right skills in addition to these right tools, they will progress effectively. Not to top levels, but they will hold their ground in Pro for example.
And only 1 player will be on the level to be able to create these decks, or alternatively, play effectively with almost any tools given to him/her.

Even "netdecking" as a term is flawed. Using tried and effective tools in order to win is anything but wrong. If we would be a community where every (bad) idea would be equally effective in a competitive environment.. well, you get the picture, I hope.

Well, is GWENT's matchmaking system transparent and open to inspection? If it's not, then defending it based on you trusting CDPR to have set it up well seems a tad premature.
None of the CCG matchmaking systems are transparent, and the yshouldn't be. This is not another Haarp or Lizard Men illuminati conteo material where everything is programmed to get YOU in a bad place. If anything, this system has the same effect on everyone competing - as equal as you can get. Still, as you said yourself, you don't want to put in much effort - I believe your results just keep mirroring this. Which is, again, as things should be.
 
...5 players out of 10 copying these decks still fail, and still never get to a spot they imagined on ranked. And they usually come raging to the forums the loudest. These are the players you can spot in unranked playing metadecks, BMing and roping everyone, trying to feel confident.

I'm not up to speed with the jargon. BMing? Roping?

Anway, many weeks or perhaps months ago I pretty much always looked at my opponents ID after I played them. I've pretty much stopped doing that by default and only do it rarely now. When I did do that, though, I'd see that I got spanked by someone with a very high rank (can't remember the specifics) and one time the person didn't even have cards in their profile. I.e. some players have every card in every set. These high-flyers didn't have any, or often bugger-all.

...None of the CCG matchmaking systems are transparent, and the yshouldn't be. This is not another Haarp or Lizard Men illuminati conteo material where everything is programmed to get YOU in a bad place. If anything, this system has the same effect on everyone competing - as equal as you can get. Still, as you said yourself, you don't want to put in much effort - I believe your results just keep mirroring this. Which is, again, as things should be.

Why shouldn't the matchmaking system be transparent? The devs could get feedback on how to tweak the algorith, perhaps. It's not like there aren't intelligent people out there who don't have anything constructive to say about algorithms. Do you think that the devs would have nothing to learn if their matchmaking system was open to scrutiny?

It's not like this 'IP' is of value. I mean, who would want to copy it?
 
I'm not up to speed with the jargon. BMing? Roping?
BM goes for aggressive and sometimes toxic spamming of voice lines in order to disturb or annoy the other player.
Roping goes for someone who intentionally waits every sec from his turn, no matter if he/she is done a minute ago - again, just to waste the other player's time and annoy him.

When I did do that, though, I'd see that I got spanked by someone with a very high rank (can't remember the specifics)
You should look at this from a different perspective in my opinion. The fact that you are matched against higher level players shows that at least you've outgrown the starting "safe-zone" of newbie players. Sure, with tougher opponents comes tougher challenge, but I believe that is always something good to have.

Why shouldn't the matchmaking system be transparent? The devs could get feedback on how to tweak the algorith, perhaps. It's not like there aren't intelligent people out there who don't have anything constructive to say about algorithms. Do you think that the devs would have nothing to learn if their matchmaking system was open to scrutiny?
I'd be very careful in actually granting the community that much credit when it comes to neutrally and reliably measure things. Keep in mind, most players have their own personal interest or agenda to prove - not to mention, there are professionals designing and coding these systems for a reason. Turning these into things like classic internet forum discussions is the last thing we need, trust me. 1 out of 1000 commenters have a real clue, and even that does not necessarily moves things in the good direction.
As long as a system is affecting everyone equally, it is ok. It being flawless is a different topic, there I agree - constructive criticism and suggestions definitely help the developers.
 
BM goes for aggressive and sometimes toxic spamming of voice lines in order to disturb or annoy the other player.
Roping goes for someone who intentionally waits every sec from his turn, no matter if he/she is done a minute ago - again, just to waste the other player's time and annoy him.

So BM = bad manners then? I had someone spamming a taunt at me once. I just muted them. Can a player tell if you've muted them? Another time I just turned off my speaker and I could see that they were spamming a taunt at me, but it just didn't bother me.

I pity those poor souls who think that the in-game voice generator is a substitute for actual interaction with another human being. I'd be happy if it was gotten rid of, even for the voices which signal that they made a mistake or whatever.

I accidentally rope when I don't notice that my turn is still on, usually when I'm acting first and haven't used the thingy which round one starters get to use. Whatever that thing is called.


You should look at this from a different perspective in my opinion. The fact that you are matched against higher level players shows that at least you've outgrown the starting "safe-zone" of newbie players. Sure, with tougher opponents comes tougher challenge, but I believe that is always something good to have.

I remember hitting a wall last year on Rank 20. My Nil poison deck, maybe, just kept getting flogged and I stopped playing ranked matches. That time felt as tough as it was for me to succeed/fail in reaching pro rank. Funnily enough, my Nil poison deck got me to pro rank, aside from the whole CDPR not counting it because they made me unaware of how the T&Cs for that worked. Maybe it's just seasonal too, but units which disappeared from decks ages ago have made comebacks, the Geri, for example.


I'd be very careful in actually granting the community that much credit when it comes to neutrally and reliably measure things. Keep in mind, most players have their own personal interest or agenda to prove - not to mention, there are professionals designing and coding these systems for a reason. Turning these into things like classic internet forum discussions is the last thing we need, trust me. 1 out of 1000 commenters have a real clue, and even that does not necessarily moves things in the good direction.
As long as a system is affecting everyone equally, it is ok. It being flawless is a different topic, there I agree - constructive criticism and suggestions definitely help the developers.

I wasn't advocating that the community, specifically, got to say how the matchmaking algorith works. My idea was to have the algorithm open source, so that the knowledgeable could look at it, suss it out, and improve it, if needs be. But sure, community members here could contribute, if they had good ideas for the mechanics of the system.

So, I'd disagree with you about everything being okay so long as everyone was affected equally. Equality is important, sure, but if improvements can be made to the system, implement them, for God's sake.
 
So, I'd disagree with you about everything being okay so long as everyone was affected equally. Equality is important, sure, but if improvements can be made to the system, implement them, for God's sake.
But you see, this is exactly where things fall into subjectivity. What makes a change an improvement? Who is qualified to answer that question? A player, who - with all due respect - can see only a tiny fraction of statistics, or those developers, who are paid to professionally create, maintain and improve these codes & systems?
 
But you see, this is exactly where things fall into subjectivity. What makes a change an improvement? Who is qualified to answer that question? A player, who - with all due respect - can see only a tiny fraction of statistics, or those developers, who are paid to professionally create, maintain and improve these codes & systems?


Again, people who are competent in the design of matchmaking systems. People other than the ones employed by CDPR. That's the point of my open source suggestions. Let the experts look at it and comment.
 
Again, people who are competent in the design of matchmaking systems. People other than the ones employed by CDPR. That's the point of my open source suggestions. Let the experts look at it and comment.
Now, I believe this is a bit more complicated than that. These systems are copyrighted products, either developed be these companies or bought as a license from another. A high-level matchmaking system is worth a lot. This sort of internal data you don't put out as an open source material for everybody to discuss.
 
Now, I believe this is a bit more complicated than that. These systems are copyrighted products, either developed be these companies or bought as a license from another. A high-level matchmaking system is worth a lot. This sort of internal data you don't put out as an open source material for everybody to discuss.

What is the source of your belief that the GWENT matchmaking system, specifically, is copyrighted or licensed for use by CDPR? Again, for a much criticised matchmaking system, how much would that IP be worth?

Not that I'd know, but I wouldn't think that a matchmaking system would reveal any internal data of note. For all we know, the matchmaking system is: first cab off the rank gets matched to you. CDPR would not suffer any loss by disclosing that.
 
Top Bottom