What's new

Ranked should stay "one and done". Here's why.

This needs addressed, whether for everyones benefit or for my own sanity.

A lot of people are suggesting ranked matches should be sets and not just one game. I'll get into the arguments put forward by those for sets, explain why I believe "one and done" is the best way to tackle it (I know probably most of you won't agree, but please hear me out), and finally I'll get into what I believe is the real problem here.

Right so, ranked is a league system not a knockout tournament. I can't think of a single league system of any sport that contains sets; I'm sure there are probably a few but it's not the norm. Having sets is a knockout tournament setup up, this is a league. Not everyone playing wants to get into a set, casual gamers in particular. This game is made for all, not just pro/good players and if that casual player gets destroyed in the 1st game how many rage quits do you think there are going to be? What does the other player gain from a 2nd chance of destroying them? If you want to play sets you have that option via player matches.

The argument I've seen for sets is, it's a ranked system, the better player should win over a set. There may be valid reasons for a set system but this is the only one I've seen. So to address it I'll reference my point that league systems don't have sets and give you an example. I don't know if any of you follow the English Premier League, but Chelsea won the league. They are the best team in England this season, no question, but they did get beat in a league game by Crystal Palace, a team that finished 14th. Did Chelsea get a best of 3 to prove they're the better team? No. That was proven by their league position. My point being you might lose to a player you're better than but if you are indeed the better player, you rank higher in the league table overall.

I used to believe this was a pride issue; someone got beat by someone they thought they were better than, that they should of won and wanted to prove to themselves or the opponent that they are. Well tough luck, you got beat, hold that. But after reading a lot of comments on the matter the attitude seems to be "how dare that scrub beat me", like some delusional self entitlement. You have to win, it isn't handed to you because you're the "better" player. And even more of an issue is the comments that the opponent did something random or didn't play the game how they're supposed to. That is some next level arrogance! I've got news for you, they can play it anyway they want. If they jump about like a headless chicken and beat you, that's on you. So get your head out of your hole and accept the defeat.

I'll leave you with this, outside of any technical difficulties, if you got beat, it happened because of one of 2 reasons: you got outplayed, or you fucked up.
 
Gear mode should be optional for player match, and competitive mode should be default.

Every now and then a person refuses to put on comp mode, it seems like all the super casual players who think gear mode is cool are fading away already anyhow.

NRS you experiment, we forgive you- but gear mode should be a novelty side thing not default
 
Yea I think that's a fair point about gear. Maybe even instead of gear the default setting and competitive having to be agreed by both, just reverse it. Or split it into gear ranked and competitive ranked.
 
Having sets is a knockout tournament setup up, this is a league. Not everyone playing wants to get into a set, casual gamers in particular.
Do it SF5 style, you have the option to rematch the person. More fighting games are doing ranked now 2/3 I don't see why NRS games should be different. Tekken you only get 1 rematch currently but they're fixing that, sf5 is 2/3, KI is 2/3.
 

SaSSolino

Soul Stealing Loyalist
I disagree.

It's normal to adapt to an opponent during a set, that's how fundamentals work. You said it's not the best for casuals, but frankly ranked isn't meant for them, that's why competitive mode is always on.

If the skill gap between the 2 players is huge, the loser can always concede and look for a player of more similar skill level. Besides, the ranking system tries to match players around the same skill.

Gear mode should be optional for player match, and competitive mode should be default.

Every now and then a person refuses to put on comp mode, it seems like all the super casual players who think gear mode is cool are fading away already anyhow.

NRS you experiment, we forgive you- but gear mode should be a novelty side thing not default
Special moves should be default though, otherwise they'd be wasted. I mean, personally I've only tried one and I find it pretty sad considering how much more dept and longevity they can provide to the game.
 

SneakyTortoise

Official Master of Salt
In the Premier league analogy, actually there are a set number of teams and they do actually play a "set" as you have to play each team in the league twice.

Chelsea and Palace played the same number of games, against the same number of teams, and their positions are determined at the end of that.

This is nothing like ranked online now.

If fact, if ranked were like that, I'm sure more people would be happy.
 

Rabbit

thugs bunny
by your logic tournaments should only be one match and single elimination because having any more matches or having a losers bracket won't prove anything.

only people who would actually be against having 2/3 in ranked are people who are scared of having their opponents adapt from the first match and losing their set.
 

SunsetBlvd

Proven Nappa GOD, 100% VERIFIED Best Nappa NA
I can't think of a single league system of any sport that contains sets
you're off to a slow start with this one right here. bro SFV (which is a shit game) has the option to rematch in ranked.. most people use it. 90% of the ranked play i do in that horrible game is 2/3.

here's what starting off your post with that sentence tells me: you're not even aware of how other games in this same exact genre deal with this issue (let alone irl sports), so you lost me early. sorry.
 
I disagree.

It's normal to adapt to an opponent during a set, that's how fundamentals work. You said it's not the best for casuals, but frankly ranked isn't meant for them, that's why competitive mode is always on.

If the skill gap between the 2 players is huge, the loser can always concede and look for a player of more similar skill level. Besides, the ranking system tries to match players around the same skill.



Special moves should be default though, otherwise they'd be wasted. I mean, personally I've only tried one and I find it pretty sad considering how much more dept and longevity they can provide to the game.
Competitive mode isn't on by default.
 
In the Premier league analogy, actually there are a set number of teams and they do actually play a "set" as you have to play each team in the league twice.

Chelsea and Palace played the same number of games, against the same number of teams, and their positions are determined at the end of that.

This is nothing like ranked online now.

If fact, if ranked were like that, I'm sure more people would be happy.
The 2 games are individual matches not a set, one has no baring on the other.

You get points based on your win to place you on a leader board, that's a league.

Unfortunately it's not possible to have everyone play the same amount of matches, so a weighting system for points is the best we have.
 
by your logic tournaments should only be one match and single elimination because having any more matches or having a losers bracket won't prove anything.

only people who would actually be against having 2/3 in ranked are people who are scared of having their opponents adapt from the first match and losing their set.
I specifically specified a knockout tournament is different from a league and has a different rule set. All explain in my original post. Knockout tournaments should be 3/5 because you can be eliminated, this is not the case in a league. That's the difference.
 

Shadow316

You inspire no fear.
This game is made for all, not just pro/good players and if that casual player gets destroyed in the 1st game how many rage quits do you think there are going to be? What does the other player gain from a 2nd chance of destroying them?
The game is definitely made for all, yes, but ranked is there for players wanting to improve and play in a competitive setting.

What could they gain from being destroyed? How about improving as a player so they stop getting destroyed? What kind of question is that?

Rage quits? Who the hell cares if they rage quit? They're not going to learn anything from rage quitting every match, meaning they won't improve, meaning ranked is completely pointless for them.

Being ranked from a single game is just silly, there's a reason tournament is 2/3 or 3/5 and not just one game. Comparing league systems to different genres or sports is also silly.
 
you're off to a slow start with this one right here. bro SFV (which is a shit game) has the option to rematch in ranked.. most people use it. 90% of the ranked play i do in that horrible game is 2/3.

here's what starting off your post with that sentence tells me: you're not even aware of how other games in this same exact genre deal with this issue (let alone irl sports), so you lost me early. sorry.
I said sport, not game. I'd be ok with a rematch option but not a forced set.
 

Aramonde

Noob
Right so, ranked is a league system not a knockout tournament. I can't think of a single league system of any sport that contains sets; I'm sure there are probably a few but it's not the norm.
NBA, NHL, MLB all have best of seven game series in the playoffs.

Not everyone playing wants to get into a set, casual gamers in particular. This game is made for all, not just pro/good players and if that casual player gets destroyed in the 1st game how many rage quits do you think there are going to be? What does the other player gain from a 2nd chance of destroying them?
Make it like SFV where a player can decline the next match. You need this option for people with horrible Internet.

If you want to play sets you have that option via player matches.
Can't because player matches use gear.

The argument I've seen for sets is, it's a ranked system, the better player should win over a set. There may be valid reasons for a set system but this is the only one I've seen. So to address it I'll reference my point that league systems don't have sets and give you an example. I don't know if any of you follow the English Premier League, but Chelsea won the league. They are the best team in England this season, no question, but they did get beat in a league game by Crystal Palace, a team that finished 14th. Did Chelsea get a best of 3 to prove they're the better team? No. That was proven by their league position. My point being you might lose to a player you're better than but if you are indeed the better player, you rank higher in the league table overall.
Why are you using a physical sports league analogy? Where not playing football here were playing fighting games so how about using the competitive standard for fighting games which is usually best of three or best of five.

I used to believe this was a pride issue; someone got beat by someone they thought they were better than, that they should of won and wanted to prove to themselves or the opponent that they are. Well tough luck, you got beat, hold that. But after reading a lot of comments on the matter the attitude seems to be "how dare that scrub beat me", like some delusional self entitlement. You have to win, it isn't handed to you because you're the "better" player. And even more of an issue is the comments that the opponent did something random or didn't play the game how they're supposed to. That is some next level arrogance! I've got news for you, they can play it anyway they want. If they jump about like a headless chicken and beat you, that's on you. So get your head out of your hole and accept the defeat.
In SFV i've lost to people who did crazy random shit or did the same things a lot. And over 90% of the time i destroyed them in the next two games or they raged quit because someone was punishing their unsafe play. Having sets lets figure out your opponent, thats why ranked should be at least be best of three.
 

SaSSolino

Soul Stealing Loyalist
Really? I was convinced it wasn't.

But why can't casuals play ranked? Maybe they want to get higher on the leaderboards than a friend or just like taking part.
I'm not saying they can't, it just wasn't designed for them.

At the moment more serious players only have ranked to call home, that's why I belive they want it to be a full set.
 
The game is definitely made for all, yes, but ranked is there for players wanting to improve and play in a competitive setting.

What could they gain from being destroyed? How about improving as a player so they stop getting destroyed? What kind of question is that?

Rage quits? Who the hell cares if they rage quit? They're not going to learn anything from rage quitting every match, meaning they won't improve, meaning ranked is completely pointless for them.

Being ranked from a single game is just silly, there's a reason tournament is 2/3 or 3/5 and not just one game. Comparing league systems to different genres or sports is also silly.
A casual player does learn anything from getting destroy, they've no idea why they're getting beat. They are better learning the theory than by getting destroyed.

Again tournaments are elimination based, that's why they need sets. Ranked is a league system not a tournement.
 
NBA, NHL, MLB all have best of seven game series in the playoffs.



Make it like SFV where a player can decline the next match. You need this option for people with horrible Internet.



Can't because player matches use gear.



Why are you using a physical sports league analogy? Where not playing football here were playing fighting games so how about using the competitive standard for fighting games which is usually best of three or best of five.



In SFV i've lost to people who did crazy random shit or did the same things a lot. And over 90% of the time i destroyed them in the next two games or they raged quit because someone was punishing their unsafe play. Having sets lets figure out your opponent, thats why ranked should be at least be best of three.
Seriously! Playoffs and fighting game tournaments ARE NOT LEAGUES, they're knockout tournaments.
 
Then they need to learn the game before going into ranked.
This is the attitude I was talking about, they paid for the game, they can play whichever game mode takes their fancy. If you want a competitive tournament based set system, enter a tournament.
 
congratulations to you, but i want forced sets. and unfortunately, you have no compelling argument. i'm disappointed. it seemed like you had more fight in you.
Ironic considering the only arguments back are, "I want sets" and "tournaments are sets".