​(I couldn't find any other threads on this topic, so I apologize if one already exists.)

I would like to see a ranked or competitive mode for PvP for several reasons. One key point would be matching players against others with similar profile ranks, such as profile rank 10-15, 15-20, 20-25, and so on. This in particular would show us the player's game time in PvP mode, mainly for an objective oriented perspective (Capture and Control and Seize Ground). However, that is not to say profile rank alone determines if a player knows what they're doing in a match. I've seen plenty of level ~20s in back to back matches where they have questionable scores while playing a high ranked class level. 

Another factor to take into consideration for a ranked/competitive mode would obviously be the player's overall stats. Objective score, KDR, etc.

It's a real nuisance when either team has players that are low level or simply not playing the objective due to their lack of experience or game sense. Having an unbalanced match clears up the lobby real fast, and even if the unfortunate losing players stay, I can only speak for my small group and I, but the win just feels unearned and unsatisfied.

I'd like to know others' thoughts on this and have a discussion about this addition to PvP.

They've had hidden metrics in games that evaluate skills forever. It should be based on that rather than level. 

I feel like rank 25 only takes a few hours to get to, so probably easy to predicate that you're level 25 to play ranked. 

it's nice in theory but a bit premature; scoring is really not reflective of contribution to a win.  Most games are carried by the efficacy of your Bulwark or Heavy, and that is not likely to be reflected in the scores.   `

yes, now whenever I am paired with lower level players vs a highing ranking player team its a mystery, specially when you have people that have cheats to see you cloaked. Then if you have another high lv player it will leave and the match will become unfair, this will end up with me abandoning the game as well until I find a more balanced one.

You can see camoline cloaked enemies without cheats. Just for the record. If you couldn't it would be too much, as it is, it's just pretty hard to track. 

Heavy and Bulwark aren't the determining factors in the games I play most the time, but they do help a great deal when they know how to form the anvil. 

I feel like if you're blocking bullets and the people gets killed it would contribute either with an assist or one of the 10 point boosts. 

​

MrsHeadshott wrote:
Heavy and Bulwark aren't the determining factors in the games I play most the time

Most games are objective based and the team with the best Bulwark will crush those.  In TDM it's not really relevant, but that's only approx. 1/3rd of games played, and certainly the most 'accessible' game mode.  If damage blocked was recorded for points, you would see very different scores

Hello,

Before this escalates further,

I proposed a variant of this idea for Competitive/Rank for PvP in the Idea's Tab of the Forum back before Early Access with the Admin responding that they would be taking the idea of Ranked/Competitive back to their team to ideate and potentially develop. (Quote: "Hi! Thanks for the suggestion. We will look into it, and see what we can do on our end!")

So, just saying - The Dev Team is aware.

Idea Link

Feel free to keep discussing though, I am sure any positive discourse would help in the development of it.

​

Chaplain_KIMCHI_GURU wrote:

Hello,

Before this escalates further,

I proposed a variant of this idea for Competitive/Rank for PvP in the Idea's Tab of the Forum back before Early Access with the Admin responding that they would be taking the idea of Ranked/Competitive back to their team to ideate and potentially develop. (Quote: "Hi! Thanks for the suggestion. We will look into it, and see what we can do on our end!")

So, just saying - The Dev Team is aware.

Idea Link

Feel free to keep discussing though, I am sure any positive discourse would help in the development of it.

Forgive me, I was not aware of this. Thank you for linking the thread!

I don't think blocking would be awarded point for point, but accomplishing things like getting the attackers killed or holding a point would be worth something. 

Just have to get better at dealing with Bulwarks as a unit of gamers. Lol.  There's so many easy answers a pistol and krak works Everytime. 

----

I like the notions in that thread quite well! 

I particularly like the varied game modes described. 

A class queue could also be a decent idea, and limit the matches to one of each class. 

I think that would be lots of fun. 

Ce n’est pas parce que vous avez un ratio négatif que vous êtes mauvais. Avec 20 assistances, en étant Heavy, vous avez très bien fait votre boulot ! Vous devez mettre les choses en contexte, en fonction de la classe que vous utilisez.

It is frustrating to teammates that seem lost or do not understand that they need to focus on objectives. I think something along the lines of ranked or something similar could at least balance the teams to some degree.

20 assists is still worth 10 kills. Kill stealing isn't a thing. It's a team game, you win together. The entire team is enabling kills and deaths with positioning. 

There is no reward for getting a kill except points, so why does it matter? 

20 assists is a good stat.

But yeah this is just a talk about an idea, not about everything needed and in what order. 

And yeah I suggested level 25 to allow ranked play. Seems like it would get people to be less... How people are when they think higher level equipment is better. 

In this game, grenades are improvements for sure, but there are very few exceptions to most of the weaponry being side grades. 

+1 just for engagemant

Would love to see ranked mode come to the game, this could be a way for them to add 6 player squads so we can q as a full team.

​

JontheNerd wrote:

It is frustrating to teammates that seem lost or do not understand that they need to focus on objectives. I think something along the lines of ranked or something similar could at least balance the teams to some degree.

Well, I doubt it will have any impact.  Players ignoring objectives are design-driven behavior, not unique to SM2 - players who feel there is no chance to win tend to treat objective games as a form of extended team deathmatch (objective matches are longer than pure team deathmatch).  

"Yes, perhaps we will lose the game, but get satisfaction by leading kills on my team or across both teams."

Potential solutions:

1. Re-balance objective modes so that they aren't one-sided, including random lobbies
   
2. Include training modes that teach players how to play objective-based games (most have no clue)
3. Stop tracking kills and deaths in objective-based play so that there is only one reward

​

MrsHeadshott wrote:

20 assists is still worth 10 kills. Kill stealing isn't a thing. It's a team game, you win together. The entire team is enabling kills and deaths with positioning. 

There is no reward for getting a kill except points, so why does it matter? 

While I agree, gamer reality is the gamer with the most points, if not kills, is the winner, and gamers with low kills are losers.  Most gamers are not team players, not beyond the people they know 'IRL'.  That's why you see kicks in PvE, that's why you see players leaving winning lobbies because they think there are too many losers in the lobby, and that's why objective-based modes that blend team deathmatch trend into ghost towns - objective based gamers don't have fun playing objective games with death match players, and death match players don't have as much fun as when they play pure death match.

to be a 100% fair to SM2, none of this is unique to SM2, and it sucks that gamers don't naturally form teams.  The very different classes do promote team play as well as anything I have seen, and a strong team of 2-3 can lead the other 3-4 to solid team play.  Things can fall apart ,but it is cool when randos come together to do the thing in annihilation, supporting and rescuing one another with their class strengths when others are faced with class weakness.  Part of this is just human psychology and how we treat members of our tribe (team chat) vs neighbors to our tribe (team lobby) vs others (the opposing team); how we feel outside the game (good or bad), and some of it is just how gamers traditionally do not communicate with each other.   

The current objective modes are 100% viable with a true team of six. 

​

Ultramar wrote:
While I agree, gamer reality is the gamer with the most points, if not kills, is the winner, and gamers with low kills are losers.  Most gamers are not team players, not beyond the people they know 'IRL'.

high school 'game theory' nonsense.  if this were true no one would ever play healer