A petition to fix the GSP and online system (all help wanted!)

[Mogisthelioma]

Nintendo, when they decide to do something, will never change it even if the community dislikes it. I hate to say it, but it seems like getting a designated for fun/for glory mode back is too big of an overhaul for Nintendo to care. But that doesn't mean the community cant voice their opinion about it.

Below I have several ideas that would make the GSP system easier, less confusing, and to make the online less hectic. Each point is divided into spoilers for your convenience. When you're done reading each point, please click on the poll above if you agree with said point. If you have any other ideas or advice, feel free to mention them in the replies. If you support this list, please consider expressing your support below!

Spoiler: I should not lose GSP for losing a match

I know this sounds a bit salty, but it also makes sense. The purpose of GSP is to track the player's skill. The higher your GSP, the more skilled you are. But losing a game does not make me less skilled. Tell me, when has losing a game instantly made you worse at something? It only means that your opponent was better than you. Losing any GSP at all is almost pointless; it punishes you for losing despite being meant to track your score. Not to mention the horrendous amounts of GSP you can lose from a single match never equal the amount you'll gain after. It doesn't have to be that you lose no GSP at all, but certainly not the ridiculous amounts you can lose today. Losing over 800K GSP makes zero sense. You shouldn't lose more than 5-K-75K GSP from one match.

Spoiler: Elite Smash should have a fixed GSP

Isn't it annoying how you constantly have to work harder and harder to get to Elite? Imagine how much easier it would be if Nintendo decided that after you reach a certain skill level, "You're good, period." Instead of the robust, ever increasing requirements for Elite, it would be less confusing and less stressful to know that you have a certain goal to meet for Elite rather than whatever the hell we have.

Spoiler: I should not be removed from Elite once I reach it.

This is super annoying. have you ever gone to Elite Smash and seen one or more of your fighters no longer highlighted? The game punishes you if you don't play fighters for too long. After you're Elite with enough fighters, it becomes tough to maintain them all as well as get Elite with others more. The game shouldn't punish you if you want to take a break from using one fighter online, and it doesn't make you any worse with that fighter.

Spoiler: Certain online preferences should never be grouped with each other

This is the one you've all ben waiting for. It's super annoying how even in Elite Smash you can get that one little kid who wants to play with items, on a normal stage, a free for all, etc. More severe rule should be omitted from being grouped with others even if it means it takes a bit longer to find a match. People with items, normal stages (with or without stage hazards), stamina battles, KO fest, free for alls, etc. should never be paired with anyone who wants a stock match on a normal stage or without stamina or a 1v1, etc. Less affective changes like Battlefield form, stock count/time limit (unless it's something like 1 stock or only 3 minutes, because that's ridiculous too) should be considered second but also considered more than they currently are. Remember how in Smash 4 we never had to worry about playing with items, landing in a free for all, or playing one stock matches? Now we do, and it's time we changed that.

Spoiler: I should be able to opt not to play in Elite Smash if I don't want to

Unless an option to do this already exists, it would be nice if I could play in a casual GSP-less match as fighters I'm Elite with if I don't want to worry about losing GSP and getting kicked out of Elite Smash.

Spoiler: A set amount of starting GSP and GSP gained per match should be introduced

The game has a pre-set GSP for you but only for fighters you haven't used. Once you pick up a fighter that goes away. This idea coincides with the notion that there should be a set amount of GSP required for Elite. Whatever your starting GSP is, it shouldn't be more than about 500K GSP less than the GSP for Elite, and I should gain between 40K to 75K GSP each game so it shouldn't take more than 7-10 games to get to Elite and not the ridiculous amount it requires now (also assuming that you don't lose much or any GSP at all per match).

So what do you think? If you agree, remember to say so in the poll and feel free to express your support below! If you have any other ideas or advice, make sure to let me know and I'll gladly include them in the list if I think it would make for better online.

 

[Pigzooka]

Having GSP be per profile would have its own issues. Over in the Overwatch community they are pushing for SR (same thing as GSP) to be per hero, not per profile, so that you could try out a new hero without losing ranking on your main. The fact is, if GSP were per profile, people wouldn't feel like they could mess around online and try out new characters unless they had ground them out against local players first. There are downsides to both systems, but, in my opinion, while having good players have to grind out Elite Smash over and over again feels silly, you have to remember that most people are not in Elite Smash and don't deal with that. I sit at 50-200K GSP on most of the characters I play, so the system now is great for me.

 

[RepStar]

They should remove the ****. Keep it in a seperate ranked/for glory mode. Gsp f***s up the playerbase online plus, the paywall. Ultimate sold like crack but the playerbase online is probably less than half the sales. What good is a gsp anyway if theres no leaderboards and nobody can see them in arena matches. Online in this game is just...nintendo.

 

[Crystanium]

Was this thread inspired by a recent video uploaded by Aaronitmar? Well, I think I'll address what I disagree with.

GSP should be per Switch profile and not per fighter.
As far as I'm aware, if you make a new profile, you need to unlock everything all over again and complete World of Light. I don't suppose those sharing a Switch would be up for that. Since this is covering more than just Switch profiles, I don't see the issue in having to get other characters who aren't in Elite Smash into Elite Smash. If I'm exceptionally skilled with Samus, that doesn't mean I'm going to be exceptionally skilled with Ridley. Interestingly, if you have a character in Elite Smash, those who aren't in Elite Smash are more likely to make it in from a single match, provided you win. I did this with Ganondorf, whom I don't even use.

I should not lose GSP for losing a match.
It'd be nice not to lose GSP for losing a match, which is interesting, since Sakurai doesn't seem to like the idea of a leaderboard, since he believes there would be plenty of upset players. I'm sure losing GSP is upsetting as well. Why lose GSP just for losing? This is an odd question. If you gain GSP for winning, why not lose GSP for losing? If you never lose GSP for losing, then how is that showing your skill level? What if there are players who are better than you and consistently defeat you? Are you to suppose that you're as good as them, just because both of you have similar GSP? At Anther's Ladder and the ladder at All is Brawl during the SSBB era, if you lose a set, you lose points. You cannot have a consistent record of your skill if you never lose points for losing.


Elite Smash should have a fixed GSP.
I don't see the problem. Unlike For Glory, SSBU provides you an incentive to maintain your skill and consistency. People were playing Quickplay before I had the opportunity to play online. I thought I'd need a credit card or PayPal. The third option had me thinking I'd have to have Nintendo take money out of my bank account. It wasn't up until January 2, 2019 that I started playing online. Within about an hour-and-a-half of Quickplay, I made it in Elite Smash with Samus. It didn't even take a day to get there in spite of plenty of players having close to a month of experience compared to me.

I should not be removed from Elite once I reach it.
I've been in and out of Elite Smash with Ridley multiple times. In fact, only Samus and Dark Samus are two characters I use who are in Elite Smash. My brother's Ness is in Elite Smash. I got into Elite Smash with Ganondorf after three-stocking a Rosalina & Luma in one match. Needless to say, the whole roster isn't even in Elite Smash, and I'm fine with that.

Certain online preferences should never be grouped with each other.
For the most part, I don't run into players who have different preferences from me that cause me to be annoyed. It's been very rare for me to ever play against someone who plays on a stage that isn't Final Destination or Battlefield. This can differ for everyone else, so I agree with you.

I should be able to opt not to play in Elite Smash if I don't want to.
You might as well just get rid of GSP altogether.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Alright, I've seen the logic in a fighter-by-fighter GSP. I'll remove that one. But it'll stay on the poll since you can't remove options from polls.

 

[Sans3546]

i honestly don't know if it means anything. i wish i could give input but i'm currently stuck at around 1,000,000 gsp right now because i get put in ffa battles that i can never win despite my preferred rules specifically requesting otherwise.

regardless, this thread has my full support because there seems to be something fundamentally broken with the gsp system. ideally, i want a smash 4 based system where the casual and competitive modes are separated. the only difference would be to put an actual elo based system is put in place.

 

[SteadyDisciple]

So... I didn't vote for anything, because there isn't an option for "I don't feel that any of these changes need to be made". There are a couple I'm neutral towards, but most seem to be actively detrimental to the GSP system as a whole. let me go through each of the original points, and explain my stance. Hopefully we can come to an understanding on at least some of these points.

Spoiler: #1: GSP per fighter vs per account

It looks like people have already argued this point pretty well, so I'll keep it short. GSP per fighter allows for players to play characters other than their mains without dragging down the score for their best characters with a loss. Conversely, being really good with a single character doesn't lock you into a score so high that you can't practice with other characters against weaker opponents. Also, from a practical standpoint, no one is equally skillful with every character in the game, so why would you want them ranked as if they were?

Spoiler: #2: GSP loss per match

I really understand this as a "feel bads" argument. It sucks to have your score go own because you lose, especially when it goes down a lot. That said, I think you may have missed a key point of Global Smash Power. The score isn't just an arbitrary measurement of your own skill. It is a measure of how good you are compared to every other person who owns the game and has played that mode. If you were playing against someone with a nearly equal win-loss record and they beat you, making their record now better than yours, it only makes sense that you would move down the rankings to make space for them to move up. Likewise, if there are other players not in your particular match that now have better records than you because you lost, you'd also need to move down to make room for them. This is also why gains and losses can not be static values; it depends on how many other players are now measurably better or worse than you on paper.

Now the heart of this argument appears to be that when you lose GSP, you lose a lot, and when you win, you only gain a little. You should take this as a compliment! Systems like this tend towards the middle. When you lose a fight and lose a lot of points, it's because there were a lot of players close on your heels that were "worse" than you before this change in your record. Likewise, going up only a little indicates that there are fewer spaces left to climb through. Beating layers ranked higher than you also gains you more GSP than beating those you outrank, and likewise losing to someone with a lower score can cause larger drops and smaller gains. All that it means when you win very little and lose a lot is that you're well above average at the game.

You could technically reduce how much GSP is lost per loss still by tuning the system to have every match just count for less. That said, I think this would be a bad idea myself, since it would also reduce how much you gain with each win. This is more opinion, but I would much rather have a system tuned as it is to allow for people to rapidly move through the ranks (forward or backwards) to reflect changes in their skill or the skill of the player base than one where it's hard to move up or down even if you are genuinely improving.

Spoiler: #3: The moving threshold for Elite Smash

So, cards on the table, I don't get why people are so obsessed with making it into Elite Smash. Literally nothing changes in terms of gameplay, the only difference is the display on your menu on your own console, and that your matches are now being considered when balance patches come around. So I'll apologize in advance if this misses your point a bit.

In any case, as it currently stands, Elite Smash is made up of the top percentage of players. Estimates at this time measure that percentage at about the top 3%. If there were 1 million players, you would need a GSP of 970,000 or better to be in. If there were 3 million players total, the cutoff moves to 2,910,000 GSP. While the required GSP is going up, you'll also notice that there are actually more players in Elite as the number of total players increases. This keeps the difficulty level of getting into Elite roughly equal as the player base grows.

To better illustrate why a fixed GSP to get into Elite would be a problem, let's picture this scenario. Let's imagine that the threshold to get into Elite was permanently set at 3.5 million since launch. First issue is, no one would have gotten into elite until there were at least 3.5 million people who had played online. Obviously, that's no good (can't balance a game well without any players good enough to be counted for balancing). Alternatively, lets say that Ultimate goes on to have a thriving online player base of 8 million players. Now over half of the players int he world are in Elite Smash. Do you want a game balanced based on how over half the people playing the game play? At that point you could literally have a losing record and be affecting balance patches, which is a scary thought. The shifting entry point keeps Elite out of the reach of those who don't know how to play the game well, while also letting more and more players in as the game grows.

Personally, I think the current system is too generous. I currently have 6 characters in elite smash. I am not good enough to warrant balancing the game around me. If it were up to me, it would just be, like the top 10,000 players who get into elite. Keep it super exclusive, and make the requirements harder and harder as more competition arises to be at the top.

Spoiler: #4: Falling out of Elite

So again, Elite isn't something that affects game play at all, so I don't understand the draw of this. That said, of course you should fall out of Elite. If the purpose it to help with balance patches, and you're playing poorly enough to fall below the GSP threshold, then it makes sense you shouldn't be counted for that anymore. Also, your GSP doesn't go down from inactivity, it actually tends to go up as new players who are worse than you start playing. That said, you fall out through inactivity because enough people climb past your score that your character is no longer in that top percentage. Would you prefer a system where you make it past the threshold for Elite and don't get in anyway because enough people have stopped playing the characters they are good at and the system can't boot them to make space for you? And if your solution to that question is to just lat the elite smash grow bigger to accommodate more players, we're back to the issue of the previous section.

Spoiler: #5: Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match...

Matchmaking with preferred rules is honestly the closest you've come to finding something I agree with, but even then I'm honestly just neutral towards it. It's a pain to end up with a rule set you don't like, but where would you draw that line? One minute off? Two minutes? A single stock difference? Two? Are battlefield and FD close enough to be the same, or not? This gets to be a really gray area of what is acceptable and what is not, and when you have so many other factors counting like GSP and proximity as well, this will just be hard to tune. Nintendo has already balanced for this once, and they might again in the future, it's hard to say. That said, I think people also overblow this topic. I've sunk literally over a hundred hours into online play, and have gotten one FFA, three matches on random stages, and no matches with items or time or stamina.

That said, if you want to by hyper specific about your rules and prioritize that over wait time and GSP matchmaking, that's what battle arenas are for. Start one for the rules you want, and wait for people to join. It doesn't affect GSP, but again, GSP only affects your matchmaking, so... yeah.

Spoiler: #6: Elite Incognito

Battle arenas are the answer! Matchmaking is slower and not based on GSP at all, but you get to be more specific about the rule sets, and it doesn't affect your GSP, win or lose. I actually use this mode for this purpose, as well as for practicing on stages you can't finagle consistently in Quick Play (I.E. non=battlefield or FD tournament stages). You can start your own arena with the rules you want and wait for people to join, or join an existing one with rules you find acceptable. Being able to adjust the random stage selection is also great. I personally like to play 1 stock, 2 minute matches to keep the line moving so no one has to wait too long to hop back in, including me if I lose.

Spoiler: #7: Starting GSP?

So, let me see if I understand you on this one. You want all characters, including ones you've already played, to have their GSP reset to something just below Elite? But... earlier you said you didn't want to ever be removed from elite, and surely if all the GSP's are resetting you would get reset out of that? I'm so confused by this idea. Do you mean that only the characters you've played poorly with get dragged upwards? That would be nice on an individual level, but implementing it across all players would completely break the entire GSP system. Someone has to be 1, just like someone has to be 2, and 3, and so on.

The system that currently exists for starting GSP is that, if you have never played with a character before, the game attempts to estimate how good you are with them based on how good you are with the characters you have played, and uses that number to start the matchmaking process. Once you play a character though, it has data to base your score on, and it does so. Honestly if I'm reading this one correctly it just sounds like you want the game to give you a handicap, which really grinds my gears. Please, If I've missed the point, elaborate on this further, because I do want to understand.

So... yeah. TL:DR, I feel like all of these are either based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what GSP is, or are already solvable with different online modes. If any of these need clarification, or if you feel like I've missed the point, please let me know and I'll do my best to explain further.

 

[REZERO]

The reason you will lose GSP is because player skill changes over time, your position in the game changes as patches are thrown out and people become more familiar with the game.

Also, you can actually get worse.

 

[Xquirtle]

Other than the option to never get anythng but 1v1 BF omega, I think you are kind of missing the mark on what the system should look like. We have hundreds of examples of games running on a chess style ELO system that would also be best applied here. If you're familiar with say, WoW arena, ELO is a rating system that starts at 1500, and you gain or lose points by winning or losing games. If you beat somebody higher than you, they lose more you gain more and so on. It seems to be most popular to then cover up the ELO with the bronze silver gold plat diamond league systems that we see all over. These are all rooted in ELO, with each league covering a range of the rating. They just add a little more context to the number, which ranges from low hundreds to over 3000.

Anyway, imo, the GSP system is a massive pile of trash and a direct result of their head up their own asses approach and need to reinvent the wheel. It results in awful matchmaking, confusing ranking, and its a worse overall experience for the casual players that it's trying to protect. I'd way rather know that my ranking is bad and get matched against equal opponents, which does not happen with the GSP system. It just does not capture skill consistently enough to really generate good matchmaking until maybe the very very top end of the bracket where basically everybody is pretty good.

You need a voting option to completely get rid of GSP and replace it with a traditional system.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

You need a voting option to completely get rid of GSP and replace it with a traditional system.

I really enjoy the feedback from everyone and I have to say this would make the most since. If Nintendo could just replace GSP with a Halo-style ranking system no one would be complaining.

 

[meleebrawler]

Other than the option to never get anythng but 1v1 BF omega, I think you are kind of missing the mark on what the system should look like. We have hundreds of examples of games running on a chess style ELO system that would also be best applied here. If you're familiar with say, WoW arena, ELO is a rating system that starts at 1500, and you gain or lose points by winning or losing games. If you beat somebody higher than you, they lose more you gain more and so on. It seems to be most popular to then cover up the ELO with the bronze silver gold plat diamond league systems that we see all over. These are all rooted in ELO, with each league covering a range of the rating. They just add a little more context to the number, which ranges from low hundreds to over 3000.

Anyway, imo, the GSP system is a massive pile of trash and a direct result of their head up their own ***** approach and need to reinvent the wheel. It results in awful matchmaking, confusing ranking, and its a worse overall experience for the casual players that it's trying to protect. I'd way rather know that my ranking is bad and get matched against equal opponents, which does not happen with the GSP system. It just does not capture skill consistently enough to really generate good matchmaking until maybe the very very top end of the bracket where basically everybody is pretty good.

You need a voting option to completely get rid of GSP and replace it with a traditional system.

Fundamentally GSP is the exact same thing as the traditional system you're pushing for, and is just as prone as ''poor matchups'' as what we have now. Look at Pokken. That's as traditional a ranking as it gets, and yet even though I'm a mid-B rank, I still frequently get matched up with people outside of that, sometimes even all the way down to E, the lowest. There are many factors that go in matchmaking, especially in Ultimate. It has to juggle your preferences, latency and your current GSP, all done as quickly as it can manage. There will be times where there simply aren't any players on that fulfill all that criteria perfectly. Should the game just not let you play them at all if this happens? It's also why you sometimes get matched up with the same person you left; the alternative is giving you a potentially laggy match just for the sake of someone different.

The only real detriment to GSP itself is the psychological aspect, and because of that it just feels like a very low priority thing to ''fix'', because the kinds of people who complain about number representing ''skill'' in a game likely get upset about it going down regardless of the form it takes.

 

[Xquirtle]

Fundamentally GSP is the exact same thing as the traditional system you're pushing for, and is just as prone as ''poor matchups'' as what we have now. Look at Pokken. That's as traditional a ranking as it gets, and yet even though I'm a mid-B rank, I still frequently get matched up with people outside of that, sometimes even all the way down to E, the lowest. There are many factors that go in matchmaking, especially in Ultimate. It has to juggle your preferences, latency and your current GSP, all done as quickly as it can manage. There will be times where there simply aren't any players on that fulfill all that criteria perfectly. Should the game just not let you play them at all if this happens? It's also why you sometimes get matched up with the same person you left; the alternative is giving you a potentially laggy match just for the sake of someone different.

The only real detriment to GSP itself is the psychological aspect, and because of that it just feels like a very low priority thing to ''fix'', because the kinds of people who complain about number representing ''skill'' in a game likely get upset about it going down regardless of the form it takes.

This is just not true. GSP is a straight ranking of the player base based on a hidden metric that we cannot see. Fundamentally, it is a leader board with zero context that also ranks players that haven't even played a single game. Traditional systems are based on a rating, not a rank. I would not use Pokken as an example since Nintendo is notoriously trash at designing these systems. If you go play a game of LoL, you will be matched with players almost exclusively in your small window. You would never see a silver league player if you are in platinum. Anyway, the fact that there are huge mismatches basically proves that there is not a traditional rating system behind the GSP readout. ELO does not behave this way, especially when there are many millions of players on the ladder.

 

[meleebrawler]

This is just not true. GSP is a straight ranking of the player base based on a hidden metric that we cannot see. Fundamentally, it is a leader board with zero context that also ranks players that haven't even played a single game. Traditional systems are based on a rating, not a rank. I would not use Pokken as an example since Nintendo is notoriously trash at designing these systems. If you go play a game of LoL, you will be matched with players almost exclusively in your small window. You would never see a silver league player if you are in platinum. Anyway, the fact that there are huge mismatches basically proves that there is not a traditional rating system behind the GSP readout. ELO does not behave this way, especially when there are many millions of players on the ladder.

Pokken was developed by Namco, not Nintendo. Also, you just described other systems giving a base ELO to start with, instead of just being zero or null until enough games are played. Isn't that exactly what you claim Ultimate is doing?

It doesn't matter what you intend to do with the matchmaking, prioritizing one thing comes at the expense of another. Maximizing accuracy sounds great on paper, but will you be able to stomach the wait times or having a very small pool of available players at any one time? Considering the general reaction to arenas which do just that for rulesets (as well as latency and skill level with the right descriptions), the answer seems to be ''no''. What we have now is a nice balance between speed and accuracy, with only small concessions made in the latter compared to at launch which leaned too much towards speed; the only reason to have extreme deviations from your preferences at this point is just flat out not being able to find people that share them.

Getting upset over a number just feels really petty to me, because even the ''best designed'' ranking/rating systems can't perfectly gauge a person's skill.

 

[Luigifan18]

Pokken was developed by Namco, not Nintendo. Also, you just described other systems giving a base ELO to start with, instead of just being zero or null until enough games are played. Isn't that exactly what you claim Ultimate is doing?

It doesn't matter what you intend to do with the matchmaking, prioritizing one thing comes at the expense of another. Maximizing accuracy sounds great on paper, but will you be able to stomach the wait times or having a very small pool of available players at any one time? Considering the general reaction to arenas which do just that for rulesets (as well as latency and skill level with the right descriptions), the answer seems to be ''no''. What we have now is a nice balance between speed and accuracy, with only small concessions made in the latter compared to at launch which leaned too much towards speed; the only reason to have extreme deviations from your preferences at this point is just flat out not being able to find people that share them.

Getting upset over a number just feels really petty to me, because even the ''best designed'' ranking/rating systems can't perfectly gauge a person's skill.

People tend to be petty, especially when they can't keep selfishness in check.

 

[Xquirtle]

Pokken was developed by Namco, not Nintendo. Also, you just described other systems giving a base ELO to start with, instead of just being zero or null until enough games are played. Isn't that exactly what you claim Ultimate is doing?

It doesn't matter what you intend to do with the matchmaking, prioritizing one thing comes at the expense of another. Maximizing accuracy sounds great on paper, but will you be able to stomach the wait times or having a very small pool of available players at any one time? Considering the general reaction to arenas which do just that for rulesets (as well as latency and skill level with the right descriptions), the answer seems to be ''no''. What we have now is a nice balance between speed and accuracy, with only small concessions made in the latter compared to at launch which leaned too much towards speed; the only reason to have extreme deviations from your preferences at this point is just flat out not being able to find people that share them.

Getting upset over a number just feels really petty to me, because even the ''best designed'' ranking/rating systems can't perfectly gauge a person's skill.

Why are we talking about the semantics of Pokken, which is by no means a highly revered fighting game for anything, especially its online play? ELO systems do start you at a certain rating which then goes up or down, but they don't include players with zero games played on the ladder. That comment was specific to smash ultimate ranking your characters that you have zero games played on, and forcing people to compete versus your made up ranking. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to have a second layer called an MMR (match making rating) that your actual rating is moving towards. MMR is more volatile and what it does it gets you playing against players of your own skill level more quickly, while dragging your true rating up behind it. By the time that both meet up, you have demonstrated that you belong at that ranking without wrecking on tons of inferior players along the way,

We don't have "speed" because we sit on the warm up screen for way too long, and we don't have "accuracy" because the rating system is trash. Like do you seriously think that there is any significant wait to find a player plus or minus 200k of your GSP at any point on the ladder? The way that a match making system should work is that it searches for players near your rating and expands outward over time. With hundreds of thousands of concurrent players, there is no noticeable wait time. In a dead game, sure. Try queuing up a 1v1 in For Honor and you can watch it expand its search field for an opponent, but its a dead game so itll eventually just take anybody. As for accuracy, i would imagine that you have noticed yourself being paired with opponents that are wildly far off of your own rank by now. Beyond that, the current system takes a massive chunk of a low GSP players rank even if they lose to somebody 1.5 million ranks higher. Its just illogical.

I'm not suggesting that anybody get upset over their GSP ranking. That would not be congruent with my argument that it is total worthless garbage. It is only meaningful to newer players that would prefer not to be stuck in the low GSP hellhole of wifi players using weird rule sets. What i AM suggesting is that GSP be torn down and updated to a modern rating and match making system that has been proven over and over again in the most successful games in the world.

 

[meleebrawler]

Why are we talking about the semantics of Pokken, which is by no means a highly revered fighting game for anything, especially its online play? ELO systems do start you at a certain rating which then goes up or down, but they don't include players with zero games played on the ladder. That comment was specific to smash ultimate ranking your characters that you have zero games played on, and forcing people to compete versus your made up ranking. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to have a second layer called an MMR (match making rating) that your actual rating is moving towards. MMR is more volatile and what it does it gets you playing against players of your own skill level more quickly, while dragging your true rating up behind it. By the time that both meet up, you have demonstrated that you belong at that ranking without wrecking on tons of inferior players along the way,

We don't have "speed" because we sit on the warm up screen for way too long, and we don't have "accuracy" because the rating system is trash. Like do you seriously think that there is any significant wait to find a player plus or minus 200k of your GSP at any point on the ladder? The way that a match making system should work is that it searches for players near your rating and expands outward over time. With hundreds of thousands of concurrent players, there is no noticeable wait time. In a dead game, sure. Try queuing up a 1v1 in For Honor and you can watch it expand its search field for an opponent, but its a dead game so itll eventually just take anybody. As for accuracy, i would imagine that you have noticed yourself being paired with opponents that are wildly far off of your own rank by now. Beyond that, the current system takes a massive chunk of a low GSP players rank even if they lose to somebody 1.5 million ranks higher. Its just illogical.

I'm not suggesting that anybody get upset over their GSP ranking. That would not be congruent with my argument that it is total worthless garbage. It is only meaningful to newer players that would prefer not to be stuck in the low GSP hellhole of wifi players using weird rule sets. What i AM suggesting is that GSP be torn down and updated to a modern rating and match making system that has been proven over and over again in the most successful games in the world.

That initial number for unplayed characters is actually your roster GSP, an average of all your used character's GSP. It starts somewhere middling, where it can adjust very quickly to how well you do, and carries over to all your unplayed characters so that you won't have to start from complete scratch to get where you're comfortable.

Yes, sometimes I meet players with a noticeable gap in GSP compared to mine. Sometimes I get my arse kicked by people on the lower end. Does this never ever happen in other games? All that matters to me is that it's very rare that matches are so easy they bore me to tears or so hard as to feel completely helpless.

None of the games you mention have to contend with loads of variables in rulesets

 

[Xquirtle]

That initial number for unplayed characters is actually your roster GSP, an average of all your used character's GSP. It starts somewhere middling, where it can adjust very quickly to how well you do, and carries over to all your unplayed characters so that you won't have to start from complete scratch to get where you're comfortable.

Yes, sometimes I meet players with a noticeable gap in GSP compared to mine. Sometimes I get my arse kicked by people on the lower end. Does this never ever happen in other games? All that matters to me is that it's very rare that matches are so easy they bore me to tears or so hard as to feel completely helpless.

None of the games you mention have to contend with loads of variables in rulesets

1. The unplayed characters are still occupying a rank. GSP is a leaderboard, so it's one person per rank, even if its an inactive character. This means that if i never played Ridley (hes one of my mains) you would be competing against my default ranking on your main. This just adds a layer of ambiguity to the entire thing, and it then goes and match makes you, although vaguely, off of that ranking. It's inherently a bad thing to judge a players skill and then match make by comparing them to other players that don't even directly participate in that ranking.

2. You some times get beat up by lower gsp players because the system is bad and the ranking is volatile and skewed by inactives. My experience on the WoW arena ladder, which is an ELO system with MMR, is that you generally are quite close to your opponents until you start to get into the upper percentile of players where it is more willing to put you against somebody a lot better than you since there are very few players at those ratings. In this instance, its really good players getting put against really really good players, and the inferior team wins a ton of rating for winning, and loses hardly any for losing. THis is not fresh inexperienced potatos going against players that are many many times better.

3. The rule sets in Ultimate are also trash. I think they are a great idea for a casual system, but they don't belong in any sort of ranked setting at all. BF omega 3 stock 8 minute is all nintendo needs to do on the real ladder. That variable could be easily eliminated from match making at their discretion.

 

[meleebrawler]

1. The unplayed characters are still occupying a rank. GSP is a leaderboard, so it's one person per rank, even if its an inactive character. This means that if i never played Ridley (hes one of my mains) you would be competing against my default ranking on your main. This just adds a layer of ambiguity to the entire thing, and it then goes and match makes you, although vaguely, off of that ranking. It's inherently a bad thing to judge a players skill and then match make by comparing them to other players that don't even directly participate in that ranking.

2. You some times get beat up by lower gsp players because the system is bad and the ranking is volatile and skewed by inactives. My experience on the WoW arena ladder, which is an ELO system with MMR, is that you generally are quite close to your opponents until you start to get into the upper percentile of players where it is more willing to put you against somebody a lot better than you since there are very few players at those ratings. In this instance, its really good players getting put against really really good players, and the inferior team wins a ton of rating for winning, and loses hardly any for losing. THis is not fresh inexperienced potatos going against players that are many many times better.

3. The rule sets in Ultimate are also trash. I think they are a great idea for a casual system, but they don't belong in any sort of ranked setting at all. BF omega 3 stock 8 minute is all nintendo needs to do on the real ladder. That variable could be easily eliminated from match making at their discretion.

If it's not good as a ranking, then don't treat it as one. Just a means to get people to fight others close to their skill levels, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, I don't think GSP was ever intended to function that way. Elite Smash was created to monitor the characters, not the players.

All I know is Ultimate with it's GSP has done more to give me good matches than For Glory ever did. The only reasonable concession I can think of is to perhaps give a separate GSP for each of the three main modes online (FFA, 1V1 and doubles), to help promote experimentation and diversity.

 

[staindgrey]

Having GSP be per profile would have its own issues. Over in the Overwatch community they are pushing for SR (same thing as GSP) to be per hero, not per profile, so that you could try out a new hero without losing ranking on your main.

Isn't that just called Quick Play?

 

[FunAtParties]

I wanna share my ideas and thoughts on the online preferences

In solo queue the options should go as follows:

1v1
2v2
FFA
Custom

After clicking one (other than Custom), the game will ask you "Items" or "No Items", and then "Stock", "Time", or "Stamina" mode. This is the basic set-up for each mode. The people you're grouped with will still be based on your preferences which I will describe in a minute.

Preferences:

Preference will be grouped by the modes, so you can customize 1v1, 2v2, FFA all separately. You can also opt to "hard ban" things, so you're never stuck playing with them.

Stock preferences:
-can prefer the amount of stocks you want to play with (1-4)
-can prefer the timer for a stock match(4:00-8:00)

Time preferences:
-can prefer timer for a timed match (4:00-8:00)

Stamina preferences:
-can prefer damage meter (150%-500%)
-can prefer the timer for a stock match(4:00-8:00)

Item preferences:
-can set items to high, medium, low (remember off isn't an option here, because you can just select "No Items" before joining a queue)
-can go smash balls/meter only
-can select specific items to turn on or off (queues will take longer)

Stage preferences:
You will be able to select up to any 10 stages you want. The game will match you with anyone that shares even 1 stage with you. From there, you see the stage list they have, and can accept any additional stage you want, with the default stages being the ones that you already share. This will allow for a more diverse stage list without forcing you to play on maps you hate.

Example of stage preferences:

Player 1 picks: Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville (hazards on), Town and City (hazards on), Lylat Cruise, Fountain of Dreams, Onett, Dreamland, Pokemon Stadium 2 (hazards off), and Wily's Castle (omega)

Player 2 picks: Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville (hazards off), Castle Siege, Halberd, Delfino Plaza, Corneria, Dreamland, Yoshi's Island, and Pokemon Stadium 1 (hazards off)

In this example, the only stages that would be available immediately would be: Final Destination, Battlefield, and Dreamland.

The separate Pokemon Stadiums, while being similar, would still need for the opposing player to approve of it first. Same goes with the hazard and hazardless versions of Smashville, because they are still seen as different stages. All of player 2's stages will be shown to player 1 and vice-versa after they get queued together, and can be approved manually from there. Any accepted stages will join the stage list they can choose from after every match.

Additional stage rules:
-can turn on rules like loser picks, winner picks, or stage select at random

As mentioned, Custom doesn't follow preferences and works just like the Battle Arena where you can make your own rules and play with anyone, or with just friends. Unlike Battle Arena, you can set up a tournament-esque style, or allow multiple matches to take place at once in the same lobby, so no need for waiting for a couple people to finish their match when multiple other people are there.

 

[CaP_Omega]

I. . . don't really side with any of these ideas. If anything, I think GSP should be completely disconnected from any offline content. Getting a high GSP from classic mode is really easy, so people of any skill level get a free pass into Elite Smash. As a result, both Elite Smash and GSP are kinda pointless.
So. . . Yeah, I vote for no offline GSP ranking. That's what points are for anyway.

 

[meleebrawler]

I. . . don't really side with any of these ideas. If anything, I think GSP should be completely disconnected from any offline content. Getting a high GSP from classic mode is really easy, so people of any skill level get a free pass into Elite Smash. As a result, both Elite Smash and GSP are kinda pointless.
So. . . Yeah, I vote for no offline GSP ranking. That's what points are for anyway.

Offline GSP doesn't do anything online.

 

[CaP_Omega]

But it does. You can actually just raise your GSP just by playing classic mode. It's the reason every single character I haven't played in quickplay is in fact at a base of like 3-mil in quickplay.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

But it does. You can actually just raise your GSP just by playing classic mode. It's the reason every single character I haven't played in quickplay is in fact at a base of like 3-mil in quickplay.

GSP in offline modes is separate from GSP in quickplay, IIRC.

 

[CaP_Omega]

GSP in offline modes is separate from GSP in quickplay, IIRC.

. . . That still doesn't explain how my classic mode GSP score and my unplayed quickplay character GSP score are exactly the same. I mean, I just don't understand how classic mode couldn't effect the quickplay GSP score. It's too coincidental.

 

[Xquirtle]

If it's not good as a ranking, then don't treat it as one. Just a means to get people to fight others close to their skill levels, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, I don't think GSP was ever intended to function that way. Elite Smash was created to monitor the characters, not the players.

All I know is Ultimate with it's GSP has done more to give me good matches than For Glory ever did. The only reasonable concession I can think of is to perhaps give a separate GSP for each of the three main modes online (FFA, 1V1 and doubles), to help promote experimentation and diversity.

My entire point was that it is a bad system and that I would like for them to redo it. Not sure where you are extracting anything other than that I think its bad out of my posts lol. GSP is definitely meant to be a visible ranking system, since you know, they made it visible when smash 4 FG very specifically did not show a ranking. As far as I can tell, FG had no actual skill based match making at all, so yes, this is an improvement from nothing. Regardless, Nintendo is charging us a monthly fee for this. It is sub par, has no ladder, confusing numbers, and random item and stage jank. They are a triple A company with nearly unlimited resources to make the online experience incredible, and they choose to have online play that is inferior to half of the early access games out there.

 

[meleebrawler]

My entire point was that it is a bad system and that I would like for them to redo it. Not sure where you are extracting anything other than that I think its bad out of my posts lol. GSP is definitely meant to be a visible ranking system, since you know, they made it visible when smash 4 FG very specifically did not show a ranking. As far as I can tell, FG had no actual skill based match making at all, so yes, this is an improvement from nothing. Regardless, Nintendo is charging us a monthly fee for this. It is sub par, has no ladder, confusing numbers, and random item and stage jank. They are a triple A company with nearly unlimited resources to make the online experience incredible, and they choose to have online play that is inferior to half of the early access games out there.

I'd consider GSP a ranking system if there were actual leaderboards you could see with player names. As it stands all it tells me is that I get matched with people close to that number and can see their skill for myself. I'm just capable of having fun with what it is instead of angsting about what it isn't. The devs are never going to go through all the trouble designing things to completely cater to a very small portion of their buyers. Would the stuff you suggest be nice? Maybe. Do I need it? Heck no, and I imagine neither do a lot of players who don't frequent sites like this.

Also, using the tired old ''we're paying for this ****'' argument is lame and misguided. It's called ''Nintendo Switch Online'', not ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Online Subscription''. The devs of Ultimate probably don't get a cent of what you spend on Nintendo's subscription, so any complaints on that directed on them likely fall on deaf ears.

 

[ItsLogic]

I have to say the biggest issue with online play is that you get matched up with different preferences. But otherwise yeah, the GSP needs some help

 

[Xquirtle]

I'd consider GSP a ranking system if there were actual leaderboards you could see with player names. As it stands all it tells me is that I get matched with people close to that number and can see their skill for myself. I'm just capable of having fun with what it is instead of angsting about what it isn't. The devs are never going to go through all the trouble designing things to completely cater to a very small portion of their buyers. Would the stuff you suggest be nice? Maybe. Do I need it? Heck no, and I imagine neither do a lot of players who don't frequent sites like this.

Also, using the tired old ''we're paying for this ****'' argument is lame and misguided. It's called ''Nintendo Switch Online'', not ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Online Subscription''. The devs of Ultimate probably don't get a cent of what you spend on Nintendo's subscription, so any complaints on that directed on them likely fall on deaf ears.

Look, if you want to redefine what a ranking system is for your own comfort, that's fine. GSP is a straight ranking of players. That is a fact. I'm not sure what your goal is here, but this is a forum. Forums are places where we talk about things, often times things that will never happen. You decided to respond to my 'opinion' with false information about GSP, so I elaborated on what a traditional ranking system is, how GSP is not one, and why ELO systems are better. If you are happy with GSP's mediocrity, then good for you. I don't see why you feel the need to argue with somebody suggesting that we improve the system. For that matter, you aren't arguing anything discernible at all.

 

[meleebrawler]

Look, if you want to redefine what a ranking system is for your own comfort, that's fine. GSP is a straight ranking of players. That is a fact. I'm not sure what your goal is here, but this is a forum. Forums are places where we talk about things, often times things that will never happen. You decided to respond to my 'opinion' with false information about GSP, so I elaborated on what a traditional ranking system is, how GSP is not one, and why ELO systems are better. If you are happy with GSP's mediocrity, then good for you. I don't see why you feel the need to argue with somebody suggesting that we improve the system. For that matter, you aren't arguing anything discernible at all.

It just isn't feasible to have a truly competitive mode for Smash's online. Battlefield only might seem the most balanced, but some mains will still wish they could counterpick to FD or something like they could do locally. Multiple legal stages in general opens the can of worms people feeling they got screwed by a bad random selection. And it has to be random unless you force best-of-three for the whole stage-striking song and dance. And that won't work well either because two 3-stock 7-minute matches minimum is an awful long minimum amount of time for an online session. It greatly increases the chances of a connection error or other real-life interruptions ruining your run, and few people have the mental fortitude to stick out another match or two if they get stomped. Oh, and the lag. You could have a connection rating showing like Aces but with how few people are willing to dedicate so much time to get good at such a mode, you will spend far more time dodging low bars than you'd think.

You can bring up things you'd like to see, that doesn't mean others can't raise points explaining why they aren't likely to happen.

 

[Mischiiii]

GSP per Fighter: having separate gsps for every fighter is better in my opinion because you might be a 3,3 million with link while sucking hard with villager for example. So basically you won’t have a even fight when playing non main characters.

Not Losing GSP: This would mean a player who joins later down the line will never reach top level. Also This would basically mean playing more games makes you a higher rank than someone who plays less and has actually more skill. And since GSP is a rating of skill making you not lose points a bad option. I have the feeling the more you play the less you gain or lose. I’m always between 2,9 and 3,3 Million GSP with my Main. So it’s pretty constant for me.

Fixed amount of GSP for getting into Elite: Doesn’t work because GSP max increases with player count. In December 700.000 was enough for Link to get into Elite. Now it’s roughly 3,4 million. But as sales decrease this border to Elite will stabilize. So this will probably be a thing in a few months.

Losing Elite: Elite is for the best players. If you get worse and more people will surpass you you should drop out because otherwise there will be too much elite players. And from my experience you just drop out when playing the character. Im in elite with just Dark Samus and never touched her since because i main link now. I’m still in Elite and her GSP even got higher than it was when i got into elite.

Preferences: totally agree with this point. I just want 1v1 on omega or battlefield.

Opting out of elite: thats not good as people who are good would get paired with worse players making an uneven matchup.

Gain per match and set starting amount: again this would mean people who play more and have leas skill will have more GSP than people with more skill and less playing time. Also GSP rises pretty quickly when you start playing online. A friend of mine got from 1,6million to 2,9 in a few matches.

I would like to see a bronze silver gold ... system with fewer increments so you have a more stable rank.

 

[mangojuice]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but my question doesn't warrant a new one either. But is it possible to get 0 GSP? lol.

The reason why I ask is when i play online, if I know I'm better than someone, i tend to drop after a couple games in favor or finding someone better. So what ends up happening is I'm constantly losing - which i don't mind.

 

[Oneiros5321]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but my question doesn't warrant a new one either. But is it possible to get 0 GSP? lol.

The reason why I ask is when i play online, if I know I'm better than someone, i tend to drop after a couple games in favor or finding someone better. So what ends up happening is I'm constantly losing - which i don't mind.

This is one of the reason why GSP is completely irrelevant and doesn't make sense. You don't gain more GSP if you beat someone at 3 million than if you beat someone at 500K, therefore, it is not representative of your skill. And player who only rematch when they win will obviously reach Elite Smash faster and get a higher GSP wether they're better or not than you.
As for 0 GSP, I don't think so. I think the minimum is 1 GSP.

As for the vote, I didn't vote for anything.
Too many of those options are about not getting kicked out of Elite Smash once you reach it, which doesn't make sense. As any game, if you get a rank, you can lose it.
Players skill change overtime and because someone is better now compared to let's say 90% of other players doesn't he's still going to be in one or 2 months.

Not losing GSP would mean that you always get better. That would end up in ridiculous rank, it doesn't make much sense to me (even less than the current GSP system tbh).

Preferred rules, I would say yes and no. I think they should introduce to separate mode, competitive and casual. With a better ruleset than For Glory. And we should keep the preferred rules for battle arenas.
This systement is too messy right now with too many options, unless everyone agrees on a ruleset to use, there's no chance you always end up with yours, which make this system completely obsolete.



As a general thought, I would say that having competitive and casual mode separated would be the best option. Not really getting rid of the GSP since at least it can match you with people at the same level as you (more or less).
Maybe keeping that information in the BG to avoid people grinding for it would be nice though.
And getting rid of Elite Smash. This mode is useless and doesn't add any function whatsoever. All it does is inciting people to grind and play only to increase their rank.

 

[Xquirtle]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but my question doesn't warrant a new one either. But is it possible to get 0 GSP? lol.

The reason why I ask is when i play online, if I know I'm better than someone, i tend to drop after a couple games in favor or finding someone better. So what ends up happening is I'm constantly losing - which i don't mind.

GSP is just your rank so the minimum is 1. There is at least 1 youtube vid of somebody running from 1 GSP to elite. Starts at 1 with the highest being equal to the number of players that have gotten ranked online. Far as I know, nobody knows exactly what the highest spot is, and its always increasing as more people buy the game and play online.