Why is it that I don’t win any gsp even when I win a match online ?

[Momento]

So more often than not, I would win a match online and I don’t win any gsp and sometimes I would win meaningless amounts (the last one was like 2000 gsp) is there a reason or is ranked really that broken ?

 

[~?~]

Well, I'm approaching 4.7 million with Link. I noticed that the higher you climb in rank, the slower your GSP grows. The reason is because the GSP only tells you how many people you outperform with your character. It's not some randomized ranking number count. If your GSP is 3,000,000, it's because you're better than 3 million other people who play the character. So naturally, when you climb to the higher GSP levels, there are less people to trump over, so less score to obtain. Pretty straight forward.

If you didn't get any GSP at all, it's because your opponent did 1 of 2 things. Rage quit and turned off the console at the end, or suicided their Nintendo Switch through the wall.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

This happens to everyone either when your opponent disconnects from a match or when the connection is god awful.

 

[Crystanium]

Well, I'm approaching 4.7 million with Link. I noticed that the higher you climb in rank, the slower your GSP grows. The reason is because the GSP only tells you how many people you outperform with your character. It's not some randomized ranking number count. If your GSP is 3,000,000, it's because you're better than 3 million other people who play the character. So naturally, when you climb to the higher GSP levels, there are less people to trump over, so less score to obtain. Pretty straight forward.

Herein lies the flaw with GSP. If you lose to someone who has less GSP, you might end up losing 2k. The problem is that you aren't suddenly worse than 2k players. Skill doesn't work that way. I don't know how a better system would be made, but my GSP is then telling me I'm better than 4.75 million players with Samus and Dark Samus. Really?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

The GSP system is fundamentally flawed. The goal of it is to determine the ranking of each player by your score representing how many people you outrank. However, this means that the game thinks that by losing a match, you are somehow objectively worse than the amount of people equal to the amount of GSP you lost. By losing a game, you aren't somehow worse at the game, it just means your opponent was better than you (provided the ruleset was fair, of course). It doesn't make sense how the GSP system can possibly accurately rank the players when it actively punishes them for losing.

This, among several other reasons, is why GSP needs to be replaced.

 

[JiggyNinja]

The GSP system is fundamentally flawed. The goal of it is to determine the ranking of each player by your score representing how many people you outrank. However, this means that the game thinks that by losing a match, you are somehow objectively worse than the amount of people equal to the amount of GSP you lost. By losing a game, you aren't somehow worse at the game, it just means your opponent was better than you (provided the ruleset was fair, of course). It doesn't make sense how the GSP system can possibly accurately rank the players when it actively punishes them for losing.

This, among several other reasons, is why GSP needs to be replaced.

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? The most fundamental part of any ranking system is winning=good, losing=bad. I think it is fundamentally impossible to have a ranking system that doesn't punish losing. Losing will make your rank go down.

Let's make some broad assumptions about GSP. Let's assume there's some score behind it, and your GSP is determined by your position in the strict order of that score. Let's further assume that winning adds to the score, but losing doesn't change it so the score value is monotonically increasing. Losing in this system will still lower your rank even if it doesn't lower your score. That's because a ranking will always be relative to the scores of other players. You'll be stuck at the same score, but other people that were just behind you will win and advance ahead of you, dropping you down the ranking.

It's one thing to quibble over details, but this is just ridiculous. If you can actually come up with a system where losing won't drop your rank, I'd like to see it.

 

[meleebrawler]

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? The most fundamental part of any ranking system is winning=good, losing=bad. I think it is fundamentally impossible to have a ranking system that doesn't punish losing. Losing will make your rank go down.

Let's make some broad assumptions about GSP. Let's assume there's some score behind it, and your GSP is determined by your position in the strict order of that score. Let's further assume that winning adds to the score, but losing doesn't change it so the score value is monotonically increasing. Losing in this system will still lower your rank even if it doesn't lower your score. That's because a ranking will always be relative to the scores of other players. You'll be stuck at the same score, but other people that were just behind you will win and advance ahead of you, dropping you down the ranking.

It's one thing to quibble over details, but this is just ridiculous. If you can actually come up with a system where losing won't drop your rank, I'd like to see it.

We gotta try to carefully consider which online complaints and suggestions aren't just fueled by salt.