Additional Cyrodiil ranking system (detailed suggestion&poll)

LEGENDARYYY

Intro
The last few months I’ve been complaining on forums about Cyrodiil not being competitive. This thread is a constructive one, focusing on how to improve Cyrodiil ranking rather then whine about it’s current state.

Yes, I haven’t given up on this game just yet…

Not all servers
This ranking system could be added to just one of the servers. Leaving people the option to choose whether they like the casual play, AP farming PvP, or hardcore stats-based competetive ladder PvP. This system is not meant to replace the current AP leaderboard system.

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass casualists. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself. This means people can be as casual as they want, and not suffer elitists laughing at their stats in a heated discussion or leaving them out of guilds etc.

It should encourage any type of build and playstyle. This leads to a system divided into four ladders, one for each role, and one for hybrids. (Damage Dealer, Healer, Tank, Versatile)

If it’s easy for ZOS to implement, perhaps they’ll actually consider it.. Well, yes, it uses data that already exists in ESO. ZOS can even keep their current casualist leaderboard system, with this new ranking system as an addition to it. It doesn’t get easier then this.

The ranking system should make it possible for a skilled player to win, regardless of online time. Time spent doesn’t play any key part in these rankings. You naturally have to play for a few hours to win, but you can beat a guy that has 40 hours more /played then you a week. You won’t know for sure if you are winning or not unless you are online though, because it is VERY dynamic!

It adds increased risk vs reward. Amount of deaths is a key part of this system. But, if you don’t go head first into major battles, you’ll never reach the top score.

The ranking UI has to be interesting enough for people to constantly want to have a look at it. Together with dynamic rankings, theres a session stat window where you can have a look at various personal stats. Personal stats like these are in the most popular PvP add-ons, and is clearly wanted.

Calculations
VR5 or lower players:
X = 1.5
VR5-VR10 players:
X = 1.2
VR10-VR14 players:
X = 1.0

Damage Dealer
Score = Damage done/deaths*X

Healer
Score = Healing done/deaths*X

Tank (updated May 13th)
Because tanking is hard to measure, we need a slightly more complex calculation
Y = 1.5
you get the Y if you wear 5 pieces of heavy armor. (50% more score) To avoid damage dealers and healers to beat a decent tanks score.
Score = ((damage taken+damage blocked)/deaths)*X*Y

Versatile
Score = (Rank in Damage Dealer + Rank in Healer + Rank in Tank)/3

How would this work?
If you play for 1 hour, take 1000000 dmg, and die 20 times, thats 50k score. If a guy plays for 5 minutes and takes 100k dmg and dies twice, thats the same 50k score! That's the whole point of this system. It's dynamic, based on skill, and not amount of time played.

More maths
You get 30 kills without being in a huge fight, equals maybe 600k dmg, and you don't die. your score is 600k, and that is a pretty good job. But, you will be punished for taking the easy route and not join big fights.

The other guy enters a large AvAvA. Uses some AOE dmg and gets 50k in one hit. He hits maybe 5 times with a catapult, and dies once. 250k/1 = 250k. He goes back into the fight, and dies immediately 250k/2 = 125k. He goes back in to battle. this time he hits 8 times (400k dmg) and dies. Remember, his total damage done overall is what counts. (250k+400k)/3 = 216k. Then, he steps up his game, he survives for 30 minutes (not unusual), and with a good position against multiple people he does maybe 2k dps average over a total of 30 minutes, and dies. 2k*60*30 = 3600k dmg. (650k+3600k)/4 = 1062,5k score. He enters battle and dies immediately again. He still has done a total of 4250k dmg, but died 5 times. He has 850k score, beat you that had 0 deaths because he took a risk joining the big fight and got rewarded for it.

Screenshot example



Why isn’t the score visible in the ladder? (Updated May 13th)
Because, when working with this system I figured it would be a flaw. The healer and dd numbers are much higher then tank numbers. You can heal and damage 10 ppl at once, but damage taken numbers is only linked to yourself. Which means with visible scores, a top10 tank would have higher score in healing then tanking. And at the same time a much lower rank in healing. It would look wrong and ridiculous. When score is hidden and only rank is visible, it doesn’t matter at all, and the system both looks and functions as it should.

In addition, a system with hidden scores will avoid people to reach a high rank and log off to secure the win. They have no idea how close they are to getting beaten, it would make them want to keep on playing. The lower ranked players will keep trying to advance in the system, because they have no idea how far behind they are. They'll just notice their rank increase step by step if they play good, and it will be motivating.

Rewards?
PLENTY! Top10 on each leaderboard starts glowing during battle. The same animation and glow like when you go to kill Molag Bal. Everyone around you will notice that you are top10, and you will feel *** special, until you die and your rank is lowered, or someone just catches up to you. DOH! (No stat boost or anything to ruin the competitive and fair play)

By the end of the war (week, month, whatever PvP server ur on), you will get special rewards that depend on which role you focused on. If you were top10 in Damage Dealer ladder, then you would get some special dps gear. If you were top10 in healer, well, you’d get special healer gear, etc. Versatile would get special gear for hybrid builds.

On top of that, top20 should be rewarded with in game gold. In example, 100k to the winner, 75k to the other top10s, 35k to rank 20-10.

And, of course, titles! “PvP Damage Dealer”, “PvP Healer”, “PvP Tank”, “PvP Versatile”. Honorable and incredibly rare ranks that people would /kowtow to when you enter a city.

Flaws?
I've found one weakness so far, and that is if people use the Equilibrium Skill(Mages Guild) damage themselves and increase Damage taken rank. This could be solved by making equilibrium not affect Damage taken numbers.

I think I’ve worked out most flaws with the system by now. I’ve thought a lot about this. If I’ve missed something, please let me know in the comments section. The number (X) may have to be changed to balance things. ZOS has much more statistics and data then me, and they should easily be able to figure this out.

Do you want a system like this?

@ZOS , I hope you vote YES.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Rook_Master

No, thanks

I would say yes if I didn't think the servers would take a massive crap when this was implemented.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

Rook_Master wrote: »

I would say yes if I didn't think the servers would take a massive crap when this was implemented.

The servers already store most of the data in this system. Look at your achievements, healing done etc. etc.

BuggeX

I don't know

Wy do you think someone can catch up someone Play longer?
if i Play 40h/w and tank 1kk dmg, how would you do this in 4h/w?
i dont see a different, exept you take a part the roles and rewards

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

BuggeX wrote: »

Wy do you think someone can catch up someone Play longer?
if i Play 40h/w and tank 1kk dmg, how would you do this in 4h/w?
i dont see a different, exept you take a part the roles and rewards

Because when you DIE you will lose score? It's totally dynamic. If you tank 1000000 dmg, and die 20 times, thats 50k score. If a guy tanks 100k and dies twice, thats the same 50k score! That's the whole point of this system.

Guess ill have to specify this in the original post.

FireCowCommando

No, thanks

I dont feel that kills/death ratios are a good way to rank things. People enjoy just messing around and not always taking it serious, but when you start a ranking based off deaths some players will get very mad at their friends when going for the top slot.

I would like a ranking system, but i cant imagine one that works inside of cyrodiil.

BuggeX

I don't know

ahh then i missunderstod this

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

FireCowCommando wrote: »

I dont feel that kills/death ratios are a good way to rank things. People enjoy just messing around and not always taking it serious, but when you start a ranking based off deaths some players will get very mad at their friends when going for the top slot.

I would like a ranking system, but i cant imagine one that works inside of cyrodiil.

Its not a kill death ratio ranking.

jkemmery

I don't know

To me there also needs to be a way to tie it to alliance points, not just combat stats. I'm all for a weighted system based on veteran rank/ levels, as well as a system that takes in to account how much time you spend and gives diminishing returns on time logged, but I also feel that participating in quests should also be included in the rankings.

Just my thoughts.

ThatRedguardGuy

I don't know

There would need to be a system to benefit players who have been sucessful for longer, otherwise a brand new player could hop in, be extra careful and get 30 kills with no deaths in 15 minutes and be ranked #1. (Multiply the score by a decreasing exponential value of the total damage/heal/tank count).
Another problem with this is it will cause players to be more cautious overall which will lead to more boring encounters. Nobody will want to be a maniac and leap into a crowd of enemies for fear of death since a single death can have such a huge impact on your score.

Ffastyl

Yes, please

I retract my comment.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

ThatRedguardGuy wrote: »

There would need to be a system to benefit players who have been sucessful for longer, otherwise a brand new player could hop in, be extra careful and get 30 kills with no deaths in 15 minutes and be ranked #1. (Multiply the score by a decreasing exponential value of the total damage/heal/tank count).
Another problem with this is it will cause players to be more cautious overall which will lead to more boring encounters. Nobody will want to be a maniac and leap into a crowd of enemies for fear of death.

30 kills is what, maybe 20k hp of a player times 30 kills = 600k dmg max, and you didn't die? good job. But, a guy that puts one meteor into a croud of people can do dmg multiplied a bunch of times and probably 100k a hit. If he is in that fight for a minute without dying he has much more dmg done per deaths then the 30 kills guy? And then, the 30 kills guy has to start risking his life to compete, and ends up dying. Then, the meteor guy dies, and so on..

lolo_01b16_ESO

No, thanks

There needs to be a reward for helping your alliance to win the war, not just for spamming healing springs / steel tornado / fire ring.
Furthermore your system is very easy to abuse.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

lolo_01b16_ESO wrote: »

There needs to be a reward for helping your alliance to win the war, not just for spamming healing springs / steel tornado / fire ring.
Furthermore your system is very easy to abuse.

I've thought about it. I've found one weakness, and that is equilibrium use to boost your Damage taken rank. I'll add it to the post with a possible solution. DD and Healer ranks would take days to abuse because the dmg and heal inflicted numbers are enormeous when you heal 10 players or dmg 10 players at once in a large fight. Not even four friends abusing together could reach the top for days I think, and surely not top10 which is where you get rewards.

nastuug

No, thanks

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass noobs. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. Skilled players will be noticed by everyone like they deserve, unskilled players won’t. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself.

This sounds very elitist. What's the deal with all this, "I must be recognized for the awesomeness that I am," crap? Wth happened to enjoying PVP for what it is?

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

nastuug wrote: »

show previous quotes

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass noobs. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. Skilled players will be noticed by everyone like they deserve, unskilled players won’t. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself.

This sounds very elitist. What's the deal with all this, "I must be recognized for the awesomeness that I am," crap? Wth happened to enjoying PVP for what it is?

What I meant was that if you are top10 in this ranking system then you surely have worked hard for it and you deserve it. Unskilled players will not be noticed as unskilled players, because their stats are not visible. They won't be laughed at by elitists or left out of guilds, etc. etc.

I changed the sentence;)

nastuug

No, thanks

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

show previous quotes

nastuug wrote: »

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass noobs. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. Skilled players will be noticed by everyone like they deserve, unskilled players won’t. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself.

This sounds very elitist. What's the deal with all this, "I must be recognized for the awesomeness that I am," crap? Wth happened to enjoying PVP for what it is?

What I meant was that if you are top10 in this ranking system then you surely have worked hard for it and you deserve it. Unskilled players will not be noticed as unskilled players, because their stats are not visible. They won't be laughed at by elitists or left out of guilds, etc. etc.

I changed the sentence;)

What you're asking for is an even further separation of the elitist/hardcore crowd and the casual crowd. Things like this typically don't end with the "balanced/fair" results you are claiming.

ThatRedguardGuy

I don't know

Another example: You join a campaign and group up with your team. As you join, you happen to run into a large group so you run into them and wipe them. It's possible for that new player to have top score in his group if they had just wiped the time before (even if they have been in there demolishing players for hours). Dying only 2 times literally halves your score, meaning after the second death, you might as well give up your hopes at a top rank against someone who has not died or only died once.

With your current formula, having several deaths and tons of kills is worse than 1 death and a few kills. It would be best if instead of dividing your score, a death subtracted a substantial amount (that amount could be adjusted based on your current score).

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

ThatRedguardGuy wrote: »

Another example: You join a campaign and group up with your team. As you join, you happen to run into a large group so you run into them and wipe them. It's possible for that new player to have top score in his group if they had just wiped the time before (even if they have been in there demolishing players for hours). Dying only 2 times literally halves your score, meaning after the second death, you might as well give up your hopes at a top rank against someone who has not died or only died once.

With your current formula, having several deaths and tons of kills is worse than 1 death and a few kills. It would be best if instead of dividing your score, a death subtracted a substantial amount (that amount could be adjusted based on your current score).

It's the same ratio, no matter what. Except when you have 0 deaths. I have played K/D ranked games before, It's not like you can't win if you die 5 times in the beginning? And this is damage dealt, healing done, damage taken, means larger and more varied numbers depending on if u do huge fights or not.

I'll repeat myself. You get 30 kills without being in a huge fight, equals maybe 600k dmg, and you don't die. your score is 600k, and that is a pretty good job.

The other guy enters a large AvAvA. Uses some AOE dmg and gets 50k in one hit. He hits maybe 5 times with a catapult, and dies once. 250k/1 = 250k. He goes back into the fight, and dies immediately 250k/2 = 125k. He goes back in to battle. this time he hits 8 times (400k dmg) and dies. Remember, his total damage done overall is what counts. (250k+400k)/3 = 216k. Then, he steps up his game, he survives for 30 minutes (not unusual), and with a good position against multiple people he does maybe 2k dps average over a total of 30 minutes, and dies. 2k*60*30 = 3600k dmg. (650k+3600k)/4 = 1062,5k score. He enters battle and dies immediately again. He still has done a total of 4250k dmg, but died 5 times. He has 850k score, beat the you that had 0 deaths, and hasn't even been playing well.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

nastuug wrote: »

show previous quotes

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

nastuug wrote: »

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass noobs. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. Skilled players will be noticed by everyone like they deserve, unskilled players won’t. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself.

This sounds very elitist. What's the deal with all this, "I must be recognized for the awesomeness that I am," crap? Wth happened to enjoying PVP for what it is?

What I meant was that if you are top10 in this ranking system then you surely have worked hard for it and you deserve it. Unskilled players will not be noticed as unskilled players, because their stats are not visible. They won't be laughed at by elitists or left out of guilds, etc. etc.

I changed the sentence;)

What you're asking for is an even further separation of the elitist/hardcore crowd and the casual crowd. Things like this typically don't end with the "balanced/fair" results you are claiming.

There is nothing to do for elitist/hardcores. That is what separates the groups. The elitist/hardcores leave the game, casuals stay, because they can fish indefinitely and enjoy it. I actually envy that, because I used to myself. It does not hide the fact that successful MMOs needs something for elitists. Why do casuals have to be so egoistic? I present a system that they can just ignore, but that would make my day. Yet, I'm the bad guy here?

Xevothian

Here is another flaw, not that im looking for any intentionally. Who would become Emperor? Which branch? Damage dealer, healer, tank, and versatile? I can't be all four or just one. It would make the goal to reach one of them unbalanced or we would have four reigning Emperors. That isn't right. Just a thought

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

Xevothian wrote: »

Here is another flaw, not that im looking for any intentionally. Who would become Emperor? Which branch? Damage dealer, healer, tank, and versatile? I can't be all four or just one. It would make the goal to reach one of them unbalanced or we would have four reigning Emperors. That isn't right. Just a thought

Yeah, I thought to keep the current system of leaderboards, AP and everything just as it is. With the suggested rankings as an addition. Then people could choose what they want to focus on. New ESO feature: Want to be casual or hardcore? The choice is yours.

Zhoyzu

Yes, please

I do kind of like this. i never cared about the AP farming scores. Been using that add on kill counter for some time and it basically displays all this kind of information.

8/10 I support this idea. lost 2 points because ZoS lazy and wont be implemented by them.

If you made this an Add-on ( or someone else ) 10/10 would use

Attorneyatlawl

Yes, please

I've suggested many system changes or additions along these lines since beta, and while none have ever been acted upon, I still support this kind of idea to this day . "Yes" vote from me.

Attorneyatlawl

Yes, please

nastuug wrote: »

show previous quotes

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

The idea behind the new ranking system
It has to be rewarding for skilled players, but at the same time not embarass noobs. The system rewards top skilled players with special animations in PvP, and special gear that fits their playstyle. Skilled players will be noticed by everyone like they deserve, unskilled players won’t. For those who ain’t top skilled, it is still a nice way to measure themselves against top players, unseen. Top20 is the only visible part of the ladder, and if you are below, no one can see your rank but yourself.

This sounds very elitist. What's the deal with all this, "I must be recognized for the awesomeness that I am," crap? Wth happened to enjoying PVP for what it is?

You do realize this is an online game played with or against other people to fight either npc or player enemies in a competitive environment, right? This isn't "everyone won!" online. If you don't want to compete then don't. You can have fun as much as you want. More competitive minded players can't much of the time due to lacking game features like this thread's, or a passable user interface. It is fair to ask that we be given a little love too, since we paid and continue to pay for the game.

C0pp3rhead

I don't know

I'm not sure that the system as you've proposed here would work. In PvP, your role can change very quickly and the PvE roles of healer/tank/dps are not as clear in PvP.

Why it wouldn't work: player roles are fluid.

Spoiler

Because you cannot taunt players, tanking doesn't really mean much in PvP. Sure, you can throw yourself in the middle of a group and soak up a bunch of damage, but you're a distraction more than a tank per se. As a healer, I take LOTS of damage. When enemies see me throw my hands in the air (like I just don't care) spamming BoL, they tab target me. I heal through it and depend on my allies to take care of the bad guys. On top of that, your skills and strategies will change depending on the situation. When running solo or on a small group, I slot and use mostly damaging abilities. When in a large raid, I will slot almost exclusively healing and support abilities. In this case, versatile would be the only meaningful category, making the categories useless.

A simple Kill/Death ratio for ranks won't work because healers don't land killing blows.
A thought that occurs is, "If you are healing the person making the killing blow, could that lend to your score?" The problem is: if you can improve your score by having a heal on the person making the killing blow, we'll have hordes of folks running about just spamming mutagen/rapid regen.
A ratio of damage taken to deaths doesn't work because NB's and Sorcs can take damage then stealth/streak away, resulting in (in my mind) fewer deaths.

As I see it, the current system works okay. You get AP for killing foes that have lived longer, are a higher rank, and that you have killed fewer times. You get large amounts of AP for defending/taking a keep against superior numbers of enemies. You get smaller amounts of AP for defending/taking a keep against inferior numbers.
______________


The most important part of your idea still stands. A per capita point system is ideal. There are many skilled players with limited amounts of play time. There are also very bad players with almost unlimited playtime. I have run with some very talented players that can spare only an hour or so every few days for this game. I have seen awful players get emperor because they are online more than everyone else, and thus always present for offensive/defensive ticks (even though they were dead for most of the fight). The top 10 on any alliance's leaderboards is pretty closely correlated with time played. In other words, the top players are often those who are online the most.

Working towards a better solution: compare your AP gains during a certain time to other players.

Spoiler

An interesting idea for a points system might be as simple as AP earned per hour (AP/h). You would have to be logged in for a minimum amount of time (perhaps an hour) to prevent players from simply porting in, catching a D-tick, then quickly porting out. However, the weakness of this system is that dedicated players who help win campaigns lose out. I know several dedicated raid leaders who spend the bulk of their time leading their guilds to victory and coordinating with others in order to win campaigns. A simple AP/h system minimizes the importance of their contribution, especially if they don't play during peak hours where AP gains are the highest. In order to control for players who are not on during prime time, you would have to measure their AP gains in terms of a percentage of total AP gains across class, alliance, and overall. In other words, you would have to know exactly how much AP other players gained during one player's time-played. Finally, your rankings look like this:

Overall: ( playerAPgain / totalServerAPgain ) / hours
Alliance: ( playerAPgain / totalAllianceAPgain ) / hours
Class: ( playerAPgain / totalClassAPgain ) / hours

What do you think?

Ley

Yes, please

On the surface I think I like this but I just feel like it would need some fine tuning and adjustments or it would be very susceptible to exploitation and/or encourage "cheap" game-play tactics to achieve top ranks. I'm a bit too tired right now to give it more thought at the moment but I'll come back tomorrow and see what other people think.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

C0pp3rhead wrote: »

I'm not sure that the system as you've proposed here would work. In PvP, your role can change very quickly and the PvE roles of healer/tank/dps are not as clear in PvP.

Why it wouldn't work: player roles are fluid.

Spoiler

Because you cannot taunt players, tanking doesn't really mean much in PvP. Sure, you can throw yourself in the middle of a group and soak up a bunch of damage, but you're a distraction more than a tank per se. As a healer, I take LOTS of damage. When enemies see me throw my hands in the air (like I just don't care) spamming BoL, they tab target me. I heal through it and depend on my allies to take care of the bad guys. On top of that, your skills and strategies will change depending on the situation. When running solo or on a small group, I slot and use mostly damaging abilities. When in a large raid, I will slot almost exclusively healing and support abilities. In this case, versatile would be the only meaningful category, making the categories useless.

A simple Kill/Death ratio for ranks won't work because healers don't land killing blows.
A thought that occurs is, "If you are healing the person making the killing blow, could that lend to your score?" The problem is: if you can improve your score by having a heal on the person making the killing blow, we'll have hordes of folks running about just spamming mutagen/rapid regen.
A ratio of damage taken to deaths doesn't work because NB's and Sorcs can take damage then stealth/streak away, resulting in (in my mind) fewer deaths.

As I see it, the current system works okay. You get AP for killing foes that have lived longer, are a higher rank, and that you have killed fewer times. You get large amounts of AP for defending/taking a keep against superior numbers of enemies. You get smaller amounts of AP for defending/taking a keep against inferior numbers.
______________


The most important part of your idea still stands. A per capita point system is ideal. There are many skilled players with limited amounts of play time. There are also very bad players with almost unlimited playtime. I have run with some very talented players that can spare only an hour or so every few days for this game. I have seen awful players get emperor because they are online more than everyone else, and thus always present for offensive/defensive ticks (even though they were dead for most of the fight). The top 10 on any alliance's leaderboards is pretty closely correlated with time played. In other words, the top players are often those who are online the most.

Working towards a better solution: compare your AP gains during a certain time to other players.

Spoiler

An interesting idea for a points system might be as simple as AP earned per hour (AP/h). You would have to be logged in for a minimum amount of time (perhaps an hour) to prevent players from simply porting in, catching a D-tick, then quickly porting out. However, the weakness of this system is that dedicated players who help win campaigns lose out. I know several dedicated raid leaders who spend the bulk of their time leading their guilds to victory and coordinating with others in order to win campaigns. A simple AP/h system minimizes the importance of their contribution, especially if they don't play during peak hours where AP gains are the highest. In order to control for players who are not on during prime time, you would have to measure their AP gains in terms of a percentage of total AP gains across class, alliance, and overall. In other words, you would have to know exactly how much AP other players gained during one player's time-played. Finally, your rankings look like this:

Overall: ( playerAPgain / totalServerAPgain ) / hours
Alliance: ( playerAPgain / totalAllianceAPgain ) / hours
Class: ( playerAPgain / totalClassAPgain ) / hours

What do you think?

Yes. If you play the way you explain, you are playing different roles and will have a good rank in Versatile. I agree that the tank role is a bit hard to measure. A healer might get more damage taken score then tanks during a fight.

The healer and dd rankings does not have that same problem.

A way to fix this could be to add more variables to tank score. Say, damage blocked and heavy armor set of 5 pieces (Y) equipped could increase score. Something like ((damage taken+damage blocked)/deaths)*X*Y

Aballister

Yes, please

I'll go with yes, but if your going to start adding number of deaths into the mix, then the server will need to be much more stable than they currently are.

C0pp3rhead

I don't know

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

Yes. If you play the way you explain, you are playing different roles and will have a good rank in Versatile. I agree that the tank role is a bit hard to measure. A healer might get more damage taken score then tanks during a fight.
The healer and dd rankings does not have that same problem.

I disagree. I know plenty of sorcerers and NB's who slot a resto staff on their off-bar for shield stacking & off-heals.

A way to fix this could be to add more variables to tank score. Say, damage blocked and heavy armor set of 5 pieces (Y) equipped could increase score. Something like ((damage taken+damage blocked)/deaths)*X*Y

Armor pieces? I run around in 5 pieces of heavy Seducers armor as a healer. Alotta wpn damage stacking builds use Ravager's set pieces (heavy armor). I know many 'tanky' builds that run 4 Heavy/3 medium (for the stam regen). Armor does not determine role.

My point with the above post is that the clearly defined PvE roles of Tank/Healer/DPS do not translate to PvP. As I said before, you can't tank PvP. If you try to perma-block in PvP, you're going to wind up out of stamina and dead. (I watched an Emperor try it a few days ago - he died). If you run around solo without any self-heals or sustain, you're going to wind up dead. Adding in a versatile category does not help as most players would fall into this category anyway.

On top of this, it is relatively easy to reach 20k heals per second spamming healing springs. Steel Tornado and Impulse have diminishing damage the more targets they hit. There is no way to compare healing done in a battle v. damage done in a battle. In large group battles, "tanking" is a pointless strategy because you're only going to be hit by a few stray projectiles while standing in the middle of a riot. If I only heal, I will have a higher score than other players, especially when sieging a keep.

In Sum:
1. The tank/healer/DD roles do not translate to PvP.
2. Healing given, Damage dealt, and Damage blocked are incomparable and cannot serve as the basis for a ranking system.

LEGENDARYYY

Yes, please

C0pp3rhead wrote: »

show previous quotes

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

Yes. If you play the way you explain, you are playing different roles and will have a good rank in Versatile. I agree that the tank role is a bit hard to measure. A healer might get more damage taken score then tanks during a fight.
The healer and dd rankings does not have that same problem.

I disagree. I know plenty of sorcerers and NB's who slot a resto staff on their off-bar for shield stacking & off-heals.

show previous quotes

A way to fix this could be to add more variables to tank score. Say, damage blocked and heavy armor set of 5 pieces (Y) equipped could increase score. Something like ((damage taken+damage blocked)/deaths)*X*Y

Armor pieces? I run around in 5 pieces of heavy Seducers armor as a healer. Alotta wpn damage stacking builds use Ravager's set pieces (heavy armor). I know many 'tanky' builds that run 4 Heavy/3 medium (for the stam regen). Armor does not determine role.

My point with the above post is that the clearly defined PvE roles of Tank/Healer/DPS do not translate to PvP. As I said before, you can't tank PvP. If you try to perma-block in PvP, you're going to wind up out of stamina and dead. (I watched an Emperor try it a few days ago - he died). If you run around solo without any self-heals or sustain, you're going to wind up dead. Adding in a versatile category does not help as most players would fall into this category anyway.

On top of this, it is relatively easy to reach 20k heals per second spamming healing springs. Steel Tornado and Impulse have diminishing damage the more targets they hit. There is no way to compare healing done in a battle v. damage done in a battle. In large group battles, "tanking" is a pointless strategy because you're only going to be hit by a few stray projectiles while standing in the middle of a riot. If I only heal, I will have a higher score than other players, especially when sieging a keep.

In Sum:
1. The tank/healer/DD roles do not translate to PvP.
2. Healing given, Damage dealt, and Damage blocked are incomparable and cannot serve as the basis for a ranking system.

You should read the thread one more time. The ladders are independent. They got nothing to do with eachother. How is it a problem if you get more healing points then damage points when those are completely separate?? And if you wear 5x heavy then you are more tanky.

And, even though roles aint easy to separate in PvP, these rankings still measure your performance within the different roles. If you do good in all of them, you are versatile.