Suggestion: ELO-inspired ranking system for the Battlegrounds

Nayawin14

An ELO Ranking System for the BattleGrounds: Why it is necessary and how it should work.

---

Introduction: The extent system leads to Broken queue, unbalanced teams, unfair behaviors from opponents

Hi all,

Tonight I was going for some battlegrounds - wanted to make some crystals and heard there were a nice daily reward here potentially to grab on every characters... was not disappointed : P

So lets be clear, since the first battlegrounds I did with Morrowind Chapter arrival in 2017, there are A LOT MORE of ARENAS, which are really nice btw, but rather nothing else has changed:

i. the queue was more or less broken with today's patch... 1/3 of my characters were able to reach an arena. Then, I got trapped in a famous 'Dead' arena where the match never started.

ii. The player behavior/differences in skills and build made it hard to enjoy the damn things.

Examples:
°Took your new pve stamplar? Found with 3 sympathetic but rather non-OP characters for a death-match, and start contemplating the 2 other teams fighting precisely at our spawning flag, and focus me - the highest CP of the team ofc... So, I got the records of deaths AND kills in my team...

°Took your old Lulamae-breathing-fire-dragonborn "bloodletter" butcher PvP DK? I found myself opposed to obviously beginners or chilling PvEers. To sum up: this are the kind of occasion some people await to unlock their 'paragon' title, but too me, after killing them again and again restlessly I started to feel embarrassed and I am not sure I enjoyed it that much... At the end.

I conclude from this (long) preamble that battlegrounds queuing system i. can be perfected and ii. that it is finally hard to have a lot of fun in a random battlegrounds - due to inequalities

---

Presentation of the ELO system - useful for ranking and matching

If the battleground random matching system has to be re-think, why not having some kind of ELO ranking system. ELO rankings are a type of rankings designed by Apard Elo and used by the FIDE to rank Chess players since the 60s. The basics is to have an initial baseline ELO score for each player, upgraded after each official match based on the strength of the player and its opponent, and the outcome of the match. Adapted to be applied to a battleground match - that is, for example, to take account of the share of the medals earn by a player over the sum of medals earned during the match (and eventually also the ELO scores of the participants themselves, but I won't discuss this to keep it understandable), could be very useful to both i. design an ELO score for battlegrounds, that will be much more representative of players skills than Cumulative medal scores on the extent leaderboard where top players simply farm points, and ii. to help with a matching based mostly on these ELO scores.

---

ELO rankings and matching - details of some options:

The basics of this ELO system would be the following:

1) The extent leaderboards and matching/queuing system would be replaced by leaderboards and a matching system based on ELO scores. The extent system of medals would be unchanged, and is at the very basis of the ELO score upgrade after a match, based on the share of medals obtained by a player compared to the sum of medals earned during this match, basically.

2) The ELO points would be character-based (to allow you to queue with a different character without risking your high ELO score to be damaged).

3) Each character that never entered a battlegrounds starts with some initial baseline ELO score (e.g., 1400 ELO). Then, this character's ELO score will NEVER be reset, but upgraded after each match. Nevertheless, for characters figuring on the leaderboard there would be a penalty for inactivity, for example simply a monthly decrease of the ELO scores of those characters.

4) The main difference between an ELO score and the extent score based on cumulated medals is that the ELO score would be upgraded after a match on the basis of your share of the medals earned during this match. Therefore, your number of medals (playing the game), your rank within your own team and your medals compared to the medals delivered to the other teams would determine your performance, leading to potential positive AS WELL as negative upgrade of your ELO score INSTEAD of having a score that is simply a cumulative addition of medals earned by yourselves match after match. This considerably reduces the importance of farming in reaching the top of the leaderboard.

Examples:
°Concretely, If you did the top job and earn a fair share of the medals during the match with a NEW character, your ELO score get pumped up.

°This increase of score is lower though if your ELO score is already high (ELO scores are saturating, typically for example around 2,500, preventing any later possibility of farming)

°If you did well in a match, but not much better than the others, then your ELO likely does not move at all...

°If you got a poor share of the total medals earned in a match, you are likely to experience a reduction of your ELO score. Once again, this reduction is larger for a high-scored character (and ELO are never reset - therefore, people aiming at reaching and keeping top scores should ALWAYS play fair, or they will be immediately punished by some heavy loss in ELO scores) than for a novice one (and there would be a point where, if you fall too far below the initial 1400 points, you cannot loose anymore points).

5) The matching system also would take account, when enough people are available, of the ELO scores to maximize the chances of balanced teams.

6) The leaderboard(s) would display the name of the 100 Characters with the highest ELO scores.

7) Eventually, we should get rid of the separate rankings for the different type of battlegrounds and should add a ranking for matches issuing from the solo-queue and matches issuing from the group one. That is, the outcome of matches you entered while queuing as a full group would not affect your character's ELO score on the solo leaderboard, and vice-versa. This implies each character can figure on both solo and group leaderboards, with different/independent ELO scores, on theory.

---

Why is this system thrilling?

°ELO scores are a fair and highly indicative way of scoring the 'strength' of people.

°The matching would be more than ever fair (opponents/team having balanced ELO scores), with reduced risk of people doing non-sense to boost their kill counters instead of playing the game and earning medals (as this would result in a decrease of their ELO scores), and allow you to solo-queue with any character without shivering...

°ELO scores rankings can lead to VERY COMPETITIVE battles at the top of the leaderboards, and every failed matches are severely punished for the top-players. Which is from far more exciting than endless farming races!

°Being permanent and character-based, ELO scores would imply more long term management for the challengers, instead of just taking holidays, playing a lot of bgs and finishing top 10... once.

°Despite they never reset, ELO scores will still potentially vary with every Patches and Skill changes, and with the arrival of new strong players at the top.

°There could be a reward system based on reaching diverse ELO scores' thresholds, with a lot of new rare achievements (like the 'Master' rank for 2ooo ELO in Chess), and other gifts...

SO: This new system would benefit the top players as well as any people aiming at a relaxed, balanced battleground match. ELO scores are more representative of the skill of a player than the farmed extent scores. And it would be a great way for people to check their rank in regards of other players to improve themselves, and to plan objectives for their different characters.

---

I've seen, and am sure there are plenty of other topics, made by more experiment PvPers than me, but I didn't find one as detailed, or at least not involving an ELO-like system, so I have to say I enjoyed starting this post; Please, if you think some topics already discussed all these issues, link these topics below.

I did not adapt/discussed in details the important features in the FIDE ELO rankings where the up-grade depends on the two players initial ELO score as well. This could be made. For example, if you solo-queued and end up against a team made of players being on the top of the leaderboard, earning few medals will not result in a huge drop of your ELO score as it was much lower than the ones of your opponents. This should also apply for falling in a team with much stronger allies, which made it much more complicated than for the matters of a Chess game...

Feel free to comment this suggestion about ELO scores, or ask your eventual questions too below - and sorry this post was rather very long!

exeeter702

I know you mean well and i respect the time you put into typing this out. But in a game built from the ground up as an instanced pvp centric experience where the entire player base is in it for that very reason. An elaborate ranking / MM system would be ideal.

But in eso, there is not enough players to fully bolster your idea without having abysmal queue times nor (and most importantly) are BGs as they currently exist in ESO even remotely close to being even slightly considered competitive in the loosest sense imaginable.

Nayawin14

exeeter702 wrote: »

I know you mean well and i respect the time you put into typing this out. But in a game built from the ground up as an instanced pvp centric experience where the entire player base is in it for that very reason. An elaborate ranking / MM system would be ideal.

But in eso, there is not enough players to fully bolster your idea without having abysmal queue times nor (and most importantly) are BGs as they currently exist in ESO even remotely close to being even slightly considered competitive in the loosest sense imaginable.

That's the main reason why an ELO system would be an improvement: Even if ELO are not used for the matching (ignore this part then) because there aren't enough people queuing at a time, using this system for ranking would bring a huge freshness into the leaderboard and the way people approach battlegrounds. It would both make them more competitive AND more enjoyable for 'weak' PvP characters, interestingly. Cause the reward per player would be weighted by the initial ELO scores of participating characters (didn't explain that enough yet, but already very long hehe) and because stupid non-fair play behaviour will be discouraged with an ELO system...

I think battlegrounds should either i. stop being developed because it's a waste of money and to find a good enjoyable battleground for a random player is hell or ii. be re-think so that the top players can see them as the unavoidable COMPETITIVE part of ESO, and the other players can still have more fun than nowadays playing there.

ty for your answer, this was the 1st discussion I started so it's kind of a test anyway

DeadlyRecluse

PvP in ESO is based around the illusion of success for marginal participation, and I don't really see them changing that in BGs.

Nayawin14

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

PvP in ESO is based around the illusion of success for marginal participation, and I don't really see them changing that in BGs.

If they don't change anything in ESO, they can go on for 2-3 years releasing Baby seals for my Bessa or bard guild Lines... Then it will be over and you guys can all come seek refuge in my tremensid topal hideaway - there's room enough there.

Right now, I pain to imagine life without playing ESO, that's why I think it's time things start changing so that the worst aspects of this game are treated, the best aspect enlightened and everyone got that we need coordinate efforts so that we can go on... forever, in a profitable way

Nayawin14

Logged on the game and have one more thrilling idea right now...

The ELO scores of each of your character would BE DISPLAYED right to your alliance war rank logo, imagine this!!

valeriiya

ELO = Elder Lag Online?

Nayawin14

valeriiya wrote: »

ELO = Elder Lag Online?

No, it comes from Arpad Elo (1903-1992). Harkness and Elo were great Chess players that designed a mathematical theory to rank Chess players within the FIDE. The ELO system is used since the 60s, and has been adapted to many other games to rank players within federations/ servers.

Adernath

I highly support this idea.

Nayawin14

Adernath wrote: »

I highly support this idea.

TYVM!!

I solely fear we will need far more support to make Zenimax investigate this idea...

I have to say a guild mate started a post yesterday to and gather complaints about bgs... the stats are:

My topic: 8 comments / 80 views

His topic: 80+ comments / 1.4k + views.

The quality of his post is terrible though (not saying mine is perfect, Its mostly an overview of a cool alternative...)

Nayawin14

Now, Let's do maths altogether

This was the result of Bessa's yesterday solo daily battleground, a relic match. You can noticed she did the job once more...



The following is a simplistic way of how ELO could be upgraded:

Bessa earned 1850 medals (22.3% - she did great!); The average medals earned per player was 8261/11 = 751

Bessa's performance grade: 1850 / (1850+751) = 0.71 (>0.5 basically means she will improve her ELO score)

Now, if we think all the participant got the initial 1400 ELO, the ELO-difference will be 1400 - (1400*10/10) = 0

A fixed table will give you the gain in ELO for Bessa, for her strong performance grade of 0.71 and an ELO-difference of 0 points.

lets say the table returns she deserves +36 pts, then her new ELO score will now be upgraded: 1436 ELO.

The thing is really simple as you can see, could be done for next patch

Penalties and bonus could be applied, and much more complicated version of the calculation could be made, so that the green 3players team are spared for their bad results (being only 3, make sense), and to take account that Bessa was 1st of her team, etc. etc. etc.

Nayawin14

Shall I add a problem-solving example with fake numbers so that you guys come and practice now?

Nayawin14

Bessa: HAHAHA Naya you really thought people would take on their time to read your ELO-stupid system?!

*She starts eating an ice-cream*

Bessa: [Munch-Munch] you see yourself as a great Master of strategy but you ... failed anticipating the lack of interest of people for [thrilling/ cool] alternatives to some bad and unfair extent systems



+56 ELO - New total: 1492

Nayawin14

Bessa: HAHAHAHA You could have named it the 'Hello system' instead HAHA.

*Eating now a 2nd ice-cream*

Bessa: Why? [Munch-Munch-Munch]

Cauz Hello? Goodbye! o/

---

+509 ELO - Upgraded score: 2001 ELO

---

*New achievements - 'Master' unlocked*

ATomiX96

I mean the general idea is not bad, but you are trying too hard to push the thread and might have lost your sanity throughout the process.

Nayawin14

ATomiX96 wrote: »

I mean the general idea is not bad, but you are trying too hard to push the thread and might have lost your sanity throughout the process.

You deserve an 'Agree' for it! And ty for coming o/

Thogard

I am less concerned with the ranking system and more concerned with making sure the people at the high end have just as short a queue time as the people at the low end.

Nayawin14

@Thogard Ty for your comment, this allow me to make a really good point in favour of my ranking system:

Here is the magic trick, ELO scores would make the battlegrounds much more interesting REGARDLESS of the matching system. By increasing the incentives of strong player to ALWAYS play for top medals, to continue gaining ELO. Ideally, the performance of a character in a BG would be evaluated, as briefly mentioned in the post 'Lets do math together', according to the share of medals AND the ELO scores of all 12 characters at the start.

regardless of matching:
Simply said, regardless of the matching, a character with high ELO score has high incentive to play for his team, fairly, collect the most medals and spare his points (the presence of low ELO characters makes him likely to lose a lot of point if he does not finish 1st of his team, as the 'ELO-difference' will not be 0, as in my example, but positive).

At the exact opposite, but for the same reasons, a character with very low ELO score will both benefit from the presence of stronger 'fair-play' allies in his team, the reduction of 'non-fair-play' behaviours from the enemies, and the fact that whatever happens his ELO-difference will be negative so at the end, he can win a lot of ELO from doing good and would only loose a few otherwise.

"simple" matching:
This being said, we could state 2 simplistic matching systems based on ELO (I am not a specialist of this part though):
A. Take 12 random characters queuing for BG asap, then order them in team in a way the ELO per team are balanced.
or
B. Search for 12 people with a difference of e.g., max 250 ELO, then make 3 balanced team with them.
All this is very flexible as I see it... The priority could then be given to fast queues!

ps: Once stabilised, your ELO score totally reflects the efficiency of your character to earn medals. The only 'farm' needed is the time required to stabilise your ELO score. That's why it's the best method of scoring I can imagine!

DeadlyRecluse

Basing an ELO off of medal scores instead of win % would gradually move all dedicated healers to low ELOs...

Maybe that's a good thing : P

Nayawin14

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

Basing an ELO off of medal scores instead of win % would gradually move all dedicated healers to low ELOs...

Medals are delivered for healing allies... Medals are delivered for capping/holding flags in 'domination', transporting relics, carrying the ball...

If you look at my example, a lad made 8 kills (3 more than Bessa) but still earned only 550 medals (-1300 medals than Bessa). This is the type of behaviours that will make your ELO abyssal - healing should be viable, and, if not, then you gonna adapt your full-healer to an off-healer to seek higher ELO-scores...

But you might got a point: ELO might lead to a brutal race for earning more medals (the way they are earned are quite obscure right now, most people trying to do well instinctively) and some archetype being favoured in this race. The question is, do you prefer that people farm during a week to be on the top, or that they play the actual objective of the Battlegrounds?

gannicus1389

I don't think a ranked system would work unless the game is uber balanced to be honest...

GW2 kinda died when they stopped making elo grinding and added ranking. good players still made up the leaderboards, but everyone else had to plkay easy or the broken class, and it drove people to quit the game in masses (pvp community)

Nayawin14

Interesting @gannicus1389. I cannot say much except I really don't see why ESO community should stop playing BGs if we manage to find a system to have BOTH the shortest queue ever AND more fun/pressure during and after the match.

ESO offers a very rich content in my opinion, this is how people can specialise on so many domains and come with so much different build/classes etc. I don't think modifying the BGs ranking will change any of that honestly:

Cyrodiil and IC will remain the cruel, unfair places that they are where you can run with 23 guild mates on vocal over 2 poor enemies going for skyshards... THAT's WAR - Let's not change this. It makes totally sense in my opinion that to reach the top of cyro leaderboard (and the ruby throne, eventually) you need to farm 24/24 7/7. That's not healthy, but life is made of sacrifices...

Battlegrounds need to be differentiated from Cyro. They deserve to have a Competitive AND fun ranking system that promote more fairness during a match and to get rid of heavy farming determining short-term leaderboard. A gladiator that jump into the pit and kill-kill-kill, match after match day after day is soon to be dead - What we want is people shivering every time they enter the Arena. No more farming, more technical plays. And a room for Zenimax to promote a different state of spirit...

gannicus1389

Nayawin14 wrote: »

Interesting @gannicus1389. I cannot say much except I really don't see why ESO community should stop playing BGs if we manage to find a system to have BOTH the shortest queue ever AND more fun/pressure during and after the match.

ESO offers a very rich content in my opinion, this is how people can specialise on so many domains and come with so much different build/classes etc. I don't think modifying the BGs ranking will change any of that honestly:

Cyrodiil and IC will remain the cruel, unfair places that they are where you can run with 23 guild mates on vocal over 2 poor enemies going for skyshards... THAT's WAR - Let's not change this. It makes totally sense in my opinion that to reach the top of cyro leaderboard (and the ruby throne, eventually) you need to farm 24/24 7/7. That's not healthy, but life is made of sacrifices...

Battlegrounds need to be differentiated from Cyro. They deserve to have a Competitive AND fun ranking system that promote more fairness during a match and to get rid of heavy farming determining short-term leaderboard. A gladiator that jump into the pit and kill-kill-kill, match after match day after day is soon to be dead - What we want is people shivering every time they enter the Arena. No more farming, more technical plays. And a room for Zenimax to promote a different state of spirit...

don't getm e wrong. I would love to see tier leaderboards, etc. But I do think it has to be added very carefully beforehand.

Nayawin14

yeah, I agree... But mostly everything on this earth should be manipulated very carefully indeed (e.g., your cellphone, pasta alla bolognese, nitro-glycerine...)

I still don't really see the BIG risks of an ELO-system applied to battlegrounds ranking/matching?

Urvoth

Thogard wrote: »

I am less concerned with the ranking system and more concerned with making sure the people at the high end have just as short a queue time as the people at the low end.

It could just put you in games with lower ranked players but then adjust the elo gained accordingly. For instance if a 2000 elo player got in a game with an enemy team average of 1500 elo, you would have to likely win and do significantly better than everyone else to gain elo, whereas the 1500 player would just have to do ok against you to gain elo. This is assuming a ranking system where 2000 elo is much higher than 1500, of course.

Nayawin14

@Urvoth yep yep exactly.

Both the Performance grade AND the ELO-difference are used to estimate your new ELO score.

Performance grade = your-medals / (your-medals + average-medals). >0.5 = future gain in ELO score.

ELO difference = your ELO - average ELO score (before the match start). Positive => handicapping. Negative => favouring

A table (or an equation) returned the ELO gain/loss. Bonus and malus could be applied, like being 1st of its team +5 ELO, etc.

Therefore, even with random matching it would already be thrilling! Nevertheless, balancing the teams is important.

MajBludd

I'm in favor of more Electric Light Orchestra!