What's the decision-making logic behing a ranked card game PvP mode but not BGs or duels?

thesarahandcompany

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

jaws343

Because they explicitly told us they were not going to do anything for PVP until the re-architecture was completed.

charlieb

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

Because they care about people buying crowns to buy cards crates. And they must know that objective modes would NEVER be competitive unless they revamp them. But they also know objective players hate DM and the only way to make objective modes competitive is to promote fighting other players so they won’t waste their time and resources when they could just focus on Card game pvp.

jaws343

charlieb wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

Because they care about people buying crowns to buy cards. And they must know that objective modes would NEVER be competitive unless they revamp them. But they also know objective players hate DM and the only way to make objective modes competitive is to promote fighting other players so they won’t waste their time and resources when they could just focus on Card game pvp.

Not a single card or card deck is available for crowns. All are earnable in game. Why even bother trying to make up a reason for this?

charlieb

charlieb wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

Because they care about people buying crowns to buy cards. And they must know that objective modes would NEVER be competitive unless they revamp them. But they also know objective players hate DM and the only way to make objective modes competitive is to promote fighting other players so they won’t waste their time and resources when they could just focus on Card game pvp.

jaws343 wrote: »

charlieb wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

Because they care about people buying crowns to buy cards. And they must know that objective modes would NEVER be competitive unless they revamp them. But they also know objective players hate DM and the only way to make objective modes competitive is to promote fighting other players so they won’t waste their time and resources when they could just focus on Card game pvp.

Not a single card or card deck is available for crowns. All are earnable in game. Why even bother trying to make up a reason for this?

jaws343 wrote: »

charlieb wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Does anyone know why there will be a ranked mode for the card game system, but not for BGs or dueling? I feel like the PvP community was clear for a long time that it was something we'd really love to have.

Because they care about people buying crowns to buy cards. And they must know that objective modes would NEVER be competitive unless they revamp them. But they also know objective players hate DM and the only way to make objective modes competitive is to promote fighting other players so they won’t waste their time and resources when they could just focus on Card game pvp.

Not a single card or card deck is available for crowns. All are earnable in game. Why even bother trying to make up a reason for this?

Moot point, really. But I edited it just for you.

Dem_kitkats1

You can't have a competitive ranking system in a game that has massive performance issues. It's not fair to players to have their rank score jeopardized by the fact that many can't get their skills to fire properly, or they lag/desync so much that they simply can't counter situations they can't see in real time. I also don't know if they have the population now to support it. Perhaps people would come back if they put a competitive system in place, but would they enjoy it with performance still being an issue?

I do agree though, BGs deserved to have ranked and unranked modes long before the game ended up in its current situation. If performance improves, this should be something put into place.

Aznox

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

You can't have a competitive ranking system in a game that has massive performance issues. It's not fair to players to have their rank score jeopardized by the fact that many can't get their skills to fire properly, or they lag/desync so much that they simply can't counter situations they can't see in real time. I also don't know if they have the population now to support it.

Look, i don't get it, I've spent 90% of my last 4 years of ESO in BG or queuing for BG.

I agree that Cyro is unplayable most of the time, but BG is the opposite, almost all of the time it is totally OK.

Why would you be against a more competitive ranking system for BG ? What are you afraid of ?

Dem_kitkats1

Aznox wrote: »

Look, i don't get it, I've spent 90% of my last 4 years of ESO in BG or queuing for BG.

I agree that Cyro is unplayable most of the time, but BG is the opposite, almost all of the time it is totally OK.

Why would you be against a more competitive ranking system for BG ? What are you afraid of ?

I literally said that BGs should have had a ranked system put into place long ago and that if performance improves it should be a priority to put one in place. I'm not afraid of a ranked system, nor am I against it. Lag and performance issues have crept into the game as a whole. Just because it's good for you doesn't mean other people aren't experiencing it, and other's have mentioned it. And that's exactly why performance is holding the game back from being as competitive as it could be.

Aznox

Ok, fine, but I believe our best shot at getting better PvP content and/or PvP performance is to present an unanimous opinion to ZoS on both fronts and fighting about which of them should be prioritized will only get us neither.

The title of this post and the situation heavily suggests that ZoS decision not to bring more competitive aspects to PvP is not a matter of ressources but a matter of conscious decision.

If we want to change that we need to try and understand the logic behind this decision and work on convincing ZoS to change their mind.

So far the closest to a plausible argument I've read about not implementing better ranking/scoring was the fear to increase toxicity, let's work on that :

Don't we think having ranked DM and unranked objective modes would get both "parts" of the player base happier compared to the current situation ?

DaggersKid

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

You can't have a competitive ranking system in a game that has massive performance issues. It's not fair to players to have their rank score jeopardized by the fact that many can't get their skills to fire properly, or they lag/desync so much that they simply can't counter situations they can't see in real time. I also don't know if they have the population now to support it. Perhaps people would come back if they put a competitive system in place, but would they enjoy it with performance still being an issue?

I do agree though, BGs deserved to have ranked and unranked modes long before the game ended up in its current situation. If performance improves, this should be something put into place.

the only reason i played bgs in the first place was that the performance isn‘t an issue at all there. no lagg, no desync and low ping. obviously now with deathmatches gone, i‘ve gone back to cyro…

make objectives in a way that people do actual pvp, bring back deathmatches and make a ranking system. also separate ranking and pvers doing dailies (useless system, that only helped destroying good pvp)… gw2 shows that even if combat is ***, people want to play ranked bgs, if they are well-made, that is…

Dem_kitkats1

DaggersKid wrote: »

the only reason i played bgs in the first place was that the performance isn‘t an issue at all there. no lagg, no desync and low ping. obviously now with deathmatches gone, i‘ve gone back to cyro…

make objectives in a way that people do actual pvp, bring back deathmatches and make a ranking system. also separate ranking and pvers doing dailies (useless system, that only helped destroying good pvp)… gw2 shows that even if combat is ***, people want to play ranked bgs, if they are well-made, that is…

Again, because you've had no issues doesn't mean that other's haven't experienced problems. People have expressed issues with performance in BGs throughout these forums, and on other platforms. Yes, compared to Cyro performance is better. That's not saying much when Cyro is like scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of performance. Imagine playing a ranked game and all of a sudden you crash, or one of your skills becomes bugged (ie, gap closers, general skill lag/grey outs). You can't have a competitive game where players die because they can't get their skills to fire after spamming them a dozen times. (Yes this happens in BGs too sometimes). People play GW2 because the game works.

That's not even touching on potential class and gear imbalances that have already impacted the population. Because this game is connected to PvE and large-scale PvP, which have their own unique needs and issues when it comes to gear, there almost needs to be standardized sets (like GW2). If only to avoid nightmares like DC and Hrothgar's when they first came out.

Yes bring back the DM queue, update the modes and maps in the Objectives, and bring in a ranked system when performance improves. No one is saying no to that 😒.

Aznox

@Dem_kitkats1 why are you conditioning your support to ranked BG to getting better "performance" first?

Why say no to an improvement because the thing to improve is not perfect?

I enjoy ESO BG, i would like to enjoy them even more, why should I be deprived of this improvement because you like GW2 BG more? Where's the logic in this?

divnyi

@Dem_kitkats1 I've had maybe ~5 days a year when BGs were lagging. Network latency is definitely not the issue on PC EU if you have a good network connection. Not working gapclosers is another issue, but really, I don't care much. Especially if ranking would be seasonal so they can safely reset it with new patches.

Dem_kitkats1

@Aznox @divnyi
Sure I can understand implementing a better MMR with some kind of tiered ranking system. Even then, MMRs can be debatable for games. Performance issues aside, this game is still far from being competitive in its current state.

MentalxHammer

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

@Aznox @divnyi
Sure I can understand implementing a better MMR with some kind of tiered ranking system. Even then, MMRs can be debatable for games. But this game is far from being competitive in its current state.

Part of the reason it’s not competitive is because there’s no competitive outlet. A competitive outlet would also help ZOS to identify over and underperforming classes, which would assist in balance and help to make the game more competitive.

Dem_kitkats1

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Part of the reason it’s not competitive is because there’s no competitive outlet. A competitive outlet would also help ZOS to identify over and underperforming classes, which would assist in balance and help to make the game more competitive.

They already know, it's plastered all over these forums. You want to help identify underperforming classes? The only way to do that is to standardize sets and have the classes go toe to toe with nothing but their skills. That has nothing to to with competitiveness, but cutting through the glamor and getting back to the basics. Players have been calling ZOS out on class imbalances for years and still we have op classes. Why would a competitive ranking system suddenly change that?

On the topic of gear, the problem is that ZOS has to balance PvE, large-scale PvP, and small-scale PvP. That's no small task, and they're not going to prioritize the BG population. Sets meant to counter zergs/ball groups in Cyro should not be in BGs, mythics, and gear that is meant for PvE can be ridiculously op in smallscale PvP, etc. A game cannot be competitive if there are constant and massive swings in balance and meta, and players cannot get on an equal playing field to begin with.

I'm not saying that ESO could never be competitive, but there would have to be massive changes to make it so IMO. My issue with the card game is that they spent time and resources on something that literally no one asked for.

VaranisArano

I'm curious as to how you expect ZOS to implement ranked Battlegrounds, when it seems clear that their main concern is getting enough players into BGs in the first place such that the queue times stay reasonable.

That's been their reasoning for why they won't split the queues so players can choose between the game modes and group composition they want. Wouldn't adding ranked matches just complicate the whole process of getting 12 players into a match in a timely fashion?

divnyi

VaranisArano wrote: »

process of getting 12 players into a match in a timely fashion?

That's why they should make 1v1 and 3v3.

Dem_kitkats1

Aznox wrote: »

@Dem_kitkats1 why are you conditioning your support to ranked BG to getting better "performance" first?

Why say no to an improvement because the thing to improve is not perfect?

I enjoy ESO BG, i would like to enjoy them even more, why should I be deprived of this improvement because you like GW2 BG more? Where's the logic in this?

Why did players leave in the first place? PERFORMANCE

Aznox

I give up, i just give up.

I want a ranking system based on the ability to consistently perform well as a group of 4 players (premade or solo pick-up) to achieve the already defined main objective of BG : to win the BG match. (DM or Objective), pushing our collective performance further (aka competitiveness, source of many of humanity's greatest achievements).

But i give up.

For every 10 players defending the same idea, 15 are going to come here finding reasons not to, because (mostly for made-up/self-lying reasons) they believe it is against their own interest (aka happiness, something we are all rightly programmed to pursue).

I give up.

I'll go back to my own set of made-up rules (topping DMG stats every BG)

Others will go back to their own set of made-up rules (best personal K/D whatever the consequences for the team)

Others will go back to their own set of made-up excuses (lag, performance, balance, bad luck)

I give up.

Let's all go back to our happy little stone age.

I give up.

MentalxHammer

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Part of the reason it’s not competitive is because there’s no competitive outlet. A competitive outlet would also help ZOS to identify over and underperforming classes, which would assist in balance and help to make the game more competitive.

Players have been calling ZOS out on class imbalances for years and still we have op classes. Why would a competitive ranking system suddenly change that?

Because they would have actual data to analyze and not just the subjective opinions of forum posters.

MentalxHammer

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you expect ZOS to implement ranked Battlegrounds, when it seems clear that their main concern is getting enough players into BGs in the first place such that the queue times stay reasonable.

That's been their reasoning for why they won't split the queues so players can choose between the game modes and group composition they want. Wouldn't adding ranked matches just complicate the whole process of getting 12 players into a match in a timely fashion?

Easy, there are 2 queues right now, they wouldn’t need more than 2: ranked battlegrounds and casual battlegrounds. I’m sure the restructuring of having a proper ELO system would bring more players in, too. As others have stated less experienced players could play without getting matched against 7k hour vets on the other team, and the veteran players that crave competition could get paired against actual competition

CameraBeardThePirate

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you expect ZOS to implement ranked Battlegrounds, when it seems clear that their main concern is getting enough players into BGs in the first place such that the queue times stay reasonable.

That's been their reasoning for why they won't split the queues so players can choose between the game modes and group composition they want. Wouldn't adding ranked matches just complicate the whole process of getting 12 players into a match in a timely fashion?

People don't queue for BGs because there's no reason to. For good players that want to DM, they can't choose that, and theres nothing else to gain from doing random BGs day in and day out. For players looking to improve in PvP, there's nothing to work towards and the objective modes aren't exactly difficult to game the system. The current leaderboard is a joke and basically amounts to "who played the most BGs this week".

If there was a leaderboard with actual rankings, people would flock to BGs. Throw in a title or some sort of cosmetic for reaching the top x # on the leaderboard and people would want to improve at PvP.

PvP has an insanely steep learning curve so most casuals immediately get turned off because there aren't any decent incentives to keep doing it. It's why IC is so dead these days, despite a lot of higher end PvPers agreeing that it's by far the best PvP in the game. Give incentive to PvP and people will do it. Incentive isn't some dumb skin you earn after olaying 100 rounds win or lose, incentive is being pushed to improve in order to obtain something.

RealLoveBVB

I am pretty sure they are expecting more players playing the card game than general PVP. Therefore they add a more complex ranking system.

Dem_kitkats1

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Part of the reason it’s not competitive is because there’s no competitive outlet. A competitive outlet would also help ZOS to identify over and underperforming classes, which would assist in balance and help to make the game more competitive.

Players have been calling ZOS out on class imbalances for years and still we have op classes. Why would a competitive ranking system suddenly change that?

Because they would have actual data to analyze and not just the subjective opinions of forum posters.

Data based on what? Top ranked players are these specific classes, therefore they must be op? No that's not accurate as we all know they just have the time and money to invest in theory crafting very strong builds for themselves. Also, what skills outside of the class skill lines did they use to squeeze out some extra stats? What add-ons did they use to help them? Plus these players have god tier skill and everyone else has l2p issues. Again not a precise measure of the class itself. Maybe a Timmy two thumbs got a good ranking because he actually purchased the newest DLC and farmed the latest op mythic, unlike the majority of of his opponents.

Majority of players are x classes? No some top ranked player had a very strong build using Oakensoul, and now there's a bunch of WWs running around. Number of players playing x class was influenced by the classes on top of the leaderboards. Not any different or any less accurate of a representation than now.

To actually get a more precise reading on how classes are performing, they have to fight with skills alone and with no other external factors. Without some kind of standardization there are too many other factors to have take into consideration in trying to find balance, and that's why most competitive games have some type of normalized gearing and skill system. It's because it makes things much easier to balance. A ranked leader board won't help identify op classes, they'll just further influence metas.

MentalxHammer

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

Part of the reason it’s not competitive is because there’s no competitive outlet. A competitive outlet would also help ZOS to identify over and underperforming classes, which would assist in balance and help to make the game more competitive.

Players have been calling ZOS out on class imbalances for years and still we have op classes. Why would a competitive ranking system suddenly change that?

Because they would have actual data to analyze and not just the subjective opinions of forum posters.

Data based on what? Top ranked players are these specific classes, therefore they must be op? No that's not accurate as we all know they just have the time and money to invest in theory crafting very strong builds for themselves. Also, what skills outside of the class skill lines did they use to squeeze out some extra stats? What add-ons did they use to help them? Plus these players have god tier skill and everyone else has l2p issues. Again not a precise measure of the class itself. Maybe a Timmy two thumbs got a good ranking because he actually purchased the newest DLC and farmed the latest op mythic, unlike the majority of of his opponents.

Majority of players are x classes? No some top ranked player had a very strong build using Oakensoul, and now there's a bunch of WWs running around. Number of players playing x class was influenced by the classes on top of the leaderboards. Not any different or any less accurate of a representation than now.

To actually get a more precise reading on how classes are performing, they have to fight with skills alone and with no other external factors. Without some kind of standardization there are too many other factors to have take into consideration in trying to find balance, and that's why most competitive games have some type of normalized gearing and skill system. It's because it makes things much easier to balance. A ranked leader board won't help identify op classes, they'll just further influence metas.

For example, they could observe the top 10% most performant characters in terms of ELO and assess what classes/skills they are using to win those games, as well as their damage, healing, kills, and deaths to help corroborate that data. Conversely, they could look at the bottom 10% least performant characters and observe where these classes need work. Pardon me, but I don’t really see the point of arguing this, how could having data from a competitive playlist not be useful? More data just leads to more well informed decisions, which could certainly help ZOS in their decision making in terms of class balancing.

Dem_kitkats1

MentalxHammer wrote: »

For example, they could observe the top 10% most performant characters in terms of ELO and assess what classes/skills they are using to win those games, as well as their damage, healing, kills, and deaths to help corroborate that data. Conversely, they could look at the bottom 10% least performant characters and observe where these classes need work. Pardon me, but I don’t really see the point of arguing this, how could having data from a competitive playlist not be useful? More data just leads to more well informed decisions, which could certainly help ZOS in their decision making in terms of class balancing.

Yes this example would be true, only if things were more standardized and you were solely analyzing the classes themselves and how their skills alone were performing against the others. However, when you throw builds into the mix, there are too many factors and variations that will skew the data away from the actual performance. Because now there are other components that are supplementing their skills and stats in various ways, so much so that now they seem op. The class gets nerfed, swing the gear meta in favor of another class, and the previous class is now way underperforming. Which is exactly what's happening now. The implementation of a competitive ranking system without any changes to the game will not produce any more accurate results than now, or do that much to alleviate imbalances IMO. You can't balance classes without getting to the root causes, which you won't do with gear involved.

CameraBeardThePirate

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

For example, they could observe the top 10% most performant characters in terms of ELO and assess what classes/skills they are using to win those games, as well as their damage, healing, kills, and deaths to help corroborate that data. Conversely, they could look at the bottom 10% least performant characters and observe where these classes need work. Pardon me, but I don’t really see the point of arguing this, how could having data from a competitive playlist not be useful? More data just leads to more well informed decisions, which could certainly help ZOS in their decision making in terms of class balancing.

Yes this example would be true, only if things were more standardized and you were solely analyzing the classes themselves and how their skills alone were performing against the others. However, when you throw builds into the mix, there are too many factors and variations that will skew the data away from the actual performance. Because now there are other components that are supplementing their skills and stats in various ways, so much so that now they seem op. The class gets nerfed, swing the gear meta in favor of another class, and the previous class is now way underperforming. Which is exactly what's happening now. The implementation of a competitive ranking system without any changes to the game will not produce any more accurate results than now, or do that much to alleviate imbalances IMO. You can't balance classes without getting to the root causes, which you won't do with gear involved.

Implementation of a ranking system would absolutely still benefit balance though. It's not like they would only have data on the classes top ranked players have; I'd imagine they'd be able to scrub gear and skill data too. They wouldn't just see which classes are favored, but which sets are also at the top, which sets are most often paired with which classes at the top, and which skills are being used most often and with which classes. The number of variables is a lot, but its not like it would be meaningless data because you aren't trying to determine any sort of causality. There's tons of variation in plenty of games that have metas and balance; ranking systems just serve to show which of those variables are most prominent at the top

Dagoth_Rac

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

MentalxHammer wrote: »

For example, they could observe the top 10% most performant characters in terms of ELO and assess what classes/skills they are using to win those games, as well as their damage, healing, kills, and deaths to help corroborate that data. Conversely, they could look at the bottom 10% least performant characters and observe where these classes need work. Pardon me, but I don’t really see the point of arguing this, how could having data from a competitive playlist not be useful? More data just leads to more well informed decisions, which could certainly help ZOS in their decision making in terms of class balancing.

Yes this example would be true, only if things were more standardized and you were solely analyzing the classes themselves and how their skills alone were performing against the others. However, when you throw builds into the mix, there are too many factors and variations that will skew the data away from the actual performance. Because now there are other components that are supplementing their skills and stats in various ways, so much so that now they seem op. The class gets nerfed, swing the gear meta in favor of another class, and the previous class is now way underperforming. Which is exactly what's happening now. The implementation of a competitive ranking system without any changes to the game will not produce any more accurate results than now, or do that much to alleviate imbalances IMO. You can't balance classes without getting to the root causes, which you won't do with gear involved.

Implementation of a ranking system would absolutely still benefit balance though. It's not like they would only have data on the classes top ranked players have; I'd imagine they'd be able to scrub gear and skill data too. They wouldn't just see which classes are favored, but which sets are also at the top, which sets are most often paired with which classes at the top, and which skills are being used most often and with which classes. The number of variables is a lot, but its not like it would be meaningless data because you aren't trying to determine any sort of causality. There's tons of variation in plenty of games that have metas and balance; ranking systems just serve to show which of those variables are most prominent at the top

But does ZOS want to spend the time on that? With effort and determination, they might be able to split out what classes are overperforming and underperforming, what gear is overperforming and underperforming, what skills are overperforming and underperforming, and what combinations and permutations of all of those are overperforming and underperforming.

And then what? Adjust accordingly to balance BGs? Which battlegrounds? Deathmatch will likely see very different results than Crazy King. And what about PvE and Cyrodiil? Will buffing underperforming BG builds make them overpowered in Trials or Cyrodiil? Will nerfing overperforming BG builds make them useless in Trials or Cyrodiil?

It is hard to have battleground rankings and leaderboards mean much without well-balanced BG play. But it is hard to have well-balanced BG play without impacting endgame PvE and Cyrodiil.

You know what you can focus on balancing without worrying about breaking Trials and Cyrodiil in the process? A card game.

thesarahandcompany

jaws343 wrote: »

Because they explicitly told us they were not going to do anything for PVP until the re-architecture was completed.

Makes no sense, though, since the card game will be a player vs. player mode.

WordsOfPower

divnyi wrote: »

@Dem_kitkats1 I've had maybe ~5 days a year when BGs were lagging. Network latency is definitely not the issue on PC EU if you have a good network connection. Not working gapclosers is another issue, but really, I don't care much. Especially if ranking would be seasonal so they can safely reset it with new patches.

You didn't mention many things, including ultimates not going off, breaking free not being possible even with a full stamina bar, dragon leap, booted from server mid-BG, and a whole host of other problems.