No BG Leaderboard changes means no Competitive Queue

CameraBeardThePirate

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

Win/Loss is better than having a leaderboard based on Medal Score though. It's not perfect, but a leaderboard based on a cumulative score that doesn't go down and only goes up is ludicrous - not to even mention the fact that a Medal Score leaderboard leaves Necros and Shielders in the dust.

I also think you're overestimating the amount of dead weight that can be carried to victory in a 4v4.

ForumSavant

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

Stafford197

In my opinion, this is how ZOS should handle BG Leaderboards and Scoring:

Leaderboards
• Leaderboards for each game mode
• Reset occurs every 14 days
• Entering onto a Leaderboard requires the completion of 5 Placement Matches
• Placement Matches only contribute 50% of their score towards your initial Leaderboard Rank, so you can’t use these to easily take a top spot
• Leaderboard Rank is determined by an Average of your Player Score. Not a Sum.
• Matchmaking prioritizes matching up players with others who are of similar Rank

Scoring 1: Base Score
• Medals no longer grant Points. They only exist for fun and their respective achievement unlocks.
• Player Score is standardized across game modes:
- Kills grant 10 Points
- Assists grant 6 Points
- Flag Modes now only spawn up to three Flags
- Flag Capture completion grants 30 Points
- Flag Capture progress grants 3 points every second that progress is being made
- Relic Capture completion grants 60 Points
- Grabbing or returning a Relic grants 30 points
- Chaosball grants 6 Points every 10 seconds.
- Your Kills & Assists grant 100% more points while you: Hold a Relic/Chaosball, stand on a Flag zone, or remain in close proximity to your Team’s Relic while it remains on its pedestal

Scoring 2: Match End Bonus Multiplier
• Winning a match grants 33% bonus Points
• When a match ends, Total Group Damage Done & Healing Done contribution% provides bonus Points.
- NOTE: Damage Shielding you cast onto allies now contributes to the “Healing Done” category whenever the shielding is depleted by enemy attacks.

Final Score Example: You earned 1,000 Points in a game. You also contributed 50% of group damage, 10% of group healing, and won the game (33% bonus). This all would cause your Final Score to be 1,000 with a 93% bonus, so 1,930 Points.

…

Adjustments would be needed for Objectives scoring based on player testing, but this system promotes fun and healthy PvP gameplay.

Main thing here is that Objective game modes will now push players towards fighting each other while simultaneously playing the Objective, instead of the current version where we are best off avoiding all fights as much as possible. It also encourages players to stop building as toxic unkillable tanks who ruin Objective modes, since Damage/Healing/Shielding would become far more important to our individual scores, as well as reducing the amount of Flags so there isn’t constantly a new flag to go run around the map to take without resistance. It also makes it possible as a good solo player to place extremely high on the Leaderboards by being a great team player, even if you are not able to win many of your games.

But anyway that’s my opinion all based on a ridiculous amount of BGs experience. I don’t think ZOS will consider my ideas. They seem fine with having nothing more than the same Medal Scoring system as before…. get ready to spam critical heal cheese medals, run away from PvP in Objective modes, and play an extremely unhealthy amount of hours to reach high BGs ranks I guess

Amottica

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

Win/Loss is better than having a leaderboard based on Medal Score though. It's not perfect, but a leaderboard based on a cumulative score that doesn't go down and only goes up is ludicrous - not to even mention the fact that a Medal Score leaderboard leaves Necros and Shielders in the dust.

I also think you're overestimating the amount of dead weight that can be carried to victory in a 4v4.

I do not overestimate anything. I do not expect Zenimax to make any notable change, but I would want to see a good system if they were to. That is why I am not advocating for gold instead of bronze.

Amottica

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

ForumSavant

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

You are doing the equivalent of asking for a favor, being told no, and then asking for even more than you asked the first time. It's nonsensical. All BGs need is a win/loss leaderboard. Winning is what's important in a scenario based off "competitiveness." .

Amottica

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

You are doing the equivalent of asking for a favor, being told no, and then asking for even more than you asked the first time. It's nonsensical. All BGs need is a win/loss leaderboard. Winning is what's important in a scenario based off "competitiveness." .

This thread is asking for a change. I will ask for a good system instead of settling for less. I guess I am just that type of person.

Urzigurumash

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

You are doing the equivalent of asking for a favor, being told no, and then asking for even more than you asked the first time. It's nonsensical. All BGs need is a win/loss leaderboard. Winning is what's important in a scenario based off "competitiveness." .

The huge issue is that most people don't play to win. You know that, we all know that. The new format is not DM Only, so why are you so sure that will change?

Perhaps this issue is the reason why BGs are scored the way they are.

Some Euchre tournaments are scored in a similar way, the winner of the tournament is the player with the most total tricks across multiple games rather than the most total wins. I don't prefer it but it's a popular format.

On the other hand the Elo System is used for AOE2, run by a sibling company to ZOS, perhaps they have some wisdom to share on this issue.

Urzigurumash

ForumSavant wrote: »

Cool lets get back on topic, both BG MMR and BG leaderboards should be based on win/loss. The community that plays 4v4s agrees on this by at vast majority.

I understand there's good reason to tailor the leaderboard to comped 4v4 rather than Solo Queue, like what if Trials leaderboards were tailored to Group Finder teams rather than comped, but, in this case, Solo Queuers probably outnumber Comped 4v4ers by what, I could hardly even guess, 100 to 1, 1000 to 1?

So the vast majority of comped 4v4ers is a tiny fraction of people who play BGs.

I understand that this, along with the popularity of "playing to lose" in BGs, are circumstances of the present 3 team, old map paradigm. Maybe in the new format less people play to lose. Maybe more people comp out 4 mans.

But maybe not.

Amottica

ForumSavant wrote: »

Cool lets get back on topic, both BG MMR and BG leaderboards should be based on win/loss. The community that plays 4v4s agrees on this by at vast majority.

It assumes that the vast majority of the community agrees on win/loss. Granted, they may prefer that over the current medal system, but it ignores their thoughts on better systems. More importantly, the "community that plays 4v4s" has not spoken. Only a tiny number of that group of players come to the forums and speak out. Such assumptions are nothing more than that.

SundarahFr3akinrican

I posted this in a similar topic thread but i will post it here too.

It was stated in the link below that the leaderboard is based off of scoring and medals earned which is what the entire competitive community does not want. It should, at the very least, be based off of W/L. I'm not sure why they are ignoring the community on this. A leaderboard based off of medal scores means there is no incentive to actually win the match. Just get good medals. So someone could be #1 on the leaderboard but have a 30% winrate in matches just because they spam a lot of heals.

There needs to be major incentive to actually WIN THE MATCH. Or else every match will devolve the way they currently do, where people just fight to kill or get medal scores and dont actually do any objectives to try and win.

I for the life of me cant figure out why they didnt just transfer the Tales of Tribute reward sytem that is based off of W/L to PvP. That would atleast give some reason to actually try to win a match.

My prediction with how things will go in update 44 is any match where a team is getting stomped, the losing players will just leave match. There is currently no reason to stay. Theres no comeback mechanic, no awesome reward to keep fighting for, no nothing.

The worst part about all of this for the PvP community is that this isnt just "A" pvp update, this is "THE" pvp update we have waiting 7 years for, so we wont see another for a long time, and they arent even listening to us. So who is this for then? More new players like usual? Short term gains? I have no idea who their audience is for this....



https://elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/66847?utm_medium=social&utm_source=discord&utm_campaign=dwemer_automaton

Urzigurumash

The target audience might be Solo Queuers, being the majority of BG players. Notice they DID listen to the community and added Solo Queue during PTS.

The reason some Euchre tournaments are scored by Tricks rather than Wins is you swap partners between matches, which is similar to Solo Queue.

Thumbless_Bot

I have been giving this more thought. I think mmr should be simple and easy to understand and, most importantly, make sense in light of how bgs will likely to continue to play out in this new format.

Rules:

1. You get 2 points for each kill that you secure.
2. You get 1 point for an assist because it shows you aren't standing on a rss or capture point holding l2. You are actually trying to win. This part is controversial but the reality of this is very clear when you extrapolate to its natural terminus. If everyone stood on resources and healed or blocked the flag wouldn't move. You have to try to kill...
3. You get 2 points for having the highest heals on your team and 1 for second here.
4. You get 5 points for winning a bg because if you did 1 and 2, and likely you WILL WIN THE BG. However, if you are a really good Xer but get the short end and get comped with less talented group mates your mmr will not suffer as much. Even if you don't get the win bonus.

The above is not to say that tanks do not have their place but bgs is not the place, imho. They make bgs less fun and do little to nothing to contribute to the success of a team in a bg.

NuarBlack

I think a leader board with average medal score instead of total with some tweaks to the medal system is the best we could hope for and even that is low probability. Getting an in depth MMR system is not going to happen.

Urzigurumash

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

Urzigurumash

To clarify my earlier comments about Per Trick scoring in Euchre tournaments, I'm pretty sure the idea there is to prevent one team from steamrolling and people quitting and leaving once they realize it.

So it is a concession in competitiveness for the sake of making the tournaments more social, in my view. It really doesn't punish you for getting euched, making things much less competitive. If we read the Dev comments linked above they said the original idea with BGs was to promote a more "drop in drop out" environmemt.

It was said above that Wins not being rewarded disincentivizes playing to Win. True but on the other hand, with a Medal system once you realize you're getting trounced and have no way of winning the match, you can at least still try to earn Medals and improve your leaderboard position. I think it's fairly analogous to Per Trick Euchre in that regard.

Anyhow just my theories as to why it is the way it is. I'm all for Win Loss but again we'd have to see how the "Playing to Lose Protest Movement" pans out.

CameraBeardThePirate

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Urzigurumash

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

CameraBeardThePirate

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

Shielding is already tracked by Damage Absorbed (as healing) in the in-game logging system. It's literally just a matter of tracking it on the scoreboard and medals.

Urzigurumash

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

Shielding is already tracked by Damage Absorbed (as healing) in the in-game logging system. It's literally just a matter of tracking it on the scoreboard and medals.

Right we see these values in our combat text, but maybe something new would need to be coded to differentiate "self-shielding" since this shouldn't be scored, right?

Aldoss

Urzigurumash wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

You are doing the equivalent of asking for a favor, being told no, and then asking for even more than you asked the first time. It's nonsensical. All BGs need is a win/loss leaderboard. Winning is what's important in a scenario based off "competitiveness." .

The huge issue is that most people don't play to win. You know that, we all know that. The new format is not DM Only, so why are you so sure that will change?

Winning isn't important because the 3 team format made it not important. That, coupled with the removal to queue for the most popular game mode, created this behavior.

Relic isn't popular because of the 3 team format. Domination is a running mode because of the 3 team format. If you decide to battle at all in those modes, the 3rd team just runs around and gets to complete the objective.

I say this as a "DM only" player: I'm excited to play objectives now that there's no penalty for choosing to actually engage in combat. I don't think I'm alone.

Urzigurumash

Aldoss wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.

I don't get why people don't even bother to read what they are responding to. Your first sentence is exactly what I said, so why it's even written in the context you wrote it is beyond me. Read the comment, then respond, That is the proper order of things. Win/Loss is better than medal score, as pointed out by the above comment, and for the multiple reasons listed in this thread. Your score CANNOT go down with medal score, and even if you were to base it off average medal score (which they aren't) there are still many more issues with this than win/loss.

If you think you are going to get an in depth system when it's taken over 5 years of effort to not even still have a leaderboard based off MMR, then your head is just in the clouds. As I said before, it makes no sense to ask for some extremely in depth MMR system when we haven't even moved past the bare minimum. They are not going to put resources into that. MMR based off win/loss is much better than medal score and as I've said which you didn't read, while simplistic, is still better.

I am glad to see people notice when there is some agreement.

Also, I have not asked for something extremely complex. There is already a system to gauge contributions to the match. That needs to be tweaked to a degree, and scoring should be weighted accordingly.

Also, as I noted just now, I prefer to ask for gold instead of bronze. Granted, we may not get gold, but maybe silver. I'm not sure why anyone wants to settle for less.

You are doing the equivalent of asking for a favor, being told no, and then asking for even more than you asked the first time. It's nonsensical. All BGs need is a win/loss leaderboard. Winning is what's important in a scenario based off "competitiveness." .

The huge issue is that most people don't play to win. You know that, we all know that. The new format is not DM Only, so why are you so sure that will change?

Winning isn't important because the 3 team format made it not important. That, coupled with the removal to queue for the most popular game mode, created this behavior.

Relic isn't popular because of the 3 team format. Domination is a running mode because of the 3 team format. If you decide to battle at all in those modes, the 3rd team just runs around and gets to complete the objective.

I say this as a "DM only" player: I'm excited to play objectives now that there's no penalty for choosing to actually engage in combat. I don't think I'm alone.

I don't disagree (although Chaosball didnt inherently suffer from the 3 team format, it suffered only from speed tanks and hiding spots) Everything changed once the DM Queue was removed. On my server before that people who picked Random for the fastest pop almost always participated in the objectives. But now the habit has set in, the contempt for objectives still seethes, will it come undone?

If you said your one and only goal was ascending the leaderboard as a solo queuer, by any means whatsoever with no regard for the health or quality of the format:

Would you want a Win Loss leaderboard?

seventyfive

It is not uncommon for PvP:ers to posses the knowledge and ability to theory craft, adapt to any patches, and execute the gameplay of a near-invincible build. ZOS understands that in high ELO of a truly competitive system, there is a very high likelihood that players adapt to such building, which would make it very common with full teams of such players, in which case they would cease being near-invincible, and elevate to immortality with ease.

In any truly competitive system, where equal win ratios are matched against each other, the win ratio of a full 4-man stack of such builds can never be below the win/ratio of any other team.
Any such system would therefore be flawed, until that issue is tackled.

Tackling the issue of immortality is a pre-requisite for a competitive leaderboard that is competitive in more than name.

There are various very easy ways to tackle this.
I am sure the creative people of ZOS can come up with several ideas without any such suggestions from me.

CameraBeardThePirate

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

Shielding is already tracked by Damage Absorbed (as healing) in the in-game logging system. It's literally just a matter of tracking it on the scoreboard and medals.

Right we see these values in our combat text, but maybe something new would need to be coded to differentiate "self-shielding" since this shouldn't be scored, right?

They're already tracked differently in Logs as well.

Urzigurumash

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

Shielding is already tracked by Damage Absorbed (as healing) in the in-game logging system. It's literally just a matter of tracking it on the scoreboard and medals.

Right we see these values in our combat text, but maybe something new would need to be coded to differentiate "self-shielding" since this shouldn't be scored, right?

They're already tracked differently in Logs as well.

Oh interesting, yeah there's definitely no conceivable play reason why this shouldn't be scored exactly like healing. Generally speaking are shields and healing equivalent point per point (mag per hp)? Like could the medals just be copy and pasted with the same HP values for medals?

CameraBeardThePirate

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

I agree, Mean Medal Score (sum medals divided by matches played) per Leaderboard refresh would be great for now. At least it's not just effectively a log of total time played.

That's still ignoring a big issue though: even if you were to take average medal score, Necros and Shielders would still be at a severe disadvantage.

You can say "well just fix that then!" but this issue has been reported for years (basically since Necro was introduced) and ZOS has never even commented on it. Medal Score is a flawed system top to bottom.

Well Shielding Scoring is a whole new idea, it would have to be only Shields on Allies that were deleted by Enemy Damage, but I agree these points of Shields should be scored like points of Healing. Necro scoring is a massive issue that should be top of the list for PvP - this combined with Necro being banned from dueling in towns only exacerbates the already severe issues with the class and both would continue to reduce its overall viability in PvP even if it were a mechanically sound class. Basically the class is doomed to fail in 2 out of 4 pvp modes.

Back to the more general ideas here, we could probably logically compare Medals vs Win Loss to Stroke vs Match play in Golf - which to me suggests the Medal system was chosen mostly to accommodate the 3 team format.

Shielding is already tracked by Damage Absorbed (as healing) in the in-game logging system. It's literally just a matter of tracking it on the scoreboard and medals.

Right we see these values in our combat text, but maybe something new would need to be coded to differentiate "self-shielding" since this shouldn't be scored, right?

They're already tracked differently in Logs as well.

Oh interesting, yeah there's definitely no conceivable play reason why this shouldn't be scored exactly like healing. Generally speaking are shields and healing equivalent point per point (mag per hp)? Like could the medals just be copy and pasted with the same HP values for medals?

In general, Shielding is more consistent than healing, with lower peaks depending on the skill.

Shielding cannot crit, but is more or less always going to be what the tooltip says (well, half the tooltip because of Battlespirit). Healing can crit, but will have more fluctuations due to things like buff uptime, Cowardice, etc.

ForumSavant

Win/Loss, most accurate, while still being simplistic. For premade 4v4s nothing else would matter. You win or lose as a team. Solo ques could be different, but win/loss is still better than any alternatives I've read, even the convoluted complicated ones.

Urzigurumash

ForumSavant wrote: »

Win/Loss, most accurate, while still being simplistic. For premade 4v4s nothing else would matter. You win or lose as a team. Solo ques could be different, but win/loss is still better than any alternatives I've read, even the convoluted complicated ones.

Totally, Win Loss for Group Queue, Medal Score for Solo Queue I think pretty much perfectly matches how pro golf AND trick-taking card games sort it out.

Winning is a team effort, individual performance is not.

Amottica

Urzigurumash wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Win/Loss, most accurate, while still being simplistic. For premade 4v4s nothing else would matter. You win or lose as a team. Solo ques could be different, but win/loss is still better than any alternatives I've read, even the convoluted complicated ones.

Totally, Win Loss for Group Queue, Medal Score for Solo Queue I think pretty much perfectly matches how pro golf AND trick-taking card games sort it out.

Winning is a team effort, individual performance is not.

Yes, winning is a team effort. Well, to a degree it is. There are a lot of cases where the winning was due to only part of the team.

I have seen far too many matches in PvP games where there was dead weight and sickly level play from some of the team. This is why I suggest a slightly more robust system that weighs a player's contribution to the team and provides negative numbers for most of the losing team. My thought is that if we are going to keep asking for change, let us aim for gold instead of bronze with a simplistic win/loss system.

CameraBeardThePirate

Amottica wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Win/Loss, most accurate, while still being simplistic. For premade 4v4s nothing else would matter. You win or lose as a team. Solo ques could be different, but win/loss is still better than any alternatives I've read, even the convoluted complicated ones.

Totally, Win Loss for Group Queue, Medal Score for Solo Queue I think pretty much perfectly matches how pro golf AND trick-taking card games sort it out.

Winning is a team effort, individual performance is not.

Yes, winning is a team effort. Well, to a degree it is. There are a lot of cases where the winning was due to only part of the team.

I have seen far too many matches in PvP games where there was dead weight and sickly level play from some of the team. This is why I suggest a slightly more robust system that weighs a player's contribution to the team and provides negative numbers for most of the losing team. My thought is that if we are going to keep asking for change, let us aim for gold instead of bronze with a simplistic win/loss system.

ZOS has shown they are incapable of making Medal Score more complex and fixing the issues with it. Necro has been shafted since its inception with regards to medal score, and people have repeatedly reported the issues of Pet Damage/Pet Healing not counting for anything on the BG Scoreboard/Medal Score.

Clearly they're incapable of implementing a "slightly more robust system" or they would've fixed the issues with Medal Score years ago.