Impossible to ever be ranked on the BG Competitive Leaderboard

SkaraMinoc

If you only play 4v4 later in the week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) then there will be so many players ahead of you that you will never be ranked.



This is because the leaderboard is based on medal score and not win/loss.

@ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno Please help. I want to have a chance at being on the competitive leaderboard. I've played 20+ competitive 4v4 battlegrounds this weekend with an 80%+ win rate but I'm still not ranked.

danko355

Current leaderboard is a total mess and complete discrimination for the Necromancer class. I typically do more than 1 million damage during the BG if it lasts long enough, but only 200-300k of the damage is counted towards the medals due to the pets damage not being counted. Same for heals. Necromancers usually finish at the bottom of the scoreboard even when they dealt more damage/heals than other teammates. I’m really pissed every time I see the leaderboard and then go to the CMX to find out I actually had done 3-4 times more damage and healing.
This is so bad I sometimes want to just give up.

RomanRex

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

SkaraMinoc

RomanRex wrote: »

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

Battlegrounds isn't supposed to be a competition for play time.

RomanRex

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

Battlegrounds aren't supposed to be a competition for play time.

no, but having people play longer is ideal from my perspective. we need lots of people playing often to keep it alive. the system rewards that which i think is perfect.

we just need to refine the medal system a bit. dps need to have more medals for good plays and give big old medals for doing objectives successfully on those maps.

SkaraMinoc

RomanRex wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

Battlegrounds aren't supposed to be a competition for play time.

no, but having people play longer is ideal from my perspective. we need lots of people playing often to keep it alive. the system rewards that which i think is perfect.

we just need to refine the medal system a bit. dps need to have more medals for good plays and give big old medals for doing objectives successfully on those maps.

Medal system can't accurately determine impact and even if it could, it's still time-based.

A C-tier player who plays 30 hours a week and wins 50% of their games doesn't deserve to be ranked higher than an S-tier player who plays 20 hours per week and wins 80% of their games.

The C-tier player is not better than the S-tier player even if ZOS says they are on their "competitive" ladder. Nobody is fooled and the C-tier player won't get any recognition.

In fact, it might be a bad thing to rank high on the 4v4 ladder because all it does is reveal how much you played. It's also a violation of your privacy to leak that information. You might not want other players to know.

RomanRex

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

Battlegrounds aren't supposed to be a competition for play time.

no, but having people play longer is ideal from my perspective. we need lots of people playing often to keep it alive. the system rewards that which i think is perfect.

we just need to refine the medal system a bit. dps need to have more medals for good plays and give big old medals for doing objectives successfully on those maps.

Medal system can't accurately determine impact and even if it could, it's still time-based.

A C-tier player who plays 30 hours a week and wins 50% of their games doesn't deserve to be ranked higher than an S-tier player who plays 20 hours per week and wins 80% of their games.

The C-tier player is not better than the S-tier player even if ZOS says they are on their "competitive" ladder. Nobody is fooled and the C-tier player won't get any recognition.

In fact, it might be a bad thing to rank high on the 4v4 ladder because all it does is reveal how much you played. It's also a violation of your privacy to leak that information. You might not want other players to know.

only the people who think they are s-tier and not recognized are going to care.

i love having more people playing at all skill levels. the best way of keeping all skill levels active is to reward effort not outcome.

SkaraMinoc

RomanRex wrote: »

only the people who think they are s-tier and not recognized are going to care.

It doesn't matter how good you think you are. It matters how many times you win and lose. If I win 100% of my 4v4's when matched against the #1 player, then they don't deserve to be #1.

When win/loss is thrown out the window then the 4v4 battleground is no longer competitive. It's a casual game mode.

RomanRex wrote: »

the best way of keeping all skill levels active is to reward effort not outcome.

Participation trophies aren't supposed to be more rewarding than the winning team's trophy.

CameraBeardThePirate

RomanRex wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

i like the leadership board as it is. encourages more time playing in BG’s… rather than 3 good games for a high rank then done for the week.

i wish shields were counted toward healing.

Battlegrounds aren't supposed to be a competition for play time.

no, but having people play longer is ideal from my perspective. we need lots of people playing often to keep it alive. the system rewards that which i think is perfect.

we just need to refine the medal system a bit. dps need to have more medals for good plays and give big old medals for doing objectives successfully on those maps.

Medal system can't accurately determine impact and even if it could, it's still time-based.

A C-tier player who plays 30 hours a week and wins 50% of their games doesn't deserve to be ranked higher than an S-tier player who plays 20 hours per week and wins 80% of their games.

The C-tier player is not better than the S-tier player even if ZOS says they are on their "competitive" ladder. Nobody is fooled and the C-tier player won't get any recognition.

In fact, it might be a bad thing to rank high on the 4v4 ladder because all it does is reveal how much you played. It's also a violation of your privacy to leak that information. You might not want other players to know.

only the people who think they are s-tier and not recognized are going to care.

i love having more people playing at all skill levels. the best way of keeping all skill levels active is to reward effort not outcome.

How would you explain all of the other wildly popular games with healthy player bases of all skill levels that reward outcome then?

Stafford197

ZOS labeled it “competitive” but it’s literally not competitive in any regard and never will be. Simple as that. Everyone knows the leaderboard is a joke.

Instead think of it as the “Burst Heal Spam Leaderboard”.

Win/Loss is 100% irrelevant. All that matters is having a tanky team whom you can spam burst heals on to maximize burst heal medal score farming.