SHOULD WIN/LOSS RATIO MATTER IN BATTLEGROUNDS

rileynotzb14_ESO

For those who don't know, ZOS is making battleground leaderboards the same as Cyrodiil's. You will get points simply by performing actions. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. I think this is a terrible idea as the leaderboards will not reflect skill, but rather how much time you have to play the game.

Edit: I haven't made one post with the topic of this game failing.

scorpiodog

I just checked a few of your posts. Do you realize You've been saying Elder Scrolls will fail since 2015.

You are obviously in "The Sky is Falling" category.

disintegr8

I don't really care because I will probably never use it but doesn't it involve groups of players fighting against each other?

If it was all about win/loss ratio wouldn't it lead to more elitism because people just want to win?

People who need to fill empty slots would sprout even more for for CP cap players or rejecting anyone not using BiS gear. This would make it worse than it already is for newer or less experienced players who want to participate.

itehache

I just want all the achievements and have fun with my friends.

I guess you're talking about the scores, but I am not sure. In that case, yeah, I think winning or losing should affect your scoreboard.

idk

No. Leaderboards should be reserved for those who can play 10 hours a day.

scorpiodog wrote: »

I just checked a few of your posts. Do you realize You've been saying Elder Scrolls will fail since 2015.

You are obviously in "The Sky is Falling" category.

He has not made posts saying the game will fail though all his threads created in the past year seem to be along the lines of complaining and each one of those attempts to use polls to bolster his opinion even though those polls do not have the ability to come close to getting feedback from the player base, just part of the forum users.

As for the topic, I doubt it is as simple as OP seems to describe. I expect meeting objectives, which is key to winning, including anything that awards medals including killing apply to the leaderboard ranking.

That is how it should be at least. Someone in an arena that is clearly objective based that merely runs around in death matches and disregards the objectives could very well gain less points from the match. I would also expect points are given for winning a match. At least if it is designed well this is how it would happen.

Not going to vote in the poll. It is designed along to narrow of choices in an attempt to bias the poll. Like any forum poll it is also meaningless since it is not capable of gaining the overall view of the player base, statistically speaking.

Edit: Besides, if W/L record was the decisive determining factor for leaderboard then many would have much less reason to queue up which would be bad for BGs. Well, bad, unless you like long queue times once the new BGs settle down.

Waffennacht

I'm sure you get participation points along with a bonus the better you performed.

DragonBound

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

rileynotzb14_ESO wrote: »

For those who don't know, ZOS is making battleground leaderboards the same as Cyrodiil's. You will get points simply by performing actions. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. I think this is a terrible idea as the leaderboards will not reflect skill, but rather how much time you have to play the game.

Really? That is a bad idea zos a very bad idea this is what makes matchmaking good like in guild wars 2 and other games I have played, the matchmaking will be terrible if they do it the other way.

DragonBound

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

scorpiodog wrote: »

I just checked a few of your posts. Do you realize You've been saying Elder Scrolls will fail since 2015.

You are obviously in "The Sky is Falling" category.

Does not mean he does not have a point.

idk

No. Leaderboards should be reserved for those who can play 10 hours a day.

OP may not be correct. I just reviewed the patch notes.

During a Battleground, you’ll earn Medals which are granted based on your actions to progress your team towards victory specific to each game mode. For example, in a Team Deathmatch game, you’ll earn Medals for getting killing blows or healing allies. In a Capture the Flag match, you’ll get Medals for capturing the flag, but not for kill streaks.

When a Battleground ends, you’ll earn rewards based on whether your team came in first, second or third. Rewards include items, gold, XP and Alliance Points.

Medals have a score associated with them which are added onto one of three weekly Leaderboards. These Leaderboards are divided by game types, so you’ll only earn Medals for that Leaderboard type.  The three Leaderboards include:

As long as medals are granted for members of the winning team, which it does state rewards are earned based on how the tem placed when the BG ends, then this is a good design. Those that play to the goals of the specific BG should be rewarded and it encourages players to do more than death matches when that is not the objective.

If leaderboards were merely based off W/L then it would be a poor design.

SnubbS

W/L shouldn't matter in Battlegrounds based on the fact it would disincentivize solo queueing.

Avran_Sylt

Not at all. At least, not with how matchmaking currently is. Love it when you're a team of 2 players against two teams of 4.
Besides, then it is a measure (in part) of group skill, not your own.

Also, your poll questions are very pointed and goading people into selecting one of them.

Maybe have a solo queue scoreboard, and a premade scoreboard. Where solo is based on objective score, and premade is based on objective score and weighted with the number of matches you've won.

scorpiodog

DragonBound wrote: »

scorpiodog wrote: »

I just checked a few of your posts. Do you realize You've been saying Elder Scrolls will fail since 2015.

You are obviously in "The Sky is Falling" category.

Does not mean he does not have a point.

Yes - he's emotionally unbalanced and just one of these people who whinges and complains about everything and pulls something out of his ass and makes a poll to try and legitimize his skewed point of view.

Then when I challenge him goes all keyboard commando as if it proves anything. What a baby.

Poliwrath

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

the current leaderboards are completely meaningless. a win/ loss rating/mmr/elo w/e tf is rlly needed to have any measure of competition in bgs.

SnubbS wrote: »

W/L shouldn't matter in Battlegrounds based on the fact it would disincentivize solo queueing.

soloq should have a separate leaderboard

Eshelmen

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

I'm not sure how this is being handled as I haven't jumped on the pts.
But, there should be a rating scale first and foremost, and leaderboard groups need to be fixed. Many, many MP games do this when queuing up for an opponent, not just MMOs.

Start every group off at say a rating of 1,500, win a match and your groups rating goes up, lose a match and your group rating goes down. The higher the skill level your group is, the slower it rises, but declines faster if you lose.

After a while, players will be better matched once a queue pops.

And let's make it even harder to increase skill rating. Make the groups of four the same group. Meaning, if a member drops out and someone else comes aboard, the groups skill rating is reset.

Why? Because pub queuing 4s by yourself should be for the fun, not to earn a leader board spot . And if you and your random three allies are kicking butt, then you guys better stay together. Make the top dogs earn it the right way.

Depending on the game mode and its rules, kills may very well not matter.

ScytheNL

Biased poll is biased.

Maybe I killed 99% of enemy troops all by myself, but the last one killed me and captured my keep. That would be a loss.

Maybe I played Lute on a rock while my alliance storms the Keep and takes it.That would be a win.

So no. ACTION is what matters, not WIN/LOSS.

zaria

rileynotzb14_ESO wrote: »

For those who don't know, ZOS is making battleground leaderboards the same as Cyrodiil's. You will get points simply by performing actions. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. I think this is a terrible idea as the leaderboards will not reflect skill, but rather how much time you have to play the game.

With actions I assume this is kill, captured flags and other objectives.
If you do more of the objectives than the enemy you will win the match and get an high score.
If you get slaughtered all the time your score will be low
Benefit of this is that it promote high risk play.

Having just winning / loosing as objective will promote defensive play, think soccer where stopping the enemy from scoring is just as important and easier to do than scoring yourself

rileynotzb14_ESO

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

scorpiodog wrote: »

DragonBound wrote: »

scorpiodog wrote: »

I just checked a few of your posts. Do you realize You've been saying Elder Scrolls will fail since 2015.

You are obviously in "The Sky is Falling" category.

Does not mean he does not have a point.

Yes - he's emotionally unbalanced and just one of these people who whinges and complains about everything and pulls something out of his ass and makes a poll to try and legitimize his skewed point of view.

Then when I challenge him goes all keyboard commando as if it proves anything. What a baby.

Man they have counselors for this kind of thing. Your a sad person. And btw, most ppl agree w/ me not you. So who's point of view is skewed?

Skayaq

Most people who have posted seems to disagree, I didn't vote (and would guess others didn't as well) because your poll options are biased af.

ScytheNL

Skayaq wrote: »

Most people who have posted seems to disagree, I didn't vote (and would guess others didn't as well) because your poll options are biased af.

Same

Shadow_Viper_vX

rileynotzb14_ESO wrote: »

For those who don't know, ZOS is making battleground leaderboards the same as Cyrodiil's. You will get points simply by performing actions. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. I think this is a terrible idea as the leaderboards will not reflect skill, but rather how much time you have to play the game.

Your caps lock key got stuck

Thought you should know

Ballzy321

No. Leaderboards should be reserved for those who can play 10 hours a day.

I have s feeling capturevthe flag will just be about farming the flag rather than turning it in if it doesn't matter. The other game modes will be fine, zos has never made winning a campaign priority ever so I doubt this will be different.

Emmagoldman

Why would you frontload such highly objective responses in your poll? Just curious, when you were contemplating over a coffee on how to generate useful data, why was this even an idea?

Rickter

I think the Developers wanted to take the focus off of wins or losses and instead - your team's individual performance. I know in other competitive ranking type games (namely FPS) your rank isnt determined by k/d ratio. Keep in mind that your all time k/d may go "negative" and over the course of hundreds of matches, may never go positive.

additionally, 3 teams presents some "wild card" situations that traditional 2 teams do not. you could lose, but not out of any clear lack of skill considering you might get teamed up on.

so yeah, idk why the votes are leaning toward having k/d determine your rank, but you all are setting yourselves up for disappointment.

DeadlyRecluse

Eh, the leaderboard is going to be a problem either way.

If it's based on wins/loses, then it's gonna be 24/7 cheese. If it's on points, it'll be just people grinding 10+ hours for leaderboard status.

As long as the rewards can be bought/earned/won without the leaderboard mattering, I personally plan on just ignoring it.

DaveMoeDee

Horrible poll. Choices are idiotic. Maybe the OP should spend 5 minutes to understand opinions other than his own.

Regarding w/l focused BG, it seems to me there is a simple solution (though I have never played a BG in any game). Just have one of the maps have a score focused on winning (and kills hopefully, since sitting back while another team gets most kills and then just killing them should be worth less points than a team killing all 8) and each map needs to have a leaderboard.

BG don't have to be just about killing. They can be minigames. In the minigames, there can be different ways of scoring. One of the maps could be what the OP wants. But other maps can be focused on other objectives. So long as there is no map where 3 teams can ignore one another and rack up points.

Danksta

No. Leaderboards should be reserved for those who can play 10 hours a day.

In biased polls I always pick the option the OP tried to sway me from.

Violynne

I didn't vote because there was no option for "Who the hell cares about leader boards. Just bring your A-game to the battle."

Saltypretzels

Definitely win/loss should only matter because all I have to do then is play once and win once, and no one will ever be able to surpass my 100% win record. Score!

rileynotzb14_ESO

Yes. Win/Loss ratio should be the key factor in determining leaderboard position.

Saltypretzels wrote: »

Definitely win/loss should only matter because all I have to do then is play once and win once, and no one will ever be able to surpass my 100% win record. Score!

Obviously there are minimum requirements to be placed...

scorpiodog

Skayaq wrote: »

Most people who have posted seems to disagree, I didn't vote (and would guess others didn't as well) because your poll options are biased af.

ScytheNL wrote: »

Skayaq wrote: »

Most people who have posted seems to disagree, I didn't vote (and would guess others didn't as well) because your poll options are biased af.

Same

ScytheNL wrote: »

Biased poll is biased.

Maybe I killed 99% of enemy troops all by myself, but the last one killed me and captured my keep. That would be a loss.

Maybe I played Lute on a rock while my alliance storms the Keep and takes it.That would be a win.

So no. ACTION is what matters, not WIN/LOSS.

Shadow_Viper_vX wrote: »

rileynotzb14_ESO wrote: »

For those who don't know, ZOS is making battleground leaderboards the same as Cyrodiil's. You will get points simply by performing actions. Doesn't matter if you win or lose. I think this is a terrible idea as the leaderboards will not reflect skill, but rather how much time you have to play the game.

Your caps lock key got stuck

Thought you should know

Emmagoldman wrote: »

Why would you frontload such highly objective responses in your poll? Just curious, when you were contemplating over a coffee on how to generate useful data, why was this even an idea?

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Horrible poll. Choices are idiotic. Maybe the OP should spend 5 minutes to understand opinions other than his own.

Regarding w/l focused BG, it seems to me there is a simple solution (though I have never played a BG in any game). Just have one of the maps have a score focused on winning (and kills hopefully, since sitting back while another team gets most kills and then just killing them should be worth less points than a team killing all 8) and each map needs to have a leaderboard.

BG don't have to be just about killing. They can be minigames. In the minigames, there can be different ways of scoring. One of the maps could be what the OP wants. But other maps can be focused on other objectives. So long as there is no map where 3 teams can ignore one another and rack up points.

SAD

I don't even need to say anything more because it's obvious lots of people feel the same way about your poll that I do.

SAD

ArchMikem

No. Leaderboards should be reserved for those who can play 10 hours a day.

Do you understand how unfair that would be considering some of the Invincible Tank Builds that are out there? The 80k BlazePlars that can shrug off entire Zergs for hours?