Potential Solution to MMR and leaderboards.

BNOC

Currently, leaderboards are essentially calculated on played time.

Take a look at DM for example; If a player averaged 5k score across 20 games, player 2 only has to average 2501 score across 40 games to finish above - This is really really poor design, especially considering we can all comfortably agree that the 2501 player just isn't as good as the 5k player - Not to mention, that's not how it works anywhere else in the game, trial players who are running the trial 1,000 times a week aren't having their scores continually combined so they are guaranteed top spot, just because they have more time - These leaderboards are effective in reporting the best players.

This is true across all BG game modes, and I propose the following fix and transparency moving forwards.

Placement games

Each reset, players will have to play a preset amount of games before determining ranking.

5 for convenience and speed (More like 10-20 on live):

Game 1: 5,200
Game 2: 4,800
Game 3: 6,350
Game 4: 5,400
Game 5: 5,150

The leaderboard score wouldn't be a total of all games that reset, it'll be an average of all your placement games, so 5,380.

Determine leaderboards on the average of the placement games, and have any subsequent games to be as they are currently - Reward & fun based.

Unless I'm overlooking something obvious, that fixes the leaderboards issue - Players that perform well will be rewarded and those that simply have time will not.

Premades -
I've considered a lot when it comes to queuing with premades and I really tried to figure out a solution - But away from group specific leaderboards I can't think of much that's balanced; in fairness to either side - Premade players competing with one another for an average based score is just as unbalanced as players facing a premade for an average based score - The only option that works in my head is that your placement games are Solo Q exclusive.

MMR

Consider the new placement score your MMR for that game mode - Some players are genuinely better or worse at one game type so it should be split per type.

This is transparent, the same way everyone can see their MSA/ trials best score in the window, even if they're not on the leaderboard, would be able to see their average (MMR) in that game mode, as well as that of the top 100 MMR's.

Create brackets that are prioritised based on that average and then continue with the current + - system if there's a lack of players.
I.E: The 5,380 MMR Deathmatch player, faces up against fellow ~4.5-6k average players - If the queue is light, + - that to 4k-6.5k after 5 minutes (Or whatever)

Extra

Mail rewards -
If it becomes a case of "I want the free loot and because I'm playing more I deserve something gold and shiny" for weaker players who are up there due to played time - then add a 50-100 game requirement for a Vet Participant each reset that get's them on a mail list for participation and activity in BG's.

Reset -
I don't know how to balance this. After a reset, should you be put into placement games abased on your finishing MMR from the previous reset? Or would that cause imbalance between the top players and provide and advantage for lower tier players? Should placement games be open to all? Or is that then unfair on some top players for getting unlucky in the matchmaking compared to others?

I really don't know how to solve that question in my head.




Anyway, thoughts? Overlooked anything? Improvements? Your ideas?

Hoked_on_ponix

I agree. I remember one time killing the top player in TDM with nothing more than LAs and dots when he had the power sigil. The leaderboards need a major adjustment. What you proposed is similar to Fortnite's summer skirmish tournaments were you play a certain amount of games per period i.e week.

BNOC

I want to push this idea again as I'm unsure why it's not been addressed.

Another thing I'd add to it is that having MMR evaluated this way, balances leaderboards out for those that spend 30 minutes sitting in queues and can literally only get a couple games a night - They're probably the players that should be top, not level 30's.

Mojomonkeyman

I like your suggestions, but I think it opens up for abuse and would make BGs lose incentive. If I understand correctly your leaderboard placement games are also determining your MMR for the reset window (weekly) without being further adjusted over the course of the week.

Having so much emphasis on placement games would mean that players looking for easy stomps (not caring about rewards) could just perform below their actual skill level on purpose for placement to have a full reset window of unevenly matched games in their favor.

In addition it would eliminate the competitive incentive that is driving some people to "grind" the ladder and perform as best as they can for all of their games, because only placement counts anyways.

I personally am probably one of the most enthusiastic and veteran BG players on PC EU with more than 3k matches played by now on 4 different characters combined. I have not once played for rewards, it's just no motivation for me. It's all about fighting good players. I can only speak for myself, but I personally doubt the current rewards will be attractive enough to hold people playing "for fun only" after placement matches (since their leaderboard pos is already set in stone).

BNOC

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

I like your suggestions, but I think it opens up for abuse and would make BGs lose incentive. If I understand correctly your leaderboard placement games are also determining your MMR for the reset window (weekly) without being further adjusted over the course of the week.

Having so much emphasis on placement games would mean that players looking for easy stomps (not caring about rewards) could just perform below their actual skill level on purpose for placement to have a full reset window of unevenly matched games in their favor.

In addition it would eliminate the competitive incentive that is driving some people to "grind" the ladder and perform as best as they can for all of their games, because only placement counts anyways.

I personally am probably one of the most enthusiastic and veteran BG players on PC EU with more than 3k matches played by now on 4 different characters combined. I have not once played for rewards, it's just no motivation for me. It's all about fighting good players. I can only speak for myself, but I personally doubt the current rewards will be attractive enough to hold people playing "for fun only" after placement matches (since their leaderboard pos is already set in stone).

Ah, very good point, I hadn't considered the effect of that, thanks for pointing itout.

I levelled a level 10 sorc last week to help my housemate level up, I stomp every BG on it as you can imagine so it's already possible to abuse the system very easily.

I'm trying to consider a system that doesn't benefit people who are getting quicker queues and/or are playing more games, just because they can, more than those that actually perform.



Yeah, grinding the ladder would be gone but that's something that benefits lower levels and low MMR - Coupled with having more time ingame, it's not a fair system as it is. I can perform my best for 50 games and score 300k - Someone who doesn't work or someone who is facing lesser opponents only has to play 100 games at 3k score to match me. It doesn't matter how good I am, only if someone else has more time. Again, that falls back to the 'fixing for easy games' you've mentioned though.

I'm not in it for rewards either but I also don't agree with rewarding people for the having time.

I was thinking more about the leaderboards reflecting brackets a little better and that information (the only info we get) being a transparent evaluation of your skill.

1. MojoMonkeyMan: 5,300
2. BNOC SK: 5,265
3. Somename: 5,225
4. etc..

You've brought some good points into it! So thanks for that. Maybe there's work arounds.

Mojomonkeyman

Yeah, I absolutely love your suggestion to display meaningful info on leaderboard or lobby screen. Nothing to add here. I agree also on the workarounds stuff, its just a matter of finetuning the worst offenders out of the picture.

Grimlok_S

Same as that guy ^^

I'd also appreciate a system that doesn't strictly reward most games played, as now most of my characters are seeing extended queues.

Minno

Grimlok_S wrote: »

Same as that guy ^^

I'd also appreciate a system that doesn't strictly reward most games played, as now most of my characters are seeing extended queues.

should be an average and then calculated against your team for those games.

For example, if your k/d/a is a nice chunk but you did nothing for objectives or help your team (which means your team died alot with almost no kills and your team was in last) then your leader-board should tank hard.

gannicus1389

You can't have a "league of legends" like mmr or leaderboards when the pvp is so poorly balanced. it will drive rage and madness and many people will just quit the game. (see what happened to gw2), which was a very compeititve game, even had a e-sports, and many people quit when the balance was thrown away and there was 1 or 2 classes that dominated pvp.

do you really want a merit base leaderboards with stamsorcs/magsorcs, and healers being so much stronger than everything else in the game?

I don't think so.
rating would kill bgs completely unless a very well studied and calculated balance is applied first.