Meaningful Leaderboards

Aurielle

As we all know, BG leaderboards are merely a reflection of how many matches a player has completed on that character. They do not reflect skill or performance, but rather the total number of medals earned over a week. People who have longer queue times generally do not place high on the leaderboard (if at all), because they don’t have as many opportunities to play compared to those with lower queue times. Also, skilled players who don’t have as much time to play due to work, families, etc don’t have a chance at placing on the leaderboards. The same is not true for PVE leaderboards; someone could complete a single VMA run, for instance, and place in the top ten without another run.

Here’s what I’m proposing: leaderboards based on your average score across a minimum of, say, 15 matches (or more — just spitballing here, not sure what the minimum should be). A minimum number of matches played would be necessary to prevent leaderboard exploiting by people who roll alts simply to destroy noobs at low MMR levels. A leaderboard system based on average score rewards those who consistently play well — not just those who have the free time to spam BGs all day, every day. It would also potentially encourage better team play, more heal sharing, and so on.

Also, better leaderboard rewards would be needed once leaderboards are changed to reflect performance rather than time played. Placing on the leaderboard and receiving one gold item is... disappointing, to say the least.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Urvoth

I agree, leaderboards are meaningless rn.

Iskiab

Base it solely on win/lose ratio! As a Healer the most points I’ve ever gotten was 3k.

Keep it simple, if it’s based on score they’ll need to fix the scoring system too.

Win/lose ratio with a minimum number of games played.

Iskiab

Maybe tiers for ranking:
Win/lose ratio over 10 games
Win/lose ratio over 20 games
Win/lose ratio over 50 games

RedTalon

Also different matches do points differently also, like land grabs most of the top tier on that board are normally Templar or healers who use heavy armor and shield since you score more points for taking damage and healing, then you do kills or damage.

Like even on my none Templar, I can die 15 times in a match, but capture the most flags and take the most damage and come out with the most points for that match

So would need to adjust things for all the type of matches

Aurielle

Iskiab wrote: »

Base it solely on win/lose ratio! As a Healer the most points I’ve ever gotten was 3k.

Keep it simple, if it’s based on score they’ll need to fix the scoring system too.

Win/lose ratio with a minimum number of games played.

I think if it were based on win/loss ratio, then there would definitely need to be separate queues. Premades generally tend to win matches, unless playing against other premades. Unfair leaderboard advantage.

Also, healers can still gain a lot of points in BGs by getting assists. Throw down some AOEs if you’re not already doing so. Hybrid DPS/healers actually do more for their teams than full healers (assuming you’re playing deathmatch).

mursie

i wish leaderboards were account wide - not character

NordSwordnBoard

Yes, like the idea. Maybe you get an average of your top games? Bad matches/score can happen to anybody, and quantity does overwhelm quality as it is now. If you take the average of 5 or 10 of the best matches a player has, then a person who plays well once or twice a night isn't replaced on the leaderboard with one who grinds 1k/match 10 times a day all week. A couple bad matches can get replaced by better ones, and you can still grind if you want to push your score higher.

Diddly_D_Potatoes

Basing leaderboards on win/loss ratio might not be a fair representation either.

I have a stamblade that i'm terribad at playing in the "seal clubbing" MMR bracket, with around 70 matches played and a 68% win rate.

Other toons that I play better than terribad, have hundreds matches played have only have win rates of 38-50%

So basing it strictly on win/loss is still going to benefit those with lower MMR that have already got good (or even meh good).

Mystikkal

The problem with an actual ranking system is the 3 way fighting. Friends could just help each other win when they are on the other team. It would need to be 2 teams fighting.

The population is too small as well. You'd have people queing on alts to let their friends win. The top mmr Bgs are all the same people so it would be easy to rank a toon up and use it to help your friends by letting them win. Unless you made rank account wide.. that could help

wheem_ESO

I suggested using an average personal score for leaderboard rankings a long time ago (with a certain minimum number of games required, of course), as I think it's a far better representation of who "deserves" it than what we have now. As of a few minutes ago, there's at least one player in the top 20 Deathmatch rankings that doesn't even have 100 CP yet...if he doesn't buckle down and gain some more CP over this weekend, he's likely to end up with gold jewelry that isn't even max level.

Between long queue times, "proper" gameplay in Deathmatches being far more common, and still some tryharding premades running around, the solo queueing high MMR players have way too hard of a time getting on the leaderboards. I can spend 15 minutes in the queue, just to get into a 15 minute long Deathmatch with enough healing and kiting to ensure that no one has a high personal score at the end. Or I can queue up on a secondary character and wait 5 seconds to get into a game that's fairly likely to end with a non-timeout victory, and where I can get a far higher personal score with a lot less effort. So while it'd still be easier to get on the leaderboards with a lower MMR alt, it'd at least improve the chances that higher MMR characters have a shot at it - cumulative is just way too slanted against you.

And I'd be absolutely against using the win rate as a factor on the leaderboards, since that favors premade teams way too much.

LordLomax

Prob a daft question but what is MMR ?

Aurielle

LordLomax wrote: »

Prob a daft question but what is MMR ?

Match making rank. If you hardly ever run BGs, you will have a low MMR, and will be matched up with other players (usually noobs) who also have low MMRs. If you have a high MMR, that means you likely play BGs regularly and have earned a large number of lifetime BG medals.

RedTalon

Aurielle wrote: »

LordLomax wrote: »

Prob a daft question but what is MMR ?

Match making rank. If you hardly ever run BGs, you will have a low MMR, and will be matched up with other players (usually noobs) who also have low MMRs. If you have a high MMR, that means you likely play BGs regularly and have earned a large number of lifetime BG medals.

Also notice that the MMRs don't carry between chars