Merit System For Players?

Xeroxed

Look I get that you guys wanted to cut down queue times, and solo players didn't like getting pummeled by premade teams, but there has GOT to be a way to put in a merit system or something that can shift bad players to queuing with other bad players. There are way too many instances of getting thrown onto a team that won't respond or listen to any sort of communication meant to help strategize, and/or they act like every game mode is deathmatch and hurl themselves against enemy teams without playing to the objective at all. I don't know about you, but playing a team game with teams of people that act like kids unable to read, let alone strategize, is in NO way fun - and we had the ability to queue with people we knew WEREN'T 10-year olds taken away from us. This needs to end. Battlegrounds are unplayable.

Elsonso

No one likes to be told they are "bad", and some of the few who are "bad" will dispute the fact that they are.

Xeroxed

Indeed, but honestly I don't see any other way when you can't choose WHO you team with. It's not like it needs to be visible to players anyway - like if X amount of people give the player a thumbs down rating at end of match within a given time period, they are seamlessly matched with similar players going forward, maybe for a defined period.

deleted221106-002999

Any such system based on player feedback would be meaningless because it would be abused or manipulated.

Everything from Grumpy McTooMuchLag just [snip] sideways at randoms because (s)he can to "hey remember me, friend? how about we give each other a 'merit' or 6 here".

The solo random bg is only rarely going to be team optimised for any specific game type; the re-introduction of a separate group queue would be the preferred solution.

But even with no pre-formed groups the solo group queuing tool is laughable at best given the number of matches that start with unmatched team numbers so I'd not be optimistic about results even if/when zos do decide to re-introduce a group queue.

[Edited for Censor Bypass]

idk

BGs already use MMR. No system is perfect and players will get mixed with some that are better and some that are worse. ESO has a major problem with the very wide span between skilled players and those that are, well, far less skilled. Nothing will change that.

ecru

Small team sizes and the addition of a third team exacerbate balance issues. One bad player is 25% of your team, two is 50%. 50% of your team being terrible when your team only has four people, and you're likely to face up to 6 at a time, leaving you in essentially a 2v6.. see the problem here yet? Once those two potatoes die, that leaves you in a 1v3 situation, which ain't great odds.

Now change that situation to an 8v8, but 50% of your team is still terrible. The other team can roast those four potatoes, but you're still only facing 1v2 odds if they die, and cross healing will at the very least keep those bad players alive a bit longer, making them sponge up damage while you can at least put pressure on the other group. Things turn out better. 8 players on a team means you or someone else is more likely to queue with the intention of solely healing, so you and your team might expect to have somewhat reliable heals, and things aren't so bad even with a lot of imbalance. A larger map with objectives spread out splits that team of 8 up, allowing you and the other competent players on your team to hopefully make even more of a difference without the interference of overwhelming odds.

BGs are a failed experiment and hopefully result in a good example of what not to do for other MMO devs in the future. Don't add a third team, don't make team sizes unnecessarily small for any reason (including as a result of that third team), don't let full premades queue against full pugs, etc. The thing is, other developers figured this out with trial and error over a decade ago. I don't know why or how this happened, I honestly don't understand it. How did no one with any substantial amount of experience in MMO PvP not step in and say, "these ideas are going to lead to a total disaster in terms of balance, do not implement them"? It just makes no sense to me.

Why do you think you don't get put in a 4v4 when you queue for general instanced pvp in WoW? Why do you think you get put into a large match, instead of a tiny one? Ask yourself how much of a difference player skill can make in a 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. Put yourself in that situation in Cyrodiil and think about how easily two people who regularly 1vX can dominate a group of four mediocre players. Now imagine putting those two players up against those four mediocre players in an instanced match, and then giving them two teammates. Now imagine giving them another four players of any skill also attacking their targets. What happens? BGs in ESO happen.

SshadowSscale

I have a fealing that nightblades are gonna get destroyed with a system like this..... I mean in high mmr a nightblades hurts its own team more than it helps them so yikes

redspecter23

Edit: checked title

Vizzini

Absolutely. Simple ranked system. They did it in halo. When you start you are rank 1. if you win a lot you go up in rank. if you loose a lot you go up in rank. System attempts to pair you with others in your rank.

exeeter702

Player based feedback is a terrible idea for 2 reasons.

1-the system can easily be gamed by players and manipulated.

2-there are far too many variables that can determine your contribution to a bg that from the outside looking in, many would assume you are at fault and likely down vote you out of shear ignorance or inexperience.

Case in point, healer queues up for bg, ends up on a team with 3 stamblades running high damage cloak builds. The healer is forced to heal only himself since his team mates will be popping in and out of stealth playing entirely around their own gameplan. The healer is constantly trying to support them but often ends up being the only targetable player on the team. So not only fo they have very little healing done medals since self healing doesnt count, but they likely have very little assists and are often forced into *** positions. The team of oblivious stamblades would then see their scores compared to the healers and downvote.

(This is totally not a frequent experience of mine of course)

RedTalon

exeeter702 wrote: »

Player based feedback is a terrible idea for 2 reasons.

1-the system can easily be gamed by players and manipulated.

2-there are far too many variables that can determine your contribution to a bg that from the outside looking in, many would assume you are at fault and likely down vote you out of shear ignorance or inexperience.

Case in point, healer queues up for bg, ends up on a team with 3 stamblades running high damage cloak builds. The healer is forced to heal only himself since his team mates will be popping in and out of stealth playing entirely around their own gameplan. The healer is constantly trying to support them but often ends up being the only targetable player on the team. So not only fo they have very little healing done medals since self healing doesnt count, but they likely have very little assists and are often forced into *** positions. The team of oblivious stamblades would then see their scores compared to the healers and downvote.

(This is totally not a frequent experience of mine of course)

The system would be abused and used for various reasons

And your second point is right on the mark, also through in bgs and the different types of them a high damage nightblade wont be defending much in land grabs, so wont be getting a lot of points so might look bad to some compared to someone less damaged based or a healer...could give way to many examples.