Ranked Point system is still broken

Rooatouille

As much as I love ToT and am thrilled about the continued additions, the ranked point system needs one small change: add a base point gain for winning a match regardless of MMR. I started at #1 on the leaderboard today and ended at #200+. I won more games than I lost today, but when every loss is -150 (literally), and every win was less than +50, it's just unreasonable.

Each ranked win should have a base +60 RP gain with an additional MMR-adjusted amount up to a total of +150.

This simple change would make the leaderboard more appealing to many players (getting +0 feels really, really bad as a player) while still rewarding those with the most significant skill expression appropriately. A pure MMR/ELO system only works in games like chess without RNG. However, in a game like ToT, where RNG plays a not-insignificant role, it doesn't work. The best players play to manipulate the RNG in their favor as much as possible, and that's where the strategy and skill expression truly shine. Still, an outstanding player might lose a game regardless of their influence if RNG isn't on their side.

I'm not arguing against RNG; it's part of the game, and the game wouldn't be as fun without it. However, the ranked leaderboard should be adjusted according to the game's nature so it's more interesting and rewarding for those players who truly understand gameplay mechanics to a high degree.

This problem with the ranked leaderboard is not new. It's been discussed at length on these forums. Furthermore, I know plenty of players who no longer play on the ranked leaderboard solely because of this broken system.

This issue needs to be addressed to foster the long-term health of ToT, and with such a simple fix available, it's a wonder why it persists.

Personofsecrets

I was surprised to see you rise up and then fall down so fast. It's sort of funny that a lucky aspect of gaining competitive rank is just getting matched against players who will give points. It was only the 3rd day or say of the season and I was getting a bunch of 0 point win games.

I'm not sure if they realize that the system encourages players not to play. Why risk 5+ games worth of points when winning could potentially give 30 or less points. Better to let other players catch up in MMR so that huge losses don't happen.

We can hope, but I'm pretty sure that they are done messing around with the score system. It used to be that we could lose over 600 points for a game...

Seraphayel

The ranking system is an utter joke. The less you play the better you rank which is total nonsense. On PlayStation we have one guy that’s always sitting on top because he/she simply stops playing after a win and then slowly but steadily climbing the leaderboard. In well over a thousand ranked matches in the last months I’ve played against him/her maybe two or three times, which is ridiculously low. Against most opponents I usually play dozens of matches per month.

With hundreds of matches played per month I usually end up in the Top 10/20, but if I would deploy these cheap tactics of not playing I’m sure I could end up in the Top 5 somewhere. It‘s just an overall terrible system that incentives you to not play at all after a certain point.

spartaxoxo

The rank system is a joke

Necrotech_Master

the ranking system they used for tribute would be better in BGs, and the ranking system in BGs would probably be better in tribute lol

BGs need a more ELO style, where you can gain and lose pts so that if your fighting above your skill level, it will adjust your MMR to fight people of similar skill level

tribute needs to remove the pts loss on a losing game period

losing pts at all puts me off of trying to even bother getting to rubedite rank, even though i want to at least once to finish the achievements at some point

Seraphayel

Yesterday I won seven matches in a row and I made it to #7 (started at #50) - after that I stopped playing. Usually I play the daily on all my alts, but right now I’m contemplating if I just stop playing altogether at this point because losing a match will most likely drop me 10-15 ranks and to get back up I need at least 3 wins in a row.

Just thinking about not playing at all is a massive flaw in design when it comes to the leaderboards and ToT in general.

kmfdm

It’s not entirely true that it discourages you from playing. I always manage to return to the top - it just requires some time. Yesterday, for example, I had a run of bad luck with a score of 8W -- 6L , which caused me to fall from place #2 to #380. However, I then went on a winning streak of 25W to 1L and got back to #1.

The current system isn’t zero-sum, meaning the average score is gradually increasing. If you play regularly and maintain a win rate of about 80-85% or higher, you should end up in the top #10. I believe most of the complaints on the rating system come from players who get a lucky streak and reach the top #5, who then can’t sustain their win rate, so they eventually fall back to the rank they belong to. This isn't really a problem with the rating system. The skill-to-luck ratio of ToT is not 100% to 0% (more like 90% to 10%), Therefore, you might experience times of extraordinary luck, leading you to think that you’d fare better by not playing after such a streak. However, this would be true for any rating system.

That said, I still believe that a zero-sum (or even non-zero sum) ELO system (with smaller rating gains/drops) would be much better. It could include a reset mechanism at season’s end, where everyone’s rating would be adjusted up or down by a certain percentage getting closer to the baseline value.

ShadowPaladin

The current point system is intransparent and way too complex. Therefore, I do think it is discouraging players and new players from playing ToT-PvP matches!

The system should be more like for example the one from Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Links. This system is transparent and easy to understand.

Largomets

I just won 6 games back to back and got a TOTAL of +3 points, across all 6 games combined. I did not advance a single spot on the LB, and I'm at rank 42 right now so it's not even like I'm top 5. I'm simply not getting matched against people who are higher than me.

Meanwhile, if I had lost even a single one of those 6 games, I'd lose 150 points guaranteed and fall off the LB entirely. That's simply not a good system.

I'd say one of two options would fix it, both already somewhat proposed in this thread:

Option 1: a floor of no less than x points for a win (60 was proposed, that seems fine), no matter what.
Option 2: never lose points, and it's just like cyro where you are just looking to add points all season to see who can get the most.

The current system is probably the worst scoring system for any competitive game I've ever seen. It encourages you NOT to play when you're doing well. What even is that?

Personofsecrets

Largomets wrote: »

I just won 6 games back to back and got a TOTAL of +3 points, across all 6 games combined. I did not advance a single spot on the LB, and I'm at rank 42 right now so it's not even like I'm top 5. I'm simply not getting matched against people who are higher than me.

Meanwhile, if I had lost even a single one of those 6 games, I'd lose 150 points guaranteed and fall off the LB entirely. That's simply not a good system.

I'd say one of two options would fix it, both already somewhat proposed in this thread:

Option 1: a floor of no less than x points for a win (60 was proposed, that seems fine), no matter what.
Option 2: never lose points, and it's just like cyro where you are just looking to add points all season to see who can get the most.

The current system is probably the worst scoring system for any competitive game I've ever seen. It encourages you NOT to play when you're doing well. What even is that?

My observation from last month is that

Largomets wrote: »

I just won 6 games back to back and got a TOTAL of +3 points, across all 6 games combined. I did not advance a single spot on the LB, and I'm at rank 42 right now so it's not even like I'm top 5. I'm simply not getting matched against people who are higher than me.

Meanwhile, if I had lost even a single one of those 6 games, I'd lose 150 points guaranteed and fall off the LB entirely. That's simply not a good system.

I'd say one of two options would fix it, both already somewhat proposed in this thread:

Option 1: a floor of no less than x points for a win (60 was proposed, that seems fine), no matter what.
Option 2: never lose points, and it's just like cyro where you are just looking to add points all season to see who can get the most.

The current system is probably the worst scoring system for any competitive game I've ever seen. It encourages you NOT to play when you're doing well. What even is that?

My findings from last month may shed some light.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8141543/#Comment_8141543

sayswhoto

10 days left and there are about 600 players in ranked on PC NA, at least according to my rank saying 57 is 9.3%. This is down from the typical ~1000 players. However, I know this last week it will increase to 1000+ players as everyone scrambles to go on a win streak and then just sit on rank for the top 2% or top 10% rewards.

I can't help think the ladder system contributes to this.

GuuMoonRyoung

Wait what? You lose 3 times more points for losing than winning? What the hell? How are we supposed to catch up then?

Personofsecrets

My opponent first picked Midnight Raid and then second picked Mother's Mercy.

For several turns afterward and well into the game they used the Rajhin button.

Very slowly, I was able to counter with Rajhin presses of my own as presses as well as an agent stack.

They had a real shot of winning. They attempted to abuse single game pieces to win.

I had to form a delicate strategy of how to overcome the power and bewilderment rush.

It took a long time.

I got zero points.

Zero points.

Zero.

@ZOS_Kevin , just like the team implemented a cap to the amount of points that someone can lose, there should also be a bare minimum number of points gained for a win.

This idea seems sort of obvious to me. The idea is the bare basic of rewarding someone for the effort that they put into winning a match.

If the ranking system can't have a rework for whatever reason, then the bare minimum that can be done is the implementation of a point floor for wins.

And one last note, it doesn't really make sense how some players can shoot to 1400 or even 2000 within the first few days of the season while I'm getting 0 to 30 points per win.

Sachsen71

Came to the forums to see if there were any complaints about this and found this thread.

A couple days ago I was at #3 on the leaderboard.

Today I lost three matches and lost 450 points. I then won three matches and gained... THREE points. One point for each win. Now I'm down in the mid-200s on the leaderboard.

@ZOS_Kevin PLEASE have someone look at this. I had three wins and three losses, and the net result to my points was -447. What a horrible, terrible scoring system.

sayswhoto

It matters a lot who you play against. You probably already know that similar or higher ranking players won't cause you to lose so many points on a loss. You sort of have to be fortunate enough to play at a time people at your rank or above are also playing.

Otherwise, it's bound to be a net loss in ladder ranking, even if you have above average win rate.

There's also a potentially exploitative psychological effect of chasing after your prior place in the ladder. There have been several mental health posts in the past where people have felt terrible. The most strategic element of ToT is arguably knowing when to quit for the day. It puzzles me they would let a system like this continue.

Here's a post from 2 years ago about mental health with similar issues people face today. There are more recent posts, but I don't want to call anyone out.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/609811/tot-bad-for-my-mental-health#latest

Largomets

While I understand the spirit of the devs wanting different players to be worth different points in an MMR system, the implementation is terrible.

Because the ceiling/floor for points are not also calibrated, the risk/reward for advanced players discourages continued play. If I win 3 games and lose 3 games and it's against equally skilled players, I should end where I started. This is not possible. Even if I win 3 games and lose 3 games against the same player, I still land WELL below where I started. And if I play a weaker player and win 3 games and lose 3 games against the same player, I end up losing all and gaining none.

There needs to be a "minimum points to win" that is like, say, 60 points against a weaker player, and 100 points against the skilled players. With the minimum set at 0, I can be in a position to play the sweatiest game of my life, work my ass off to overcome an RNG imbalance, and be rewarded with 0 points. When that happens, why would I ever want to keep playing?

This community is dwindling and dying because ZOS refuses to balance this game, make the broken decks fair, fix the scoring system etc. etc. We don't even have 1k players per season on the LB anymore...

sayswhoto

1 loss and 3 wins today (75% win rate) resulted in losing rank from #26 to #55.

Sometimes, even if I win, I lose rank since I gained so few points and someone else got more from their win during that time.

Personofsecrets

I'm coming more and more to the belief that the rank system has a large luck basis.

That is a separate thing than saying that the game itself takes luck to win. I'm not saying that.

I've closely monitored some players who do well. It would be surprising to me how a player that wins 70% of their games on a good day can be a "top" player for several months, but the ranking system seems to lend itself to just that.

If a player wins too much, then they only receive minimal points for their wins and will always get the maximum loss. Players with worse records have more chances to get a higher number of points for their wins. At that point, it just takes a win streak, which is bound to happen to anyone playing a lot, to push them up to number one in the leader board.

I had a 50 some game win streak and the point gain was abysmal. I just barely got in the top 5. Meanwhile, players with a worse win rate than I were jumping around the board more, but ultimately ended up in a higher position.

The worst thing that can be rewarded is quantity of games over superiority of play, but such dynamic seems to show it's face often in online games.

Another large factor is if a player can ever get matched against an equal. Many high ranked players stop playing once they get to a certain score. If a rank climber catches them online though and then wins, then that can mean a huge 150 point ladder climb. This sometimes happens at the very height of the leader board where the winner of that match then comes to be in first place and, you guessed it, stops playing again.

So yes, another luck factor is just getting the chance to play someone of high caliber! How very anti-competitive of a game with a leader board.