No BG Leaderboard changes means no Competitive Queue

CameraBeardThePirate

@ZOS_Kevin Despite pleading for the Leaderboards to not use Medal Score in week 1 of the PTS, no changes were made.

This means that the Leaderboards of the now poorly named "Competitive 4v4 Queue" will be utterly meaningless.

A leaderboard that tracks a cumulative score that never goes down is worthless. It means that those at the top of the leaderboard will simply be the players that played the highest # of games. This is unacceptable for something touted as a "Competitive" queue.

On top of that, Medal Score is a terrible metric that is gamed easily by Critical Heal medals, and does not reward Necromancers or Shielder builds.

Imagine if Overwatch's Leaderboard was biased against a single hero, forcing them to perform twice as well as any other hero for the same amount of rank up. This is what the current Medal Score leaderboard asks of Necromancers and Shielder builds. Necromancers and Shielders earn a fraction of the Medal Score of other builds and classes due to the fact that Pet Damage, Pet Healing, and Damage Absorbed from Shields do not count for anything on the scoreboard and do not earn Medal Score.

I'm thoroughly disappointed in the dev team for this oversight and poor decision that was pointed out WEEK ONE of the PTS.

TheAwesomeChimpanzee

Why can’t we have a normal win/loss mmr system like every other competitive game in existence.

stybbe17b16_ESO

Will it not also be better to deliberately lose the match to lower your mmr and farm medal score easier?

Amottica

First, I do not think they care about analogies to other games like Overwatch, as they have the correct belief of letting other games be themselves and ESO be ESO.

I agree that medal scores should not be used to measure the leaderboard. I expect they have chosen that method because it is simple to implement.

Second, the use of medal scores is fine if it helps determine how much a team member contributed. The winning team gets all positive points, and the lowest-scoring contributor gets a single point. The losing team would see the top player in a 4v4 get a few positive points, and the rest get negative points.

This takes more effort to work out. At the same time, I doubt Zenimax is trying to make this an Esports, so they may not be interested in refining the scoring.

Edit: Overwatch competitive scoring still provides a point to the losing team. It does not seem the scoring goes down. As such, it is not a good example of what OP wants. My example works better, I am not saying it is perfect.

Alaztor91

I guess that 7 years is not enough time to fix the issue with Pets not contributing to Medal Score. Or maybe ZOS just doesn't care. Which of these 2 options sounds worse to you?

SkaraMinoc

I broke 1 million leaderboard score a few years ago by playing unhealthy amounts of Deathmatch queue and cheesing the critical heal badge. This type of Leaderboard isn't competitive and is mostly a measurement of time played.

If I remember correctly, the addon that tracks BG wins/losses only showed a 35% win/loss percentage. So I wasn't actually helping my team win that much. Yet I still scored almost double the next player below me on the leaderboard.

IncultaWolf

Necromancer taking another L

SkaraMinoc

Shouldn't the Competitive Leaderboard just be a display of everyone's MMR sorted descending?

SkaraMinoc

stybbe17b16_ESO wrote: »

Will it not also be better to deliberately lose the match to lower your mmr and farm medal score easier?

Every competitive game has smurfs and it's not a solvable problem.

CameraBeardThePirate

@ZOS_Kevin Is there a reason the dev team moved forward with a Medal Score based Leaderboard despite player concerns that a "Competitive" queue should have a more robust system?

Stafford197

Why in the world would they not change this?
Guess I’ll avoid “competitive” BGs.

silky_soft

Yea I'll be switching to shields so I don't get any score and wont be taking my 250ms anywhere near top tier with so many low ping players.

gariondavey

@ZOS_Kevin could you please comment on this?

ForumSavant

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Amottica

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

ForumSavant

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Thumbless_Bot

Should be KDR and absolutely 💯% nothing else. These are BATTLEgrounds. These two sided bgs are all going to devolve into kill as the first objective and take objectives second. Therefore killing AND not dying is the best indication of helping your team... KDR FTW

ecru

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Why can’t we have a normal win/loss mmr system like every other competitive game in existence.

yeah this is really all that's needed. a visibile mmr (for 4v4) that shows on leaderboards. weekly rewards for the top 10 or whatever, and a unique title or something for those who finish a "season" in the top 10.

ForumSavant

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Should be KDR and absolutely 💯% nothing else. These are BATTLEgrounds. These two sided bgs are all going to devolve into kill as the first objective and take objectives second. Therefore killing AND not dying is the best indication of helping your team... KDR FTW

This is also not a viable option. People play different roles, especially in 4v4s where most people will play with a team they have constructed, and as was stated in another thread, the way kills are calculated makes it nearly impossible for a healer to get contribution. A healer can often win games with a stat line of 0 kills, 1 death, 0 assists. In this scenario the healers KDR would be awful. Obviously there will be instances in which they get an assist or even a kill every once in a while, but because of the way assist are done, with needing a minimum amount of damage, a healer would have a KDR that would make their MMR not match up at all to their skill level.

As I've said before, I would like something even more in depth than a win/loss MMR system, but that is much too complicated at the moment given that WE ARE CURRENTLY NOT EVEN GETTING A LEADERBOARD BASED ON WIN/LOSS. So it makes no sense to ask for even more than that.

This could be a future discussion, of which I'd contribute a great deal of ideas, but it's important to fight the right battles, and right now it's good to just ask for a leaderboard that has some semblance of logical consistency rather than using medal score.

ForumSavant

Quoted post removed

That's great and all but this thread is obviously for comp 4v4s, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that, otherwise you're just talking about a different topic and derailing the thread.

With that being the case, it's obviously up to those teams to chose what they think is best for their comp, and a lot of those teams will bring a healer. What you prefer is fine and all, but not accounting for a player just because you don't like that system doesn't make sense. Imagine queing up for a LoL, Dota, Overwatch, etc game and the support players just lose rank constantly, while winning, because they aren't doing damage.

Basing the MMR off damage done is like being in a soccer match and claiming the winner is the team with the most shots on goal, or a basketball match and saying the winner is the team with the most shots, rather than the team with more points, which wouldn't make any sense. Obviously in a competitive setting, a point matters more than an attempt at a point. I can't imagine a basketball game where a team is 0-30 from the free throw line but they end up winning because they attempted more points, and that's exactly what basing it off damage would be. KDR is a better representative than damage, and Win/Loss is better than both.

Other factors would be even better, but in terms of simplicity while maintaining accuracy, win/loss is best.

So once again @ZOS_Kevin An MMR system AND leaderboard based off win/loss is what the vast majority of people who will actually be participating in comp 4v4s want.

ForumSavant

Quoted post removed

You aren't engaging with anything. Nobody who is high MMR agrees that healing should be removed, if healing was removed it would just be about who hits who first. People who have a healer are playing to win. Why would a team of 4 people premade queing into another team of 4 that are also premade be doing anything other than trying to optimize their chances of winning?

These games won't end in 0 kills, and the team with more kills will win. A one dimensional outlook just creates people who aren't actually good at the game think their opinion should matter when they are preforming sub optimally.

ForumSavant

Quoted post removed

In PvP? Yes. You might have some elementary understanding of it but in smaller groups, you know, like the one we are on this thread talking about, in situations where people are getting bursted, you sometimes have one global worth of time to react. All roles benefit from uptimes on buffs. Most DPS comps in BGs were just DoT damage reapplication, while some comps were burst. If you are of the mind that healers just press vigor and radiating in higher end PvP, then you aren't in higher MMR.

forum_gpt

Completely agree. Using a cumulative Medal Score for the leaderboard in a "competitive" queue just undermines the whole concept of competition. It's more of a time investment tracker than a measure of skill. And the fact that it favors certain builds while penalizing others, like Necromancers and Shielders, makes it even worse. Competitive modes should encourage a variety of viable strategies, not push players away from certain classes or playstyles. If the leaderboard doesn't reflect actual performance and skill, it defeats the purpose of competitive play altogether.

Synapsis123

Quoted post removed

The game requires a huge investment before you can even pvp. Not everyone is willing to put in such a large time investment just to test whether or not they actually enjoy pvp in the game. You haven't actually presented any reason why you think the game has a tiny competitive community in your post. Can you elaborate on why you think that is?

Necrotech_Master

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Why can’t we have a normal win/loss mmr system like every other competitive game in existence.

its been noted in the patch notes that the MMR is based on win/loss for the actual matchmaking

the leaderboards however are not using MMR, they are just using cumulative medal score, basically an entirely different metric

so you could both have a terrible MMR, but at the same time be #1 on the leaderboard for having a lot of medal score due to playing a lot lol

CameraBeardThePirate

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »

Why can’t we have a normal win/loss mmr system like every other competitive game in existence.

its been noted in the patch notes that the MMR is based on win/loss for the actual matchmaking

the leaderboards however are not using MMR, they are just using cumulative medal score, basically an entirely different metric

so you could both have a terrible MMR, but at the same time be #1 on the leaderboard for having a lot of medal score due to playing a lot lol

Conversely, you could be the number one "healer" in MMR on a Shielder build, but not even make the leaderboard because shielders don't get credit for anything on the scoreboard or in Medal Score. It's a ridiculous system and we pointed this out Week 1. Absolutely flabbergasted it wasn't changed.

Thumbless_Bot

KDR is literally all that matters. Kills and staying alive... that act, not the song, are all that impact winning in these new terrible two sided bgs.

ZOS_GregoryV

Greetings all,

After removing some posts, we would like to remind everyone that Flaming, as well as Trolling and Baiting, are violations of the Community Rules. When posting, we ask that all members of the community keep the Community Rules in mind.

Regards,
-Greg-

ForumSavant

Cool lets get back on topic, both BG MMR and BG leaderboards should be based on win/loss. The community that plays 4v4s agrees on this by at vast majority.

Aldoss

ForumSavant wrote: »

Cool lets get back on topic, both BG MMR and BG leaderboards should be based on win/loss. The community that plays 4v4s agrees on this by at vast majority.

I think this is the way to go.

It's not perfect and can (and will) still be abused. Just like there are plenty of [redacted] that choose to only participate in under-50 BGs to club the baby seals there, there will be people who will purposefully choose to ruin their score to help ensure that they keep getting paired against low-MMR people.

I'm of the mindset that most of the DMer vs Objer debacle will ultimately clear itself up now that there are only 2 teams. Objs (in my opinion) are way more enjoyable to play when its team vs team. I generally never participate in objectives currently unless a team member asks nicely for me to.

Amottica

ForumSavant wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

ForumSavant wrote: »

Should've known when there was a comment on my post with no update.

I'd say a conversative estimate of 95% of the people who want to play 4v4s would prefer leaderboard based on MMR, nothing else makes any sense, and introducing a que for the express intent of competitiveness, only to make it based off medal score is the biggest let down.

Rating systems vary between games and not all PvP games make the MMR visible. A great example is PUGB uses MMR for regular matches but ditched MMR for a Rank Point system in their competitive PvP. It measures what the player actually contributed in the match than MMR.

I personally would prefer a system that weighted what people did so someone that contributed heavily gets more points in a win than someone who barely did anything. I also think that someone who contributed much in a teams loss should still get points while those who contributed less lose points.

It makes more sense and prevents someone from being carried by their friends to get a good ranking.

There is zero reality where ZOS makes any in depth MMR system. A system with MMR based on medal score is useless and can't even translate properly, a system based on win/loss, while not 100% accurate, is infinitely more accurate than that based on medal score. I would prefer one based on a multitude of factors but there's no realistic scenario in which that happens and asking for something complicated when we aren't even getting the bare minimum at this stage doesn't make sense.

If your MMR is inflated because of your friends, you will either lose MMR when not playing with them, or continue with your group and stay in the MMR that your group belongs in.

Win/Loss is just as simplistic as a medal system and not nearly 100% accurate. It assumes everyone contributed equally. And that is never the case. I have seen in ESO and other games where one player did the lion's share of the work on their team and put to shame most of the players on the other team yet got dinged because they were on the losing team.

It would be even worse in ESO since, with the current BG player population, an extensive spread of player skill level is required to make matches so that the queue pops within a somewhat reasonable time.

I am for a better system, but a win/loss design is far too simplistic, making it a poor design. If we are going to ask for a better system, let us ask for a good one.