Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   PvP Gameplay (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=125)
-   -   PvP ranking system (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=434021)

darramouss1 11-03-2012 10:34 AM

PvP ranking system
 
Hello all.

I see a lot of talk about PvP and how it needs to be fixed. If it does ever get fixed then I'd like to put my 2 cents in.

I've played a few PvP matches and from those matches but it seemed painfully clear that people who PvP spend a hell of a lot of time perfecting their builds to the point of ultimate alpha strikes and incredible endurance. I'm not saying that that's necessarily how it actually is, I'm basing this on my experience only.

I found it quite off-putting as I don't really want to spend the time it takes to make those master builds, plus I make my builds to be balanced between effectiveness and fun. I know that some of the fun things I do wouldn't cut it in PvP. Based on that I found myself not really wanting to participate any further in PvP.

If PvP is ever revamped PWE may want to encourage newer players by creating a ranking system that groups players of similar rank in to the same matches. That or have a standard lobby and an elite lobby like the STFs. This sort of system would encourage people like myself, people who wouldn't mind the occasional dabble without really getting in to it, to visit the PvP arena.

tobar26th 11-03-2012 10:53 AM

We have a PVP forum. This is headed there ;-)

shimmerless 11-03-2012 11:09 AM

Can't really argue against this to be honest, thing is that STO just doesn't have the playerbase to statistically rank its users (at the minute teams are lumped in with solo queuers to save on already-long queue times, where coordination heavily tilts victory odds).

aquitaine985 11-03-2012 11:11 AM

There are only really a couple hundred PVPers, and the vast majority are in OPVP and even know each other. We all know where we stand. A leadrboard would be lovely but other things need to come first to make it viable.

virusdancer 11-03-2012 11:23 AM

It's a gamble.

As has been pointed out, there really aren't enough players to segregate the queues in that sense. One might say though, that if it was separated like that - there might be more players. But that's a gamble.

Considering the work on the systems/mechanics that would be needed for that - the manner in which they would have to determine who fit in where - it could end up being a lot of work for nothing.

So again, as has been pointed out - there are other things that really need to be addressed as well. Those things, mind you, will not only make PvP more enjoyable for those that do currently participate - they could very well make PvP more inviting for other players. It's not a gamble - it's a fix with a potential bonus.

That potential bonus, could lead to the increased playerbase in PvP - which in turn could lead to the work being done on such a system where it wouldn't be as much of a gamble.

sophlogimo 11-03-2012 11:36 AM

I agree that such a ranking system would be very helpful for improving everyone's PvP experience.

But how would the algorithm rank people? By DPS/HPS? By "activity"? By "matches won"?

darramouss1 11-03-2012 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophlogimo (Post 6391071)
I agree that such a ranking system would be very helpful for improving everyone's PvP experience.

But how would the algorithm rank people? By DPS/HPS? By "activity"? By "matches won"?

I really couldn't say. There are so many factors that come in to it. I don't think DPS should be in it, though, as that would cancel out science or cruisers from competing with escorts. Maybe kill/death ratio?

shimmerless 11-03-2012 08:12 PM

Generally speaking you only need to track games won to games lost as far as ranking goes. With a broad enough playerbase and a long enough timeline, you'll have either a net positive or a net negative influence on your teams, resulting in a rating.

p2wsucks 11-03-2012 08:29 PM

I don't agree for a couple of reasons.

1. This is an MMO. Rankings etc imo are too small a vision of what MMO scaled PvP should be. Open Sector PvP would be a better goal.

2. People will queue together w/o a seperate PuG vs Premade queue (which we don't have numbers for) you could have players whose rankings are seperated enough they'd never find a match high or low as the case may be.

3. People smurf (ie through matches so they're ranking stays lower than it should). So, you'd still get wiped.

4. There's no good way currently for Cryptic to account for the various ways to be effective in this game w/o directly repair/damaging something. How would weight if an SNB was wasted or not, for example.

5. People will gravitate toward adopting a play style toward killboard goals rather than whats best for the team. There will also be less room for the "fun" playstyle you want.

6. The game is full of P2W power creep. Yes, some of it such as certain ships/doffs do effect outcomes.

7. It tends to lead to players not being as open about builds/exploits/calls to fix OP etc. There are many how to and build guides in this forum section. People will stop updating them as much since they'd lose an advantage.

8. Focuses too much on individual ego and all the "banter" that goes w/it. I prefer add as few people as I can to my ignore list.

9. Many PvPers stay away from what they feel is too OP for the sake a more fun balanced potential match. Rankings would have the opposite effect.

10. People have access to multiple toons in both factions. It wouldn't be hard to rig a ranking w/private queuing etc.

If you're looking for a more casual PvP experience I'd suggest making a private queue w/other casual PvPers. Also, C&H is the most casual of the PvP maps/zones.

esuzi 11-03-2012 08:58 PM

If I were to design a PvP ranking system, it'd go something like this:

1) Ranking will never stop a filled queue from launching a game (but may delay slightly if the pairing will be drastic).

2) Rankings will be kept from the player.

3) Ranking will be used to make matches as even as possible. Good players may be grouped with horrible players to lower the team average.

4) Queuing teams will apply a rank modifier to account for the added co-ordination (for the queued team, not entire team).

5) Points are awarded for winning, with an even number deducted for losing. The amount of points is based on the ranking difference of the teams.

6) Everyone will start at x points, and will not be able to drop below 0 points; additionally, players may not exceed y points.

7) If a player leaves a match, his contribution towards the teams ranking will be scaled to the percentage of the match he was present for.

8) If a player remains out of combat for an extended period of time, his contributions towards the rankings will be adjusted accordingly.

9) No notification that the system has been put in place.

Hopefully this would let newbs fight more newbs, and not experience a pugstomp as often.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 AM.