Some arguments for a pvp league system
View Single Post
Join Date: Aug 2012
02-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by
I'm sure the other members of the OPvP community can present other arguments for/against a league setup, but I noticed that this rank calculation here has a major problem: not everything in STO PvP is damage or heals. This ranking formula would fail to take into account holds, disables, debuffs, etc., which typically where Sci does its job best. With this ranking formula, the contribution of a Sci player who times his SNBs just right, or VM's an enemy player just when his team's alpha is ready, would be vastly underrepresented.
In addition, it's not just about the raw value of damage or heals that is given; it's also about exactly when that damage or those heals or applied. In general, spike damage is considered to be far more useful than pressure damage at the moment; 1k damage delivered over 3s is far more effective at putting dents in enemy ships than that 1k damage spread out over 30s.
If Cryptic did implement a league system for STO PvP, they'd have to put a lot of thought into how the ranking system would be implemented.
Contribution. How does one measure contribution? Even other team members may not realize the contributions made by their fellows without going back and watching capture video from all those involved, eh? Even then, it would have to be slowed down - shown from multiple angles... etc, etc, etc. Something that's not at all likely to be worked into any system - there's no panel of judges to watch each and every bout to score the participants on their involvement - their contribution.
Stats - well, we all know how meaningless those can be - how easy it is to take those out of context. Woot, woot - I did over 500k damage and healing! I didn't kill nor heal another player - but look at my numbers! So those - well, they matter in simplistic settings - but this is far from such.
Win - Loss - Quality of Opponent. Yes, there's a game out there that does this. There are several games that do this. It breaks it down to the simple did you win or did you lose. When there are so many factors involved, sometimes this is what you're left with in the ened, eh? Were you on a "good" team that beat a "better" team - were you on a "great" team that beat a "what's PvP?" team - did you lose an "even" match - did you have a bad day against a "bad" team... and it goes from there.
When contributions cannot be measured and stats do not tell the whole story...what are you left with to rank a player? Win - Loss - Quality of Opponent.
...imagine something amusing here...