Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
If we get a PvP persistent score, how should it work?

I think the sole criteria should be wins and who you win against. The score should be like in chess. If you beat the best player in the world, and you are an average player, his score and yours change by a significant amount. If he beats you, his score and yours change almost imperceptibly.

Add up the PvP scores for all of the players on your side of the match and divide by number of players. This is the team score that is compared with the opposing team.

An all star Premade against a mixed pug will increase their score by a little if they win, but drop a noticeable amount if they lose. The pug and the premade both have a strong incentive to win. The pug won't lose much at all if they fail so defeat shouldn't be crushing.

The best player in the game teamed with a bunch of bozos would have an average score because their ratings would be so much lower than his.

I was thinking that all scores start at 1,000. You lose or gain at least 1 point per match no matter how lopsided it was.

Should a rating system be per account or per character. I was thinking per character so that you could experiment on an alt without dropping your score.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
12-27-2010, 01:10 AM
I like this concept but it might be difficult to implement. There's a PvP ranking/ladder system in development but I'm not sure how it works so far. It sounds great to me but I'm worried about unintended consequences.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
12-27-2010, 03:45 AM
Unintended consequences are of great concern to all of us. Maybe by stumbling around trying to identify what core concepts we all like and talking about what might go wrong, we can help Cryptic.

Should there be any reward for an extremely high score? Maybe any reward should be making it into the top 40% so that it is more wide spread? Should it perhaps be increased merit/honor for PvP?

I strongly dislike the idea of basing a score off the end of match numbers because I don't think they give a good indication of a player's contribution. Does anyone feel differently?

As far as difficulty of implementation, no graphics and the score would be calculated after a match finishes when speed is not an issue. Hopefully that will simplify the work enough. I would think that the time consuming part of the work would be the creation of the ladder on the website and updating it from the game. Considering how long it seems to take for captain info to update, this might be a real time sink.

As far as I am concerned, the ladder can wait. List a players score at the end of matches and on their info screen. Seeing a pretty scoreboard on the website isn't nearly as important as getting a score record started in my opinion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
12-27-2010, 10:48 AM
As we all know, a player's contribution to a PvP match is not adequately represented by the scoreboard. Someone who flies around debuffing others may contribute greatly to the team outcome but would show up pretty low on the scoreboard.

I think there are two ways to do it. The most simple option, and probably the best option, is to make it based on who wins as the OP has suggested. But we should keep in mind what we're going to incentivize and what we'll disincentivize by doing that. On one hand, it will give a much greater incentive to working as a team, since your score won't increase unless you win as a team. But on the other hand, you'll find that more people will only ever PvP in premades, since they'd want to keep their score. This is a tough one to deal with.

My proposed solution would be to have different scoreboards. Rank players on Damage, or Healing, or Overall Wins but you can only choose one category. So if I decide that I'm really good at healing, I can elect to be in the healing category and only get compared to other healers. Someone could be #1 on the Healing boards for example. (I think you should be able to switch what scoreboard you want, although doing so will wipe your stats and you can only do it once every month or something.)

I do think there should be some added measure for Debuffing and Tanking personally.

The benefit is that you'll end up being compared against those who are in a similar category as you. This helps control for variables that could make ranking unfair or inaccurate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
12-29-2010, 12:41 AM
If the end of match scores were expanded and used for the basis of PvP score, players would be evaluated on personal accomplishment instead of team. For a team effort, is that how we want players focusing their attention?

If we end up with any form of this, I hope they come up with a system to evaluate buffs/debuffs as Jorf suggests in his thread, find some way to further evaluate damage to differentiate between the amount done and what actually accomplished a tactical goal, look at healing differently, and come up with different scoring depending on whether in an arena or and hold.*

Throw in Atemporal's idea to allow a player to choose or weight how they will be scored because it adds a *surprising amount of depth and detail when you think about it.

What I proposed in my original post rewards winning behaviors whether or not they score well at the end of a match. Thinking on it further, I believe that the first 10? Wins and 10? losses in the last seven days yield more points or less lost points respectively. This would help out the more casual players.

Cap the max amounting points you can lose but not the max that could be gained. Big upsets lead to big rewards, but not huge penalties.

A premade of exceptional players (once scores were kept for a while) would stand to gain a very small reward for playing together. The odds of them winning are very high so the reward is smaller. If a couple of them joined several low ranking players for a match, the team average would be far lower. They have a greater chance of losing, but they would receive a greater reward for winning. They could improve their scores more quickly in this way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
12-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal View Post
[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Lime"]
My proposed solution would be to have different scoreboards. Rank players on Damage, or Healing, or Overall Wins but you can only choose one category. So if I decide that I'm really good at healing, I can elect to be in the healing category and only get compared to other healers. Someone could be #1 on the Healing boards for example. (I think you should be able to switch what scoreboard you want, although doing so will wipe your stats and you can only do it once every month or something.)
Naw, then what you're doing is encouraging people to only go into one thing or the other. Eg. only into doing damage or only into doing healing. My BoP is set up right now as a primary damage dealer and a secondary healer. Why should I be punished vs. someone who only does damage or only does healing?

To add something to the discussion, I think that this concept could work fairly well in conjunction with a premade queue (or separately from the rest of PvP with the 5-man queue having it's own ranking system. I also think it would be fun to have a system like Starcraft 2 where you can see the strength of each team during the loading screen. The larger the difference in team strength, the more prestige that's on the table to win/lose.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
12-29-2010, 09:38 PM
What about the SCI guy who stuns and TRs everyone into oblivion? Support skills would be nigh impossible to score.

About healing, it should be broken down into self healing and other healing. Healing yourself is nice and all but healing others is a totally different category.

I think it would be very hard to rank someone on all attributes. Kills v death ratio just wouldn't cut it. You can have a 5 man team all have 15 kills. There needs to be a better way to tabulate that. I don't know how that could be done at the moment.

Maybe the only true way is a 1v1 ranking system and a team ranking system. Both seperate. You register your team and always fight as a team. Those stats are recorded.

Open a seperate death match type arena. Mono v Mono. That's your solo rating. Maybe even break it down to Tac vs Tac, Tac vs Eng, Sci vs Eng, etc. Can keep all those stats seperate on their own rankings.

In any case, I like the idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
01-01-2011, 07:31 PM
So nobody likes using the end of match scores to generate a pvp ranking? I don't either.

If I understand correctly, the idea here is only winning and who you win against matters. The better the guys on the team you beat, the more points you get. Team score simply adding up individual players on team and dividing by the number of players on the more populous team. There are limits to the amount of points you can lose but not to the amount you can gain.

Losing to a team that is much better will generate an insignificant change while losing to one that is rated very low will cause you to lose the limit and they get an epic increase. Of course, they would have earned it.

I love this! It is exactly what I want. Keep track of all the individual stuff so people have more things to look at and clean up the way it is done definitely. But the actually ranking is based on the win score alone.

In a team game, this is how it should be done. You don't get a championship in any other kind of competition unless you win and I think that is how we should do it here too.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
01-02-2011, 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by foesbane View Post
Open a seperate death match type arena. Mono v Mono. That's your solo rating. Maybe even break it down to Tac vs Tac, Tac vs Eng, Sci vs Eng, etc. Can keep all those stats seperate on their own rankings.
Just an FYI: All major MMOs are based and balanced around GROUP PvP. It comprises 99% of all PvP encounters. This includes Star Trek Online.

While many would love a solo vs solo rating (including myself) it's not only impractical but it's not illogical.


Fleet leaderboards would be great. Utility features such as number of targets stunned, tricobolt hits, heals, total number of assisted debuff removals, damage from push back effects, etc. could all be tracked fairly easily and listed.

Here is the closest thing we have for a leaderboard atm: http://stokt.aforumfree.com/kt-pvp-l...fame-t2275.htm
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
01-05-2011, 06:13 AM
I realize I'm likely in the minority on this one, but I think most permanent PVP records are bad for PVP in general. Worst case scenario is when you have publicly viewable kill/death ratios. Immediately kills teamwork and just puts people in a sour mood as everyone nurses their stats.

While a system that somehow accounts for other group activities is a step in the right direction, I still do not see that as a solution nor entirely feasible. (Tanking, Healing, Procing, Distracting, Scouting...).

I understand everyone that spends a lot of time and effort on PVP would like something to chronicle their efforts, but we should be careful what we wish for.

My solution would be records of "positive" stats like PVP kills, heals, procs that were recorded and possibly match wins. This may seem watered down to not include negative stats, but it does incorporate them slightly (If you aren't winning, you are losing). Also, it would encourage players to work as a team rather than hitting the engine battery when shields are at 25% and leaving their team to die because they are so focused on their K/D ratio.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:10 AM.