Jump to content

Public Ladder Rankings


30 replies to this topic

Poll: Rankings (99 member(s) have cast votes)

Want to see player ranks?

  1. Yes, updated once per week/month on mwomercs.com (68 votes [68.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.69%

  2. No, i dont like to know. Thanks! (31 votes [31.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.31%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 thunXa

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • 33 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:23 PM

I dont know why, but its still not in..

Just updated every week or month.
Basicly i think people that know about hidden ELO, wont change their playstyle.
Anyway, who doesnt know how to get it up.. players that care for it, will - if they can.

- if you care you know who you were up to last game when you got stoomped (balanced match?)
- bigger playerbase
- check your recruits (Community Warfare)


I like to have it in, just to see where i am ranked and if games are balanced.

But unless matches are skill balanced, guess it wont be there anytime.

Edited by thunXa, 01 October 2013 - 07:51 AM.


#2 Stingray Productions

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:09 PM

as i think about this i find i have mixed feelings...not sure which way I'd want it. Although, if they keep it as it is now i won't complain.

#3 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:26 AM

View PostthunXa, on 28 September 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

...
- if you care you know who you were up to last game when you got stoomped (balanced match?)
- bigger playerbase
- check your recruits (Community Warfare)
...

You are giving those 3 reasons towards making ranking public. And all three seem to be disputable (at least) to me:

1. if one cares who were the people stomped him, - yes, he can find some comfort in learning that these were higher ranked players. However, not all the time one is stomped by higher ranked players. When lower-ranked player stomps on ya, you'd only feel WORSE knowing it. While when you don't know which case it was, - you can always say to yourself: geez, gotta be a real pro, to stomp me just like that! Even if it'd be self-deception to say this to oneself _every_ time, - it's still some comfort in it. Thus i am really not sure if making rankings public would do more good or harm to players' self-esteem!

2. Bigger playerbase? How exactly this would happen? Not sure if i get what you meant. Also, even if it'd get a bit bigger, - bigger does not mean better. Do we need more dedicated munchkins in MWO? I doubt.

3. Checking recruits. Sure, i definitely can see how this could be very useful. However, i also can see how this could be very harmful:
- a good pilot who for any respectable reason is having "poor" rank, - and mind you, many respectable reasons are possible, and no ranking system is perfect, - could be much harmed if many/most commanders look at his stats as a method to decide if to invite him or not;
- lots of as-of-now-not-so-good pilots would lose their chance to learn within a group of much better pilots and become massively better pilots themselves as a result, - if many/most groups would, as you suggest, check pilots' ranks before accepting them in. Do we need this? I doubt;
- drama. Like, "oh come on, my rank is that low only because i let my young brother play in PuGs whenever i am not at my PC", or "what do you mean i have to increase my rank to X or be replaced by that new guy with much higher rank? I've been in this Merc Unit for over 2 years, you can't replace me! Don't you dare try it, or else!" etc etc. Please, don't bring this into MWO.

Edited by FinsT, 16 October 2013 - 03:27 AM.


#4 Modo44

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 3,559 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 01:14 PM

Not gonna happen for a while. As long as the matchmaker remains utter ****, publishing Elo would only show us the size of the ****.

#5 tucsonspeed6

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 408 posts

Posted 05 March 2014 - 03:45 PM

I came here expecting a complete lack of honesty and this thread did not disappoint. We all know the real reason why someone would suggest public rankings, and it rhymes with 'schmee-peen.'

#6 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:18 PM

Firm and absolute no.

while there are some (borderline) good reasons to implement it, NONE of them trump the primary reasons not to implement it:

1. Players that know their score can (and, as history has shown, universally WILL) figure out how to manipulate and artificially inflate it. Primarily for the second reason..

2. It is the ultimate way to promote e-peening and increase the level of elitist jerkism in teh playerbase.

"I disagree that the gauss charge mechanic was a nerf in and of itself"
"STFU, N00b! You`re only rank 4k, I`m 250th, so your opinion means nothing"

Again, very strongly against. I would actually consider leaving if it were implemented and no option to hide the score /opt out were given.

#7 Bulde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 March 2014 - 03:22 PM

Firm and absolute YES!

I like the system they used in Guild Wars2 (GW2). It reflected the top 1,000 players on the ladder. If you were not in the top 1,000 then you didn't even show. This is helpful in a number of ways. If you are a casual player, you more than likely won't even show up on the ladder and since you are casual, you likely won't give a hoot. If you consider yourself a bit more hardcore or competitve, then you would likely be trying hard to (i) get into the top 1,000 to show up on the ladder and (ii) begin to work your way up from there.

I also think having two different ladders would be appropriate.
  • one ladder for pug drops (solo and 4 man drops).
  • and a separate ladder for full 12 man pre-made drops only.
This would be a HUGE benefit to the community.

Please give us this! Its been long enough.

Edited by Bulde, 15 March 2014 - 03:32 PM.


#8 Bulde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 March 2014 - 04:25 PM

View PostZerberus, on 05 March 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

while there are some (borderline) good reasons to implement it,...

This is opinion based. There are plenty of good reasons to implement it. Its a video game man. The whole point is to have fun and get high score, or in this case, accolades of highest on the ladder. So yes, e-peen away!

View PostZerberus, on 05 March 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

reasons not to implement it:

1. Players that know their score can (and, as history has shown, universally WILL) figure out how to manipulate and artificially inflate it. Primarily for the second reason..


Oh really? How so? Explain. You can't artificially inflate your ladder rank man. You either earn it or you don't.

View PostZerberus, on 05 March 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

2. It is the ultimate way to promote e-peening and increase the level of elitist jerkism in teh playerbase.


Last I checked this is a video game, its all about "e-peening" if thats what you want to call it. IF "elitiest jerkism" as you call it exists, this doesn't make more of it. Its either already there or it isn't. There is an equal and opposite side to your opinion on this. You call one group "elitest jerks"...well, that group can say the same thing about casual carebears who don't want a ladder system. :D

View PostZerberus, on 05 March 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Again, very strongly against. I would actually consider leaving if it were implemented and no option to hide the score /opt out were given.


This is funny to me. Can you really not play the game knowing that you are not at the top of the ladder? I almost did NOT play this game because there is no ladder! Furthermore, if a ladder system is not implemented soon, I would imagine a huge number of players eventually leaving the game as a result of it having a complete lack of end game. At least with a ladder you DO have a form of end game. There is a goal. Right now there is nothing to strive for. You actually lose community without having something like this in place. I have seen it before in other games. People will eventually get tired of having nothing to aim for. The achievement system they have announced, while its a nice gesture, is just not going to cut it. Its a poor attempt at offering something to strive for. Most players won't care about those achievements and a lot of people will likely have them done in a week or two.

Edited by Bulde, 15 March 2014 - 04:31 PM.


#9 Sockrael

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 04:37 PM

I think that a score ladder would be beneficial, however, I think it should be done by weight class. Some people, for example, are better in lights than in assaults, so piloting an assault would bring down their total score if it was all combined. If it was separated by weight class, you'd be able to see what weight classes you need to practice more in so that you can become a better player in a certain mech.

I'm often curious as to how I am doing, and where I stand in the community, which is another reason it'd be a great implementation. I often realize that I'm not a great pilot in certain weight classes, but I often wonder how bad I really am in a certain weight class compared to another. If I could see where I stand, I'd be able to enter a match with either more confidence, or knowing that I need more practice.

It's an interesting thought and I think it'd be nice to see implemented, but it's nothing I'd be upset over if it isn't added or is added.

#10 Bulde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 March 2014 - 04:49 PM

Thanks for chiming in Sockrael! I personally would like to see one rank across all weight categories. I already think its silly that ELOs are split up into 4 categories (at least from what I understand). I think as pilots we should strive to be well rounded and proficient at all weight classes, if not to start, eventually. Therefore, I wish ELO was based on overall pilot skill,not per weight class. I would like to see the same for the Ladder system. One rank for each pilot which reflects their overall individual ranking. I think splintering it would be making things more complex than necessary, though its an interesting idea I think.

Edited by Bulde, 15 March 2014 - 04:51 PM.


#11 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 15 March 2014 - 05:01 PM

I left World of Warcraft because of the Elitest Jerks. I would rather keep rank hidden from the public. I wouldn't mind being able to see my our to see if/how much I have gotten better. But, the reason for keeping it private are much greater then the reason for making it public.

#12 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 15 March 2014 - 05:17 PM

View PostBulde, on 15 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

Oh really? How so? Explain. You can't artificially inflate your ladder rank man. You either earn it or you don't.


Because that`s never, ever been done in teh history of videogaming, and noboody has ever earned moiney doing it, right? :D

Quote

Last I checked this is a video game, its all about "e-peening" if thats what you want to call it.


We apparently may not be playing the same game or for the same reasons. :D

Quote

There is an equal and opposite side to your opinion on this.

I never stated the opposite, thank you.

Quote

You call one group "elitest jerks"...well, that group can say the same thing about casual carebears... B)


Those two things are in no way mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to be a internet "I`m better than you" jackass and a casual player at the same time

Just as it is possible to be a competitive player but understand that

1. The primary goal of the long term game is factioon supremacy, not personal heroism.
2. have witnessed in numerous games how already asshattish "we`re better than you because we say we art" community stupidity takes on a whole new level (as does the whiniong about "i did this and this and such and such, why isn`t my rank higher" whining, today`s version being "I`m awesome, look at my stats, why do I keep getting matched with the scrubs?"

Quote

This is funny to me. Can you really not play the game knowing that you are not at the top of the ladder? I almost did NOT play this game because there is no ladder! Furthermore, if a ladder system is not implemented soon, I would imagine a huge number of players eventually leaving the game as a result of it having a complete lack of end game. At least with a ladder you DO have a form of end game. There is a goal. Right now there is nothing to strive for. You actually lose community without having something like this in place. I have seen it before in other games. People will eventually get tired of having nothing to aim for. The achievement system they have announced, while its a nice gesture, is just not going to cut it. Its a poor attempt at offering something to strive for. Most players won't care about those achievements and a lot of people will likely have them done in a week or two.

Yes, we are very obviously not playing the game for the same reasons, and you are misinterpreting my statement entirely and crudely, ironically resulting in a textbook example of the aforementioned elitist jerkism.

The thing is that if you implement a ladder system now, before the main CW feature set, you turn the game into what it was never meant to be and has already drifted far too far in the direction of, another quake wannabe like the thousands that have already failed. Many of them failed because when the actual promised goals came, people were already so preconcerned with being the single best, the entire community feature set was a was a complete waste oif effort. And the game eventually died out when all the impatient and short attentioned "Conquer this game next month and say it`s awesome, fail at the next tomorrow and say it sucks" players got pissed about it not being quake but requiring so much more attention to be successful in numerous aspects of the game simultaneously.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this is one lesson PGI and MWO do not need to learn. Nor waste the time and money learning.

However, Public ladders DO make a lot of sense when we have an actual Solaris gamemode specifically designed for those that just "have to know" where they stand (usually only as long at it`S relatively high, but that`s a different discussion) and those that want to watch gladiator slugfests.

But it does not make sense to turn any game from Chess into boxing prematurely just because some of the pieces aren`t finished yet.

In closing, there are also numerous leagues that already exist that will start to flourish with the advent of the launch module. They have ladders, so the reason to implement a global ladder is further diminished. Those that want to measure themselves will have ample opportunity to do so very soon.

And BTW, that post you quoted is over a year old, and the duplicate thread you started is entirely unnecesary after bumping and responding to this one... great way to make a good first impression. :D

Edited by Zerberus, 15 March 2014 - 05:28 PM.


#13 Bulde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 15 March 2014 - 08:09 PM

This game is nothing like quake and so I can't see the player base wanting anything remotely close to that.

Call them what you want, you will always have all gambits and styles of players. This should not deter the devs from implementing things that the player base desires. Ladder systems do not hurt games. Having ladder systems would not hurt you personally either...unless you have thin skin. Its a feature - a feature that a lot of people want. If implemented it will address the ones who have interest in having it and have very little or no impact on those that don't.

Year old post...no. You posted 10 days ago. I bumped it because its a topic I feel strongly about which has not been addressed.

Started my own...yep. See above ^. I don't feel like it has been addressed by the development team. I am a paying customer. I will express my opinions. thx. :D

Edited by Bulde, 16 March 2014 - 05:40 AM.


#14 Vox Scorpus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 126 posts
  • LocationOn my mech - reloading my guns.

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:45 PM

Don't we already have an in-game "ladder" system? It's called your match score. How about we look at it as - not how good am I doing, but how well am I helping my team I just played with? It's the team play that matters right? If you consistently get over 90 or so for a match score and if you must rank yourself on a ladder system - then you would be high up on the ladder.

The problem with "ladder systems" is it tends to make people feel like they're standing on someones head ("I'm better than you are syndrome) - and they let other people know it to. Just call it the "bully system"?

This is a team game. You fight individually but drop in as a team. Stats matter but if you look at this as a team game then your personal performance in a ladder system doesn't mean as much. A better or more accurate ladder would have you moving up and down based on your performance within the team (match score) and your teams performance. (I know that's not a popular way to look at it but this isn't your average FPS - it's MechWarrior).

Maybe there should be a Campaign mode (poor name choice I know) players could enter who wish to be "laddered" against other players?

#15 Bulde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 33 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 16 March 2014 - 05:47 AM

You are correct Vox, it is a team game. This is why I recommended two ladders. One for individuals and one for 12 man pre-made teams. "Bully System"?? ...I find it hard to believe so many people are concerned about that. Based on my experience of the community, most of the player base are not kids, but rather working class adults. You get your immature kids as well, but honestly, again...if you can't handle a ladder system, then you probably shouldn't be playing video games. Every professional sport league has a ladder system. Heck, my kids sports team has a ladder system. Just about every competitive event has a ladder system. I don't see why so many people are anti-ladder. Its quite mind boggling...

#16 DarkBazerker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 247 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationWaffle House

Posted 09 June 2014 - 11:54 AM

I want a ladder system, so I can see how bad/good I am compaired to others. Thats all.

#17 MilesTeg1982

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 255 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 03:40 PM

I think such a ladder would be a really terrible idea

no matter how the scoring is done - as soon as players get aware of that they would adjust their tactics to increase their rank in the ladder - even at the cost of team. You don't think that will happen, Just look at the standard tactics in pugs:

- most players just stay in cover or follow some few players who try to attack the enemie. And worse of all - they don't even support the players in the front - as soon as there is some enemie resistence they back off and leave the players in the front alone.
- another example: the ecm-sniper-light -lures around at the flanks and shots sometimes from max-distance without doing real damage - when there team is gone they are usually the ones that survice and play hiding because they want to keep their precious KDR

Also, how should the scoring be done?
- based on KDR? not really good, that only favours cowards who let other players soften up the enemie (just imagine 2 teams sitting at their base the whole 15 minutes because no one wants to move out first ...)
- based on damage done? not really - people maximise damage on DCs/AFKs, also damage spread over an enemie is not as good as damage concentrated on certain parts (-> shot down enemie with faster (at the cost of damage done) is better for the team since those enemies can not hit the team anymore)
- based on wins/losses? not really - many rounds in pugs are just lost due to bad tactics of the team and often enough just bad luck (like - oh we have 2 DCs in our team)

#18 ExAstra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 131 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 08:46 AM

A basic tier system and the addition of ranked vs non-ranked matches would be nice. It would allow for a blend of checking your skill and mech loadout levels in ranked matches, and non ranked matches could be ways to test out new builds or just have a stress free match.

People are always driven by rewards, and being granted a certain "rank" for their skill and progress would doubtlessly drive people forward... and backward. Because of course with something like that comes competition and more hate.

Despite that I feel it would make a nice improvement to the game. Perhaps it could be implemented with factional warfare, and your Ranking could reflect a position within that faction?

#19 VixNix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • 441 posts

Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:24 AM

I think it it would cause issues.

#20 Celtic Warrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 507 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf Operations - Tukayyid - Honolulu HI

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:55 AM

I don't see any harm in it but I have no ego when it comes to MWO. It might give some players more incentive to "up" their game and get more play time in. But on the other hand the ego freaks out there might get offended when they come up short :D

Edited by Celtic Warrior, 30 September 2014 - 08:55 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users