64 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

Stefka Kerensky, on 26 June 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

minimum number of matches played.

Anything without at least 2-3 matches per day is a joke.
(60-90 per month?)

edit: I mean, the minumun should be around 60-90, and the ladder should be monthly based

Way too high. You're effectively screening out weekend warriors. There are a lot of people who only get to play once on a weekend, and only manage ~10 matches on that one day. And even at that rate, saying 40 requires them to play every weekend.

So... I'd say min 30 to qualify. That's still a high enough number that it's difficult to game it, at least in the solo queue.

Which brings up another point (already suggested) - absolutely must split solo and group queues. It's far too easy to game the group queue with a unit. So easy, in fact, that group queue games probably shouldn't count in any leaderboard. The leaderboard should be solo queue only.

I wouldn't split it out by Tier for rewards, but I'd provide a filter by tier just so you can look up how you stand within your own tier.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

Roadkill, on 27 June 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Way too high. You're effectively screening out weekend warriors. There are a lot of people who only get to play once on a weekend, and only manage ~10 matches on that one day. And even at that rate, saying 40 requires them to play every weekend.

So... I'd say min 30 to qualify. That's still a high enough number that it's difficult to game it, at least in the solo queue.

Which brings up another point (already suggested) - absolutely must split solo and group queues. It's far too easy to game the group queue with a unit. So easy, in fact, that group queue games probably shouldn't count in any leaderboard. The leaderboard should be solo queue only.

I wouldn't split it out by Tier for rewards, but I'd provide a filter by tier just so you can look up how you stand within your own tier.

You have to split it by tier because even after 30 matches on this account I would definitely still be able to farm tier 3 potatoes for a high score. Other wise you don't really solve anything about being able to easily farm it with alts.

[Ted Wayz]

TercieI, on 26 June 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

It's hopelessly illegitimate as is. So long as we have solo and group queue and PSR there are way too many variables to be remotely fair or meaningful. As unpopular as this will be, the closest you can get right now is Tier One is a requirement along with minimum matches (100-200) and solo queue only. It's really better not to have rewards until we have a real ranked queue.

The idea isn't in of itself offensive but maybe the explanation will be. Why a Tier One requirement?

We all know that Tier is based more on matches played than skill. And that doesn't even mean current play since PSR has not been reset since its inclusion.

It is like having an e-peen size contest based upon the number of times you stroked it...

[TercieI]

Ted Wayz, on 27 June 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

The idea isn't in of itself offensive but maybe the explanation will be. Why a Tier One requirement?

We all know that Tier is based more on matches played than skill. And that doesn't even mean current play since PSR has not been reset since its inclusion.

It is like having an e-peen size contest based upon the number of times you stroked it...

Same reason weekend leaderboards are unfair with PSR: A Tier One player only faces Tier One-Three players who are at least more experienced and likely more skilled vs. a Tier Five Player who only faces Tier Three-Five players. If you're not facing the best opposition the game has to offer, it's really unfair to compare your score to those who are.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Is ignore it until it goes away an option?

[TercieI]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 27 June 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

Is ignore it until it goes away an option?

Practically, it's the one I'm taking.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

Ted Wayz, on 27 June 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

The idea isn't in of itself offensive but maybe the explanation will be. Why a Tier One requirement?

Because even in T3 alt accounts with 100s of games on it is still too easy to farm big scores, in essence this is what people are trying to propose fixes for.

A 30 match requirement alone will not solve it. Sure it gets rid of the one hit wonder alts, but I'd bet if everyone needed 30 matches to place and solo and group queue was split, I'd have a very good chance to be in the running for topping the board. By farming potatoes.

Edited by Tier 1 Smurf, 27 June 2016 - 06:11 PM.

[STEF_]

Roadkill, on 27 June 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Way too high. You're effectively screening out weekend warriors. There are a lot of people who only get to play once on a weekend, and only manage ~10 matches on that one day. And even at that rate, saying 40 requires them to play every weekend.

So... I'd say min 30 to qualify. That's still a high enough number that it's difficult to game it, at least in the solo queue.

Which brings up another point (already suggested) - absolutely must split solo and group queues. It's far too easy to game the group queue with a unit. So easy, in fact, that group queue games probably shouldn't count in any leaderboard. The leaderboard should be solo queue only.

I wouldn't split it out by Tier for rewards, but I'd provide a filter by tier just so you can look up how you stand within your own tier.

60 matches are 2 matches per day.
Weekend warriors should be fine with that: 4 weekend per month, 15 matches per weekend. Absolutely duable.
Lowering even more would make ladder meaningless, esactly the situation we have now.

[DaZur]

I'd segregate the leaderboard by tier... A Tier-1 with an aggregate of 200 would be bottom barrel while a Tier-5 with an aggregate of 200 would be doing pretty okay.

That said, I think to rank one needs to maintain some arbitrary average number of games played, not necessarily a qualifying number of matches. Bare in mind... there's a lot of players who can only muster maybe two to four games a night, two or three times a week.

I don't have a problem with solo and group queue being mixed in a global view... That said, an ability to filter / separate the two as a viewing option should be a no-brainer.

Edited by DaZur, 27 June 2016 - 10:00 PM.

[-Vompo-]

Screech, on 26 June 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

I think the group/solo split should be done. Sure it is not that hard to figure out which queue some guy with a 25:1 win/loss with a sub 200 match average score is playing I but it still does chafe.

To be fair it is much harder to get high match score in group queue if you are in a fairly large good group. So the low match scores are nothing weird.

I do agree that group queue and solo queue should be split. It would also be cool to have a leaderboard for units the same way there is one for players.

[627]

25 matches minimum for one of the 5 classes (so 25 mixed for the global score, or 25 in lights for a light score and so on). Should be enough to show that you can score consistently and wouldn't rule out people that don't play all day.

For different tiers or brackets or what ever I'm not so sure, I like that everyone competes on his own level. Don't forget when you are in tier 3, half of the matches will get you rekt anyway so "farming" a high score there isn't as easy as in tier 5.

And if you take a new account to farm in tier 5... yeah that will work but the reward will be given to that smurf account so there's not much to gain beside everyone laughing that you need to fake your tier to win. That would be like starting in the special olympics...

[kesmai]

Look at the leaderboard. Exclude the ones with sub 10 matches. What do you see?
There is one account that stands out. A player with more than 100 matches. Averaging a score of 600+ matchscore. AVERAGING!
the next in line with a similar amount of matches played is averaging almost a 100 less.
How do you do that?


(not that I really would care though)

[-Vompo-]

Playing against Clubby (the baby seal) and his friends might help with the match scores.

edit. I cannot look at the leaderboard so I have no idea who the player in question is. If the score average is against experienced players then I applaud you.

Edited by -Vompo-, 28 June 2016 - 03:40 AM.

[El Bandito]

TercieI, on 26 June 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

It's hopelessly illegitimate as is. So long as we have solo and group queue and PSR there are way too many variables to be remotely fair or meaningful. As unpopular as this will be, the closest you can get right now is Tier One is a requirement along with minimum matches (100-200) and solo queue only. It's really better not to have rewards until we have a real ranked queue.

Hear hear.

[TercieI]

ARP Haruna, on 28 June 2016 - 01:26 AM, said:

Look at the leaderboard. Exclude the ones with sub 10 matches. What do you see?
There is one account that stands out. A player with more than 100 matches. Averaging a score of 600+ matchscore. AVERAGING!
the next in line with a similar amount of matches played is averaging almost a 100 less.
How do you do that?


(not that I really would care though)

KDK-3 in solo queue.

[Depressing-Fire]

Sit down and watch a 30 min cringe compilation........ it's what I do..... I think my Fiancee thinks I have a problem.

[Kanil]

I think there should be an everybody included leaderboard... or at most, one with a small one-time entry requirement.

if we also need a **** measuring leaderboard, I'd prefer that to be included alongside rather than instead of what we currently have.

[Screech]

-Vompo-, on 27 June 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

To be fair it is much harder to get high match score in group queue if you are in a fairly large good group. So the low match scores are nothing weird.

I do agree that group queue and solo queue should be split. It would also be cool to have a leaderboard for units the same way there is one for players.

Don't disagree with anything said but it does show that the 2 queues are completely different animals. So for whatever good the leaderboards do, which is debatable, they would be better having them split. Unit rankings could be cool as well which could be done pretty easy if they were able to split the stats of the 2 queues.(or 3 if CW included)

[Mister Blastman]

They should have separate leaderboards for PUG queue and group queue, and should also have a filter for minimum games played before ranking is counted.

TercieI, on 28 June 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

KDK-3 in solo queue.

This. That's what they're doing.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 28 June 2016 - 06:09 AM.

[Abner Osis]

Don't reward it at all. Don't waste time quantifying a gimmick which will just encourage players to game the system in order to chase some basically meaningless reward. What are they going to give? MC...? Like what, $0.35 a week if you are top 25? MechBays cost less than a 16oz soda.

Look at this thread. People already justifying/rationalizing a hundred different changes to the formula so the odds get tilted a little more in their favor. T1 only, by weight, split the queues, immediate disqual and 2 week ban for using the KDK-3... another hour and this will look like income tax law.

There are already better ways for players to achieve rep within this game. MWO world championships happening weekly and there is no/minimal promotion at all for standings or links to vids. That should be the most front-and-center, readily accessible material on this website, but no, I have to filter through twitch links to watch.

This is a team/community game, and promotions should follow that emphasis. Support leagues, support 8v8 and 12v12 matchmaking, give some love to CW, and let the leaderboard stay an afterthought to anyone who isn't a meta tryhard.