64 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

I'm not talking about all the different functions it should have. Obviously, it would be nice to have lots of ways to sort the data. Best KDR and WLR, most wins or kills (cumulative), highest number of NARC kills or whatever.

I'm talking about the coveted top 10, for which Russ promised there would be monthly rewards. Of course, right of the bat, we all agree there should be a minimum number of matches played. That's a given. But what else?

Should the group queue count for anything? Should group queue have a separate leaderboard with separate rewards? Should Tier 3 be mixed with Tier 1, or should the top 10 with rewards only count for Tier 1 players, to prevent sandbagging? (I know this sounds elitist, but there's a reason why most sports have divisions, after all). Is average match score the best metric, or should it be more like the leaderboards, with the 10 best matches?

Your thoughts?

[STEF_]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

Your thoughts?

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

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 26 June 2016 - 08:40 AM.

[Mystere]

I would just like 2 things:

• separate solo and group leaderboards
  
• display only the top 100 (as an example only) and your own ranking

[TercieI]

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.

[Alistair Winter]

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?)

If it was 90 per month, then the leaderboards would be pretty empty for the first weeks of every month. Because most people don't play 90 matches in a week, I think. Especially not solo queue only.

I think 30 - 50 may be better. And maybe less than that for the Overall Leaderboard, where all classes are counted. Maybe something like 15-20 matches per weight class to qualify for the Overall Leaderboard?

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.

This is what I'm thinking as well.

[EgoSlayer]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

If it was 90 per month, then the leaderboards would be pretty empty for the first weeks of every month. Because most people don't play 90 matches in a week, I think. Especially not solo queue only.

I think 30 - 50 may be better. And maybe less than that for the Overall Leaderboard, where all classes are counted. Maybe something like 15-20 matches per weight class to qualify for the Overall Leaderboard?


This is what I'm thinking as well.

I'd think 20 per weight class would be fair and 80 for the global. Question is do the 80 need to be the sum of all 4 weight classes @ 20 each to qualify, or any mix of 80 matches regardless of the weight class?

I'd lean towards requiring 20 in each class before showing up in the global rankings as incentive for people to play all the mech classes, but depending on the rewards offered it might not matter as an incentive.

[Screech]

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.

[STEF_]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

If it was 90 per month, then the leaderboards would be pretty empty for the first weeks of every month. Because most people don't play 90 matches in a week, I think. Especially not solo queue only.

Yep, I didn't express well.
With month, I want to say "last 30 days".
So, everyday we can have the "last 30 days 90 matches" average.

[C E Dwyer]

I'm not sure about splitting the solo and group queue.

While group is somewhat better organised, it also makes it harder for a specific pilot to get a good score, they're far more likely to find those big numbers in Solo queue.

I'm sure that there will be lots going no, no, that's stupid, but the simple fact is that, if you work properly together, you share in coming and out going damage and usually end up with around 350-450 each, as every one takes point and shares the incoming damage, so they also share the out going, as mechs are focused down.

The top flight get the big scores in the solo queue's, where they take advantage of those that have limited awareness of what's going on, and couldn't shoot their own foot off.

[Bluttrunken]

The current leaderboard is a joke. First place is someone with a single match under his belt.

Group and Solo Queue should definitely be splitted.

Edited by Bluttrunken, 26 June 2016 - 09:25 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Cathy, on 26 June 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

I'm not sure about splitting the solo and group queue.

While group is somewhat better organised, it also makes it harder for a specific pilot to get a good score, they're far more likely to find those big numbers in Solo queue.

I'm sure that there will be lots going no, no, that's stupid, but the simple fact is that, if you work properly together, you share in coming and out going damage and usually end up with around 350-450 each, as every one takes point and shares the incoming damage, so they also share the out going, as mechs are focused down.

The top flight get the big scores in the solo queue's, where they take advantage of those that have limited awareness of what's going on, and couldn't shoot their own foot off.

The problem with ranking group queue is that having a good 12-man team would be alpha omega. So you're effectively not ranking the individual pilot so much as his team. A person who regularly plays with 3 of his buddies will be at a huge disadvantage compared to the person who regularly plays as part of a lethal 12-man team.

I don't think we should have, or will have, ranked teams until PGI implements their plan for 8vs8 on Solaris.

[Darth Hotz]

Best 90 games in the last 30 days should produce better results. I would also be interested in knowing what mech is used most of the times. Yesterday I checked the leaderboard and saw K/D ratios of 14/1 in 20 games and I would like to get clarification if my guess which mech has been used is right.

A problem I foresee is the creativity humans show when prices can be won. Tier 1 with monthly new alt accounts to farm seals are a big possibility.

[Felbombling]

Just once, I'd like PGI to think things through and make something amazing right off the bat, instead of introducing a feature and having the forums fill up with posts just like this trying to suggest the obvious things PGI left out on their first attempt. Just once.

[Tyler Valentine]

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.

T2, so it sux but, I agree completely. It's way too convoluted otherwise.

[meteorol]

Split solo and Group add and min number of Matches as a first step.

[TercieI]

Tyler Valentine, on 26 June 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

T2, so it sux but, I agree completely. It's way too convoluted otherwise.

Thx. I feel like a butt saying that being T1, but l just can't think of another fair answer that doesn't reward sandbagging. :/

Edited by TercieI, 26 June 2016 - 01:39 PM.

[Druarc]

Definitely needs a min match before being added to leader board. Maybe add weekly and monthly boards too.

As to the rewards it'll be hard to avoid annoying the lower tiers if you only reward T1. Maybe a match limit will work instead? 500 matches before your able to get rewards?

[Navid A1]

Split solo and group queue and set a minimum number of matches played in each weight class

[PhoenixFire55]

Opt-in solo queue with leaderboards and without matchmaker.
Otherwise, ye good ole solo queue with matchmaker but without leaderboards.

Leaderboards in group queue? LOL ... no.

[Tier 1 Smurf]

They need to have a refresh period for the board. ie one month.

They need to separate solo and group leaderboards.

They need separate tier leaderboards.

Or I can just go farm tier 3 potatoes for big score.