New Scoreboard — Guild Wars 2 Forums

New Scoreboard

shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited September 1, 2018 in PVP
The current scoreboard isn't a good indicator of how useful a player was during a match.

For example:

  • A thief could carry a team and end up with ZERO top stats.
  • Someone spamming AoEs on an ENEMY node could end up with several while actually being detrimental to their team.
I believe the current rating system would be more accurate if it took into account not just wins and losses, but also the average of how much TOTAL VALUE a player brings to their teams. Thus, players at the top of the leaderboards will have very high Total Value. High Total Value in individual matches will increase rating gained or decrease rating lost and vice versa.

There would be four categories: Positive Value, Invisible Value, Negative Value, and Total Value.
Each of these are displayed for every player at the end of the match with Total Value = Positive Value + Invisible Value - Negative Value

Scoring

(PPS = Points per Second)

Ways to accumulate Positive Value:
  1. Capping a Node = 1 PPS while it remains capped
  2. Killing Enemies = 5 Points
  3. Fighting on an Owned Node = 1 PPS
  4. Fighting Outnumbered = Points scale with the number of enemies/allies (see details below)
Ways to accumulate Invisible Value:
  1. Decapping a Node = 1 PPS while it remains decapped
  2. Fighting on a Neutral Node = 1 PPS
Ways to accumulate Negative Value:
  1. Dying = -5 Points + -1 PPS while on respawn
  2. Fighting on an Enemy Node = -1 PPS

Fighting multiple enemies on an Owned/Neutral/Enemy Node results in increased accumulation of Positive Value.

For example:

  • 1 player fighting 1v4 = 4 PPS
  • 1 player fighting 1v2 = 2 PPS
  • 4v4 = 1 PPS
  • 3v4 = 1.33 PPS for the group of THREE | .75 PPS for the group of FOUR

Any thoughts?

Comments

  • Sorem.9157Sorem.9157 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 30, 2018

    It would definetly be a step in the right direction. I would add points for ressing, healing, average dps and peak burst tbh.

    Imo a cool thing to do would be cathegorize those points into lets say "team fighting points" "roaming points" "support points" "assassination points" etc etc and make it so you can check how many of each you get, so you can kinda get a grasp on yours and other peoples playstyle.

    A good scenario is getting a secondary leaderboards based off that and not just wins/losses. It would be cool but i am hesitant because that could affect people's play style, eg people going for decap even though it is a bad time for it or refusing to die on point on certain strategic occasions just to avoid the penalty. Ideally your ranking should be calculated by good gameplay not just match outcome but I think there would need to be a "smarter" cathegorization in order for that kind of ranking system to work.

    But still, this is a good suggestion

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    @Sorem.9157 said:
    It would definetly be a step in the right direction. I would add points for ressing, healing, average dps and peak burst tbh.

    Imo a cool thing to do would be cathegorize those points into lets say "team fighting points" "roaming points" "support points" "assassination points" etc etc and make it so you can check how many of each you get, so you can kinda get a grasp on yours and other peoples playstyle.

    A good scenario is getting a secondary leaderboards based off that and not just wins/losses. It would be cool but i am hesitant because that could affect people's play style, eg people going for decap even though it is a bad time for it or refusing to die on point on certain strategic occasions just to avoid the penalty. Ideally your ranking should be calculated by good gameplay not just match outcome but I think there would need to be a "smarter" cathegorization in order for that kind of ranking system to work.

    But still, this is a good suggestion

    Thanks for the feedback! I intentionally didn't include any variables that do not have a direct/indirect impact on whether or not your team wins.

    There's no way to measure how valuable resurrecting a teammate, healing, damaging, or bursting is over the course of a match.

    As for categorizing points, roaming classes such as thief and mesmer would have more Invisible Value than Positive Value. Side noders/team fighters such as warriors and guardians will have more Positive Value than Invisible Value.

    The point buffer you'd get from having a high Total Value would be very minimal. The goal would be to have it add up over time and make a difference in someone's rating over MANY matches played. For example, instead of gaining/losing 10 rating, you'd gain/lose 11. Then, after 50 matches played, that's a total of 50 rating that would have been added/subtracted from someone's score.

    Also, low Total Value in individual matches will decrease rating gained or increase rating lost as it means that player either: wasn't contributing, trolling/griefing, or afk. This would also help move people down who might've gotten lucky and carried to where they were, but didn't actually get there due to their own skill.

    This system would also offer players a clear indicator of what actually HELPS their team in a Conquest match and what doesn't. With this, players will be encouraged to earn high Positive/Invisible Value and discouraged from earning Negative Value, thus helping their team to win and improving match quality. In other words, matches where the players all have similar average Total Values will be more balanced/fun.

  • Tehologist.5841Tehologist.5841 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 30, 2018

    It would be nice if it encouraged people to play, especially when losing. Too many times we will start to lose and team mates will just type gg and idle. I suspect they are trying to end the game quick so they can queue again and are trying to get gold rewards as quick as possible.

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 30, 2018

    @Tehologist.5841 said:
    I would rather see a system that give negative points to player for not moving from current position or whenever idling and not on a capture point. When accrue enough negative, aren't allowed to requeue for a time.

    That would be more difficult to implement and won't always be an accurate indicator of how helpful someone was being.

    For example, you cap home, teammates win mid and rotate to far leaving you to cap mid. You finish capping mid and stand between mid and home to watch for decaps. In this situation, you're actually doing the right thing. However, with the system you proposed, you would get penalized.

    As for getting banned from quing, this is what I would suggest. Earning a Zero or Negative TOTAL Value in a match would grant dishonor. So, if a player were to feed by repeatedly dying and not earning any Positive/Invisible Value, their high Negative Value will result in them having a Negative Total Value. Afking would result in Zero Positive/Invisible/Negative Value, thus also deserving of dishonor. This would discourage griefing and also work towards improving match quality as people who DO grief won't be able to que repeatedly.

  • Crinn.7864Crinn.7864 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    @shadowpass.4236 said:

    There would be four categories: Positive Value, Invisible Value, Negative Value, and Total Value.
    Each of these are displayed for every player at the end of the match with Total Value = Positive Value + Invisible Value - Negative Value

    Scoring

    (PPS = Points per Second)

    Ways to accumulate Positive Value:
    1. Capping a Node = 1 PPS while it remains capped
    2. Killing Enemies = 5 Points
    3. Fighting on an Owned Node = 1 PPS
    4. Fighting Outnumbered = Points scale with the number of enemies/allies (see details below)
    Ways to accumulate Invisible Value:
    1. Decapping a Node = 1 PPS while it remains decapped
    2. Fighting on a Neutral Node = 1 PPS
    Ways to accumulate Negative Value:
    1. Dying = -5 Points + -1 PPS while on respawn
    2. Fighting on an Enemy Node = -1 PPS

    Fighting multiple enemies on an Owned/Neutral/Enemy Node results in increased accumulation of Positive Value.

    For example:

    • 1 player fighting 1v4 = 4 PPS
    • 1 player fighting 1v2 = 2 PPS
    • 4v4 = 1 PPS
    • 3v4 = 1.33 PPS for the group of THREE | .75 PPS for the group of FOUR

    Any thoughts?

    The invisible/positive/negative distinctions are irrelevant.

    1.) Decaps/caps should only give points to the capper up until the node is contested again. Once a node is contested it should only give it points to the currently defending players. Players contesting a neutral node should get 1PPS. Players contesting a friendly node should get 2PPS. (1 for the node not being in enemy hands, and 1 for it being in your team's hands)
    2.) Points should not be awarded for merely being in a fight, as per #1 a player is already gaining points for simply fighting over a neutral or friendly node. Extra point rewards are superfluous as simply being in a fight is not necessarily contributing to winning.
    3.) Fighting on a enemy node does not need a penalty as the penalty is already there the form of the player not gaining points for defending as per #1.
    4.) Points awarded per kill should be distributed by a player's eDamage* against the target. If player 1 has 60% of the eDamage dealt to the killed foe and player 2 has 40% of the eDamage dealt to the killed foe, then player 1 gets 3 points of the 5, and player 2 gets 2 points of the 5. If you count kills via tags such as you currently have proposed, you'll just have thieves running around tagging everything.
    5.) death penalty is too heavy handed. A 5 point loss is enough, moreover there should be a 2 point loss for friendly players within 1500 range for failing to peel for their downed comrade. If you leave the death penalty as you currently propose you end up with stuff like a Scourge getting screwed over pointwise because his team's firebrand is a moron.
    6.) Fighting outnumbered should not just give points. Whether or not fighting outnumbered is advantageous is highly situational, if your team has players on respawn then you being outnumbered is contributing nothing.

    *eDamage = Effective Damage. eDamage = Damage Dealt to Target - Healing Target Received. So if you hit a enemy for 5k and the enemy then heals himself for 4k, then your eDamage is 1k. If you DO NOT use eDamage, you end up with players getting lots of damage credit for beating their face on a bunker for 3mins, while the guy that runs in a bursts the target down would get little credit. eDamage insures that credit is distributed only to players that where actually responsible for killing the target, and not give credit to players that are just tagging.


    Having the value be the only measure towards the leaderboard is also going to be ripe for abuse, as players would basically try and find whichever class is best for farming value points.

    A better system is this: At the end of the match the values of all the players on a team are added up. You can then compare each individual player's value against the total value of their team to get each player % of team value. We can expect each player to contribute 1/5th of their team's value. If a player has more value than 1/5th then they get bonus rating equivalent to how much above the expected 1/5th they are. If a player gets less than 1/5th of the team's value then they get less rating. If a player gets exactly 1/5th then you give them the exact glicko2 rating change. that they would have gotten if our system didn't exist. In the case of a loss the player's with above expected value loose less rating than the player with below expected value.

    Sanity is for the weak minded
    YouTube

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    I do think that the game never as good at showing people's contribution in the game, which is sad.
    I also don't think, however, that your method is quite good either, especially the fighting outmatched part. The way you design it, would reward suicidal plays, like the "lemming trickle" (which when a whole team dies separately, and then goes 1 by 1 vs 4 players in a node, just to die in succession).
    Otherwise it might actually be good.
    For the outnumbered i'd have that system, but instead of gaining the points, you'd accumulate them. If you win when outmatched you gain those points, when you lose, you lose that same amount of points.
    If you down an enemy, you immediately get 1/3 of your points, if you kill him, you gain your points entirely and it resets the counter.

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    @Crinn.7864 @ReaverKane.7598

    Dying is one of the worst things you can do in sPvP. The penalty is severe because that's how BADLY it affects your team in a match. When you're on respawn, your entire team is forced to fight outnumbered on the entire map which is a situation you ALWAYS want to avoid.

    Now, to address your concerns regarding people suiciding 1v4 repeatedly to gain "value." This won't work out for them. In the end, the only value that matters is the Total Value. If you run into a 1v4 on the enemy node with the intention of suiciding, you may gain 40 ish points of Positive Value (surviving for 10 seconds), but you'll incur the death penalty after (5 points initially plus 1 per second on respawn), as well as the Negative Value for fighting on an enemy node. Thus, constantly running into outnumbered fights and dying results in your Positive and Negative Values cancelling out. Continually doing this for an entire match will result in dishonor as your Total Value will either be negative or close to 0.


    @Crinn.7864

    1. I disagree. Even if a node is contested, if its YOUR node, you'll still be earning points for your team. The longer you hold the node, the more Positive Value you would accumulate. If it gets decapped, those points stop. Keep in mind, the players defending are ALSO getting rewarded as they will be receiving Positive Value for fighting on a node they own.
    2. If a team is fighting on a neutral node, they will be earning Invisible Value. Players who aren't fighting or contributing at all to fights/capping will receive ZERO value and thus receiving a dishonor at the end of the match.
    3. I disagree. You're suggesting an "nonexistent penalty" exists because the player fighting on an enemy node isn't defending one of theirs. That's what the Negative Values are for. Fighting on an enemy node is detrimental up until the point you decap it.
    4. Rewarding points for kills based off of the % eDamage a player has done won't work. Firebrands and other support classes will receive little to no contribution.
    5. See above. Dying is very bad. The Negative Value death penalty is justified. If you only receive 5 points of Negative Value upon dying, THEN you will get players repeatedly diving into outnumbered fights to farm Value. (You'd gain 40 Positive Value for surviving 10 seconds 1v4. Then you would only get penalized 5 Negative Value for dying. This results in a Positive Total Value gain of 35 which isn't what should happen in a situation like this. The ticking Negative Value for every second on respawn counteracts this behavior as they will gain very little to no Positive Total Value.)
    6. See above. Fighting outnumbered forces your team to outnumber the enemy on the rest of the map. Surviving and holding the 1vX results in very high Positive Value gains. However, if you die while fighting on an enemy node, you will incur the death penalty as well as the Negative Value penalty for fighting on an enemy node. Also, it's worth noting that holding an outnumbered fight on an enemy node for an extended period of time will still result in a Positive Total Value.

    Farming Value points is exactly what this system encourages. You WANT players farm Positive/Invisible Value as it results in a higher chance of your team winning.

    Also, you have to remember that the leaderboard will still take wins/losses into account. This new scoreboard will just act as a small buffer as players who consistently bring High Total Values to their teams deserve to place higher on the leaderboards than those who don't.

    As for rewarding rating based based on their % of their team's Total Value at the end of a match, I also disagree. If everyone does their job very well, they will end up with very high Total Value scores. If everyone gets high Total Value, your suggestion would result in no one receiving the bonus for playing well in the match.

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    Remember, this system encourages healthy gameplay and discourages griefing/negative gameplay.

    Everything I listed under Positive/Invisible Values WILL help your team win a match. Everything under the Negative Values will NOT help your team win. Trying to cheat the system by repeatedly running into outnumbered fights (and dying) will result in little to no Total Value. As such, players who do this will receive Dishonor at the end of the match, the lost rating for LOSING the match, and the BONUS lost rating due to contributing little to no Total Value.

    Players will get penalized with less rating gained/increased rating lost as well as Dishonor when they contribute little to no Total Value to their team during a match and vice versa.

    Trying to farm Value with tactics that causes your team to lose will still result in them losing rating. There's nothing to gain just by farming Value alone.

  • Crinn.7864Crinn.7864 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @shadowpass.4236 said:
    @Crinn.7864 @ReaverKane.7598

    Dying is one of the worst things you can do in sPvP. The penalty is severe because that's how BADLY it affects your team in a match. When you're on respawn, your entire team is forced to fight outnumbered on the entire map which is a situation you ALWAYS want to avoid.

    Dying is only the worst thing if the enemy is able to exploit it. If they fail to exploit it or simply where not in a position to exploit it, then your team loses nothing more than 5 points.

    The problem with your entire system is that you are assigning value to actions while ignoring that the value of various actions varies wildly with context. My system does not assign value to actions, but instead only gives value to the outcome of actions. Outcomes are definitive and quantifiable. Actions are neither.

    @Crinn.7864

    1. I disagree. Even if a node is contested, if its YOUR node, you'll still be earning points for your team. The longer you hold the node, the more Positive Value you would accumulate. If it gets decapped, those points stop. Keep in mind, the players defending are ALSO getting rewarded as they will be receiving Positive Value for fighting on a node they own.

    If a node is contested by the enemy, the only reason it is still in your possession is because of the players defending it, not the person that originally capped it.

    1. If a team is fighting on a neutral node, they will be earning Invisible Value. Players who aren't fighting or contributing at all to fights/capping will receive ZERO value and thus receiving a dishonor at the end of the match.

    Under my system dishonor does not need to invoked because a player with no contribution has 0% of team value, which results in a 0.0 multiplier applied to the rating gain, thus they gain nothing in the event of a win, and lose double in the event of a loss. Meanwhile the players who fought gallantly to pick up the slack would all naturally end up >1/5th share of the total value resulting in much better rating gains in the event of a win, or significantly reduced rating loss in the case of a defeat.

    1. I disagree. You're suggesting an "nonexistent penalty" exists because the player fighting on an enemy node isn't defending one of theirs. That's why I have the Negative Values. Fighting on an enemy node is detrimental up until you can decap it.

    The penalty in my system is that they gain no points at all until the can take the node, while defending has strong point gains. Thus a player would still only want to pursue enemy nodes if they are confident of a quick capture.

    Your system would just result in players never wanting to push nodes for fear of getting point screwed.

    1. Rewarding points for kills based off of the % eDamage a player has done won't work. Firebrands and other support classes will receive little to no contribution.

    Do supports contribute much killing power? Nope. Then why should they get killing credit?

    Let say you have two evade spam weavers fighting a eternal 1v1 on a neutral node. After awhile a thief shows up and stabs one of the weavers to death. Under your system both the weaver and the thief get equal credit for scoring the kill. Under my system the thief gets the bulk of the credit, since he the one that scored the kill. See the difference?

    1. See above. Fighting outnumbered forces your team to outnumber the enemy on the rest of the map. Surviving and holding the 1vX results in very high Positive Value gains. However, if you die while fighting on an enemy node, you will incur the death penalty as well as the Negative Value penalty for fighting on an enemy node. Also, it's worth noting that holding an outnumbered fight on an enemy node for an extended period of time will still result in a Positive Total Value.

    But that only matters if your team can exploit that advantage. You fighting 1v2 doesn't matter if your team has someone on respawn, alternatively if MrEpicTrollWeaver is on the enemy team and he is holding 1v2 on close while you are holding 1v2 on far, then ultimately your 1v2 is meaningless.

    Farming Value points is exactly what this system encourages. You WANT players farm Positive/Invisible Value as it results in a higher chance of your team winning.

    No you want players to be playing to win, your system just encourages trying to metagame the value system. If your system is implemented, the moment a match looks like it is going downhill players would immediately revert to whatever behaviors will get them the most value in the least amount of time.

    Like if I'm in a blowout match under your system, the best thing for me to do is to go cap close and sit on it. I don't want to push any enemy nodes because I would just get penalized and since the match is tending towards a blowout I just want to cut my losses via holding that one node for my value points.

    As for rewarding rating based based on their % Total Value at the end of a match, I also disagree. If everyone does their job very well, they will end up with very high Total Value scores. If everyone gets high Total Value, your suggestion would result in no one receiving the bonus for playing well in the match.

    My system gives better rewards to those who go above and beyond, while players that contribute what is expected of them get the expected reward.

    Sanity is for the weak minded
    YouTube

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 31, 2018

    @Crinn.7864 said:

    @shadowpass.4236 said:
    @Crinn.7864 @ReaverKane.7598

    Dying is one of the worst things you can do in sPvP. The penalty is severe because that's how BADLY it affects your team in a match. When you're on respawn, your entire team is forced to fight outnumbered on the entire map which is a situation you ALWAYS want to avoid.

    1. Dying is only the worst thing if the enemy is able to exploit it. If they fail to exploit it or simply where not in a position to exploit it, then your team loses nothing more than 5 points.
    2. The problem with your entire system is that you are assigning value to actions while ignoring that the value of various actions varies wildly with context. My system does not assign value to actions, but instead only gives value to the outcome of actions. Outcomes are definitive and quantifiable. Actions are neither.

    @Crinn.7864

    1. I disagree. Even if a node is contested, if its YOUR node, you'll still be earning points for your team. The longer you hold the node, the more Positive Value you would accumulate. If it gets decapped, those points stop. Keep in mind, the players defending are ALSO getting rewarded as they will be receiving Positive Value for fighting on a node they own.

    3. If a node is contested by the enemy, the only reason it is still in your possession is because of the players defending it, not the person that originally capped it.

    1. If a team is fighting on a neutral node, they will be earning Invisible Value. Players who aren't fighting or contributing at all to fights/capping will receive ZERO value and thus receiving a dishonor at the end of the match.

    4. Under my system dishonor does not need to invoked because a player with no contribution has 0% of team value, which results in a 0.0 multiplier applied to the rating gain, thus they gain nothing in the event of a win, and lose double in the event of a loss. Meanwhile the players who fought gallantly to pick up the slack would all naturally end up >1/5th share of the total value resulting in much better rating gains in the event of a win, or significantly reduced rating loss in the case of a defeat.

    1. I disagree. You're suggesting an "nonexistent penalty" exists because the player fighting on an enemy node isn't defending one of theirs. That's why I have the Negative Values. Fighting on an enemy node is detrimental up until you can decap it.

    5. The penalty in my system is that they gain no points at all until the can take the node, while defending has strong point gains. Thus a player would still only want to pursue enemy nodes if they are confident of a quick capture.

    Your system would just result in players never wanting to push nodes for fear of getting point screwed.

    1. Rewarding points for kills based off of the % eDamage a player has done won't work. Firebrands and other support classes will receive little to no contribution.

    6. Do supports contribute much killing power? Nope. Then why should they get killing credit?
    7. Let say you have two evade spam weavers fighting a eternal 1v1 on a neutral node. After awhile a thief shows up and stabs one of the weavers to death. Under your system both the weaver and the thief get equal credit for scoring the kill. Under my system the thief gets the bulk of the credit, since he the one that scored the kill. See the difference?

    1. See above. Fighting outnumbered forces your team to outnumber the enemy on the rest of the map. Surviving and holding the 1vX results in very high Positive Value gains. However, if you die while fighting on an enemy node, you will incur the death penalty as well as the Negative Value penalty for fighting on an enemy node. Also, it's worth noting that holding an outnumbered fight on an enemy node for an extended period of time will still result in a Positive Total Value.

    8. But that only matters if your team can exploit that advantage. You fighting 1v2 doesn't matter if your team has someone on respawn, alternatively if MrEpicTrollWeaver is on the enemy team and he is holding 1v2 on close while you are holding 1v2 on far, then ultimately your 1v2 is meaningless.

    Farming Value points is exactly what this system encourages. You WANT players farm Positive/Invisible Value as it results in a higher chance of your team winning.

    9. No you want players to be playing to win, your system just encourages trying to metagame the value system. If your system is implemented, the moment a match looks like it is going downhill players would immediately revert to whatever behaviors will get them the most value in the least amount of time.
    10. Like if I'm in a blowout match under your system, the best thing for me to do is to go cap close and sit on it. I don't want to push any enemy nodes because I would just get penalized and since the match is tending towards a blowout I just want to cut my losses via holding that one node for my value points.

    As for rewarding rating based based on their % Total Value at the end of a match, I also disagree. If everyone does their job very well, they will end up with very high Total Value scores. If everyone gets high Total Value, your suggestion would result in no one receiving the bonus for playing well in the match.

    11. My system gives better rewards to those who go above and beyond, while players that contribute what is expected of them get the expected reward.

    1. Even if the enemy doesn't exploit your death, your team is still 4v5 on the rest of the map. Since you're dead and not contributing anything, you aren't helping your team win, thus your Negative Value will increase.
    2. Okay, but how do you track outcomes? You're saying that if the enemy team doesn't exploit your death, you only receive 5 Negative Value. But if they DO exploit it, now it makes sense to tick Negative Value? How does the system determine whether or not the enemy team exploits your death?
    3. Right. But the people defending it still gain Positive Value. And, they would have nothing to defend if it wasn't capped in the first place.
    For example, a thief breaks off of the mid fight to decap far. Deciding that his team is doing okay in middle, he full caps the node. His team wipes the enemy team. The enemy team sends 4 to far and their thief breaks off to home. Your team rotates to far to defend. Thief leaves to mirror the enemy thief. In this scenario, the thief that capped will only receive a few points of Positive Value as the rest of his team now rotated to it and he leaves. However, that node wouldn't be capped if it wasn't for him. Thus, he should continue receiving Positive Value because his ACTION of capping the node is still affecting the match for as long as it remains capped.
    1. Why would you NOT dishonor someone for contributing 0% to their team's Total Value? You're essentially saying it is perfectly fine to just AFK the whole game because the only penalty they'd receive is the lost rating for losing. No. They SHOULD receive dishonor for doing nothing. This discourages them from griefing, as well as improves match quality now that they can no longer que for a certain period of time.
    2. No. Fighting on an enemy node is detrimental. It is NEGATIVELY affecting your team. Fighting on an enemy node shouldn't result in "no points gained" because it IS a negative action. You aren't helping your team by doing it, so you SHOULD get penalized. However, if you ARE able to decap it quick enough, you will be able to counteract the Negative Value you accumulated.
    3. So you want to DISCOURAGE people from playing support? You want it so that they will not receive ANY contribution for helping their team secure kills? They SHOULD receive credit for kills because a good support is extremely important. If the team is dead, they aren't getting kills.
    4. No. You are literally just encouraging people to last hit/spike. You are forgetting that those 1v1s, even if they stalemate, are very important. Stalemated 1v1s cause the enemy to use DEFENSIVE COOLDOWNS. This, in turn, makes it EASIER for your team's roamer to secure the kill.
    5. Even if your team has someone on respawn, fighting that 1v2 is still helping your team win. If you aren't 1v2, and your team has someone on respawn, now your team IS outnumbered on the rest of the map. You fighting that outnumbered fight is actively helping your team, REGARDLESS of what else is going on on the rest of the map.
    6. Earning high Positive/Invisible/Total Value IS playing to win. All of those actions improve your team's chances of winning. If you metagame the value system but LOSE the match, you still lose rating in the long run. You don't benefit at ALL from trying to cheat the system.
    7. If the match is a blowout, it doesn't matter what you do. If you push out to an enemy node and get wiped, you still lose rating. If you decide to sit home to maximize your value, you STILL LOSE RATING. However, if you DO push out to an enemy node to try and win it, now you have a chance of getting more Positive/Invisible/Total Value than you would just sitting on a node you own. If you push out, you ALSO gain the chance of winning the match, thus gaining rating rather than just giving up and losing rating.
      Keep in mind, the point buffer only takes into affect at HIGH Total Values. Getting mediocre Total Values just means you did your job properly. Getting low amounts of Total Value results in dishonor/additional rating loss/less rating gained. Camping on a single node all game won't give you enough Value to impact your rating at the end of the match.
    8. If everyone on your team goes above and beyond, you will win the match, and everyone should get rewarded.
    Also, can you please explain why you believe metagaming the Value system is a bad thing? Metagaming the Value system just means you figured out how to be extremely useful to your team. So yes, if my system encourages players to maximize the value they bring to their team, great. That is EXACTLY what I was aiming for.
  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Crab Fear.1624 said:
    Seems your system encourages play to win, and punishes anything else. That is how it should be.

    Exactly! Thank you.

  • @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Something like this is a great idea and needs more input from the community.

    You beat me to bumping this! Agreed. This seems like a more thought out version of the system I suggested in your discussion. The goal of both is to shift the rankings emphasis from match outcome to individual contribution. The difference is my suggestion is limited to existing stats and systems, while this one introduces a new, probably far more effective, one.

  • Ario.8964Ario.8964 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Very nice, I liked reading through this and I would love to play with this system in place.

    An important note: I saw the argument previously where someone had mentioned splitting points on kill based on damage % done to the player. That is not a good idea. Point wise, it really understates the contribution of a quick and successful plus. Say there's a fight stalled out between 2 specs that will never 1v1 to each other on a neutral point, You leave them 1v1ing for a long time and then a rev comes in and +1's player 1. Now player is dead and player 1 will get the cap but the guy who did the +1, despite heavily shifting the momentum of the game, will receive very few points overall for that kill since their overall % of damage done to the player was very low. Points in this scenario should be given in full to both players since they are equally responsible for the success of the play being made.

  • Yannir.4132Yannir.4132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Additionally, an optional endorsement system would be nice. Just to give your Firebrand or Thief a thumbs up when they do well.

  • Mbelch.9028Mbelch.9028 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I really like this idea. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's worth a shot.

    My only other suggestions are: Get rid of pedestals and dancing over your enemies, make sure top stats are fully replaced by whatever is implemented.

  • saerni.2584saerni.2584 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I like the general idea but quibble with your numbers. I want to build delays into this so people can’t get contribution points based on getting outnumbered and dying within 10 seconds. Just to get a better sense of when points start to be generated.

    Here is my version for comparison:

    General points (awarded during match)

    • +1 per second while alive
    • -1 per second while downed longer than five seconds.
    • -2 per second for being killed until respawn.
    • +X per second for fighting outnumbered by X people for longer than 30 seconds.
    • -2 per second for fighting on an enemy node longer than 30 seconds.
    • +2 per second for fighting around an allied node for 20 seconds without having more than a 1 ally advantage.
    • +1 per second after an enemy you downed is downed longer than 5 seconds.
    • +2 per second for killing an enemy until they respawn.

    Special points (awarded at end of match)

    • +X points per second for using map objectives and winning the match. Duration of point gain set on map to map basis.
    • +2 points per second for fighting 1v3 or 2v4 in the area between enemy spawn and far, if your team has more points capped at the time and you win the game.

    Northern Shiverpeaks (NSP)
    Deadeye (Thief)
    Commandant of P/D and Apex Predator

  • shadowpass.4236shadowpass.4236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 10, 2019

    @saerni.2584 said:
    I like the general idea but quibble with your numbers. I want to build delays into this so people can’t get contribution points based on getting outnumbered and dying within 10 seconds. Just to get a better sense of when points start to be generated.

    Here is my version for comparison:

    General points (awarded during match)

    1. +1 per second while alive
    2. -1 per second while downed longer than five seconds.
    3. -2 per second for being killed until respawn.
    4. +X per second for fighting outnumbered by X people for longer than 30 seconds.
    5. -2 per second for fighting on an enemy node longer than 30 seconds.
    6. +2 per second for fighting around an allied node for 20 seconds without having more than a 1 ally advantage.
    7. +1 per second after an enemy you downed is downed longer than 5 seconds.
    8. +2 per second for killing an enemy until they respawn.

    Special points (awarded at end of match)

    1. +X points per second for using map objectives and winning the match. Duration of point gain set on map to map basis.
    2. +2 points per second for fighting 1v3 or 2v4 in the area between enemy spawn and far, if your team has more points capped at the time and you win the game.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    However, I disagree with your scoring system. Here's why...

    1. For your first bullet, you wish to award 1 point per second while alive. Unfortunately, just "being alive" doesn't contribute to your team in any way. As such, this would reward players who just AFK in the base and throw the match.
    2. Negative Value for being downed isn't a good idea either. A player has zero control over how long he's downed for. Not to mention that this would be able to exploited very easily to wintrade. If his teammates try to rez but the enemy cleaves just hard enough to cancel out the healing, your system would punish this player very heavily. The same situation occurs if he gets bled out. Furthermore, a player can still have impact on a match even while downed. If the score is 496-490, your team has a single cap and the enemy has two, dying on the point will still result in a win.
    3. Not sure about this one. I figured +1 NV per second while on respawn was enough because accumulating PV or IV with my system actually requires a player to complete an action. Dying, because they aren't contributing, detracts from that.
    4. This is similar to your second point with the 5 second buffer while downed. There are times where holding a node against multiple people for less than 30 seconds would win you the match. However, your system wouldn't reward the player at all.
    5. Same as above.
    6. Ditto.
    7. Ditto.
    8. Maybe. But I don't think this is a good idea. Rewarding a player passively after killing an enemy would result in a heavy emphasis on kills instead of actually playing the gamemode. You have to remember, while killing an enemy forces an advantage across the map, that's the extent of it's effect. If the enemy has two points capped and your team has none, and you guys are 5v4ing at mid the entire match and getting kills but they're feeding in off respawn just fast enough that you can never cap that point. You will still lose the game. The amount of kills you get contribute very little to the final outcome.

    As for your special points...

    1. It would be difficult to gauge how important map objectives are. For example, killing a beast at Forest of Niflhel would normally result in a PV of 25 points. However, in doing so, the player that killed the beast could've gotten decapped at his home node and costed his team the team fight at mid. This would result in an even greater loss of value than the beast would've awarded. The same goes for stillness at Temple of the Silent Storm. If you take Stillness but your team doesn't have any nodes capped, it doesn't actually help your team win and you shouldn't get rewarded.
    2. This is a strange restriction to place on the scoring. Between the enemy spawn and far IF your team has more points capped at the time? The system I proposed rewards outnumbered fighting (while penalizing dying) and isn't as complicated for the system to determine.

    To sum it up, I designed my scoring system around actions that directly impact whether your team wins or loses the match. I avoided categories such as: damage dealt, teammates ressurected, map mechanics, etc. etc. simply because there aren't any easy ways to tell how much of an impact they had on a game (if at all). I also tried to stay away from systems that rewarded AFKing/griefing behaviors such as just "being alive." Lastly, artificial time buffers where no points are awarded aren't a good idea because fighting outnumbered on a node for less than 30 seconds or fighting on that allied node for less than 20 seconds COULD potentially have a big impact on the match. But, your system wouldn't recognize it. Thus, I also tried to avoid any unneccesary restrictions on how Value was awarded.

    To put it in perspective, you wanted to "build delays into this so people can’t get contribution points based on getting outnumbered and dying within 10 seconds."

    This is how my system would deal with it:

    • You 1v4 for 10 seconds on a node the enemy owns before dying.

    You are awarded...

    • 40 Positive Value for fighting 1v4 for 10 seconds.
    • 10 Negative Value for fighting on a node the enemy owns.
    • 5 Negative Value for dying.
    • If you're on respawn for 15 seconds, you are awarded 15 Negative Value (1 per second while dead).

    As a result, because the Total Value = Positive Value + Invisible Value - Negative Value. 40 PV + 0 IV - 30 NV = 10 TV. These scores basically cancel out depending on the respawn timer. And, as I stated in one of the earlier posts, having low/close to zero/negative Total Value at the end of a match would result in increased rating lost/decreased rating gained/dishonor. So, my system still penalizes negative behaviors such as this.

  • I'm sold. This is certainly miles better than what we have now for gauging actual contributions to the win condition. These metrics are far more indicative of a player's overall value and knowledge of the game mode than sheer win-loss ratio.

    Some additional benefits are insulation from poor matchmaking--you can still climb even if your team loses! But not without trying to win by playing effectively. It would also hamper win-trading schemes since rank is no longer simply tied to wins.

    This is the kind of forward-thinking overhaul Conquest desperately needs to revitalize its playerbase, pique new interest, and promote informed play by properly assessing player influence on match outcome.

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm pretty sold on this. There've been times I've literally won the match for my team, but get zero credit/top stats...And other times where I played like absolute garbage but got a lot of top stats.

  • Asuran.5469Asuran.5469 Member ✭✭

    Why has something like this not happened yet?

  • Top stats and the current score board are a good show of skill.

    I was watching Jawggeous the streamer. He said it and is pretty knowledgeable

  • i was coming on the forum to make an epic rant about how dumb is the pvp at the moment mostly for unbalance and dumb people but also for the idiotic reward and scorebording, my meaning mostly is this your reward don't need to be shared or dependant whit the party, if u play good u get good, if u play bad u get bad so i'm total whit you for a dramatic ad strong change of the sistem as it right now

  • Can Anet chime in here.... This is a great idea that seems fairly easy to implement and tune. Could even be implemented alongside the current stat system. Yes, it would take some time/tuning to get it right, but if the scoring system was well thought-out and visible to everyone... maybe... just maybe new players would actually learn to play conquest instead of being trash, getting chewed out, and quitting after 3 games. If that happens maybe the pvp population will improve just a little.

  • Ralkuth.1456Ralkuth.1456 Member ✭✭✭

    I've just been reading another thread where a player laments there's nothing more they could do other than hope for mercy at the hands of the "coin-flip" system we have with queuing.

    With the correct metrics in place at least there would be something concrete to follow to ensure you are contributing to the team, and with these scores running, maybe we could even have third-party programmes that can assist in decision-making for the more casual/new players to PvP and help them fight the right things at the right time. I don't mind helping out fellow players and I have helped newer players keen to PvP with builds, rotations and matchups in the past (he's picking it up so fast I'm sure he'll be better than me), it's just that there's only so much time and effort we could give. With a system comprehensive enough to indicate effectiveness in 5v5 conquest and serve as reference in player profiles, it would only make PvP players more professional.

    While people will always find a way to complain and they will do so such as saying the scoreboard system is flawed etc, at the very least arguments have to be more concrete on why such a metric is unfeasible/should be rated lower etc., and not be like now, where people invent a bazillion conditions on why their games are horrible even if they're so perfect at the game.

    Player of distinguishing mediocrity (S5: G3, S6: P1, S17: P1).
    Carrying enemy team since 2012.
    "Multiclass implies you can actually play the class" - A Certain Royalty, on Twitch

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.