Anther great pvp idea :D

overddrive · November 2013

A ranked LEAGUE

Ranks for players, ranks and tourneys for teams. To be ranked a team would have to be premade and registered. The player ladder would be straight out points, and your points would of course be tracked over the course of all your pvp matches. The player ladder would have six tiers for each 10 levels from 1-60, so you would have a tier 1,2,3,4,5,and 6, #1 ranked player and so on. Ranks for teams would be straight out number of wins, max 3 wins per day, again 6 tiers. Prizes would be titles and a piece of epic gear, t2 versions of pvp gear for level 60 top 3 teams and top 10 players.

Quitters in any ranked match would immediately fall back 5 rungs on the player ladder, this penalty doubling for each subsequent quit within a week, 5, 10, 20, 40. The fifth quit in a week and they lose all of their glory and are banned from the ladder for a week, after which time they may get on the ladder again but in last place.

godlysoul1 · November 2013

Obviously the idea of a ranking system has been brought up numerous times and is a great idea. However, with something like this, what happens when other teams quit on you all day while you are doing player ranked matches in que? I want a ranking system, but I still ultimately want to be pvp-ing for fun. It is not fun for me to stay in matches where its 5v1 or 5v2 when the entire opposing team leaves. Nor is it fun for me to stay and do a 1v5 or 2v5. These quitting penalties would need to somehow give incentive to the players unconcerned about rankings a reason not to quit so that their quitting would not interfere with the players who want to be a little more serious about pvp.

slushpsycho · November 2013

don't think Dev would make that happen in any near future, right now the game need more new classes and other contents, PVP is not on their top list, I do like to see a GS requirement come up though, why put 12k player against a 9k player with no enchant? It is so pointless, u can be hella skill as long as u sit on a 9k gs toon u will get facerolled no matter what.

ikeepit3hunna · November 2013

slushpsycho wrote: »

don't think Dev would make that happen in any near future, right now the game need more new classes and other contents, PVP is not on their top list, I do like to see a GS requirement come up though, why put 12k player against a 9k player with no enchant? It is so pointless, u can be hella skill as long as u sit on a 9k gs toon u will get facerolled no matter what.

No and no. If your good u could run blues and rank 5s and do decent in pug matches. Also tenes aren't gs and some classez have less gs then others. Gs means next to nothing

ayroux · November 2013

Posted in another thread.

A pvp "Level" system would work great.

Everyone starts at level 1. When you win matches, based on the level of opponents you gain xp if you win and lose xp if you lose.

Once you get enough XP, you gain a level.

If you lose, you lose xp and can lose levels from a loss, again based on opponents.

The matchmaking system would then pair you with the closest level players to your team (on an average basis)

Players pvp level:

34
30
32
29
5

Would have an average level of 26.

This means they could get matched easily against a team like this:

24
28
26
25
27

Avg level: 26.

However, since the 34 is well above the average, a win would result in minimal XP for the game, while the lvl 5 would gain massive XP for winning this game.

The only possible issue with this is what is seen in other games: Boosting. Honestly I dont think itll be much of an issue if you make it a net zero idea. Losing team loses xp, not to mention players wont be able to boost for too long before they cant get matched via the equiv level.

Even if a premade versus a pug and all are equally leveled in PVP. There is now a strong chance the pug can actually play the game very well.

Maybe adjustments are also made for the score. If the game is a close game, the result of win/loss of XP is very minimal.

BTW, this also fixes "leavers" since they get instantly penalized for a full massive loss, where if they stayed and fought, they can make it so less xp is lost.

Contrast to a loss, the lvl 34 would LOSE massive xp from this game and the lvl 5 would lost almost nothing.

To make it fair I think everything should be based on a NET ZERO xp idea.

the amount of xp one team wins equals the amount of xp one team loses.

Then,

Leave a NON-ranked pvp que system in place so players who want to que casually or with friends who are not very good at pvp, dont have their pvp level messed with.

PvP level can we awarded as well from GG games by the same effect.

This would create MASSIVE interest in pvp and bring a large percentage to play alot of pvp.

ikeepit3hunna · November 2013

ayroux wrote: »

Posted in another thread.

A pvp "Level" system would work great.

Everyone starts at level 1. When you win matches, based on the level of opponents you gain xp if you win and lose xp if you lose.

Once you get enough XP, you gain a level.

If you lose, you lose xp and can lose levels from a loss, again based on opponents.

The matchmaking system would then pair you with the closest level players to your team (on an average basis)

Players pvp level:

34
30
32
29
5

Would have an average level of 26.

This means they could get matched easily against a team like this:

24
28
26
25
27

Avg level: 26.

However, since the 34 is well above the average, a win would result in minimal XP for the game, while the lvl 5 would gain massive XP for winning this game.

The only possible issue with this is what is seen in other games: Boosting. Honestly I dont think itll be much of an issue if you make it a net zero idea. Losing team loses xp, not to mention players wont be able to boost for too long before they cant get matched via the equiv level.

Even if a premade versus a pug and all are equally leveled in PVP. There is now a strong chance the pug can actually play the game very well.

Maybe adjustments are also made for the score. If the game is a close game, the result of win/loss of XP is very minimal.

BTW, this also fixes "leavers" since they get instantly penalized for a full massive loss, where if they stayed and fought, they can make it so less xp is lost.

Contrast to a loss, the lvl 34 would LOSE massive xp from this game and the lvl 5 would lost almost nothing.

To make it fair I think everything should be based on a NET ZERO xp idea.

the amount of xp one team wins equals the amount of xp one team loses.

Then,

Leave a NON-ranked pvp que system in place so players who want to que casually or with friends who are not very good at pvp, dont have their pvp level messed with.

PvP level can we awarded as well from GG games by the same effect.

This would create MASSIVE interest in pvp and bring a large percentage to play alot of pvp.

If people boosted they would get stomped by the actual experienced players. So that wouldn't be an issue

drscone · November 2013

ayroux wrote: »

Posted in another thread.

A pvp "Level" system would work great.

<details>

This is very similar to the skill matching system that Quake Live uses. It has its detractors, but it's better than no system at all. PvP in NW needs quite a few things doing to it really and some sort of skill matching and shuffle + the ability to queue up premade vs premade +etc +loads of other things.

ayroux · November 2013

drscone wrote: »

This is very similar to the skill matching system that Quake Live uses. It has its detractors, but it's better than no system at all. PvP in NW needs quite a few things doing to it really and some sort of skill matching and shuffle + the ability to queue up premade vs premade +etc +loads of other things.

Well, I agree but its clear they are not going to spend a ton of resources on pvp.. So what your asking for would probably never see the light of day, same with my idea as well...

The level system would be much like halos level system. well, halo 2 anyways. Whats funny is D3 did this with "paragon level" and it kept people around and farming.

With the pvp system it adds HUGE depth to the current maps.

How do you get thousands and millions of players to play the same maps over and over? Competition WITH ranking systems....

The pvp level fits well with MMO/RPG type games and would fit well in NW imo.

keyolung · November 2013

I like a ranking system better then a GS requirement, because what is going to stop someone from equipping all greens with no enchants bringing their GS under 9k, then getting in the match and switching to their 12-15k GS equipment? With a ranking system you will see really geared people maybe for the first couple of weeks then they will be on their way up. Now a ranking system as the issue of team losing on purpose to drop their ranking so they can keep fighting noobs, saw that all the time when I played Halo 2. No system is perfect but I think a ranking system is better then a GS system for the reason listed in this post. :Puts on terrible gear: Que pops, :Puts on epic gear:, owns face against people he should not even be fighting.

drscone · November 2013

keyolung wrote: »

I like a ranking system better then a GS requirement, because what is going to stop someone from equipping all greens with no enchants bringing their GS under 9k, then getting in the match and switching to their 12-15k GS equipment? With a ranking system you will see really geared people maybe for the first couple of weeks then they will be on their way up. Now a ranking system as the issue of team losing on purpose to drop their ranking so they can keep fighting noobs, saw that all the time when I played Halo 2. No system is perfect but I think a ranking system is better then a GS system for the reason listed in this post. :Puts on terrible gear: Que pops, :Puts on epic gear:, owns face against people he should not even be fighting.

Well, I assume it's not beyond the realms of programming possibility to disable gear swapping once you're in PvP, or to kick you if your gear score is different from when you joined the queue. I agree that a ranking system would be better though. It does take more effort to set up and maintain however.

overddrive · November 2013

I think a problem nwo has is that there are too many types of everything except classes and pvp arenas. With that in mind, it might be a bad idea to have a pvp ranking system if pvp character valuations are based on gs. Now IF gs could be dropped altogether and a universal pvp/pve ranking system implemented, I think nwo would have something pretty unique, streamlined and fun. In other words, there would be no minimum gs requirements to get into any specific dungeon, instead characters would have to be of a specific rank. Ranks could be based roughly on the same scoring system as skirmishes, dungeons and pvp: most to least kills, damage, heals; least to most deaths. As well as party/player input; so when a dungeon/skirmish/pvp match was over you could score everyone in your team in 5 basic areas, each with a 1-5 rank. Over the career of a character these would accumulate and a characters score would increase. That with a streamlined pvp ladder; ladder wins and losses also influencing overall ranking.

Anther great pvp idea :D

Comments