Good players shouldn't have a better chance of meeting other good players, they should exclusively play with and against other good players. Low ELO players should only be teamed up with and against equal competition as well. Everyone loses if the matchmaking works too casual.
I agree and is why I advocate a ranked system like is used in SC2.
Neverwinter doesn't have as large a player pool of people entering PVP queue so the number of leagues should be kept low. But for arguments sake lets say there is a bronze, silver, and gold league. If someone was entering the queue and they were in silver league, they wouldn't have to worry about getting bronze league players on their team and wouldn't have to worry about getting gold league opponents.
One of the reasons a league system works well is because it keeps queue times relatively low. As long as there is 10 silver league players in the queue, a match can start and everyone knows their teammates and opponents are in the same league as themselves.
Let's get this straight: Elo Ratings are not your Win/Loss Ratios.
Elo Ratings is a number determined by how you do against players based on their Elo Ratings. If you win against players with lower raitngs you do not gain very many points towards your Elo Rating. If you win against players with far higher Elo you gain a lot of points towards your Elo Rating.
Players with better gear will naturally perform better thus sending them farther up the ladder. The thing is 50K GS doesn't make you competitive with the best players if you can't aim or dodge.
A player's skill is augmented by their gear. It is not defined by it.
An Elo Rating is supposed to be an estimate of players skill level. Thus gear score is included as players with higher gear score have the potential to perform better.
The cold hard, sad truth is that there is a balance to be had with queue times. If you don't want 10+ minute queues all the time there will be some mismatched battles particularly during non-peak hours. Despite the complaints you guys keep saying though this is still far better than what it was.
I don't get to play during peak hours but I still have far more balanced matches than I used to but yes there is often at least one person one my team and their team far above me and often somebody on my team and their team far below me.
So as author of this thread, I have to call BS on this BIG TIME. First off, if you want the 'cold hard, sad truth' that truth is that queue times are not an excuse for sacrificing member experience. You have pages and pages of people saying it's broken and the pvp experience isn't fun. Newbies and veterans alone DO NOT LIKE IT AT ALL (when it comes to Domination matches).
I can tell you that your pve content is good enough especially with Icewind Vale now, for me to wait 10 mins for a competitive match, rather than getting in to am atch in 1 minute, and waiting 8 minutes for it to be over because it's so utterly consistenly lopsided that I'm either bored out of my head because there is no challenge, or frustrated beyond imagination with 4 7k'ers running around fighting between nodes, and chasing GWFs that sprint around in 14k Gear laughing at them.
You see, gear DOES have something to do with skill in PvP. Now, if you suggest that getting gear in PvP is too easy to buy your way in, and that means bad players can have great gear, then perhaps we're shedding light on the REAL issue which is that PW wants to fleece the community for money and knows that gear is a way to do that. I digress.
The worst thing you can do to a PvP community is NOT create a boring system believe it or not, the WORST thing(s) you can do is patronize us, and further, drive new players away so fresh blood is not to be seen.
"To me, it is like the Devs want to get rid of the pvp community...Besides the unequal GS, the OP classes must make any new player to PVP wonder why they even bother, and quit pvp. Us veteran PvP people, always come and go for other games, and many leave for good. Without new players coming in and getting excited about PvP, new blood, the community will die out." This early post sums it up.
SO again, LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT sir ... there are no favors being done with short queue times that worhtless Domination battles don't trump and overbalance speed of queue with lackluster and increasingly horribly uncompetitive PvP matches. Don't speak to us like we're children who 'need to know what's important ...' How bout we put it to a vote:
All in favor of 10 minute queue time averages with much more competitive pvp matches say aye ...
All in favor of the current short time averages with much less competitive boring pvp matches say nay ...
Let's get this straight: Elo Ratings are not your Win/Loss Ratios.
Elo Ratings is a number determined by how you do against players based on their Elo Ratings. If you win against players with lower raitngs you do not gain very many points towards your Elo Rating. If you win against players with far higher Elo you gain a lot of points towards your Elo Rating.
Players with better gear will naturally perform better thus sending them farther up the ladder. The thing is 50K GS doesn't make you competitive with the best players if you can't aim or dodge.
A player's skill is augmented by their gear. It is not defined by it.
An Elo Rating is supposed to be an estimate of players skill level. Thus gear score is included as players with higher gear score have the potential to perform better.
The cold hard, sad truth is that there is a balance to be had with queue times. If you don't want 10+ minute queues all the time there will be some mismatched battles particularly during non-peak hours. Despite the complaints you guys keep saying though this is still far better than what it was.
I don't get to play during peak hours but I still have far more balanced matches than I used to but yes there is often at least one person one my team and their team far above me and often somebody on my team and their team far below me.
Did I really describe the elo system? I don't think anyone really has a precise idea of the true metrics involved, aside from "the powers that be" who will never release that information because they want to maintain the appearance of player criticism as subjective and arbitrary. If we had the actual metrics we could make an objective analysis, which would be like a holy terror to the devs because then the "damage control spin" of that previously mentioned subjective player criticism would totally evaporate. Seriously, even the leaderboard isnt numbed, and if the elo wasnt meant to be such a secret then the leaderboard its self would simply be a graphical representation of the elo ranks themselves.
We cant argue what the elo is, we cant argue what the elo isnt, the information is not released. What we can do is say that right now this game sucks and Cryptic is dropping the ball in front of the entire mmo world and showing its self incapable of handling pvp as anything but another side-show to its core pve experience.
Did I really describe the elo system? I don't think anyone really has a precise idea of the true metrics involved, aside from "the powers that be" who will never release that information because they want to maintain the appearance of player criticism as subjective and arbitrary. If we had the actual metrics we could make an objective analysis, which would be like a holy terror to the devs because then the "damage control spin" of that previously mentioned subjective player criticism would totally evaporate. Seriously, even the leaderboard isnt numbed, and if the elo wasnt meant to be such a secret then the leaderboard its self would simply be a graphical representation of the elo ranks themselves.
We cant argue what the elo is, we cant argue what the elo isnt, the information is not released. What we can do is say that right now this game sucks and Cryptic is dropping the ball in front of the entire mmo world and showing its self incapable of handling pvp as anything but another side-show to its core pve experience.
I dont think that is what Cryptic wants and I dont see that as being any part of PWE's business plan for 2014, all we are doing as players and consumers are saying what I said in the above paragraph.
i don't think the reason the devs don't provide detailed information to the public is because they're afraid if being proven wrong. it's because the internal workings of their systems are proprietary and protected. after all, this is software we're talking about. elo has been explained how it works and why delays have happened without going into great detail. now, whether or not elo style matchmaking is liked or accepted or is thought to not be working is all a matter of opinion. opinion can be based on anything from actual facts to conjecture to personal experience, but it will still be nothing but opinion.
to be honest, i do not have any complaints about the elo system. i think it does a much better job than its predecessor. but i can respect that there are players that don't like it. or they think that it should be based on GS or something else. could there be a better way? it's possible. but when companies implement changes, they have spent time and money towards those changes. so unless the change causes major backlash, it may be quite some time before you see anything different. at best, you may see many tweaks before the whole idea is scrapped.
i don't think the reason the devs don't provide detailed information to the public is because they're afraid if being proven wrong. it's because the internal workings of their systems are proprietary and protected. after all, this is software we're talking about. elo has been explained how it works and why delays have happened without going into great detail. now, whether or not elo style matchmaking is liked or accepted or is thought to not be working is all a matter of opinion. opinion can be based on anything from actual facts to conjecture to personal experience, but it will still be nothing but opinion.
to be honest, i do not have any complaints about the elo system. i think it does a much better job than its predecessor. but i can respect that there are players that don't like it. or they think that it should be based on GS or something else. could there be a better way? it's possible. but when companies implement changes, they have spent time and money towards those changes. so unless the change causes major backlash, it may be quite some time before you see anything different. at best, you may see many tweaks before the whole idea is scrapped.
May I ask how is it possible that moderators basically never have complaints? Or are unhappy with how things are? I'm very curious about it. The game is far from perfect and moderators are human beings too, and they can get disillusioned and disappointed.
Where are the complaints?
Also, other giant gaming enterprises, such as Blizzard, have released detailed information about how matchmaking and PvP works, as well as all kinds of data about RNG, drop rates, drop lists and so on.
I agree with overddrive. There needs to be more transparency. Not full mathematical transparency, but up to the point where it allows players to analyze the data and have informed opinions on the important matters.
i don't think the reason the devs don't provide detailed information to the public is because they're afraid if being proven wrong. it's because the internal workings of their systems are proprietary and protected. after all, this is software we're talking about. elo has been explained how it works and why delays have happened without going into great detail. now, whether or not elo style matchmaking is liked or accepted or is thought to not be working is all a matter of opinion. opinion can be based on anything from actual facts to conjecture to personal experience, but it will still be nothing but opinion.
to be honest, i do not have any complaints about the elo system. i think it does a much better job than its predecessor. but i can respect that there are players that don't like it. or they think that it should be based on GS or something else. could there be a better way? it's possible. but when companies implement changes, they have spent time and money towards those changes. so unless the change causes major backlash, it may be quite some time before you see anything different. at best, you may see many tweaks before the whole idea is scrapped.
I think there is major backlash, and I like this game enough to sincerely hope that the problem is taken care of before it is too late.
btw I get no joy in slamming the devs or cryptic or this game. The more of us who realize that pvp is just another sideshow to the core pve experience, the more rows of sad faces you see in the section where the pvp players sit. Its not anger, its not butt hurt or bitterness, it is just... disappointment.
As a 15k GS DC I got matched with team of 8k GS players versus team of 8k GS players. I won. Dropped from 12th leaderboard page to 19th.
Where was my fault? If I lose against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. If I win against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. The problem is I'm most of the time getting matched with low geared or/and skilled players, meaning it doesn't matter how many games I won or lose, because it will result in losing ELO in any case.
M6 almost drains your soul given how boring it is. (c) joocycuzzzzzz
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
So as author of this thread, I have to call BS on this BIG TIME.
Everything I said is true as of this time. Don't like it? Sorry but all I can tell you is how it is right now.
However let me put this as nicely as possible: That is the last time I will be allowing that comment in this thread. Panderus said it. I explained in more detail. If you don't want to hear the answer then there is nothing left to discuss.
As a 15k GS DC I got matched with team of 8k GS players versus team of 8k GS players. I won. Dropped from 12th leaderboard page to 19th.
Where was my fault? If I lose against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. If I win against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. The problem is I'm most of the time getting matched with low geared or/and skilled players, meaning it doesn't matter how many games I won or lose, because it will result in losing ELO in any case.
Well we do need a bracket system among many other things. Honestly instead of all of the iwd pvp content I personally would have been much happier with a fixed and solid domination pvp system (and maybe small 1v1 arenas in trade of blades).
As a 15k GS DC I got matched with team of 8k GS players versus team of 8k GS players. I won. Dropped from 12th leaderboard page to 19th.
Where was my fault? If I lose against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. If I win against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. The problem is I'm most of the time getting matched with low geared or/and skilled players, meaning it doesn't matter how many games I won or lose, because it will result in losing ELO in any case.
I'm not sure the leaderboard is a catalogue of ELOs. I'm not even sure wins and losses are factored that heavily into it, if at all, because I have noticed too dropping pages after a win.
Nobody knows for sure how the ELO system works in this game, but if it's like chess (where ELO comes from), then you can never lose points for winning.
How can you talk about ELO in a system that rewards people for harming their own team with personal points?
A fix for personal points (not team points) could be:
- No points for actually having CAPPED a base (instead of +300). This one is crucial!
- Ticking personal points for standing on an enemy-capped base (contesting/capping).
- Ticking personal points for standing on an own base while an enemy is on it (keeping the enemy from capping).
- Shared/Less points when more players than necessary from the same team are standing on the same base.
- 100 Points for a kill instead of 50. 75 Points for assisting.
- Ticking personal points for all team members when team points are ticking.
Example - enemy-capped base, 2 enemy players on it:
- You stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking.
- 2 from your team stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking for each.
- 3 from your team stand on that base: since you are 3v2 against your enemy and cause that your team is outnumbered on the other bases, 2 points/sec for each.
But as long as the system rewards people for actually harming the own team, we have to deal with it.
As long as these changes aren't there, ELO will always be a joke, as really good players that make a difference in a match are punished, while griefers are rewarded.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual "Look at the score, I have more points than you! I'm better than you, so shut up!"
I'm not sure the leaderboard is a catalogue of ELOs. I'm not even sure wins and losses are factored that heavily into it, if at all, because I have noticed too dropping pages after a win.
Nobody knows for sure how the ELO system works in this game, but if it's like chess (where ELO comes from), then you can never lose points for winning.
I think the confusion comes from not being able to tell what metric the leaderboard is using to rank people. When someone drops down the pages after a win it's probably not that they've lost 'ranking points' but that they haven't GAINED as many as the people around them, and so those people go PAST them.
I have 4 toons that I PvP with (only 3 of them regularly). My HR and TR have OK stats and are placed somewhere in the top 50 to 100 pages generally. My CW actually has BETTER stats and advanced in the PvP campaign further/faster but is stuck down around page 1,400 or so. I can only assume this is because I had a terrible losing run when I restarted after Mod 3 launched (just one of those streaks you get from time to time when you PuG) and now she's stuck there.
It's counter-intuitive stuff like this that gets people frustrated. A little more info on how ELO and the Leaderboard work would go a long way towards easing that frustration.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual <<redacted>>
And you are discussing ELO?
This. So very much this. And the Leaderboard has just made things 10x worse IMO.
The time it takes the queue to find a match is no excuse. If it can team up 5 6k players against 5 18k players, it could simply put 2 18k players on one team and the other 3 on the other.
The queue system will not disrupt parties, so if it's a premade it can't do that, but i do not see that many premades when i PVP (12.5k CW), so it shouldn't be that big of a problem.
For me it looks like the queue picks 10 players at random and is done, instad of picking 10 players based on some rating (be it GS, W/L, K/D or ELO, doesn't matter that much with the way it currently works..) or at least balancing (heck, shuffling would be enough most of the times) it *after* it picked the players.
How can you talk about ELO in a system that rewards people for harming their own team with personal points?
A fix for personal points (not team points) could be:
- No points for actually having CAPPED a base (instead of +300). This one is crucial!
- Ticking personal points for standing on an enemy-capped base (contesting/capping).
- Ticking personal points for standing on an own base while an enemy is on it (keeping the enemy from capping).
- Shared/Less points when more players than necessary from the same team are standing on the same base.
- 100 Points for a kill instead of 50. 75 Points for assisting.
- Ticking personal points for all team members when team points are ticking.
Example - enemy-capped base, 2 enemy players on it:
- You stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking.
- 2 from your team stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking for each.
- 3 from your team stand on that base: since you are 3v2 against your enemy and cause that your team is outnumbered on the other bases, 2 points/sec for each.
But as long as the system rewards people for actually harming the own team, we have to deal with it.
As long as these changes aren't there, ELO will always be a joke, as really good players that make a difference in a match are punished, while griefers are rewarded.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual <<redacted>>
And you are discussing ELO?
That's not a bad idea. As it stands now, you're rewarded most for playing it safe, and either capping a node when the enemy is nowhere around or capping it just because there's simply more of you then there are enemy on a node. It has nothing to do with your ability to kill them or your ability to contest a node which denies them points, both of which are what matters if you want to win.
Maybe not 0 points for capping, but like 100. And the ticking for contesting is a great idea. Contesting nodes is what wins games.
That's not a bad idea. As it stands now, you're rewarded most for playing it safe, and either capping a node when the enemy is nowhere around or capping it just because there's simply more of you then there are enemy on a node. It has nothing to do with your ability to kill them or your ability to contest a node which denies them points, both of which are what matters if you want to win.
Maybe not 0 points for capping, but like 100. And the ticking for contesting is a great idea. Contesting nodes is what wins games.
If your definition of "safe" is "not to die", then yes, players are being rewarded for playing it safe. In terms of the match itself, to play it safe would mean to lose the match. Deaths, on the other hand, are nothing but a free heal to full HP and the advantage that the enemy loses track of you.
There should be 0 points for capping, because it is the only way to prevent the rewarding of team-harming behavior. Cappers and contesters should only be rewarded with ticking points, based on how long they've been contesting/capping, while everyone should be interested in having a capped, uncontested base, because its team point ticks would also tick as individual points for the whole team.
When a pug has a choice between an uncapped base with an enemy and a cleared base that is almost capped, he should be more interested in the uncapped base. If there were 100 points to get on the cleared base (for absolutely no effort, with harm for the team), this, again, would reward bad players for harming their teams.
How can you talk about ELO in a system that rewards people for harming their own team with personal points?
A fix for personal points (not team points) could be:
- No points for actually having CAPPED a base (instead of +300). This one is crucial!
- Ticking personal points for standing on an enemy-capped base (contesting/capping).
- Ticking personal points for standing on an own base while an enemy is on it (keeping the enemy from capping).
- Shared/Less points when more players than necessary from the same team are standing on the same base.
- 100 Points for a kill instead of 50. 75 Points for assisting.
- Ticking personal points for all team members when team points are ticking.
Example - enemy-capped base, 2 enemy players on it:
- You stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking.
- 2 from your team stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking for each.
- 3 from your team stand on that base: since you are 3v2 against your enemy and cause that your team is outnumbered on the other bases, 2 points/sec for each.
But as long as the system rewards people for actually harming the own team, we have to deal with it.
As long as these changes aren't there, ELO will always be a joke, as really good players that make a difference in a match are punished, while griefers are rewarded.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual <<redacted>>
And you are discussing ELO?
I agree with this but would ad that the kill should go to who did the most damage. It is frustrating to fight down an enemy to 5% health and then from stealth someone takes that last 5%.
I think my definition and your definition (ambisinisterr and cryptic in general) of ELO-based queue system are way off. I've played several games with ELO-based queue systems, and if there is an ELO-based queue system actually at work, it is a total and utter failure.
How can you talk about ELO in a system that rewards people for harming their own team with personal points?
A fix for personal points (not team points) could be:
- No points for actually having CAPPED a base (instead of +300). This one is crucial!
- Ticking personal points for standing on an enemy-capped base (contesting/capping).
- Ticking personal points for standing on an own base while an enemy is on it (keeping the enemy from capping).
- Shared/Less points when more players than necessary from the same team are standing on the same base.
- 100 Points for a kill instead of 50. 75 Points for assisting.
- Ticking personal points for all team members when team points are ticking.
Example - enemy-capped base, 2 enemy players on it:
- You stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking.
- 2 from your team stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking for each.
- 3 from your team stand on that base: since you are 3v2 against your enemy and cause that your team is outnumbered on the other bases, 2 points/sec for each.
But as long as the system rewards people for actually harming the own team, we have to deal with it.
As long as these changes aren't there, ELO will always be a joke, as really good players that make a difference in a match are punished, while griefers are rewarded.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual <<Remark edited>>
And you are discussing ELO?
There are some little problems in your table:
Too many emphasis on kills... classes as DCs and GFs are screewed.
Classes without AoE as main shot or big range have also problems with the assists (HRs rulez).
There are also the problem that ranged classes shots for most the time outside the base... with ur system are also screewed.
For me the ELO system work well and at the end are only numbers.
U forgot the most important stuff: have fun
HR Syncro - The Equalizer - PvP stats: 10000/4800 (kills/deaths)
There is enough players to support balanced matchmaking and quick queue times. The problem is that premades don't want to separate from their teammates. When you have 8 evenly matched players queue for a match, they throw in 2 more less-powerful players and one team ends up with 5 good players and the other ends up with 3 good players and 2 weak players. Split up the premades. In this example you'd end up with 4 good players and 1 weak player on each team and you'd have an even match.
--- Ranked matches need to be solo-queue only
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited May 2014
No. By all means keep expressing distaste. What I will not tolerate is the specific comment.
I gave the answer of how it functions now and the response from the OP not once but twice was a rule violating way of calling Panderus and me liars. I can't tell you it will change. I can only explain how it is.
Would it be awkward if I say that actually, after a bit of time and slowly crawling up the leaderboard, the quality of the game is improving for me?
Its true for me, at least. In most cases.
Compared to the abysmal experience when it was first implemented (which reminded me a LOT of the old mod2 days...) things have certainly improved. I won't lie -- I still get bad matches from time to time... but compared to the very beginning of all this, much much better and enjoyable.
Stop making excuses. Be a man. If you know something to be broken, stop using it. Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
Would it be awkward if I say that actually, after a bit of time and slowly crawling up the leaderboard, the quality of the game is improving for me?
Its true for me, at least. In most cases.
Compared to the abysmal experience when it was first implemented (which reminded me a LOT of the old mod2 days...) things have certainly improved. I won't lie -- I still get bad matches from time to time... but compared to the very beginning of all this, much much better and enjoyable.
This is happening for me as well. After switching to a combat rotation on my HR. I am seeing all 15K+ on my team and the enemy team and am getting some really close games. There are still a mountain of problems though, like kills being given to the person who did the killing blow rather than the one who did the majority of damage. The HR who stands off node and cherry picks easy kills from enemies standing in my thornward, while I am in node getting focused and fighting. So my toon dies and their toon gets the kill despite not having done anything to help the tea, win. In otherwords, behaviors which do anything other than contribute to a win, should not be rewarded or scored highly.
This is happening for me as well. After switching to a combat rotation on my HR. I am seeing all 15K+ on my team and the enemy team and am getting some really close games. There are still a mountain of problems though, like kills being given to the person who did the killing blow rather than the one who did the majority of damage. The HR who stands off node and cherry picks easy kills from enemies standing in my thornward, while I am in node getting focused and fighting. So my toon dies and their toon gets the kill despite not having done anything to help the tea, win. In otherwords, behaviors which do anything other than contribute to a win, should not be rewarded or scored highly.
I think I actually was teamed up with you in one of the PuG matches yesterday. You didn't seem to have switched over to the rising new fotm Pathfinder yet. The match started out really bad IIRC, but got closer and closer.
Did we actually win that one? Can't remember; lol Nice meeting you.
Stop making excuses. Be a man. If you know something to be broken, stop using it. Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
I have read this thread quite thoroughly, and will try to provide some helpful suggestions that should benefit everyone.
Problem 1) The ELO system, is it working or not?Solution, have your ELO ranking displayed right under your gear score, so that a player may track it from match to match. This does not require the devs to explain what metrics they are using, but does allow players to get a feel for it through experimentation.
Problem 2) Personal points vs Team points.I thought the post earlier was quite well thought out, but would require a lot more tweaking so as not to favor a particular class.
The leader board should be tied in with this issue. Earning points on the leader board should not be something you accomplish by hurting your team in a match. Of course what is defined as "hurting your team" varies from player to player, but should be approached with caution and again a special attention to not favoring a particular class, and a possible solution is the leader board should be divided by player class.
Problem 3) Que time acceptability. Now this does not have an easily installed fix, but with some work this could be a viable solution. A ground rule would have to be that pre-made party of 2+ may NEVER be put into a ques with a solo player. No exceptions. Next to have a series of brackets based strictly on gear score. Such as the one below.
Gear Score
Bracket
0-5,000
Newbie
5,001-8,000
Novice
8,001-10,000Apprentice
10,001-12,000
Initiate
12,001-14,000
Master
14,001-16,000
Champion
16,001-18,000
Grand Champion
18,001 & higher
Demi-God
The above table is ONLY an example, please dont go nuts saying why my numbers are flawed.
Now each player should have an ELO score for each bracket as well, then when being qued it can result in a more even match, and not a roflstomp.
Now there are some problems with this system, but fear not I come with solutions for those as well.
The most glaringly obvious would be those trying to change gear after queing or entering match. Solution, if before match, a pop up with message: "Changing gear will remove you from your current pvp que. Do you wish to proceed?"
If during a match, you get a pop up saying: "Changing gear during a PVP Match will result in you being ejected from your current pvp match with a doubled lever penalty applied. Do you wish to proceed?" That should nip that in the bud.
Next is que times. First the system should attempt to match based on the above procedure, if after 5 minutes the system can not match you, it will ask if you wish to keep looking or expand the search? If no on expansion it should keep attempting to match, with a new pop up every five minutes. If expanded then it should warn that this could result in a much tougher fight and could severely affect your ELO ratings. If confirmed then the system should expand the search to one bracket up and one down, looking for low ELO in the higher bracket, and high numbers in the lower bracket. Now in this scenario, the player that chose to expand should not be paired with a player from another bracket UNLESS that player has also agreed to an expanded search. The expansion of search should not be expanded more than twice. Using this procedure a player can choose whether a fast matching is more important than a more even matching.
Now we come to the premades, this is a little tougher, but can be handled fairly. Step one, upon attempting to que the system determines highest gear score in group, and then confirms with all members of the party, that they wish to have that person as leader, if so leadership transferred to them and que as normal. In a 5 person group the system then does it best to match based on leaders bracket and ELO, and then working downwrad in the team. If it gets at least three acceptable matches the fight proceeds. Also a five person team should only be matched with another five person team.
Teams made up of less than five issues. First, a four person team shall not be allowed to que, as this would require a solo player being forced into the team. For the two and three player teams the leaders bracket should be used to match teams together, as closely as possible.
Initial search should be ten minutes, as the team has made it more difficult to find another team and should be willing to wait longer to play with their chosen party. Expansion rules for all teams would then follow the same choices as a solo player, but requiring all team members to agree to expansion searches.
That properly coded should reduce que times and make the PVPers happy.
Now for the final complaint: MORE ARENAS!!The solution to this one is so glaringly obvious I am surprised it has not been brought up before. Foundry authors.If I was a foundry author I would already have several maps made for domination putting some non moving critter in the spots for the 3 nodes, until, if/when the nodes are added to the tool set.
If i was the devs, I would immediately add it to the tool set. Then announce a contest for best designs of new maps. I would add pvp maps to the foundry, so players can test, with it being as soon as ten que for it, it launches, with no affects to elo, rankings or anything else. Just a friendly free for all. I would have the usual reviews and donations afterward. Once a pvp map gets X# of positive reviews, then the devs would ok it and incorporate the map into the system. Of course giving the author credit and possibly a new achievement, companions etc.
Click banner for the Dragon Dogs Family guild page.
I think I actually was teamed up with you in one of the PuG matches yesterday. You didn't seem to have switched over to the rising new fotm Pathfinder yet. The match started out really bad IIRC, but got closer and closer.
Did we actually win that one? Can't remember; lol Nice meeting you.
nice meeting you also. No, I havent switched to pf yet, will soon though. I am having a hard time of letting go of either rapid strike or aimed shot but I know careful attack is better than either. Not sure if we won, I played a lot of matches yesterday.
PanzerJäger HR Hybrid Jugger Conq GF
....
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited May 2014
Problem is gear score is not a good way to judge a player.
A player could have 30K Gear Score and not fight on the points. That's not a good player.
They could lack and eye coordination and miss skill shots thus wasting rotations.
They could use a build which is better in PvE than PvP which will make them perform less effectively.
They may not use dodges and try to face tank or miss dodges that they do try t activate.
They could just be playing a class which does not fir their playstyle which will directly result how well they play.
Two people with equal gear score will not perform equally.
No suggestion based on gear score is a good one. Gear can augment a player's skill. It does not define it. Ever.
No amount of asking for it will ever change it. It's a fact. That's why matchmaking systems are required for games that do not vary in gear. Player skill is player skill. The gear can only help it.
Comments
I agree and is why I advocate a ranked system like is used in SC2.
Neverwinter doesn't have as large a player pool of people entering PVP queue so the number of leagues should be kept low. But for arguments sake lets say there is a bronze, silver, and gold league. If someone was entering the queue and they were in silver league, they wouldn't have to worry about getting bronze league players on their team and wouldn't have to worry about getting gold league opponents.
One of the reasons a league system works well is because it keeps queue times relatively low. As long as there is 10 silver league players in the queue, a match can start and everyone knows their teammates and opponents are in the same league as themselves.
There are points for reviving people. To revive them they have to die in the first place.
So as author of this thread, I have to call BS on this BIG TIME. First off, if you want the 'cold hard, sad truth' that truth is that queue times are not an excuse for sacrificing member experience. You have pages and pages of people saying it's broken and the pvp experience isn't fun. Newbies and veterans alone DO NOT LIKE IT AT ALL (when it comes to Domination matches).
I can tell you that your pve content is good enough especially with Icewind Vale now, for me to wait 10 mins for a competitive match, rather than getting in to am atch in 1 minute, and waiting 8 minutes for it to be over because it's so utterly consistenly lopsided that I'm either bored out of my head because there is no challenge, or frustrated beyond imagination with 4 7k'ers running around fighting between nodes, and chasing GWFs that sprint around in 14k Gear laughing at them.
You see, gear DOES have something to do with skill in PvP. Now, if you suggest that getting gear in PvP is too easy to buy your way in, and that means bad players can have great gear, then perhaps we're shedding light on the REAL issue which is that PW wants to fleece the community for money and knows that gear is a way to do that. I digress.
The worst thing you can do to a PvP community is NOT create a boring system believe it or not, the WORST thing(s) you can do is patronize us, and further, drive new players away so fresh blood is not to be seen.
"To me, it is like the Devs want to get rid of the pvp community...Besides the unequal GS, the OP classes must make any new player to PVP wonder why they even bother, and quit pvp. Us veteran PvP people, always come and go for other games, and many leave for good. Without new players coming in and getting excited about PvP, new blood, the community will die out." This early post sums it up.
SO again, LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT sir ... there are no favors being done with short queue times that worhtless Domination battles don't trump and overbalance speed of queue with lackluster and increasingly horribly uncompetitive PvP matches. Don't speak to us like we're children who 'need to know what's important ...' How bout we put it to a vote:
All in favor of 10 minute queue time averages with much more competitive pvp matches say aye ...
All in favor of the current short time averages with much less competitive boring pvp matches say nay ...
/Sidewaze out
Did I really describe the elo system? I don't think anyone really has a precise idea of the true metrics involved, aside from "the powers that be" who will never release that information because they want to maintain the appearance of player criticism as subjective and arbitrary. If we had the actual metrics we could make an objective analysis, which would be like a holy terror to the devs because then the "damage control spin" of that previously mentioned subjective player criticism would totally evaporate. Seriously, even the leaderboard isnt numbed, and if the elo wasnt meant to be such a secret then the leaderboard its self would simply be a graphical representation of the elo ranks themselves.
We cant argue what the elo is, we cant argue what the elo isnt, the information is not released. What we can do is say that right now this game sucks and Cryptic is dropping the ball in front of the entire mmo world and showing its self incapable of handling pvp as anything but another side-show to its core pve experience.
Jugger Conq GF
....
i don't think the reason the devs don't provide detailed information to the public is because they're afraid if being proven wrong. it's because the internal workings of their systems are proprietary and protected. after all, this is software we're talking about. elo has been explained how it works and why delays have happened without going into great detail. now, whether or not elo style matchmaking is liked or accepted or is thought to not be working is all a matter of opinion. opinion can be based on anything from actual facts to conjecture to personal experience, but it will still be nothing but opinion.
to be honest, i do not have any complaints about the elo system. i think it does a much better job than its predecessor. but i can respect that there are players that don't like it. or they think that it should be based on GS or something else. could there be a better way? it's possible. but when companies implement changes, they have spent time and money towards those changes. so unless the change causes major backlash, it may be quite some time before you see anything different. at best, you may see many tweaks before the whole idea is scrapped.
May I ask how is it possible that moderators basically never have complaints? Or are unhappy with how things are? I'm very curious about it. The game is far from perfect and moderators are human beings too, and they can get disillusioned and disappointed.
Where are the complaints?
Also, other giant gaming enterprises, such as Blizzard, have released detailed information about how matchmaking and PvP works, as well as all kinds of data about RNG, drop rates, drop lists and so on.
I agree with overddrive. There needs to be more transparency. Not full mathematical transparency, but up to the point where it allows players to analyze the data and have informed opinions on the important matters.
I think there is major backlash, and I like this game enough to sincerely hope that the problem is taken care of before it is too late.
Jugger Conq GF
....
Jugger Conq GF
....
Where was my fault? If I lose against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. If I win against low geared or/and skilled players, I'll lose ELO. The problem is I'm most of the time getting matched with low geared or/and skilled players, meaning it doesn't matter how many games I won or lose, because it will result in losing ELO in any case.
However let me put this as nicely as possible: That is the last time I will be allowing that comment in this thread. Panderus said it. I explained in more detail. If you don't want to hear the answer then there is nothing left to discuss.
Well we do need a bracket system among many other things. Honestly instead of all of the iwd pvp content I personally would have been much happier with a fixed and solid domination pvp system (and maybe small 1v1 arenas in trade of blades).
Jugger Conq GF
....
I'm not sure the leaderboard is a catalogue of ELOs. I'm not even sure wins and losses are factored that heavily into it, if at all, because I have noticed too dropping pages after a win.
Nobody knows for sure how the ELO system works in this game, but if it's like chess (where ELO comes from), then you can never lose points for winning.
A fix for personal points (not team points) could be:
- No points for actually having CAPPED a base (instead of +300). This one is crucial!
- Ticking personal points for standing on an enemy-capped base (contesting/capping).
- Ticking personal points for standing on an own base while an enemy is on it (keeping the enemy from capping).
- Shared/Less points when more players than necessary from the same team are standing on the same base.
- 100 Points for a kill instead of 50. 75 Points for assisting.
- Ticking personal points for all team members when team points are ticking.
Example - enemy-capped base, 2 enemy players on it:
- You stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking.
- 2 from your team stand on that base: 4 points/sec are ticking for each.
- 3 from your team stand on that base: since you are 3v2 against your enemy and cause that your team is outnumbered on the other bases, 2 points/sec for each.
But as long as the system rewards people for actually harming the own team, we have to deal with it.
As long as these changes aren't there, ELO will always be a joke, as really good players that make a difference in a match are punished, while griefers are rewarded.
I enjoyed solo-queueing pre-matchmaking, but now it's impossible. I always get matched up with players hunting for personal points, so I have to do all the work by contesting bases against 3 - 4 players (as a CW!!!), while my teammates just run away from fights and come to me in the last second to get their +300. And, even if the match doesn't end with my team camping in our spawn after 3 minutes, I am of course the last one in score with the most deaths. And when I try to explain to my team why we lost and that hunting for personal points is bad, I get the usual "Look at the score, I have more points than you! I'm better than you, so shut up!"
And you are discussing ELO?
I have 4 toons that I PvP with (only 3 of them regularly). My HR and TR have OK stats and are placed somewhere in the top 50 to 100 pages generally. My CW actually has BETTER stats and advanced in the PvP campaign further/faster but is stuck down around page 1,400 or so. I can only assume this is because I had a terrible losing run when I restarted after Mod 3 launched (just one of those streaks you get from time to time when you PuG) and now she's stuck there.
It's counter-intuitive stuff like this that gets people frustrated. A little more info on how ELO and the Leaderboard work would go a long way towards easing that frustration.
Aelar Hawkwind - Archer
Karrin Feywinter - Mistress of Flame
Errin Duskwalker - Executioner
Darquess - Soulbinder
Aelar Hawkwind - Archer
Karrin Feywinter - Mistress of Flame
Errin Duskwalker - Executioner
Darquess - Soulbinder
The queue system will not disrupt parties, so if it's a premade it can't do that, but i do not see that many premades when i PVP (12.5k CW), so it shouldn't be that big of a problem.
For me it looks like the queue picks 10 players at random and is done, instad of picking 10 players based on some rating (be it GS, W/L, K/D or ELO, doesn't matter that much with the way it currently works..) or at least balancing (heck, shuffling would be enough most of the times) it *after* it picked the players.
That's not a bad idea. As it stands now, you're rewarded most for playing it safe, and either capping a node when the enemy is nowhere around or capping it just because there's simply more of you then there are enemy on a node. It has nothing to do with your ability to kill them or your ability to contest a node which denies them points, both of which are what matters if you want to win.
Maybe not 0 points for capping, but like 100. And the ticking for contesting is a great idea. Contesting nodes is what wins games.
If your definition of "safe" is "not to die", then yes, players are being rewarded for playing it safe. In terms of the match itself, to play it safe would mean to lose the match. Deaths, on the other hand, are nothing but a free heal to full HP and the advantage that the enemy loses track of you.
There should be 0 points for capping, because it is the only way to prevent the rewarding of team-harming behavior. Cappers and contesters should only be rewarded with ticking points, based on how long they've been contesting/capping, while everyone should be interested in having a capped, uncontested base, because its team point ticks would also tick as individual points for the whole team.
When a pug has a choice between an uncapped base with an enemy and a cleared base that is almost capped, he should be more interested in the uncapped base. If there were 100 points to get on the cleared base (for absolutely no effort, with harm for the team), this, again, would reward bad players for harming their teams.
We were matched against a full Guild Premade from Enemy Team.
Tell me again how ELO is working as intended.:rolleyes:
Aelar Hawkwind - Archer
Karrin Feywinter - Mistress of Flame
Errin Duskwalker - Executioner
Darquess - Soulbinder
I agree with this but would ad that the kill should go to who did the most damage. It is frustrating to fight down an enemy to 5% health and then from stealth someone takes that last 5%.
Jugger Conq GF
....
There are some little problems in your table:
Too many emphasis on kills... classes as DCs and GFs are screewed.
Classes without AoE as main shot or big range have also problems with the assists (HRs rulez).
There are also the problem that ranged classes shots for most the time outside the base... with ur system are also screewed.
For me the ELO system work well and at the end are only numbers.
U forgot the most important stuff: have fun
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
I gave the answer of how it functions now and the response from the OP not once but twice was a rule violating way of calling Panderus and me liars. I can't tell you it will change. I can only explain how it is.
Its true for me, at least. In most cases.
Compared to the abysmal experience when it was first implemented (which reminded me a LOT of the old mod2 days...) things have certainly improved. I won't lie -- I still get bad matches from time to time... but compared to the very beginning of all this, much much better and enjoyable.
If you know something to be broken, stop using it.
Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
This is happening for me as well. After switching to a combat rotation on my HR. I am seeing all 15K+ on my team and the enemy team and am getting some really close games. There are still a mountain of problems though, like kills being given to the person who did the killing blow rather than the one who did the majority of damage. The HR who stands off node and cherry picks easy kills from enemies standing in my thornward, while I am in node getting focused and fighting. So my toon dies and their toon gets the kill despite not having done anything to help the tea, win. In otherwords, behaviors which do anything other than contribute to a win, should not be rewarded or scored highly.
Jugger Conq GF
....
I think I actually was teamed up with you in one of the PuG matches yesterday. You didn't seem to have switched over to the rising new fotm Pathfinder yet. The match started out really bad IIRC, but got closer and closer.
Did we actually win that one? Can't remember; lol Nice meeting you.
If you know something to be broken, stop using it.
Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
Problem 1) The ELO system, is it working or not? Solution, have your ELO ranking displayed right under your gear score, so that a player may track it from match to match. This does not require the devs to explain what metrics they are using, but does allow players to get a feel for it through experimentation.
Problem 2) Personal points vs Team points. I thought the post earlier was quite well thought out, but would require a lot more tweaking so as not to favor a particular class.
The leader board should be tied in with this issue. Earning points on the leader board should not be something you accomplish by hurting your team in a match. Of course what is defined as "hurting your team" varies from player to player, but should be approached with caution and again a special attention to not favoring a particular class, and a possible solution is the leader board should be divided by player class.
Problem 3) Que time acceptability. Now this does not have an easily installed fix, but with some work this could be a viable solution. A ground rule would have to be that pre-made party of 2+ may NEVER be put into a ques with a solo player. No exceptions. Next to have a series of brackets based strictly on gear score. Such as the one below.
Gear Score
Bracket
0-5,000
Newbie
5,001-8,000
Novice
8,001-10,000Apprentice
10,001-12,000
Initiate
12,001-14,000
Master
14,001-16,000
Champion
16,001-18,000
Grand Champion
18,001 & higher
Demi-God
The above table is ONLY an example, please dont go nuts saying why my numbers are flawed.
Now each player should have an ELO score for each bracket as well, then when being qued it can result in a more even match, and not a roflstomp.
Now there are some problems with this system, but fear not I come with solutions for those as well.
The most glaringly obvious would be those trying to change gear after queing or entering match. Solution, if before match, a pop up with message: "Changing gear will remove you from your current pvp que. Do you wish to proceed?"
If during a match, you get a pop up saying: "Changing gear during a PVP Match will result in you being ejected from your current pvp match with a doubled lever penalty applied. Do you wish to proceed?" That should nip that in the bud.
Next is que times. First the system should attempt to match based on the above procedure, if after 5 minutes the system can not match you, it will ask if you wish to keep looking or expand the search? If no on expansion it should keep attempting to match, with a new pop up every five minutes. If expanded then it should warn that this could result in a much tougher fight and could severely affect your ELO ratings. If confirmed then the system should expand the search to one bracket up and one down, looking for low ELO in the higher bracket, and high numbers in the lower bracket. Now in this scenario, the player that chose to expand should not be paired with a player from another bracket UNLESS that player has also agreed to an expanded search. The expansion of search should not be expanded more than twice. Using this procedure a player can choose whether a fast matching is more important than a more even matching.
Now we come to the premades, this is a little tougher, but can be handled fairly. Step one, upon attempting to que the system determines highest gear score in group, and then confirms with all members of the party, that they wish to have that person as leader, if so leadership transferred to them and que as normal. In a 5 person group the system then does it best to match based on leaders bracket and ELO, and then working downwrad in the team. If it gets at least three acceptable matches the fight proceeds. Also a five person team should only be matched with another five person team.
Teams made up of less than five issues. First, a four person team shall not be allowed to que, as this would require a solo player being forced into the team. For the two and three player teams the leaders bracket should be used to match teams together, as closely as possible.
Initial search should be ten minutes, as the team has made it more difficult to find another team and should be willing to wait longer to play with their chosen party. Expansion rules for all teams would then follow the same choices as a solo player, but requiring all team members to agree to expansion searches.
That properly coded should reduce que times and make the PVPers happy.
Now for the final complaint: MORE ARENAS!! The solution to this one is so glaringly obvious I am surprised it has not been brought up before. Foundry authors. If I was a foundry author I would already have several maps made for domination putting some non moving critter in the spots for the 3 nodes, until, if/when the nodes are added to the tool set.
If i was the devs, I would immediately add it to the tool set. Then announce a contest for best designs of new maps. I would add pvp maps to the foundry, so players can test, with it being as soon as ten que for it, it launches, with no affects to elo, rankings or anything else. Just a friendly free for all. I would have the usual reviews and donations afterward. Once a pvp map gets X# of positive reviews, then the devs would ok it and incorporate the map into the system. Of course giving the author credit and possibly a new achievement, companions etc.
Click banner for the Dragon Dogs Family guild page.
Jugger Conq GF
....
A player could have 30K Gear Score and not fight on the points. That's not a good player.
They could lack and eye coordination and miss skill shots thus wasting rotations.
They could use a build which is better in PvE than PvP which will make them perform less effectively.
They may not use dodges and try to face tank or miss dodges that they do try t activate.
They could just be playing a class which does not fir their playstyle which will directly result how well they play.
Two people with equal gear score will not perform equally.
No suggestion based on gear score is a good one. Gear can augment a player's skill. It does not define it. Ever.
No amount of asking for it will ever change it. It's a fact. That's why matchmaking systems are required for games that do not vary in gear. Player skill is player skill. The gear can only help it.