test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

PVP Leaderboards

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited April 2010 in PvP Gameplay
I'm just saying, PVP leaderboards would be pretty neat to have. K/D stats, damage, healing, games played, how many times you quit the fight.

Have a bunch of different boards for FvF, KvK and FvK, and also for different maps as well as an overall board.

What do you guys think?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Ipigi wrote:
    I'm just saying, PVP leaderboards would be pretty neat to have. K/D stats, damage, healing, games played, how many times you quit the fight.

    Have a bunch of different boards for FvF, KvK and FvK, and also for different maps as well as an overall board.

    What do you guys think?

    This form of 'viagra' doesn't belong in this game. PvP is not health as is, last thing I want is to listen to someone brag about their KD and talk smack about federation noobs with KD of less than 1.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The_Stig wrote: »
    This form of 'viagra' doesn't belong in this game. PvP is not health as is, last thing I want is to listen to someone brag about their KD and talk smack about federation noobs with KD of less than 1.

    This is not about "viagra". Its a valid tool for PvPers. Whats the point of PvP if you cant compare yourself against your fellow man? In case you hadn't noticed, smack goes around on these forums anyway. People brag all the time. This would set things straight. And as you know, many games, even other MMO's, use such ranking systems.

    It would also no doubt attract more people to PvP, and force said players to perhaps try and play a little better.

    There will always be QQers about PvP, saying it is broken and unbalanced no matter how balanced it becomes. I'm not saying it's perfect the way it is now, but some people will always think it is broken.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Ipigi wrote:
    This is not about "viagra". Its a valid tool for PvPers. Whats the point of PvP if you cant compare yourself against your fellow man? In case you hadn't noticed, smack goes around on these forums anyway. People brag all the time. This would set things straight. And as you know, many games, even other MMO's, use such ranking systems.

    It would also no doubt attract more people to PvP, and force said players to perhaps try and play a little better.

    There will always be QQers about PvP, saying it is broken and unbalanced no matter how balanced it becomes. I'm not saying it's perfect the way it is now, but some people will always think it is broken.
    Unfortunately this wouldn't attract anyone to PvP. Your system would only encourage elitism among PvPers and discourage any casual players from engaging in PvP. The people you see bragging on the forum are a small, but vocal minority. As far as comparing yourself to others, you already compare yourself when you PvP. If you die often, that means you aren't up to par; that is pretty obvious isn't it ?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I agree that metric stats tracking can be useful for many purposes, not just bragging rights.

    But I would also include more detailed stats, such as participation-based ratings, which would give a fairer (or more objective and readily comparable) indication of the game's overall player base. It would also facilitate fairer matchmaking, with the possiblity of viable tournaments down the road.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I wouldn't mind a kill/death ratio but anything else is a bit meh
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Dekkameron wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a kill/death ratio but anything else is a bit meh

    /sign

    If its not bragging, then its a statistic of how well/bad each individual has done it for own purpose. EVE has something similar aka the killboard where kills/loses based on player, corp and alliance performance.

    Would be neat to have :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    nah, pvp in its current state, not happening, especially for individuals.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    na bad idea, i went through t4 with about 10 deaths and a lot of kills so hell i think i would look quite good on the board. However, i would be concerned that the borg hunt for the daily would become a griefing ground with nothing but unsklilled players waiting to kill those already half dead from the borg just to stat pad. There are probalby many ways to get a high kill ratio from fight clubbing too. the ratio would be pretty much worthless imo
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If its not bragging, then its a statistic of how well/bad each individual has done it for own purpose.
    Kill:death ratios, similar to win:loss ratios, are not an accurate measure of success on an individual basis. The reason is that kills and deaths, and wins and losses, depend more upon teamwork than individual participation.

    Participation-based ratings, however, are a much more accurate measure of individual success or participation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Kill:death ratios, similar to win:loss ratios, are not an accurate measure of success on an individual basis. The reason is that kills and deaths, and wins and losses, depend more upon teamwork than individual participation.

    Participation-based ratings, however, are a much more accurate measure of individual success or participation.

    Can you say the same for those that duel alot considering the FvF matches coming up? I say its worthwhile, where you can give a player a measure of performance as much based on teamwork as on individual skill.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Can you say the same for those that duel alot considering the FvF matches coming up? I say its worthwhile, where you can give a player a measure of performance as much based on teamwork as on individual skill.
    We are using the given context of current PVP, are we not? In that case, the smallest unit is 5v5, not 1v1. Which means that kill:death and win:loss are not an accurate measure of individual participation, as compared to formulated measurement of: damage received, damage dealt, hull repair given, hull repair received, shield repair given, shield repair received, buff given, buff received, debuff given.

    Consider a support-role ship in a 5v5 match, who might have neither kills nor deaths, yet their contribution was critical toward the success of their team. Measuring kill:death or win:loss alone is not a fair estimate of that player's contribution.

    In other words, yes, kill:death and win:loss are useful statistics, but they should also be qualified by participation-based ratings.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    We are using the given context of current PVP, are we not? In that case, the smallest unit is 5v5, not 1v1. Which means that kill:death and win:loss are not an accurate measure of individual participation, as compared to formulated measurement of: damage received, damage dealt, hull repair given, hull repair received, shield repair given, shield repair received, buff given, buff received, debuff given.

    Consider a support-role ship in a 5v5 match, who might have neither kills nor deaths, yet their contribution was critical toward the success of their team. Measuring kill:death or win:loss alone is not a fair estimate of that player's contribution.

    In other words, yes, kill:death and win:loss are useful statistics, but they should also be qualified by participation-based ratings.

    not strctly true, a kill is not measured as taking someone from 100% to 0%. i do tend to do that a fair but but if i open on someone, lets say a cruiser and inflict 40k woth of damage by the time it goes boom, a second player who saw the fight and decided to assist might only inflict 5k damage but would be credited with a kill. thus even in a heal /support ship with no tactical skills equipped (and that would have to be a bop) would still have weapons mounted to fire and would still be getting equal credit on a kvd ratio

    win loss would be fair also, if you play support, and you support more than yourself your side wins you get credit. this could encourage more team work even amounst pugs. I have been known to pop heals on a carrier (almost continual) under focus fire as while the pugies are trying to kill that i am moving about focusing one down after another, the really funny thing was then zerging back to carry on shotting the carrier. i think we killed 5 before they swapped to me.

    However, if a good player who does everything right, top damage, top heals etc is on hte loosing team, well sucks to be in a bad pug and i feel for you (meh or me) i guess that would be a reason to get in an active guild rather than seeing the vast majority of players unguilded
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Ardept wrote: »
    not strctly true, a kill is not measured as taking someone from 100% to 0%. i do tend to do that a fair but but if i open on someone, lets say a cruiser and inflict 40k woth of damage by the time it goes boom, a second player who saw the fight and decided to assist might only inflict 5k damage but would be credited with a kill. thus even in a heal /support ship with no tactical skills equipped (and that would have to be a bop) would still have weapons mounted to fire and would still be getting equal credit on a kvd ratio

    win loss would be fair also, if you play support, and you support more than yourself your side wins you get credit. this could encourage more team work even amounst pugs. I have been known to pop heals on a carrier (almost continual) under focus fire as while the pugies are trying to kill that i am moving about focusing one down after another, the really funny thing was then zerging back to carry on shotting the carrier. i think we killed 5 before they swapped to me.

    However, if a good player who does everything right, top damage, top heals etc is on hte loosing team, well sucks to be in a bad pug and i feel for you (meh or me) i guess that would be a reason to get in an active guild rather than seeing the vast majority of players unguilded
    My point is, simple kill:death and win:loss measurements do not actually measure how much of a contribution toward those stats that individual players are making. Yes, a support ship might be 'given credit' for contributing toward a kill. But how much credit should they be given? A simple kill:death stat gives everyone who fired upon a target equal credit, which is not an accurate measure of individual success.

    Or, at least, it's not as accurate as using participation-based ratings.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Ipigi wrote:
    I'm just saying, PVP leaderboards would be pretty neat to have. K/D stats, damage, healing, games played, how many times you quit the fight.

    Have a bunch of different boards for FvF, KvK and FvK, and also for different maps as well as an overall board.

    What do you guys think?

    Isn't that just like the WoW arena. The PvP is star trek is suppose to be about a war, not score.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    This is a very bad idea. I have played several pvp games that have kill death ratio's and leader boards. It promotes nothing but bragging, disconcertion, insults, blacklisting and favoritism. Not to mention it demotes teamwork and promotes selfish game play. Also there has not been a system I have seen yet that is fair to the entire player base in not only the way it awards credit to players, but the scoring system itself has always been biased or more often then not doesn't give credit to every player involved, team work, etc. What it does promote is nothing but stat ho's.

    Here is what i mean, a perfect example. The only other game I play is nothing but one huge pvp environment played repeatedly over a large map until one side wins and the campaign starts over. This game is Battleground Europe, World War II online. A fantastic wwII sim I enjoy playing.

    They implement this very system and maintain a site with servers that track everything, kill death ratios, your damages, deaths, kills, successes, failures, missions, time played, favorite units, etc. It also provides the names of people you killed and who killed you.

    Now the only thing I like about this system is you get to see who killed you. Other then that it's a terrible system for many of the reasons i listed above and one very major problem. The scoring system. It only rewards the person that the scoring system recognizes as scoring the kill shot.

    So your up in your spitfire or bf109, engage an enemy, battle quickly commences. You beat your opponent, damage his/her plane, get it smoking, damage the control surfaces, knock out the ailerons, slow the plane down, etc. Then at the final moments another plane dives in and kills the pilot, saws a wing off or hits any other critical spot that the scoring system recognizes as a kill, that person and only that person is given credit for the kill. So the scoring system gives them all the credit for all your work. Does it make that player the better pvp'r?

    Now take into consideration a team of players working together. 4 planes out on patrol all come in contact with a single enemy plane. All four planes open up on it and together they bring the plane down. Only one of the 4 is given credit for the kill.

    Then there is the other side of the spectrum. There have been two games i played that give credit to every person involved. The scoring system gives credit for every person that damages the enemy/unit. One is another flight sim, IL2 and the other was EQ2. In both games the scoring system gives credit for every person that simply hit and damages your enemy.

    So again one, two or a team does a good job working together and you always have that one individual that comes screaming in or running up and whacks the enemy player once and is given full credit. So kill stealing becomes a major issue in both examples i gave.

    Thus in my humble opinion until they can finally come up with an arbitrary system that awards proper credit or divide kills between players that properly promotes teams work, say if 3 people blow up a ship then 3 people are give 1/3 credit for a kill and award great team work, I find it this suggestion a horrible idea.

    Talking from experience it only promotes stat ho's.

    Please keep that TRIBBLE out of sto..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    My point is, simple kill:death and win:loss measurements do not actually measure how much of a contribution toward those stats that individual players are making. Yes, a support ship might be 'given credit' for contributing toward a kill. But how much credit should they be given? A simple kill:death stat gives everyone who fired upon a target equal credit, which is not an accurate measure of individual success.

    Or, at least, it's not as accurate as using participation-based ratings.

    had a quick look, tbh it makes a mountain out of a molehill. In addition i noticed you said when a player applies a debuff/buff to target player he should get credit for the damage done by all players (at least that was how i read it to mean). Surely he should only get credit for the percentage damage increase over the base due to the debuff/buff and not credit for the base damage itself applied by the other firing players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Kelmvor wrote:
    Thus in my humble opinion until they can finally come up with an arbitrary system that awards proper credit or divide kills between players that properly promotes teams work, say if 3 people blow up a ship then 3 people are give 1/3 credit for a kill and award great team work,
    Here is my idea for such a solution, which measures and rewards all forms of participation and not merely killing blows.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Ardept wrote: »
    had a quick look, tbh it makes a mountain out of a molehill. In addition i noticed you said when a player applies a debuff/buff to target player he should get credit for the damage done by all players (at least that was how i read it to mean). Surely he should only get credit for the percentage damage increase over the base due to the debuff/buff and not credit for the base damage itself applied by the other firing players.
    I'm not sure how such a fair system can be made any simpler. Feel free to make a suggestion if you think you can whittle it down, but in my opinion this is the simplest way to keep it completely accurate.

    If you read the section on Damage Assist/Mitigation more carefully, you will see that the Damage and Healing points gained from Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation components are reduced. In other words, Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation do not give 'whole' Damage or Healing points, but fractions of those points.

    I am currently in the process of adding a formula summary section to that post, to make it easier for readers to understand the raw metrics (damage dealt, damage received, hull repair given, hull repair received, etc.) and how they will be formulated into participation scores and then player ratings.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    *Waiting eagerly for formulae summary*
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The_Stig wrote: »
    This form of 'viagra' doesn't belong in this game. PvP is not health as is, last thing I want is to listen to someone brag about their KD and talk smack about federation noobs with KD of less than 1.

    I almost agree with this since it would happen with both fed and klingon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Actually i am pretty impressed with some of your proposed ideas. However after reading it I can quickly formulate some problematic areas.

    First and foremost is balance. I think that is self explanatory but I will give a small example. You already have people yelling for balance. People are already quick to point out, klingons can battlecloak and run away, that's not fair. So the whining would double and you'd find people quickly specializing and gravitating to one side. You already see this and hear bragging in many posts.

    Klingons are so much better at pvp, feds stink, etc. Well duh, there are reasons for that. First many of the really experienced, talented best pvpr's automatically gravitate to the klingon side. Secondly they have major advantages, They can dictate the terms of almost any battle. You have a team of ships that can cloak, maneuver into position with a good team leader that ensures they all pick a main assist, everyone on the team positions themselves behind their target, uncloak and with focused fire blow escorts out of the match in less then 5 seconds.

    So you would find people on the darkside dominating the leader boards with fed's screaming for balance. I am personally opposite of the mass popularity. I prefer ground combat to space combat. It has it's flaws but at least both sides have an equal opportunity to win. Klinks can't just dictate the terms of every battle, cloak, uncloak, battle cloak etc.

    So in your system you would find individuals forgoing raptors for bop's. Experienced pvpr's adapt and adjust to the flaws of every system very quickly. You'd find more individuals gravitating to that side over the fed side. I mentioned ground game, which brings me to the other problem i noticed.

    System resources. People die so quickly in pvp, space and twice as fast in ground, how would you provide the system resources to keep track of such mass destruction for each and every player? Sto would have to require special servers and dev's specifically designed to that task and that task alone. I believe the cost would be immense.

    So you would have to hire these people, specialize the servers, maintain the cost of both, and more often then not game development slows down. You would then again have people screaming for new "toys" all the time. By toys i mean new ships, weapon platforms, kits, armor, ground weapons, to deal with the "injustice of the other sides current advantages"

    That would require an immense player base which we currently do not have. Anyway, time to jump in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    *Waiting eagerly for formulae summary*
    Done, check the participation-based ratings thread. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I'm not sure how such a fair system can be made any simpler. Feel free to make a suggestion if you think you can whittle it down, but in my opinion this is the simplest way to keep it completely accurate.

    If you read the section on Damage Assist/Mitigation more carefully, you will see that the Damage and Healing points gained from Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation components are reduced. In other words, Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation do not give 'whole' Damage or Healing points, but fractions of those points.

    I am currently in the process of adding a formula summary section to that post, to make it easier for readers to understand the raw metrics (damage dealt, damage received, hull repair given, hull repair received, etc.) and how they will be formulated into participation scores and then player ratings.

    ok didn't read the lower paragrath, had prejudged on the first two paragraphs that do not make this clear. but then it is a long post and i am not all that interested in the subject as i don't care one way or another if it is introduced.

    not sure i would agree with the cc = assist or ignored bit tho. cc contributes more to success than raw damage and heals.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I appreciate the feedback, but I would appreciate it even more if you guys would post it in the actual participation-based ratings thread.

    Thanks. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010

    Reviewed and supported. But im still concerned regarding individual performance for those that wants to base their PvP on mainly dueling. How will they fit into this scheme when the framework is more focused on teams?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    One last thing that just popped into my mind as i'm loading the game. You would also have to adjust or in this case readjust the level ranges. You already have a large level range there. So you'd find experienced players quickly stacking teams in more ways then one.

    Example. The starting level range is L6 to LC0. Then you have LC0 or LC1 to C0. So i am sure you can quickly see where this is headed. I don't know how many times i jump into pvp matches and i am up against several +5 ships, +8, +4 etc. The same thing happens on the ground. They are the first people to brag.

    I just whooped your butt, yadda yadda yadda. Well yeah. I'll use a ground example. A LC0 jumps in a pvp match and quickly finds him/herself up against much higher level players, all whom already have MK VI weapons, armor, kits, with much higher numbers invested in skill points. 9 in tactics, 9 in firearms, 9 in soldier, 9 in security, etc. They win the pvp encounter and then brag. Well duh, i wonder why.. As always a great player at the keyboard over comes the disadvantages but i'm sure you understand what i'm saying.

    So you'd find individuals quickly stacking teams. So you'd have to address the level ranges. Anyway no matter how you draw the bottom line, the issue is balance. levels, weapons, kits, toys, etc. You'd never hear the end of people crying for more balance.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Reviewed and supported. But im still concerned regarding individual performance for those that wants to base their PvP on mainly dueling. How will they fit into this scheme when the framework is more focused on teams?
    Well, as I said before, any type of 'leaderboard' or globally available stat tracking service (similar to WoW's Armoury web site) can and should track all metric stats possible, which includes kill:death, win:loss, and number of matches played.

    I merely suggest that these stats should not be the -only- stats tracked, because they are not a fair indication of the overall picture.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Kelmvor wrote:
    You would also have to adjust or in this case readjust the level ranges.
    This -- and all other factors that involve how much a player can output in PVP -- is accounted for in participation-based matchmaking. My suggestion with regard to this thread's topic -- which is global stat tracking -- is that such participation-based ratings should also be tracked and presented, in order to qualify what the kill:death and win:loss stats actually represent.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think that is a really good idea and you should submit and in game ticket for content development.

    Yes there should be Space FvF / KvK / KvF / FvK boards and the same for ground and maybe even for signal contacts humm.

    There should be two sets....

    1) life time points gained and
    2) monthly/seasonal charts

    Maybe the top 3 on each board can win something.

    This should be accessible through the STO website and updated every 24 hours.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I would like this very much. Anything that inspires competition is a good way to get players hooked on the game and renew their subscriptions.
Sign In or Register to comment.