DiabloFans

Good job Scyber!

I think there should be like the ladder of all times, then a monthly, weekly and daily ladders.

Well, with the win/lose it eventually levels out to your own actual skill. Sure you won a bunch with somebody else and then lost with others but overall, your ration should reflect your skill. Of course it sucks that you had to loose over and over again afterwards but you also got the benefit of those earlier wins.

I think quantifying dmg done, kills, deaths, duration and many other factors would just be too much work.

Separate ladders could work. But then does it become to overwhelming and confusing?

Well I'm sure the pairing of teams will be more complex than just win:loss ratio, but it will probably rely on that, along with the people you won/lost against.

I always have liked something to progress through, and I'm looking forward to learning more about the rewards we get from this system, along with the names of the ranks (if there are any, or if its just a "Rank 20" kind of thing). Sounds like a fun system that will provide a good incentive to play PvP and level up and grab some rewards.

I am just glad that rank will always increase because I suck at PvP and need to be able to still play it for a reason.

Quote from ScyberDragon

I am just glad that rank will always increase because I suck at PvP and need to be able to still play it for a reason.

I hear you haha. And its good because these types of systems reward everyone who plays, but obviously the people who are good will rank up faster.

I think the rank situation works just because it shows skill and time played for these reasons. If you're really good You will rank up to let's say a mid rank fast and be of that rank based on you're skill regardless of the fast time you got there. On the flip side, if you're not amazing at pvp through the course of some time playing the game you will also eventually reach the same rank and just by playing the game and pvp for that long you would most likely represent the same skill through practice and time spent. It took you longer to be just as good as the next guy, but just as good you can be.
My other thought is the ladder reset. I would be a bit worried about this if it means that apon a ladder reset, everyone is tossed into the same skill pool to work their way up again. This is only great for players of a high skill and able to rape and pwn newbies and people of lower skill giving to them lot's of losses on their record right from the beginning and placing them in lower skill classes than they might be qualified for. On the flip side I think there will start to be people we might hear about... players making real names for themselves. For example;let's say Scyberdragon is amazing at pvp. He is quickly making a name for himself in the pvp world as an amazing fighter, someone that is striking fear into the hearts of players all around. It might be an honor to play along side of him. on the same team might be exciting. A way even for some players to learn from him. This could be only with ladder resets.

Quote from Jamoose

Good job Scyber!

I think there should be like the ladder of all times, then a monthly, weekly and daily ladders.

I like this idea. Doesn't have to become confusing or overwhelming.. It could work with a "tab" system like the skill trees in D2.

Example:

Tabs: [Today] [This Month] [All-Time]
1.
2.
3.
...
20.

I think it could make things really interesting like trying to be the top rank just for today or just work your way to the top of the month/all-time. It also gives a lot of reward/achievement possibilities.

Also, one thing i definitely hope for is pvp tournaments ala SC2, DoTa, HoN, Wc3 etc possibly with cash prizes.

Quote from ansl

Hmm.. I've reached that stage where all I can say is; "finish the damn game, give us pvp in a future patch".

But yes, I too hope for tournaments a'la Wc3.

Regarding your first comment: What in the world makes you think Blizzard would do it that way You know them, they take all the time they need

And they said that they realize their PvP won't be perfectly 100% balanced, and don't want to turn it into an e-sport.

Nice article and questions scyber.

Quote from leftfoot

Quote from Jamoose

Good job Scyber!

I think there should be like the ladder of all times, then a monthly, weekly and daily ladders.

I like this idea. Doesn't have to become confusing or overwhelming.. It could work with a "tab" system like the skill trees in D2.

Example:

Tabs: [Today] [This Month] [All-Time]
1.
2.
3.
...
20.

I think it could make things really interesting like trying to be the top rank just for today or just work your way to the top of the month/all-time. It also gives a lot of reward/achievement possibilities.

Also, one thing i definitely hope for is pvp tournaments ala SC2, DoTa, HoN, Wc3 etc possibly with cash prizes.

Yea dude, it just makes sense doesnt it? Oh and about tourneys, i think people will need some time before they start arranging tourneys since as Jay said the PVP is not going to be balanced like Wow for an example. It would take time for people to figure out the good builds for pvp etc.

If they are smart, there will be an internal ELO rating like you see in SC1 etc. which goes up or down based on your opponent's rating, and the game tries to match players with similar ratings. However the "ladder" here, instead of simply ranking people according to their rating, is instead more like a number/title that you grind through both wins and losses.

I'm OK with the rank feedback system being basically meaningless like this and encouraging quantity over quality. But I'd still like to know rating to have an idea what sphere of players your skill ends up placing you with... and if this isn't given then people are going to try hard to derive it.

Well even if you are fighting people with similar ratings, you still will face people with slightly higher or lower ratings as well, and if you beat someone thats higher than you you should get more than if you beat a team with a lower rating.

Well that would still probably lead to a weird rating for a 3v3 team. It would be much easier, and probably work more accurately, if teams had ratings. In the end it doesn't matter how well each single person is doing, but how well the team does, and that should determine who they play. Seeing as the ranked arena is going to be balanced around 3v3, but I think have other options, that would make more sense.

Quote from Ophion

I think it should be based on your own performance. Primarily your total damage output (in percentage of your targets health) compared to everyone else. The player that contributes the most, which will be the one that takes away most of the enemies hp, should get more skill (or lose less). Other factors should of course be taken into consideration, like healing your team (health globes) or tanking. Include these things and you will get a more accurate picture of each players skill, instead of the one of the entire team. That way you won't be as punished by a loss if you were actually the best player in the game, or gain a lot of skill even if you sucked.

This is really problematic in an RPG as it favors some tactics and playstyles unnaturally. Say you play a character that does lots of slows and stuns, while your buddies bring on painful DPS. The stun person might be contributing greatly but they won't get as much of a reward. And then game strategy will be skewed around maximizing your damage for personal rewards instead of maximizing your chances of winning. Unless of course the game puts a value on stuns, but then you're only going to stun based on the value the game assigns instead of the strategic value it has in actual gameplay. For example stunning does jack if there isn't a DPS guy right next to you to capitalize on it. How do you measure this complexity?

Trying to calculate and reward "effectiveness" necessarily dilutes the competitive nature of the game, where players should be rewarded for doing everything they can to win instead of game some invisible reward system, and never penalized for doing so. If the designers could boil down effectiveness to a simple algorithm games wouldn't need strategy, but they do because competitive players will push strategies in new directions the designers never dreamed of.

ELO is just about wins and losses. It is not a fair match every time but it will average out to better play over the long term. And no you don't have to pair two 2000s with a 100 and call it fair. In multi-team random pairings the priority should be on all participants having close ratings to each other, over teams with equal ratings.