Guild Wars 2

So rather than having leaderboard suggestions spread across various threads where neither players nor Justins (by which I mean devs that actively participate in forum discussion) can find them, I’ve decided to place them all in a single thread with an analysis of each suggestion.

Poll here: http://strawpoll.me/3638200

Suggestions are split into three categories:

1. WITH MMR

Suggestion 1a: Have a completely MMR-based leaderboard

Pros:
Leaderboard based purely on the MMR of players. Allows for the most accurate representation possible of a player’s skill level in comparison to other players.
MMR is used to create fair matches by comparing ratings, this rating system therefore reflects a player’s skill level as accurately as possible.

Cons:
Impossible for players not in the top-tier of PvP to attain certain rewards. You could however argue that these rewards should only be attainable by the very best of players and be otherwise impossible to attain.

Suggestion 1b: Use MMR as a point multiplier

Current point system is adapted, but the resulting points are multipled by some sort of MMR-derived multiplier. This could be split into tiers (<1000 MMR = x0.5 multipler, 1000-2000 = x1.0, etc.) or could be a more direct representation.

Pros and Cons (points are too subjective here to split them):
Player skill plays a much larger role in determining leaderboard ranking than the current point system.
It is still possible for players of reasonable skill level but not in the top-tier to climb to the top of the leaderboard by putting in the hours (could be good or bad).

2. WITHOUT MMR

Suggestion 2a: No change

Self-explanatory, I doubt this option will see many votes.

Pros:
Allows anyone to gain rewards at the top of the leaderboard (may also be a downside).

Cons:
Little reflection of actual skill level. Rewards grind.

Suggestion 2b: Most recent matches

Only include the past ### of matches in determining leaderboard ranking (e.g. last 100 games).

Pros:
To gain rewards, you still have to put in the required effort to reach the required number of games. Players in the top-tier cannot simply farm rewards by playing a few matches.
Grind is greatly reduced, leaderboard is not just a case of playing the most games.

Cons:
Not actually sure about the cons for this, will add them following discussion.

3. SPLIT THE LEADERBOARDS

Split them into MMR-based and point-based leaderboards.

Pros:
Rewards are still attainable by players not in the top-tier, with a seperate MMR leaderboard for comparing skill levels.

Cons:
Clutter. May be confusing for players when looking at the leaderboards unless it is designed well.

Don’t forget that if MMR is visible or possible to find through analysing the leader board and points gained, then there is potential for hostility among players who feel they or someone else have been unfairly rated - the main reason most MMOs don’t allow their players to see their MMR.

Not that it matters to all of us, who mostly just want to see where we stand, and maybe don’t care if some people want to rage about some ratings, but it will matter to the devs.

Leaderboards need a fix and soon !

My opinion: MMR based leaderboard with decent (but not drastic) decay. Encourage players to win fair matches instead of farming low rated teams constantly. Also I find it pretty stupid that a player with say 1700 MMR but who plays 5 hours a day, fighting other 1500-1800 rated players, would be higher rated than a player with 2200 MMR who only does rated games with his team, facing the top teams in the ladder as well and thus maybe does 20-30 games a week.

Seems counterproductive…

Edit: I like the idea of the points as they are right now. I just think they need to be implemented while taking into account MMR. Perhaps as you’ve said your MMR having some sort of multiplier on the points gained? Thus higher MMR means higher reward but also higher risk.

Example:
<1500 = -3 – +3
1500 – 1700 = -4 – +4
1700 – 1900 = -5 – +5
1900 – 2000 = -6 – +6
2000 – 2200 = -8 – +8
<2200 = -10 – +10

Just an idea.

I’d suggest the existing point system, but like this…

Standing Points = win/loss points * (MMR / 1500) * (Win % / 50)

That will scale the points up for players with above average MMR and players with greater win percentages.

To me, leaderboards are fine. The only thing it needs is to award rank points for only saaaay…..3 or 4 matches a day, just to prevent farmers, but that’s it.

JTGuevara.9018:

To me, leaderboards are fine. The only thing it needs is to award rank points for only saaaay…..3 or 4 matches a day, just to prevent farmers, but that’s it.

This requires you to play every single day in order to keep up, rather than playing 8 hours at the weekend. Not everyone has this freedom.

I like 1b with the amendment that points be divided by matches played in order to eliminate the grind aspect and not have to use arbitrary cutoffs (last 100 matches, etc.), and that the multiplier be determined by your actual MMR divided by the average player MMR (assuming that MMR reflects a normal distribution), instead of using tiers from the example that probably disproportionally punish or reward below- and above-average MMR players.

Poll is up: http://strawpoll.me/3638200

I had someone pose an interesting idea to me, figured I would share it here. What if ANet did their ladder where only “X” games you did in ranked counted towards leaderboard status. Then the person who won the most of “X” games would be at the top of the leaderboard. That way it takes away the grind away from the leaderboard, and shows the people who actually win all their games in rank are at the top of the leaderboard. Only problem with this is settling ties, which you are bound to have , and I’m not sure how that gets tackled. Thoughts?

LangerIsMyName.8063:

I had someone pose an interesting idea to me, figured I would share it here. What if ANet did their ladder where only “X” games you did in ranked counted towards leaderboard status. Then the person who won the most of “X” games would be at the top of the leaderboard. That way it takes away the grind away from the leaderboard, and shows the people who actually win all their games in rank are at the top of the leaderboard. Only problem with this is settling ties, which you are bound to have , and I’m not sure how that gets tackled. Thoughts?

That pretty much has the same result as the ’Only include last ### games in leaderboard" that I proposed.

If you’re going to match teams/players at equal levels of skill across the spectrum, then an MMR-based leaderboard is the only one which makes sense.

Well then, I think it’s pretty clear from the poll that people want an MMR leaderboard.

An MMR leaderboard wouldn’t be the best idea, it could cause the same hostility ranks did in the beginning. Showing MMR just to the player themself would be nice though, gives one an idea how well they’re faring without others having a reason to kitten at being teamed with newbs and whatnot it would spawn.

As to the current leaderboard, an average of all games played would better than rounding up the last 100 games. Cause teams would just play until they get a big win streak and then just stop even if they have a lousy win rate during say 50 games before and still be near unbeatable in scoring.

Or how about a points based leaderboard with a moving season-cap as the season progresses, and MMR is used as the tie-breaker?

For instance, if the moving cap was based on 4 pts per day for a 28 day season:
Day 1 in season, max points you can have is 4.
Day 7 in season, max points you can have is 28.
Day 28 in season, max points you can have is 112.

By the end of a 28 day season, the max points you can have is 112. If multiple players have 112 points, MMR is used as the tie-breaker. Most players may not have time to accumulate 112 points in a season (150+ games in a month), leaving room for dedicated PvPers with lower MMR a chance to gain rewards. Also, if a player only plays on weekends, they still have an opportunity to catch up in points because they’re not locked out. Finally, since its a moving cap instead of a fixed cap, it encourages player participation throughout the season instead of just a single week of grinding at the start; and players must also play occasionally to avoid MMR decay.

Grump.7069:

An MMR leaderboard wouldn’t be the best idea, it could cause the same hostility ranks did in the beginning.

How? Ranks are purely time-based, like the current leaderboard. MMR is rating based on how you match up against other rated players. MMR actually does reflect skill, not time.

This post is still relevant. 76% want a purely MMR based leaderboard and I’d say a sample size of 146 players is fairly accurate.