A simple solution to fix the PVP leaderboards

Gameplay Chat (PC/Mobile)
1

As the PVP rankings are a joke thread proves a very vocal (and large I think) part of the community is currently very dissatisfied (and even angry) about the PVP leaderboard. But instead of complaining about it and getting a negative vibe on the forums, how about we get some discussion going about how to FIX the PVP leaderboard.

Currently the leaderboard is dominated by people who either spend their entire week playing GoW constantly, people botting or people account sharing. All of this has its roots in the fact that the leaderboards are currently based on cumulative stats.

So how can this be fixed?

It’s very simple really: By making the leaderboard about play QUALITY instead of play QUANTITY

So how do I propose to do that?
Rank the players on the leaderboard based a composite value of win percentage and match difficulty.

For example: a simple multiplier of the win percentage and the average amount of trophies per match (so for example a person (player A) who won 98 out of 100 games (all 3 trophy matches) would score a 294, whereas a person (player B) who won 298 out of 300 games (50% 2-trophy matches and 50% 3-trophy matches) would score 248. So player B would have played more, but player A would have played “better” based on win percentage and difficulty of his/her opponents).

Now this simple solution would require a couple of things:

  • A fix for the silly bug that allows your defense team score to influence the score of the teams you can invade (the 1 troop defense exploit)
  • A set minimum of matches to be played for you to be eligible for the leaderboard (100 or 200, or whatever value the devs feel like picking) to prevent single win teams from scoring the maximum 300 (1 out of 1 games won (3-trophy match)).
  • Removing the silly PVP points. These points are unfair anyway players get different numbers of points for defeating the exact same opponent (with identical troop line-up).
  • Patience from the players (because obviously this would take time for the devs to implement)

And I am sure it requires a whole host of things that I haven’t thought of yet, but a PVP leaderboard based on play QUALITY instead of play QUANTITY would fix many things IMHO. It would certainly reignite my currently fast decreasing interest in PVP. And it would take away the IMHO unfair advantage that botting and account sharing are currently providing.

Just an idea though, let me know what you think…

Tagging @Sirrian, @Nimhain and @Saltypatra to find out what they think about this… :slight_smile:

6 Likes
2

Vocal I agree with, but there is a misconception on these forums that the people here constitute the majority of the player-base, rather than a tiny fraction of it. Even adding people on Global, you still have to factor in the large percentage of people who don’t talk at all anywhere in game and just play by themselves.

I like this idea (though I think you have a typo in your last line in regards to both players being Player B).

The problem here is that there is (currently) no way to value a player’s power without allowing some form exploit OR severely limiting the player’s choice in which team they use, and not allowing them to change teams to adapt to opponents.

You could take an average of all the troops a player owns, but then you would see people not wanting to level up and trait troops to keep their over all average low.

You could take the Attack team’s power level and use that, but either you have to stop the player from changing their team after the opponents are seen, or people will get the opponent list with a low power team and just change to a high power team afterwards (reverse 1 team defense exploit).

All this also ties into…

Part of the PVP score system takes into account the progression and guild of the player attacking, so unless players are in the same guild, with the same kingdom progression (stars and levels) AND are also the same hero level with the same mastery choices, they will always get different numbers. This is because fighting an opponent with a Team Power of 9000 and all kingdoms at 7 star will be harder for a level 1 player, than it will be for another player of a similar maxed out level as the opponent. You’re rewarded for beating players that are stronger than you. And this is where things fall flat for the top end, there are no higher players, so they can’t beat them.

This is also think is a good suggestion. But is something that wasn’t really possible before Guild Wars, since till GW the PVP leader board was the only real competition between players (outside of guild trophy counts, which are a whole different kettle of fish), so limiting who could participate would have placed a barrier to entry that some people might have just not bothered with. (Despite how much they would end up playing if they did bother)

In summary, I think there are some good ideas here, but were not feasible till now (GW and the change to Unity). So I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these ideas are ones the devs have already got planned for the future.

2 Likes
3

Fixed the typo, thanks. :slight_smile:

1 Like
4

I suggested static points for each trophy

1 trophy = 15 points
2 trophy = 30 points
3 trophy = 60 points

1 Like
5

But doing that still emphasizes play quantity instead of play quality. …

3 Likes
6

One problem I could see here, is that you could easily get to the top of the leader board at a low level if you got a lucky drop from a glory or gem key. Getting something like Kraken at level 20, and then focusing on traiting it, you could probably tear through a lot of 3 trophy teams in that level range with no problem, and faster than most. You’d get up to the top of the leader board a lot more easily than the high level players.

Also, as @Darkness said as I was typing this, it emphasises play time, meaning those who have the time to play get the points, and also run the risk of being called bots.

1 Like
7

I like the idea of quality of quantity but it needs to avoid the situation where someone wins 200/200 3T matches beating someone who wins 499/500 3T matches.

Otherwise there’s no incentive to try and beat the record.

3 Likes
8

I know but imo if someone play 10h it’s just normal he get more points then someone who play 5h but they could add reward for

The best win streak
Best defense win streak
Best % win
Best defense win %

9

Good point. It would also incentivise a 100% win record, which could cause issues if players get disconnected due to network issues or other things. (See recent issues with people trying to beat their Longest Streak and getting it dropped to DC)

By this logic, then the current leader boards are fine. On PC the top 5 people are all over level 800, and all but 1 of them are over 1,050.

1920Ă—1080 554 KB

10

From that leaderboard, I would still rank the top player top, followed by the 3rd player.

11

Seriously i don’t see anything wrong with this and it look legit, im on console and played about 8h and got 12k points

What i think is not fair is for the same difficuly, player A get 60 points and player B get 35 points. This is what need to be fixed imo

12

not really, fighting 100 matches will still not get you anywhere in the leaderboard (lowest possible rank reward bracket lasts far beyound that) so it wouldnt not change anything

13

I don’t disagree, but occasionally some people might not bother with something if there is a barrier regardless of how small it is. Though I do admit in this case, with PVP giving so much more than just the ranking rewards (Gold, Glory etc), people probably would have done the matches anyways.

14

i think pvp leaderboard should require both “skill” and the “quantity” somewhere around at 50:50 balance of those (or more towards the skill but then bracketing fight count as a requirement to compete certain brackets)

simplest example of that could be that the actual points counted for pvp leaderboard would be: “pvp points multiplied by win rate %”

15

Another solution would be to split leadeboard in 4 division

1- novice 50-100 pvp fight
2-advanced 101-300 pvp fights
3- pros 301-500 pvp fights
4-hardcore 501+ fights

That way if someone don’t have lot of time to play he can try to qualify for novice or advanced division and hardcore player could go for hardcore division

1 Like
16

it would result in hardcore players taking all divisions top rewards anyway, plus more divisions will mean less rewards overall (more split)

i dont see anything good in such solution

17

Just to be clear if you are in the hardcore division you only win hardcore rewards not the other divisoin rewards. I think it will give the chance to casual player to win something

18

This has been discussed slightly in the Guild Wars sneak peeks in regards to divisions for guilds to participate in. I believe Sirrian’s response was that in spreading rewards out over a large area would mean less rewards overall.

1 Like
19

Yeah curently 1000 is the mas i think?

I see nothing wrong to reward only top 50 or 100 in each division

20

The problem is that people are rewarded for it.
Legit people have to play insane much to even get in the top, and cheaters/botters walk away with nice rewards.
Meanwhile, people that invested a lot of time, just not an insane amount of time, get nothing.
Actually, they get discouraged, because it’s impossible to get in the top.

So…
Remove the leaderboard (ranked) rewards, and just leave the leaderboard in there for fun.
Then change the ranked rewards into tier rewards.

Problem solved…
People playing for top dude, can still do so (and will get the new/now tiered rewards).
People investing a lot of time get rewarded as well.