Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer

** How to design a PvP Ranking System **

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
** How to design a PvP Ranking System **

Killadrix's Avatar

01.25.2012 , 01:03 PM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by cashogy View Post
OP has some good ideas. However, I will not participate in ranked warzones until Bioware lets us queue a full group of 8. I am tired of going into a warzone with 3 other guild members, and halfway through the fight realizing that we are the only people attempting to win while others randomly pvp about the maps.

Random bads need to be able to be left out for ranked PvP to work
- Don't give a !@#$%^ about the mini games and just want to "pwn" people and be recognized as a deadly/skilled opponent? Focus on the things that raise your Personal Rank.
Yeah, the OP has some great ideas, huh?

Kardall's Avatar

01.25.2012 , 01:31 PM | #12
Currently, the medal system is one way to rank a person. In my opinion, and many others, it just isn't fleshed out enough, and some things need to be changed.

The medals are there to "gauge how well you performed" as well as the objectives part of the end-total screen. The problem with the way that it is currently implemented has a few points to look at:


The purpose is to show what a player has done to excel in one particular area of any given situation/warzone. Be it, they have healed someone for 2.5k in one shot, is not a "how good" they are. It is just a medal that would be awarded for excellence, as if we were in grade school again and the achievement awards for the most push-ups are in swtor.

Medals should not be used to show how good a person is, in order to award them for doing something good, as players can and will exploit their purpose to their own ends. It happens now already.


Objectives are one good way to show what a person is doing, however, the way the games seem to calculate these objectives is flawed. If a person is capturing a point, or sitting and defending a point, they are getting objective points. There is nothing to say that a person who is killing people on the way to an objective area is doing any good. Therefore, if you stand on the objective, your objective score goes up. In the case of Huttball, the objectives seem to be easier to calculate. Interception of the ball, passing the ball, scoring a goal, killing a ball carrier are all ways that could be used to judge how well any given player is participating. The problem is, if you take killing a ball carrier into account, a lot of people could help kill a carrier, but the person getting the killing blow gets the objective score. That way it is a flawed point system.

Kills/Deaths/Killing Blows

Some sort of ratio could be said about how a player is doing in a warzone, be it they have gotten 10 killing blows and 1 death, they could be 90% effective. The fault in using this system, is win-trading exploitations will arise, especially when they introduce a full 8-man pre-made into the mix. There is also the chance that an afk person will sit there, and with no way to report/kick them out yet, they will have lots of kills, lots of deaths and no killing blows. Which might be good for some, but the ratio would probably still give them "something" for being afk. But that's another issue altogether.

Commendation Awarding

So, the way in which they determine currently, what amount of objectives/medals/kills/etc give what amount of commendations, is what is eating people up. Not being ranked has really nothing to do with this, other than a person who might not be playing as well as they are, is getting the same amount or more for doing less (in their eyes) than they are. And it bothers people. To help award, all of the above methods combined, and some massive formula would essentially put some kind of a silent-rank system, where if a person performs well, they get more commendations. That means they would obtain gear faster, but currently there is no way to gauge what exactly causes a person to get X commendations. There is no reliable method of calculating it. It doesn't give you the same commendation amounts for killing 30 people and not dying, as it would to say get 15 medals and no kills. You could heal 15 times and do 2.5k each time, but you may or may not get as many commendations as the guy who killed 30 people as you were healing them.

Without knowing how their system is calculating it, it's hard to say where to go from here.

Putting people into Ranked groups might help, but if they use the same system they use for commendation calculations, then it's just putting a tiny band-aid on a large gaping wound. It is not effective. So, people can put all of these design systems in place on the forums, say they need ranking systems, but it's very difficult to help them build on a system that doesn't work in a specific fashion now, and try to append to it to do something else.
SQUADRON 11-11-11 *Never Forget*

Zaodon's Avatar

01.25.2012 , 02:26 PM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by Kardall View Post
Currently, the medal system is one way to rank a person. In my opinion, and many others, it just isn't fleshed out enough, and some things need to be changed.
As I said in the OP, I would not use the existing medal system, as-is, for the Ranking System.

They could, possibly, add a new type of medal which is used, but its not required to come up with an effective ranking system.

As I said in the OP, you will have players who play differently. Rather than have 1 uniform ranking system, have 2, one oriented around Personal PvP (the actual act of engaging in combat vs. another player, to the death), and one oriented around being a team player and winning the game (score is the largest factor here, since score determines winner and loser, but you could have other things which factor into team rank, if that thing requires team effort to achieve).

Personal Score: this would solely revolve around your personal actions. They could measure damage/healing (to be fair to healers), kills, deaths, even time spent "in combat" vs "time spend out of combat" as a ratio. I dunno, I'm just tossing ideas out there. But whatever measures they use, they should ignore goals/objectives and only measure your own actions.

Team Score: the opposite, nothing you do which affects only you personally should be factored into the score. If it affects your team as a whole, it could be used, such as guarding, or healing. But I would think the primary measurement here is end game score. i.e. 0-6 for huttball/voidstar, or for Civil War, score/100 (0-600 would become 0-6). You could factor in things like "carry ball", "complete pass", plant bomb, diffuse bomb, cap turret, etc. also, but you have to be careful you don't compensate selfish play (don't want to encourage ball hogging, for example).

Mattderp's Avatar

02.13.2012 , 10:54 AM | #15
I like the ranking system as it is ;o

Zaodon's Avatar

02.13.2012 , 11:43 AM | #16
Quote: Originally Posted by Mattderp View Post
I like the ranking system as it is ;o
There is no ranking system in SWTOR.