True ranking system, dare you to challenge this

General Discussion
Current system vs point system on leaderboard / ranking:

- Points given based on mobs / elite types
- Weaker enemies yields lower points 10 pts each (example: wasp)
- Medium enemies yields regular points 25 pts each
- Tough enemies higher HP & DMG yields high points 50 pts each
- Blue elite packs 3 - 5 elites will each give 100 pts plus its category type *tough = 50 more = 150 pts each
- Gold rare elites packs with each minion set at 75 plus its category type and for the rare will be 150 plus its type
- each minute reminding when cleared will give 100 pts, with each reminding sec giving 1 pt
- each GR level nets additional 100 pts

Each unique enemy type will give a set of points which will make it even & fair for each & everyone who is competing to be in the top ranking. So no more search for GR filled with zombies vs anarchs / assassins maps.

EXAMPLE:
GR 50 with zombies cleared with 5 mins left nets player:
- GR 50 x 100 = 5,000
- 5 mins x 100 = 500
- 10 blue elite packs of 3 (zombies as example) at 300 each = 3,000 plus 10 pts for being zombies = 3,300 points
- player also killed 200 regular white zombies x 10 pts = 2,000
TOTAL points at the end at 10,800 points

GR 40 with tough enemy types with 5 mins left nets player:
- GR 40 x 100 = 4,000
- 5 mins x 100 = 500
- 10 blue assassin packs of 3 at 300 = 3,000 plus its type at 50 each = 1,500 = 4,500 points
- player also killed 200 regular assassins x 50 points = 10,000
TOTAL points at the end at 19,000 points

So as you can see, even if you can complete a higher rift level but filled with weaker enemies someone playing 10 levels lower but encounters TOUGHER enemies will end up with more points and thus TRUE HIGHER RANKING on the leaderboard.

So for those looking for a real challenge, real leaderboard, with a FAIR playground for all what do you think about this?

How does blizz feel about having this new POINTS system to even out the playing field?

How can one cheat with such a system when weaker enemy type gives lower points?

*On a 2nd thought, with the current death penalty timer be converted to points penalty to balance it out. lets take away the timer cd, and impose the following:

1st death, we forgive you, and you can revive right away
2nd death, 50 points plus 100 = 150
3rd death, 50 plus 100 = 200
4th death, 50 plus 150 = 250
etc etc

based 50 is there and then plus 50 x each death, so if you dont want to lose too many points at the end, play with caution and skills.
I like any idea that promotes skill/competition, it improves longevity.

However, the devs have clearly stated competition takes a big back seat to PvE. Travis even said they don't want people saying "ha ha I'm better than you."

Maybe save your idea for when they're more receptive to competition.

To expand on your idea, though; it would be great if points were tweaked per class, as certain enemies are more of a challenge for certain classes than others.
Or you can just fish for grifts like everyone else. Being on the leaderboards is not about "I'm better then you" it is only there for showing the people who are dedicated enough to fish for good grifts and pylons.

Leaderboards are proof of your dedication to diablo 3, you have to spend a lot of time to get there farming the right gear and farming the right grfit.
I like your idea simply because I love point systems. They're so deliciously Arcade-y. Points would compliment D3's gameplay well. I imagine big point streaks splashing up on the screen like in a comic book "1280 POINTS! C-C-C-CHAOTIC!"

One thing struck me as odd, though:

each minute remaining when cleared will give 100 pts, with each remaining sec giving 1 pt

Wouldn't a minute give 60 points? Why is a full minute's point value worth more than a second's point value?

Also, I'm not a supporter of the death timer being removed, but that's a separate issue that doesn't have anything to do with your core idea.
I think a better place to start would be to try to normalize the Grifts some. Leaderboards in general are a joke when player skill accounts for so little and RNG is the real deciding factor. Once the difference between the hardest possible map/mob/RG and the easiest is not quite so insane, then it'd be a better time to look at revising the leaderboards.

Seriously, there should never be a point where you enter a Grift, see the mobs, then just leave and close it because you know you'll be wasting more time doing that instead of searching for an easier rift. I'm a hair more understanding on the maps, but that's only due to there being a couple I absolute hate, and some of the maps cause serious issues for some computers.
I think your point at too low, 150 to 200 point for elite packs are nothing compared to huge easy mobs. What to stop them from just skipping all the elites killing huge mobs which gives more point in total than one elite that takes longer to kill.
Interesting idea to counter the current fishermen ladder.

03/26/2015 02:55 AMPosted by ApacheMaster
I like any idea that promotes skill/competition, it improves longevity.

However, the devs have clearly stated competition takes a big back seat to PvE. Travis even said they don't want people saying "ha ha I'm better than you."

Maybe save your idea for when they're more receptive to competition.

To expand on your idea, though; it would be great if points were tweaked per class, as certain enemies are more of a challenge for certain classes than others.


PvE gameplay would remain untouched. This idea aims to make the leaderboards reflect actual commitment and achievement in a more transparent way instead of just rewarding undeserving folks who just look for the easy ones. I mean, who honestly admires high ranked folks we happen to know just fished for easy rifts to artificially inflate their current rank? This idea would, in fact, promote actually pushing for the hardest rifts you can possibly overcome instead of just looking for the easy ones. I'd even give even lower ratings to easy rifts, going as low as 10% of the suggested values, to accentuate the accomplishment, even if they happen to complete "higher" GR levels. In addition, I'd tie the gem upgrade chance to this difficulty ratio. Having a zomnbie rift would have a lower chance to upgrade than an actually challenging one, naturally. Even better, it's completely coherent with Wyatt's idea to celebrate your accomplishments in a meaningful way.

Fishermen would be put to shame as they deserve, while those actually struggling to overcome real challenges would be rewarded appropriately.
Ah! I'm getting all nostalgic about old fashioned scoring screens. Seeing all those numbers tally up at the end is freaking awesome, and would literally make clearing a greater rift at LEAST twenty times more interesting.

I fully support this. It not only assists in competitiveness, but gives players an idea of accomplishment, and flavor when it comes to scoring. You will care about everything killed in a different way, and I think that is EXACTLY what Greater Rifts need right now.

Wish I could thumbs up your post more.

edit: I do think the GR 50 in your example should not be nearly half the amount of the level 40...but as I've said in my other post, that's something Blizzard can handle.

I like assassins giving more points, but the disparity is a little bit too huge.
Wow, you other posts are picking far too much at semantics. The points each monster gives is NOT important here; the point being put across is to give them a value, and blizzard can do the math from there.

I'm seeing a few comments stating "competitiveness takes a back seat" from the tavern talk, and I feel this is being taken grossly out of context. As GRs stand, you can already have that mentality. Do you remember why they said that? They were referring to randomness of mobs and shrines, which add flavor; they didn't want to take them away for the sake of competitiveness.

That's why I'm saying it's being taken out of context. This idea is wonderful, and needs to be supported.

As for feedback to the OP: I would insist that rewards not be given for higher scores, but sheer bragging rights. I don't think you suggested it (i admit, I skimmed a lot of the small details)

Someone else mentioned an arcade-like feeling, and that is the EXACT vibe I got from it. If I were a Diablo developer (I wish) I'd put this at very high priority...I can only hope the actual devs think the same.
Sounds like OP has spent a few days playing street fighter II
Doesn't matter what fancy system you come up with. People are like water, they will find the easiest path and take only that one. You'll be back to square 1.
03/26/2015 08:01 AMPosted by sonexotic
OP HOW MANY HELMETS ARE YOU CURRENTLY WEARING

DON'T LIE

THE HARDEST 40 IS NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE THE EASIEST 50

WERE TALKING ABOUT A5 MOBS WITH 90 AFFIXES VS ZOMBIES JACKING OFF


I personally think zombies jacking off would be terrifying foes...
03/26/2015 08:11 AMPosted by Gnome
03/26/2015 08:01 AMPosted by sonexotic
OP HOW MANY HELMETS ARE YOU CURRENTLY WEARING

DON'T LIE

THE HARDEST 40 IS NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE THE EASIEST 50

WERE TALKING ABOUT A5 MOBS WITH 90 AFFIXES VS ZOMBIES JACKING OFF


I personally think zombies jacking off would be terrifying foes...


it'd make the skeletons jealous.
We already have this system, it's how progression of the bar is filled, which translates into time placement.

Both systems are flawed, because blizzard still has to decide what the numbers are going to be and which mobs will get them...and that means that we will still have act 5 mobs being of the same value as an act 1 zombie.
03/26/2015 08:20 AMPosted by JoeShmo
We already have this system, it's how progression of the bar is filled, which translates into time placement.

Both systems are flawed, because blizzard still has to decide what the numbers are going to be and which mobs will get them...and that means that we will still have act 5 mobs being of the same value as an act 1 zombie.


I don't think you realize what you just said...

It's pretty well understood that the OP is suggesting that they NOT be the same value. It's as if you read the OP's suggestion, replaced what you read with what's currently ingame, and then replied as if that's what was being suggested.

They will be different.
I feel a points system would be unique and interesting. However I agree with one statement from above (ignoring the rest of the post) "the hardest 40 is nowhere near close [as] the easiest 50"

Overall, I think it would be a more fun and engaging system, especially watching the points rack up.
03/26/2015 08:01 AMPosted by sonexotic
OP HOW MANY HELMETS ARE YOU CURRENTLY WEARING

DON'T LIE

THE HARDEST 40 IS NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE THE EASIEST 50

WERE TALKING ABOUT A5 MOBS WITH 90 AFFIXES VS ZOMBIES JACKING OFF


this guy is a moron. Stop posting.

The OP has an interesting premise. He was just using the 40 vs 50 as an EXAMPLE! Of course there would have be tuning to adjust the type of mob vs difficulty.

If it makes you feel better you can imagine he said 47 instead of 40. the "Example" quotation in his post should have probably clued you in on the fact that he was just providing an easy to understand scenario with arbitrary numbers thrown in to provide some visual feedback.
03/26/2015 03:03 AMPosted by Crim
I like your idea simply because I love point systems. They're so deliciously Arcade-y. Points would compliment D3's gameplay well. I imagine big point streaks splashing up on the screen like in a comic book "1280 POINTS! C-C-C-CHAOTIC!"

One thing struck me as odd, though:

each minute remaining when cleared will give 100 pts, with each remaining sec giving 1 pt

Wouldn't a minute give 60 points? Why is a full minute's point value worth more than a second's point value?

Also, I'm not a supporter of the death timer being removed, but that's a separate issue that doesn't have anything to do with your core idea.


it was just an example of how it would play out, you are correct 60 secs in 1 min, my system is based on more points rewarded upon completion of 1 full min = 60 plus 40 = 100 points, and then any reminding secs will just be 1 pt each.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum