Scoreboards after castle and node sieges

OlympusBurns

What kind of metrics do you guys think the scoreboard should display at the end of a castle or node siege?

Other MMO's like new world have pretty shallow scoreboards and for a long time it encouraged stat padding (total damage, total heals, etc), but omitted important things like "time on control point". I think it'd be nice to have a ""basic stat page" which everyone can see and then an advanced stat page which only you can see where it breaks down your damage/healing per ability, how much damage you took, etc. What else would you want to see on the advanced stat page?

Ravicus

Please no. I am sorry but I just do not like them, never have. To me it pulls me out of the game realm into the sport gameing genre in which is not my bag of tea.

NiKr

Literally nothing. This kind of thing would only lead to players trying to get onto the leaderboard or just do some random shit that would stand out in the stats.

The only thing that should be important to the siege participants is winning. Did your side win in the siege? Great, there's your "leaderboard". You get to enjoy the results. Did you lose? What a shame, hope you win next time.

Korela

I do not know who needs scoreboards. Casuals are just having fun and score thing would be excessive. Hardcore players are using fraps/obs/shadowplay/etc to rewatch and analyze important moments anyway.

OlympusBurns

Guild leaders are going to use some metric of deciding who gets in their castle sieges. Without scoreboards, they are going to use other metrics, likely more toxic ones like gear checks.

Ravicus

I just seen in discord they are saying they are not for identifying others gear.

OlympusBurns

What I mean is that if I’m a guild leader attacking or defending a castle, in order to get on the roster I’d want screenshots of your gear. This is a huge pain and pretty toxic because some people can perform really well even with bad gear. Unfortunately without some objective measurements, it’s really hard to tell how good someone is in a Castle Siege. Thus the less ideal metrics guild leaders will use.

NiKr

OlympusBurns wrote: »

Guild leaders are going to use some metric of deciding who gets in their castle sieges. Without scoreboards, they are going to use other metrics, likely more toxic ones like gear checks.

Castle sieges will potentially be 500vs500. That's more than a full member-built guild. Which would mean that the GL would be choosing from mercs or from other allies. And at that point it would always be more about your party's gear than anything else, because the GL would just need good fighters.

And bad GLs would be bad even with a scoreboard. Also, how exactly would a previous scoreboard decide who should be in the next siege? Castle sieges will be once a month and node ones might be even rarer. A loooot can change for a player within a month. A full regroup of their party. A ton of new gear that makes them stronger. Some learning from their past mistakes. Etc etc.

Previous scoreboards would have barely any impact on the decision making of GLs that are preparing for the next siege.

NiKr

OlympusBurns wrote: »

What I mean is that if I’m a guild leader attacking or defending a castle, in order to get on the roster I’d want screenshots of your gear. This is a huge pain and pretty toxic because some people can perform really well even with bad gear. Unfortunately without some objective measurements, it’s really hard to tell how good someone is in a Castle Siege. Thus the less ideal metrics guild leaders will use.

It comes down to trust and delegation of power. GL should be looking at what his parties are doing on the field. And PLs of those parties should be looking at what their members are doing. At the end of the siege the GL just talks to the PLs and brings up any issues, if there were any. And PLs then resolve that within their own parties.

This is how I and many other GLs managed our guilds in L2's sieges. It worked quite well imo.

OlympusBurns

There are 5 castles though so that’s more than 1 siege per week on avg. I plan on playing this game for a long time so people will have established histories in sieges before long.

Scoreboards will help show GLs who actually is performing well. They need to be robust though.

I know there are some players who don’t like their efforts being quantified, but that sword cuts both directions. If you’re really good, you run the risk of getting overlooked because no one actually knows how good you are. It can be a great way to pick up new players in your guild too.

Ravicus

I do not think you need to know each others gear. If a mage has fire gear on or ice gear on should be identifiable by looks, not stats. The element of surprise is part of the fun of it. The risk you take on putting on gear that has advantages and disadvanteges is part of the game. If you put on armor that has earth resist and you get hit with fire well sorry, thats just bad luck. What it will come down to is an average of everyone wearing armor that will cover a broad spectrum and not overcapped and undercapped stats. This is only my opinion but I really do not want this game to go down to min maxing and if we have gear scores then we have add ons, and scripts for add ons and so and so forth.

Korela

Ravicus wrote: »

What it will come down to is an average of everyone wearing armor that will cover a broad spectrum and not overcapped and undercapped stats. This is only my opinion but I really do not want this game to go down to min maxing

It will 100%. That's just how it works.

OlympusBurns

This game like every game now will be min maxed at some point. The good news with AoC is that there will be a lot of avenues to max out.

If you’re a GL who isn’t min/maxing your army, your castle will be taken and your node destroyed by min/maxers. If they don’t have adequate scoreboards then they’re begging to have people use add-ons.

Shabooey

Scoreboards with over 500 people might not work that well. Don't mind it for the smaller arena stuff to be honest.
It would also heavily depend on what the metrics were used to calculate the scoreboard, you might end up with people just playing the scoreboard.

OlympusBurns

Shabooey wrote: »

It would also heavily depend on what the metrics were used to calculate the scoreboard, you might end up with people just playing the scoreboard.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying. If the metrics are robust enough then stat padding will be easy to see through.

Any GL who wants to keep his node/castle will dive very deep into the quality of his army. Scoreboards will be a tool to help him find the best soldiers.

NiKr

OlympusBurns wrote: »

There are 5 castles though so that’s more than 1 siege per week on avg. I plan on playing this game for a long time so people will have established histories in sieges before long.

I don't think we've had any info on whether those sieges will be staggered or will all happen on the same day. L2's happened on the same day, but in two waves, but it also had more castles.

This could be a good question for the q&a though.

As for "established histories". Again, a lot can change in a month. Your previous shitty results might be completely wrong by the next stage because your whole party regrouped or you went up in tiers of gear and are now way more powerful.

And now the "GL just looks at the scoreboard" would be the toxic approach, because it doesn't account for player/character growth.

OlympusBurns wrote: »

Scoreboards will help show GLs who actually is performing well. They need to be robust though.

Rn siege design is not similar to NW's. You don't stand in one spot to capture it or attack people in that spot to prevent them from capturing it.

Other stats would just be general "dmg/heal/support done" and those would fall under the "dps meters" territory and Steven is against those.

OlympusBurns wrote: »

I know there are some players who don’t like their efforts being quantified, but that sword cuts both directions. If you’re really good, you run the risk of getting overlooked because no one actually knows how good you are. It can be a great way to pick up new players in your guild too.

If a GL doesn't know which of his parties are doing well and which of them are doing badly - that's a bad GL imo. And if a party feels that they're doing better than their GL gives them credit for - they can bring that up during the post-siege discussion. GL could then pay more attention to them in a later event/siege and reevaluate them.

OlympusBurns

Yeah I’ll submit the question when they make the thread.

Boneshatter

I don't think scoreboards can work properly in these types of sieges because there is no way to know what the player was assigned to do. A fighter assigned to guard a sally gate and an archer assigned to snipe anyone that gets close to the wall are going to have vastly different scores, and yet both are critical to victory.

Even if the scoreboard records everything it doesn't tell the reader if mid fight adjustments were made based on changing circumstances. If that fighter gets some defensive credit for guarding the sally gate but gets pulled off to fortify a breach it then looks like he/she left their post when they were actually reassigned.

The only way any realistic knowledge can be gained is from talking to the officers giving the orders.

Liniker

fortunately, steven was a guild leader, so I trust he knows what tools we want and need