I would like to see pvp school leader boards viewable from where matches are made. I would like to see a list of who has the most points based upon their schools and to see what position I am at in them. I used to play card games at Yahoo when Yahoo had a ladders system and based upon card player ratings you could see who held the top positions and what number you were at. Yahoo reset all points every month or so which always created a race between players for top positions, lol. I would like to see something like this done. It really kept players playing, and made them all excited everytime a reset occurred. Keep in mind video games really didn't take off until asteroids came out with a scoring system that kept track of top scores and allowed players to place in their initials as a claim to their scores. Leadership boards have already been proven to work.
I would like to see pvp school leader boards viewable from where matches are made. I would like to see a list of who has the most points based upon their schools and to see what position I am at in them. I used to play card games at Yahoo when Yahoo had a ladders system and based upon card player ratings you could see who held the top positions and what number you were at. Yahoo reset all points every month or so which always created a race between players for top positions, lol. I would like to see something like this done. It really kept players playing, and made them all excited everytime a reset occurred. Keep in mind video games really didn't take off until asteroids came out with a scoring system that kept track of top scores and allowed players to place in their initials as a claim to their scores. Leadership boards have already been proven to work.
I think its an interesting idea and it would probably be fun to see.
If you can't beat an Ice wizard, then I suggest you hit the books and study harder, because they are not that difficult to defeat!
You do it consistently as storm. I can with fire, but there are issues that you even admitted with storm 1v1 play.
I CAN and have beat ice, I can't help that you have no sense of humor nor the ability to grasp that ice is pretty much dominating the pvp ranks.
Saying something is -possible- while ignoring reality is a sure sign of insanity.
Can someone show the facts instead of just stating random remarks. If Ice is on top of the charts, then tell me how many Ice Wizards there are in the game. Give me numbers, and where to find the number or state that it's your opinion. If there are 20 times as many Ice as Fire, then I expect it's more likely that Ice will have more on top. All I see if random comments, but no facts, no links, not one bit of evidents that proves anyones point. So please, let's start showing facts on this Message board, and if they are opinion, lets state so.
Yes, I would love to see a Leaders board, it would be a great idea. It also needs not only the leaders in PvP, but how many of each School Wizaards are playing the game.
They need to fix the kinks first. This could only apply to 1vs1 pvp at lvl 60, simply because there are far to many ways to take advantage of the system, or the system is flawed.
Examples.
As a level 38 warlord, I get pared up against level 60's 4 out of 5 games. This shouldn't happen under any circumstances.
Group Pvp, high levels parring with low levels to increase their points by getting under-rated players. See this all the time.
There are plenty more examples, I just don't feel like typing. However for 1v1, level 60 PVP, I think this would be a wonderful idea. It would 'HAVE' to be made 'school specific', since there are obvious advantages and disadvantages when you take classes in consideration. With a school specific rating board, it would detach those advantages/disadvantages and make a fair competetivness between the classes.
They need to fix the kinks first. This could only apply to 1vs1 pvp at lvl 60, simply because there are far to many ways to take advantage of the system, or the system is flawed.
Examples.
As a level 38 warlord, I get pared up against level 60's 4 out of 5 games. This shouldn't happen under any circumstances.
Group Pvp, high levels parring with low levels to increase their points by getting under-rated players. See this all the time.
There are plenty more examples, I just don't feel like typing. However for 1v1, level 60 PVP, I think this would be a wonderful idea. It would 'HAVE' to be made 'school specific', since there are obvious advantages and disadvantages when you take classes in consideration. With a school specific rating board, it would detach those advantages/disadvantages and make a fair competetivness between the classes.
under the old Yahoo cards ladder system every month ladder points would be reset and anyone playing PvP would be given a ladder position score when they first play a game after the reset... the top person would have a rank of 1, the second top a rank of 2, etc. and everyone would automatically lose points each day if they did not play X amount of games against Y amount of unique people.. people could look up who everyone was playing against as it would be part of their ranking record which made it kind of obvios who was trying to cheat by playing against themselves to which others would report them as it was against ladder rules to which they could be barred from playing in ladders ... this system was kind of nice as only those that played after reset would recieve a rank so you could see just how many active ladders players there were
as there are four table sizes there could be four seperate ladders leader boards, one for each table size
In any case, there is a lot that wizard101 could do with PvP to make PvP people very interested and happy with the game, and to many people who play online games they often play in hopes of a good end game and ladders and/or leader boards are a good end game activity that keeps players very busy.
If there are many problems with PvP that aren't leader board related, then those are seperate issues that should be brought up and resolved. I'd really like to see a much better arena system in the game.
