Suggestion for MVP system

[Mormolyce]

My suggestion: allow "winions" to appear as the MVP in the event that they destroy the enemy core with no members of your team within ability range.

[Nerraw]

Hah, I like it. Even if it's not as MVP, they can get an "Honorable Mention".

[RH92]

I think MVP system would simply be better if we saw all players lined up and having two votes. One for enemy team and the other for friendly team.

Sometimes you just don't see the guys with high impact plays because they weren't abusing scoreboard. For example a Tyrael with great Sanctifications, Holy Grounds and just generally peeling for team or putting pressure on enemies is a MVP for me, not Li-Ming that was just there to clean up or poked up her damage on scoreboard while avoiding a death. Sure she did her job, but she was allowed to do it by the great foundation laid by Tyrael.

[Nikkaszal]

I think MVP system would simply be better if we saw all players lined up and having two votes. One for enemy team and the other for friendly team.

Sometimes you just don't see the guys with high impact plays because they weren't abusing scoreboard. For example a Tyrael with great Sanctifications, Holy Grounds and just generally peeling for team or putting pressure on enemies is a MVP for me, not Li-Ming that was just there to clean up or poked up her damage on scoreboard while avoiding a death. Sure she did her job, but she was allowed to do it by the great foundation laid by Tyrael.

That's a really difficult metric to measure. Honestly,,if there wasn't a numeric system that allowed the game to assign an "MVP"... most people wouldn't even bother voting.

The game provides you with an MVP and a selection of four others that it believes were most impactful. More often than not, the suggested MVP was actually the MVP, even if you didn't realise at the time because you were focussed on one particular late-game fight.

I mean... sure, someone can win the game for you by a perfect ult in a late teamfight. And that's what you normally remember. Are they necessarily MVP? Not always.

Had a game tonight where our ETC tank sucked absolute DOG'S BOLLOCKS the entire game. He was legit terrible. And then right at the end, as we were getting our shit pushed in, he managed to finally land a 5-man Mosh Pit. That won us the game.

Was he MVP? FUCK NO. He was a burden to the team for the entire game, losing us fight after fight and widening the loss gap until he finally did something useful at a time that allowed us to push Fort + Keep + Core all at once for a win

How the hell is the game client supposed to measure this?

[RH92]

@Nikkaszal

I did say plural of the high impact plays, even though a close game edged with a perfect play is MVP worthy.

What I meant is, I think the system is imperfect as there are a ton of variables and some of them are even impossible to track while others are so easy to abuse to get on the board.

For example whenever I play Illidan, I always get on board with Headhunter as I can take camps very fast. Is this a true reflection of impact I had? Hardly, I might have been just taking camp every timer while missing in every fight and losing the game in the end. What I don't like, is the system rewarding you even for not contributing much. Also the commendation, you can be dead weight whole game and you still get something to feel good about.

Look, I am not saying it happens all the time. I just think it is a team based game and being able to vote for anyone is better since it is about subjective opinion anyway. I also like the idea of voting for one of each team, for example I play Thrall against Alarak that gives me a good match in solo lane and he also plays good in general despite his team being incompetent, I would like to give him a thumbs up.

[Panquake]

Does the MVP system even mean anything? I just usually skip straight past it.