How about showing the ranking points like before? I don't see anything wrong with the previous system.
The main reason I haven't become rated is I am enjoying looking like a noob.
There is an alternative: LEVEL.. Everyone would have a level and an experience meter to show you how along you are on that level. This way, I know that when I fight against a LVL.8 player..I know what to expect. The other thing that I've seen in another game is something like the top 12 players (that are ONLY RANKED/RATED) can get #1 - #15 avatar. That way you can show off your a top player, on top of being a LVL.8 or whatever. +/- You would still obviously have the top 20/top50 list.
I like both both of mongolian's ideas, those could both be very interesting. We are trying to figure out a new ranking system that will not be like the old system but will give more details to how far away you are from the other ranked players. Feel free to post any ideas!
This goes against my own desires, but the competitive players seem to be a minority on this game. The focus of majority with a point system needs to focus on a hidden system. On the otherhand, It's a very bad idea the current ranking system as if you play long enough, you realise there are only a few ranked which is a bad advertisement for this game.
So I thought of a couple neat things that I have remembered. Here is a combination of thoughts that might help promote a nice system.
If you want to keep a hidden rating system and combined with the fact that most people want to be non-competitive (but its crucial to keep some kind of system available):
Create a system where if two players have a difference of +300 pts, that game will be considered unrated. It's up you if you want to show that the game will visually display the game as rated or non-rated.
I really appreciate playing competively, but there is a large enjoyable factor playing games, goofing off and not having to worry if I lose points or not. Just some food for thoughts.
After, alot more thought on the topic of the Rank system. I'd like to understand some perspectives:
I would have to say that most people are probablly here for unrated as coop/2v2 seems to be the grunt of stuff, but it could be almost 50/50%. The other half is playing to win alla rated games via 80% random, 20% constructed. So returning rank to rating is a delicate system if 50% of your audience won't use it for the most part. Being in the shoes of a new player, losing to another player is very intimidating if not destructive to the player community. Hence forth, most people stick to fighting a computer as you don't have to be intimidated if your any good, nor have to be any good to play a low level single player.
The solution of any point system must weigh heavily making people not feel bad if they lose. In this case, what is worse, saying your rank 2528 or rating 1108(when average is 1600). In both instances the low rated player is going to feel bad losing and is going to be intimidated playing. If, on the other hand, all rating was associated with a level, things could be different.
A cap on points won, or conversely, the least amount of points a player could be lost (say never go below XXXX points). How this can be done is all through a level system. Level is another hidden rating system, but the lowest level a new player or a bad player could be is Level 1. This also should mean, there is a cap on how low that individual rating can go. Also, you could convert the top 10 players into special avatars in addition to displaying avatars so those that are playing for rating to give them something special. with still using a hidden rating system, but allocate to show which ones are still the top 10.
After one day, I must conclude the ranking system is strange. Played a few PvP games and ranking hovers around the default 195. Lose one battle to player ranked number 1 and you go to 2,000. Kinda looses the meaning at that point. Wonder if you can ever recover from something like that.
It's all relative to other ranks, so you're hovering around that point where all the people with a default score lurk. If you win one game, you'll shoot right back up.
Thanks. Just noticed that. Won one match and went to around 200. Guess I need to stay away from those with really low rankings? Mongolian will give you one chance for a draw. But, you better see it and take it.
With a public rating system, I'd use some simple form of chess/magic ELO rating.
The main thing for competitiveness is that you gain and lose rating according to whom you play.
If I play a newbie, I should lose more points when I lose and gain less when I win. And vice versa. If the rating is based on a set number of points (or with only minor variation) and the points gained per match are fairly low, you're actually using a rating system that rewards the most playing players. ie if I want to go from rank 200 to 20 I'd win 10-20 times, but from 10 to 1 I'd have to win hundreds (or?).
The point about dropping to 2000+ when losing one match is valid, I'd just make a ranked top100 or so and the rest displaying "low" "new" or zero.
I think the ELO rating system is the best too. but it will need some modification in 2x2
and i think it need to be upgraded to something like: you start with 1200 points.
The Elo "K" should be something like 50 for normal players and 30 for games with top 20. For the begginers, each time you play a rated game, no matter if you win or loose, you get 15 extra points. The player can stop being a begginer after 20 rated matches.
That would make the begginers do not desanimate with the fast decline of the rating, like happen in games of chess, and do not make begginers start with the same points as intermediate player that have 1500 points. Just an idea... 8)
I like the idea giving new players points even if they lose, but the only way it will help is if top players can't take advantage of that too. Cause It's a bit of a stretch.
I'm a bit star struck at the current rating system too. I was #1, and lost 1 game to the #3 and I dropped to the #2 position. Fine, no big deal. So i played and won 2 more games against the #3 and I was still at #2?!?!? I'm sorry, but that formula is not correct if this is happening.
Similiar ratings should be recieving a very close point won/lose.
I agree, the win/lose vs. very closely ranked players is one thing that needs to be updated in the ranking system.
After finally learning how rating really works, I'm a bit upset. Rating is currently completely rigged to benefit players who play alot of games. Ex: If I am #9, #10 is the same as seed #3000. Both get the same points, very fair huh?
The worst part of the current system is it's not making it enjoyable to play. I know many many top 20 players that are far better then the players above them. But simply because they don't play enough, they will never be a higher rated player.
Please bring back a sliding scale point system.
Mongolian: Playing lots of games should be encouraged though, don't you think? When I used to play Unreal Tournament 2003 competitively, ranking was based on your average performance per game. So every game, I had to perform as good or better than my average (which was high) or my ranking would drop. After a while, it became more stressful than fun to play. And if I quit playing for a while and was a bit rusty, my ranking would fall off because I wasn't good enough to maintain my performance. So eventually, I just quit playing ranked games to preserve my rank.
Also, if ranking is based purely on average and the top player quits, it might be impossible to overtake him. Especially if the game gets more competitive over time and it becomes harder to find "easy" opponents.
The real question I have is: should ranking really matter? It seems to me that ranking right now does not accurately reflect player ability and it is a turn off to new players who are intimidated by top players.
I would rather see players awarded experience for playing games and winning (and maybe even losing to high-level players). Then have a level system and display the player levels so rank is more vague.
Finally, have tournaments every now and again and give players awards for winning them. I think that would really improve the game a lot and hopefully make it more fun and less intimidating for everyone. Of course, it would take a lot of work for the developers to implement. But I can dream, right :D
i think this is an advantage, you wont lose more point when you lose to rank 3000 player ;D
Quote from: glunkr on May 12, 2009, 06:00:33 PM
Mongolian: Playing lots of games should be encouraged though, don't you think? When I used to play Unreal Tournament 2003 competitively, ranking was based on your average performance per game. So every game, I had to perform as good or better than my average (which was high) or my ranking would drop. After a while, it became more stressful than fun to play. And if I quit playing for a while and was a bit rusty, my ranking would fall off because I wasn't good enough to maintain my performance. So eventually, I just quit playing ranked games to preserve my rank.
Also, if ranking is based purely on average and the top player quits, it might be impossible to overtake him. Especially if the game gets more competitive over time and it becomes harder to find "easy" opponents.
The real question I have is: should ranking really matter? It seems to me that ranking right now does not accurately reflect player ability and it is a turn off to new players who are intimidated by top players.
I would rather see players awarded experience for playing games and winning (and maybe even losing to high-level players). Then have a level system and display the player levels so rank is more vague.
Finally, have tournaments every now and again and give players awards for winning them. I think that would really improve the game a lot and hopefully make it more fun and less intimidating for everyone. Of course, it would take a lot of work for the developers to implement. But I can dream, right :D
People stopping playing due to preserve rating happens in allmost all ranking systems. That happens with chess grandmasters with the ELO rating, but the ranking used there is still considered the best for 2 players game.
Kran
Quote from: Kran on May 25, 2009, 06:16:33 PM
That happens with chess grandmasters with the ELO rating, but the ranking used there is still considered the best for 2 players game.
it is used in magic the gathering too.
I should not be recieving the same amount of points for beating the #10 as the same for me beating the #3000. Also, If the #3000 beats the #1 guy vs the #500 guy, they should be rewarded with more points. Simply rewarding people who play more then anyone else is a bad signifier of a top player. Your basically rewarding who devotes more time to the game.
Any game can choose how the sliding scale would work. Depending upon the biggest difference of ratings between highest vs lowest, there will always be a rating cap. As in, there is only XXX amount of points that can ever be won/lost in a game.
Examples of a sliding scale system:
Ratings start at 1500. Max win/lose is +/- 30 pts per game.
Ex: a 2000 vs a 1000 (2000 for win = gains 2 pts, lose = 30)
Ex: a 1500 vs a 1500 (1500 for win = gains 15, lose 15)
Ex: a 1000 vs a 2000 (1000 for win = gains 30 pts, lose = 2)
-------------------
If..and only if people are so gung-ho that people will camp on their high ratings, you can also introduce decaying ratings. As in, if you don't play for a month, you will lose 15pts each additional month. Game creators can specify the intervals needed.
With diferent scales, this is the ELO rating system ^^
I am curious as well...
If it is not a top-secret security issue, I would appreciate knowing how rankings are determined.
I am unclear on the subject. I will admit I have ben hesitant to play ranked matches as I do not know how my points will be affected.
Clarification would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
SLOTH
Man, no idea. The only thing i know is that the only thing changed in the ranking system is that the points are hidden and the rank now replaces it. The engine is still the same since the times of leopold. I mean that the rating system never changed since this game was created LONG years ago.
Hey guys,
I think that Halo2 has a good ranking system.
Spectromancer also has a good ranking system.
http://www.bungie.net/Stats/content.aspx?link=h2statoverview
http://www.spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=exp
What do you guys think
All these ratings are based in levels and experience. I would prefer something thats does'nt incentivate LOTS of plays. Something that when 2 players have same rank, both will win and loose same amount of points. Something open, not exactly with predetermined levels. If game developers start using ELO rating system, please leave the K-Factor low. The true difference of strenght between TOP rank levels are allmost imperceptible.
I think an ELO rating system is a good idea
I want to see any system that takes in consideration your opponent's skill level and rewards points accoringly. Ex:
- 2-30 pts can be won max on any game
- ex:When the best plays the worst, the best shoul be gaining in the ballpark of winning 2-3 points and risking losing 28-30 pts.(depending upon each rating)
- ex: When two players of same rating play, both players will win 15 points, and risk losing 15 points.
The above system, can also be hidden in a "level system" as seen in something simliar to Garcia's system. That way instead of showing the player's exact rating, it would only display as a level 30 for example.