Ranking system

[glunkr]

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

[minime]

i think this is an advantage, you wont lose more point when you lose to rank 3000 player 

[Kran]

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

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

[minime]

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.

[mongolian]

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.

[Kran]

With diferent scales, this is the ELO rating system ^^

[SLOTH]

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 

[Kran]

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.

[garcia1000]

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

[Kran]

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.

[garcia1000]

I think an ELO rating system is a good idea

[mongolian]

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.