I just thought of a great solution.
Skill based ranking on the number of 1vs1 games you've played. It could be separate from the existing ranking if absolutely necessary. Should be to do with the number of wins you have as opposed to the time you've spent. I think that would separate the men from the boys pretty well.
Supreme Commander determines its ranking by 1vs1 and 2vs2 ranked matches and it seems to work very well. If you have a #1 ranked player that everybody wanted to challenge it'd encourage alot more competitive behavour. People would have something to aim for. You've got to give people a reason to get good.
The Modern Spring player, for better or worse / Autobalance
Moderator: Moderators
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
I think the best ranking would be based on your performance in game.
This way when you play a team game and lose you can still gain points in the individual ranking thus you can feel you didn't waste time even if you lost a game and your team was crushed,as long as you can do a good job.
If someone would want to implement such a thing i have a good idea as to how one's performance in a game can be judged.
This can even merge with a win lose ratio to produce 1 number.
Of course there must be a general score for all mods and maps you ever played and an individual score for each mod.
These 2 also need to be combined into 1 and each time you play a specific mod your score is calculated appropriately for it based on how many games of this mod you played and your overall score,made of data gathered from all your games with all mods.
This way when you play a team game and lose you can still gain points in the individual ranking thus you can feel you didn't waste time even if you lost a game and your team was crushed,as long as you can do a good job.
If someone would want to implement such a thing i have a good idea as to how one's performance in a game can be judged.
This can even merge with a win lose ratio to produce 1 number.
Of course there must be a general score for all mods and maps you ever played and an individual score for each mod.
These 2 also need to be combined into 1 and each time you play a specific mod your score is calculated appropriately for it based on how many games of this mod you played and your overall score,made of data gathered from all your games with all mods.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
The best ranking is no ranking system at all.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
Why?
If you make the ranking internal without nay option for the players to see their own or others ranking it's fine.
It will create good teams and wont scare away or push away newbies and people who don't play so well.
If you make the ranking internal without nay option for the players to see their own or others ranking it's fine.
It will create good teams and wont scare away or push away newbies and people who don't play so well.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
There's no need to rank everything. You rank team games and that'll just cause all sorts of arguments and tension that the game doesn't need. It's not like nobody is going to play team games if they're not ranked. 90% of people are still going to be more interested in them.
Of course once you introduce ranking it can be alot of work because people try and abuse the system. They set up fake accounts to play against. They disconnect from games they're losing. It takes a bit of tuning to make sure it isn't destroyed by griefers.
A 1vs1 ladder or ranking system would do the game wonders though. If it's successful then you could introduce one for 2vs2. Who's number 1 isn't that important. It's just useful as a guideline in that you'll know what players are in the top 100 or so in each mod and who'd be perhaps interested in a game. The best games are evenly matched ones so anything that helps you find someone broadly your own level is a good thing.
Of course once you introduce ranking it can be alot of work because people try and abuse the system. They set up fake accounts to play against. They disconnect from games they're losing. It takes a bit of tuning to make sure it isn't destroyed by griefers.
A 1vs1 ladder or ranking system would do the game wonders though. If it's successful then you could introduce one for 2vs2. Who's number 1 isn't that important. It's just useful as a guideline in that you'll know what players are in the top 100 or so in each mod and who'd be perhaps interested in a game. The best games are evenly matched ones so anything that helps you find someone broadly your own level is a good thing.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
What your saying is pointless...
Publicly ranking who is best and who follows is pointless in Spring.
When you expose ranks to everyone,people try to trick the system and newbies are kicked out of battles and all sorts of other sucky behavior that you can observe in any other game with public ranking.
In Spring,an open source project,especially one that allows for tons of players in the same game the ideal system would be an internal ranking system.
You have a rank and you can choose to show it or not and the default is not showing it.
This ranking system will be used for autobalance without making players feel like they have to play at competitive level all the time thus not being able to play as relaxed as before or just goof around.
It is a ranking system with the role of making autobalance better not making the community more competitive.
Ranking in spring doesn't matter much since there are no official tournaments with prizes.
IMO the best thing would be to make 1v1 ladders and an internal ranking system that is used to balance teams.
the internal rank would be based on a players performance in each game thus making a player feel like he didnt waste his time even if he lost.
Publicly ranking who is best and who follows is pointless in Spring.
When you expose ranks to everyone,people try to trick the system and newbies are kicked out of battles and all sorts of other sucky behavior that you can observe in any other game with public ranking.
In Spring,an open source project,especially one that allows for tons of players in the same game the ideal system would be an internal ranking system.
You have a rank and you can choose to show it or not and the default is not showing it.
This ranking system will be used for autobalance without making players feel like they have to play at competitive level all the time thus not being able to play as relaxed as before or just goof around.
It is a ranking system with the role of making autobalance better not making the community more competitive.
Ranking in spring doesn't matter much since there are no official tournaments with prizes.
IMO the best thing would be to make 1v1 ladders and an internal ranking system that is used to balance teams.
the internal rank would be based on a players performance in each game thus making a player feel like he didnt waste his time even if he lost.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
Internal ranking system... like the one in each of your minds.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
You know i might be able to roughly rank some of players in Spring like many others but when I'm trying to play a 6v6 i don't want to manually balance 12 players not to mention the fact i have to compare 2 teams of 6 players one vs the other...
That's why there is autobalancing.
I mean are you saying autobalance is a bad idea since we can rank everyone in our minds?
That's why there is autobalancing.
I mean are you saying autobalance is a bad idea since we can rank everyone in our minds?
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
I never said that at all, but even advocates of skill based ranking admit that it primarily applies to smaller games - I would just jumble anything too large to balance manually. Or I would do as we once did... balance it manually anyway.
I mean, hand me Yuri, Nemo, Pintle, John, Dave, Journier, TheAlmightySnark, 1v0ry, Godde, LuckyWaldo, Regret, Quantum, BasiC and me...
If I recall, they're Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Sergeant, Iron Star, Gold Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Iron Star and Iron Star.
In terms of affiliation, they go S44, S44, RoX, RoX, XHC, BB, -, RoX, -, BB, -, LCC, -, S44.
Now, regardless of game, in an autohost running balance we would have Yuri + 3 Gold Star + 3 Iron Star against Snark + 3 Gold Star + 3 Iron Star. With cbalance we would probably have S44 + BB + 2 Iron Star against RoX + XHC + LCC + Iron Star + Snark.
This is where it gets funny... if we use the ELO balance system in Springie, Dave/Regret/Lucky/1v0ry/Waldo/Journier/BasiC are frontrunners while the rest are hovering around 1500. Take three of them per side, probably Regret and 1v0ry on opposite sides, and shove the rest of us in, Snark and Quantum last to fill. This is, again, in any game.
Now, if we were playing BA using a Ladder Balancing system, if you can imagine that, you enter a different dynamic entirely. I can't remember our comparative ratings that well... I know that Regret is probably leading, John, BasiC and Pintle aren't bad, Dave and I should be above the start value, and everybody else is either at or below 1500 - I can't remember, Quantum could be as high as 1540. The teams are probably going to be Regret + Dave + Quant + 4 against John + Pintle + Myself + BasiC + 3. Woo, BA!
If we are playing KP with the KP ladders, Journier is a cupholder. BasiC and I, if I recall, are also ranked, and positively. Everybody else is unranked, so Journier + 6 against BasiC and I + 5.
If we are playing 1944 with the 1944 ladder, literally everybody has a rating of 1500 except for me, with a rating of 1501. Random assortment!
Wow, all these balancing systems to select from! Looks like general ELO doesn't reflect per-game ranking effectively. Seems like game specific ranking is lacking in information and resolution. Looks like time or clan balancing doesn't really address our abilities at all...
Wait, one moment, I KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE. I know that Godde wins 70% of his games on his own merits in every numerically balanced game on the engine, that rising to about 80% in 1944. In BA, Journier is like a landed fish, but in 1944 he is fairly effective, on par with Pintle. I am not at my peak in either, but I know that in 1944 I outperform exactly six other players, and in BA I outperform eight. I know that Regret's attention to individual units permits him to perform well in 1944 with little practice, and BasiC's unfamiliarity with present mechanized infantry balance will slow him down.
I'll just balance us manually and get a better game.
I mean, hand me Yuri, Nemo, Pintle, John, Dave, Journier, TheAlmightySnark, 1v0ry, Godde, LuckyWaldo, Regret, Quantum, BasiC and me...
If I recall, they're Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Sergeant, Iron Star, Gold Star, Gold Star, Iron Star, Gold Star, Iron Star and Iron Star.
In terms of affiliation, they go S44, S44, RoX, RoX, XHC, BB, -, RoX, -, BB, -, LCC, -, S44.
Now, regardless of game, in an autohost running balance we would have Yuri + 3 Gold Star + 3 Iron Star against Snark + 3 Gold Star + 3 Iron Star. With cbalance we would probably have S44 + BB + 2 Iron Star against RoX + XHC + LCC + Iron Star + Snark.
This is where it gets funny... if we use the ELO balance system in Springie, Dave/Regret/Lucky/1v0ry/Waldo/Journier/BasiC are frontrunners while the rest are hovering around 1500. Take three of them per side, probably Regret and 1v0ry on opposite sides, and shove the rest of us in, Snark and Quantum last to fill. This is, again, in any game.
Now, if we were playing BA using a Ladder Balancing system, if you can imagine that, you enter a different dynamic entirely. I can't remember our comparative ratings that well... I know that Regret is probably leading, John, BasiC and Pintle aren't bad, Dave and I should be above the start value, and everybody else is either at or below 1500 - I can't remember, Quantum could be as high as 1540. The teams are probably going to be Regret + Dave + Quant + 4 against John + Pintle + Myself + BasiC + 3. Woo, BA!
If we are playing KP with the KP ladders, Journier is a cupholder. BasiC and I, if I recall, are also ranked, and positively. Everybody else is unranked, so Journier + 6 against BasiC and I + 5.
If we are playing 1944 with the 1944 ladder, literally everybody has a rating of 1500 except for me, with a rating of 1501. Random assortment!
Wow, all these balancing systems to select from! Looks like general ELO doesn't reflect per-game ranking effectively. Seems like game specific ranking is lacking in information and resolution. Looks like time or clan balancing doesn't really address our abilities at all...
Wait, one moment, I KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE. I know that Godde wins 70% of his games on his own merits in every numerically balanced game on the engine, that rising to about 80% in 1944. In BA, Journier is like a landed fish, but in 1944 he is fairly effective, on par with Pintle. I am not at my peak in either, but I know that in 1944 I outperform exactly six other players, and in BA I outperform eight. I know that Regret's attention to individual units permits him to perform well in 1944 with little practice, and BasiC's unfamiliarity with present mechanized infantry balance will slow him down.
I'll just balance us manually and get a better game.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
I think if performance in games is judged correctly than statistically,autobalanced games would be noticeably fairer than manually balanced games.
When you will use autobalance for a long time you will feel games are generally more balanced just like when you give units a small buff or nerf.It is felt over time.
And who are those advocates of skill based ranking?
Maybe everyone else did it wrong....Why can't spring defy the odds and be innovative...it has in some other areas...
When you will use autobalance for a long time you will feel games are generally more balanced just like when you give units a small buff or nerf.It is felt over time.
And who are those advocates of skill based ranking?
Maybe everyone else did it wrong....Why can't spring defy the odds and be innovative...it has in some other areas...
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
This is an innovative perspective, to return the business of quality judgment to cognition rather than vain automation.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
sigh
This strangely remind me of the Ents from LOTR.
This strangely remind me of the Ents from LOTR.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
Long useless talks that really wont change anything?Gota wrote:sigh
This strangely remind me of the Ents from LOTR.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
That too but i meant Neddie's reply.Regret wrote:Long useless talks that really wont change anything?Gota wrote:sigh
This strangely remind me of the Ents from LOTR.
-
CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
Springie win/loss elo rating is excellent. It works. It works no matter who is on your team. It works whether you win or lose because of teammates. It works whether you win or lose because of your own faulty mistakes. It works if you just play to test stuff or challenge yourself by teaming up with lesser players. It works in every sense of the term because all that matters is win or lose and it is intended to predict that. Don't think of your elo rating as a measure of your skill and your ego won't get hurt. You'll realize it makes perfect sense. There is no need to measure anything else but the bottom line: wins and losses vs. the elo of your opponents and teammates.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
I wonder if you can be any more fanatical.CarRepairer wrote:Springie win/loss elo rating is excellent. It works. It works no matter who is on your team. It works whether you win or lose because of teammates. It works whether you win or lose because of your own faulty mistakes. It works if you just play to test stuff or challenge yourself by teaming up with lesser players. It works in every sense of the term because all that matters is win or lose and it is intended to predict that. Don't think of your elo rating as a measure of your skill and your ego won't get hurt. You'll realize it makes perfect sense. There is no need to measure anything else but the bottom line: wins and losses vs. the elo of your opponents and teammates.
Elo is not meant for random pub games, and it will never work for them. There, argument as strong as yours!
-
CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
<3 Regret
If the trolls ever decide to elect a king, I throw my full support behind you. You're my favorite.
If the trolls ever decide to elect a king, I throw my full support behind you. You're my favorite.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
Oh yes, pointing out the fact your arguments are based on blind belief in decisions of certain people is really trolling!CarRepairer wrote:<3 Regret
If the trolls ever decide to elect a king, I throw my full support behind you. You're my favorite.
-
CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
I made my argument. I said that Springie's ranking as devised by Licho (using elo in addition to other factors - this is known) is intended to predict wins and losses and it succeeds at this.
You didn't make an argument at all.
But I meant what I said, you're my favorite.
You didn't make an argument at all.
But I meant what I said, you're my favorite.
Re: The Modern Spring player, for better or worse...
CarRepairer wrote:You didn't make an argument at all.
For the record: Springie games are currently stacked in the vast majority. And it has been a long time since elo was implemented so the system had time to adapt.Regret wrote:Elo is not meant for random pub games, and it will never work for them.
You saying it works will not make the facts go away.