Ladder ranking system

Ladder ranking system

Please use this forum to set up matches and discuss played games.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Does the current point system need change? if so what?

no change needed
7
47%
open system (each match puts more points into the system)
3
20%
closed system (the way it is right now) EXCEPT for map of week
5
33%
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
flop
Posts: 335
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 05:44

Ladder ranking system

Post by flop » 13 Sep 2007, 22:53

Meltrax and I are considering different options we could use for ranking instead of the current system, and we were wondering what the spring community thought on the issue? Does it need a change? Should it stay closed system? Currently it is based on the closed system ELO, the same thing used for chess rankings and the supcom ladder. If we changed the system to be open, it would mean you would be rewarded for playing more games (downside imo), but you would also be able to have features like map of the week which offers bonus points to play new maps (upside). I was thinking about an open system that is closed OTHER THAN the map of the week point bonus - the only way points are created is from when a user registers and creates 1500 points, or when you play map of the week.
0 x

PRO_rANDY
Posts: 314
Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 01:06

Post by PRO_rANDY » 13 Sep 2007, 22:59

voted no change needed
0 x

DZHIBRISH
Posts: 357
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 22:28

what is the point in map of the week?

Post by DZHIBRISH » 13 Sep 2007, 23:00

why do we need it at all?there can be just a symbolic map of the weak and thats all..i dont see how map of the weak that adds point could improve ladder experiance..
instead ladder system should put an emphasis on making wins and being high in the ladder worthwhile.. we need to emphasize winners..
in tourneys as well especially if you want to add tourney support and stuff..
0 x

User avatar
Wisse
Posts: 263
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 17:50

Post by Wisse » 13 Sep 2007, 23:09

Ladder should be more exclusive, it should reflect skill not time spent playing. Players should fight for their rank with proper training and knowing the enemy, not just by playing countless games. That means that there would be less ladder games but same or higher count 1v1s serving as training/preparation. No one bout #1 could decline challenge. it could only be postponed till both guys/teams have time, if challenged enemy doesn't want to play and you can't make an agreement match gets forfeited and challenger wins.

My proposal:

Same:
Zero sum ELO system

Change:
2 maps (1 chosen by chalanger, 1 by enemy)
Unranked 1st place (so you can't become first without defeating first)
1st player is able to decline matches from all but n/4 ranked players (n=number of ppl on ladder)

This is actually what Clanbase (largest ladder for games) uses and i thik it's great, 100% fair.
0 x

Hellspawn
Posts: 392
Joined: 24 Feb 2006, 11:54

Post by Hellspawn » 13 Sep 2007, 23:28

Would prefer old ladder system. But this one now is ok as well.
0 x

User avatar
Relative
Posts: 1371
Joined: 15 Oct 2006, 13:17

Post by Relative » 13 Sep 2007, 23:37

Hellspawn wrote:Would prefer old ladder system. But this one now is ok as well.
0.o

How the hell could you prefer the previous system?
0 x

User avatar
Ishach
Posts: 1670
Joined: 02 May 2006, 06:44

Post by Ishach » 13 Sep 2007, 23:48

The old ladder was really stupid with points, you could make a net points gain even with a win rate of >33% against the lowest ranked player.
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Post by Saktoth » 13 Sep 2007, 23:52

The zero-sum ELO system is for chess tournaments and occasional challenges. In the cases where you have factors like different maps it sort of requires the 2-map-per-challenge thing Wisse describes, to be fair to both players. Another important aspect is that you cannot decline a challenge. It is better for large communities with a large number of ladder players, so there is a large differential between the top and bottom players (Differences between the top and bottom scores are based on how many players are on the ladder).

It isnt for integrated lobby matches played off the cuff, that can rate and record the results of every game played (And imo, thats how we should use it- ranking every game for the most accurate results). With such a small number of players the only way to get a statistically relevant sample is with a large number of games, this system discourages that.

Why? Its better to win a few games against a player then wait till his score is higher before playing him again (As if he loses the first game but wins the second, he ends up with more points than if he'd just won the first!), than to play a series of games using a range of tactics on a range of maps. Naturally its much better for you to play him for a second game if you happen lose the first- but then, why would he play you? If he does, you can keep playing him until you break-even on wins, at which stage you'll get more points than he did.

It also encourages playing against enemies with bloated scores and not
playing enemies with undervalued scores, and the people with the most bloated scores are noobies because noobies start slap bang in the middle of the ladder (And new players are the only way for points to enter the system!). Check out the Speedmetal ladder for a good example of this. Whoever can find the most noobies first and feed off them will do well in this system. Its the only way new points enter the system, afterall. Since you can refuse a ladder match, you can play only those with bloated scores like yourself (IE noob farmers).

In a non zero sum system, where the winner gets slightly (+1, or 10% or such, neednt be much) more points than the loser, this is far less of a problem. Firstly, players established on the ladder are higher up- you cant just harvest from noobs. Secondly playing a large number of matches is encouraged as this will (very slightly) improve your score, so if you play several games in succession against the same player you dont need to worry so much about 'being the player that won last' as you do about getting a good consistent set of wins over time, as winning is rewarded more than losing is punished.

One criticisms of this are that it isnt fair and rewards people just for playing. Firstly, people who play a lot of matches are routinely better anyway. Secondly it isnt hard for a good player to harvest the points created in the system by these players. Players who play a lot of games play against a lot of players. If they keep playing games to keep gaining score, their win rate will only reflect their skill anyway. The old system probably rewarded 'just playing' too much, +1 or 10% should be fine.
0 x

User avatar
Wisse
Posts: 263
Joined: 10 Jul 2006, 17:50

Post by Wisse » 14 Sep 2007, 09:35

This system works if ppl play to be the best, but things are different in spring. Every one knows that randy and day rock and noone even aims for 1st and 2nd spot on ladder. Everyone wants to get descent rank not 1st place, which should be the only goal on any ladder. So to solve this problem you want to invent new ranking system which includes tactics for better scores and rewards guys who play alot, but not giving true talents fair chance to get deserved rank. There might be a guy coming into spring next year, he could get better than anyone else in few months. But than again he would need loads of time to get his place on ladder tho, couse older players got rewarded for playing 1000s of games -.-
Not everyone needs the same amount of games to improve for certain skill level, you should know that.

Ladder will get sorted on its own, you just have to stop playing 90% of games with 1 guy and try to challenge other, preferably higher ranked than you. ELO formula can be tweaked so it gives much less points for farming noob which would eliminate that too.

Why the hell would everyone want to rank every single game? If there's no unranked 1v1s no noob will every try to take players that should be better than him. How can i train for ladder if every match punishes me for losing? I want to improve and than show my skill on ladder, but not with 100 games, just by beating higher ranked players and than defending my spot from attackers. Trying to get more ppl into ladder by harmless introduction is far better than putting them in first line and start bombing them right away.

Lobby integration is not an excuse. Integration does it's job even if you play 1 ladder match per month. It's there and it doesn't need constant dusting.

Just decide if you want fair ladder system with fewer but more attractive matches or you want your personal play statistic.
I know that you're all used to old ladder, but it wasn't good (you changed it to ELO) so try to make perfect and fair ladder which wouldn't be affected by anything else than skill.
0 x

User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE » 14 Sep 2007, 17:38

i agree with saktoth
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Post by Saktoth » 14 Sep 2007, 21:24

I think its a matter here of whether you want a 'tournament leader board' affair, with rare matches to 'prove your skill'. Or just an overall score of every game you play as a statistic of your win/loss- as Wisse puts it, a 'personal play statistic' reflecting the games you play every day. Personally, thats what i want.

I can understand wanting a 'tournament board' and the appeal of such a system, but thats not how people are using it, thats not how the system has been set up. Even if we did go for this, id say the ladder (and the way we play it) would need changes. Primary 2-games per match, with 2 maps picked by each player, and mandatory accepting of challenges- IE you cant refuse to fight someone because 'you are afraid you will lose' (That is the whole point...).
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Ingame Community”