Rank

[Scratch]

What the devs could do:

Write a routine that works in the spring engine that outputs all the game stats at end of game to Lobby.

(Client Code, near core of engine)

Code: Select all

for(unit_ID = 1, unit_ID++, unit_ID < MODunits)
       OutputToFile(unit_name_ID(unit_ID), unit_damage(unit_ID))

See, this way it doesn't matter what mod you run. This must be possible.

Resulting in such a lobby text file:

Globals
Game #25
Gametime: 30 min
Win = FALSE
TotalEOutput = 300000
TotalMOutput = 75000
-- and every other variable handled by engine --

Damages
flash_tank = 1.1
bulldog = .4
phalanx = 1

Unit Counts
flash_tank = 300
bulldog = 20
phalanx = 20

Output all the raw data this way.

This won't hurt to do. In time after this has been implemented, people may want to make a rank system based on it. It should be possible; the win ratio should be calculable, and people can even have an experience rating based on this info.

This would also bring an end to smurfing and ragequitting. People would be able to tell from the damage values (probably a negative) that they self-d'd. To the observant players, the stats would indicate whether or not they are playing a smurf, based on how many games they played and how well they did. The only way to really counter this is to constantly create new accounts.

[Tobi]

The stats that are visible on stat screen are already written to the replay file in the next version. So feel free to make a ranking system using those stats

[Scratch]

Hehe, cool. If only I knew something about coding now.

Or, a dev could do it. I doubt anybodies sold on this idea though.

[BlueTemplar]

If I may comment...

I'm thinking about a ranking system with points awarded for wins, and taken for losses/disconnects. You would gain more points for winning against a player that has a lot more points thant you (since he's supposed to be better than you), and lose more points for losing against a player that has a lot less points than you.

It gets more complicated when playing in a team, but better players should probably lose/win more points. (Here a system comparing economy, units, etc... in-game would be useful)

Could that system really be exploited? Do you really think players won't play with those that have only few points thinking they have an internet connection problem? After all, it's more likely that they aren't simply that good!

Otherwise: A ranking system per mod and PER MAP would be interesting.

What do you think?

[MightySheep]

If I may comment...

I'm thinking about a ranking system with points awarded for wins, and taken for losses/disconnects. You would gain more points for winning against a player that has a lot more points thant you (since he's supposed to be better than you), and lose more points for losing against a player that has a lot less points than you.

It gets more complicated when playing in a team, but better players should probably lose/win more points. (Here a system comparing economy, units, etc... in-game would be useful)

Could that system really be exploited? Do you really think players won't play with those that have only few points thinking they have an internet connection problem? After all, it's more likely that they aren't simply that good!

Otherwise: A ranking system per mod and PER MAP would be interesting.

What do you think?

i think that sounds good but players who porc and nuke all the time (like me) get loads of metal used/damage dealt. so it kinda fails there.

[cong06]

i think that sounds good but players who porc and nuke all the time (like me) get loads of metal used/damage dealt. so it kinda fails there.

He's talking about the actual wins. So if your strategy works for a victory, then you get lots of points, regardless of how you win.

fyi, I think it's supposed to be something like Chess Rankings.

It could have 2 ranking systems. One for team games, and one for Single player games...

[MightySheep]

yeah but you can get yourself high ranks really easily with a ranking system like that. say if you had 2 computers or something.

[BlueTemplar]

Obviously, you would gain no points for defeating computers...

[MightySheep]

no i mean 2 computers as in playing yourself on another computer, not playing a bot.

[Satirik]

If I may comment...

I'm thinking about a ranking system with points awarded for wins, and taken for losses/disconnects. You would gain more points for winning against a player that has a lot more points thant you (since he's supposed to be better than you), and lose more points for losing against a player that has a lot less points than you.

It gets more complicated when playing in a team, but better players should probably lose/win more points. (Here a system comparing economy, units, etc... in-game would be useful)

Could that system really be exploited? Do you really think players won't play with those that have only few points thinking they have an internet connection problem? After all, it's more likely that they aren't simply that good!

Otherwise: A ranking system per mod and PER MAP would be interesting.

What do you think?

the ladder system with ranking already exits ... and they changed the system of "each point you win someone loses them" to another one because nobody was playing it ... http://www.spring-league.com

[ikaros]

i cant find any explanation there how the ranking works. it looks alot like chess ratings ( who is interested should have a look at elo rating system )

like mightysheep said. you could just create an extra account and defeat it. its rank will lower while yours will raise.

you could prevent this by using the elo rating e.g.
you would have to fight a certain number of players BEFORE you will get a rating. lets say you'd need 5 games played against rated opponents to get a number.

the problem will be how the rating is defined. for simple 1on1 games it would be fairly easy. you win or lose. both players ratings will be adjusted. its a very stable statistic system.

but for team games its not that easy. if someone in your team plays total crap you could lose although you played very well. so good rated players will avoid playing with bad rated players because they fear to lose points.

finding a way to make a team rating for single players is near to impossible i think. a rating for clans just would work like a 1on1 rating.

[KDR_11k]

I believe team leagues rate teams so you have your partner and you two share one score as a team.

[Scratch]

You guys aren't seeing the whole picture here. BlueTemplar has a very good idea.

About exploitation:

Fresh account creation being used as a dummy. Obviously dealing with strict win/loss point system this exploit would wreck it. Rigged games could be setup to build up the win points of an account. Or you could even spoof server packets to fake the information going to the lobby to wreck the system of points.

The system of statistical rank would defeat this through pure information. By factoring in economic/damage ratio factors sent from the game, it would be possible to substantiate the wins by proving a 45 minute game was played and both sides developed a huge tech 2 economy and one came out as winner.

If this wasn't enough, a very simple anti cheat system could be implemented that would track the IP addresses of the reporting PC's participating in the battle. This may be the last option available to negate cheating. However I think the latter method is more feasible and powerful.

The rank system could then provide a general ranking in terms of win/loss, also affected by ratios such as economic/damage done, which would show the player is generally good at playing any map.

At this point, allow me to try a tentative WINNING ranking system:

(and remember, this information is based on ratio of damage done when compared to enemy & friendly players, AND economic output compared in the same way, and ultimately win ratio. Then for general ranking purposes can be compared to the grand average for all players in Spring.)

• 1. A rank for players who prefer to play games that are long and require alot of teching/expanding(and damage on a massive scale).
  
  2. A rank for players who rack up nothing but tech 1 kills(wins).
  
  3. A rank for players who beat players primarily by nukes/bertha.
  
  4. A rank for players who's predominately played map is Speedmetal or variant(and win mostly).
  
  5. A rank for players who consistently beat their opponent in a less than average game time.
  
  6. Many more.

Again, in teamplay the guy that actually does the winning can be distinguished by a damage ratio.

All this information can easily(and powerfully) be calculated based on the raw data being sent in by all computers that played the same game.

If the information sent in doesn't all agree, the game is null.

Also, the game could be more personalized by creating some kind of icon for each kind of rank.

[Scratch]

I've been reading alot lately about smurfs. Those who have read my posts probably understand how this ranking system would undo them...

I think the best way is to make a learning curve calculation. There is no for sure way to tell whether or not someone is smurf unless you know what to look for in the way of playing styles.

So what you do is raise flags. The server compares the amount of economic output and damage to that of the most experienced players, and seeing that it exceeds or equals that amount, compares the amount of games played to the amount of games played by the least ranking players. If it is less, a flag is raised beside the players rank to indicate the player may be a smurf.

(because no noob can build an economy on the first couple games the same way a truly exceptional player can)

Does this make any sense?

I know my explanations involve alot of equations/averages/calculations. I am asking the devs to take this process:

• Output raw data.
  Use some kind of coding to create a simple statistical system with some safeguards against smurfs & cheating.
  Implement the rank system.
  Use same system of coding to react to bugs in the first code & fix problems that people are complaining about, fine tuning the rank system.

Possibly use Access database or excel to do it, and display it using HTML so if people have questions about the rank they can just look at that players HTML page.

[cong06]

no i mean 2 computers as in playing yourself on another computer, not playing a bot.

Well, what if you don't get increased rank by beating the same computer over and over again.

You wouldn't even have to keep track of all that much, just the last five players. If you beat one player more then 2? times the last 5 times...then they don't count. This means you have to make at least 3 accounts to do this properly...

And you can do this even better if you double the list...
coordinating 6 computers is more then anyone would care to do...imo. (assuming they have that many at their disposal)

[smoth]

OH NOES SUM 1 MIGHT FLUFF THEIR RANK!

and then they will play people who all out class them.

[Spawn_Retard]

OH NOES SUM 1 MIGHT FLUFF THEIR RANK!

and then they will play people who all out class them.

Better run while you still can Smoth

[SwiftSpear]

Scratch, we've come full circle here. You're not hearing us.

There is NO good way to rank players unless they want to be ranked, we already dump game information, but we don't now, nor will we ever, implement a universal tracker for this information because IT'S NOT USEFUL. The current rank system is ideal for what it does, gives you an approximation of player experience in a relatively unspoofable manner.

If we track win loss, then good players intentionally take trivial losses to make their rank appear higher, and bad players disconnect games before they lose to make them appear better players, overall the ranking is just as inaccurate as time played vs player skill, but at least the current system doesn't pretend to be a fair ranking system.

Even if we rip games into little statistical pieces and build complex ranking algorithms, ultimately it's still only good as long as the players playing the game respect the system and don't intentionally cause false positives and what not. There is no efficient way of doing it.

I have nothing against ladder play, I have nothing against league play, and fundamentally I think if we want a fair and balanced ranking system those are the only places we can go. Ultimately at the end of the day what we really just need is someone with coding ability who gives enough of a shit about player ranking tiers to develop a system for it. If a good system is developed we're not going to disinclude it from official releases. That being said, we're not going to force our current devs who are already busy with their own projects and areas of expertise to work on a system like this, since if it's done by someone who doesn't give a shit it's not going to be done as well, nor will it be as fun to use.

[cong06]

Is there anything we can do about smurfs though? I guess my main reason for thinking about this was that having a ranking system would help prevent smurfs... (though I guess it would cause other more sophisticated problems)

[kiki]

This alphabet soup mod based ranking system is stupid, as it is putting too much weight on TA mods. Spring was made for TA, but its future lies in other directions imho. lol at treeform:

i think hours in game (even though its moot) should be a number. like:
1hour
156hours
1,045hours ...
87,986hours ...