Page 5 of 6
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 02 Feb 2009, 14:06
by Tobi
Argh wrote:I'd think that gathering raw data and letting a third party crunch it, or at the very least keeping the two things separate might be best.
That's exactly what Error323 is doing... (the raw data just isn't publicly available, in case you mean that)
The "third party" in this case is the neural network / semi supervised learning algorithm, and as of now it's the best approach (cause no one made a similar report with another algorithm, basically

), and given the error estimates in the report I think it will not be really easy to beat it.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 02 Feb 2009, 14:10
by Argh
Yeah, that looked solid to me. Wouldn't work as well for P.U.R.E., a couple of inputs would have to be changed to arrive at a meaningful result, but that looked good.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 02 Feb 2009, 14:16
by Tobi
Why?
Remember it's a trained neural network, it doesn't matter much if you give it some less meaningful statistics, if there are any statistical patterns in any of the inputs it can arrive at meaningful results.
It's quite possible actually that some/many of the input features used now have no influence on the outcome whatsoever - there is no way to say without further analysing the data (e.g. PCA, feature selection, etc.)
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 02 Feb 2009, 14:21
by Argh
Well... kill / death ratios are uneven (by design) per faction. One faction's more spammy than the other is. I guess if it factored in the side ID (i.e., you're playing Overmind or Resistance) that would be sufficient to arrive at meaningful results (in fact, that might be a great thing for OTA-style games as well- we'd be able to say, with a fair degree of confidence, whether Arm or Core is OP this week).
Otherwise, it should work, given the work I put into making the economic ramps roughly similar over time.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 05 Feb 2009, 14:26
by Caradhras
but the amount of value in metal should be even?
So destroyed metal value ratio could it be
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 22 Jun 2009, 08:38
by jivvz
I hate to have to revive this long thread but is there anything going on ranking-wise? I think this is really needed to preserve the playerbase.
Even if it is only a win/loss ranking system rather than the fancy algorithm learning. I've read through this thread a couple of times and I don't really see a viable argument against making changes.
Also I have something to contribute

. Both of these ranking systems has the flaw of not working from the start (not even remotely!), as there is not enough data.
http://www.quakelive.com has come up with a good solution for this! By checking skill through a tutorial that asks you to do various tasks. Such as rocketjumping, jumping various lengths and some other stuff, to increase in temporary levels. Sort of like a trick map actually but pretty much easier than conventional ones. The last part is a match against an easy bot to do the last tweaking. It gradually increases its skill if it gets killed a lot in the match and it's all over after 10/20 kills if I remember correctly. I don't know if an AI in spring could do this but it shouldn't be too hard to like make something like a chicken map to test a player... This could somehow be implemented in Spring when you first install it. It could be like "kill these two aks with your two rockos" in the beginning or something like that. Sort of like a campaign. This is actually a
very fun way of determining skill and it greatly increases the overall experience. A huge opportunity for spring! In quakelive this data is also (fast) replaced with factual match data results to replace the tutorial. In quakelive I'm pretty sure only highscore result is drawn when calculating rank.
tldr: check out
http://www.quakelive.com and awe.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 22 Jun 2009, 12:38
by hoijui
well.. sounds like missions are what you are looking for.
and it would probably be most likely implemented as an ddition to hte current stats. eg: user has ranking experienced, plus 3000 points in the BA onlinePlayIntro mission.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 22 Jun 2009, 21:34
by jivvz
Yes, it's only intended to be like a kickstart for a more versatile ranking system. I believe this method could be very good at separating uber noobs from level 3/4 circa players if it is well thought through.
It's not really meant to be like an achievement type of thing, maybe if it was good enough but otherwise just be replaced pretty quickly, like after 3-6 matches.
I want to point out that making another ranking system doesn't remove the previous. I think the best attribute to open source software is the lack of prestige and the ability to try new ideas, or to come up with solutions to at least try them. That's what we need.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 00:26
by Neddie
Unless the community is much, much larger, there is no positive function to a competitive and compulsory ranking system, and even then the negative effects of such a system will persist. If you didn't see a viable argument against a more invasive ranking system you didn't read the thread.
Though, admittedly, as a mission/event based ranking system doesn't pretend to represent ability but rather exhibit tricks and limited creativity, it could be rather fun and probably won't have the negative effects that you see in a traditional ranking system. Your idea is interesting.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 00:33
by Regret
What springies currently use
+
All stats kept invisible from players
=
Improved ranking system
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 00:44
by Jazcash
I'm still for the simple system:
Win a game = +1
Lose a game = -1
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 00:55
by Strategia
JAZCASH wrote:I'm still for the simple system:
Win a game = +1
Lose a game = -1
What if you're playing, say, a 3v3, and both your teammates turn out to be complete n00bs and get wiped out in 10 minutes, while you manage to hang on for about an hour before finally succumbing? That speaks of great skill. Such a simplified system always makes sweeping generalisations which make it deeply flawed.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 01:50
by CarRepairer
Strategia wrote:JAZCASH wrote:I'm still for the simple system:
Win a game = +1
Lose a game = -1
What if you're playing, say, a 3v3, and both your teammates turn out to be complete n00bs and get wiped out in 10 minutes, while you manage to hang on for about an hour before finally succumbing? That speaks of great skill. Such a simplified system always makes sweeping generalisations which make it deeply flawed.
Then you'll get a -1, after which you'll be placed with better players. If you then go on to win, you'll get a +1, at which point you'll be placed with players whose skills lay somewhere in between those of game 1 and those of game 2. Over time it will smooth out.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 01:54
by Jazcash
Strategia wrote:JAZCASH wrote:I'm still for the simple system:
Win a game = +1
Lose a game = -1
What if you're playing, say, a 3v3, and both your teammates turn out to be complete n00bs and get wiped out in 10 minutes, while you manage to hang on for about an hour before finally succumbing? That speaks of great skill. Such a simplified system always makes sweeping generalisations which make it deeply flawed.
That's a matter of balance. For a good rank system, you need good balance. What needs to be concentrated on here is "Improving the balance system".
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 02:16
by jivvz
CarRepairer wrote:Over time it will smooth out.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 23 Jun 2009, 20:51
by luckywaldo7
Regret wrote:What springies currently use
+
All stats kept invisible from players
=
Improved ranking system
+1
With a simple win/loss system you could still clanstack or noobbash in 1v1 to grind your stats.
Springie takes into account difference in skill so that a player or team with much higher stats has little to gain and much to lose and the underdog(s) have little to lose and much to gain.
Making the stats invisible is a good idea because there won't be the incentive to cheat for rank. Also it will make for less drama.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 24 Jun 2009, 10:10
by DavetheBrave
Ranking should be purely based on handsomeness, if you ask me.
or Maybe we should learn from e-harmony dot com and throw in some compatibility balancing. we could have everyone take a nice little survey when they log on for the first time.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 15:30
by JohannesH
JAZCASH wrote:I'm still for the simple system:
Win a game = +1
Lose a game = -1
It would intimidate people to not play people better than them.
Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 16:49
by Jazcash
Thousands of games use skill systems which are unfair, deal with it

Re: Imrpoved ranking system
Posted: 26 Jun 2009, 17:54
by Das Bruce
JAZCASH wrote:Everyone else uses flawed methods and so should we.