New Ranking System

Everything dealing with the video game developed by Cyanide!
twitch/the_sage_bb
Posts: 616
Joined: 17 December 2015, 08:06
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theSagebb/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/the_Sage_BB

Re: New Ranking System

Postby twitch/the_sage_bb » 05 September 2016, 18:52

0/77/0 beats 20/0/0? So that means getting into the playoffs will be an absolute grindfest. Ew. Still, work in progress, I suppose.
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because people with big banners are just compensating)

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby dode74 » 05 September 2016, 18:54

0/77/0 beats 20/0/0? So that means getting into the playoffs will be an absolute grindfest. Ew. Still, work in progress, I suppose.
Well that depends on your record. If you have a winning record over the long term you'll do well. A VERY winning record over the medium term will also do well. It need not be a grind, but you know the competition will be fierce. There needs to be an incentive to keep playing otherwise people will sit on records, and that has to balance with trying to reward people who have actually good records.
Image

User avatar
SquirrelDude
Posts: 431
Joined: 18 September 2015, 00:30

Re: New Ranking System

Postby SquirrelDude » 05 September 2016, 19:29

Should losses be giving points?
When the full system is in place, with concession losses giving negative points (see OP), the aim is to reward completed games and punish concessions in the rankings.
Couldn't losses then be 0 points?

By the same token, why are ties given more than half as many points as a win without a concession?

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby dode74 » 05 September 2016, 19:45

Couldn't losses then be 0 points?
They could, but it's worth rewarding people for doing something you want them to do. This is an interesting read on that kind of thing: http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/0 ... st-system/
The important thing isn't so much the absolute points gain as the relationship between the points given.
By the same token, why are ties given more than half as many points as a win without a concession?
Win + loss = draw, which is similar to the way the game is balanced around win%.

The concession points (because someone is going to ask) were based on data taken from COL and not wanting teams with hundreds of concessions for dominating the rankings. As an example, there is one team which is 381-29-34, which is pretty impressive until you realise that 326 of his wins were by concession, as were 13 of his losses, giving him 55-29-34. Even with concession wins being 7 points (as opposed to 6) this team topped the table. With concession wins at 6 points his team was 7th out of all the teams in the dataset used (of 193k teams using all-time COL data up to about July), and he's not alone: there's an Orc team in 6th which is 294-34-40, of which 229 were concession wins and 9 concession losses, making him 65-34-40. We don't want to discount concession wins completely, because they are legitimate wins, but we also don't want people dominating the table through farming concessions.
Barring those two, the top 30 or so teams had about 100 games played, of which 60-80 were completed matches.
Image

twitch/the_sage_bb
Posts: 616
Joined: 17 December 2015, 08:06
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theSagebb/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/the_Sage_BB

Re: New Ranking System

Postby twitch/the_sage_bb » 05 September 2016, 19:53

0/77/0 beats 20/0/0? So that means getting into the playoffs will be an absolute grindfest. Ew. Still, work in progress, I suppose.
Well that depends on your record. If you have a winning record over the long term you'll do well. A VERY winning record over the medium term will also do well. It need not be a grind, but you know the competition will be fierce. There needs to be an incentive to keep playing otherwise people will sit on records, and that has to balance with trying to reward people who have actually good records.
I get that goal, but if I win every game I play, and only play 1 game all through those 2 months, I don't want someone with a 50% win record to beat me because he has 4x as much free time. =)
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because people with big banners are just compensating)

User avatar
SquirrelDude
Posts: 431
Joined: 18 September 2015, 00:30

Re: New Ranking System

Postby SquirrelDude » 05 September 2016, 20:00

Could we get some example of how the new ranking system would change the rankings as we currently see them. It's all a bit abstract at the moment. Forgive me, I haven't taken a match class since Calculus in high school.
Given the rankings as we currently see them aren't actually working even according to the intended system there's not really much point in that. Hopefully the post above will help, though.
Well for those of us who would like to see the new formula in action I made a google doc using the top 40 teams from Mister Hadwick's Invitational. Far left is the new rankings using the current points (ignoring concessions). Far Right are the old rankings. Center would be my suggestion to drop ties down to 5 points, and losses to 0 points. For the record it doesn't appear to change all that much, there there is some movement of teams in the 20 to 30 range

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby dode74 » 05 September 2016, 20:03

I get that goal, but if I win every game I play, and only play 1 game all through those 2 months, I don't want someone with a 50% win record to beat me because he has 4x as much free time. =)
I'm hoping "1 game" is a typo.

There's no "please everyone" answer to this. The fact is that encouraging people to play more games is desirable in order to provide more teams for each pool, and therefore better matches all around. The balance is between encouraging people to grind out matches, and encouraging people to stagnate on 20-0-0 (or whatever) records. The amount of free time someone has available is, frankly, their own problem :P
Image

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby dode74 » 05 September 2016, 20:05

For the record it doesn't appear to change all that much, there there is some movement of teams in the 20 to 30 range
Nice work, and I wouldn't expect it to change much. If it doesn't change much then what's the issue?

The point of giving people points for completing games is to encourage them to do so. If they have something to gain by finishing the match they might do so.
Image

Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: New Ranking System

Postby Miraskadu » 05 September 2016, 20:20

Short will the 'bug' or feature of leaving and rejoining the ladder to reset your score as it is working at the moment in CoL still be there and if so what score is the new ranking and played games based upon?

Or are only fresh teams aloud for the 2 month season, which would really benefit some races.

Cheers.

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby Koadah » 05 September 2016, 21:13

If I'm reading this right, being conceded on will not just cost you progress, but it will actually lower your asymptote? That seems like something worth looking into.
It will. It is to prevent farming for concessions.
CPOMB nerf by stealth? ;)

It sounds like penalising people for playing too well.

People will not like being screwed over because the opponent quits.
I get that goal, but if I win every game I play, and only play 1 game all through those 2 months, I don't want someone with a 50% win record to beat me because he has 4x as much free time. =)
I'm hoping "1 game" is a typo.

There's no "please everyone" answer to this. The fact is that encouraging people to play more games is desirable in order to provide more teams for each pool, and therefore better matches all around. The balance is between encouraging people to grind out matches, and encouraging people to stagnate on 20-0-0 (or whatever) records. The amount of free time someone has available is, frankly, their own problem :P

It is your problem if the ranking system puts people off playing it.
Couldn't losses then be 0 points?
They could, but it's worth rewarding people for doing something you w
By the same token, why are ties given more than half as many points as a win without a concession?
Win + loss = draw, which is similar to the way the game is balanced around win%.
Win + loss > draw encourages people to go for the win. That would be a better environment IMO.
CaRBB


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron