New Ranking System

Everything dealing with the video game developed by Cyanide!
User avatar
RTSD
Posts: 82
Joined: 04 December 2013, 12:36

Re: New Ranking System

Postby RTSD » 05 September 2016, 23:18

Then why do you need it at ll?
Because people farm for concession wins.
The concession loss being penalized makes sense because it deters concessions from occurring by punishing the player who does concede. With the formula being weighted towards playing multiple games with the same team this is a big deal as you have to put significant time into the ladder to get anywhere.

The concession win being penalized on the other hand is silly, you can't choose whether you opponent concedes, all it does is to encourage you not to be too ruthless with your opponent and not play a style (heave bashing) that you may feel is the best option to win the game because the system punishes you if your opponent concedes.

The question a ladder is meant to answer is who is the best coach and concession win being worth less just severly deviates from answering that question without helping the problem of conceding.

As someone who makes all pile on first skill teams I feel somewhat strongly on this :lol:

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

Re: New Ranking System

Postby Koadah » 05 September 2016, 23:38

I'm OK with the sitting. see above.
You are, others aren't. Sitting causes stagnation in the rankings which is a disincentive to play. The old FOL system, with the old ranking system, had that towards the end of each season. Ultimately it's a decision as to how much sitting should be encouraged vs how much grinding should be. If it proves too grindy the formula can be changed easily enough to adjust the curves as desired.

Sure, it's not Fumbbl. People rarely manage even 16/0/0 in the Box.

As you know I won't be playing anyway. But I know I'd have the right hump if I managed a good record and got kicked from the playoffs by some 50-55%% grinder. ;)
CaRBB

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 » 06 September 2016, 00:51

I'd like it a lot better if there were some max # of games. Say, 60. That makes 1 game per day. You can still play more for the ladder, with different teams... but having people with reasonable records and 100 games played take precedence over people with brilliant win records, but "only" enough time to play 50 matches in 2 months? That does not seem like a sensible idea to me.
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.
Eh yeah, that was meant to read '20 games'.

I'd love to try to compete in an official ladder. I loved racing DonChump for the #1 spot in COL back when it was NAF; I even actually enjoyed the world cup runs (when I had the time for them). However, as someone with a day job who already plays up to 5 scheduled matches per week (depending on whether leagues are in playoffs/on a break etc), I don't think I'm the target audience for this selection criterion. Pity.

On top of that, even if I could manage to squeeze in over 10 COL games per week, I'd still not want them all to be with the same team.
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because people with big banners are just compensating)

Fashbinder
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 March 2016, 12:28

Re: New Ranking System

Postby Fashbinder » 06 September 2016, 02:07

Pretty pleased to have a separate ladder for competitive blood bowl. Bit concerned with the 'concede farming' philosophy as i think the proper way to play blood bowl is to ensure you opponent has no good plays and no options and have them feel like they cant win the game. Not just through removals but though turning them over or scoring repeatedly. I think the penalty (in the future) should apply only to the coach who concedes.

If my fresh wood elf team loses (dead) a dancer to a rock turn 1, you're likely remaking the team, are you then forced to endure the next 60 minutes playing a team you know you're deleting? With that in mind you'd want the penalty to apply to the team as opposed to the coach.

The format will encourage high tv play and with the 500tv hardcap there will be less issues than in the past but there are still many teams who would struggle to effectively spend it with the current inducement options.

MalicWanderer
Posts: 65
Joined: 02 August 2016, 20:28

Re: New Ranking System

Postby MalicWanderer » 06 September 2016, 04:57

I'd like it a lot better if there were some max # of games. Say, 60. That makes 1 game per day. You can still play more for the ladder, with different teams... but having people with reasonable records and 100 games played take precedence over people with brilliant win records, but "only" enough time to play 50 matches in 2 months? That does not seem like a sensible idea to me.
Depending on what exactly you consider "reasonable" and "brilliant" records, I think you may be overestimating how much of a bonus just playing more games gives with this system. As an example, a team with a 25-25-0 record, is essentially unbeatable (within 2 months) by someone with a 50%-0%-50% record, as they'd need more than 600 games. Even if you drop the "brilliant" record to 25-12-13 the half win half loss record still needs 240 games to pass them.

As an even more extreme example, if this theoretical half win half loss team wanted to beat a 50-0-0 team in the rankings, they would need more than 36 thousand games. Obviously no one expects to see any 50-0-0 teams in just 2 months, but I hope the example demonstrates my point.

One last example, going in the opposite direction. Let's say we have a team with a 34-34-34 record (which, incidentally, works out the same as just tying 102 games, because math.) I'd say that's about as close to a standard for a "reasonable" record as you could get while being around a hundred games. They're going to have a ranking of about 9.55. A team with a 100% win rate will pass them (with 9.56) at 23 games. Half win and half draw team will pass them at 38 games with 9.551. Half wins, one quarter each draws and losses would pass them at about 57 games with 9.6.

I think we all agree you have to factor number of games played into the ranking somehow, otherwise a 1-0-0 team is going to be above a 60-1-0 and that's plainly ridiculous. The question is how exactly, and to what extent. The system they've gone with for this update prioritizes teams with more games, but with diminishing returns for each additional game, while still putting a lot of weight on having a strong record. I think that's pretty much on the mark for what they need to do (i.e. encourage and reward good / skilled play while also encouraging people to play a lot to keep the ladder healthy.)

Also, I'm obviously not affiliated with Cyanide in anyway and I haven't seen their code so I can't be positive, but I'd imagine it should be very simple for them to tweak the numbers to adjust things if need be. Without even changing the formula at all they have 8 numbers they can fiddle with, 10 if you count the points for concession wins/losses.

Also, in the end, there's not going to be a system that does not, to some extent, reward people with more time to play more matches. That's just the reality of having a system based on an open ladder. You could limit number of games per team, but that just gives you what we had in the WC ladders, were people grind out the most perfect win rate they can manage in that many games, constantly restarting teams. You could limit the number of games per coach, or teams per coach (possibly combined with limiting games per team) but that's going to kill the MM environment.

Ultimately they are running a competitive online game, and those tend to live or die by how easy it is to find a match at any given point of time. If all the most dedicated coaches stop playing two weeks into the season because they've capped out their game quota, that's not good at all. Especially with the relatively small player base BB2 has to begin with. Of course BB has leagues as well as the ladder, but I wouldn't expect those alone to keep the servers paying for themselves.

Finally, if whatever level of free time rewarding the competitive ladder ends up with is just too much for you, then you do still have private leagues to fall back on. There'll always be people who prefer leagues and people who prefer the ladder, with varying degrees of playing in the other environment. The ladder has to be designed to be the best ladder it can be, not to be the best emulation of a league in ladder format. Rankings need to have different priorities than they would in a normal league environment.

And it's not like they're abandoning private leagues altogether, either. We all know the management tools need work of course, but I think giving community run leagues a (pretty sizable iirc) portion of the control over who gets into the world cup shows that they definitely care about them.

This turned into a much longer post than I originally intended, so thank you to anyone who actually bothered to read it all. :)

User avatar
vgpurist
Posts: 419
Joined: 10 April 2013, 23:02
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vgpurist/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/vgpurist
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: New Ranking System

Postby vgpurist » 06 September 2016, 05:23

Please remember that there were more intricate systems proposed but in the end were rejected for greater ease of understanding how the rating system works.

Just like anything, there probably will never really be a "perfect" system but it IMO much better than the one already in place.

I believe that in a season or 2, the system may be revisited and tweaked. Until then, I'm interested in seeing how it will all play out.

There is still a good reason why there will be admins in place. Just in case anybody wants to abuse the system in some way, we'll be ready with the kick button.

-VG Purist
Last edited by vgpurist on 06 September 2016, 05:27, edited 1 time in total.
VG Purist

YouTube
Twitch

Image

MalicWanderer
Posts: 65
Joined: 02 August 2016, 20:28

Re: New Ranking System

Postby MalicWanderer » 06 September 2016, 05:25

On top of that, even if I could manage to squeeze in over 10 COL games per week, I'd still not want them all to be with the same team.
Sorry for double post, but I felt like the last one was long enough and this is a slightly different topic so...

I agree with you here, more or less. I'd love a system that rewarded (or at least didn't punish) coaches playing a variety of teams. But I think as long as the end prize goes to best-of-race that's probably not possible, and I also think rewarding best-of-race is really neat, so, I don't know.

Maybe if the remaining slots went to the top three Coaches (based on record within that competition and season, obviously) rather than the top three teams? Of course that might also require the KO playoffs to use fresh teams, rather than the qualifying teams, which they still haven't answered if that's what they're doing (that I've noticed.) I suppose you could just let those three coaches pick any of their teams from that ladder season to bring into the playoffs.

That'd still probably incentivize prioritizing one team over playing multiple, but at least coaches playing multiple would have some shot at qualifying.

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

Re: New Ranking System

Postby dode74 » 06 September 2016, 06:15

The concession win being penalized on the other hand is silly, you can't choose whether you opponent concedes, all it does is to encourage you not to be too ruthless with your opponent and not play a style (heave bashing) that you may feel is the best option to win the game because the system punishes you if your opponent concedes.

The question a ladder is meant to answer is who is the best coach and concession win being worth less just severly deviates from answering that question without helping the problem of conceding.

As someone who makes all pile on first skill teams I feel somewhat strongly on this :lol:
The limitation on number of concessions per coach will limit concessions somewhat. Limiting the concession farmers (see the post about the teams with hundreds of concession wins) attacks the issue from the other end. Will it discourage certain playstyles? Possibly: looks like we will have to see. Either way, the first season will be with full points for all wins.
I'd like it a lot better if there were some max # of games. Say, 60. That makes 1 game per day. You can still play more for the ladder, with different teams... but having people with reasonable records and 100 games played take precedence over people with brilliant win records, but "only" enough time to play 50 matches in 2 months? That does not seem like a sensible idea to me.
One of the major issues reported about WCQ (edited from COL) was the match limit. It encouraged team cycling in a manner which was considered a huge grind. By not having a limit it allows people to "rescue" a record which would result in team deletion under a limited system.
Bit concerned with the 'concede farming' philosophy as i think the proper way to play blood bowl is to ensure you opponent has no good plays and no options and have them feel like they cant win the game. Not just through removals but though turning them over or scoring repeatedly. I think the penalty (in the future) should apply only to the coach who concedes.
People try to make others concede because it is advantageous to do so: max reward, min risk. We want to encourage completed games.
If my fresh wood elf team loses (dead) a dancer to a rock turn 1, you're likely remaking the team, are you then forced to endure the next 60 minutes playing a team you know you're deleting? With that in mind you'd want the penalty to apply to the team as opposed to the coach.
It applies to the coach. The situation you describe is not the norm, and there is another player at the other end of the connection who wants to play a match. To that end we want to discourage "trivial" concessions (and I would consider what you describe a "trivial" concession rather than a necessary one).
Last edited by dode74 on 06 September 2016, 07:06, edited 1 time in total.
Image

coljac
Posts: 5
Joined: 15 January 2016, 06:34
Twitter: coljac

Re: New Ranking System

Postby coljac » 06 September 2016, 06:43

I'd like it a lot better if there were some max # of games. Say, 60. That makes 1 game per day. You can still play more for the ladder, with different teams... but having people with reasonable records and 100 games played take precedence over people with brilliant win records, but "only" enough time to play 50 matches in 2 months? That does not seem like a sensible idea to me.
...
One last example, going in the opposite direction. Let's say we have a team with a 34-34-34 record (which, incidentally, works out the same as just tying 102 games, because math.) I'd say that's about as close to a standard for a "reasonable" record as you could get while being around a hundred games. They're going to have a ranking of about 9.55. A team with a 100% win rate will pass them (with 9.56) at 23 games. Half win and half draw team will pass them at 38 games with 9.551. Half wins, one quarter each draws and losses would pass them at about 57 games with 9.6.
Thanks Malic for the explanation. I find this pretty convincing. It seems like it has the effect of encouraging winning teams to keep playing the odd game, but also teams without perfect records are still viable if you want to invest some time and energy into them. Let's see how it goes.
If my fresh wood elf team loses (dead) a dancer to a rock turn 1, you're likely remaking the team, are you then forced to endure the next 60 minutes playing a team you know you're deleting?
I agree with dode, this seems like a textbook example of the sort of concede you actually want to discourage. Sometimes playing BB means sitting through a drubbing and watching the injury box fill up. You can't really get around it without depriving the other coach of a game.

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 » 06 September 2016, 07:11

Depending on what exactly you consider "reasonable" and "brilliant" records, I think you may be overestimating how much of a bonus just playing more games gives with this system. As an example, a team with a 25-25-0 record, is essentially unbeatable (within 2 months) by someone with a 50%-0%-50% record, as they'd need more than 600 games. Even if you drop the "brilliant" record to 25-12-13 the half win half loss record still needs 240 games to pass them.

As an even more extreme example, if this theoretical half win half loss team wanted to beat a 50-0-0 team in the rankings, they would need more than 36 thousand games. Obviously no one expects to see any 50-0-0 teams in just 2 months, but I hope the example demonstrates my point.

One last example, going in the opposite direction. Let's say we have a team with a 34-34-34 record (which, incidentally, works out the same as just tying 102 games, because math.) I'd say that's about as close to a standard for a "reasonable" record as you could get while being around a hundred games. They're going to have a ranking of about 9.55. A team with a 100% win rate will pass them (with 9.56) at 23 games. Half win and half draw team will pass them at 38 games with 9.551. Half wins, one quarter each draws and losses would pass them at about 57 games with 9.6.
By 'reasonable' I did not mean '50% win rate'. I do not expect people dedicated enough to grind out 100+ matches in 2 months to do that poorly in an open MM environment. I meant 'reasonable' as in: the kind of record a reasonably good coach could get in COL. More something along the lines of the difference between, say, 23/2/1 (close to brilliant) and 70/20/10 (reasonable, for a COL record). 4 times as many games, 10 times as many losses & ties. I'd be more impressed by the former.

I get that we want people to keep pushing their records, I really do... and I guess we're looking for a sweet spot on the tradeoff between 'makes people keep playing' and 'rewards winning over grinding'. Based on the numbers I think we're not quite there yet, but I do think the current mechanism (with a tweakable parameter) could get us there. One advantage here (as compared to the world cup) is that, without $30k in prize money, the incentive for stupendous grind might be a little lower.
but it also makes bashy teams like chaos a worse choice as well then right?
Since at least one team of each race qualifies anyway I'm not sure how. You only need to be the best of your race, not on top of the ladder.
This is definitely one of my favorite decisions in the whole thing. =D
Last edited by twitch/the_sage_bb on 06 September 2016, 07:20, edited 2 times in total.
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because people with big banners are just compensating)


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron