Season 2 Ranking System Update

Everything dealing with the video game developed by Cyanide!
Miraskadu
Posts: 231
Joined: 08 March 2016, 03:05

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby Miraskadu » 19 December 2016, 17:13

I think at some point having a minimum # of games to qualify should be tested
It was tested over many, many seasons of FOL.
To what outcome, if I may ask? Just curious that is all.
Nothing is perfect though, we all have our own notions of what 'best' would look like.
Absolutely. At some point I'm simply going to say "this as good as it gets as far as I am concerned" and it'll be for Focus/Cyanide to do what they will with it from then on.
So you are going to throw the towel? :mrgreen:
In all honesty, sure thing. At some point it is coming down to I like this more over that. ;)

User avatar
Scram Lyche
Posts: 143
Joined: 22 July 2015, 10:04

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby Scram Lyche » 19 December 2016, 17:20

Please just take into account when tinkering, that a game of bloodbowl takes a significant chunk of time. This is not Pes, where a game lasts 15 minutes and its not unrealistic for some players to play hundereds of matches a month. A single game of bloodbowl is best part of 2 hours, a sizeable chunk of anyones day. Many players can only do about 4 or 5 games per week (still 8 hours of play) they should not be excluded from competing for the top spot at the end of the season because of an overly grindy format.

Anyway, what exactly is the problem with streaky? If someone goes 16-0 with any team, they have obviously played very well.. and imo should be rewarded.

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

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby dode74 » 19 December 2016, 17:22

To what outcome, if I may ask? Just curious that is all.
As I said elsewhere: it's clunky to use and difficult to communicate to the players, and it was easier to communicate in BB1 than it is in this version!
So you are going to throw the towel? :mrgreen:
In all honesty, sure thing. At some point it is coming down to I like this more over that. ;)
Yep. Someone, somewhere, will be unhappy with it regardless of what it is. I can live with that.

Scram - yep, well aware of all that.
Image

User avatar
Scram Lyche
Posts: 143
Joined: 22 July 2015, 10:04

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby Scram Lyche » 19 December 2016, 17:24

At some point I'm simply going to say "this as good as it gets as far as I am concerned" and it'll be for Focus/Cyanide to do what they will with it from then on.
I think you're close, this seasons balance seems absolutely fine from what I can see on ps4.

licker34
Posts: 163
Joined: 09 March 2016, 17:40

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby licker34 » 19 December 2016, 17:24

I think at some point having a minimum # of games to qualify should be tested
It was tested over many, many seasons of FOL.
And? It sort of doesn't matter though does it, what was done in FOL. It sort of matters what 'people' 'want' 'now'. *shrug* Of course I'm not saying it would change anything necessarily, I'm saying it's a 'clean' alternative to address an issue with parking that tweaking a formula leaves hidden.

Yes, it's 'hard to communicate'. So is everything about any formula. That shouldn't be an excuse though, it should be an opportunity for Cyanide to improve (create) an information screen for each league/competition.
Alternatively, I think that basing rank points of off some kind of CR metric should be looked at to control for the 'easy streak' Jimmy references.
I'll allow Mike to re-educate you on the concept of CR metrics ;)
No need, we've done that actually. There is nothing particularly wrong with using some form of rank point weighting based off of your actual opponents. Mike, as I'm sure you know, has designed methodologies for doing so.
Nothing is perfect though, we all have our own notions of what 'best' would look like.
Absolutely. At some point I'm simply going to say "this as good as it gets as far as I am concerned" and it'll be for Focus/Cyanide to do what they will with it from then on.
Yep, that won't stop others from asking about changing it though :) You are well within your rights to accept or decline to use your time any further on a system which 'works' though. And I do think that the system works pretty well right now, but of course, you do need some number of seasons under your belt to get the statistics out of it and see what kind of meta is being promoted. Be it a grindy one or a parky one. Neither is 'wrong' of course, but the answer to what we get isn't really up to you or me or anyone outside of Cyanide/Focus anyway.

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

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby dode74 » 19 December 2016, 17:29

It sort of doesn't matter though does it, what was done in FOL. It sort of matters what 'people' 'want' 'now'.
If it's been tested and shown to not work then what people want is something that doesn't work. I don't plan on being the one to give that to them.
Yep, that won't stop others from asking about changing it though :) You are well within your rights to accept or decline to use your time any further on a system which 'works' though.
Which is exactly what I am saying regarding a minimum match limit.
Image

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

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby Miraskadu » 19 December 2016, 17:37

To what outcome, if I may ask? Just curious that is all.
As I said elsewhere: it's clunky to use and difficult to communicate to the players, and it was easier to communicate in BB1 than it is in this version!
Fair point, communication tools are not great. Best example the concede rule for CCL. On the other side playing a low number of games should leave you of rather bad start point for the play offs, so the 'minimum games' should kinda take care of itself from experience if the coaches.

licker34
Posts: 163
Joined: 09 March 2016, 17:40

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby licker34 » 19 December 2016, 17:39

Shown to not work in what way?

See it's pretty easy to show that it has to work if 'people' don't think any team with fewer than X games should be allowed to qualify.

Now you may say that doesn't matter because no team with fewer than X games *can* qualify.

But we can see that setting X to 20 for CCL 2 would cut off some teams for some races.

Now personally, I don't care what the qualification metrics are really (so long as they are understood/understandable). However, making a rule has nothing to do with 'working' or 'not working', it's just a rule that helps to define expectations and/or the meta.

If you simply say that in order to qualify for the playoffs your team must have played a minimum of 20 games, then everyone knows that they need to play their teams for at least 20 games. That does shift the meta a bit. Does it address any other problems? Don't know don't even care, because the intent isn't to 'fix' anything else, it's just to change the approach to playing out teams through 20 games.

I grant that's not something everyone wants, but again, that's 100% not the point, because neither you nor I are really interested in making anything that 'everyone' wants since we both know it's not possible anyway.

I am simply curious as to how a minimum number of games would affect the meta. Of course there are other things I'd think should be done along with that change, but that drifts into my own personal opinions on what is 'best', and those are not really necessary anyway.

But, since you didn't ask, I'd like to see some in game reward (cyans, medals, whatever) for teams which reach certain milestones, whether they qualify or not. Just a simply badge for 10 games, 15 games, ... would change the way people approach playing their teams, with or without an actual minimum. However, what is more likely? That a minimum could be set? Or that Cyanide will provide support for giving badges/rewards?

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

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby dode74 » 19 December 2016, 17:42

Fair point, communication tools are not great. Best example the concede rule for CCL. On the other side playing a low number of games should leave you of rather bad start point for the play offs, so the 'minimum games' should kinda take care of itself from experience if the coaches.
Yeah, the ranking formula is intended to take low games-played into account. The problem is that people have different ideas of what "too low" looks like. See Scram Lyche's ranking of various records: for me that overvalues the 16-0-0 and the 13-0-1 when compared with some of the other records. The 26-7-4 has played over twice as many matches as either of those, for example, and one of the aims is to promote continuing to play.
Image

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

Re: Season 2 Ranking System Update

Postby dode74 » 19 December 2016, 17:44

Shown to not work in what way?
I've already said. That you reject that description of "not working" is neither here nor there.
I am simply curious as to how a minimum number of games would affect the meta.
Then feel free to start your own league. This is not licker's experimental league ;)
Image


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron