Ladder Reset

The_real_FAUST · September 5

Seeing as the old one was unceremoniously deleted and not moved.

Thread here for resetting ladder.

I propose resetting it given the huge changes since inception.

Also resetting it on a cycle - up for debate how often.

Re calculating the point system from playing to be done in a manner which doesn't deter people from playing and particularly those high on ladder.

A standardised number of points lost if you lose but a differing amount of points earned from a win depending on how good your opponent is.

A loss of points for both players in the event of a draw to help deter draw kiting.

My example proposals are below.

-15 for a loss (flat rate)
-5 for a draw (both players)
+100 for a win against someone ranked 1-100
+75 for a win against someone ranked 101-200

This then carries on down to a minimum of +5 points for a win for example someone ranked 11 vs someone ranked 1567

Very interested to hear thoughts on this

AristodemosII · September 5

Well ladder definitely needs a rework if CA wants it to be representing in any kind. And with upcoming rules I actually have hopes that cheesing won’t be a safe way of climbing ladder anymore.
The other way would be to completely forget about leaderboard and don’t reset it, because at the current state trying to climb it is pretty much pointless.

If CA does decide to reset it however they should take care that you're not rewarded for not playing, which is currently the case because you need like 50 wins to nullify one loss.

Valkaar · September 5

The ladder DOES need a rework. I'm not sure if I agree with the specific details for changes presented in your OP, but I do agree there is a problem.

They do need ranked/power-matched MMR, with point losses not being so severe for losses....as that is a large part of what gives incentive in cheesy climbing and/or idling at the top.

Since I don't see any major ladder rework happening though....I don't really see the point in resetting it tbh. Like if they do... fine. But the same non-sense and the usual suspects would simply go back to doing what they do and the ladder would like exactly like it does now in a matter of days.

Disposable Hero · September 5

@op you can't have point inflation, then you only reward grinding many games.

Elo is more or less what would work. The problem is draw kiting though, it needs to be addressed, both losing points works as a quick fix at least.

WojmirVonCarstein · September 6

Not sure what Elo means, but I like how the ladder works in Starcraft where you only play people who are at a similar skill level (as measured by the ranking system).

This means you naturally progress and games are exciting and close most of the time.

For me personally, 1/3 of the times on ladder I run into players who are at a much lower skill level than me and it makes the game unfun for both me and my opponent.

I also run into players who are obviously better than I am and that also isn't very fun for me even though I like the challenge in general.

Pippington · September 6

The_real_FAUST said:
-15 for a loss (flat rate)
-5 for a draw (both players)
+100 for a win against someone ranked 1-100
+75 for a win against someone ranked 101-200

As long as you lose more for a loss than a draw, draw-kiting is still incentivised. It makes draw-kiting less effective at climbing the ladder but doesn't really change the maths for an ladder-rank-motivated player deciding whether to do it - would you rather lose 15 points or 5?

I do like the idea of a flat rate for losses and a scaling reward for wins though.

Disposable Hero · September 6

Here is from wiki:

The Elo[a] rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in zero-sum games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-American physics professor.

The Elo system was originally invented as an improved chess rating system over the previously used Harkness system, but is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games,[1] association football, American football, basketball,[2] Major League Baseball, table tennis, Scrabble, board games such as Diplomacy and other games.

The difference in the ratings between two players serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%.

A player's Elo rating is represented by a number which increases or decreases depending on the outcome of games between rated players. After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. In a series of games between a high-rated player and a low-rated player, the high-rated player is expected to score more wins. If the high-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the low-rated player. However, if the lower-rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred. The lower-rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting. Players whose ratings are too low should, in the long run, do better than the rating system predicts and thus gain rating points until the ratings reflect their true playing strength.

.................

So if you want a proper ranking that doesn't just promote playing the highest number of games, then you need a zero-sum system like elo. It's mostly famous for being used in chess I believe, but works in any individual sport or game really.

Minor issues are draw kiting is not addressed and need other solution, same smurfing can hurt high level ranking. It can only do it a few times though, then they have quickly gained elo ranking as can no longer do it. Much better than we have now in any case.

The only way new points enter the system is when a new player joins.

eumaies · September 6

Pippington said:

The_real_FAUST said:
-15 for a loss (flat rate)
-5 for a draw (both players)
+100 for a win against someone ranked 1-100
+75 for a win against someone ranked 101-200
As long as you lose more for a loss than a draw, draw-kiting is still incentivised. It makes draw-kiting less effective at climbing the ladder but doesn't really change the maths for an ladder-rank-motivated player deciding whether to do it - would you rather lose 15 points or 5?

I do like the idea of a flat rate for losses and a scaling reward for wins though.

Yeah i think you can just make a draw a loss, period. The only way it gets abused is some kind of occasional obsessive rage-draw-kiting against people who are obsessed with their top rank. but for the vast majority of players and games, problem solved.

Parmigiano · September 6

A draw can't be a loss, that causes griefing/trolling.

Elo has its problems, high rated should not play against low rated at all.

Disposable Hero · September 6

Parmigiano said:
A draw can't be a loss, that causes griefing/trolling.

Elo has its problems, high rated should not play against low rated at all.

Elo doesn't exclude matchmaking.

Green0 · September 6

Parmigiano said:
high rated should not play against low rated at all.

while I can sympathize with this sentiment in principle, this game is not perfectly balanced. Are you arguing someone in top100 is so strong that his Beastmen can bet an average player's VC? Maybe one game, but otherwise no. Likewise if I wanted to play Empire vs, say, Lotus Moon, my Empire is not as good as my HE and I shouldn't be penalized for it too harshly. Of course about this last point, ELO doesn't help here either but having a stricter matchmaker would mean people would always play their best faction even more.

Also, since there aren't 10000+ players online at any time, creating an actual matchmaking would mean that you would find no matches at most times of the day. The ELO system we have now works OK, if a newbie is matched vs a very strong player he can always quit and go onto the next game with minimal point loss, or stay and try to learn a few things. Either way, the system is compensating him for playing against someone above his level with reduced point loss and increased gain should he win.

Parmigiano · September 6

Green0 said:

Parmigiano said:
high rated should not play against low rated at all.
while I can sympathize with this sentiment in principle, this game is not perfectly balanced. Are you arguing someone in top100 is so strong that his Beastmen can bet an average player's VC? Maybe one game, but otherwise no. Likewise if I wanted to play Empire vs, say, Lotus Moon, my Empire is not as good as my HE and I shouldn't be penalized for it too harshly. Of course about this last point, ELO doesn't help here either but having a stricter matchmaker would mean people would always play their best faction even more.

Also, since there aren't 10000+ players online at any time, creating an actual matchmaking would mean that you would find no matches at most times of the day. The ELO system we have now works OK, if a newbie is matched vs a very strong player he can always quit and go onto the next game with minimal point loss, or stay and try to learn a few things. Either way, the system is compensating him for playing against someone above his level with reduced point loss and increased gain should he win.

I wasn't saying that in general, I was saying in the Elo suggestion it would be too frequent that high rated matched against players where they would gain no rating but lose tons of rating.

What we have now is similar in concept, but not as strict.

Welcome

Categories

Ladder Reset

Comments

Leave a Comment

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Ladder Reset

Comments

Leave a Comment