The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
Leagues => Leagues General => Topic started by: Ray on November 02, 2008, 07:39 PM
-
Hey!
here is the topic to discuss the rating system, but I guess you figured out this from the title of the topic but I felt like writing this spam shit down. xD
OK, so seriously. I think the rating for the "classic league" is just perfect like in XTC. 500 for start, 30 points are moving between the players, depending on the ratio and the difference between the two players.
XTC counts the overall score by summarizing the difference of schemes from 500. Here is an example:
Elite: 530
WXW: 510
BnG: 490
T17: 480
RR: 540
Roper: 510
Overall: 560
In every game, they take the scores of each schemes as a base to count from. Those 30 points are moving there, and at the end it is calculated to the overall score as I showed.
I hope you could understand. This rating system is perfect in my opinion.
-
yeah this system worked good in xtc, another thing we need to figure out is if ratings will be reset at the end of a season or stay the same, id guess make a vote... or maybe give people the option to reset their own rating
-
Well, I gotta say let's not copy.
This site till now has been so unique and I'm planning to keep it this way. Let XTC keep its own rating system for itself.
I'm sure we can have something different for TUS. Not totally different but still not a cheap copy.
-
I personaly don't like xtc's rating system very much.
My option would be a system similar than the one in cbc league, which is i think based on chess rating system (ELO). So is xtc, but with different starting points and rating changes.
The basics of my proposition are same as in xtc, but instead at 500, scheme rating would start at 1000. We'd keep the calculation for overall rating - simply adding together scheme ratings. Rating change for wins/loses would remain the same, 0-30 points (rounded to whole numbers, without decimals), with a little adjustment, for example so that high ranked player would win at least 2 or 3 points when winning against low ranked player.
A problem is, when a less skilled player plays a lot of games and loses most of them, his rating quickly drops very low (like 100 or 200 in xtc), which is imo a little discouraging, especialy for new players and playing against that player isn't rewarding anymore. That's why we'd set a lowest limit to which rating can drop (in cbc league ratings couldn't go lower than 1000 points). That way good players would easily go over 2000, less skilled wouldn't drop down to 0.
These are more or less cosmetic changes, but doesn't it feel better to have rating of 2500 than 800? :)
We'd have 2 ratings, one for season standings, which would be reseted after every season, and the overall rating, which would show player's performance over a longer period of time.
Would this way be unique enough? :)
-
i like your idea rok, only problem i see with it is 1000 points being the lowest your rating can go, it makes it easier for people to noob bash or for people to help eachother out by losing on purpose, i think the best way to solve that problem is to allow a rating reset maybe once a season? or whatever people want
-
I personally didn't get your point WookA, could you explain it a little more? :\
But yes, Rok has given us a nice idea.
-
Wooka is right about losing on purpose. I guess the solution is having no limit. So people would care to keep their lovely points ;)
I always laughed at these TV matches, when the people have "thousands" of points.
Personally, I prefer to have points with decimal than having thousands of points :D
A problem is, when a less skilled player plays a lot of games and loses most of them, his rating quickly drops very low (like 100 or 200 in xtc),which is imo a little discouraging,
Jackdaniel in dP inner league lost at the beginning and his rank became negative. having minus points made him kick a lot of asses to make his rank positive. ( dP starts with 0 points)
I think maybe we could set it like, If a person with lower points beat someone with higher points, then more points than usual he must gain and vise versa.
This thing won't be applied to close points. I will set a rank to each range of points, so that if someone with lower rank beat someone with higher rank ...
-
I personally didn't get your point WookA, could you explain it a little more? :\
But yes, Rok has given us a nice idea.
say we start the season at 1000, but some1 keeps losing and ends up with a really low rating and wants a fresh start, my idea was giving them the option to reset it to 1000 once a season (only once to avoid people getting too many points for easy wins) i think this would encourage people to be more active, even if they lose alot
-
Wouldn't it give him the chance to lose to his friend as much as he want right before he reset?
"Hey Monkey, need any points? I wanna reset!!"
lol
-
here is another idea: start from 1000 but cannot get under 700 or something like that
-
Still will give same damage, but a bit later.
How about some "Loan" option? Someone could request TUS some loan IF his point are under 1000. ;D
And pay back that loan when his points gets more than 1000 + the loan he borrowed or something like that xD
-
Wouldn't it give him the chance to lose to his friend as much as he want right before he reset?
"Hey Monkey, need any points? I wanna reset!!"
lol
yea you have a point, but i guess there really is no way it can be 100% avoided
and what happens if there was a limit to how low rating goes... what happens if that person loses? their scheme ratings and everything stay the same?
-
I say as long as he is losing, He must lose his points. But maybe set it like he could come to top bit easier.
Like I said, I will use worms 20 ranks : giving people "Absolute Beginner" to "Elite" ranks.
Now let's say a standard points to gain is 10 : If you win you gain 10 points and maybe your opponent lose 10 points.
One of the ranks trick will be this : If an "Absolute Beginner" member beat a "Major" member, then he will gain way more than 10 points (standard points) and vise versa.
One of its good features is, people won't keep playing noobs to add to their points. There's no surprise when a "General" beat a "Novice". So maybe he gain less than 10 points...
To sum it up, when someone keep losing, his rank will become lower BUT his chance to gain back his point will increase. :)
-
Good idea here.
-
and what happens if there was a limit to how low rating goes... what happens if that person loses? their scheme ratings and everything stay the same?
It would only affect wins/loses record and season rating. Overall rating wouldn't go lower than certain limit.
here is another idea: start from 1000 but cannot get under 700 or something like that
That's what i was thinkin too.
I always laughed at these TV matches, when the people have "thousands" of points.
Personally, I prefer to have points with decimal than having thousands of points :D
Ratings will not go that sky high, trust me.
i like your idea rok, only problem i see with it is 1000 points being the lowest your rating can go, it makes it easier for people to noob bash or for people to help eachother out by losing on purpose
Noob bashing cannot be completely avoided in any system, i believe. A good player will not benefit much from a player with 1000 rating. Sure, when the league will start and everybody will start from 1000, it will be easy for pros to gain rating, but their ratings would increase quickly so that noobbashing would become a waste of time. 6 or 7 wins vs a rookie is the same as 1 win vs an equaly rated player.
-
Moreover, there are always some rules like you cannot play the same player more than 6 times a season, limiting the games playable in one season... for instance, if someone plays 400 matches in a season against newbies and wins all of them, he will have a decent stat ^^
-
I say as long as he is losing, He must lose his points. But maybe set it like he could come to top bit easier.
Like I said, I will use worms 20 ranks : giving people "Absolute Beginner" to "Elite" ranks.
Now let's say a standard points to gain is 10 : If you win you gain 10 points and maybe your opponent lose 10 points.
One of the ranks trick will be this : If an "Absolute Beginner" member beat a "Major" member, then he will gain way more than 10 points (standard points) and vise versa.
One of its good features is, people won't keep playing noobs to add to their points. There's no surprise when a "General" beat a "Novice". So maybe he gain less than 10 points...
To sum it up, when someone keep losing, his rank will become lower BUT his chance to gain back his point will increase. :)
that sounds great [=
oh and wooka, u said: "and what happens if there was a limit to how low rating goes... what happens if that person loses? their scheme ratings and everything stay the same?"
this wud be fixed with having no limit, the points would go below zero :D
Rok: "We'd have 2 ratings, one for season standings, which would be reseted after every season, and the overall rating, which would show player's performance over a longer period of time."
I agree!
-
hmm there might be a problem with this though.
In the original plan, more skilled players will lose more points if they lose to a less skill player.
Doesn't this keep them to not to play with newbies?
I mean, thinking of the risk that if they lose to a newbie they might lose more points and on the other hand their win wouldn't bring them much points, might make them refuse to play with less skilled players.
I guess they mustn't lose as much points as a newbie would gain by beating them.
-
i dont think u need to worry about that monkey, some players will avoid no matter what you do, maybe thats something to think about after we play a season... test out and change it if it is a problem
-
I guess they mustn't lose as much points as a newbie would gain by beating them.
??? Wrong! No matter the possible avoiding, that would be an unfair advantage.
-
ok!
I've started the league already, fasten your seat belts ;)
-
If u going to copy some league i prefer LigaWorms than XTC system. there counts wins and losses not the coeficient of dunnowhat and f@#!dunnohow %. Win +3 lose -1.5, easy and quick. A limit matches with same player per day not per season, with that way ppl dont do noobashing cause they loses same points playing with player ranked number 217 than number 1. I hate LigaWorms but their system is better than XTC ;B
-
You can't get the same amounts of points for beating the first and beating the last, that's just not fair I think ;) however, I trust Monkey ^^
-
constant win/lose points will increase noob bashing. The latest example was at xtc, when "pros" were ranked in the top of ladder cuz got huge amount of points from newbz.
about motivation of losers(who got 200,300 points at xtc e.g.): who cares? make rating reset button.
-
rating reset causes noob bashing too, we want everyone who plays this league to play it for long time, we dont want anyone to lose interest in it ;)
-
one question monkey: what games are counted for classic single league? seems like clanners got counted for my singles stats...
edit: dude somethg is f@#!ed here...i played free league with wormiverse and now those games show up as classic league matches? please check that monkey, i had somethg like 9-6 stats on classic league or so, now i have 11-12. all my matches with wormiverse were free league.
-
Nothing is messed up.
I made the schemes which were in both leagues, like BnG into one. Old system were good because of 2 games reporting at the same time, so that you could beat someone in Bungee Race (free) and he beat you in BnG, That BnG would be counted as Free league BnG.
But when I made the 1 scheme report at a time, It became like you could report a bungee race (free), But your opponent could report his BnG as classic league.
So that no one ever played same scheme from classic in free, because even if your opponent would pick a free league scheme, you could still report your scheme as classic.
Reaching this point, I transfered all your "same schemes" points in free league, to classic league, and removed the shared schemes in free league.
-
um those games were meant to be played for free league...i mean its not my fault that the schemes we played are not valid for free league anymore^^.
edit: well after thinking about this while having a smoke i understand why you changed it and you cant change it so np i guess, just some points lost for me now :/
-
Why you lost some points? I transfered all your free league schemes points to your classic points.
-
sigh..
i cant really even get started.. ive not really taken enough time looking around the site to offer a valid opinion.. deciding on a rating system is hard. XTC didnt get it right, it stopped noob bashing but it was so exterme it put pros off playing and they just sat at the top of the table..
FB had the best rating system which allowed for accounts to be reset and the points being won and lose was balanced prefectly.
However it got boring as the standings stayed the same and playoffs were indentical each season, therefore the best league system was the mixed rating and points of tpl..
-
therefore the best league system was the mixed rating and points of tpl..
tpl ?
The players stats will be reset in each season. While it is possible to see all a players game and stats excluding seasons periods.
-
TPL = the peoples league.
it only ran for a couple of months, was rating and points combined, points was reset, rating never was, top 4 from rating made po's plus top 4 from points.
The rating calucation was similar to fb, it wasnt exterme and worked well.
-
OK, time to dig up this old thread.
Some rumours say that now, that we clearly reached the point to see how the system's rating pattern works, there are some people complaining about it. That wouldn't be a problem itself, since there are always people who are not satisfied, the problem is that we can hear about that more and more...
THIS (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/tus-discussion/this-league%27s-playoff-qualifications-suck-ass/) masterpiece as for the latest example...
I also think that it is fair to lose more points against less skilled people, but not as many as it is currently.
My suggestion: change the amount of points moving between the games. This number is currently 80, that's how we get 40-40 points for two equally rated players. If we reduced this number to 60 or 50 for instance, the outcome of players with a huge difference between them could be a lot less drastic.
-
Solely changing the base amount of points is rather a cosmetic thing. Does it matter if it is 40-40, 15-15, or 100-100? I don't think so, but you can prove wrong.
What matters is how rapidly the difference between points for winner and points for loser changes.
It's probably hard to understand what I'm talking about so here's an example :) :
40-40
39-41
36-44
33-47
30-50
etc...
Now just changing the base amount:
25-25
24-26
22-28
20-30
etc...
This is basically the same, you reach the minimum of 1 point for a win (and maximum of 49 for a loss) in the same amount of games. Bear in mind also, that if you change the amount of points moving between games, you'd also want to reset the stats of all players, since the existing ratings don't tell the correct picture anymore.
But you can tweak the k factor in ELO formula (Monkeyisland will probably know what that is) and change the amount of games one needs to win in order to reach minimum of earned points, so you get something like this:
40-40
39-41
35-45
32-48
30-50
29-51 <-- notice the change being smaller from here on
28-52
27-53
Hope this made any sense :)
-
You made a right point Rok, and by the way, I know exactly what you mean by the k factor, since me and MonkeyIsland made the formula together. :P