Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New rating system in MAN 2!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:44 pm 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:53 am
Posts: 259
Karma: 0
<<<<<<<<<<<_______________________>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Attachments:
File comment: new rating system
new_rating2.GIF
new_rating2.GIF [ 74.33 KiB | Viewed 11938 times ]


Last edited by Nick_WN on Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:02 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:01 pm
Posts: 240
Karma: 0

Location: Lyon (France)
so if i understand,
this ranking has some good point but the real level of a player is impossible to know by his score or grade.

an average player that play very much, even if he has got a lot of defeat compared to his victories can have a higher rank than a very good player that doesn't play much.

glyco was good with player other 100 games.
the new ranking has no sense for me.

make a poll about ranking.
i do believe that main part of player would prefer glyco than new ranking.

_________________
let's play !

rotm clan website :
http://rotm.free.fr/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:17 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:12 am
Posts: 98
Karma: 0
I agree this rating system is nosense : it rewards quantity of playing, not
the quality.
I can understand that with such system, some players will have an incentive to play more, but im pretty sure that most of the experienced players will not like this system.
Now, it would be possible to make everyone happy by keeping the old rating system in parallel with the new one. I remember a similar situation in MAN1 where the glicko rating was hosted on some webpage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:41 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
Why are you implementing sweeping changes to the rating system without first polling your players?

I am adamantly opposed to this new rating system. A player's score and ranking should be indicative of his or her level of skill, not of how many games he or she has played. Under the new system, less-skilled players will be able to inflate their scores simply by engaging in more matches. There will be no incentive to find skilled opponents, since score and ranking will not be determined by skill - only by "experience."

Players will pay less attention to their individual games, because each individual game will matter that much less. Instead, we will see a multitude of players involved in 40 or 50 games at a time. They won't care about their losses; all they care about is winning enough games to progress to the next ranking, and the more games they play at once the faster they progress. After all, they are competing with a bunch of other players who are all doing the same thing...don't you see where this is headed?

One of this game's strongest current features is the built-in competitive ladder structure. Any tweaks to the scoring system should focus on making it a more accurate indicator of player skill (think about ratings in Chess). The new scoring system will remove incentive to play against skillful players, and it will make the win-lose-draw record the only indicator of skill. You already grant "awards" according to a player's number of victories; what possible reason is there to have the whole game revolve around it?


Last edited by heihojin on Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:01 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:18 pm
Posts: 75
Karma: 0

Location: Sierra gold country
Six of one and half a dozen of another. The victory medals tell you a lot about other players and you can look at their win loss ratio if you really want to know. Besides, it doesn't take long to know who the good players are; Their the ones kicking your booty most of the time. My rank jumps up and down so much now that I could use it for a fan. Play for the joy of it . No matter what system they use someone will complain so get over it. I would much rather they devoted energy to creating some new worlds to play on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:13 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:23 pm
Posts: 59
Karma: 0
So if i don't like the countries i've been dealt I can surrender without penalty? I'll just play the games I am definitely going to win then. But hang on - my opponent will surrender those games.

It's ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:23 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
Rodehard wrote:
Play for the joy of it .

There is little joy in crushing weak opposition; it gets very old after a while. A system that rewards players for the number of games they win (rather than the opponents they beat) will result in a greater number of weak players and fewer strong players. When strong players are not recognized for their skill, why should they play? When the pool of opposition is getting weaker by the day, how much fun can you realistically expect them to have?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:24 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
timm wrote:
So if i don't like the countries i've been dealt I can surrender without penalty? I'll just play the games I am definitely going to win then. But hang on - my opponent will surrender those games.

It's ridiculous.


Yikes, I didn't even think about that. :oops:

Or how about this: why don't you and I just make a deal to play each other as many times as we possibly can? We'll just take turns surrendering to pump up each other's score.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:43 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
As far as I know, that main reason of new rating system was creating stimulus for experienced players to play with trials. In the current system you could lose too many points on V6 Demo with demo set of units just by bad deployment of secret allies and victory don't give high-ranked players anything. Moreover, some high-ranked players don't accept challenges from lower players if they count that it could be dangerous for their place.
In the any case, I'll play with trial and high-ranked in the any system of rating and I prefer tournaments as best way to know best players ;)

_________________
Massive Assault Clan "Tiger's Galactic Empire"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
Tiger wrote:
As far as I know, that main reason of new rating system was creating stimulus for experienced players to play with trials. In the current system you could lose too many points on V6 Demo with demo set of units just by bad deployment of secret allies and victory don't give high-ranked players anything. Moreover, some high-ranked players don't accept challenges from lower players if they count that it could be dangerous for their place.


Experience does not necessarily equate with skill, however. Experienced players who are not all that skilled should be playing with opponents of their approximate skill level. In the current system there are many players who have acquired awards for 100+ victories yet have not risen above the rank of "Lieutenant" - and this, IMO, is as it should be. Players should not be rewarded for beating the AI over and over again. Players should not be rewarded for beating opponents who are rated substantially lower.

Players should be rewarded for beating opponents of their skill level or higher, and should have their rating adjusted after each match to more accurately reflect the progress they have made. A General who beats a Conscript Trial Player should not be rewarded for doing so, and indeed should be penalized if he loses to the Conscript. The Conscript shouldn't even bother challenging the General; he should be working his way up the ladder, facing opponents of progressively greater skill as he demonstrates his growing mastery of the game. Once he reaches the mid-officer ranks, then he should start thinking about challenging Generals and the like - and only then should the General have incentive to play against him.

It's very easy to find matches and move up the ranks as a Trial Player; with the not-very-smart AI rated as a "Lieutenant," enthusiastic players can easily make it to this rank without ever playing a human opponent. Most of my matches with Trial Players have expired, resulting in my opponent forfeiting the match, and I suspect this is representative of the majority of matches with Trial Players.

I agree that there are some problems with the V6 Demo map that can easily lead to one player getting shafted with a bad distribution of Secret Allies; however, I believe there are other solutions. One idea would be to change the map included with the demo version (I would suggest "Emerald"). Another would be to change the default settings or at least provide recommended settings to minimize the possibility of a player getting shafted (I prefer an Ally Density of "Medium" for V6 Demo). But whatever problems may exist with the V6 Demo map do not justify sweeping changes to a rating system that is working as it should be!

I am also very much looking forward to tournaments and league play in MAN2. But shouldn't a rating system for a game of skill recognize skill? When players see me online, they notice two things: my rank and whatever award I've won. What is the point of having both if they are both determined by the number of victories? Why not abolish the rating system altogether, since it will no longer serve the purpose of "rating" players? I will be knocked back down to Sergeant or some other enlisted rank, and less-skilled players will be power-gaming their way to Marshal on my shoulders through sheer numbers. The only basis I'll have for finding worthy opponents is by hunting through win-loss-draw records, and the interface is far too clumsy for that. No thanks.

Tiger, I greatly respect your willingness to play all players regardless of skill - and your standing in the game is well deserved indeed. I am concerned that this new rating system will tarnish those ranks that you and the other highly-skilled veterans have worked so hard to earn. I understand that you love the game. I do too; I care about my win-loss-draw record, and I simply can't compete on the basis of numbers. I rely on my skill to progress, and when I can't do that I will go elsewhere.

And I am not alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:00 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:25 am
Posts: 469
Karma: 0

Location: California
This just seems to be a slightly twisted version of the MAN ratings that we so desperately wanted to get rid of and up to this point had disposed of in MAN2.

Seems to be a step backward. One step forward, 2 steps back!
Marshall, here I come :wink:

_________________
Guardian of the SWORD

http://www.freewebs.com/7thwanzer

"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:51 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:23 pm
Posts: 59
Karma: 0
I think you just need to add a penalty for losing when two non-trial players play.

Then it could work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:19 am 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 290
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
I think that any ranking system must satisfy as much players as possible.

Glicko system is based on probabilistic, mathematical aspects and reflects the real power of a player quite well. However, one can both get points and lose ones.

Glicko was not accepted by the majority of players, only 'tough' ones liked it.

The suggested new system (I call it "Nicko" 'cause Nick insisted on implementing it) will suit majority of players due to its accumulative nature, no points are taken away if defeated. Just this feature was the stumbling block for all who started playing MAN2. Glicko was not so easy to understand.

Now everything is transparent and clear.

Glicko reflects player's power.
Nicko reflects player's experience.

Glicko is for the minority of players.
And Nicko is for the majority.

Frankly speaking, I like Glicko. But it doesn't matter.
We make MAN2 not for me but for all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:24 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:43 pm
Posts: 245
Karma: 0

Location: ITA
So...we can have both systems for the happiness of all!

_________________
DIES IRAE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:40 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
artmax wrote:
Glicko is for the minority of players.
And Nicko is for the majority.

Frankly speaking, I like Glicko. But it doesn't matter.
We make MAN2 not for me but for all.

How would you know whether the new system meets the needs of the majority of players without polling them first? I don't remember being asked. Perhaps you might consider how many people have posted in favor of this new system relative to how many people have posted against this new system.

This game will flourish or flounder by word of mouth. I downloaded the demo for this game and was hooked within days. I received the full version as a birthday present from my girlfriend, who knows how much I love this game. I recommended it by e-mail to about 30 other turn-based strategy fans, mostly fellow Civilization players. Two downloaded and are hooked on the demo version, another purchased the full version on my recommendation alone, and several others are interested but simply haven't gotten around to checking it out yet. Both the demo and full versions are fabulous values, the game is beautifully designed, and the prospect of facing highly-skilled players in intense intellectual competition is quite inviting.

But with this new rating system, players don't have to be "smart enough" - they only have to be "fast enough." Attaining new ranks will be a matter of playing enough games, similar to how players progress in most massively-multiplayer online role-playing games. The grind gets tiresome quite quickly. Why should players pay close attention to individual games when the result is meaningless and nothing is at stake? When players simply surrender difficult positions rather than play their games to conclusion, how many games do you expect to finish? Do you really think that even your typical Trial Player will find this "fun"?

You already have my money. You guys did something great. But if you implement this new ranking system, you won't have my time anymore. I pay great attention to the individual games that I play, and I greatly relish the prospect of progressing through the ladder by virtue of my skill. If you take that away, I will find something else to play - something that rewards me for playing the game well.

I am not the only one. Turn-based strategy is a niche genre, the smallest segment of the gaming market. It appeals to highly analytical, intellectual players - and these players are proud of their skill. We want to be recognized for our skill.

You already reward "experience" in the form of awards. If you change the basis for the scoring and ranking system to be determined by the number of victories instead of a player's skill, then you are taking away a reason to play. That reason is more important than you seem to realize. The prospect of being recognized for one's skill at the game keeps players hooked. It gives them the prospect of attaining a goal that others will not be able to do. Take that away, and you will lose those players - and the vitally important word-of-mouth advertising that those dedicated players would have spread.

You have the potential to succeed brilliantly in the turn-based strategy genre, and you also have the potential to fall flat. If you want to foster a dedicated pool of players, you have to give your players reasons to care about their games. You have to give them reasons to play, and reasons for their friends to play. What you are planning to do will remove a very important reason to play this game!

What is preventing you from seeing this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:41 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:13 pm
Posts: 201
Karma: 0
Changing the ranking system in this manner would certainly be a bad move. Devs, please reconsider this action based on player feedback here.

Artmax said above, "I think that any ranking system must satisfy as much players as possible." However, the point of a ranking system is not to make a majority of players feel good about themselves, and the time and effort they put into playing a game; rather, it ought to seek to describe the skill level of players as accurately as possible! Any thinking player, regardless of current rank, ought to agree with that. A ranking system that tells the majority of players that they are doing well is simply inaccurate.

Rigorous competition - where we have to face the reality of losing and well as the enjoyment of winning - is what drives strategy game players (including new ones hoping to learn the ropes!). Give players more pixelized medals or something for experience if you really think some of them will care (apparently a few of the bad players do), but don't create a lame ranking system that skews everyone's results toward the winning side in hopes that poor players will continue to play MAN 2 longer...that is hardly appropriate for a "think-based strategy game."

_________________
Cur Deus Homo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:24 am 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 290
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
I'd like to accentuate: all said above (and below) is my personal opinion, in spite of the fact I'm a developer.

Yes, I like Glicko most of all and I would be glad if Glicko were an intergral part of the game.

But I don't like the following: everybody who understands the nature of Glicko system starts thinking twice or three times or even more. It wouldn't be so sad if each turn, excuse the pun, not turned into distressing sight taking hours and days, to estimate everything, as much as possible.

Why? Because the price of defeat is high in Glicko! Just dare to defeat and try to find yourself in the rating list after that. Heart attack is guaranteed.
That's why tough players do not like playing with newbies.

Where is the fun? Can you see it? I can't.

That's why Player #1 has played only 35 games since January, 2006 and last time he logged in 15 days ago.

And do you all know who is Player #2?
AHgpeu? No!

Player #2 is a certain Tywer who last logged in 3 months ago.
He is a trial player and the points you see are cut off.

Do you consider such a situation normal?

Forget about Glicko, you are free to lose, no penalties any more!

I ask you: play a lot, share your experience! No losing points!

Let's get our fun back!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:57 am 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
artmax wrote:
But I don't like the following: everybody who understands the nature of Glicko system starts thinking twice or three times or even more. It wouldn't be so sad if each turn, excuse the pun, not turned into distressing sight taking hours and days, to estimate everything, as much as possible.

Why? Because the price of defeat is high in Glicko!


I don't understand this at all. Don't you want players to think carefully about their games? Shouldn't they want to ensure that they are not making a mistake that will cost them the game? The fact that my individual games matter is a big reason why I play MAN2!

Quote:
That's why tough players do not like playing with newbies.


Some tough players may be afraid to play with newbies because of the potential loss in points. But again, I say: highly-ranked veteran players should not be playing with newbies. Newbies should be playing with other, similarly ranked players, until they demonstrate their skill by working their way up the ladder. There are plenty of games to be found both with other new players and with experienced players who are not ranked very high on the ladder.

If this is really the problem, why don't you implement the option to play a game "just for fun" - a game that won't affect a player's Glicko rating? Isn't that a better idea than taking away the scores and ranks that veteran players have worked so hard to achieve?

Artmax, you cite cases of two players who have not played very much recently - and unless they post here in favor of your new rating system, I can't accept that they will automatically start playing more (and start playing new players) just because of the new rating system. However, I can promise you that I will stop playing if you implement this new rating system. The results of my individual games will no longer matter, so why should I care about them?

Will it be fun to have no basis for comparing your skill to other players?
Will it be fun to have your opponents automatically surrender their positions on the first turn because they don't like their distribution of Secret Allies?
Will it be fun to see players with terrible win-loss-draw records leap ahead of you in rankings, either because they have the time to play 50 or more games at a time or because they are cheating with another player and taking turns surrendering?
Will it be fun to have fewer highly-skilled opponents playing MAN2 because they've gone to play another game that rewards them for their skill?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:39 am 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 8:12 am
Posts: 98
Karma: 0
Devs, i dont understand you : dont you see that this change will downgrade a lot this game ? You only obtain here bad feedbacks for this proposal. To me, it means that there are great chances that this change will be harmful for your game, instead of improving it. I completely agree wiht Heihojin when he said that you will take away a reason to play the game. I think that the majority of the most faithful players to this game
are strongly opposed to new system.

When i see your arguments, i dont think they are representative of what the majority of players really wants... Please do some poll before just to be sure of your arguments because - at least for me - they make no sense. Especially when you said that it is a bad thing that one need to think twice to each move with the glicko system. To my opinion, it is not a bad thing but a very good one as it make games challenging. And challenge is a big part of the fun.


Now, the situation is maybe 'grey', which means that some amount of players prefer the new rating system while others prefer the glicko one. In such situation, instead of frustrating at least one camp, why not implementing both ranking systems in parallel ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:27 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:43 pm
Posts: 245
Karma: 0

Location: ITA
Just like I wrote on my last post, to develop both sistems of ranking could be the best solution...even if I think that gliko sistem is the mirror of every single player....

_________________
DIES IRAE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y