Rating system

[Emacz]

Pretty sure there has been some debate on the current rating system, it has its flaw for sure. I dont have a full proof way to fix it.  Nor do I know the coding needed/required.  BUT i do think that you should be able to still "gain" points if you play a +100 or 200 player form your level and play really close.  Also maybe you can only play rated games if you are within X of a player, try and prevent some of the fake ratings/people who are willing to play 100000 games and get 1 point each so they can get to 1600, 1700 etc.

Any suggestions/thoughts/ideas on how to improve rating games for all?

[Seleucids]

It's hard to summarise a player in a single number.

At this point I would just use LocalRatings. It is not 100% reliable, but it is very good at analysing specific aspects of gameplay, for example the eco skills and fighting skills. You can adjust the weights to see who is the best at each skill. You can also download replays from replay Pallas to get more reliable estimates of each player when you are trying to balance a 4v4

[Seleucids]

19 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Any suggestions/thoughts/ideas on how to improve rating games for all?

Taking account of non-1v1 games would be a very good start, because that can indicate who is truly newbie and who is an unrated player but has played many games (Pandravabal). Sadly this has been discussed for 11 years but still no implementation 

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/2516

[Player of 0AD]

- it's okay that the system just takes the result into account, it's irrelevant how close it was. In many other games it's like this too.
- it's ok that people can play rated matches against players who are much lower rated. if they lose, they lose a lot of points...

- we need a rating system for team games too. Shouldn't be that hard....

[Seleucids]

4 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

Shouldn't be that hard....

It's not impossibly hard but also not easy, because the way that the current lobby bot decides rating change is by waiting for the simultaneous resignation / victory reports from both players in the 1v1. Then it does a simple comparison and issues a rating change. In a TG, if the reports don't come in simultaneously, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it. This is not a client-side issue but a WFG lobby bot issue which I have no access to.  

I am not sure what kinds of information are stored for each account by the moderators / lobby servers. If it stores creation dates / total logins etc that would be great. 

[Emacz]

16 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

- it's okay that the system just takes the result into account, it's irrelevant how close it was. In many other games it's like this too.
- it's ok that people can play rated matches against players who are much lower rated. if they lose, they lose a lot of points...

- we need a rating system for team games too. Shouldn't be that hard....

I guess i havent played many other games with rating systems.  Just starcraft.  IF i recall correctly you cant play diamond players  if ur in bronze? You have to move up first....

and this game is so small and complex, differnt there are so many new players new accounts, its really easy to "farm" points.

But hey if eveyrone likes having fake 1500, 1600, 1700 players, keep it as is i guess.

[Deicide4u]

Playing and having fun would be the best rating you'd ever have.

Spoiler

*hides in a corner like a good comp-stomper he is*

 

[Emacz]

7 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Playing and having fun would be the best rating you'd ever have.

  Reveal hidden contents

*hides in a corner like a good comp-stomper he is*

 

Try telling that to Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps or Bobby Fisher (I dont know as much about him thought)

Winning = fun

competitive games = fun

playing 1600 who is really 1200 is a waste of time and not fun

[Stan`]

7 hours ago, Seleucids said:

It's not impossibly hard but also not easy, because the way that the current lobby bot decides rating change is by waiting for the simultaneous resignation / victory reports from both players in the 1v1. Then it does a simple comparison and issues a rating change. In a TG, if the reports don't come in simultaneously, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it. This is not a client-side issue but a WFG lobby bot issue which I have no access to.  

I am not sure what kinds of information are stored for each account by the moderators / lobby servers. If it stores creation dates / total logins etc that would be great. 

You know everything is open source and currently on GitHub right?

[Player of 0AD]

8 hours ago, Emacz said:

I guess i havent played many other games with rating systems.  Just starcraft.  IF i recall correctly you cant play diamond players  if ur in bronze? You have to move up first....

and this game is so small and complex, differnt there are so many new players new accounts, its really easy to "farm" points.

But hey if eveyrone likes having fake 1500, 1600, 1700 players, keep it as is i guess.

Maybe we just need to lower the initial rating from 1200 to something like 800.  Many new players aren't 1200, they are much weaker.

[Emacz]

2 hours ago, Stan` said:

You know everything is open source and currently on GitHub right?

@Stan`Remember I'm still kinda a nub when it comes GitHub. Until you just said something, it didnt occur to me.  But now Ill try and see if i can find it and make sense of the formula.... but i wouldnt quite know where to even look as far as folders/branches whatever they are called

1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:

Maybe we just need to lower the initial rating from 1200 to something like 800.  Many new players aren't 1200, they are much weaker.

Yeah actually this alone maybe enough help, or even 1000, would take longer/be harder to farm new accounts.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I’m not sure if trying to unify team game and single player ratings would work well. I think we need 3 items, not in any particular order, to bring legitimacy back to the ratings.

• Constrain settings for rated games so that serious maps and map sizes are used (looking at you polar sea). I’d love to add a “balanced” random map category for this.
• Implement a basic matchmaking option without replacing lobby rated 1v1s. This would lead to more match variety if there’s enough players, and everyone’s ratings would be more interdependent.
• make 1v1s more enjoyable. Right now I’d say that team games are simply more fun than 1v1s, and a lot of great players just don’t care that much about playing 1v1s.

[ffm2]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I’m not sure if trying to unify team game and single player ratings would work well.

I'm in favor of unifying them. For a accurate rating one needs a certain amount of recent games. This split could be done for players that play enough 1v1s and tgs.

 

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Implement a basic matchmaking option

This would be nice, but would only work if the player base where higher.

 

See also:

Would it be possible to have a rating system for games outside of 1v1s?

LocalRatings mod

Where I already wrote my opinions

• LR is not accurate for a lot of players
• I'd prefer team elo like AOE2 (or here as video)

From time to time I look in to LR to try to implement team elo (or glicko-2 or whatever) but I never can get my foot in the door or have other stuff to do. But it should not be so hard to

• start each player with 1200
• iterate over all games in chronicle order
• distribute score per elo system

Next little caveat would be that a lot of tgs don't end with a certain victory but that 3 of 4 resigns and the host ends the game. That could change if the host is interested in the score distribution.

[Stan`]

10 hours ago, Emacz said:

@Stan`Remember I'm still kinda a nub when it comes GitHub. Until you just said something, it didnt occur to me.  But now Ill try and see if i can find it and make sense of the formula.... but i wouldnt quite know where to even look as far as folders/branches whatever they are called

Yeah actually this alone maybe enough help, or even 1000, would take longer/be harder to farm new accounts.

I was replying to @Seleucids unless you are the same person.

Replay pallas also has a glicko rating only for 1v1 for now

 

 

 

[Seleucids]

I'm not the same person as Emac2 and I am looking at lobby bot code on GitHub right now, trying to see how it stores info and the possibility of knowing outcomes of TGs 

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

I was replying to @Seleucids unless you are the same person.

Replay pallas also has a glicko rating only for 1v1 for now

 

 

 

ahahahah nope, we are not the same.  I am jus nub at reading too I guess

[Emacz]

4 hours ago, ffm2 said:

I'm in favor of unifying them. For a accurate rating one needs a certain amount of recent games. This split could be done for players that play enough 1v1s and tgs.

 

This would be nice, but would only work if the player base where higher.

 

See also:

Would it be possible to have a rating system for games outside of 1v1s?

LocalRatings mod

Where I already wrote my opinions

• LR is not accurate for a lot of players
• I'd prefer team elo like AOE2 (or here as video)

From time to time I look in to LR to try to implement team elo (or glicko-2 or whatever) but I never can get my foot in the door or have other stuff to do. But it should not be so hard to

• start each player with 1200
• iterate over all games in chronicle order
• distribute score per elo system

Next little caveat would be that a lot of tgs don't end with a certain victory but that 3 of 4 resigns and the host ends the game. That could change if the host is interested in the score distribution.

You think 1200 is a good starting point?  I really think it should be lower, 1000 maybe. Too many people get to 1300-1500 pretty easily from 1200.... and then they wont play you once they are there

[ffm2]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

You think 1200 is a good starting point?

I think the starting point don't matter but would only offset the rating. Iirc in the video rating inflation was described.

One could always play with the variables still later on.

[Dakara]

I think the game isn't mature and populated enough to have a 5v5 ranking. It will work for a few weeks, then flop.

half of the tg will not launch if they are classified, and more to lengthen the waiting time before press ready

Edited 15 hours ago by Dakara

[alre]

if someone needs it, I have a dateaset of some (many, can't recall now) thousands of results from rated 1v1.

I'd also add to the problems with integrating the old rating system that it's a particular custom version of elo, which makes very little sense to me and, while similar to elo in the results, it's very different in implementation, so I wouldn't know how to touch it.