[Suggestion] Rank Update / Rank League / Rank seasons

[cap'tain roc]

Hi, i'm Cap'tain roc, i have recently restarted play 0.a.d after 1 year of inactivity. Nevertheless, I have noticed something we could upgrade, and that's the rank(ing) system.

Honestly, how the rank is made (ranked game > you win you take points > you lose you drop points) isn't the problem, however, the podium almost didn't change (after 1 of inactivity). So, i was thinking, why not make a system that all 1 or 2 months, scores resets or something like that.

Why i want to do that ? Let me explain :

-> This mechanic will permit to see who can stay the longest on the top (and not have inactive people who stay at top).

-> Give another goal on the game -> each season/period you have "something" to do

-> It could give access to others ideas such as -> reward like a status/grade -> seasons/league tournaments

And finally, one last question is : How we should "reset" the points ? I have some ideas :

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you reset to this stage (which is 1500).

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you keep the half of all the points above 1500. Exemple, i have 1800 points, the season reset -> 1500 + 300/2= 1650

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), after 1500 points, we set a step each 100 points, and when the season reset, you go to the step before you. Exemple: I have 1587 points -> 1500 points ; Other exemple: I have 1812 points -> 1800 points.

I hope you found this idea cool, tell me what do you think about this concept?

Edited June 29, 2021 by cap'tain roc

[Stan`]

@user1
@Dunedan

[LetswaveaBook]

There is a more fundamental problem with the rankings.

The ladder is based on 1v1 rated games. A lot of players (also those in the top 100) don't play a lot of rated 1v1 games. This is the reason why the podium almost didn't change. You don't often see players rated in the top 100 host rated games to defend/risk their rank.

1 hour ago, cap'tain roc said:

And finally, one last question is : How we should "reset" the points ? I have some ideas :

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you reset to this stage (which is 1500).

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), and in each end of season/period, you keep the half of all the points above 1500. Exemple, i have 1800 points, the season reset -> 1500 + 300/2= 1650

-> We choose a stage of points (like 1500), after 1500 points, we set a step each 100 points, and when the season reset, you go to the step before you. Exemple: I have 1587 points -> 1500 points ; Other exemple: I have 1812 points -> 1800 points.

All these suggestions lower the rating of some very but inactive talented players. Which means that two players might have similar ratings but entirely different skill levels, after-all rating should be representative of skill level.

If you want to clean the leader-board while keeping ratings intact, I would suggest multiplying the ratings with -1. Once a player completes a rated game, the new ratings get computed according to the absolute value of their rating. If there is a player with rating -1800, you know that this is a good but inactive player which would be more faithful than giving a 1500 rating.

[Player of 0AD]

Resetting ratings is too drastically.

A symbol which shows inactivity is a better way.

There is another value which is the uncertainty of the ratings. Inactivity could increase this value day by day a bit, and in general if the uncertainty is higher than a certain value, ratings could be marked with a "?" to show that the rating is uncertain.

Don't reinvent the wheel, just learn from the rating system of Lichess.org, a free chess site

[Player of 0AD]

20 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

There is a more fundamental problem with the rankings.

The ladder is based on 1v1 rated games. A lot of players (also those in the top 100) don't play a lot of rated 1v1 games. This is the reason why the podium almost didn't change. You don't often see players rated in the top 100 host rated games to defend/risk their rank.

All these suggestions lower the rating of some very but inactive talented players. Which means that two players might have similar ratings but entirely different skill levels, after-all rating should be representative of skill level.

If you want to clean the leader-board while keeping ratings intact, I would suggest multiplying the ratings with -1. Once a player completes a rated game, the new ratings get computed according to the absolute value of their rating. If there is a player with rating -1800, you know that this is a good but inactive player which would be more faithful than giving a 1500 rating.

A minus would be very misleading, as ratings could be actually negative. A question mark is a better symbol

[cap'tain roc]

Of course we are not going to destroy everyone performances, but that's quite sad to see very good players just almost don't play just because they are scared to lose they score. Agree at least that ratings system must have some updates, some changements, or something to make the ratings most interesting and not have a dead podium.

Btw, values i use on the first post are exemples, and i totally agree to change them if we need to.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Maybe some civ specific score too

 

[cap'tain roc]

On 29/06/2021 at 4:52 PM, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Maybe some civ specific score too

You mean, civilisation score ?

 

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Yeah like we could see who is highest rated ptol player for example.

[cap'tain roc]

41 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Yeah like we could see who is highest rated ptol player for example.

Idk, some players use differents civ

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

I meant in addition to the normal rank have another rank for their most played faction

 

[Yekaterina]

Shall we include performace against bots as well? Players can smurf, troll and make mistakes but bots will always be the same. 

 

Favourite civ is a good idea. Perhaps we can create a little profile for each player, showing

• number of games played
• number of games won
• overall kd ratio
• total units killed
• Time since last activity
• Average time spent on 0AD per day
• When they joint the lobby
• Some form of ELO rating, like lichess
• Favourite civ
• Personal statement (let them write a short paragraph to describe themselves)

 

This profile pops up when you double click their name. 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

13 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Yeah like we could see who is highest rated ptol player for example.

I like this, a lot. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 29/06/2021 at 9:58 AM, Player of 0AD said:

Resetting ratings is too drastically.

Rating decay then?

[Palaxin]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Rating decay then?

Like after 2 months of inactivity, -10 points each month?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 minutes ago, Palaxin said:

Like after 2 months of inactivity, -10 points each month?

I'd say 1 month inactivity grace period, then -1 point each day up to a max of -100 or something acceptable. 

[Player of 0AD]

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Rating decay then?

No. Just increase the uncertainty of ratings day by day a bit, so after many days the rating is considered to be provisional again and can be marked with a question mark, and the player disappears from the tier list, especially from the top 100.

[Yekaterina]

I guess the reason why we want to have ratings is to balance out players in TG and avoid hitting an OP player in 1v1. Therefore we can use something more informative than just 2 numbers, hence the profile idea. You can doctorate the numbers but if you get a profile then that is a very solid illustration of your playstyle and skill (unless you create a second account). A lot of players have low or no ratings because they only play TG, so we need to include that in the profile.

Of course, globally, we can have a top player for each civ.