nz_ Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 Team registrations Team registrations would allow development of leagues and a lot of fun. A lot of known players play 0ad in teams everyday. In fact, most of the fun games are played in teams. By allowing players to register in teams with a condition that the players in the team each must have at least 1300 ratings and having played at least 100 1v1 games with known players, across 3 months, would reduce duplicate account creation. There will be a value to maintain your 1v1 ratings and a price on account names. This would allow development of good teams and balanced, fun multiplayer games. Team ratings When team registrations are curated, the games would be played without disruption, rage quits, etc. This would give importance to team ratings. An algorithm must be developed to assign team ratings. In particular, ratings must decline if the team does not play for long time. (This should be the case even with 1v1 games.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Player of 0AD Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 (edited) I disagree with some points: 1300 minimum (league could also be open for all skill levels) 100 games seems too much, could also be 20 or something limited to 3 months might also be to complicated, you could remove that 0AD is free, so having one account should also be free. It's not necessary to let rating decline, as players can keep their skill level over a long time even when they dont play rated. Why not just treat ratings as Lichess does? If someone does not play rated, the uncertainty of the rating increases. After a weak or so, the player gets removed from leaderbords, and when uncertainty reaches a certain level, the rating gets marked with a question mark, so you can see that its very uncertain. Playing rated reduces the uncertainty. +1 for team leagues and rated team games Theoretically the 1v1 rating and the team rating of each account could also be identically. I think Age of Mythology does it like that. And theoretically its not necessary to register teams for rated team games. Just make sure that your team mates are no rage quitters if you play rated.... Edited August 25, 2022 by Player of 0AD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yekaterina Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 2 hours ago, nz_ said: Team registrations Team registrations would allow development of leagues and a lot of fun. A lot of known players play 0ad in teams everyday. In fact, most of the fun games are played in teams. By allowing players to register in teams with a condition that the players in the team each must have at least 1300 ratings and having played at least 100 1v1 games with known players, across 3 months, would reduce duplicate account creation. There will be a value to maintain your 1v1 ratings and a price on account names. This would allow development of good teams and balanced, fun multiplayer games. Team ratings When team registrations are curated, the games would be played without disruption, rage quits, etc. This would give importance to team ratings. An algorithm must be developed to assign team ratings. In particular, ratings must decline if the team does not play for long time. (This should be the case even with 1v1 games.) Or we can let players form clans themselves, like what happens in most FPS games. Sometimes 2 or 3 players want to be in the same team because they are all on discord or because they are siblings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nz_ Posted August 25, 2022 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Player of 0AD said: I disagree with some points: 1300 minimum (league could also be open for all skill levels) 100 games seems too much, could also be 20 or something limited to 3 months might also be to complicated, you could remove that 0AD is free, so having one account should also be free. It's not necessary to let rating decline, as players can keep their skill level over a long time even when they dont play rated. Why not just treat ratings as Lichess does? If someone does not play rated, the uncertainty of the rating increases. After a weak or so, the player gets removed from leaderbords, and when uncertainty reaches a certain level, the rating gets marked with a question mark, so you can see that its very uncertain. Playing rated reduces the uncertainty. +1 for team leagues and rated team games Theoretically the 1v1 rating and the team rating of each account could also be identically. I think Age of Mythology does it like that. And theoretically its not necessary to register teams for rated team games. Just make sure that your team mates are no rage quitters if you play rated.... Agree with your suggestions. Players form multiple accounts and then dupe the TGs as poorly rated players while actually they are smurfs leading to imbalance, spoiling the fun. Even now most hosts do not allow poorly rated players to play with them. So, agree that we could have multiple leagues for multiple rating levels. But it is important that ratings are assigned properly and there is a value to it. Players should take pride in their ratings and it should be difficult to earn. The objective is to make games more fun. I would say 50% of games end poorly because of imbalance. Also TG is a different skill compared to 1v1 and static team ratings will help players develop those skills. The uncertainty in ratings is a good idea and could be used as Lichess does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nz_ Posted August 25, 2022 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Sevda said: Or we can let players form clans themselves, like what happens in most FPS games. Sometimes 2 or 3 players want to be in the same team because they are all on discord or because they are siblings. Team ratings would motivate clan formation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 @Dunedan What do we need for 2v2 and 4v4 rankings? #2516 (Expand Rating System) – Wildfire Games I suppose the host leaving will still be a big issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alre Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 58 minutes ago, Stan` said: I suppose the host leaving will still be a big issue. definitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunedan Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 6 hours ago, Stan` said: @Dunedan What do we need for 2v2 and 4v4 rankings? First of all there needs to be a consensus how this should work. Should there be one rating or one for 1vs1 and one for multiplayer games? Also I'm not sure how good results for rating multiplayer games would be with the current ELO implementation. Maybe it'd make sense to switch to another rating algorithm for that. Once all these details are clarified it's just a matter of enabling/implementing the necessary support in EcheLOn and enable sending of game reports for multiplayer games with more than 2 players in pyrogenesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 14 minutes ago, Dunedan said: First of all there needs to be a consensus how this should work. Should there be one rating or one for 1vs1 and one for multiplayer games? Also I'm not sure how good results for rating multiplayer games would be with the current ELO implementation. Maybe it'd make sense to switch to another rating algorithm for that. Once all these details are clarified it's just a matter of enabling/implementing the necessary support in EcheLOn and enable sending of game reports for multiplayer games with more than 2 players in pyrogenesis. Yeah IMHO we should only rate 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 as three different ratings as initially suggested in the ticket linked above. But I don't know about the specifity mentionned there with regards to how long players should stay in the game for reports to be sent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alre Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 17 minutes ago, Dunedan said: First of all there needs to be a consensus how this should work. Should there be one rating or one for 1vs1 and one for multiplayer games? Also I'm not sure how good results for rating multiplayer games would be with the current ELO implementation. Maybe it'd make sense to switch to another rating algorithm for that. Once all these details are clarified it's just a matter of enabling/implementing the necessary support in EcheLOn and enable sending of game reports for multiplayer games with more than 2 players in pyrogenesis. I think there is a general consensus that something should be done for that. Also something about ratings that are not up to date. However, I don't think anyone can tell now what's the best course of action. If players are presented with a solution that looks more satisfactory (in terms of computed ratings) than the previous one, they will accept it. also I guess that more than one rating system could be proposed at the same time, for trial periods. I'm proficient in python and in statistics, so I can mantain the lobby-bots part, if needed. 3 minutes ago, Stan` said: But I don't know about the specifity mentionned there with regards to how long players should stay in the game for reports to be sent. why should that be different than in 1v1? one can make unrated TGs anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan` Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 7 minutes ago, alre said: why should that be different than in 1v1? one can make unrated TGs anyway. There was some issue mentioned in the ticket. I don't know the specifics 8 minutes ago, alre said: I'm proficient in python and in statistics, so I can mantain the lobby-bots part, if needed. 14 minutes ago, Stan` said: I suppose you could look at the repo on github and make some PRs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alre Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 30 minutes ago, Stan` said: There was some issue mentioned in the ticket. I don't know the specifics you mean https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2516#comment:31? yeah it looks like the game has to be modified, because most games wouldn't be rated even if all players resigned correctly, and maybe even if they stayed in the game until the end, it's not super clear from that comment. in any case, the problem is not in lobby-bots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palaiologos Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 https://www.ageofempires.com/news/aoe2de-update-36906/ " When searching for a match as a pre-made team, the system was inadvertently using the sum rather than the average rating of all party members. This resulted in the system creating imbalanced matches. " https://www.ageofempires.com/news/rankedtg-update-5-2021/ https://www.ageofempires.com/news/updates-to-ranked-team-game-elo-calculation/ 4 hours ago, alre said: even if all players resigned correctly True. If a player decides not to resign & leaves then that behavior could somehow be reflected/deducted in the calculation? Creates incentive maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrstgtr Posted August 25, 2022 Report Share Posted August 25, 2022 6 hours ago, alre said: If players are presented with a solution that looks more satisfactory (in terms of computed ratings) than the previous one, they will accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.