Ranked win/loss progress, and balance.

(DrRageQuit) #1

Looking for an answer really, because i’m a touch confused.

SD say the ranked system is balanced, players are expected to win and lose roughly the same number of games once they’re at their proper rank - I’m not disputing this, the balance isnt as bad as it has been, my W/L/D numbers are hovering around equal give or take a couple games.

If this is the case, why does the game punish more for a loss than a win? Surely this means that if person A wins 10 games and loses 10 games, they would be at a higher rank than someone who wins 1000 and loses 1000?

Someone please clarify, i’ve been trying to make some sense of it and came to the conclusion either i’m missing something, or DBs ranking system demands players ‘unbalance’ the system and win more than they lose just to maintain a rank?

(Press E) #2

Ranked is broken. The devs seem to be ignoring a lot of what the community thinks about it, but regardless of what they think, ranked isn’t what they want it to be. Most players dislike it, and at the moment your rank is based widely on the luck you’ve had in getting a good team, rather than your own skill.

Don’t bother trying to make sense of it, there’s no excuse for what ranked currently is.

(M4st0d0n) #3

Ah the biweekly rant about Ranked mode of RageQuit and SaltySock. Let me grab a coffee, it’s part of the routine.

If the system is working like ELO ranking, you earn and lose classement point depending on your opponents ranks. The greater the rank gap, the bigger the amount.

And obviously, shellack record, team work OP.

(No_Point) #4

The problem is that the ranks are meaningless. For example, just now I had a game with a silver master that did not have any idea what to do. Then my team had two bronze players, and one unranked on his very first ranked game. The team we were up against was bottom rank silver… And I suppose that after 10 minutes of wait this Random Matchmaking thought it had made a pretty balanced game… But it f_u_ck_i_ng wasn’t.

You know, underground, the simplest map there is. All you have to do as attackers is to gun at the people disarming the C4? What does my silver master Aura do? The healing station is nearer to the stairs than the final platform. The two bronze players and the f_uc_kin_g_ unranked shit peak behind corners to fire a shot or two before retreating to ‘heal’… All they had to do was to go to the C4… look at it, and just gun downt he guys trying to disarm… But no… just no…

(DrRageQuit) #5

@M4st0d0n said:
Ah the biweekly rant about Ranked mode of RageQuit and SaltySock. Let me grab a coffee, it’s part of the routine.

If the system is working like ELO ranking, you earn and lose classement point depending on your opponents ranks. The greater the rank gap, the bigger the amount.

And obviously, shellack record, team work OP.

I dont see any ranting. Just a guy asking a legit question, a couple responses and some troll trying to stir shit up for their own enjoyment.

(hawkeyeguy99) #6

@Eox Can we get this thread cleaned up of the language filter workarounds? Thanks

As for the actual post, we’ve been given no actual numbers or data to really say at this point. I think it was OP’s post earlier where we tried to determine that. I totally agree with @STARRYSOCK here, don’t even bother trying to figure it out. Ranks are as meaningless as skins. A high rank just means you got lucky with matchmaking or you constantly stack 5 man teams. I’ve seen abysmal players get carried all the way to Cobalt ranked by good 5 mans. It’s just a really bad system and SD refuses to admit it’s not working as intended.

(M4st0d0n) #7

@DrRageQuit said:

@M4st0d0n said:
Ah the biweekly rant about Ranked mode of RageQuit and SaltySock. Let me grab a coffee, it’s part of the routine.

If the system is working like ELO ranking, you earn and lose classement point depending on your opponents ranks. The greater the rank gap, the bigger the amount.

And obviously, shellack record, team work OP.

I dont see any ranting. Just a guy asking a legit question, a couple responses and some troll trying to stir @$!# up for their own enjoyment.

Yeah my bad, you dont rant, it’s just your username, when I read it I always imagine you already left us. I have proposed a rational response but feel free to investigate how ELO works, there is plenty of info on the web about that. If you dont feel a rational answer is what you need, well I’m sorry, cant help you. If you think there’s a bug just try to amass and present data in a constructive manner. So this thread can be a bit more than the usual “all is meaningless, SD dont listen to us, teamwork is OP”.

(DrRageQuit) #8

@hawkeyeguy99 said:
As for the actual post, we’ve been given no actual numbers or data to really say at this point. I think it was OP’s post earlier where we tried to determine that. I totally agree with @STARRYSOCK here, don’t even bother trying to figure it out. Ranks are as meaningless as skins. A high rank just means you got lucky with matchmaking or you constantly stack 5 man teams. I’ve seen abysmal players get carried all the way to Cobalt ranked by good 5 mans. It’s just a really bad system and SD refuses to admit it’s not working as intended.

I figured there wasnt really any available info on the win/loss rates. I think i saw someone calculated that you needed the progress from 1.75 wins to offset a loss, but i dont know if the percentage goes up more or less as you go up through ranks.

It would be nice to get some legit info from SD on this, and nicer still for SD to acknowledge that the system is flawed and equalize points gained/lost for a win/loss.

@M4st0d0n <3 The nickname is a few years old now, while playing DayZ it felt like whenever people got into a fight against me they’d quit out. Bit of Irony or something i guess.
Does the system actually run on an ELO? Because it doesnt really seem it, i thought ELO worked around actual personal performance, and would for example go up more if you faced a higher tiered opponent and won. This feels more like a fixed % for each rank

No salt, no hate. I just like to try to understand the systems put in front of us. I guess i’m probably SOL this time.

EDIT:
Spotted: http://forums.dirtybomb.com/discussion/36782/ranked-rankings with some interesting info, i guess this is the thread i saw before. Would still be nice for some actual word from SD on the matter though

(Yoshiro_San) #9

2 times in a row I had to go against gold player in ranked while my own team consisted out off bronze and silver the ranked balance is the worst thing ever

(Chilled Sanity) #10

@STARRYSOCK said:
Ranked is broken. The devs seem to be ignoring a lot of what the community thinks about it, but regardless of what they think, ranked isn’t what they want it to be. Most players dislike it, and at the moment your rank is based widely on the luck you’ve had in getting a good team, rather than your own skill.

Don’t bother trying to make sense of it, there’s no excuse for what ranked currently is.

Well splash damage has the same production time as my harbingers in Red Alert 3. A fuck ton.

But when they do it they do it great.

Most of the time

(Nail) #11

The idea that the Devs are ignoring the “community” is beyond stupid, they don’t ignore ANYTHING including dumbass remarks and ideas from the “community”

(GatoCommodore) #12

@Nail said:
The idea that the Devs are ignoring the “community” is beyond stupid, they don’t ignore ANYTHING including dumbass remarks and ideas from the “community”

can confirm this is what really happens

(M4st0d0n) #13

@DrRageQuit said:
Does the system actually run on an ELO? Because it doesnt really seem it, i thought ELO worked around actual personal performance, and would for example go up more if you faced a higher tiered opponent and won. This feels more like a fixed % for each rank

Basic ELO is for 1vs1 games, where the win/loss leads to points gained/lost after the two ELO ratings are compared. The larger the gap, the bigger the points. It has been adapted with limited success in team based games, under the form of glicko, MMR, … The point of rupture is when you adjust the rating of a player when he is queuing with his team, because there is a very very large number of possible team (player combinations), some of them being very punctual.

Here is a read about Dota2 ranked matchmaking.
http://blog.dota2.com/2013/12/matchmaking/

My two cents about it is : the less I know, the better it is. I dont want my rating to dictate the way I play, I just want it to deliver balanced matches. The meta right now is to team up to increase it, but it wont stop me from solo queuing. If you set XP as a factor, you need to balance XP mechanics in the game (and a lot of them are absurdely broken). If you set K/D ratio as a factor, you’ll see campers not risking the objective.

Try to record your points progression for the next ten matches and see how it evolves regarding the matchup, so you’ll have an idea.

(No_Point) #14

Records of percentage changes, from third ranked season:

-16.8% (Starting progression position)
19.3% - W
55.5% - W
22.3% - L
-5.9% - L
24.8% - W
-0.2% - L
19.2% - W
-6.2% - L
-21.6% - L
8.8% - W
39.8% - W
15.7% - L
33.3% - W
8,9% - L
29.3% - W
55.8% - W
86.2% - W
67.0% - L
82.8% - W
65.8% - L
81.8% - W
59.8% - L
75.5 - W
59.5% - L
35.5% - L
58.0% - W
75.1% - W
2.9% - W (Up a rank)
-23.7% - L
-23.7% - Draw
49.1% - L (Down a rank)
77.4% - W
56.3% - L
76.1% - W
2.6% - W (Up a rank)
7.7% - W
26.8 - W
9.3% - L
-16.3% - L (The enemy had an aimbotter.)
52.9% - Abandoned (Down a rank, I just wasn’t going to waste any of my time against that shame shitbag.)

(No_Point) #15

Compared to second ranked season, going up ranks has become relatively speaking easier. I have seen less ‘cobalt-ranks’ with a ‘bronze-rank’ buddy to boost them up by gaming the system to pit them against low silver or high bronze players. (Win used to be about 12%, while loss was about -30%.)

But the fact hasn’t changed that you cannot escape losses due to getting stuck in teams with dead weight. And the lower you fall in the ranks, the harder it will be to climb back up.

(No_Point) #16

But the thing is, the biggest problem with ranked is that you cannot escape bad players while stuck in the silver ranks. You will lose games you should have been able to win and even if you are slowly going up in ranks, the whole experience of it is just unbearable. I am not getting paid enough to play ranked mode beyond that one Stopwatch credits mission a day - and that too makes match making worse because of smaller player base.

I just wish you would get more ranked points per game based on the match duration rather than just the outcome.

(M4st0d0n) #17

Now you need to compare this data with the rankings of the teams. Let’s say medium silver correspond to 1500 MMR. Unranked should be 1500ish too by default. Bottom bronze is 800ish (7 ranks below), elite is 2200+ (7ranks up) and players are reparted following a logistic curve. The points you earned and lost are a value derived of a fixed factor (K factor) and, let’s assume, the the means of ranks of team A and team B.

@No_Point said:
But the fact hasn’t changed that you cannot escape losses due to getting stuck in teams with dead weight. And the lower you fall in the ranks, the harder it will be to climb back up.

Get your facts straight. You can pretty easily escape this situation. Join a clan, try to behave. It’s an online videogame, nerds can socialize here, you are safe. <3

(No_Point) #18

@M4st0d0n said:
Now you need to compare this data with the rankings of the teams…
The rankings of the teams are meaningless because a loss streak of 3-4 matches can easily derank a player. Have few of those in a row and you will fall in ranks pretty steadily. Thus a player’s skill level is not tied to their rank. I should have taken screenshots back in the Second Ranked season when me as some silver recruit managed outscore cobalts and elites…

Not to mention that having a ‘high rank’ in one team does not help you if the team also has a ‘no rank’ in it. With no rank I mean someone who doens’t know the map, doesn’t know the mercs, or understand how you need to work as a team to complete the objective. They may or may not also be shooting their own team in the back. A 5v5 game can be in reality a 4v5, or something worse.

Now as for the effect of your score:

…
2.6% - W (Up a rank)
**7.7% - W ** (This was a game where I was silver something with 4 bronze against 2 silvers and 3 bronze. My score was 10000+ than the second highest on my team, and 20000+ higher than the highest score on the enemy team.)
…

The reason I remember it was simply because of that utterly miniscule 5.6% increase. It was on Bridge, and had the other team not had that one leaver, our victory was far from certain even with my ‘massively higher score’ than what anyone else got. They had the mercs to turtle up and guard the last objective, they even had some teamwork going, while my team largely just had me doing everything…

So yeah, it seems that if you ‘outperform’ the rest of the players… you get a smaller progression percentage at the end of the game. In a way it would help explain why I needed that 1.75+ win ratio back in Ranked Season 2 just to stop falling down in the ranks. (I suppose that it needs to be mentioned how back in ranked season two you had teams of a ‘cobalt main’ and ‘a bronze alt steam account’ to help the ‘cobalt main’ reach higher rank.)

@M4st0d0n said:
Get your facts straight. You can pretty easily escape this situation. Join a clan, try to behave. It’s an online videogame, nerds can socialize here, you are safe. <3
The thing is, my facts are straight, just look at them.

As for escaping the solo ranked queue hell, it is not something that easy for everyone. For example joining a clan might not be a possibility simply due to time issues. It is the reason why I have ignored the 200+ friend requests I’ve gotten while playing DB - if I accept - I will not see them for weeks or months. No point.