Regarding player ranks and ELO system

(ZGToRRent) #1

In my opinion, comp. ranks should count also player stats, how much he made to actually win a match. With the current “win/lose only” ratings, it’s easy to boost people.

Also, I can’t understand how ranks are gained after 10 matches. Some people have no idea how to play and they are getting gold 5 or gold 4 which is strange. I never saw player with bronze rank.

Could you Anti put a little bit more details about that? How MM will be improved in near future etc. For example, can we get information about, how many ELO points we need to earn to gain new rank? I would like to know some sort of details because I stuck at gold 2 after big winstreaks etc.

(mti_) #2

The system is not working. In any way. At all.

(aherys) #3

The rank is actually pretty ****ed up.

It’s pretty dommageable for the future, a lot of team come on dirty bomb to found a competitive game, like csgo, and actually, it’s a big disappointment on this side.

(Mustang) #4

Thats because you start in the middle of the ranks (Silver 1) and get pushed up or down from there rather than starting at the bottom (Bronze 5) and having to work your way all the way up, so it’s quite easy to get Gold 5 with just a handful of wins.

(shibbyuk) #5

I agree that your contribution to a win (or to a loss, I guess) should be taken into account in some sort of way if it’s not already. It’s a team game, yet the rank is individual - should your performance be measured solely on the performance of your whole team? I’m not sure.

I do think that most of the ranks I see are just wrong; perhaps they’ll level out given enough time. Almost every hopeless player I’ve seen has a better rank than me :frowning: (yeah, yeah boo hoo!)

(Mustang) #6

The issue with doing it like that is that it promotes selfish play.

(prophett) #7

[QUOTE=shibbyuk;534225]I agree that your contribution to a win (or to a loss, I guess) should be taken into account in some sort of way if it’s not already. It’s a team game, yet the rank is individual - should your performance be measured solely on the performance of your whole team? I’m not sure.

I do think that most of the ranks I see are just wrong; perhaps they’ll level out given enough time. Almost every hopeless player I’ve seen has a better rank than me :frowning: (yeah, yeah boo hoo!)[/QUOTE]

Agree with this. If your team gets slaughtered but you’ve defended objectives and rack up a lot of points, the consequence of losing should be as great/affect rank as much as those who didn’t contribute as much.

(MoonOnAStick) #8

If you are unlucky and get matched with 4 newbs who couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo, your overall team strength will reflect this and you won’t lose as many points. Hopefully, in the long run, these sorts of games will even out. I doubt that adding an extra, per-player fudge to the k-factor would be useful (I’m sure you can envisage situations where high xp doesn’t correlate with useful contribution). Are there any FPS ranking systems that do this?

There are certainly some problems though:
Very green players thrown in.
Some poor match-ups (too few players queuing to discriminate effectively?)
10 matches seems a pretty short time to start grading (but, of course, players want feedback asap).
Hackers buggering everything up.

(shibbyuk) #9

You may well be right (and Mustang); it’s not worth the risk of introducing more non-team-friendly gameplay. But, if the ranks are nonsense then what’s the point in showing them at all? I think they may work a little bit better for new players going forward, because they’ll be playing against players with ranks rather than other unranked players. I seem to remember constantly getting pitched against pkd and dmon while I didn’t have a rank! :confused: