Change to Solo Ranked Rating Calculation

[DeltaCrucis]

I am sure other threads exist on this topic, but I wanted to chime in with my opinion and request for feedback. I was wondering if others agreed that the rating calculation for solo ranked should be adjusted. Simply using win/loss ratio as the only factor provides a distorted ranking system in my opinion.

 

The problem is that too much of your win/loss ratio (in solo ranked) is determined by the players that are placed in your group. Sometimes, I feel like I am pulling a slot machine when I que up for solo ranked. I have done about 100 solo ranked matches and I am batting a little over 500. And more often than not, I can tell right away if my team is going to win or lose immediately after I enter the WZ.

 

I would suggest a calculation using a combination of:

 

1) win/loss ratio

2) matches played

3) medals earned

4) MVP votes

 

Thoughts???

 

[EDIT]

 

A suggested scoring system that I posted later in the thread:

 

1) Win: +10 points

2) Loss: -20 points

3) MVP Vote: +0.5 point

4) Medal Earned: +1 point

5) Game Played: +2 points

 

Obviously, this is just an example, and those numbers are completely arbitrary, but it could serve as the basis to compare each player’s scores to one another every two hours to establish a real time point ranking system. Also, I would not throw out the system in place now which compares your ranking to the opposing group to adjust your scores accordingly. That differential could be used as a flat ratio to be applied to the above point system.

 

Points to your ranking from medals Earned is the 2nd stupidest thing i have ever heard, AND points for MVP is by far the dumbest idear some1s ever posted on a MMO forum.

 

Im sure some1s commented below and told you why.

 

secondly i don't think its simply win loss ratio, if you beet some1 with a much lower ranking than you your ranking dose not move much, if you beet some1 with a higher ranking than you your ranking will move up alot more.

Also games played does sort of come into it, if you win your first 10 games and get your ranking from that, on your theory i would be at the max ranking and could never get higher than that, which is not true

[BalphoWan]

Points to your ranking from medals Earned is the 2nd stupidest thing i have ever heard, AND points for MVP is by far the dumbest idear some1s ever posted on a MMO forum.

 

Im sure some1s commented below and told you why.

 

secondly i don't think its simply win loss ratio, if you beet some1 with a much lower ranking than you your ranking dose not move much, if you beet some1 with a higher ranking than you your ranking will move up alot more.

Also games played does sort of come into it, if you win your first 10 games and get your ranking from that, on your theory i would be at the max ranking and could never get higher than that, which is not true

 

There's nothing like a well articulated counter point. Okay, so let me make sure I have your list of critiques straight:

 

1) Stupid

 

Okay, I think that about covers it. Thanks for your valuable input in what was otherwise a fairly civilized discussion about possible changes to the ranking system.

 

P.S. - Though it may seem ripe for abuse, I think allowing players to have a (very small) input into the PVP rankings, by using MVP votes as part of the calculation, would be a really exciting idea. Besides, if game developers based their decisions on potential abuse from players, MMO's pretty much wouldn't exist. You know... because of internet trolls, i.e., you.

Edited November 22, 2013 by BalphoWan

[cashogy_reborn]

how about something similar to this, which is actually more dependent on individual performance rather than just plain W/L.

[-Messiah]

There's nothing like a well articulated counter point. Okay, so let me make sure I have your list of critiques straight:

 

1) Stupid

 

Okay, I think that about covers it. Thanks for your valuable input in what was otherwise a fairly civilized discussion about possible changes to the ranking system.

 

P.S. - Though it may seem ripe for abuse, I think allowing players to have a (very small) input into the PVP rankings, by using MVP votes as part of the calculation, would be a really exciting idea. Besides, if game developers based their decisions on potential abuse from players, MMO's pretty much wouldn't exist. You know... because of internet trolls, i.e., you.

 

Without being too aggressive. I would have to agree that basing your rank or adding to your rank based on the amount of medals you earn is one of the most stupid things I've heard lol sorry but I'm sure bioware even laughed when they read the comment... Well at least I'm sure they didn't consider it for a second to be a legitimate solution

[Rilok_Singz]

How about making your rating based off the numbers you put up in comparison to everyone else with your class on your server then game-wide. dps, protection, healing, etc. Makes no sense to see ppl's rating nosedive because their backpack wasn't big enough for the amount of bads that solo Q.

[Phyrelle]

Im the first to complain about Solo R-Arena rating system, but at the same time I realize its not easy to immagine a new way to calculate method. each of the proposal mentioned so far doesn't really work IMHO.

Sometimes I truely make the difference in Arena (like I knock off the bridge the healer - YES!) but it doesn't count much at the end in terms of point. More healing, more dps shouldn't even be reconized as a healer for example could turn some dps when its necessary.

 

But I still belive Solo rating is Lottery and shouln't be considered.

 

They should remove it and they should considered Arena 2v2.

[Phyrelle]

How about making your rating based off the numbers you put up in comparison to everyone else with your class on your server then game-wide. dps, protection, healing, etc. Makes no sense to see ppl's rating nosedive because their backpack wasn't big enough for the amount of bads that solo Q.

 

sounds fair, but you know that if you team up with terrible players a match could last less than a minute. And than you wouldn't even have time to make any dps/healing.

 

Not to mention dps is not necessarily meaning of skill. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch it but there are many other things you must do during match that would eventually make you stop your dps.

 

For example I always have a look at my healer. If hes getting kiled I stop my dps and run to anyone is hitting him and I stun his direct enemy. I loose 3/4 seconds of dps but I save his (and mine) *** for the game.

 

As far as you don't really suck compared to other players if you are lowes dps doesn't mean you played bad.

[Yeochins]

I like how people suggest rating calculations, yet their ideas demonstrate their lack of intelligence on match-making.

 

Please read up on ELO rating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system), which provide one common model for match-making.

 

Enhancements to the ELO rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill).

 

 

Matchmaking is a mathematical model. Any other factor besides wins and losses adds uncertainty to the model thus widely skewing results. You cannot measure ability by the number of medals, heals, damage, etc. These values are correlated values with a little degree of randomness once you account for correlation.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Yeochins

[BalphoWan]

Without being too aggressive. I would have to agree that basing your rank or adding to your rank based on the amount of medals you earn is one of the most stupid things I've heard lol sorry but I'm sure bioware even laughed when they read the comment... Well at least I'm sure they didn't consider it for a second to be a legitimate solution

 

Yes, basing your rank solely off the number of medals you earned would be "stupid," which is why I have not suggested that. I merely suggested that a possible way to more accurately rank players might be to include the number of medals earned as an admittedly small component of the calculation of a players rating. And while I appreciate your tone, you still haven't explained why you think it's stupid? Your opinion alone on the subject, without explanation doesn't really add to the discussion.

 

Now, obviously I can see how a system that used the number of medals earned as a component of your score could be manipulated. No argument there. But I still would prefer something like that to the current system. Ultimately, I feel like the more control you have over your score, as an individual player, the better the ranking for SOLO play will be. I mean let’s face it, the easiest way to manipulate the medal count is to play well. What’s wrong with that??

 

P.S. – I also do understand that certain classes are better at earning medals than others, which I also admit could cause some imbalance if medals were used as a component of your score, but I still think it would be worth it. Just my “stupid” opinion I guess.

[BalphoWan]

I like how people suggest rating calculations, yet their ideas demonstrate their lack of intelligence on match-making.

 

Please read up on ELO rating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system), which provide one common model for match-making.

 

Enhancements to the ELO rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill).

 

 

Matchmaking is a mathematical model. Any other factor besides wins and losses adds uncertainty to the model thus widely skewing results. You cannot measure ability by the number of medals, heals, damage, etc. These values are correlated values with a little degree of randomness once you account for correlation.

 

I think your comment was addressed earlier in this thread. I read the articles that you posted. The problem is that, as a previous post pointed out, the Elo rating system was created for competition between 1 v 1, or 1 team v 1 team (i.e., group ranked). And for that competitive dynamic, it works well. The problem is when you are rating 8 random players individually that are teamed up together against each other that the system breaks down.

 

Let me try to explain. The Elo system is based on the presumption that your skill as a player, or as a team, is the only variable in your ability to defeat your opponent. The problem is that, in solo ranked (not grouped obviously), the matchmaking system is too large of a variable in your ability to defeat the opposing team. That causes the Elo system to break down in solo ranked.

 

Now, I am not arguing that improvements to the matchmaking system couldn't somewhat address this issue, but when you factor in server population, and the randomness of the pool of available players on each faction that are qued at once at any given time, I don't know that improvements to the matchmaking system are viable. In fact, it could potentially decrease the already declining rate of solo ranked matches.

Edited November 22, 2013 by BalphoWan

[rlionherz]

BW should do us all a favour and just remove soloQ from ranked.

 

like mentioned before. give us a seperate unrated solo/team Arena Q where u get ranked coms to farm gear.

 

create a bloody rated 1v1 Arena for the ppl who want to Show their solo skills.

tbh that "world wide" rating stinks anyway. w/o cross Server que its inaccurate.

i dont think u can compare pve rp-pve pvp rp-pvp and German Servers if their top-notch Players cant compete with eachother..

Edited November 22, 2013 by rlionherz

[HaLeX]

BW should do us all a favour and just remove soloQ from ranked.

 

like mentioned before. give us a seperate unrated solo/team Arena Q where u get ranked coms to farm gear.

 

create a bloody rated 1v1 Arena for the ppl who want to Show their solo skills.

tbh that "world wide" rating stinks anyway. w/o cross Server que its inaccurate.

i dont think u can compare pve rp-pve pvp rp-pvp and German Servers if their top-notch Players cant compete with eachother..

 

I think it could be saved but they would have to make some changes and quickly.

1)They need to increase the effect that current ratings have on elo gained or lost. Its off by a lot. 1900 team beats a 1200 team then one point would be very charitable for the 1900 team, they did nothing to show they deserve anything higher.

2)Ditch the upfront loading, there aren't enough players for tiers and they need to put this idea to bed. Its led to ratings being decisive in the first few days and has the unintended consequence of making people no longer que bc combined with the luck factor its almost impossible to come back in rating if you've blown the first 10 matches.

3)Rated comms through rated matches only

4)Inactivity penalty- On my server most of the good players I see played for the first 10-20 matches, the ones who are content with their rating simply stopped queing. For every day off you take you should lose one elo point, after 2 weeks it should start to rise to 2 elo lost per day. Sort of like a daily rated, either play one or lose elo. This has actually been disscused in chess bc people tend to do the same thing, they win a few and duck opponents.

 

I think that's a start, IMO

Edited November 22, 2013 by HaLeX

[-Messiah]

Yes, basing your rank solely off the number of medals you earned would be "stupid," which is why I have not suggested that. I merely suggested that a possible way to more accurately rank players might be to include the number of medals earned as an admittedly small component of the calculation of a players rating. And while I appreciate your tone, you still haven't explained why you think it's stupid? Your opinion alone on the subject, without explanation doesn't really add to the discussion.

 

Now, obviously I can see how a system that used the number of medals earned as a component of your score could be manipulated. No argument there. But I still would prefer something like that to the current system. Ultimately, I feel like the more control you have over your score, as an individual player, the better the ranking for SOLO play will be. I mean let’s face it, the easiest way to manipulate the medal count is to play well. What’s wrong with that??

 

P.S. – I also do understand that certain classes are better at earning medals than others, which I also admit could cause some imbalance if medals were used as a component of your score, but I still think it would be worth it. Just my “stupid” opinion I guess.

 

Ok well I'll just say this... Medals are like little gold stars that bioware made up to give people in warzones. It's like getting 'cool points' off your friends ect. For eg; 'hey balpho, I'll give you a gold star if you get 5 killing blows in this warzone!'

 

They are beyond meaningless and if any attention is drawn to them it will result in medal farming and people saying... ' well I didn't suck, I got 9 medals that round.'

 

If any person( even in normal warzones) look at their medals and say 'dam I owned' or 'man I'm a good player' that's a good indicator that the player is trash and has no idea.

[BalphoWan]

Ok well I'll just say this... Medals are like little gold stars that bioware made up to give people in warzones. It's like getting 'cool points' off your friends ect. For eg; 'hey balpho, I'll give you a gold star if you get 5 killing blows in this warzone!'

 

They are beyond meaningless and if any attention is drawn to them it will result in medal farming and people saying... ' well I didn't suck, I got 9 medals that round.'

 

If any person( even in normal warzones) look at their medals and say 'dam I owned' or 'man I'm a good player' that's a good indicator that the player is trash and has no idea.

 

Fair enough. But I have heard this argument before about the medal count, and while I am aware of the possibility of players in a WZ medal farming, I have generally found that the better players tend to have more medals. Just a personal observation from a frequent PVP player. And I will also add that there is much less time and/or opportunity to medal farm in a ranked 4v4, than in 8 man regs.

 

But more importantly, I don’t want to get sidetracked on the issue of medal counts being used to calculate your rating. As I previously stated, I was only suggesting that the medal count be included as a very small component of your score; that was to say that, I think there should be a way of trying to establish a measure of a player’s performance in a solo ranked WZ that should be calculated into his score, regardless of whether he was on the winning or losing team.

Edited November 22, 2013 by BalphoWan