Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Rating

2015-01-22T06:00:49+02:00

RoLa wrote:
I think the current rating system is very accurate

Sorry , what ?

This is just absolutely wrong. PT has its flaws but it gives you stats from where you can profile the unknown player, and as a bonus you can check in a blink of an eye if he's used to play diff style of maps or not, and then you have a general appreciation, and possibly your own.

On FAF you have a number that means usually nothing, and then you have to take your chances. Not that I care much as I stopped giving a shit to rating long time ago, but you simply cannot say it's VERY ACCURATE.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 22 Jan 2015, 06:00

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T22:40:21+02:00

LittleInferno wrote:
I think the rating system should be maintained only in 1v1 ladder.

I think we all know that if we do not play with the same players every day, the rating system not tell you the real true.

I think the current rating system is very accurate, but since you dont see all information about the rating you cant interpret the number correctly. When i see a player with 15 games and a rating of 600 i know with high propability he will be about 600-1100. When a 1200 player has 2000 games i know he will play like 1100-1300. With deviation information i could estimate it even better. So perhaps the rating number should be more like 600±500 or 1200±100. Without rating unknown players would be just kicked from games. Because of rating I play mostly in very balanced games! ±150 in FAF should be normal!

It's like in chess with ELO. Obviously there is no luck in chess, but from experience i know young players tend to be extremly underrated, very old players instead a bit overrated. I have about 1850 (DWZ german ELO) and on a good day i can beat a >2000 player especially if he left once my club but on a bad day i loose against a 1600 player. so ±200 isn't so unusual. I will practically never loose against a player < 1500 and never win against a player>2200

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 21 Jan 2015, 22:40

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T20:26:04+02:00

I think the rating system should be maintained only in 1v1 ladder.

I think we all know that if we do not play with the same players every day, the rating system not tell you the real true.

Not easy to predict how a game will run, iff the map you host to you play dependent only on the rating,not easy to many players..
I already saw good player 900k, bad player +1300k,good players 1200k and bad players 1500k only on team games...

Speaking only in teams games the 1v1, i think its run well with the system we have ,its very accurate .

I'd rather like see separate ratings in team games from the 1v1.
I think as we had the playertrack , was a system to team games very accurate and it has several options to verify any player,with some changes could be bether.

With playertrack there is no way to change the rating,iff players say you noob/beginer/ok/good/great/Special its because you are.

ex iff Anonim player got 30 votes that he is good ,was 30 times that players saw he can decide his spot without help vs good players.

But also i think its a trick way to find how accurate will be since many players dont play + then 1/3 maps like me...(Seton/gap/thermo)

But i agree with what most off you have say....

Statistics: Posted by LittleInferno — 21 Jan 2015, 20:26

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T15:34:00+02:00

On one hand I like the global rating system because I think it forces people to have a competitive mentality. I feel the average skill is higher now than it was in GPGnet days. At least for the small selection of maps players choose to become good at. Also it is a fact that almost every game benefits from having stats, people love stats. PlayerTrack was a nice addition to old FA no matter how you look at it. A rating / scoring / stat system should continue to exist.

speed2 wrote:
Bring Matchmaker and global rating wont be needed anymore. Till that stop this endless useless argument since we need rating to balance games manualy and there isnt better system to replace it now.

But it worked in GPGnet for years, so it's not an objective necessity for the game to function or be enjoyable.

-_V_- wrote:
On GPGnet, there was not so much time wasted in game balancing. Period. Oh and yes it was way more fun. I totally miss those days.

Agreed. Less balance whining in lobby, less hesitation to play against better players, less hesitation to play on different maps and far less rage in ingame chat.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
on GPG was team matchmaker. whith operate with personal 1v1 rating of team members.
And custom game was less played as are now. with 10time bigger population.

I think none of this is actually true.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 21 Jan 2015, 15:34

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T11:41:47+02:00

Reaper Zwei wrote:
I hear that there was no global rating on GPG net, how were games balanced there?

on GPG was team matchmaker. whith operate with personal 1v1 rating of team members.
And custom game was less played as are now. with 10time bigger population.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 21 Jan 2015, 11:41

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T12:03:35+02:00

There was Player Track, which was much better tool than the stupid rating we have now. As "rating, there were "noob", "med", "good", "great".
You could at least keep track of your OWN appreciation of the player. I would always trust my own appreciation of the player than the one of the community.

Also, you could see from some stats, if the player was versatile or specialised into let's say "air play".
Plus you could see if the player was able to eco properly.
Sure it wasn't perfect, but much better than a stupid number, that would scare people away for losing some points because if the very same number.

If you're good, you're good, no need to bla bla a lot of time because you have a 1500 instead of a 1700.

The % ratio is insignificant, but players rely on it sooooo much and I see each day I play FAF the consequences of this.
I have really seen people arguing that 87% was not enough, and NOTHING below 90% was acceptable. This triggers a very deep anger within me, which often expresses itself by bird names.

On GPGnet, there was not so much time wasted in game balancing. Period. Oh and yes it was way more fun. I totally miss those days.

I was actually in a lobby yesterday where ratings were pretty equals. But one player got kicked after waiting a long time because he had only 40 games I think.

So the opposite team was pooping already that they could lose 20 points. This is how ridicule it was. I wish I could have exported the chat logs. Absolutely pathetic.
They should come to me and we play so that they can farm poitns from me. I have 1600+ to give for free

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 21 Jan 2015, 11:39

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T11:18:14+02:00

I don't really see what would be solved by a ratings reset. The "problem" isn't the rating its peoples habits, and a reset wont solve that. It might look fine for awhile but then some time from now you would be right back here asking for another reset.

Now if we made it so that people could not play unrated games then that would I think solve the problem but I don't think there will be widespread support for such a move. We could also get rid of global rating all together but then how would one balance a game? I hear that there was no global rating on GPG net, how were games balanced there?

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 21 Jan 2015, 11:18

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T10:57:39+02:00

PascalP wrote:
tatsu v is rigth you arent a 1000+ you lack the basics and with 900 rating its pretty sad. you could improve if you'd want to but you don't so you ve no reason to complain in any way.
and I've also to agree with v that many payers don't know how to micro air or navy, setons is a good way to learn navy and air micro but i know that the people say ohhh setons shit map but even the.top players learned to micro navy on this shit map.

Actually I was not really thinking of air micro, if it means asf swarm micro.

More about the overall balance air and navy wise and how to counter what with what and how, if that makes sense.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 21 Jan 2015, 10:57

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T10:41:05+02:00

tatsu v is rigth you arent a 1000+ you lack the basics and with 900 rating its pretty sad. you could improve if you'd want to but you don't so you ve no reason to complain in any way.
and I've also to agree with v that many payers don't know how to micro air or navy, setons is a good way to learn navy and air micro but i know that the people say ohhh setons shit map but even the.top players learned to micro navy on this shit map.

Statistics: Posted by PascalP — 21 Jan 2015, 10:41

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T09:19:55+02:00

Rating is a problem.

But the root problem , IMHO, is the lack of versatility of way too many players.

Simply look at the maps being played. Navy , for one, is not played so much. Every time I play a water of Isis, even with "1500+" they clearly do not know how to play navy.
That's very concerning. Same goes for Final Rush, White fire.

Merely an example, but if we didn't have those stupid land only maps, then players would have to get better using all units of the game.

Don't even get me started on air...

This is precisely why you see hilarious comments (Gorton asked me to remain polite) on air / navy balance.

There is way way way too much emphasis on FAF regarding the land tier of the game.

Even on Setons, even usual players can't even play 4 positions, and after years of playing the same. What kind of BS is that ?

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 21 Jan 2015, 09:19

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T11:34:17+02:00

tatsu wrote:
I'd like for something to happen with rating as well.

here's my situation : my rating has solidified at 900 but i've gotten much better. yet it won't budge because of my 1330 game count.

You need better perspective. You were in my team yesterday, and no you're not better than 900. Nemir, a 1100, was playing much better than you.
Anyone can fail at some point, but your gameplay fail from yesterday proved that you don't really understand the basics yet.

Dont' want to listen to me because I bitch often? Ok.

Listen to Laser. He's a recognised good player and he told you the same thing if you can read between the lines.

EDIT and ADDENDUM : To prove it's not bitching , here's a critical mistake you did.

1 ) Nemir had dropped in mid sea to spam frigates that would reach ur shore fast, very fast
2 ) You had it scouted
3 ) For some reason that defies any logic, you went straight t2 navy, with UEF on top of that, and with poor build power

This can be enough to lose a side very early , ruining a game completely.
This is very very basic common sense. And unit knowledge wise, about FA, you SHOULD know that having one t2 destroyer, let alone, uef, would not stop a spam of frigates so close to your shore. 5 frigs beat a uef destro and on top of this, even t1 subs rape it.

Do you realise that you invested earlier than your opponent a significant amount of mass, in a defense that was not even adequate ? That mass would have much better used into improving your eco to retaliate earlier and double punish your opponent for his attempt of rush, actually triple (better eco for you, destroy the advance base, get the reclaim). Basic logic.

Instead of doing this , you could have

- tried to slow down his spam
- make a couple of t1 shipyards yourself and ASSIST them with eng (to catch up time wise) to at least not be beyond in terms of frigates. You can ignore t1 subs, unless there's like a million of them (to check if its subs, try to target the invisible units with frigs, you can also scout subs with t1 scouts).
- make ONE , possible TWO t1 torp launcher , as back up for your frigates.
- have a FEW engs patrolling the zone if the attacks on your shipyards occur to get the mass back ASAP.

Not rocket science right, and very very basic.

Oh and do not also forget that by the time you complete your t2 shipyard upgrade, with the build power you had, nemir could have gotten 2-3 out , without assist on his 3 shipyards.

And beyond that if several more experienced people are giving you advice, you may want to reconsider your "good gameplay", and not talk back like u did .

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 21 Jan 2015, 09:13

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T02:55:20+02:00

Why are we arguing about global ranks? They are for CUSTOM games.

Statistics: Posted by belatedcube — 21 Jan 2015, 02:55

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T00:56:48+02:00

If are the same rating now as 1 year ago, you have got better, but there is some deflation in the rating.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 21 Jan 2015, 00:56

Re: Rating

2015-01-21T00:35:49+02:00

I'd like for something to happen with rating as well.

here's my situation : my rating has solidified at 900 but i've gotten much better. yet it won't budge because of my 1330 game count.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 21 Jan 2015, 00:35

Re: Rating

2015-01-20T21:27:01+02:00

i know how trueskill works but in a teamgame trueskill is what all of your team needs...

Statistics: Posted by PascalP — 20 Jan 2015, 21:27