How to improve the ranking system

NoSoup

Based on the forums, it would seem the absolute majority of players believe the ranking system for Tot needs to be overhauled.

For me, there are 2 extremely important factors that need to support the ranking system. Simplicity is one, so that people can have a somewhat fair understanding of how they play a game is going to affect their ranking. Quality over quantity is the other factor, I don't think a ranking system that rewards the quantity of games over the quality of games played is what the game needs.

With that said, I believe a system that follows more of the path below would work a lot better than the current system.

Once you've reached ranked level, just have a base score for winning and losing. Whether you are playing a rank 1 or 1000th player shouldn't have such a huge impact on score. Lets face it, once you've reached the ranked leaderboard you know how the game works.

These figures are only suggestive. But for Simplicty's sake.

Base Win =55
Base Loss = 100.

You have to win 2 games for every game you lose to climb the leaderboard.

Now, to establish a quality over quantity factor. Introduce multipliers to the base score. Winning 2 games in a row adds a multiplier of x. Winning 3 games in a row adds a multiplier of x etc. Winning successive games with a different patron to the previous game adds a multiplier of x for each different patron.

Match making then simply prioritizes the closest ranked players to each other with a cooldown put on playing the same players.

A formula like the above will give a pretty clear idea of what you need to do to reliably climb the leaderboard. Win more games than you lose and if you want to climb faster, win games using different patrons rather than just the decks you're most comfortable with.

AnduinTryggva

I think the main issue of the ranking system is related to an attempt to avoid people playing arranged matches. You know when server activity is low log in with a few friends and all queue. When playing against the friend, this friend loses on purpose.

Your suggestion for streak multipliers will just further favor this approach of some.

Personofsecrets

Another thing that may help would be more ranks above rubedite. Each rank should be difficult to achieve. If that would ever become true, then playing within a rank would better ensure playing against those of similar skill. As it is now, I'm getting a range of good, but not great, opponents all the way to opponents that clearly don't know some basics.

NoSoup

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I think the main issue of the ranking system is related to an attempt to avoid people playing arranged matches. You know when server activity is low log in with a few friends and all queue. When playing against the friend, this friend loses on purpose.

Your suggestion for streak multipliers will just further favor this approach of some.

Thus the suggestion for a cooldown on playing the same players. I play Australian prime time when not a lot of people are on and I've frequently played the same player 3 times in a row.

NeKryXe

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I think the main issue of the ranking system is related to an attempt to avoid people playing arranged matches. You know when server activity is low log in with a few friends and all queue. When playing against the friend, this friend loses on purpose.

Your suggestion for streak multipliers will just further favor this approach of some.

[snip] We shouldn't ever be matched twice with the same player in the same day on ranked. Instead, usually, the system forces us to play over and over and over again against the same opponent. If they fix it, no one would attempt to arrange matches. Stuff like this never happens on TES Legends.

[edited for bashing]

sekou_trayvond

Nah. Just a modest minimum points gain for any win is the only really necessary change to the rank system that is needed. Most of the forum posts on the ranked system fall into 2 categories:
1. Have no clue how it works (or what it's based on) and don't really want to investigate the ELO system
2. [snip]

[edited for baiting]

NoSoup

sekou_trayvond wrote: »

Nah. Just a modest minimum points gain for any win is the only really necessary change to the rank system that is needed. Most of the forum posts on the ranked system fall into 2 categories:
1. Have no clue how it works (or what it's based on) and don't really want to investigate the ELO system
2. [snip]

To be fair absolutely no one out side of the Dev team knows how it works because there's 0% transparency on it, 0% predictability and 100% flawed.

[edited to remove quote]

NeKryXe

sekou_trayvond wrote: »

Nah. Just a modest minimum points gain for any win is the only really necessary change to the rank system that is needed. Most of the forum posts on the ranked system fall into 2 categories:
1. Have no clue how it works (or what it's based on) and don't really want to investigate the ELO system
2. [snip]

In most victories you win 0 to 1 point and in almost all losses we get -150 points removed from our score.

[snip]
[edited for minor bashing & to remove quote]

AnduinTryggva

[snip]

It is just creating frustration among 99% of all players. No wonder that the playerbase has dwindled rapidly after only a couple of months of release.

[edited for bashing]

Zarathustra88

The problem is that we're using an Elo ranking system for a game with high variability due to luck. This type of ranking system was designed for chess where it makes sense. If a top chess player plays 150 games against a mid tier player, the top player will likely win every game. Therefor awarding him 1 point would make sense and awarding the opponent 150 points if he wins also makes sense.

In ToT you could take the best player in the world and have them play150 games against a mid tier player and it is likely that the mid tier player would win about 10-15 games due to pure luck. This type of ranking system is terrible for games involving luck, which is why Wizards of the Coast abandoned this system for a better one back in 2012. Mostly due to players not playing to protect their points. Which is exactly what happens in ToT.

What is worse is that in ToT the scores reset every month which makes the system even less viable. For an Elo system to be useful it requires an ongoing set of results to draw from. The first week of each month every game will have wild swings in point gains and losses.

Let's say on the 1st day you hit rubedite and the second day you win 7 out of 10 matches and reach a score of 500. Then you play 2 matches against one of the players who consistently places in the top 2% every month but didn't play on the 1st so has just reached rubedite. You win the 1st match and you gain1 point, then lose the second match and lose 150 points. You have a net loss of 149 points with a 50% win rate against one of the best players in ToT.

Here is a real example which happened to me today. I reached rubedite and then had a couple of losses putting me at 1 point. I then played the same player 3 times in a row. I won the 1st game which earned me 150 points indicating that his rank was much higher than mine. I won the 2nd match and earned 1 point indicating that his last loss combined with my win (likely a 300 point difference) flipped to the opposite extreme. I lost the 3rd match and you guessed it, I lost 150 points netting me 1 whole point for a 2 out of 3 win against the that player. Now obviously that 3rd game was incredibly discouraging. From the beginning I knew if I lost I'd lose 150 points and if I won I would get either 1 or 0 points. It was a total waste of my time to play either way.

With this system the best strategy to rank in the top 10% is to play a lot of games and quit after a good winning streak. That's it. Just keep playing games until you get a good streak and quit playing for the rest of the month. The overall win rate means almost nothing. I have placed in the top 10% with a win rate of 51% and have missed the top 10% with a win rate of 69%. The difference? I played 171 games and stopped after a 6 game winning streak which gained me over 700 points.

ZOS needs to follow the steps of Wizards of the Coast and ditch this inadequate system.

NeKryXe

Zarathustra88 wrote: »

Here is a real example which happened to me today. I reached rubedite and then had a couple of losses putting me at 1 point. I then played the same player 3 times in a row. I won the 1st game which earned me 150 points indicating that his rank was much higher than mine. I won the 2nd match and earned 1 point indicating that his last loss combined with my win (likely a 300 point difference) flipped to the opposite extreme. I lost the 3rd match and you guessed it, I lost 150 points netting me 1 whole point for a 2 out of 3 win against the that player. Now obviously that 3rd game was incredibly discouraging. From the beginning I knew if I lost I'd lose 150 points and if I won I would get either 1 or 0 points. It was a total waste of my time to play either way.

That's what I usually see too. How can this be an Elo system?

I don't understand why some of you keep saying that it is an Elo system. It isn't. In fact no one knows exactly how that dumb rank system really works.

For example, after losing many times against one player, I finally won one match and got 0 (ZERO) points, and I'm not even well ranked, I was ranked bellow that opponent. So... if it is an Elo system how come we get 0 (ZERO) points in those circumstances?

I think that it might be a random system that throws a few points randomly on victories and takes -150 points on most losses. It's a total trash. I love the game, but the rank system is hideous.

RCubed1967

The existing system is worthless and must be abandoned. I am tired of the fight of regaining statistical loss points, especially since I consistently have a higher win ratio against the typical top 10 (I track my games in a spreadsheet).

Following up on @Zarathustra88, there are additional complications on the current system. ToT is not like chess because ToT has significant RNG. Chess does not arbitrarily position the queens, bishops, and pawns; instead chess is 100% reliant on the skill of the person.

With RNG in both the game and in who we play, we MUST unquestionably change the existing system for ToT. Maybe ELO system works for battlegrounds, but it does NOT work for ToT.

I had previously recommended a system. I will tidy it up a bit and repost only the recommendation and an alternative.

Let's make the system fair for everyone who plays so that it is easy to understand, people are not excessively penalized for an RNG loss, and people can be appropriately ranked against each other.

NeKryXe

The 0 points thing remains. Just finished a hard 28 minutes match and in the I got 0 points for winning. And probably my opponent got -150 points removed from the score.

An absolute waste of time for both. This ranking system is so disgusting and frustrating that it manages to ruin the enjoyment of both the player who wins and the player who loses.

When will this zero-point nonsense be resolved? It's so stupid that it's not even clear if this is a bug or an intentional demotivation scheme.