I don't expect the scoring system to differ between consoles and PC. That would make things too complicated. Usually devs adhere to the old " kiss" -or Keep It Simple Stupdid- principle. I know I would. At worst the PvE road to master might be slightly different, but I doubt they'd even make so much of a change.

As a former competitive chess player (and familiar with the system used there) it sounds to me like some sort of ELO system (or perhaps something simpler like win/loss ratio) determines your score and with that your rise/fall on the leaderboard once you hit Rubedite. I don't expect them to go into much details about it though. If only so that they can tweak the system later without raising the 9 hells on these forums.

Casdha wrote: »

Edit: Side note - I wonder if deck usage has any meaning, the first game I won was played with the 4 original decks.

I doubt it. We all started out with those 4 decks. Most likely most people won games with those 4 decks before the got the remaining 4 and people still with with only those 4 decks in play. I know I have. and it has not done much for my ranking that I can tell. Not should it in my opinion, as it has no effect on the PvE storyline scores on your way to the master rank either.

"Klingenlied wrote: »

"Well, maybe not so much "yay!"? For some reason, I only got a single ranking point for my wins. With just having .. I guess it is 197 by now? - the way to the top is incredibly far when you only get a single point. But things got even crazier. The last victory only earned me 0 points oO

What you have to keep into account is that there are players playing many more games than you have. And yes, As I was in the top 20% the first period I can tell you that raising your rank within the Rubedite rank is terribly difficult.

To put it bluntly, there's too many players like you with a similar ranking. As with competitive chess, winning against people with a similar rating, doesn't really improve your rating. That's why you see so many draws in (online) chess tournaments. It's fun and educational, but you don't gain very much. The only alternative would be to play and win more games. As you get past that "level" of players, your should see an increase in ranking until you hit the next group of people with similar ranking.

Not everyone can do this of course, but you might also want to try and change the time you're playing ToT. If you always play during prime time on your server, the people close to your ranking are much more available to challenge. if you change the time you play, you may find many of your closely rated players offline and might be pitted against a higher player. If you win that match you might just get past your "group".

Of course I'm assuming some ELO rating is being used to determine your ranking. If that turns out to be false my whole argument is also meaningless.

So, I guess I can give some really good update now.

I did go for some games after the game has been patched. All wins. Did climb from score 197 to 800'ish, rank 70'ish or so.
Did go for a break, another game, finally the first loss. My score instantly went from 800'ish to 1.

Of course I can not explain how exactly this did happened. Fact is after my winstreak did end, I did not loose a few placements but pretty much was thrown outta the ladder

Now the thing is: The current no1 on EU Playstation is a player I did play 3 times - without loosing a single time. So I do have a really hard time believing that whatever just is happening with my account is working "fine". Some accounts seem unaffected by loosing, others get moved out of the ladder immediately? oO That really is weird. Ah well, will keep trying some and see how further evaluation turns out. Still seems very, very strange to say the least.

Thanks Naomi. Did play some more games and I guess you are right to some degree.

I do however think that the "scaling" doesn't work properly. Or my account is bugged?
I did a lot of games and have had a lot of streaks and test out ... hella a lot of stuff.

I got those results:
You can get up to 1000 points in a single game.
You can, for a single loss, loose above 1000 points in a single game.
You can still get nothing from a win.
You will always loose points on a loss.

I would really love to see some official clarification on it. I mean the way it feels for me is a complete rollercoaster experience where it is not only about luck with cards but luck with opponents as well.

Ranking is as dog as it gets and a slap in anyones face actually trying to play competitive I suppose.

I did my placement matches and a few more when this current leaderboard started, was about 600 points.
Yesterday I found some time to waste on it again, climbed up to 1000 points. This morning I did one match which I lost.


If ToT would be a purely skilled based game, high swings in rating could be justified if you truly have a huge difference in score between two players. But it isn't. And you don't even know what rating anyone is at. You can be royally effed over by the tavern and there's only so much you can try by playing smart when you just don't get anything to begin with.

In my opinion, at least in Rubedite, streak bonuses should not exist and there should be upper bounds on rating changes for each match. The way it currently is implemented is laughable at best and I highly doubt it is using any of the established MMR systems available.

@kevkj The addon is called Tribute Improved Leaderboard

@muh, @Klingenlied
Risk losing 1000 points for a single loss. Need to win more than 10 games to make up for a single loss. That is if you even gain points for wining.



When I was playing on the test server, there were very few players and one could more easily observe what was going on, on the leaderboards. So if I played multiple matches against the same person and I was winning most games, the more often I won, the fewer points I scored for each subsequent win. And if they won, they would gain a large number of points and I would lose a large number of points. I might lose a 1000 while they gain a 1000.

If I had a bad losing streak, I would earn more points when I won.

I can kinda confirm your findings Naomi. Did go for a lot of games during the recent days, and the system is just the worst there is. We play a game where luck is the decisive factor. That is not bad in itself, but in regards to ranking, we should rank or derank at a very steady pace. Your observation of being able to instantly loose 1000 points plus is right, happened to me more then a single time. On the other hand, not getting points has become a kinda rare concurrence, likely due to the ladder filling up more and more - playing on console btw, so it is less players as of yet.

Anyway, a semi-decent system would have caps on winning / loosing points and not "overdo" it with points.

Just a suggestion to maybe "make the whole system work" - this is for ranked only btw!

Win is always 10 points vs equal skill. Win can not be below 5 points. Win can be a max of 20 points.
Loss is always 10 points vs equal skill. Loss is max 20 points, but 5 at the lowest.

Now if the top player plays again the number 2 and looses, the system would compare both players. If the #1 has 2000 ranking points and the #2 has 1000, he would loose 20 points. Very obviously however, the #1 would have played a hella lotta games to even climb to this rank, including a lot of wins, so this would be fair.

Anyway, even if you multiplied my numbers by 10 - the basic that win / loss should have a cap so that people can progress smoothly - and furthermore that the cap should not even be exceedingly high due to the high component of luck involved - is incredibly important. Ranked play should be smooth sailing in regards to the outcome. And I don't mean I needa know where I land on the ladder exactly. I just want to steadily climb if I reliably win more games then I loose. The same with me accepting I will steadily drop down when I keep losing to my opponents. I do not want a single unlucky game to remove the progress of 20 games beforehand.

Hm, Psilent, how often have peopled whispered you to loose a match for gold or crowns? Its 2 times for me now. I don't really now how reliably I can say this, but it would seem that some portion of the playerbase tries to bribe for some wins. I don't think that is too bad actually, guess even has some kind of RP-aspect to it? Dunno, don't really care too much. But I really think that this has at least some effect on the top ranks.

I recently heard the theory that when you get your first win past rubidite, you jump up to 1001 rank points, and if you keep winning, you keep gaining from there, but if you lose, it takes an 'extra' couple 100 negative ranks, and it does this until the 1000 ranks that you got for free are gone. I can believe this theory, even though it's weird, because when I kept playing after a pretty long time of bad rank changes, it stabilized, and now I get about 75-90 rank for most wins, while losing 130-150 for a loss. This is imo totally reasonable since I'm top 10% and should be getting a much higher than 50% winrate to rank up at all.