Hi everyone,

Let’s talk about the ranking system and use my four months of my Rubedite-ranked data.

As I have stated many times, the system is broken because it is based on chess. Tales of Tribute is a game of RNG, luck and strategy. We get lucky or unlucky with RNG in numerous ways: if we get the first pick, what is on the table, natural combos, etc. Chess does not have RNG or luck: both players have the same pieces, which are positioned similarly, and there is no randomness in which pieces you have to move. Strategy exists in both games., but it is less noticeable in individual games of Tales of Tribute due to the luck and RNG. For Tales of Tribute, the only way to see strategy is in multiple games so that RNG and luck are statistically removed.

The ranking system needs to be built on the skill of the player. Skilled players have good strategies in a variety of scenarios. We must consider multiple games (a series) played against the same player to see strategies, or rather the results of good strategies. Seeing who is more skilled between two players then provides the stepping stone to a ranking system (and that ranking system gets rid of a secondary issue: exploitation by players).

Each series must be balanced for who gets the first pick due to the huge first-pick advantage (another favourite topic). Consider my July results with ~80% win rate with the first pick but only ~45% with the second pick. If a match against the same person has one person with the first pick all the time, the results will be significantly skewed (e.g., I have played @Meji 6 times in the past 4 months, and I have never gotten the first pick).

I think that topic is relatively well understood, but let's turn our heads to my four months (780 games) of data using the current ranking system. The table below shows the series I have played in Rubedite. At one end of the spectrum, I have played 115 players only once, and I won those 63-52. On the other end of the spectrum, I played one person 19 times, and they beat me 10-9.



In a properly ranked system, the total points per game should show a major score reduction per game on the left and a major score per game gain on the right. The gains per game should be zero for games where we tie (e.g., 3-3). The idea is that the higher the skill differential is between the two players, the bigger the gain should be. A maximum amount of points must be available to each series, which is split between the two players. I get all the points if I win every game in the series. If I lose every game in the series, I get zero. That said, there needs to be a minimum amount of games played between players to be scored this way (and the series must be balanced for the starting pick).

The current system shows the points per game in each series in the following table. The series size of 3 is relatively what I would like to see, but it is still unbalanced. The series with 19 points showed me gaining points, while the 17 games series where I won 11-6 had me lose net points. Those should never happen.



What is also of HUGE interest is how much the single-game series dominate the scoring, especially the losses. A single game, which is dominated by RNG and luck, should NEVER be worth more than a series.

The ranking system must change. It must be based on series, not one-off games. Each series needs a set amount of points to be split, and they must be balanced.

To support the series system, the season should be 4 months long (DLC to DLC); that way, players can get a lot of series done to be properly ranked.

I look forward to the discussion.