[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Non-zero net ranking change in FFA game(s)
Forum Index » Bug Reports
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
I think there is an error in the way UniWar calculates the rankings in FFA games, sometimes leading to a net change that is not zero. In one game I played, CROSSROADS84234, the changes in ranking were +43, -15, and -29, which yields a -1 net change. Probably this is due to a rounding error, and maybe it only occurs in games with an odd number of players. If anyone has further information about this sort of thing happening, feel free to post it here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at May 04, 2012 13:46


DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
In another game, TRIDENTWARS1673, which is still in progress the first round of ranking changes was +5 for three players and -16 for the other, once again yielding a -1 net change.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
More examples of -1 net change keep cropping up. Does anyone care that the average ranking is now falling below 1500? Or is it just me?

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
Given how limited dev attention is, this seems well below the cut bar. In general at the top the ranking system is relatively inflationary (what once years ago was 2000 level play is now 2400 level play etc.) Not worried about what the average is, no one can compute or observe it?
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
The reason why the upper level play rank is rising is because of a constant feed of new recruits that fall below 1500 and then quit playing. Have you seen many players below 1500 actually playing? I haven't. I think new players find it depressing that points cannot be earned, only traded between players (usually taken away from the newbies). If some of the points you lose don't even go towards someone else's rank, the system becomes even more depressing. If anything, I think the net ranking change should be above zero for relatively low ranked players to reward them for getting gameplay experience. Why not start people out at zero and add points for both experience and wins. The points gained for experience could be decreased as the players move up the ranking ladder until they earn zero for experience and net ranking change is zero. In that way new players can climb the ladder even if they lose while they gain game experience. This may lead to an even larger increase in the ranking of top level play, but at least new players will have incentive to learn the game instead of rage quitting.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
Sure that broader issue seems valid to raise, though again given other dev changes we need may not make the cut for awhile. But I agree in principle it seems like you want a system that people start with some very low score and then tend to go up (rather than down) as they learn skills, to reflect the improvement (and reward continuing play). However, I tend to assume there will be some glut of 14xx people who just tried the app, played a few games, didn't get the bug for whatever reason and moved on to other things (whether in rage or not I don't know... people I know personally who try it and don't continue usually have an attitude more like 'looks fun but last thing I need right now is to get addicted to something like that'
[Avatar]
StarryBlink

Messages: 184,
Joined: Jan 04, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
StarryBlink

Messages: 184,
Joined: Jan 04, 2012,
Offline
I agree with inflation policy too.
I ever play one online boardgame which above2000 players gain a minor privilege.
Then many 2000+ players stop playing and create new logins to play instead.
They use 2000+ username solely in the webboard.
As time go by, many rate was suck from the system into static 2000+ usernames
and rating current in the game become fewer & fewer.
Thus, the system face severe deflation that further pursue more players to aim for 2000+ and stop.
Because less likely they can make it again in the future.
In that game I too creat second username after the first reach 2100.
Then the second username become stable at rate 1900s, it's terrible.
And newbies usually fall down to 1300s before they start to rise.


I think the net rating exchange in multiplayer game should be balanced or slightly inflated, but not deflated.

Forum Index » Bug Reports
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website