|
I find this rating system pretty awful and i will explain why.
Too many games are needed for a player until he reaches his actual rank.
This leads to enormous dodging and player selection.
In high ranks its difficult to find a game. --> new id
When someone doesn't like his stats --> new id / clearstats
So ranks don't represent playing strength and its impossible for a player to play vs opponents of his own level. This is discouraging for the low ranked players and high rank
players prefer to gain points by bashing which is safer and leads to pretty stats.
I propose a switch to elo ranking, similar to the one used by League of Legends.
I really think it will make gaming more fun and that more games will be played.
|
Whats the LoL rating like?
|
Visibly like the chess system. Google "Elo".
I think you're a bit harsh on the iccup rank, but I don't really disagree.
|
agree. should have a better system , not fake noobs lol
|
United States7639 Posts
I find that terribly amusing, because it always feels like 90% of the LoL forums are people complaining about how the ELO system sucks and how they're stuck in ELO hell. Then again, ELO would definitely be more representative and accurate in a 1v1 game than in a 5v5 team game.
|
In elo, when a player starts and i.e plays vs a similar rating, his own elo can go +-250 gradually defining itself until it reaches the normal +-16 after 20 games. (After 20 games the rating is established). His opponents rating starts from +-1 until +-16.
So the system very actively changes non-established ratings and protects established ones.
|
Good suggestion 
I always preferred the elo rating. Anybd frm iccup willing to relay this to the higher ups there to change the system? Or at least make a thread/poll thr.
Fish also uses elo rating if not mistaken.
|
I agree with this. ELO rating is the way to go especially since there are a lot less people on iccup now. Too hard to find high rank games.
|
I agree that something like ELO would be more appropriate. Glicko system might be even better, though.
|
I am not sure ELO would be better for begginers.
I'd like something in between, like after C+ u qualify into an "elo league".
Also I think you should retain a part of ur rank, its pretty pointless making B players have to go trough D, D+, C-, C (at C+ one could argue they still have to make an effort).
|
^Yea I agree with that. It's actually a chore to get through the lower leagues at the beginning of every season. I actually feel bad playing against someone who's actually D.
|
Yep, I think pretty everyone but the iccup staff will agree.
|
true, playing so many games just to get up there is too much effort for many.
Fish server pretty much had a similiar system if I am not mistaken? Now they seem to have ranks again, too, though.
I don't know how much care there is on the really higher ends of iCCup BW, from what I've heard YelloAnt only cares about the DotA server anymore :/ Hope it's not true.
Even though it should be an easy switch, isn't the original BW Ladder kinda ELO?
|
I completely agree. I also think the motw process needs to be fixed. MOTW was first created to give people incentive to try new maps. We need to stop having 5 motws of the same generic maps every week. Make the motw 2-3 of the new proleague maps.
|
The BW ladder seems to be like elo but it doesn't use the new entry high fluctuation.
You go +-25 straight from the bat and points won are always equal to points lost.
I remember neogame-i using it.
|
whats wrong with the actual system ?
|
On October 30 2011 22:57 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
whats wrong with the actual system ?
Maybe read the Op and you will get the answer?
Too many games are needed to get to the actual rank, too many games against noobs.
Those games can also hurt your play if you test out new strats, as less good players have worse timings and hence you might think you strat works okay, but then it doesn't against proper players.
|
On October 30 2011 21:47 floi wrote:I agree that something like ELO would be more appropriate. Glicko system might be even better, though.
After I read this, yeah glicko is awesome. It's like ELO 2.0. I think the biggest reason iccup uses its own archaic system is because it is so easy to implement.
|
On October 30 2011 23:19 LML wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2011 22:57 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
whats wrong with the actual system ? Maybe read the Op and you will get the answer? Too many games are needed to get to the actual rank, too many games against noobs. Those games can also hurt your play if you test out new strats, as less good players have worse timings and hence you might think you strat works okay, but then it doesn't against proper players.
hmm to test strats not good excuse,too many games i think is good,is really hard play B vs C cuz u win nothing and loss much but its very cool
|
What about Fish? I feel like Fish would move you up and down ranks a lot more quickly than Iccup cuz it's like +/-20 every game and every 100 points seem to be a new skill gap.
|
Iccup has a lot of limitations function-wise. For example, clan league only works if there are exactly 10 teams, not more, not less. I wouldn't be surprised if the ranking system is also subjected to such inflexibility.
Also, I don't think any of the higher-ups would care enough to change the ranking system. After all, the BW server only has 600 - 700 players on a good day. And even in the best case scenario, a new ranking system won't change that by a noticeable amount.
|
I honestly believe that changing the system might reattract koreans back to iccup to check out the system even if its juz for a while..
Iccup must implement this for evryones benefit.
|
I agree. There was a ladder that didn't have a bnet server (it just tracked stats on a website so you could play on any server) which didn't catch on, but which used an ELO system. It was really cool and I wish it had gotten popular ;P I dunno if iCCup is willing to make a major change like this, but now's as good a time as any since they're not exactly booming (if it's broke, fix it...).
|
Germany2762 Posts
I think you guys are right about that, the system really needs some refurbishment. But the cool thing about it is, that you get to play some really good players in the beginning of each season. Back in the days when I used to play more, it was always kinda cool to play some famous koreans / foreigners right after the ladder reset. Even if I always got my ass handed to me :D
But I totally see your point. Iccup should offer the the opportunity to start at a higher rank after you finished pretty good in a previous season. Maybe a 2 rank penalty or something like that? Or some kind of "placement time" like you get your old rank from last season again, or maybe with a small penalty. And if you win a certain amount of your first few matches you'll keep it, otherwise you'll be demoted. You'd have to play players of the same rank of course.
Don't know how it should look like in detail but I completely agree with you.
|
this actually is a brilliant idea and i think it will definitely attract koreans. they do not want to play/waste time playing 50 games until they can reach #1
but I doubt any of the higher ups would even read this or they actually care about iCCup bw.
|
Korean players want to play on the servers where the pros or retired pros are playing. Boxer, Nada, Bisu, Hyuk, Jaedong, Sea all played on iCCup at one time, just to name a few. They have a korean-friendly server now with progamers on it. Why on earth would any of you think changing the ladder system would 'attract koreans'?
|
Comparison of rating systems in order of accuracy
0. Rating systems not based in statistics:
Current ICCup system is an example.
Pros:
* Can use the rating system to motivate people, eg to play many games or to prefer certain maps.
Cons:
* Rating correlates very weakly with playing strength.
1. First generation rating systems:
ELO.
Pros:
* Simple and easy to understand.
* Widely used and widely known.
* Easy to implement algorithm
Disadvantages:
* Cannot distinguish between uncertain rank and solidly established rank (does not measure uncertainty).
* Tendency for players to want to play against stronger players.
* Disincentivizes playing against new players.
* Takes a long time to settle on your rank.
* If you suddenly improve in skill the system or don't play for a while, the system won't pick your new rating up quickly.
* Not very accurate: you can swing pretty far around your 'true' rank.
2. Second generation
TrueSkill, Glicko
Pros:
* System measures uncertainty in the rating, so a lot of the artifacts in the first generation rating systems disappear.
* Still relatively easy to implement.
* Still relatively easy to understand.
* Reasonably accurate
Cons:
* Takes relatively long to converge on your true rank.
* Not very responsive to rapid changes in playing strength.
3. Third generation
Decayed history algorithms.
The go server KGS has used a decayed history algorithm with excellent results for some time.
http://www.gokgs.com/help/rmath.html
The basic idea is that recent results are weighed more strongly in the rating calculation than older results.
Pros:
* Quick to converge
* Accurate
* Responsive to changes in playing strength
Cons:
* Not widely known / not many standard implementations available
* Tendency for frequent players to get 'stuck': if the rating system thinks it has measured your rank very accurately, you can get stuck and not gain any points even though you're improving. You can only get unstuck by not playing for a while.
4. Fourth generation
Whole history rating.
http://remi.coulom.free.fr/WHR/
Unlike other systems does not perform incremental calculations but directly computes over the entire history of a player.
Pros:
* Quick to converge
* Very accurate
* Responsive to changes in playing strength
* Players don't get stuck if they play frequently
Cons:
* Not widely known / not many standard implementations available
* Slightly more computationally expensive than other systems
* Has parameters that need to be trained for the system to work optimally.
|
On October 31 2011 02:58 ninazerg wrote:
Korean players want to play on the servers where the pros or retired pros are playing. Boxer, Nada, Bisu, Hyuk, Jaedong, Sea all played on iCCup at one time, just to name a few. They have a korean-friendly server now with progamers on it. Why on earth would any of you think changing the ladder system would 'attract koreans'?
agree, the only way to kor back is fish and brain down
|
|
|
i disagree. i think iccup has the best rating system, the only problem is there are too few players...
with iccup system, the majority, the lower level players have some kind of satisfaction of reaching something, which encourages them to play more.
elo system is only good if opponents are being set vs each other, not when you pick whoever you want to play against.
at fish server there is the elo system and i can tell you i dont really like it. it distinguishes players like this:
bad | rest | good | very good | very very good
where the starting level compared to iccup is like high C.
since you get the same amount of points for a win and for a loss, and most players only want to play vs someone who has the same points as they have, like 80% of the players are stuck at ~1000 points and there are players with like 100 win and 100 loss having the same amount of points as someone who just started there. and it feels crap to play a lot of games, win half of them, and see that u didnt make a step ahead. that makes me wanna stop playing.
or do you think its normal that Sziky has only 1282 points on fish with 75 win and 59 loss?
actually it might be better for good players to have a system where they get to their level with less noob bashing, but youve got to create a system that ensures everyone good playing conditions. and i think iccup is good in that. i mean come on, if it was so bad to play 50 games to get on your level, progamers wouldnt have played on iccup. but they did
the only problem now is that there are too few players. changing the system won't really help that...
its all bad since ladder a-b channel became empty;;
|
For competitive players, ELO is probably, by far, the better system. My biggest gripe is MOTW. I don't think there should be MOTW for B- or above players. I always have to quit at B- because I'm never active enough or have any incentive to learn all of the new maps. Due to losing more and more points per loss as you rank up, naturally, only MOTW are played by most players; there's not many players to begin with.
High ranks should mean something, and MOTW simply inflates ranks. And since Korean pro gamers aren't even playing on iccup at the moment, it's just annoying and an inconvenience that makes me more inclined to play Korean ladders if I want to play at a high level.
|
Until multiaccounting and clearstats are options on ICCUP problems can't be solved. But I still like ICCUP.
|
On October 31 2011 04:37 Phrujbaz wrote:(...) 3. Third generation Decayed history algorithms. The go server KGS has used a decayed history algorithm with excellent results for some time. http://www.gokgs.com/help/rmath.htmlThe basic idea is that recent results are weighed more strongly in the rating calculation than older results. Pros: * Quick to converge * Accurate * Responsive to changes in playing strength Cons: * Not widely known / not many standard implementations available * Tendency for frequent players to get 'stuck': if the rating system thinks it has measured your rank very accurately, you can get stuck and not gain any points even though you're improving. You can only get unstuck by not playing for a while.
Nice summary.
But please do not go with that KGS ranking system, it is horrible. I got stuck at 3D with multiple accounts and it sucks. There is a dude there, TheCaptain if I'm not mistaken, poor guy will be forever 4D....
Maybe at higher levels the current ranking system is inconvenient, but for me, a D player, the ranking is just fine.
|
|
|
The current system is over abused making people able to go up the ranks by opponent selection and by the fact that they can
gain points even at a 30% win ratio. How accurate is that? To gain points when you should actually be losing.
The rating system is supposed to try to be indicative of a players strength but here it seems to me that it just gives ways to
people to look better than they are. I don't understand what is the problem of having a low rating if that means that you will
play vs players who are a little better or a little worse than you. It will help you become better sooner.
The game is fun only when the outcome is unclear, not when the whole game is just another routine.
|
I really hate knowing that I am a D- level and yet I am fighting players who are D+ to C- smurf , checks hotkeys of opponent who smash me , 1-0 300 apm through out the whole game . T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
