Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Team Stacking - Match Balance

<< < (8/16) > >>

Thomas:
Totally understandable. One way to avoid players like that is to not reveal how starts are calculated, although in this case they're all pretty obvious and common thing. Since they only affect your rank, and the only way to rank up is to win; I'd expect most people to be doing their best teamwise. Personally I don't think it's plausible to do separate ranks for different maps, ships, weapons, etc. So it'll never be perfect, it'll just be a pretty good guess.


For the example, we're going to be following a few players through different scenarios. (Also I'm taking out component kills because it seems redundant)


We'll start off with Johnny, a solo player who just gets hooked up with random teams. This is Johnny's first time playing GoI, so all his ranks start at 1000. He queues up and gets tossed into a match as a gunner. This match goes pretty rough, Johnny is a terrible gunner, but they still manage to squeak out a win. Both teams have an average rank of 1200.

Accuracy(%)=0.3 * 20
Damage/Total Damage=0.08 * 50
Rebuild (explained below)=0.0 * 5
Repair/Total Repair=0.001 *5

Sum = 10

Giving him a score of about 10 (rounded), since they're equal teams. With their win, his gunner ranks goes up to 1010.


He re-enters the queue and plays a gunner again which a whole new team, this time he has a better idea of what he's doing. His avg team rank is 1030, and the enemy is 1250. They end up winning. His stats this time are:

Accuracy(%)=0.5 * 20
Damage/Total Damage=0.10 * 50
Rebuild (explained below)=0.4 * 5
Repair/Total Repair=0.01 *5

Sum=17.05

Giving him a +21 (rounded up). Why not 17.05? Because his team had a smaller avg rank than the other enemy team. His score was divided by (1030/1250). His new gunner rank is 1031. As you can see, players will tend not to skyrocket up in the ranks.



He goes again, getting a gunner, new team. This time his avg team rank is 1200, and the enemies avg is 990. His team seems to have an edge, and he does about the same as last time, but they end up losing!

Accuracy(%)=0.55 * 20
Damage/Total Damage=0.09 * 50
Rebuild (explained below)=0.4 * 5
Repair/Total Repair=0.02 *5


Sum = 17.6
R=1200/990 = 1.2121
His personal score is 14.52 (his team had a higher rank, causing a score penalty. The greater the difference, the bigger the penalty/reward).

Since he lost, his score is 55-14.52 = 40.48
Making his new gunner rank 991.

His low performance in previous matches caused a small climb, but this poor performance along with his team outranking the enemy and still losing caused a much larger decrease.




Now we'll look into two trickier scenarios

Johnny plays again, and has the best game of his life! He's hitting just about everything and wrecking the enemy team. But the engineers on his team just aren't paying attention and the enemies get a win! Booo~! In this match, their avg rank was equal.

Accuracy(%)=0.8 * 20
Damage/Total Damage=0.30 * 50
Rebuild (explained below)=0.8 * 5
Repair/Total Repair=0.1 *5

Sum=35.5
Loss = 55-35.5 = 19 (rounded down). Making his new rank 972. You can see that his great performance cause a much smaller decrease (although not as small as his increases for performance. Maybe need to tweak the numbers?)


His last match for the day. He's full of confidence, but the captain is driving like a complete scrub, causing him to miss nearly all his shots! His avg team rank is 900 while the enemy is 1200.

Accuracy(%)=0.1 * 20
Damage/Total Damage=0.02 * 50
Rebuild (explained below)=0.4 * 5
Repair/Total Repair=0.02 *5

Sum = 5.1
R=900/1200=0.75, making his score 6.8. Obscenely low. With the loss, he gets a -48. Quite a huge loss, and not even his fault!
This is probably the most glaring problem in my proposed ranking system. Along with pilots having an abysmal crew. I can find a way to compensate for engineers dealing with bad team mates, but how do manage with gunners? You can't reward them for missing, and you can't give them points for your ship not taking damage like the engineers. You can't give them points for the ship taking damage either, because that could lead to a crazy amount of points. Or maybe that's ok?


The other poor scenario being a captain/pilot with a terrible crew. How do you lessen the severity of a loss (or the reward for the win) when you crew doesn't shoot or fix well? I suppose one method could be to alter the (total damage/deaths)/(total damage everyone/total deaths everyone). To where you get a higher % for taking less damage before a death? I think that would work. Maybe. If you were a good pilot, and they were terrible engineers, they wouldn't fix it as much before you were taken out. But if you were a bad pilot, and they were bad engineers, it'd be the same situation. Although I suppose the other parts of your score would reflect that. So yeah, that could be changed.



If an engineer is good on a bad team, they can still get a high score by repairing and rebuilding rapidly. However, if an engineer is on a great team, there's not a lot to repair/rebuild, and buffing and such only gets you so far. That's why there's the (1-Total Damage to Ship/Total Damage All ships). The less damage you take, the higher your score. However, you can still be a bad engineer and take no damage. And again, the other parts of your score should represent that.



-------------------------------
So it's far from perfect, but it's a feasible rough idea. You do well, you get more points for winning, and lose less for losing. You do poorly, you earn less for winning, and lose more for losing. This is all based on everyone else's performance as well, and even the estimated team balance. And while it can't perfectly protect you from bad players on your team, their poor performance should have already lowered their rank in previous matches, lowering your team's avg rank; and thus causing you to get a higher reward for winning, and a lower penalty for losing.

Commodore Phoenix:
So I have a question if you do well in a game against high levels you get more points, what about the high levels I guess they just get a crap score which is, I'm also guessing, their fault for playing in a lower level lobby. however this is the only lobby that had any spots available what happens to them? do they get a fair score?

You aren't thinking about high levels only low there are more players here than just the ones that play for one game and leave there are the dedicated players whose scores will be affected by this.

Also you seem to think that there are a lot of high level players in this game which on an average day there aren't.

Thomas:
Well you can guess the outcome based on the system. In this fictional rank system, there's a queue system that tries to match players as best it can to players of a similar rank. (In my head it uses the avg rank of each team, meaning you can have a whole rainbow of different ranks).

There will certainly be times the high ranks have to face the low ranks. In most situations the high ranks will win. They will receive a lower addition to their score than if they played just as well against a similar ranked team. In the same way that the lower rank team will lose less points. If this were an mmorpg, you could compare it to killing mobs for experience. Killing mobs lower than your level gives less exp, while killing things around your level gives average exp, and killing the things much higher than your lvl give great exp. It'd be silly to give players a massive, or even regular score increase for crushing a team that barely poses a challenge.

That's fair. Essentially these high rank teams are near the top of the charts anyways, and the score doesn't do anything but increase your rank. Once the match is over, that personal score you got is gone, and all your left with is your rank number, which is already high.

I can't imagine how this favors one skill level over another, as it's only purpose is to determine skill level.

----------------

So we lead in with an example. We'll pick a player on each side, the captains. The high rank team is 1800, the low rank is 600. That's an R of 3 for High, and 0.3333 for Low. We'll say it's a death match. It ends up being a slaughter, 5-0.

Captain High Rank (1800):
Damage Done/Total Damage=0.3 * 30
(Damage Taken/Deaths)/(Total Damage Taken/Total Deaths)=0.4 *30
(1-Deaths/Total Deaths)=1*30

Sum = 51. They've done so well they broke the 50 point cap on skill alone.


Captain Low Rank (600):
Damage Done/Total Damage=0.2 * 30
(Damage Taken/Deaths)/(Total Damage Taken/Total Deaths)=0.1 *30
(1-Deaths/Total Deaths)=0.4 *30

Sum=21, a pretty average score (they did some damage)


High rank wins, their new rank is 1800+ 51/3 = 1817

Low rank loses, their new rank is 600-(55-21/0.333)= 595           (21/0.333 > 50, and therefore gets capped at 50)


Low rank probably would have lost more points, I think I set the damage they did a little high. But the point stands.


High rank has an increase, low rank has a decrease. What more could you want?

Commodore Phoenix:
The fact that high ranks have to lose points because of the opponents they faced it shouldn't matter who you face also its unfair on the lower levels as they lost points when they faced a high level captain surely they should get points just for trying it.

Thomas:
Points don't do anything besides give a rough estimate of your rank. In a system where you gain points by losing, everyone starts hitting the 2000 cap. You could always have no cap, but then the gap in skill level just increases infinitely, and you're back to square one.

Winning earns your points. The greater the enemy, the greater the points. Losing loses you points. The greater the enemy, the less the points lost.


Ideally you'd be facing people around your rank -most of the time-. Losing lowers your points, but the better you do compared to the other players, the less you lose. Winning will earn you points, but if you do awful, they won't go up very much.


Ultimately the idea is to create a nice spread of players across the ranks. Inevitably the best players will end up on the top, and the worst will inhabit the bottom.

Again, points don't do anything. It's not like money, or credits, or even a score in a classic video game.




And a system that rewards points purely on a win/loss neglects individual skill. You could have a terrible player constantly group with great players and shoot up rapidly with them. You could have a great player rapidly sink in rank by being paired with awful players. It stops being an individual rank, and more about how many times you get lucky with a good team (or unlucky with a bad team). By putting the individual element in there, players rise and fall at different rates based upon their relative performance.

And again, if you win, you get points. You lose, you lose points. The amount of either depends on the difference between the ranks. Going back to the mmorpg analogy, you're asking to get a level up from killing lvl 1 slimes on your level 70 character.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page