1. It feels good to be able to measure your progress and see your rating go up. Call it an "e-peen" or whatever you want, but I take some pride in how I've improved as a player and my improvement in rating is a nice way to measure that. It gives me something to strive for. I think I, and many other people (although not everyone), are capable of taking pride in it without raging, whining, and using deceptive means to inflate it. After all, you can't feel much pride in a rating that you artificially enhanced
.2. It feels good to play well in individual games, and one way to do so is to outplay someone who is ranked much higher than you. Seeing that you won your side on twin rivers against a player ~500 points better than you feels great. Furthermore, it helps you improve, because you know that you should emulate the way you played that game. Without the rating, you wouldn't know if you played great or if the other guy was a noob etc.
3. It's useful for balancing games beyond seeing who is or isn't breaking the balance. For example, in dual arches or seton's it's useful to see if individual positions are balanced against each other. Or, for example, if I'm hosting a game with a friend who is ~1200 and wants to try air but has little experience with it, it's really useful to know the quality of the opponent's air player. As someone who hosts a lot of games and plays with people of various skill levels, I find the rating to be a great tool to put together a game that will be fun for all involved. To this end, game quality and an indicator of who is or isn't breaking game quality just can't do as good a job. Human judgement can outperform a computer algorithm in this regard, at least unless the algorithm starts getting very fancy (taking into account maps people have had success on, etc.)
For those reasons, I think that rating is really valuable. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that your solution, if I understand it correctly, addresses the problems. If I get it, there is still a rating calculated, but the rating is hidden from players. It is still used to balance games, in that names will light up if they don't balance with the rest of the game or opponents. You listed 3 problems.
1. Whining- Maybe this will diminish whining, but there may be some people who continue to whine because people always whine about stuff. They can still whine about bad teammates who cost them games, cheap tactics, and whatever else. Also, they know that the secret rating still exists, and may still "e-peen" about it, because you can figure it out. All this said, I agree that whining may reduce.
2. Abusers- I think this would still be just as strong as it is now, right? Because the names are lit up? If I want to be able to join a game with lower ranked players, I can lose on purpose, and then join the lower ranked game and have my name light up as okay. It's just like now with rating right?
3. Ranking not reflecting skill- Is the problem that people choose to play ranked in games that they know they are good at, and then want to play unranked on maps they are bad at? Most of the people who systematically play unranked that I know about will rank 1v1 but only play unranked in team games. Those players may not be as good at team as they are at 1v1. I will put forward a proposal that I hope would address these people. However, there are a host of reasons why people's ranks are imperfect representations of their ability. Some people are really good at playing t1 land spam but less good at other games. Their rating will not reflect their skill when they play on white fire, etc. Certain players are seton's specialists, who will not be so good when they play on dual arches. These things happen. Everyone has to take rating as an imperfect measure. And it will be under the new system too.
Overall, I feel like there is so much that we lose by getting rid of rating. I'm sympathetic that you have to deal with all of the whiners etc. that really sucks. But please, please don't punish all of us because some people are obnoxious.
Ze_PilOt wrote:
All games must be ranked.
There is a big contradiction currently.
- Most of the lobbies are based of rating ( under 1000, above 1500,....)
- Most of the lobbies are unranked.
That means that the outcome of the games doesn't affect your rating.
That means that balancing the game with that rating is completely stupid, as the rating is not based of the games you are playing.
Three outcomes/possibilities :
- All games are ranked, all ratings are displayed, deal with it. But you can use them to balance games.
- No game are ranked, all rating is removed from FAF, no balance is possible.
- All games are ranked, no rating is displayed, use the game balance index to balance games, good luck with that.
Ze_PilOt wrote:Ithilis_Quo wrote:And what problem this solve ?
It solves several things.
- Whining/Whiners
- Abusers (lowering your rank on purpose to bash noobs).
- People using a tool for balancing game that is biased by the fact that the outcome never affect the rating in the first place.
Why randomly? The guys that are offsetting the balance will be orange/red (or others color, I don't like the red/green scheme
Statistics: Posted by sasin — 07 Feb 2014, 20:48
]]>