Benchmark Suggestions

[Herbert]

Rating Problem
I have played with people rated as 1500 whose performance says they should be 800. The reverse is also true with some 800s playing like 1500s. Hence the current scoring system doesn't tell you how good your opponents are.

Benchmarking Tools
I think a better way of evaluating a players skill could be determined by some or all of the following:
1. The average time it takes to reach a score of 100,000 during games. (Averages minimise the impact of occasional assasinations in early and mid game on score).
2. The average time it takes to reach a certain economic output during games.
3. The average number of acu kills they get per game.
4. Their win and loss ratios for the map whose game lobby they are in.
5. On average how much mass and energy they reclaim per game.

It will not only lead to more balanced games but with people being measured against those things they will improve in those areas (hopefully!). Any chance of something like this being introduced?

[Myxir]

how would you prevent someone "farming" good scores on imba reclaim maps like daroza's or the ditch?
no problem to get imba reclaim, eco, amount of units very quickly.

i don't think that this concept works, due to huge differncies in maps

[Herbert]

Map specific stats?

[Myxir]

possible, but think about the amount of data that FAF has to store for this
for each map you ever played, how much mass/energy/acukills you got in total

there was already some lag earlier this year with the replay vault, it was because the database was too huge and took so long to search through
so i guess it IS possible, but not in a project on the size of FAF

[rootbeer23]

Rating Problem
I have played with people rated as 1500 whose performance says they should be 800. The reverse is also true with some 800s playing like 1500s. Hence the current scoring system doesn't tell you how good your opponents are.

i have seen a four leaf clover. all clovers have four leaves. does not compute.

[Flipper]

I don't see how the ratings can be very accurate in team games. Often you win or lose because of someone else's mistakes or they carry the team on their back. I've seen quite a few games over time where people will only play with their friends on their team too. A group acting as a team against 4 individuals who have never played together has a pretty significant advantage.

IMHO, the only rating that means anything is 1v1 ladder.

[Ze_PilOt]

Yeah, when you lose, it's never your fault.

[elmathud]

Yeah, when you lose, it's never your fault.

Nothing is every that bad that you cant blame somebody else for the first rule of politics

[Flipper]

Yeah, when you lose, it's never your fault.

Did you also see the part where I said sometimes others carry the team? I'm just saying that ranking a team game where the team members are not constant is inaccurate. Not complaining about your system.

[The Hoff]

Rating system is not very good at all. In relative terms it might be an effective measure of one player versus another all other things being equal. But they are never equal and when you throw in 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5 and 6v6. It is a terrible system for measuring that.

Your 1v1 rating/ability is radically irrelevant when it comes to coordination between a team of players. This is very poorly represented by the system as it is. I agree with the OP it would be of benefit to improve the system.