The idea itself is not bad, it`s just that the new system used for calculating "overall" rating is strange in comparison to the one used for 10 years. If that one would be sorted out so it stays in well known boundaries (highest expert having around 2600 at the moment), then I think it would be accepted much easier.
It`s not completely bad this way, either, but there is no logic to separate the two ways of thinking - you are an expert in 1v1 when you`re 2200+, expert in team games when 2200+... So why not than be 2200+ overall (to keep the same boundaries and logic), rather then 2800 by the new system? I see that as the biggest issue here.
edit: Hm, the other problem might be how to calculate it after all... With the current system, if you don`t play any games in Team (for example), but only play 1v1, you will have 2200 (played in RM 1v1) + 1600 (not played other) = 2200 overall. With the average rating, you would have 2200+1600 = 1900 overall :? But I guess that average is still better...?
But the more ladders there are that you didn`t play (have that 1600 rating), the worse your overall rating will be, and that might be a bit of a problem, no? :?
ferencziffra, I was talking about the average rating system indeed (as I said), which isn`t good, either. I already said that the current one is also not good, nor right (not logical) So, we agree completely. My suggestion is different, if you read it.Buga, you are not right about more ratings meaning lower overall rate. Yes, that would be true, if an average rating formula was applied. But with the current one if you have 1,2,3, etc. ladder rates above "ZERO" (1600 being the Zero), then your overall rate will be even higher than all the highest of the subladder rates. Similarly, if you have several rates sub-"ZERO" (<1600), then your overall rate will be even lower than your lowest sub-rate.
Practically:
1650 & 1610 = 1660! (instead of 1635)
1550 & 1510 = 1460! (instead of 1535)
This neither LOOKS, nor IS right! This way 1600+ players are overrated, and 1600- players are underrated!
idk if Voobly developers will translate FAQ and all explanation to ChinneseBugA_the_Great said:^^ Why?
Yes, something like that is an option if people become more open to the idea of change. Do you think it will be possible to get a majority to agree on the details of the ladders such as the ones you listed?What is wrong with it?
I think there should be what the community needs.
Different ladders to different skills
-1v1 FR (settings locked on full random map)
-1v1 Ara (locked on arabia)
-General (everything else, medieval seige games)
This stops people from getting 2.3k in 1v1 Michi or playing CS games in wrong lobby-_-
I think a FR ladder would be best ranking of skill.
I would take it even further and lock both civs on random
Would get excellent games and really show who is the best
~Nainai
I do not think this will mess with the overall ratings too much. If a player is 1500, a clan with an 1800 rating is not going to want them because he will bring their rating down over time as he plays clan games.But then the beginning of my post is a problem, again. If a player has his own "team rating", it shouldn`t be affected by joining better/worse team, but only by the points he gained/lost playing for the team. It`s logical that if he plays for the better team (vs. other equally good team) he can get/lose more points than if he played with lower rated allies/opponents.
It should save, will try get that fixed for you.ah, really thanks!
but any possibility of let it saved?
because always when i start voobly it shows overal rating and i have to fix again...
When you host one of those games, you will see their rating for that game. Where is the problem?Why should there be an overall rating? If I'm playing 1v1 I don't care what the person's overall rating is, I want to know their 1v1 rating. If I'm playing a TG I want to see their TG rating.
Numbers are low every time we reset the server as a lot of people sit in there overnight etc.Wow... Medieval Siege (189/1000). I don't remember the last time it was so empty in here.
Decay was one of the many things he suggested. Another problem he identified is that people teamed with low rates to get higher ratings, aswell as other frowned upon things such as cooping. The 1v1 ladder was made for that reason and at the time it was welcomed by the majority.I don't understand why voobly completely ignored the main issue at hand. Chris suggested a DECAY system so it would incentivise players with top ratings to play games, which in turn would encourage more competitive games and make voobly more popular. MANY people agreed with this notion, but instead they made a 1v1 ladder system which has FAILED, so instead of trying to fix this, more ladders have been implemented which will in turn also, FAIL.
IS THIS UNDERSTOOD?
As I said back in Voob, I don`t think we should decide what the teams/players will doI do not think this will mess with the overall ratings too much. If a player is 1500, a clan with an 1800 rating is not going to want them because he will bring their rating down over time as he plays clan games.But then the beginning of my post is a problem, again. If a player has his own "team rating", it shouldn`t be affected by joining better/worse team, but only by the points he gained/lost playing for the team. It`s logical that if he plays for the better team (vs. other equally good team) he can get/lose more points than if he played with lower rated allies/opponents.
The point is that some things have become the part of AoC history - like saying "Hey, I reached 2k!" With the change that is introduced, everything will be changed (having 3k players over night, because we changed the whole logic and criteria), thus making a confusion, and moving away from AoC heritage we all like very much. I don`t say that the change must be the bad thing, but that we changed one thing that didn`t need to be changed in the first place, hurting the players` feelings.
RM community cares about its legacy, please don`t change it
Please let us hear the community and their wishes.
(I speak for RM, and probably DM. I don`t know and won`t interfere in CS because there are people that are more competent to discuss that issue)
p.s. Decaying system sounds as a nice improvement that could be implemented, too.