|
| Thread: TOH ranking system need changes or not ? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
infinitus
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 24, 2009 11:49 AM |
|
|
Poll Question:
TOH ranking system need changes or not ?
I think TOH ranking system not corresponding for current players activity. For example me with ~ 2000 points don't have any reason to play for ranking players with 1000-1500 points. Play for fun with low rank players ? Majority of TOH players don't want to play just for fun, they want ranking game ... Current ranking system leads to stagnation on players activity. Most active players get at start of season good ranking points and stop playing at all, or get in low activity status. What TOH community think about this ? Suggestions ?
In order to increase activity, i have one idea - possibility to report game as "1 point game". No matter player rankings position, for this tip of game wining player get 1 point.
Another issue of current ranking system - it's irrelevant. For example player Buck played this season only vs player Greystole in heroes 3. They both lords. Now explain me please are lords Greystole and Buck playing heroes 3 at the same level of play as lords playng heroes 5 - Willgefors, Natalka, Jinxer, Zilo ? It's not suppose to be two different rankings for Heroes 3 game and other for Heroes 5 ? Also two players playing only one vs other not suppose to have possibility to reach hi position in ranking system. Current ranking system not show the true game play power of players. So what think TOH community abouat that, or just me thinking this way ?
____________
Nothing's impossible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=loCSLJ6IodY
|
|
fiur
Promising
Supreme Hero
Map Creator
|
posted September 24, 2009 12:38 PM |
|
|
for me its pretty simple....
I think U should get 30p for victory and -20 for a loss no matter rank....
____________
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
|
every 2 years this discussion comes up. I need to bring back some of the old threads, and the discussion should be clear.
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 10:17 PM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 22:56, 24 Sep 2009.
|
Well... I think the formula is Brilliant.. and has worked well for 10 years... But I will admit that I to find myself struggling to find games cause my points are soo high.. And lately outta boredom I have started playing some squires. So I risk 45 points and can only win 5 points.
Even tho, Vesuvius will never change the formula.. I just wanna throw out an idea.
Make the loss side of the foruma SET... meaning.. no matter point spread or rank or skill level.. a loss always is -20 pts. and keep the Win side of forumala the same.. so that still keeps the Lords from abusing the newbies.. but they might be more willing to play the lower ranked cause on the rare chance they get unlucky and lose.. then the loss win loss ratio isnt so bad..
So For example.. take Karim 1190pts and Jinxer 1640pts
450 points difference... Normally would mean this. If Jinxer lost... he loses 43pts.. if he wins.. he wins only 7 pts.
Under my new idea.. If Jinxer Lost.. he would lose 20pts.. if he wins.. he still only wins 7pts. So I cannot climb to top of ranks abusing newbies this way.. Keeps the integrity and concept of rankings in place.
I think tweaking the formula like this would increase activity!
____________
|
|
fiur
Promising
Supreme Hero
Map Creator
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 11:03 PM |
|
|
Very nice Idea Jinxer.... and Ii support it 100%&
I was to fast with my post... sure there could be some abuse with the -20/+30 system
____________
|
|
vex
Hired Hero
Tired and retire
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 07:10 AM |
|
Edited by vex at 07:15, 25 Sep 2009.
|
Good idea, Jinxer, but not a
"a loss always is -20 pts. "
May be you mean "not more than -20 point"?
No one low-ranked players will play you for chance to lose 20 points or we l see soon rankings like 400 or 500 
____________
|
|
infinitus
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 09:15 AM |
|
|
And maybe wining player get not less than 5 points ?
To Vesuvius - Why not to try to change a bit present formula ? If we get bad results with new one we can put back present formula...
|
|
Towerlord
Promising
Supreme Hero
Hero of Good, Slayer of Evil
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
To determine whether the scoring system is good or bad, you must select some criteria for judging it.
If you want to prize the most active&addictive players(that also play good, of course, but not excelent), you will choose a system like clans, where loss doesn't hurt too much, while a win brings lots of points.
If you want it to measure the performance of the players, you would go for something like the Elo in chess...
Personally, I feel that the ToH system doesn't accomplish either of these two features(or it accomplishes a little of both, so to say  ), it is like a jack-of-all-trades system.
Since it is the main ranking, I will assume, that it aims for performance, not quantity of games played, and I consider it fails here.
Like Infinitus pointed out, the two heroes 3 players, went very high in rank, by having pretty equal skill and playing many games against each other... But they could be equally noobish, so this is a big bug of the system, letting players advance in rank, just by playing a lot.
Also another problem pointed out by Infinitus, is the fact that he reached a point where he cannot play, or he risks falling down, without any chance of climbing just a little up . This is somewhat normal, as an Emperor, should be a lot more skillful than a low ranked and beat him 99,99% of the times, if the score system was healthy , like in chess where Kasparov would defeat normal chess players 99,99% of the times, even in simultaneous play.
Still, perhaps there should be a minimal(1 point) increase in points, against ranked players(footmen and above), to reward the effort.
But anyway, the solutions offered in this topic are totally arbitrary and without much thinking(and somewhat based to each players own needs in the current situation), and would lead to even worse ranking system than the actual one.
____________
|
|
SAG
Promising
Supreme Hero
WCL owner
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 10:08 AM |
|
|
Winner will get penalty for his win if rating difference is >600 points, right? At least formula at TOH page says that...
Example: I have 1700 points, someone has 1000 points. I won the game and...Rn=Ro + 30 +0.05*(D) means 1700+30-0.05*700=1695
|
|
infinitus
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 10:22 AM |
|
|
To Towerlord - At least let's try to elaborate better formula. If no, no. But situation is no good, here is examples - Willgefors was very active until he get emperor status, now he almost inactive, Vex retired, Camoes gone for heroes 4 
In my fistr post i not finished my idea - possibility to report game as "1 point game". No matter player rankings position, for this tip of game wining player get 1 point if win, and -1 point if loose. I mean current formula remain intact but if two players agree they can play "1 point game".
|
|
Towerlord
Promising
Supreme Hero
Hero of Good, Slayer of Evil
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 01:54 PM |
|
|
A very simple solution, I do have...
Just exchange the winning formula like this:
Rn= Ro + 20 + 0.05 * D,
and keep the loss formula at its current state:
Rn= Ro - (20 + 0.05 * D)
Perhaps there should be a decrease in rank requirements also, like 100-150 points/rank(squire, baron, lord, emperor), and create some new ranks for < 1000 points players(cause there would be a lot of these, trust me ).
This way people would advance slower between ranks, but in exchange, the power level would be determined better.
Of course,at the current moment, since season is already half way, nothing can be done ... season must end with the current system.
Only solutions for high ranked as yourself atm, is to play unofficial games, and maybe tourneys like Arena, Balrogs or Art of war, while waiting for the others to catch up  , or you could play 5 times vs. Zilo or Kispagat, on Twilight, and get closer to the pack of other players faster 
____________
|
|
infinitus
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 02:23 PM |
|
|
|
Looks like i go forced vacation for the moment
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 02:31 PM |
|
Edited by Jinxer at 16:12, 25 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Good idea, Jinxer, but not a
"a loss always is -20 pts. "
May be you mean "not more than -20 point"?
No one low-ranked players will play you for chance to lose 20 points or we l see soon rankings like 400 or 500
Yes Vex thats exactly what I meant.. Cannot lose more then 20 pts.. but for sure if low ranked loses to high ranked he might still only lose 5 points.. Guess I wasnt very clear there.. so thanks for pointing that out..
And this idea is VERY simple.. and thats the kinda changes we need is something simple. No need to bring Einstein back to life with E=Mc type stuff lol..
The problem as I understand it.. is high ranked players dont wanna risk 10X the points then they can win.. so this idea.. locks in the max amount they can lose.. no matter how much the differnece in points.. But the winner still benefits from his win with the current formula...
____________
|
|
insatiable
Supreme Hero
Ultimate N00bidity
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 03:27 PM |
|
|
i dont like it either..
but it dont bother me much
|
|
Clay_Man
Known Hero
TOH gamer
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 05:56 PM |
|
|
|
DIEGIS
Supreme Hero
power of Zamolxis
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by DIEGIS at 11:04, 26 Sep 2009.
|
If it's something more to say, here we are:
Lets say it: if a player dont play more then 1 month (example), his amount of points will be decreased with 10 or 20...(EDIT: UNTILL he loose 1 or 2 ranks, no more)this way we're be able to keep activity up, and force some lazy high ranked heroes to play even with the low ranked ones.
Of course, the decresing musnt be under 1000 points.
Decreasing in rank requirements also, like 100-150 points/rank(squire, baron, lord, emperor) sounds very good, as Hero Radoo (Tower)mentioned before.
EDIT: btw, I voted yes, TOH ranking system it's good as it is for this season.
____________
dacian falx behind you
-knowledge itself is power-
www.cabinet-dentaire-malaunay.fr
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 10:59 AM |
|
|
Eh if I lost points after being inactive I'd drop it altogether. There were quite a few periods where I was inactive but I was glad to resume where I had picked off.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 05:37 PM |
|
|
Well I think alot of the players that go inactive.. do so.. because the available player pool goes down.. when you get higher in rank. So when you get tired of trying to find an opponent.. You just get outta the mood to play and go inactive. Whereas if we tweak the forumla so can never lose more then 20pts.. I think It will bring alot of players back.. and increase activity.
Times are different then they were 10 years ago.. Even tho the formula worked brilliantly for so many years.. I think its time to tweak it up slightly.. And with that said.. we really are not Changing the formula.. just very simply putting a CAP on no more then 20pts lost for a loss.. the rest of the win loss formula caluclations will still remain intact.
____________
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 06:07 PM |
|
|
The ToH ranking system grows stronger when there is more players/activity, and weaker when there are only a few individuals. Then the generic +30/-20 works better. Once again, I had high hopes for homm5 multiplayer, but with the initial bugs and 400 patches before it was truly playable on the internet, along with a very crappy setup for multiplayer on ubi's rooms, it was another disappointment almost as bad as what happened in homm4.
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted September 27, 2009 05:34 AM |
|
|
@ Vesuvius -- With that in mind... since activity is obviously low.. could we consider possibly adjusting the formulation to fit the current low activity.. and enact our new no more then 20 for a loss formula.. Should be very simple adjustment... And if activity ever jumps back up HIGH then you can put the formula back to normal.. Atleast test this out and see how it goes and see if it helps activty.?
____________
|
|
|
|
