Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Qbit

Ranking System Discussion

Recommended Posts

Stop making sense.

 

I find it funny that this is really a debate. If a zero-sum W/L system worked, or if a individual stat based system worked, they would have been implemented. However, we've instead created incredibly complex algorithms that take into account a multitude of different variables to produce a rank consistently and fairly... but that's not good enough for the Halo kids with their (hopefully) passing grades in pre-calc. 

Listen, dont talk down on the Halo kids. they just want the game to be as close to Halo 1 as possible, with no bullshit like weapon timers put into the game. They want it to be as skill based as possible and use weapon timers on iPods like tru competitive gamers. Dont need that fucking handicap built in. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

and that is a system that doesnt make sense. 

 

If you lose a lot you should simply rank down, not just dig a hole that not only deranks you, but makes ranking back up MORE difficult. At that point you end up with people who can theoretically be playing at a skill level above their current rank, simply because they reached a skill ceiling, lost a bunch, then improved, and now cant rank back up because the system wont allow them too. 

Why shouldn't it. If you lose that much you should be punished for it

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

 but that's not good enough for the Halo kids with their (hopefully) passing grades in pre-calc. 

 

 

Listen, dont talk down on the Halo kids. they just want the game to be as close to Halo 1 as possible, with no bullshit like weapon timers put into the game. They want it to be as skill based as possible and use weapon timers on iPods like tru competitive gamers. Dont need that fucking handicap built in. 

Because these posts were needed and constructive... Clowns

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I find it funny that this is really a debate. If a zero-sum W/L system worked, or if a individual stat based system worked, they would have been implemented.

I was actually waiting patiently for someone to bring up this fallacy as well, it's essentially the appeal to tradition. You're basically saying "We've never done it that way before, therefore it obviously doesn't work". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

However, we've instead created incredibly complex algorithms that take into account a multitude of different variables to produce a rank consistently and fairly... but that's not good enough for the Halo kids with their (hopefully) passing grades in pre-calc.

A more complex system doesn't necessarily make it a better one, and the ranks produced by the current system and the matches it produces aren't particularly consistent or fair though, that's one reason why there's been a lot of players voicing complaints about it. The point is, the current system clearly has issues, so here we are in this thread discussing and promoting alternative systems we think are better, or ways to improve the current one.

  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Why shouldn't it. If you lose that much you should be punished for it

That is exactly what deranking is...

 

You dont punish bad people by making it more difficult to get better. Hell you dont punish bad people at all, just simply put them in a skill level with players of their caliber.

 

Across all the competitive titles that have stood the test of time and remained popular: League, SC, and CSGO, none of them use a ranking system that actively punished bad players. Punishing bad players outside of the game is not a good thing.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You don't give bad people the same start as the good people either. Why should I be on equal footing as someone who loses a ton of games? It should take him longer to rank up cause he sucks.

 

But we're arguing in circles here so I withdraw

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

You don't give bad people the same start as the good people either. Why should I be on equal footing as someone who loses a ton of games? It should take him longer to rank up cause he sucks.

 

 

8b086199_2928543-524906464-Not_sure_if_s

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I was actually waiting patiently for someone to bring up this fallacy as well, it's essentially the appeal to tradition. You're basically saying "We've never done it that way before, therefore it obviously doesn't work". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

A more complex system doesn't necessarily make it a better one, and the ranks produced by the current system and the matches it produces aren't particularly consistent or fair though, that's one reason why there's been a lot of players voicing complaints about it. The point is, the current system clearly has issues, so here we are in this thread discussing and promoting alternative systems we think are better, or waIU ys to improve the current one.

I remember when I took Introduction to Logic at my community college... I thought I was the shit too for a while back during the MLG forum days. 

 

Your entire argument is based off an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your tirade is solely based off the fact that you haven't seen it implemented, it sounds great in practice, so it's obviously the correct fucking answer. That's not how it works. 

 

Your inability to respond to anyone's comments or criticisms without grasping at a logical fallacy is in and of itself a red herring. 

 

And yes. My responding to your case of the downs (ad hominem) is tu quoque. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You don't give bad people the same start as the good people either. Why should I be on equal footing as someone who loses a ton of games? It should take him longer to rank up cause he sucks.

 

But we're arguing in circles here so I withdraw

 

Today I learned: If I suck ass in the beginning, practice a ton and improve, it's too late. I missed the window of opportunity. I should be punished for being new to the game for the life span of the game, because fuck progress. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't just think it, I argue it. I actually explain myself and list sound points and examples in favor of my position, you do not.

 

I have. You just don't agree so you disregard it.

 

You cannot rank players in a team game by individual stats.

 

2014 college stats

Jameis Winston

3901 yards 25 touchdowns 18 interceptions

 

2014 Marcus Mariota stats

4454 yards 42 touchdowns 4 interceptions

 

Winston goes #1 in the NFL draft

Mariota goes #2

 

Why? Individual stats in a team game are nice and look pretty but they don't mean shit all. How do you rank people? You watch them play and see how they play and how they impact the game. We can't do that in Halo so what can we do? We can look at hundreds if not thousands of games and deduce a player's impact based on who they can beat, who they can't beat, who they can win with, who they can't win with, etc. W/L. W/L. W/L

Share this post


Link to post

Today I learned: If I suck ass in the beginning, practice a ton and improve, it's too late. I missed the window of opportunity. I should be punished for being new to the game for the life span of the game, because fuck progress. 

No because you would still rank up, it would just take you longer because you sucked in the beginning and deservingly so.

  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

No because you would still rank up, it would just take you longer because you sucked in the beginning and deservingly so.

 

It bothers me that you don't see the issue with this. Like... truly, deeply, bothered. If it bothered me anymore than it currently does, I'd be writing songs for Drake. 

 

Real world examples: If someones starving, food shouldn't be more expensive for them because they had to go without. If you're born into poverty, it shouldn't be harder for you to have a chance at a real quality life (even though it is). if you're benched on a kindergarten softball team because you had never played before, you shouldn't be granted less practice time than other kids because you are new. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Comparing starvation and poverty to a video game ranking system. Not even Mr. Fantastic could reach that hard.

Share this post


Link to post

Comparing starvation and poverty to a video game ranking system. Not even Mr. Fantastic could reach that hard.

 

It's the same principle. Your train of thought is: If you suck ass, you should be punished for it in the long term. 

 

I simply applied your thought to other areas of life so you can see how fucking ******** it is. Though I believe I failed.... I blame common-core and the state of the education system. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's the same principle. Your train of thought is: If you suck ass, you should be punished for it in the long term. 

 

I simply applied your thought to other areas of life so you can see how fucking ******** it is. Though I believe I failed.... I blame common-core and the state of the education system. 

You have some nerve comparing real life tragedy to a video game and then try to talk down to me as if I am the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Your inability to respond to anyone's comments or criticisms without grasping at a logical fallacy is in and of itself a red herring.

No it isn't. Pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of explaining to the opponent why a point they made is wrong. That isn't misleading to the argument. You don't know what the words you are using mean. Additionally, I also respond as much as I can to comments detailing my point of view, and ask others to explain theirs. Unfortunately in the latter case, I rarely get a meaningful response.

Your entire argument is based off an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your tirade is solely based off the fact that you haven't seen it implemented, it sounds great in practice, so it's obviously the correct fucking answer. That's not how it works.

Again, you don't know what the words you are using mean. Argument from ignorance means that the person's proposition is being assumed true entirely because there is no evidence proving the proposition to be incorrect, such as "God exists. There's no proof that God doesn't exist, so God exists". I certainly have not done that, I've detailed very explicit points as to why my proposition is valid.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You have some nerve comparing real life tragedy to a video game and then try to talk down to me as if I am the problem. 

 

When reason doesn't work, you gotta move on to phase 2. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

No it isn't. Pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of explaining to the opponent why a point they made is wrong. That isn't misleading to the argument. You don't know what the words you are using mean. Additionally, I also respond as much as I can to comments detailing my point of view, and ask others to explain theirs. Unfortunately in the latter case, I rarely get a meaningful response.

 

Pointing out a logical fallacy, spending time explaining why it is a logical fallacy, and then not refuting any actual points made is misleading to the argument. You're not making any argumentative points when someone brings criticisms, but instead using fallacies to defer an rebuttal. 

 

Again, you don't know what the words you are using mean. Argument from ignorance means that the person's proposition is being assumed true entirely because there is no evidence proving the proposition to be incorrect, such as "God exists. There's no proof that God doesn't exist, so God exists". I certainly have not done that, I've detailed very explicit points as to why my proposition is valid.

 

You're assuming that because you're making an argument that there is no evidence against (let's be real here, the only way to end this would be for a company to implement the system and throw away millions of dollars... which is why it isn't used ) and using this to shit on other peoples arguments IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam. It has never been proven false (because it isn't implemented), thus it's true. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Ranks should place you at your approximate skill quickly.  In the case that the initial placement is incorrect (which it seems to be for a lot of people overshooting), they should be able to move to their exact skill over the medium term.  

 

The first part is happening.  The second part isn't due to this weird idea that each rank level should have a floor.  I just don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post

The actual ranks are little more than a cute picture you work for. You have a hidden CSR that determines who you match. Not dropping divisions is a good way to encourage people to keep playing. Otherwise people would be too scared to play after they reach the next division. A lot of you are too preoccupied with the fact that you can't VISIBLY drop a division. You can still drop.

Share this post


Link to post

Pointing out a logical fallacy, spending time explaining why it is a logical fallacy, and then not refuting any actual points made is misleading to the argument. You're not making any argumentative points when someone brings criticisms, but instead using fallacies to defer an rebuttal.

Criticisms have to be in a valid form first before they are worth addressing. That's exactly why you point out the fallacy and it's enough to point out the argument is fallacious to be rendered invalid and therefore for the opponent to try again. Find me one example in the thread so far where somebody has actually posted any meaningful, explanatory criticism of the Zero-Sum system. I'm still waiting for that, I'll give a direct and in-depth response once that happens. I can't and need not respond to gibberish.

You're assuming that because you're making an argument that there is no evidence against (let's be real here, the only way to end this would be for a company to implement the system and throw away millions of dollars... which is why it isn't used ) and using this to shit on other peoples arguments IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam. It has never been proven false (because it isn't implemented), thus it's true.

This is face palm worthy. I'm not assuming that AT ALL. You could apply your terrible reasoning to anything, you're actually saying "If a system hasn't been implemented before, it sucks and shouldn't be implemented, and the only way to possibly judge how good a system is, is by using one in real life and it isn't possible at all to determine how good a system could be based on solid theoretical reasoning". Christ almighty.

Share this post


Link to post

I've already touched on it, see paragraph 3 of post #85. To add to that, using "hidden variables" like sigma and mu is not a good way to go about things because every game permanently affects those variables which get harder and harder to change and they change the actual rate at which you can rank up and down, which ends up not basing things purely on W/L and makes things murky. There are instances where players might win 6 games in a row and gain 1 rank, then lose 1 game and rank straight down again, ad nauseam.

Wins and losses is the only thing that matters in the trueskill system, zero sum, or elo system.

 

Given enough games the ranking of players by a trueskill, zero sum, or elo system will all be identical!  The only difference is how many games it took to get to that result, with elo getting there faster than a zero-sum, and trueskill even faster.   Advocating for zero-sum system is simply advocating a slower (archaic) acting ranking system.

Share this post


Link to post

The actual ranks are little more than a cute picture you work for. You have a hidden CSR that determines who you match. Not dropping divisions is a good way to encourage people to keep playing. Otherwise people would be too scared to play after they reach the next division. A lot of you are too preoccupied with the fact that you can't VISIBLY drop a division. You can still drop.

 

It's funny that people still don't realize this.  Seems to me that for some the fact they are matching worse players is not good enough.  Those -20 losers are scrubs that need to know their bad by having their pictures demoted and someone should send them a post card with the notice of deranking telling them how much they suck.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny that people still don't realize this. Seems to me that for some the fact they are matching worse players is not good enough. Those -20 losers are scrubs that need to know their bad by having their pictures demoted and someone should send them a post card with the notice of deranking telling them how much they suck.

It's like taking "you are bad and you should feel bad" to the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post

Wins and losses is the only thing that matters in the trueskill system, zero sum, or elo system.

Not quite true. Who you lose to and who you win against also matters in TrueSkill and ELO, and that's one key difference between them and Zero Sum, in which wins and losses truly are the only thing that matter.

Given enough games the ranking of players by a trueskill, zero sum, or elo system will all be identical!  The only difference is how many games it took to get to that result, with elo getting there faster than a zero-sum, and trueskill even faster.  Advocating for zero-sum system is simply advocating a slower (archaic) acting ranking system.

Funnily enough, this isn't necessarily true either. The reason for that is that every player in Zero Sum starts at 0, which is basically the average player. If you have a rank of 0, your overall W/L spread is 0, so therefore you've won 50% of your total games and lost 50% of your total games, or haven't played any games. This is a good thing because it's a great idea to start off being pitted against the average player and either rank up from there if you're better than average, or rank down if you're below average. If you are an average player, you've instantly found your sweet spot from the word go. This is in contrast to a 1-50 where everyone is assumed terrible to begin with and starts off on the worst rank, rather than the average. Since it's Zero-Sum, if the combined W/L spread total of all the positive players is say, +10,000, that means the combined W/L spread total of the negative players is -10,000. If the highest ranked player has a spread of +100, you have to win at least that many games to get there (assuming they don't win/lose games in the meantime and rank up/down). The ranking system is therefore a ladder of all registered players, and their positions on it are determined by their W/L spreads. Each time they play they are matched against players with the same or closest W/L spread to them.

 

However, keep in mind that this is the way it's done for parties and clans. For randoms vs randoms, the exact same concept applies but instead of the ladder positions being determined by the players' W/L spread, it's determined by the players' K/D/A spread. This is needed because otherwise the system suffers from the problems of poor players being constantly carried and good players constantly being dragged, leading to inaccuracy and randomness.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.