You are here

Discussion about the teamrankingsystem

Before posting make sure you are aquainted with our forum rules.

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
ffa eu top 0.3%
1v1 eu top 6.3%
team eu top 1.3%
Clan: KOLL
Discussion about the teamrankingsystem

Most Valuable Playah, players like him remind me every day to the changes at the rankingsystem. Old or experienced players of you maybe noticed the change of the teamrank formula some months ago.

The old formula increased the influence of high ranked players at their team and had as result a very nice(in my opinion) rank calculation.

A 4vs4 game with 3*1600 + 2400 vs 4*1800 always gave the 2nd team more points for the win, even if the average was the same. Very high ranked players who played at low ranked rooms got 0,1 or 2 points if they won a game, but not more.

Now the rankings changed and the way is made for boosters or unfair games to increase the rank. Anybody can get a very high rank without having the needed skills.

The newest examle, Most Valuable Playah, showed us that the way from 1290 to 3075 needs just 53 games and 2-3 hours playing.

At the past we had players like Mepik who got 2,5k rank by only playing against low ranked users. He never got more than 2 points each game and needed more than 300 games to get that rank. Now we have players who do exactly the same and get 10 or even more points each game.

Games like this http://curvefever.com/achtung/match/34064014 show us the unrealistic rankingsystem. A 2,6k and a 2,4k ranked player at the same team receive +39 rank against very low opponents. Even with the negative ranked(unrealistic rank) user at the team, their average was higher. If I take the ranks before thsi game started, we have an average of 1246,25 points for the winning team and 1131 for the losing team. So how can they receive 39 points for winning this game with max 40 points possible to win with a single teamgame. Usually they should get 0-2 points but not more.

I think many players agree with me, if I say that the teamranks became unrealistic. The real pros play just for fun and don't try to get records anymore and some "2nd-class" pros dominate the topranks now and receive undeserved high ranks.

 

Want to hear your opinion and thoughts about this, as I think this topic can't be ignored anymore.

Offline

Good post, Nowodyn. You explained properly!

GEERT I think you should have changed the ranking system a long time ago. I saw many players from the community with very good solutions to this problem! Listen to them!

FFA 1726
Team 1570
1v1 1200

Offline

If you need any help with maths, just ask Alfy!

FFA 1726
Team 1570
1v1 1200

Offline

To be honest, it was very easy to achieve this rank. It only took us a couple of hours to get 3000 rank. And with a few hours more we could have gotten 4000.

Laura19's picture
Offline
ffa eu top 0.4%
1v1 eu top 11%
team eu top 1.1%

Good point. But is this a booster report? Because breaking the rules only to show that the rank system doesn't work right it doesn't mean it is not bad doing it. Slovak and the other players"showed" this before and they got banned I dont see why people keep trying to boost till those rank with the excuse of showing a bad system...

Offline
Champion

Geert wrote:

I found what my general problem was. I tried to do arithmetic statistics on a logharitmic scale, thus it didn't work out. To give an example. Sound is a logartihmic scale. Every 10 dB the sound gets twice as high. Now we take 3 sounds:

1. 10 dB = 1 loud

2. 20 dB = 2 loud

3. 100 dB = 512 loud

What is the average sound level? is it:

A. (100 + 20 + 10) / 3 = 43.3 dB

or

B. (512 + 2 + 1) / 3 = 171.7 loud , which is > 70 dB

 

For us humans, it is A. And for the ranks it is also the case. This gives nice results, which are also expected

 

That was Geert's comment in some rankings topic at December. I guess he made the new rankings somehow based on it. However I totally disagree with the comment.

At first, every 10 dB the sound gets 10 times more loud, not just twice, because decibels are logarithm to base 10. So those sounds would be

1. 10 dB = 1 loud

2. 20 dB = 10 loud

3. 100 dB = 1 000 000 000 loud

and the averages

A. (100 + 20 + 10) / 3 = 43.2 dB

B. (1 000 000 000 + 10 + 1) / 3 = 333 333 337 loud, which is 95.2 dB

 

Even B is almost as high as the loudest sound in decibel scale, I wouldn't say A is the average. Hearing 100 dB, 20 dB and 10 dB all for 1 second is more close to hearing 95 dB for 3 seconds rather than hearing 43 dB for 3 seconds. We could think about a situation where we hear 3 motorcycles for 1 second at the same time and then hear nothing for 2 seconds. This is close to same as hearing 1 motorcycle for 3 seconds. This averaging is the same as in the case of B because 100 dB is 3 times louder than 95 dB.

 

"I tried to do arithmetic statistics on a logharitmic scale, thus it didn't work out." Isn't A the one where arithmetic statistics are made on a logarithmic scale? Average is calculated from decibel scale and decibels are a logarithmic scale.

So as a cunclusion from that comment and the current ranking system, it seems like arithmetic statistics are now made on a logarithmic scale when calculating new team ranks. And this is why game which consists of ranks 0, 0, 2400 and 2400 vs 1200, 1200, 1200 and 1200 is considered almost equal in the current ranking system.

By calculating the strengths of each player according to ELO we could say rank 0 = strength 1, rank 2400 = strength 64 and rank 1200 = strength 8. Then the averages of both teams are 2009 and 1200 and the game would be +0.4/-0.4 for the team with two 2400 players.

Actually in the current ranking system {2400, 2400, 0, 0} vs {1200, 1200, 1200, 1200} seems to be more + for the team with 2400 ranks than for the other team even the averages are same. If other of the ranks of 0 would be -1000, the game would be almost +40/-0 for that team. With the old system in both cases it would be totally different, +0/-40 for the team with the 2400 players.

The current system has made it much easier to get higher ranks and therefore it wasn't even hard to get 2970 rank in January. A few months earlier 2800 was very much harder. There I had to win like 90% of the games against the strongest players for a long period of time, but now it's possible to win just 60% of games and get a rank of 3000.

The new system has already been there for many months so I don't know if it is good to change it back anymore because during the last months many people made their records and then it wouldn't be possible to get so high ranks anymore. So the records for team ranks would be impossible to break again.

 

I also wonder why there wasn't any news topic about the change in team rankings. Most people didn't notice the change and they still think getting high ranks is still as hard as it was earlier.

Offline
Champion

I noticed the rank system is flawed when I made slovakpro 3k. The whole idea behind boosting slovakpro was to show how easy it is to get 3k, because most players didn't realize at that time how easy it actually is, even if you play only thin games against low or middle ranked players. In thin team there are many good opponents and it's not so easy to win almost every game, because it's not possible to carry every game for a long period of time. Eventually your team will start to fail and you alone can't compensate all mistakes every game. It doesn't matter if you are a very strong player due to the quantity of strong opponent teams. Therefore it should be extremely hard to get 3k-3,2k rank but it isn't anymore thanks to the new rankings. I wrote many times on forums that something is wrong with the system... but apparently the devs are too busy with CF3. 

Offline
Champion
ffa eu top 0.2%
team eu top 1.3%

Current ranksystem is a joke tbh. People ive never seen before manage to get 2.4k by playing 1.1k's. 

Tranquility. †'s picture
Offline
Moderator
Clan: Blub

Well, while I agree that something really ought to be changed, the end result will be exactly the same. People will find a new way to get around it. That's why the mods are here. It's not actually all bad. 

All the boosting done on the basis of "to show how easy it is" won't change anything other than to make the situation worse. The 3k boosting cases only gave people ideas, and now they are innovating new ways to do the same thing. Prior to that, there wasn't really anything other than the common boosters who used the easy methods. As a result, it produced an angry (competitive) community who demanded action from mods and devs. The end story is two things: 

  1. It is left as it is.
  2. It is changed slightly, and then someone finds a new way to boost (Well, that was a waste of time!).

Either way is a loss-loss at this stage. There's a lot of maths behind a ranking system, and it can be fragile I would imagine. Simply changing it would need time and testing. WIth CF3 on the horizon with a totally different ranking system entirely, it wouldn't really be practical to test something else. 

Also one last thing, the new ranking system only inflated the possible rank. You could've done the exact same on the previous system...just for 2500 maybe. It wasn't the small change that instigated it. It was more likely the "let's prove how easy this is" attitude which uncovered the whole thing.

 

Btw I'm not trying to poke holes in arguments, I just like discussing this Biggrin I too prefer the old system. But I don't think all the blame should be on the devs! They are the ones with experience in game design Smile

 

 

Tranquility. †'s picture
Offline
Moderator
Clan: Blub

Didn't see Real's comment! The math is indeed incorrect! Good spot real. I didn't even spot this haha. I wonder if Geert changed his maths...

Offline

I'm not trying to justify anything. I just wanted to see if I could.

Offline
Champion

Tranquility. wrote:

All the boosting done on the basis of "to show how easy it is" won't change anything other than to make the situation worse. The 3k boosting cases only gave people ideas, and now they are innovating new ways to do the same thing. Prior to that, there wasn't really anything other than the common boosters who used the easy methods. As a result, it produced an angry (competitive) community who demanded action from mods and devs.

It made the community realize that the rank system isn't working like it should do, because Geert messed up the math behind it. In every game there are bug testers and we just wanted to display this "bug".

Offline

Real's comment is OP xd

I would be on the side of changing the rank system back to the correct way because the poor ranking system affects normal daily games. It's not about boosters for me, because frankly speaking, i don't care about their rank. I've played a lot under this year, and I am never as satisfied with the rank given by the current ranking system as to what I would receive a few months ago. Most of the time, the rank simply doesn't correspond the amount I feel like I won/lost. Therefore I don't put effort in playing for rank anymore.

The only downside I see to changing it back is what real has already mentioned. People can't break their records anymore. In addition, people are used to seeing high rank, and restricting everyone to have it lower and not being able to "boost" a little decreases people's motivation to play. But this concerns me less than having an obvious poor ranking system.

Tranquility. †'s picture
Offline
Moderator
Clan: Blub

Legendary Zelda, I would accept that from you if you gave a case! But you did no such thing Blum 3

NOWODNY2's example of the average ranks being similar yet still receiving +39 is proving that something has went fundamentally wrong. Real has pointed out that Geert's math was wrong in one of his posts. With these 2 combined - now it is easier to pinpoint the problem (possibly).

Simply boosting and then being banned while creating a fuss and giving no help towards what the problem is - this is what I mean about making things worse. Try to be constructive. "This is wrong, fix it" is not really useful.

Anyway, I've pointed it out to Geert. If there are any further plans on this matter then he will be the one to contribute an answer Smile

 

Geert's picture
Offline
Developer
Moderator
team eu top 25%
Clan: MOD

I agree, the ranking system is flawed as it is now. I think it was a bad choise, and we will put it back to an arithmetic average. I am just not sure, when exactly we will do so, and if we should do it with a team rank reset. What do you guys think of that?


 

Offline
ffa eu top 0.3%
1v1 eu top 6.3%
team eu top 1.3%
Clan: KOLL

Geert wrote:

I agree, the ranking system is flawed as it is now. I think it was a bad choise, and we will put it back to an arithmetic average. I am just not sure, when exactly we will do so, and if we should do it with a team rank reset. What do you guys think of that?

Good to hear that you will change it back, but I think there won't be a problem if we keep the ranks as they are now. Some people said it may be harder to beat records, so it would be even harder if we reset the whole rankingsystem. Also the top-50-reduce will manage the top ranks, so that nobody can save the "easy rank".

I guess everyone agrees if we just change the rankcalculation and nothing else.

 

~~signature~~

My time:

R4W1L's picture
Offline
ffa eu nr. 24
1v1 eu top 23%
team eu nr. 38

with a team rank reset

yes plez :D, all on 1200 again

_____________________________________________________________________
my guide for improving cf performance  

Offline
ffa eu top 0.3%
1v1 eu top 6.3%
team eu top 1.3%
Clan: KOLL

R4W1L wrote:

with a team rank reset

yes plez :D, all on 1200 again

reset = all on 700 not 1200

 

~~signature~~

My time:

Jasonm7's picture
Offline
Clan: M8

Chess has a good rating system

Offline
Clan: Zeus

What about people who have to carry hard and play 1v4? That person should receive extra points or atleast dont lost so much. I have to carry hard 3/5 games.

R4W1L's picture
Offline
ffa eu nr. 24
1v1 eu top 23%
team eu nr. 38

NOWODNY2 wrote:

R4W1L wrote:

with a team rank reset

yes plez :D, all on 1200 again

reset = all on 700 not 1200

Just as well^^

_____________________________________________________________________
my guide for improving cf performance  

onCocaine's picture
Offline
team eu top 14%
Clan: fm

Its weird it took so long for you guys to realise there is a huge problem with teamranks and points that are gained after game. Its has been said a lot of times already and many new ways to prevent such actions were suggested and yet none was even considered or ever implemented.

Alan - you are right but no matter what you are going to make up or change people will always find ways to bypass current system. World is changing, things are changing, everything is changing. This problem concerns every company, every country, every government, everyone, always. Mods' job here is to prevent such actions in here as well. 

And to be honest - it's not really that challenging to find a solution that would prevent it. Many were suggested already like I mentioned. FFA ranking system in that case works pretty well after all.

Jasonm7's picture
Offline
Clan: M8

It's a good idea to bring back the rank reset button. I have been waiting for this.