Player Ranking in Allegiance

Saikon · Post by **Saikon** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:47 am

asheron2k wrote:QUOTE (asheron2k @ Dec 15 2007, 09:05 PM) Honestly, I vote that we go back to a, modified, age rank
In general people improve as they play
Those who don't end up getting noticed for it

It was just a quick hack of a "ranking" system and, IMHO, worked better than anything since

I agree with asheron. The problem with a fancy ranking system is that there is always a way to exploit the system to your advantage. I think the old age rank system was more accurate in displaying a rank closer to someones skill level than the current system we have and perhaps any new system that gets put in its place.

Sycrus · Post by **Sycrus** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:39 am

For rank, you can lose almost immediately, but you don't really lose skill. Take a break for a day, warm up, most people get back in the game and some people are better. It all comes down to stack /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> I say we get a new ranking system, and start our ranks over!

ImmortalZ · Post by **ImmortalZ** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:22 am

Well, I've seen some of the AS graphs. It works amazingly well IMHO.

P.S. : To the powers that be, I accidentally voted wrong on the second poll. Could you change my vote from #4 to #3? /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:47 am

ImmortalZ wrote:QUOTE (ImmortalZ @ Dec 18 2007, 02:22 AM) Well, I've seen some of the AS graphs. It works amazingly well IMHO.

P.S. : To the powers that be, I accidentally voted wrong on the second poll. Could you change my vote from #4 to #3? /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />

Damned turncoats! /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Naboki · Post by **Naboki** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:25 pm

Every year the same discussion, and it starts anoying me.... leave the system like it is. Helo isnt older then one year, and it needs time calibrate. and its the most accurate we had until now, every system has his instabilities and you will never make a system, where everyone is satisfied with it.
and age ranked system isnt helping too, cos how long an account exists doesnt tell you, how good someone is.

mcwarren4 · Post by **mcwarren4** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:12 pm

Naboki, if I want to put myself in the top 10 in the rankings I can do it. I don't believe I am one of the top 10 pilots in the game, but I am 100% confident that if I wanted to be ranked up there I know I can do it without any trouble. How is that accurate?

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Naboki wrote:QUOTE (Naboki @ Dec 18 2007, 12:25 PM) Every year the same discussion, and it starts anoying me.... leave the system like it is. Helo isnt older then one year, and it needs time calibrate.

No offense, but if it takes more than a year to calibrate than it is deeply flawed and pretty much useless.

Naboki · Post by **Naboki** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:06 pm

@mcwarren: A ranking system isnt a stable system (its more the opposite its marginal stable), so you will always find a way to higher your rank. You can only hold it stable if the community stop to get more players, every player plays the same amount of time. Even when only one players changes his computer configuration (better or worser) it corrupt the system.

and to the calibration.

all system needs a transient oscillation time, you can only fasten this process up by forceing the players to be online.
and one year of transient osciallation time isnt much, for such a complex thing.

system theory is so hard to describe over i -net /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

faytinc · Post by **faytinc** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:16 pm

Sycrus wrote:QUOTE (Sycrus)It all comes down to stack

QUOTE (mcwarren4)I am 100% confident that if I wanted to be ranked up there I know I can do it without any trouble.[/quote]

Everyone seems to be more or less in agreement about the problem, and stating it very well. Stack sucks, so we need some way to balance teams so that the outcome of any game (using balance) couldn't be predicted in advance. To do that, we'd need a system of ranking players accurately on skill. The skill of any given player cannot be determined entirely on the basis of whether your team won or not. A few really good players can pull a team of relative voobs to victory. A few really crapulent players can make a team of relative vets lose. HELO tracks wins, and wins alone. Ergo, HELO won't work if we want to stop stack w/ a really good AB system. Many have mentioned tracking "Age" as a method, but that method, by itself, is again not a good option. Could some hybrid system that tracked both wins, "age", and other statistics as well work successfully? Yes, of course. Will there be ways for people to exploit it for a higher rank? Probably, unless the system is either VERY good, or people aren't allowed to know what their rank and the criterion for ranking are. Should the AB/ranking be mandatory? Of course not, even though that would mean things like Squad Games and Zone Games would be unranked.

A few people have been putting a LOT of time into solving just this problem, whether they have been doing so visibly or not. My personal vote is to wait and see what they've got in action, before offering suggestions on how they can make it better.

Edit: Forgot to say, IMO preventing stacking is the only valid reason for a ranking system, the l337 stack whores griping notwithstanding. Making the rankings invisible after a new ranking system got implemented wouldn't suck at all.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:28 pm

Naboki wrote:QUOTE (Naboki @ Dec 18 2007, 02:06 PM) all system needs a transient oscillation time, you can only fasten this process up by forceing the players to be online.
and one year of transient osciallation time isnt much, for such a complex thing.

system theory is so hard to describe over i -net /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Even were I to acknowledge that every system needs "transient oscillation time" it just seems to me that 1 year is far too long a time. Aside from the fact that you're asking for a ridiculous amount of patience from the community, won't it be extremely unworkable to wait 1 year to accumulate data on each new person/returning vet before their rank stabilizes? (perhaps I do not understand this correctly)

Aside from that, there are numeous other critiques of the HELO system, not least of which is that it has no valid mathematical foundation to back it up. AllegSkill/TrueSkill does, just read the paper. Also, see Professor Baker's most eloquent critique of HELO, which is also based on sound mathematical principles.

The current system is broken and in need of replacement. Professor Baker and his esteemed associates have conrtibuted much time and effort to a solution to the problem. Why don't we wait for them to present their solution and its results?