League rankings + promotions: suggestions and ideas for change

[Samura|]

This thread is partly a repost of mine from another thread but thought it merited a discussion in its own thread, so apologies for those who've already read it, although I've now written it up in much more detail


League rankings and promotions is something that's been discussed quite heavily in many threads in the past I know. IMHO, I think it's a topic that deserves additional discussion and proper suggestions for improvements. Perhaps if we can come up with some concrete ideas for improvements, OML can then look into it.

Summary of current ranking system
There are 2 current points/ranking systems in Outwitters, one visible to us and one that's invisible.

1) The visible ranking system comprises of 2 parts:
a) which league classification we belong to (Fluffy, Clever, Gifted, Master, Super-Titan)
b) our points, which then determines where we rank within our own league.

Of these 2 parts, it is the former i.e. (a) above that better reflects your actual ranking as perceived by OML in their invisible ranking system.

The points have nothing to do with your real ranking within OML. Therefore you could find someone with 1000 points and in Fluffy league, but 0 points and in Super-Titan. And therefore being number 1 in your league group doesn't mean you're about to promoted. As your visible ranking with your own league is based purely on points, you could have a lot of points simply because you're very active rather than a reflection of skill level. And these points stay with you, i.e. if you have 1000 points in Fluffy and get promoted to Clever, you keep your 1000 points which probably means that you're already in the top 5 in your Clever league group. But your real OML ranking is probably right at the bottom of Clever league. This is why you get instances of being newly promoted but already near the top of the next league, and likewise getting demoted even though you seem to be at the top of your league.

2) The invisible ranking system is the one that determines promotions/demotions and your league classification. At present, the details of how this system works have not been disclosed to us by OML. Here's my best guess:

a) the first 5 matches you play (your league placement matches) determine your starting 'invisible points' and hence your league classification (from Fluffy to Masters, I don't think you can get straight into ST - correct me if I'm wrong)

b) these 'invisible points' are ordinarily built up over time by your Wins/Losses, and points gained in each match vary according to the invisible skill of your opponent and your own (not too dissimilar to the visible points, but I believe they are harder to gain i.e. you reach an equilibrium level of invisible points more easily, even though you can continue to gain visible points by being active). To put these 'invisible points' into numbers broadly on par with the visible points that we are able to see, I would venture to guess something like 0 points for Fluffy, 500 points for Clever, 1000 points for Gifted and 1500 points for Masters. Why do I attempt to quantify these points? Just to contextualise the arbitrary nature of how it's possible to earn so many 'invisible points' if you win your first 5 matches, but otherwise you're earnings 15-18 points one game at a time. I.e. mess up your first 5 matches, and it could take you 100 games to rectify this.

Issues/problems with the existing system

1) The visible points in fact say nothing about skill or actual rankings, yet within each league classification it is used to 'rank' players. This creates confusion and frustration certainly for newer players or those who don't take part in these forums.

2) The importance of the first 5 games appears to be the single largest imbalance in this game. Win all 5 and you could be in Masters immediately. Lose a couple, and you could start out in Fluffy. And after that it will take you about 100+(!!) games to get to Masters. That's my estimate as it's taken me about 30-40 win to get promoted to Clever, then another 30-40 to get promoted to Gifted, in each case maybe with 1 loss (plus in both cases with 3/4 games as P2)!

There are 2 separate issues here:

i) is 30-40 games with a >95% W/L ratio too slow a path for promotion?
- my belief is yes. If I'm winning just 70% of games, I probably wouldn't mind as I'm still getting some challenge. But if I'm winning virtually all my games, there should be a way to match me against better players much sooner. Implications of this? Players start getting bored of league due to the lack of challenge and the amount of time it takes to get to the right league for your skill. This is also exacerbated by (ii) below.

ii) do the placement matches create a distortion/imbalance in the game?
- even if the answer to (i) above is 'no', it seems very arbitrary the massive weighting that's placed on the first 5 games. If this game decides that every player should work their way up the rankings, then it is only fair that everyone has to do so. If the game decides that there's a 'fast-track' way for promotion, this should also be done in a fair manner. My argument is that the placement matches are arbitrary and unfair, placing disproportionate emphasis on a player's first few games, when really it should be latter games that are more important. What are the implications? Players working their way up league one game at a time wonder why they should have to go through the tedium when others can jump straight into Masters. Or have to face the choice of just quitting the old identity and starting over with a new username. Again not optimal esp if you've already established an identity in the game or in the forum.

Where does the issue lie?
I believe the key issue is that it is taking too long to be matched against better opponents, rather than an issue with how points are being awarded. I.e. the reason I'm not being promoted with 30-40 straight wins is not because I'm not being awarded enough (invisible) points for my wins, but because I'm not being matched against players above my skill level to prove myself.

So how can the system be improved?

Would definitely love to hear suggestions, but here are my first thoughts:

1) a points system based upon the currently 'invisible points', rather than our existing point system

2) rather than having placement matches, there should be a fasttrack system whereby someone on say a 10 game streak then gets immediately matched against much tougher opponents for the next 3 games (say one or two leagues). Clearly if you can win all 3 or even 2 of 3, you should be promoted immediately. Winning even 1 of these games means perhaps you should still be given a chance to 'jump' to a higher league by being matched against tougher opposition for a couple more games

3) a complete overhaul of the points/ranking system? This requires much more thought and discussion. Say something akin to a tennis ATP ranking system, whereby your performance of the current rolling 12 months determines your ranking... not sure how this can be implemented in practice given the difference in games played etc. Would still require a better skill matching system however, as winning 30 games against lesser skilled opponents shouldn't gain you a promotion. In tennis, each win automatically pits you against a significantly stronger opponent, as half of competitors are weeded out in each round.

[TheQwertiest]

i actually like the current promotion system. for me, i wouldnt mind not getting a promotion as long as there is someone who can beat me in my current league. but i also agree with your suggestion as not everyone thinks like me and others play for rank.

[CombatEX]

(09-28-2012 08:56 PM)Samura| Wrote:  Where does the issue lie?
I believe the key issue is that it is taking too long to be matched against better opponents, rather than an issue with how points are being awarded. I.e. the reason I'm not being promoted with 30-40 straight wins is not because I'm not being awarded enough (invisible) points for my wins, but because I'm not being matched against players above my skill level to prove myself.

As for your solutions, I don't think a complete overhaul is necessary. Since the issue is simply not being matched with better players rapidly enough, I feel that all that needs to be changed is the matchmaking, not the way league itself works (promotions, points for wins, etc). Just make it so that players can match versus much better players if they have a high win:loss ratio. If they maintain their high ratio against these players, then give them even better players. If their win-rate against these players turns out to be 50/50 then keep giving them these new much better players. If they dip under 50/50 then give them slightly worse players until they stabilize at 50/50. Right now the system takes too long to recognize players with very high win:loss ratios and fails to give players the proper opponents to reach a 50/50 record in a timely manner.

For your suggestion to have 'real points' being displayed over the current 'pointless points' =P, I don't think that is necessary. But I would like the bonus pool system to be added eventually. For now though, simply fixing the matchmaking is more than enough. Bonus pool can be added later.

[Ravernoth]

(09-28-2012 10:21 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  

(09-28-2012 08:56 PM)Samura| Wrote:  Where does the issue lie?
I believe the key issue is that it is taking too long to be matched against better opponents, rather than an issue with how points are being awarded. I.e. the reason I'm not being promoted with 30-40 straight wins is not because I'm not being awarded enough (invisible) points for my wins, but because I'm not being matched against players above my skill level to prove myself.

As for your solutions, I don't think a complete overhaul is necessary. Since the issue is simply not being matched with better players rapidly enough, I feel that all that needs to be changed is the matchmaking, not the way league itself works (promotions, points for wins, etc). Just make it so that players can match versus much better players if they have a high win:loss ratio. If they maintain their high ratio against these players, then give them even better players. If their win-rate against these players turns out to be 50/50 then keep giving them these new much better players. If they dip under 50/50 then give them slightly worse players until they stabilize at 50/50. Right now the system takes too long to recognize players with very high win:loss ratios and fails to give players the proper opponents to reach a 50/50 record in a timely manner.

For your suggestion to have 'real points' being displayed over the current 'pointless points' =P, I don't think that is necessary. But I would like the bonus pool system to be added eventually. For now though, simply fixing the matchmaking is more than enough. Bonus pool can be added later.

Yes I agree, in terms of maximum improvement for the minimum work for OML, I'm sure there's a dial or number that they can adjust somewhere that would allow you to play better players earlier if you have a high win:loss.

Maybe change the thread title to something like "League matchmaking and Promotions: Please give tougher matchups faster"

The great part of this game is strategizing and finding a way to beat a good opponent. But unfortunately for many it starts out as 'Grind for 80 games to find someone you need to Outwit'

And with a mobile game where turnover is so quick, OML will lose many skilled players who are their core audience.

[ArtNJ]

One super-easy improvmenet for 2v2 rankings would be to give some weight to the individual players 1 v 1 rankings, at least during initial placement. If you dont play a ton of 2 v 2 games, you wont move leagues, so its pretty important to get it right initially. I have 2 teams, and collectively we are like 16-1 but we are in Master and Clever, respectively, and we'll stay there because we do one game at a time.

[RandyDogz]

I agree matchmaking needs tweaking to face more challenging opponents faster so w/l is closer to 50/50, and maybe make promotions/demotions quicker to get you where you should be without so much grinding. But I imagine they're interconnected, so maybe one leads to the other. In regards to the 'hidden ranking', I think keeping it hidden is a good thing. That allows them to tweak it behind the scenes and the only thing we'd see is improved matchmaking (if it works right...), no uproar when people log on and see the number next to their name is now lower or a different colour or whatever.

In my own experience, I have been having challenging matchs from day 1 and still learning and having fun, but have been winning most of them. I think it's been about 30 wins, with a couple of loses sprinkled in, per promotion for me which wasn't too painful. I think the addition of displaying a breakdown of wins between 1x1 and 2x2, and a points per game calc for both would be a fairly easy addition (there's enough real estate on the profile page to add this...) that would make the current visable ranking system way more meaningful.

[poweewee]

Forgive me for asking, but is there a reason why there has to be an invisible ranking system? I just thought that since we are being ranked, the ranking system should be more transparent.

Also, i don't think the ATP tour system is a good model, since this is based on playing in tournaments, which we currently do not have. Perhaps we can incorporate something similar to the ELO rating system in chess?

(By the way, I have no problem with the current system. These are just suggestions. I am sure OML has bigger problems to handle)

[Szei]

There's no reason for OML to change the rating system to ELO or anything else. It's just unnecessary work. All that I want is for the matchmaking to become more flexible, but the actual rating system can remain how it is.

[KMan 29]

(09-28-2012 08:39 PM)KMan 29 Wrote:  As someone who has been promoted and demoted and repromoted I can definitely say it is an arduous climb. I am not sure but I think the maps play a role as far as making certain that you are capable of winning on all of them before you start getting paired with higher ranked players.

(09-29-2012 08:29 AM)Szei Wrote:  There's no reason for OML to change the rating system to ELO or anything else. It's just unnecessary work. All that I want is for the matchmaking to become more flexible, but the actual rating system can remain how it is.

Flexible matchmaking, right on!

[Luckymori]

I agree. One thing I noticed when I started playing (I played my first ever matches in the league already) was that you can start more than five matches at the start and, as long as the first five matches that END were won, you'll be promoted to master league. So if I start 20 matches and let all of those where I don't have a great chance at winning stagnate I can be promoted to master without any actual skill. This must change.