Publicize hidden rankings

[HuskyPete]

I question the horror of people ranked in the 6,000s. If you are in fluffy, clever, or gifted, I believe you know you have a long way to go from the top! I know I did (and do)

[Mag!cGuy]

(02-15-2014 06:11 AM)HuskyPete Wrote:  I question the horror of people ranked in the 6,000s. If you are in fluffy, clever, or gifted, I believe you know you have a long way to go from the top! I know I did (and do)

Completely agree, would be naive of them to think they are close to top 200 if they just became gifted for example.

[Juslas]

Hidden rank is ELO based and league rankings promote heavily to play plenty to claim the top spot.
League ranking needs fresh ideas, I agree. But replacing it with ELO is no good, example: me and teammate are frozen to 32nd place, we have no ongoing matches together (since true 4 day turn limit is too speedy for him). And since we lose and win some, team that does not play is really hard to overcome.
Also extra features should be IAP
http://www.onemanleft.com/forums/showthr...6#pid81386

[erikpdumont]

(02-15-2014 09:30 PM)Juslas Wrote:  Hidden rank is ELO based and league rankings promote heavily to play plenty to claim the top spot.
League ranking needs fresh ideas, I agree. But replacing it with ELO is no good, example: me and teammate are frozen to 32nd place, we have no ongoing matches together (since true 4 day turn limit is too speedy for him). And since we lose and win some, team that does not play is really hard to overcome.
Also extra features should be IAP
http://www.onemanleft.com/forums/showthr...6#pid81386

Maybe build in an automatic attrition for players who aren't that active, or give bonus Elo (it's not an acronym if I understand it correctly) pts for winning streaks, so those who play a lot CAN overcome those who don't.

[CombatEX]

(02-15-2014 06:11 AM)HuskyPete Wrote:  I question the horror of people ranked in the 6,000s. If you are in fluffy, clever, or gifted, I believe you know you have a long way to go from the top! I know I did (and do)

Certainly "horror" probably isn't the reaction most would feel. That's why I used the word "discouraged". Of course, not everyone would be discouraged. Many players can shrug it off and keep working at it despite having a long road ahead of them. However, not everyone is like you and these other motivated individuals. We don't have much data to work with but I feel there is some validity to the decision OML, Blizzard, and Riot have made. While not "horrified" by being ranked in the thousands, I'm sure a good number of players would feel worse about being rank 5,000/10,000 instead of 50/100. Is it logical to feel worse? Not really. Are people always logical? No. So it's still an issue even if it shouldn't be.

Pros/Cons
Option 1. Completely Transparent Rankings (players are rated from top to bottom rank by their true skill rating)
+ Players can see exactly where they are compared to other players in terms of their true skill rating
- Some lower ranking players will be discouraged at how far down in the rankings they are
- OML has to update Outwitters

Option 2. Sectioned Rankings (players are rated by their true skill rating within 100 player divisions)
+ Players can see where they are compared to other players in terms of their true skill rating fairly accurately
- Though players can see where they are overall (top of Master, middle of Fluffy, Bottom of Gifted, etc), they cannot make exact comparisons with specific players until reaching the top 200
- OML has to update Outwitters

Option 3. Current System
+ OML doesn't have to update Outwitters
- Players outside of the top 200 have a hard time judging how they rank within their league
- Points are a meaningless and misleading measurement of skill

Summary
At the end of the day, the question is "Why do you want a change to the rankings?"

If the answer is "I want to see exactly how I rank compared with a certain player," then Option 1 makes the most sense.

If the answer is "I want to see how my skill is increasing and decreasing even if I'm not in the top 200," then Option 2 serves essentially the same purpose as solution 1 while avoiding the potential for discouraging lower league players.

[Setorines]

I am personally a fan of option 2

[.Memories.]

Great ideas as always, CombatEx. Thanks

[Shadow]

Option 2 seems interesting. I don't think it would discourage lower ranked players too much more than the current system, while giving more accurate skill ratings.

[TheGreatAnt]

With the lower ranked players (Fluffy-Gifted), they might be interested to know which number in the rankings they are. I find that these players are usually satisfied with the league rankings and becoming better in their leagues. It is when people get into Masters that players are always searching the Top 200 list to see if they made it on the list. Master leaguers would be the most interested to see where they rank and how close they are to the top 200.

[Flarp55]

I like option 2.