Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You need to somehow separate the xp calculation from the actual rating, most people will just score ♥♥♥♥♥ to try and get their imaginary number up so just let them get rating anyways
Elo is for 1v1 Zero Sum games.
The common complaint seems to be "My team lost but I got a high score and I lost points" (score having nothing to do with Elo calculations, but people whine about things they know nothing about).
It sounds like the people that vocally oppose the new system want their score represented and to see their little numbers only go up. I think anything that results in more of a "Top Score" result as opposed to an "averaged shifting numerical standing" would distract them best.
I think your previous system was mostly fine, the biggest problem was that territory control did not add up to the exp. You resolved that (and I confirm it works now).
The biggest issues right now are:
1) Individual effort simply does not matter now. When you're playing in a unfair match, before you could do the best you can and if the score was top 1 or 2, you either kept your points or even earned a little amount. This is fair. But since there is no point in doing your best now, a lot of times I played like a total slob, last place on team and still got the same amount of points as if I was 1st. Dead weight should not be getting points same or even as the top player. Minimal is fine, but same or more is just ridiculous.
2) Quitters and bots. I played so many games where my team were 50, sometimes 75%!!! bots. Because of quitters. If I'd quit, I would lose -15. So I did my best, in a 1v4, and got....-6 or something, when my average gain per match is +2.5. Some sort of logic needs to be written to award points based on how many bots on team.
3) Just the points over all make no sense. The average gain that I have, as a 1600+ player, is +2.5. The average loss I have is.....-8. My overall win rate did not drop (it's 60%), yet I've fell so hard on the leaderboard. And then I look at players who boosted with previous system, abusing the meta and playing with premade teams..... How on Earth are you supposed to go to 2000+ with this new system? It's simply impossible.
4) The quality of team composition is just baffling now. I don't know what was changed but I had 4v4s..... with 3 engineers or 3 infantry battalions. Then I look at ELO of each team, and the said team with 3 of same battalions is lower. No premades either. It just makes no sense.
IMHO I would only use the personal score value to determine a players rank,
as the personal score includes captured land and damage dealt.
This would be a personal score leaderboard rank - This solution may be too simple to be considered. Yet it would reflect a player's average battle performance well.
This ranking system idea should require a minimum of 30 matches played,
to have a decent amount of recorded matches for the initial rank calculation.
The current ranking system benefits groups.
In groups I was rank 20-100, playing in 4/4 and 5/5 with discord friends.
I've done hundreds of solos and I'm at rank 300-800 now with my main solo account.
Yet players quit after they played against me in randoms,
as people often have been torn to bits in previous matches against me.
The current ranking system is more an information system to show who plays most times in large groups - IMHO the current ranking system does not reflect an invidiual score and true personal rating/ranking.
In solos there are often matches where nobody cares about capturing land.
So a win/loss system and the current system only (would) reflect who plays mainly in large groups with discord talk.
IMHO the ranks should not been elo'ed against each other, the personal rating score should.
Good players deal damage and capture land, that defines a great player.
The current ranking system tells me who mainly plays in large groups ( as a great player ) with discord.
The formula looks ok I guess, but it needs to take into account things like bots. It's no fun to play in essentially a 3v4, and get penalised hard for it.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3278689978
I barely, barely moved up. And I know for a fact that a single loss would give me a -8, no matter the circumstances and I'd be back at square -1.
Here's yet another perfect example of everything I typed about.
Screwed teams? Checked.
Individual effort means absolutely nothing? Checked.
1st place in match once again, does it matter? Checked.
Point awards that make 0 sense? Checked.
A quitter going unpunished, yet everyone on my team who stayed to play were? Checked.
All the effort from yesterday is gone now. In just 2 completely screwed matches.
There could be a leader board, using these same calculations, for your play of Soviet, German, and US factions. And the rating you have with each faction will add into and be a cumulative factor in the overall leader board. That way you can also see how well you are doing with a certain faction, and maybe get a higher rating on the faction board that you may have in the overall.
Take this a step down in granularity, and create leader boards for each battalion type. Where you may be exceptional with a specific battalion, and even a faction. But not playing other battalions or coming to the battle with the same kit each time. Will lead to decay in other areas and your overall. i.e. Objectives for Challenges and League will and should have a greater impact on your overall rating.
The goal of this system should be to get everyone playing different types of battalions, different units, and earning more for a good performance with a weaker battalion. Sure it is fine and expected that if you find a good outfit and win that you want to keep playing that battalion.
Now this also would complicate MMR because of the additional calculations on matchmaking before a match. That maybe someone is in the top 2000 overall, but they are coming in with a battalion that they are 100% win rate with. Going down in granularity to the faction level and battalion level would create other play options to consider for the pre match calculations.
Once again to drive home the point about individual effort. 1st place not just in team, but total. And yet I get punished for a -5. The formula is worthless if this continues, or players stuck playing with bots in lopsided matches.
Them completely removing Elo is pretty much the only option for more than 1v1. From the sounds of the Dev post, that is their plan.
Looks like you lost the territory. Doesn't do any good to have heavy tanks if you cannot control enough territory. Is that not the goal of any war, battle, firefight? To gain territory.
However, I get it and understand. You did the most scoring of any player in that battle. You got punished because you did not control territory.
Can you clarify the use of bots you talk about. I know what bots are, but what is happening that puts bots into a battle?
You understand how XP works? A lot of it is due to territory control. It's especially telling since I did not have the Winning Team boost for the total exp as well.
That's beside the point. The point is the game actively punishes people who do good, especially in solo queue. And when I play like a total slob, I get the same amount of points.
The bots is due to quitters. When a player quits he gets replaced by a bot. Bots are a massive handicap. So essentially, the game puts a handicap on the remaining players, if they lose they get -9 or something crazy like that. Basically the game does not care if you play with bots or not. Plus the quitters themselves can earn more points than you for winning the game. This is a complete Electric Light Orchestra.
CS:GO has ELO. In a 5v5 ranked mode. A lot of games do. If they'd function the same way as in here... it would not end well.
New system needs more time to settle, most people are probably rated too high with the change in MMR calculations (re: 1400 yesterday vs today is a totally different calibre of player, or should be once enough time has passed).
Also, we need tutorials on deck building for PVP or a re-do of the base decks (battalions). Beginner decks are not optimised for current PVP; and people will likely give up on something they don't understand and there is no guidance to. Before a player even does their first battalion match they should be shown how to modify their regiments, and general guide on what to add for each regiment, important things to consider, etc.
That would help eliminate the sting that can come from losing a battle in that situation. And it would suck down points and ranking of the quitters, while supporting those who are playing. With the exception of a server disconnect of course where the game ends in a draw.
Just curious because I am paranoid and suspicious. Is there any way that someone on the opposing team could brute force disconnect an opponent? Because that is what happened twice to me when winning a battle. Server disconnect.