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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Click on ranked games and the different ladders are there. It displays top 10 players, as well as your ranking for whatever level you're in.
You have to play 5 ranked games to qualify into one of the leaderboards.
That's interesting. I wonder what the argument is for not showing full standings is.
Without visibility into the complete standings, the ladders serve little function to the vast majority of players.
I also can't think of another game in existence that has standings/rankings that doesn't show the full list.
this is not the first time that it has been mentioned that there is conflict inside the organization about how to proceed with regards to a ranking system.
i am curious to what the rational is to having a system where the size of the ranks and even the most general idea of where your opponent is in the ranks is hidden.
as it is, the player only has a general idea of where they themselves are based on how close they are to the top 10 of their own tier, but no real idea of how far they are from any other tier.
given that ranked games are blind matches, i'm not sure how having this information would lead to exploits.
as it stands the only players who have any real idea of where they are in the rankings are in the top tier. but. even they have no idea what it really means and no one in the lower tiers know what it might take to get there.
Hearthstone for one specific example (though I don't care for that game), but generally I think a *lot* of games don't give specific rankings. (Though a lot do.)
*rationale
A lot of systems give players *some* idea of rank, but not the specifics - I'd say typically "F2P" games that have rankings fit there. Players that paid in or stayed on a long time have an advantage, and if developers of such games don't want to scare players off by confronting them with blatant power imbalances, eh.
So generally - well this is how I see it - such games give players *some* idea that there's rankings, and that players can climb in rankings and leagues or whatever, so players feel there's a sense of progress. But the exact details are often deliberately murky.
A&A Online isn't a F2P so why use the same system? Well even if there isn't a P2W / grind power imbalance, a lot of the concept of "rank" is very abstract, and removing finer details from that abstraction makes the concept easier for players to grasp.
Suppose a player knows they're ranked 458th. 458th out of how many? 10,000? 500? It makes a difference. And so too does moving from 458th to 442nd in those different contexts, and I take it that's what some players are saying in this thread.
But small movements in a field of 10,000 or even 500 doesn't really actually *feel* different does it? You're 458 out of 10,000, or 458 out of 500, it's like . . . . not a big deal either way if you shift up or down a few places, right? The numbers are just too large in either case to hold *significant meaning* to a player.
So there's some reason *not* to give out those precise numbers, because just being one of a bunch of numbers doesn't feel like it means much (if anything). It doesn't do anything good, and maybe some players might get discouraged or distracted, so why give out information that isn't needed, isn't appropriate, and might actually work to cross-purposes?
So maybe instead of giving out that a player is X of Y players or whatever numbers that DON'T REALLY HOLD MUCH MEANING IN A PLAYER'S MIND - consider for a moment, military ranks. It might seem like a break from the topic, but you'll see what I mean in a moment.
Say a private second class is promoted to a private first class, whoever got promoted isn't thinking so much about how there's 100 private second classes on base, and 400 private first classes or whatever. They have an idea of what the promotion *means*, and etc. etc.
So suppose again you have a player say they're 857th ranked (or whatever) in Axis and Allies. Or suppose an enlistee says they're now a corporal. Which do you feel holds more *real significance*? Abstract numbers mean less. That's what I'm getting at.
==
Well, drawing the military analogy a bit further, ranking systems being what they are, it's not enough that whoever's a private or private second class or whatever. Of a group of private first classes, they'll want to know among themselves who's shortlisted to be promoted to corporal. So instead of just being one of 400 private first classes, maybe they want to know the top 10 private first classes, because those are the ones likely to make corporal.
So even in a military organization, having some sort of numbered rankings for the top people in a group makes sense. But if someone's 257th or 281st of the PFCs on a base, that doesn't mean much. Maybe top 10 makes a difference for PFCs, maybe even 20, but otherwise, eh.
. . . etc.
Those aren't necessarily a function of players knowing their exact ranks.
Maybe what's needed isn't precise numbers, but some sort of guidance for players regarding what their rank means, precisely, and/or having some context &c.
==
If anyone posted explaining how having such full ranking information would change the way they and/or others played the game, that would add to the discussion.
Otherwise - the rankings ought to ideally have some significance in player minds, I'd say, sure, but I don't know that full ranking information would necessarily be the best way to go about achieving that.
I think the minimum request would be these items to tell myself as a player how I'm doing:
- My win/loss in each type (done)
- My rank in my ladder (done)
- My current opponent's rank (not yet)
- The total number of players in each ladder (not yet)
This allows me to know how I'm doing, how I do against different levels of competition, and what my progress is currently in moving up towards higher levels.
I'm not opposed to only having the top 10 in each ladder for public display. I don't need to know who is ranked 314th in a ladder.
If citing fighting games, I'd think of Tekken - which presents ranks by kyu and dan.
Perhaps you'd mention which specific fighting game(s) you're thinking of?
Every Capcom game in existence that I can think of since 360/PS3 era. Super Turbo, Marvel 2/3/I, Third Strike, SFIV/SFV.
Dragon Ball Z, a few of the Guilty Gear Games (Rev 2 comes to mind), UNIST, BlazBlue.
The Capcom games allow you to search the full global list in relation to your own rank, region, friends list, and just from the top down. DBZ does the same. The others have some sort of detailed rankings and show you the rank of your opponent at the start of the match in addition to those around you on the leaderboards.
Tekken 7 keeps World Tour rankings totaling in the thousands on their website for anyone who plays competitively to view anyone who has any sort of points scored in their ladders (Capcom does the same for pro tour).
Nice details, thanks!
But it would be at least nice to know
1. The number of people presently in each group.
2. The total number of ranked games completed.
thx.