It has only tracked 2 hours of my playtime, despite the fact that I've played many, many hours since it was released. It must have very strict restrictions for which server mods are permitted
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2013
The current skill-score is to much win/loss dependet.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
The current skill-score is to much win/loss dependet.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
If this is about playerskill the win/loss ratio should not have this huge impact on the score like it is atm.
Technically speaking an element that is not taken into account, and arguably never can be, is your field commanding. I remember field commanding a team on Summit. We were being crushed but I managed to umbra/spore my Onos, Gorge and Fade teammates over and over, whilst coaching my team not to do certain things. For example, do not go beyond the CC in atrium otherwise you will have to run through the marines to exit; Fade, make sure you only target marines - especially those with jetpacks etc etc. To an extent this might be considered skill but it's something that just cannot be quantified unless you allow people to vote for their "player of the match" which in and of itself might be too open to abuse.
As for the W:L ratio - this is something I have mentioned and it should certainly have no impact on your score. It is certainly indicative of skill that exceptional players will generally win more games than lose, but I fear the correlation coefficient is probably quite low.
TL;DR Get rid of the weighting that W:L has on the score.
I agree that this skill ranking will largely be a joke as long as win/loss ratios have a major impact on the final rank... This game is designed to be a team game, such that even the best player cannot lead a team of nobodies to victory by him or herself. Therefore, it makes no sense to penalize a player who does well just because the rest of his team did poorly. At the very least this will result in the skill ranking being meaningless, worst case scenario it will actually encourage good players to stack teams instead of balancing themselves out like they should be doing.
First thing that needs to be done is hide the actual skill number, you guys are already complaining lol, you can have a leaderboard sure... just make the 'skill' number hidden
Second, it needs to be weighted better when you face better people, for example sometimes I go on those euro servers which have decent people and I'll do great but not as great as going onto a rookie server and slaying everyone 80-0, I'll actually have a more even score like 25-7 with tons of assists.. even if you win you still would rate up much less than the rookie slaying
Anyway, I don't care for the numbers, keep them hidden, and just have a nice matching system and I'll be all happy
The current skill-score is to much win/loss dependet.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
If this is about playerskill the win/loss ratio should not have this huge impact on the score like it is atm.
Technically speaking an element that is not taken into account, and arguably never can be, is your field commanding. I remember field commanding a team on Summit. We were being crushed but I managed to umbra/spore my Onos, Gorge and Fade teammates over and over, whilst coaching my team not to do certain things. For example, do not go beyond the CC in atrium otherwise you will have to run through the marines to exit; Fade, make sure you only target marines - especially those with jetpacks etc etc. To an extent this might be considered skill but it's something that just cannot be quantified unless you allow people to vote for their "player of the match" which in and of itself might be too open to abuse.
As for the W:L ratio - this is something I have mentioned and it should certainly have no impact on your score. It is certainly indicative of skill that exceptional players will generally win more games than lose, but I fear the correlation coefficient is probably quite low.
TL;DR Get rid of the weighting that W:L has on the score.
This is exactly backwards. W:L is the only thing that adequately captures the complexity of NS2 since its the primary objective of each game. It doesn't have to be the only thing used to measure skill, but it should be a major component. My preference is for it to work like this:
The number of points transferred from the losing to winning team is determined by the aggregate skill ranking difference between the two where the larger the difference the less points are transferred (i.e. if you're pubstomping, winning will give you little to no points).
How those points are distributed or lost within teams is dependent on some measure of individual skill (e.g. score, k/min, etc) so the highest skilled player on a team gains the most/loses the least points for a win/loss and vice versa for the least skilled player.
The actual skill rating should be kept hidden, but players should be placed into levels/leagues which are public (e.g. skulk (bronze), gorge (silver), lerk (gold), fade (platinum), onos (master), etc)
The current skill-score is to much win/loss dependet.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
If this is about playerskill the win/loss ratio should not have this huge impact on the score like it is atm.
Technically speaking an element that is not taken into account, and arguably never can be, is your field commanding. I remember field commanding a team on Summit. We were being crushed but I managed to umbra/spore my Onos, Gorge and Fade teammates over and over, whilst coaching my team not to do certain things. For example, do not go beyond the CC in atrium otherwise you will have to run through the marines to exit; Fade, make sure you only target marines - especially those with jetpacks etc etc. To an extent this might be considered skill but it's something that just cannot be quantified unless you allow people to vote for their "player of the match" which in and of itself might be too open to abuse.
As for the W:L ratio - this is something I have mentioned and it should certainly have no impact on your score. It is certainly indicative of skill that exceptional players will generally win more games than lose, but I fear the correlation coefficient is probably quite low.
TL;DR Get rid of the weighting that W:L has on the score.
This is exactly backwards. W:L is the only thing that adequately captures the complexity of NS2 since its the primary objective of each game. It doesn't have to be the only thing used to measure skill, but it should be a major component. My preference is for it to work like this:
The number of points transferred from the losing to winning team is determined by the aggregate skill ranking difference between the two where the larger the difference the less points are transferred (i.e. if you're pubstomping, winning will give you little to no points).
How those points are distributed or lost within teams is dependent on some measure of individual skill (e.g. score, k/min, etc) so the highest skilled player on a team gains the most/loses the least points for a win/loss and vice versa for the least skilled player.
The actual skill rating should be kept hidden, but players should be placed into levels/leagues which are public (e.g. skulk (bronze), gorge (silver), lerk (gold), fade (platinum), onos (master), etc)
Disproving your argument is pretty easy. Spec Virsoul commanding in pub games and notice that he probably only wins about half of them (I know comm rounds are not ranked yet).
In addition, my KD is frequently (not always) the highest on the server, and my score is usually first or second (mostly first) and yet if I lose the round (despite my field commanding - which incidentally is normally quite effective) my score will be worse than the absolute inept average player of the opposite team because a whole 1/3 was eliminated.
This is clearly how NOT to rate individual play. Think about it - you're trying to rate an individual based on the overall team.
I have already made the point that you will generally win more rounds than you lose if you're a good player (according to the rankings I have 14 wins to 2 losses - though it hasn't counted about half of my rounds played). If it should have an impact at all I think 1/3 is ridiculous. It might even encourage more stacks...
AceDudeJoin Date: 2007-08-26Member: 61994Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2013
So fun to watch this thread. I'll tell you one thing: you're not losing 1/3rd of your skill points when the match is lost. And on the other hand, that modifier works for the opposite team too.
Having not read this thread but only the title... I only want/need 1 thing from the ns2 ranking... Accuracy. I miss ns2stats ability to type check and see if my accuracy was good or not on marines. It makes me sad that I can't.
Now that, that is out of my system ill go back and read this whole post to see what it's really about. Thank you.
So fun to watch this thread. I'll tell you one thing: you're not losing 1/3rd of your skill points when the match is lost. And on the other hand, that modifier works for the opposite team too.
AceDudeJoin Date: 2007-08-26Member: 61994Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts
Well, I don't want to tell you everything, that's it.
Why you get more SP when winning and less when loosing? If the whole team failed - you failed too. When the whole team won - that's because of you. You work for the team and since NS2 is a team-based game where loners can't do much - I made that decision. You really think it was bad?
Some people are missing the most important thing: everyone is measured in the same way. The system is very simple. We got only few factors we use to calculate the skill and it's pretty damn hard to calculate it in the right way. It's almost impossible when you have so many players and possibilities, even if you gather much more data than we do. Of course if you guys know something that I don't - let me know
I'll work on Elo ranking for commanders soon, we'll see how that works.
Well, I don't want to tell you everything, that's it.
Why you get more SP when winning and less when loosing? If the whole team failed - you failed too. When the whole team won - that's because of you. You work for the team and since NS2 is a team-based game where loners can't do much - I made that decision. You really think it was bad?
Some people are missing the most important thing: everyone is measured in the same way. The system is very simple. We got only few factors we use to calculate the skill and it's pretty damn hard to calculate it in the right way. It's almost impossible when you have so many players and possibilities, even if you gather much more data than we do. Of course if you guys know something that I don't - let me know
I'll work on Elo ranking for commanders soon, we'll see how that works.
It should be a factor but I'd say any more than a 1/5 is probably too much. Actually, if ten people are playing, maybe a tenth should be taken off. If you have 9 on your team, a 9th... etc depending on the number of people on your team perhaps
AceDudeJoin Date: 2007-08-26Member: 61994Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts
And THAT is a good idea I'll think about how to get it done. It will be fun to take the commander under account when the Elo system is done... after all a good commander makes a huge difference.
Does that ranking page even work or track all stats at the moment?
According to it did I only play 45 minutes total and the last recorded match was over three weeks ago.
The current skill-score is to much win/loss dependet.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
If this is about playerskill the win/loss ratio should not have this huge impact on the score like it is atm.
Technically speaking an element that is not taken into account, and arguably never can be, is your field commanding. I remember field commanding a team on Summit. We were being crushed but I managed to umbra/spore my Onos, Gorge and Fade teammates over and over, whilst coaching my team not to do certain things. For example, do not go beyond the CC in atrium otherwise you will have to run through the marines to exit; Fade, make sure you only target marines - especially those with jetpacks etc etc. To an extent this might be considered skill but it's something that just cannot be quantified unless you allow people to vote for their "player of the match" which in and of itself might be too open to abuse.
As for the W:L ratio - this is something I have mentioned and it should certainly have no impact on your score. It is certainly indicative of skill that exceptional players will generally win more games than lose, but I fear the correlation coefficient is probably quite low.
TL;DR Get rid of the weighting that W:L has on the score.
This is exactly backwards. W:L is the only thing that adequately captures the complexity of NS2 since its the primary objective of each game. It doesn't have to be the only thing used to measure skill, but it should be a major component. My preference is for it to work like this:
The number of points transferred from the losing to winning team is determined by the aggregate skill ranking difference between the two where the larger the difference the less points are transferred (i.e. if you're pubstomping, winning will give you little to no points).
How those points are distributed or lost within teams is dependent on some measure of individual skill (e.g. score, k/min, etc) so the highest skilled player on a team gains the most/loses the least points for a win/loss and vice versa for the least skilled player.
The actual skill rating should be kept hidden, but players should be placed into levels/leagues which are public (e.g. skulk (bronze), gorge (silver), lerk (gold), fade (platinum), onos (master), etc)
Disproving your argument is pretty easy. Spec Virsoul commanding in pub games and notice that he probably only wins about half of them (I know comm rounds are not ranked yet).
In addition, my KD is frequently (not always) the highest on the server, and my score is usually first or second (mostly first) and yet if I lose the round (despite my field commanding - which incidentally is normally quite effective) my score will be worse than the absolute inept average player of the opposite team because a whole 1/3 was eliminated.
This is clearly how NOT to rate individual play. Think about it - you're trying to rate an individual based on the overall team.
I have already made the point that you will generally win more rounds than you lose if you're a good player (according to the rankings I have 14 wins to 2 losses - though it hasn't counted about half of my rounds played). If it should have an impact at all I think 1/3 is ridiculous. It might even encourage more stacks...
Since NS2 isn't really a deathmatch game, its how your individual skill contributes to the team victory rather than racking up your score that matters. Having a skill rating system that shows how high of a KDR you can get is a rather useless measure except in the sense of how that KDR contributes towards your team's victory.
Also, a skill rating system doesn't have to get it right every single time as long as it does the vast majority of times. Looking at the current skill rating list, the top ones are mostly D1 comp players or known highly-skilled pub players, which is what you would expect from a good skill rating system. Virsoul may not win every single games he plays, but he wins them more often than not because his skills as a player and/or comm greatly increase his team's chance of victory.
Comments
Mind you, I get my own way there as my score currently is 667.8 but it doesn't show me in the skill list, so I can't complain
You only show up on the skill ladder after 3 hours of play, I'm guessing so it can average out a bit and you don't have one game get lucky and be #1.
You can have an kd/r of 35-5 and high scores but you geting an low skill score if you lose.
I thought this is representing playerskill.
If only one in the team has positive stats and the rest is dying like flies and the team lose you get an "skill-penalty".
This makes no sense to me.
In the current state the skill ladder is a joke.
Stack with some friends marine, play 6-7 rounds, win every round (no problem on some servers), be happy to be in the top10.
Nr2 after 3 hrs and 9 rounds:
http://hive.naturalselection2.com/profile/3839296
If this is about playerskill the win/loss ratio should not have this huge impact on the score like it is atm.
Technically speaking an element that is not taken into account, and arguably never can be, is your field commanding. I remember field commanding a team on Summit. We were being crushed but I managed to umbra/spore my Onos, Gorge and Fade teammates over and over, whilst coaching my team not to do certain things. For example, do not go beyond the CC in atrium otherwise you will have to run through the marines to exit; Fade, make sure you only target marines - especially those with jetpacks etc etc. To an extent this might be considered skill but it's something that just cannot be quantified unless you allow people to vote for their "player of the match" which in and of itself might be too open to abuse.
As for the W:L ratio - this is something I have mentioned and it should certainly have no impact on your score. It is certainly indicative of skill that exceptional players will generally win more games than lose, but I fear the correlation coefficient is probably quite low.
TL;DR Get rid of the weighting that W:L has on the score.
That's a good idea. You could maybe even have stats for LMG and SG kills? Per time used or something.
sure I guess, as long as gorge is implemented.
Second, it needs to be weighted better when you face better people, for example sometimes I go on those euro servers which have decent people and I'll do great but not as great as going onto a rookie server and slaying everyone 80-0, I'll actually have a more even score like 25-7 with tons of assists.. even if you win you still would rate up much less than the rookie slaying
Anyway, I don't care for the numbers, keep them hidden, and just have a nice matching system and I'll be all happy
Disproving your argument is pretty easy. Spec Virsoul commanding in pub games and notice that he probably only wins about half of them (I know comm rounds are not ranked yet).
In addition, my KD is frequently (not always) the highest on the server, and my score is usually first or second (mostly first) and yet if I lose the round (despite my field commanding - which incidentally is normally quite effective) my score will be worse than the absolute inept average player of the opposite team because a whole 1/3 was eliminated.
This is clearly how NOT to rate individual play. Think about it - you're trying to rate an individual based on the overall team.
I have already made the point that you will generally win more rounds than you lose if you're a good player (according to the rankings I have 14 wins to 2 losses - though it hasn't counted about half of my rounds played). If it should have an impact at all I think 1/3 is ridiculous. It might even encourage more stacks...
So fun to watch this thread. I'll tell you one thing: you're not losing 1/3rd of your skill points when the match is lost. And on the other hand, that modifier works for the opposite team too.
1) Matches of equal or nearer skill than random
Now that, that is out of my system ill go back and read this whole post to see what it's really about. Thank you.
Thanks for clearing everything up...
Why you get more SP when winning and less when loosing? If the whole team failed - you failed too. When the whole team won - that's because of you. You work for the team and since NS2 is a team-based game where loners can't do much - I made that decision. You really think it was bad?
Some people are missing the most important thing: everyone is measured in the same way. The system is very simple. We got only few factors we use to calculate the skill and it's pretty damn hard to calculate it in the right way. It's almost impossible when you have so many players and possibilities, even if you gather much more data than we do. Of course if you guys know something that I don't - let me know
I'll work on Elo ranking for commanders soon, we'll see how that works.
It should be a factor but I'd say any more than a 1/5 is probably too much. Actually, if ten people are playing, maybe a tenth should be taken off. If you have 9 on your team, a 9th... etc depending on the number of people on your team perhaps
According to it did I only play 45 minutes total and the last recorded match was over three weeks ago.
Also, a skill rating system doesn't have to get it right every single time as long as it does the vast majority of times. Looking at the current skill rating list, the top ones are mostly D1 comp players or known highly-skilled pub players, which is what you would expect from a good skill rating system. Virsoul may not win every single games he plays, but he wins them more often than not because his skills as a player and/or comm greatly increase his team's chance of victory.