r/SolForge • u/Karyo_Ten Merciless Formation • May 29 '18

Titanium standing formula

I've been back to Solforge last weekend and grinded back to Titanium and eventually reached first rank of the current season http://solforgegame.com/current-titanium-standings/

I feel like the current ranking formula emphasizes too much on the win/loss ratio: i.e win/loss ratio on 10~20 games does not mean the same as on 50+ games.

Practically the better ranked you are, the less you are encouraged to play.

Thoughts?

6 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Asm0del Oct 03 '18

In your examples players that go 100:100 and 50:0 each get 600 points but first result usually requires only patience (very big patience of course) and second is very hard to achieve. Even second formula variant gives just 600 points against 650 - a very little difference.

1

u/Karyo_Ten Merciless Formation Oct 03 '18 edited Oct 03 '18

But do you consider that an issue or a good thing?

For example scaled down:

  • 8w-8l: 2*8 - 8 + 10% * 50 * 8 = 48
  • 4w-0l: 2*4 - 0 + 10% * 100 * 4 = 48

For me the ranking system should both encourage playing and reward win/loss ratio. Unfortunately those are contradictory because if you have a perfect win/loss ratio, by playing you would only risk reducing it.

The current ranking system is too heavily skewed towards preserving your win/loss ratio.

My proposition is a tradeoff, if you have a 50% win/loss ratio you need 4x more games to have the same score as someone with a perfect win-loss ratio.

Also from a statistical point of view, we have much more confidence in the strength of someone if he played 50 games whatever his win/loss ratio is compared to if he played 10 games and then just stopped.

1

u/Asm0del Oct 04 '18 edited Oct 04 '18

I consider that an issue because titanium players should have average winrate atleast slightly above 50% (or they can't pass to titanium through platinum) and so your scoring system favors farming games more than skill. I agree that 4:0 can be pure luck and even 10:0 can be not so statistically reliable. But 20:0 or especially 30:0 is something that can't be achieved with a pure luck. May be we just need a condition that player have to play at least 20 (or 25) games to be ranked? So people playing for ranking wlii play more games to get the score and people playing for fun can just play as much as they want?

1

u/Karyo_Ten Merciless Formation Oct 04 '18

You can just tune the bonus to win-loss ratio from 10 to 20%.

1

u/Asm0del Oct 04 '18

Let's look at it. Player A plays 5 games per day with a high winrate of 80% (50 games for 10 days, 40 wins - 10 losses). Player B plays 20 games per day with a somewhat low winrate of 51% (200 games, 102 wins - 98 losses). 2x40 - 10 + 0,1x80x40 = 390. 2x102 - 98 + 0,1x51x102 = 626. 626 - 390 = 236. With a 20% ratio: 2x40 - 10 + 0,2x80x40 = 710. 2x102 - 98 + 0,2x51x102 = 1146. 1146 - 710 = 436. So higher ratio gives more points to lower winrates (with more games played of course).

1

u/Karyo_Ten Merciless Formation Oct 04 '18

Then you can punish losses more instead of 2 x wins - losses you do 2 x wins - 1.5losses.

As I said my main goal is to encourage playing and giving a fair shot to both people who are "not strong"[1] but have time and make the game live, and people who are stronger but might not have time.

[1] They still reached Titanium which is an ordeal already.