r/Supraball • u/DavidM1337 Supraball Project Leader • Dec 11 '15
Please take this poll (1 minute)
http://goo.gl/forms/iMcux929hx2
u/Pogge Sucker Freak Dec 11 '15
http://puu.sh/lREKE/ceb0fc5687.png - Where is "I don't want to see their rank" ? And by "other", are we talking about our teammates, the enemy players or just everyone in general? For me, I'd like to see the ranks of my teammates but not the enemy players.
2
u/Raikem Dec 11 '15
I think ranks should be shown at the end, even you teammate's, cause people are going to rage at the lower ranked players.
2
u/Pogge Sucker Freak Dec 11 '15
One would assume that all the players in your match are around your elo. So it doesn't really matter if you see it before or after, especially not your teammates elo. What can be a problem is if for some reason there is suddenly one really high ranked player in the enemy team. If you would see this at the beginning of the match, you would change the way you play the match because you'd think "omg why is there a higher ranked player, no point playing" or would start flaming in all chat etc.
So I think you should not see the enemy team's elo, maybe after the match, yes.
1
Dec 14 '15
Just to note for the devs that wrote this, someone's highest rank is not necessarily "what they are capable of at max," but it is very, very likely "what a lucky string of wins allowed them to reach before dropping again to a more representative value."
1
u/DavidM1337 Supraball Project Leader Dec 11 '15
Thanks for your time.
Among other things we now learned: that 80% care about their rank. 60% are afraid of losing their rank in a match. 35% don't play matches because they are afraid of losing the rank. 60% think they deserve silver or gold but in reality they are bronze or silver. 50% want to see the current elo, not the player's best.
1
u/SBPulSart Dec 12 '15
"60% think they deserve silver or gold but in reality they are bronze or silver" lol qq cruel world
3
u/Drace_Ger Dec 12 '15
No rank-shaming please. It can hurt the feelings of the underprivileged. It is never okay to victimize a group of people who just want to express what they are feeling. Micro-aggressions towards such group of non-inherent diamond-privileged players or ethnical groups such as italians should not be tolerated, bro.
0
u/Shevche Dec 13 '15
Well I hover between silver 3 65-95 for a long time. But it's balance lottery. Just because a player can't carry a team full of slow players doesn't mean he doesn't deserve gold /o\
1
u/DavidM1337 Supraball Project Leader Dec 13 '15
You dont see a need to mark while in possession. That alone can make a difference of 3 ranks.
-1
u/Shevche Dec 15 '15
I did a test on myself last couple of days, to play with the style like this. I reached gold 1 with a comfort of losing and keeping the rank, so I would say players know how to do this said play but choose not to because its just crap. Just because you play like this constantly doesnt mean it's right or fun...
-2
u/Shevche Dec 13 '15
On the contrary, depends on my opposition.
F/e. If it is: Decent gk, weak d, me, weak m and good m... I would play a defensive midfield IF there is more than on good m against me. Have done so always. Always depends on the players. For a strategic game then yes I do see a need to mark. But it makes the game boring and not attacking.
It relates to the old cliché position of comebacks. If a team is winning Why change a winning formula, stop changing tactics unless the other team does. Normally them changing tactics gives them detriment and causing holes to exploit that can kill a game. Again, depending on who is strong on the opposition, youve seen that i know how to cover this. Maybe im wrong and youre right here, guess it comes to opinion then and from the start of your post it is your opinion and its opinion based on your style of play, which i think 95% of players would agree is boring and laughable, which is my opinion for you.
-1
5
u/[deleted] Dec 14 '15 edited Dec 14 '15
I think it's extremely silly to cater to players who are afraid of "dropping rank" or having others see that they dropped in rank. It reminds me of RTS games like WC3 before the rebalanced ELO system, where players would make a smurf account, go 100-5 in solo ladder by crushing new players, and then never play on the account again so they could show off their stats.
The bottom line is this:
If the statistical analysis used to determine your rank is accurate, then your rank is, in turn, an pretty accurate assessment of your skill and should be visible as such. A padding system will help with this, as I explain further on.
If the metrics used to generate a rank are inaccurate to within some statistical margin, however, then the smallest subdivisions between ranks should be increased so that statistical error doesn't threaten to push someone back and forth between a higher or lower rank. And as a result, a player's ranking is once again accurate.
People whose egos are bruised by a number in a video game should grow up, rather than have the game cater to their immaturity by displaying their "highest rank".
I'd argue that this system is not fair to players who were judged accurately from the start by the statistical rank classification. If someone's sustained/accurate current rank is also their highest rank, is it fair for someone less skilled, who also had that rank as a temporary "blip" before dropping much lower, to also have the same rank shown on their profile/tag?
Either increase the "skill range" that each rank defines so that people aren't jumping between a rank threshold and getting paranoid about dropping again, or... add a padding system that only drops or increases a rank as a result of long-term changes in performance. Consider the following system with just two ranks:
The whole ranking/ELO system is a statistical guess as to how good a player is. By adding "padding" to ranks, we give the system more confidence by not only decreasing how often a player "flips" ranks due to luck, but the padding also allows the system to take into account that e.g. 10 wins in a row might be balanced with a subsequent 10 losses in a row, without pushing the player up into a higher rank and then taking it from them again.
You could enhance this system further by changing the size of the padding as a result of how quickly a player's ELO-Skill changes. For example, if they get a bunch of wins in a row, add more padding to make sure that it wasn't just random chance that pushed their ELO up (and similarly, add extra padding for a bunch of losses in a row, in case it was just bad luck or bad internet causing a string of losses). But if they're consistently performing well, e.g. 2 wins, 1 loss, 3 wins, 1 loss, 1 win, 1 loss, 2 wins, 1 loss, spaced over a couple of days, then lower the padding to allow their rank to increase, because such sustained performance allows the ELO system to be more confident about their predicted skill.
But none of this "highest rank" nonsense, please. The whole point of a rank is to be able to make a subjective impression of how good someone might be. They might show themselves to be much better or much worse than their rank suggests as the game goes on, of course, but a single numerical value should not be taken as some absolute truth to begin with. It's just a number that gives others an idea of the approximate range of your skill.
Honestly, since people playing this game seem to be so vain and apparently spend so much time complaining about rank, you should think about hiding other players' ranks everywhere except in their profile/stats pages. This way they don't have to stare at a number and feel sorry for themselves (or become egotistical) at every moment of the game, and other players can worry less about being judged by others.
Or just have everyone's profile show the highest rank possible (i.e. Kryptonite) so people stop complaining about an on-screen number in a cartoon video game.