Increasing all rating by a flat 1000 would also solve going into the negative. I don't think anyone has legitimately achieve a negative rating of -1000 before.
Although I guess the division system is already on track to hide the real rating a bit better, which is probably a better approach.
yeah, that was one of the aims of the division system. With the latest server update we finally have the infrastructure in place to also show the correct divison in the replay info of matchmaker games, so expect this soonTM
@misterdumass The point FTXcommando is making is that decisions that increase your teams chance of winning a match should NEVER penalise your rating gained.
They should, ultimately, increase your rating.
Rating is supposed to represent a player's ability to win games.
(If elaboration is needed: You implied that any dead commanders should gain no rating - but suiciding an ACU can be the MVP move of an entire match.)
@paulway many of those don't apply to all supreme commander game types - some are even counterproductive. For the sake of those "players lower than me" that you're aiming it at, is it worth a quick edit?
@nex said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
In my humble opinion, there is a serious lack of a good rating system. Just making sure dead players don't receive rating points would greatly improve the system. I will immediately say in response to the fact that many will say that there will be a lot of snipes
Why do you think there will be a lot of snipes?
when you win your opponents won't get any rating anyway, so why would you spend resources on snipes instead of on winning?
The problem is though that now the optimal move would be to win and in the last moment snipe all your teammates, so you are the only one gaining rating. Since the goal of the rating system is to be the top rated player, so the optimal strategy will be to maximize your rating gain, while minimizing that of every other player.
I think the problem with the rating system is not that there will be a lot of snipes (I just assumed that). The problem is that even those players who died receive ratings, even if the team won, so there is a strong imbalance. If we made it so that only the survivors would receive ratings, it would be much better...
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I think the problem with the rating system is not that there will be a lot of snipes (I just assumed that). The problem is that even those players who died receive ratings, even if the team won, so there is a strong imbalance. If we made it so that only the survivors would receive ratings, it would be much better...
There are lots of games that I hard carry but die in a desperate snipe attempt from the enemy team. Why shouldn't I get points if I crush their team but then die due to the last guy going suicidal tele or something stupid? Frankly, I've seen the rating system be pretty solid if you exercise some common sense around it. Meaning if some dude is a 1600 gapper, I generally would trust him to be 1600 on gap but then on Seton's or map gen he'll be a 1200. Same deal if you stick a 1600 setoner on gap.
The issue that comes up is if someone is an 1800 air player but 1k everything else and is rated 1300 or w/e. He'll play like a 1k in most slots but then crush air, never being his actual rating. There are no rating systems that can account for that in a game like FAF though, it's quite impossible.
There are exceptions where people get troll ratings, but those are just that, exceptions, and all rating systems have them.
I have rarely seen such a case when a skilled player dies out of stupidity. But I have often seen cases where high-rated players (whom it seems to me do not justify their rating) die first, while average players win the match for them. I have also often seen that very mediocre players (including me) get points by dying out of stupidity. It still seems to me that if those who did not survive the match did not receive points, it would be fair...
Ideally, the rating system for rts should be completely different, it should take into account the overall benefit the player brought during the entire match, this is influenced by many factors such as the number of kills of the opponent, the amount of mass killed, etc. But as I understand it, it is difficult to develop. I think the rating system in a 1 on 1 match works perfectly, but in group battles 8 on 8 for example, also taking into account that a person on the gap can get 1500 and on the generated map he will play like 200...
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
It still seems to me that if those who did not survive the match did not receive points, it would be fair...
You fail to notice that the rating system isn't a one-way route to judge how people play. It also influences the way people play, since ultimately the goal of the game is not to win, but to gain as much rating as possible compared to everyone else.
So your suggestion would encourage turtle play, with minimal chances of your com to die, optimally winning after all your teammates are dead, encourage teamkilling, discourage literally any play that could put your com in danger. Nobody would tele snipe or com drop in a hope to win the game, because they wouldn't get rating anyway, so they would still "loose".
The rating system should properly encourage any playstyle that increases your teams chances of winning and the only reliable way to do that is to only rate wins/losses and play enough games with diverse teams, for noise (like stronger teammates that carry you) to average out.
Really, a mediocore Coustomrating means not that much. only Increasing the Sample Size by playing more games makes it more reliable, bcs your overall performance and influence on the matches become more clear after lets say 1000 matches. You wont get away with playing bad and hoping you are in the winners team by random in the long run. Also killing an enemy high rated player by sacrificing your com may be a dick move but is a legitimate strategy in a team game i think.
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I have rarely seen such a case when a skilled player dies out of stupidity.
dude never seen a farm stream
You know, I'm starting to understand why the complaining about rating in this thread... Just played a 2v2 game. The ratings shown in game were 0 and 916 vs 1008 and 1121. The problem? The "0 and 916" were actually 2000 and 1400 global rating vs 1200 and 1000. After trying 4 times to connect, getting placed in that absolute waste of time stomp is incredibly demoralizing and feels like even trying to play the game is a total waste of time.
@RedX That's how the system works though? But first of all, the "0" wasn't a zero rated player. It only shows 0 for the very first game they play. The rating is actually global-400 or smth like that iirc.
So the 900 is accurate. The 2000 global should be like 1600 ranked if it was his first game and it is possible to get matched if you wait long enough since the rating range increases a bit over time.
So yes. It's a general problem with newer queues that ppl tend to be ~300 pts underrated, but that's smth every game has and is mostly gone now since 2v2 isn't that new anymore. However it does still happen as you can see.
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
@sladow-noob said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@RedX That's how the system works though? But first of all, the "0" wasn't a zero rated player. It only shows 0 for the very first game they play. The rating is actually global-400 or smth like that iirc.
So the 900 is accurate. The 2000 global should be like 1600 ranked if it was his first game and it is possible to get matched if you wait long enough since the rating range increases a bit over time.So yes. It's a general problem with newer queues that ppl tend to be ~300 pts underrated, but that's smth every game has and is mostly gone now since 2v2 isn't that new anymore. However it does still happen as you can see.
I'm not I understand what you're saying here. Regardless of being underrated across the board or not, the game put both better players on the same team by a large margin. A 1200 and 1000 vs 1400 and 2000 makes no sense. I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the rating system it made sense, but that doesn't make it any less demoralizing when that's what you get, especially after so many failed launches. Is it actual problem? Idk, honestly. Just saying I understand where people are coming from.
But one of them was 900 rated in 2v2 or not? Global rating is only important for 'setting up' the starting rank so ppl don't start at 0, but the system sees them as 900 and 1600 ranked, not as 1400 and 2000 ranked.
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
RedX, are you talking about the game you won? Your 1200 global teammate won against the 2k and 1,4k globals (both from DualGap of course). The game didn't look unbalanced, you just got killed fast because you overextended with your com. So pretty much a 
complaint, especially considering you even complained about your teammate in-game.
https://replay.faforever.com/21079317
For anyone who wants to watch... I won't even say anything. Just look at RedX and what he did, while his 1.1K rated teammate took on the 3.5k worth of gap players alone and won.
