Please show rating changes in replay vault
-
I really don’t care to look into anything for you lol
-
@ftxcommando so like why gas every gamer because of the newbros? Cant you make the rating change invisible for dudes in placement/with less than insert number games or just make it a toggle switched to brackets by defdault? It really seems shitty to force it on everyone
Skill issue
-
@tomma I think the answer is even simplier. It would be much easier to give 500 rating from the start so it would be harder for newcomer to get it into negative. Or cap minimum possible rating at zero. What scares some of newbies is negative rating, not losses or rating drop, so there is no reason to hide only the last one.
-
@brutus5000 said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:
I do not remember anybody demanding to have it in parallel with the rating system.
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/4743/improvement-of-leaderboards/9?_=1717412060587
Not a gotcha moment but i do remember this topic
-
Ik heb hier geen actieve herinnering aan.
-
@thewheelienoob said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:
Ik heb hier geen actieve herinnering aan.
Funny, but let's keep posts in English.
-
Thank you! My apologies.
-
No jokes please this is a serious topic. I suggest you read the openings post before commenting...
-
@tomma said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:
@ftxcommando so like why gas every gamer because of the newbros? Cant you make the rating change invisible for dudes in placement/with less than insert number games or just make it a toggle switched to brackets by defdault? It really seems shitty to force it on everyone
Because I wrote to expand on what Brutus was talking about and it’s just one reason for said decision. Trueskill as a leaderboard is already an arbitrary number you know, the system gives 0 shit about your shown rating and the number everybody sees is just the attempt of the matchmaking system to give an inhouse leaderboard.
The problem is the vast majority of people TREAT trueskill like a leaderboard instead of a probability function for matchmaking instead of the reverse and so you get behaviors like people seeing a 1900 lose to a 1500 alongside other variants and everyone going baboon mode because their “carry” has now cost them potentially more “points” than usual.
This means a league can hide the recalibration of rating which can be more volatile with more of a granulation in the movement in leagues so losses are less of a mental crybaby moment. Wins will mean less too, but since people are mainly loss averse, it’s typically better when you have a wash outcome such as that.
This stuff isn’t ironed out in pvp games, and you have games that only show league with no mmr, games that show mmr but league doesn’t exist, and games that show both. But the trend in modern games is definitely moving more and more towards some sort of league system to be the basis of player comprehension of their skill.
@sainserow said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:
@tomma I think the answer is even simplier. It would be much easier to give 500 rating from the start so it would be harder for newcomer to get it into negative. Or cap minimum possible rating at zero. What scares some of newbies is negative rating, not losses or rating drop, so there is no reason to hide only the last one.
Your solution is a sign you don’t really understand trueskill. How exactly do you expect to “give” 500 rating? What is the combination of trueskill ratings you expect new players to actually start with in order to have 500 rating and how will this not just result in translating the population bell curve? You haven’t solved anything about losing games early having drastic impact on uncertainty but nobody having any clue what uncertainty actually means. They just see themselves fall down a lot when a loss is already painful.
I should also say FAF has attempted to resolve this issue itself via the matchmaker by making new players start at 500 mu and then interpolate to their actual rating over 10 games. This was to make it so that their first games tend to be against people they have a decent shot at competing with rather than the total stomp of facing someone with 1500 mu that trueskill would traditionally prefer. Like as close to a 0% chance as it can get for a new player to beat a 2000 mu player so the attempt by trueskill to be theoretically efficient with its data was really just not practically efficient.
-
I'll recap some of the arguments for the league system because the original discussion is some years old already and was mainly held between contributors, so might have missed quite some people.
One main thing is that we want to hide the intricacies of the Trueskill calculations, because they are quite complicated and not easily understandable by just looking at rating changes.
From this it becomes clear that we can't just keep the rating system next to the leagues, because then we defeat one of the main purposes of the change.About the negative rating thing:
It happens regularly. I took the time to search for some examples and found multiple in just the recent months
Capping rating at 0 is not a good solution for this. The capping can only be done visually or you fuck up the trueskill calculations. But then if you are negative and you win or lose games you don’t see any rating change at all anymore which will look like a bug to people.I also found a nice example for confusing point changes on a draw
There are more problems: Different point changes for people in the same team and different point changes for wins in different games. I didn't collect examples for these, but I hope you all know that these happen and that they are not easily understandable. I've repeatedly seen people complain about being treated "unfairly" by the rating system.
From discussion on discord I gathered that people have two main complaints about the league system as it currently is:
- The rating range of people in a division is too high, so they are meaningless to assess the skill level
- top players are not really sorted by rating, robbing them of a proper leaderboard.
We can improve both problems with slight changes to the system. Divisions are already assigned to a rating range. At the moment players are placed 100 rating lower than they are to provide a sense of progression when they rise to their designated division simply by playing. This has the side effect that people are more spread over divisions. We can reduce this by placing people exactly where they are supposed to be. Then a division will hold people of a bracket that is slightly smaller than 100 rating, basically giving you the same granularity as global rating does at the moment. This should be close enough.
We can also change the grandmaster division so that the score points directly reflect the rating. This way people in grandmaster are always sorted by the underlying rating.One other advantage of the league system is that because of the seasons we have a leaderboard that isn't cluttered with people that haven't played in years. Instead you have to be playing at least three games in the current season to show up.
We could easily increase the season length to six months for example if people think active players should be visible for longer.For the future it's planned to show the divisions in the ingame scoreboard instead of rating soon. This is already coded.
Later we can also show them in the custom lobby, but this is not yet implemented and might take a while because the lobby code is pretty nasty to work with. -
-
T Terarii referenced this topic on
-
T Terarii referenced this topic on
-
Is it possible to make League system without rating numbers before 1000 rating, and after 1000 (1500) to make/ add rating points ?
I also got used to them a lot and loved it. -
I didn't read any of the previous posts in this thread. I just really want them to change it back so I can see rating changes on replays. Is this just another example of the moderators changing something for no good reason and then defending that decision with their life?...... I find it's so annoying that I can't see the rating changes anymore. To me this was a core part of The FAF experience that is now gone.
-
Can someone in detail explain to me what you are getting from seeing the exact rating change please? Because I frankly don't get it
-
It's more so the rating values at certain timepoints, tied to each individual replay. It makes it easy to track someone's progress and, for the mods among us: to detect whether and when exactly rating manipulation may have taken place (i also go through ladder replays frequently just to see how people are doing and happened to snuff out a bunch of smurf accounts myself)
You can do this without showing rating change, so people who don't understand the rating system won't complain about it. At the same time, rating enjoyers get to see rating. Win-win, no?
-
- As Stormlantern said, it is a kind of nerd game and we got used to see our sweet green +15 or red -15 rating numbers near our names. You can call it a subjective factor, but for me it is much more interesting than only League icon and Victory / Defeat display.
- By amount of addded rating / lost rating you can estimate team balance. I'm not sure how it works, but as far as I noticed, if you win in a team with lower rating, you get more points. So just for checking +/- ratio you may know, if there was some drama 50+ game. Also if you win stronger opponnent (you still see those raiting numbers in the game itself, you do not see Leages), you want to know, how many points you won (and sometimes how many points they lost, he he). It is fun moment, we love fun moments in FAF and I hope it will be respected enough.
- As Sladow said, it is much more easier to track someone's progress in a short period of time. Especially in ladder. Like some month ago Person X was 1600 rating, right now he is 1800. Estimation difference between clearly understandable numbers (1600 one month ago and 1800 now ) is much more obvious for cognitive perception than difference between League icons.
- I do not see rating manipulation as a real problem, besides all factors each player can estimate another player by his own way. And even someone gets high rating fast by manipulation, in next 1-2 games he will be easily revealed and will not harm high rated lobbies quality, because host and community can share their opinion in lobby before start and prevent it.
- I do not know if initiator and decision making person of this change plays ladder, but as a current +/- active player I would state, that personally me and everyone with whom I spoke, who play and have interest in some competition there, we are a bit disapointed with this change. Therefore I ask to return it back.
-
I like to go through the replay vault and pick replays where everyone is in a certain range but this doesn't allow for that. I don't typically watch a replay with a whole bunch of pro players that have the odd Joe in there I'd rather watch a fully pro match instead for study purposes.
There's an old saying in the trades, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" there seems to be too much of that with moderators in my opinion.
-
Rating is imo simply more concrete as opposed to the more vague league system.
When i play chess it activates my neurons when i see a big green number cause that means im playing well
-
@dorset said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:
Is this just another example of the moderators changing something for no good reason and then defending that decision with their life?
Moderation team had no input on this decision
-
My man vindex finished the school of grimplex i see
