Community Forums > General > General Discussion > Suggested Voobly Rating Decay IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

Suggested Voobly Rating Decay IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

Poll: Do you want a Rating Decay System on Voonly
Strongly Agree
Agree
Don't care
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
 ['RB']Dan


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 May 2012
Posts:7308
Posted 4 April 2013 - 2:46 pm
Good wrote:
[LTP]Good likes this.

You forget to edit that post :@
Link | Reply | Quote
 ViralCTM


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 6 September 2007
Posts:539
Edited 5 April 2013 - 1:40 am by ViralCTM
I have not read most of this thread and probably will not as it is far too large. However, save the opening post I did read one from a Vlad Dracul on the 21st page, and he makes a good point, one that shows one of the issues Voobly (or rather, the AoC/AoK/AoE community on Voobly) faces. It goes beyond fixing the rating system, I believe. The problem rests with the system itself, or the lack of a viable alternative. The need, that is, to simply play for fun, in the context of playing without points. Some still do, but I imagine they don't get much joy out of playing when they are mostly low on the rating totem pole and ostracized by those who would rather not play with them. They play rated, because it is where everyone is and everyone plays, the unrated lobbies being obviously ignored. Thus the problem with playing for fun is that Voobly's rating system could be seen as making this next to impossible. Playing for fun, in the context of playing without points, is essential to this community's future. Why do I say this? Because unrated play is a large part of many successful online multiplayer communities, it used to exist for the AoE community, and now that, by and large it doesn't, I think it's suffering as a result.

I know why this venture was suggested. The rating system has flaws. Every rating system does. Usually, though, this is helped by several mitigating factors, factors I don't believe Voobly has going for it. At least one isn't Voobly's fault (not directly, I think), but they exist nonetheless. In my opinion, the major, persistent ones are as follows:

1. The 2D Age of Empires games are pushing 15 years old, with all the problems that entails.
2. No incentives exist to play unrated games.

The first one is perhaps the most important, because I think it is the main cause. Age of Empires is no longer being supported by Microsoft. The fan community is the only thing left keeping an online presence going (the newly announced HD release notwithstanding; no one would have bothered if said community didn't exist). While impressive, especially knowing how far they've come over the years in offering this service, it belies what I find to be a glaring problem: said community is shrinking, and with it goes any hope to doing something constructive about the rating system.

Now, I've heard this said otherwise. I don't believe it. Counting up every single lobbly dedicated to Age of Empires II, for example, I have never seen, at best, little more than 2000 people playing (and let's ignore the obvious existence of the same person in more than one lobby; that doesn't help the case and existed before Voobly, and ultimately irrelevant). In the days of the Zone this number was much larger (there were at any given time in the unrated CS lobbies alone 1000 to 1200 people, which were on par with the rated ones, and this is ignoring DM and RM, which to my knowledge had similar numbers). I also don't believe this to be surprising. The game was (relatively) new, it was still receiving support, etc. You'd have just as many people playing unrated games as rated ones. That was then, this is now, though. Times have changed, people have gotten older and moved on. Those that persist and continue to play (online, that is) are those who are naturally dedicated to it, the kind of people Vlad Dracul is (or was). Those people want to play for points; it's an easy way for their time and effort to be acknowledged, the time and effort it in turn encourages them to put in. This is why no one plays in the unrated lobbies: the kind of people that would have done so once upon a time are gone; they've moved on. Why stick around for such an old game when many newer ones exist? They have no interest in playing for points. Hell, I was one of those people. I only stuck around because I was a moderator for the Zone, and I was still in touch with some colleagues who migrated over to what became IGZones. In the days of the Zone, I played exactly one rated game before I decided I didn't like it. And I definitely wasn't the only one.

As for the second, this is because of what I said above. The best way to fix the rating system is to attract, encourage, or give incentives for existing players and potential new ones to play unrated games. In other words, you fix the rating system by providing an alternative to said system. A viable alternative, obviously. Why do I believe this? Because other online multiplayer servcies do it, and I don't think they have the same problems Voobly does. Granted, they don't have the age problem (i.e. their games are newer than AoE and the rest Voobly offers support for), but that's why I think it's a unique issue tied directly to that. It rests on belief, but I believe that, when a persistent unrated game lobby exists with incentives to play in it, you start to erode the breathing room the existing system gives to those who take it as a sign to see how far they can stretch things (i.e. exploit the system). More play for fun, less bother cheating or abusing loopholes to get those points. The points end up mattering less because less feel interested pursuing them. Pipe dream? Perhaps, but I feel it's necessary to fulfill it if you want to fix these problems. Competing services like GamePark, GameSpy and a certain other service that starts with the first word in those compound names that is censored for some reason all offered support for Age of Empires II, and I'm pretty sure no rating system of any kind existed for them. Some of those are still operational. Cheating was rampant (at least on GamePark it was, where I played), but people still played--not in large numbers but it was definitely more than what you can count with your fingers. What were they doing right, besides simply existing to fill an apparent niche? (I'd also like to say that, despite what may be believed, cheating isn't something I think would take too much enjoyment out of looking for unrated games to play. You would still ban people, and determined users would create new accounts, but the end effect would be less people cheating and more people happily playing with no issues. People cheat when there are no apparent, obvious consequences to themselves, but if you continue to punish them and there are enough who don't like cheating, you get a positive net effect.)

I don't play on the level of competitive ladders mentioned (just under the 18+ bracket, as it were). That said, I support it, as I agree that it's a step in the right direction to fix what I find to be a flawed rating system (I also believe Voobly's policies on handling individual game disputes are flawed, but that's another issue). However, more steps need to be made than just this. I'm suggesting one such step. Or rather, I'm pointing out what form I think it should take, because I also admit I don't have any real concrete ideas on how to go about it. I just believe my observations are accurate and need addressing...eventually. Because a rated system can't (and shouldn't) be all there is, or all there is that people care about around here. That breeds the kind of thinking leading to the problems this thread was meant to do something about.
Link | Reply | Quote
 [MaJoR]_ImperiuM


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 May 2011
Posts:33
Edited 5 April 2013 - 8:29 am by [MaJoR]_ImperiuM
...I can't believe I just read that wall of text with no real message in it other than to summarise your points which were:

- Players have moved on, those that are still here play for rating to be acknowledged for time+effort and;
- Unrated is a better alternative to the current and "flawed" rating system.

Putting the fact that you have been a moderator as sort of earned titles to get a meaningful word in doesn't really change anything, so I would leave those out next time you're trying to say something.

Also using big words when more than 50% of Voobly don't have English as a first language isn't very smart.

Mini-rant over, I think your whole argument is flawed.

Rating is what people want. If you gave people unrated, it would be a pointless exercise. The new player lobby is used for this. It just has rating built in - that doesn't mean they're all as you describe. Rating is a way for a player to understand their current level against those of others. DM unrated was popular in the birth stages of Age of Empires II because it was a place to exercise skill whilst having fun, but the ultimate next step was, of course, rated. Most games these days are steered toward competitive play. Not many actually have these non-rated alternatives you speak of?

Almost all the games I play calculate my win/losses somehow, whether it adds it to a ladder or not.

Most games are being driven toward eSport. When Age of Empires II was in its infancy, guess what, it was included in WCG! Those players were definitely the kind that play non-rated... /sarcasm.

People love watching 'the best' and I would argue rated will always be, and always has been, more popular than non-rated. If we encourage this kind of play, we will get players having more fun, less complaints of being booted, but not being funny, it won't change anything. People will still get booted, only instead of people getting booted because they have a low rating, they'll get booted because their name is charlie293 instead of __aWeSomE__.

People need a way to identify with others. You clearly haven't played this game like I have. I play this game because I enjoy it a lot, and I love the competitive aspects. Voobly offer both. You can find fun in the rated ladder. People find it in CS/DM and RM. Give wasted server space for these places... they'll never take off and if they do to what end? Eventually they'll get semi decent and have to start making game titles that evolve over time such as in the original DM non-rated rooms:

Early non-rated era:
Expert
Mid non-rated era:
Super Expert
Late non-rated era:
Super Duper Mega Ultra Experts ... Only.

It gets silly and maybe you could say well those types of players can move on and leave all the noobs. That's also what the New Player Lobby is for. If you want to play for fun, go there. You will ALWAYS have smurfs or those that want to join in your fun and demonstrate their amazing 1800 skills against 1500s. It will never change.

The point of this thread is to fix the current HISTORIC rated system, not to start creating ALTERNATIVES.
Link | Reply | Quote
 ViralCTM


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 6 September 2007
Posts:539
Edited 6 April 2013 - 9:06 am by ViralCTM
...I can't believe I just read that wall of text with no real message in it other than to summarise your points which were:

- Unrated is a better alternative to the current and "flawed" rating system.


No, I did not say that. I said that an alternative must exist (which should naturally be an unrated system), not that said alternative was better. Also, the message was simple, if perhaps muddled: the rating system needs fixing and I support Taff's suggestion, but I don't think it's enough. I figured this was a good opportunity to say as much and give my two cents (which was actually itself a summary). I also made it clear that belief and observation were the cornerstones to my words, and nothing more. If you don't find that to be a "real message", that's your problem and not mine.

Quote:
Putting the fact that you have been a moderator as sort of earned titles to get a meaningful word in doesn't really change anything, so I would leave those out next time you're trying to say something.


You seemed to have missed the point as to why my time as a moderator was even brought up. I was talking about my experience with rated games during the days of the Zone and afterward. My time as a moderator tied directly into that because it was the only reason I stayed; the point being, due to the way I played (and my real life becoming more busy) I would have most certainly left sooner had I not been a part of the Sys Op program. I said as much, in fewer words. You either failed to comprehend that, or ignored it in favor of believing in some sort of agenda I must have had.

Quote:
Also using big words when more than 50% of Voobly don't have English as a first language isn't very smart.


Irrelevant. I speak the way I wish. Even so the main target failing anyone else would have been the OP, Taff, who I happen to know and is quite fluent with English. The post was never intended to be understood by everyone, because that would be ridiculous.

Quote:
Rating is what people want. If you gave people unrated, it would be a pointless exercise. The new player lobby is used for this.


Is it? Not so pointless, then? And keep in mind that an unrated lobby does exist--it's just that people don't use it. That was why I said what I said. The fact that a rated system is all what people seem to want is something I mentioned to be a problem, as a personal belief.

Quote:
It just has rating built in - that doesn't mean they're all as you describe.


No, but let's be honest: that is the kind of behavior it breeds. Whether a person is pro at the highest level or someone closer to mine doesn't matter; the desire is not related to their actual skill. You talk about the rated lobby as the next step, and that's fine...so long as the step before it remains. You talk about new players and use the new lobby as an example, but it's hard to refute the observation that the community is shrinking. If there is new blood coming in, it's very small and not replacing those that are leaving. And with any multiplayer environment, the smaller it gets, the more competitive and hardcore the scene is--because the most dedicated veterans stick around, while all the casual players move on to something else. They may not all be what I said, but that isn't really the point because those people are not, by and large, bringing more people in than are leaving, while those that are like that are, I believe, contributing to the community's demise. This is a common process that happens basically any time you have a gaming community that lasts a long time.

Quote:
Rating is a way for a player to understand their current level against those of others. DM unrated was popular in the birth stages of Age of Empires II because it was a place to exercise skill whilst having fun, but the ultimate next step was, of course, rated. Most games these days are steered toward competitive play. Not many actually have these non-rated alternatives you speak of?


My experience tells me that many games do in fact offer competitive and encourage competitive play mainly through a rating system that is inseparable from the experience. They all differ in how they're implemented, though, and depending on how you look at it, your definition of "rated" can differ from mine. Knowing how the rating system works and why it's used on Voobly, however, doesn't really matter to what I was saying. How many services are like Voobly and cater to games 15 years old? Is rated play the only thing left caring about after so much time has passed?

Quote:
Most games are being driven toward eSport. When Age of Empires II was in its infancy, guess what, it was included in WCG! Those players were definitely the kind that play non-rated... /sarcasm.


I don't know what this (eSport) means. Perhaps explain? WCG also sounds familiar, but just the acronym.

Quote:
People love watching 'the best' and I would argue rated will always be, and always has been, more popular than non-rated.

Quite honestly, it hasn't. Not historically. Not the community that, for instance, played on the Zone.

Quote:
If we encourage this kind of play, we will get players having more fun, less complaints of being booted, but not being funny, it won't change anything. People will still get booted, only instead of people getting booted because they have a low rating, they'll get booted because their name is charlie293 instead of __aWeSomE__.


Is this a serious argument? That's speculation at best, and even so, are you trying to say this is worse?

Quote:
People need a way to identify with others. You clearly haven't played this game like I have. I play this game because I enjoy it a lot, and I love the competitive aspects. Voobly offer both. You can find fun in the rated ladder. People find it in CS/DM and RM.


No, I was trying to make a distinction by referring to fun as strictly "playing without points". I used this phrase specifically to avoid the kind of thinking you're using here. This was because that, obviously, some people find fun playing for points. Some don't, however (and I was using Vlad as an example; did you read his post?), and so used the phrase to refer to them and myself, once (hence the example I used from the Zone), when making my point.

Quote:
...they'll never take off and if they do to what end? Eventually they'll get semi decent and have to start making game titles that evolve over time such as in the original DM non-rated rooms...

It gets silly and maybe you could say well those types of players can move on and leave all the noobs. That's also what the New Player Lobby is for. If you want to play for fun, go there. You will ALWAYS have smurfs or those that want to join in your fun and demonstrate their amazing 1800 skills against 1500s. It will never change.


You seem to have a lot of experience in DM. While I appreciate that, DM is a different beast from, say, CS, which is where I predominantly play. This is important, because a lot of the things I said had that in mind. I would venture that this difference perhaps is the reason for why we don't seem to be speaking on the same page. In hindsight, had I known someone would have raised this much of a stink, I would have mentioned that CS is where I believe unrated play to be most important. However, this would have necessitated speaking on some of my reasons for it, which are unrelated to the thread.

Quote:
The point of this thread is to fix the current HISTORIC rated system, not to start creating ALTERNATIVES.


There are other reasons why I was an advocate for unrated play here on Voobly, but didn't bring them up because they weren't the point of the thread. I said as much, so I don't know why you are trying to make it look as if I did not realize this. This would suggest again that, while you may have read what I said, you failed to comprehend it.

If you've got an axe to grind, I would suggest you look elsewhere.
Link | Reply | Quote
 EvlL


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 20 September 2009
Posts:562
Posted 14 May 2013 - 2:03 am
ya que ahahahhahahah :)
Link | Reply | Quote
 [I3acI]_PeloNcho


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 1 December 2010
Posts:271
Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:27 pm
Veo muy bien esta medida... y eso q he perdido 20 puntacos en cba...

Pero vamos, no me costara mucho recuperarlos
Link | Reply | Quote
 [Eot_]Marvel__


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 February 2012
Posts:6512
Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:52 pm
^ rate ****
Link | Reply | Quote
 17_x_X


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 6 April 2012
Posts:231
Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:55 pm
decay better than 1700 for all account to be fair to all players every 15 to 20 days every 15 points
Link | Reply | Quote
 _brave


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 20 June 2013
Posts:251
Posted 4 April 2014 - 10:40 am
+1 but the days should be 15 or more..
Link | Reply | Quote
 [KL's]Yuvaraj


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 September 2009
Posts:4
Posted 24 January 2016 - 3:32 pm
Losing points for not playing really affects the players who is away at the moment.. This forces him to play a game unless you lose your achievements. Need to find any another way better than this without affecting normal players who are all playing here.

Thank you
Link | Reply | Quote
 G__


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 25 December 2015
Posts:5
Posted 11 February 2016 - 11:00 pm
Dumbest rating decay system ever. Lets make all 2k 17xx. Lets not give points to players 2.2k+ skilled in tg's because they play against lower rated players, WELL DUH, THEY ARE 2200 FOR A REASON. Lets make all 17xx have the same rating as a 2k+ who left for two months. How transparent.
ALL you noobs have done is make the ratings ladder more useless as you cant even see anyone's actual skill now. There are literally 200 2k+ skilled players playing with 1650-1850 TG nicknames now hahahahaha. The only thing you fools should have done is make an actual top ten ladder which keeps actual rating decay. If you want to be in the top ten, you face rating decay untill the points of the number 11. Hello 8th wonder rating after 2 month vacation.... :P
Think about it, theviper 2500+ in 1v1, yet hardly can keep a 2k+ TG rating going, BIG JOKE.
Lets show us some more graphs how a team with three 18xx get only two points because it is obvious they win a team with two 17xx. Brainfart thinking. All you do bUt giving higher rated players less points is make a 19xx have thesame rate as a 17xx. You let a ****player win more points, let a good player win no points. What happens, both players get basically same rate, FAIL. A rating system is to RATE SOMEONE'S SKILL, NOT TO GIVE POINTS TO NOOBS AND TAKE THEM FROM THE SKILLED PLAYERS, which only have the end result of a lower GAP then there should be. ****S.
Link | Reply | Quote
 p3n1s_


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 July 2013
Posts:271
Posted 22 February 2016 - 1:59 am
Agree, and rating should decay down to 1650 instead 1800.
Link | Reply | Quote
 Richard398


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 4 October 2013
Posts:7
Posted 12 June 2016 - 12:48 pm
10 days is pretty short, 15-20 Id say.
Link | Reply | Quote
 The_revenger


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 10 June 2016
Posts:12
Posted 14 June 2016 - 10:45 pm
1 month at least
Link | Reply | Quote
 CS_History


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 22 August 2010
Posts:130
Posted 15 July 2016 - 7:54 am
Veteran Blood 3v3 Tournament

Sunday 17th, July @17:30 GMT/UTC

Registration open at:
http://vooblycommittee.voobly.com/forum/thread/246420

Tournament to be played at VCOM Lobby

The more players, the better prices. Make your teams and have some fun!

More information at:
http://vooblycommittee.voobly.com/forum/thread/246208




Link | Reply | Quote
«45678910111213141516171819202122[23]24
Displaying 331 - 345 out of 346 posts
Forum Jump:
1 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 1 guests

Most active threads in past week: