Community Forums > Voobly Community > Other Games > Age Of Mythology > Discussion: Updating our rating system
4 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 4 guests
0 members, 4 guests
What's popular right now:








AoKTS updates (41 users)

Word Association (37 users)

1.6 reward campaing (36 users)

CBA PathBlood 1.8.2 (35 users)

New CBA Hero now supports HD / D... (26 users)

TIW 2020 Map votes (21 users)

New Voobly Client 2.7 (18 users)
Most active threads in past week:







Fp with some people (8 posts)

1.6 new bug Feb 25 (6 posts)

AI in Multiplayer RESIGNS too so... (4 posts)

Fast proxy detection problem (4 posts)

Bug multiple tec + otros errores (3 posts)

A Spectator's Concern (1 posts)
We have had the same rating system for a long time in Age of Mythology and it is showing it's flaws in my opinion. In this thread I'd like to start a discussion with the community on if we should change things up a bit. We have the option to implement some changes to our wishes.
Problem I - New players
New players start at a rating of 1600 even though their real skill more reflects the skills of a 1350 player. In team games having a new player on your team will make the game significantly harder for you. It would make sense if you wouldn't lose a lot of rating for losing with a new player, but because of their relatively high starting rating, you will lose a lot more points than what would be fair.
Players know this and therefore this is a strong motivation to kick new players from their rooms or to have room descriptions like "no 0 games". As a result, new players often don't feel welcome in our community. When they get kicked time after time for a couple of days and also get a good dose of harassment, they leave us.
Understand that the ability for a platform to live is provided by the new people signing up. Existing players eventually get less active or leave altogether and if there are no new players, the community shrinks and eventually dies. Keep this in mind the next time you kick someone for being new.
In 1v1 players abuse new players to boost their own ratings. If you are under 1700, you can get a decent amount of points from destroying a new player in 10 minutes.
An example from my own games where having a new player took a good bite out of my rating. (I welcome all players in my rooms, from 1350 up to 1900.)
The example game with a more forgiving rating change result. I used the Voobly Rating Calculator.
Play around with Voobly's Rating Calculator yourself to test the outcomes for your own games.
Problem II - "Real rating"
We have used the term "real rating" (RR) in our community for years. For those who don't know: "real rating" is not the actual rating number you have on Voobly, but it is an imaginary number that you and others think reflects your skills the best. Example: say my Voobly rating number is 1712, but I perform more like a 1650 player. Then my "real rating" is 1650.
Isn't it weird that we invented a term called "real rating"? It basically means that we think the Voobly rating system doesn't reflect our skills. I have heard countless times in medium and high level rooms: "The number doesn't mean anything." It makes the whole system pointless if we just throw its results in the bin.
This problem is caused by having big rating shifts in Age of Mythology, by which I mean a player can get from 1600 to 1700 in just 5 games and vice versa. We win and lose a lot of points per game. We have seen 1600 players balloon to 1780 and 1700 players tank to 1580 in just an evening of playing. This causes our rating system to be untrustworthy.
Is there another way? Yes, there is. Take Age of Empires II for example, where the maximum amount of points a player can win or lose is limited to a small amount. If you could only win/lose 1-10 points per game, the rating numbers will be a lot more stable and therefore reflect the skills of the players better.
Just think about it: the term "real rating" is complete non sense and shouldn't exist.
What parameters can we set for our rating system in this regard?
*Change the starting rating for new players.
*Set a maximum points won/lost per game for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, etc.
*Make all teammates in team games win/lose the same amount of points.
*Set a multiplier for rooms containing a new player so less points are won/lost for all players.
I just shared my opinion elaborately, but now I want to hear the opinion from the community. What do we want as a community? Which changes would we like to make or do want to keep things as is? I would like to hear what you guys have to say.
All the best,
Bombus
- Give starting players 1300 rating, and a x2 bonus rating wins until they get to 1600
- With the same tools you use to detect AKA rating, give new accounts with aka of at least 1600 normal starting rating (1600) to allow new accounts of decent players to start at decent ratings so that new players will not face
In my opinion, real rating doesnt exist solely because of the rating system. It exists because people go on breaks and return to the game rusty, or because people like to try new gods and that impacts the actual rating.
That said, what +Bombus suggested in his starting post sounds reasonable to me and it might make our rating system to make sense, and also more welcoming to any newcomers.
Good to have +Bombus here starting these useful discussions!
Or, you have the other end of the spectrum: an expert level player on a new account - which also guarantees the outcome of the game (their team wins).
As for players playing new players to boost their rating in 1v1 - is that even a thing? If so, sad.
Voobly will be owned by GoDaddy in 5 years time, your ratings won't mean sh*t.
Perhaps one of my recommendations would be to post a notice that it is new players or
Another option may be to modify the ELO behavior and make it like other games. Clearly if someone has 1600 and loses with a 1700 he must lose about 2 points. but if a 1600 loses to a 1400 within his first 5 games (reference) he should lose more than 120 points.
They are just ideas
Ragnerox, we haven't talked about decay yet in this thread, so thanks for bringing it up. I myself agree with you and think the high decay rate is a problem. I think this is something we should definitely discuss. What decay rate did you have in mind? Should we revert it to 1699 or did you have different number in mind?
Ragnerox, we haven't talked about decay yet in this thread, so thanks for bringing it up. I myself agree with you and think the high decay rate is a problem. I think this is something we should definitely discuss. What decay rate did you have in mind? Should we revert it to 1699 or did you have different number in mind?
I feel like this should definitely be at 1699 for all rate types, it's just a matter of seeing the other rate types getting stuck at 1799 in a very unusual way. However the decay should be smaller and slower. Maybe instead of 20 points... about 5. and that it be every 2 weeks.
Also, if it were possible in the leaderboard, it would be a good idea not to count people who reach 1699 due to inactivity, simply not count them in the table as inactive, until they show activity, perhaps placing them with a different color or something; to it
There is some reasonable argument that the ESO system is a bit too unforgiving when it comes to rating differences, and I think there is merit to that, especially due to the small size of the playerbase. This would be the best fix; to change that win/loss curve so that it doesn't fall off so quickly. 20 points is the average, up to 1 to 39. At 120 point difference, the win/loss comparison is 2 to 38. That's too punishing. But ELO is way too forgiving.
I like that new accounts win/lose alot of points. It gets them out of the 1600 range more quickly if they are a much better/worse player.
People don't boot 0 gamers for fear of losing rating, they boot them because they have no idea if they will be decent or terrible. No one wants to waste time playing a game where a player is so bad it's pointless. This problem remains regardless of the rating system used. Similarly, that's also why some people ask for real rate. I've only ever seen that used for people with new accounts, not people with 20+ games. Again, changing the rating system won't fix that.
Switching back to the ELO system will create just as many problems as it will theoretically fix.
The best solutions:
1) Alter the current rating system so it's a bit more forgiving. The points won/lost differs too quickly. Keep the min/max at 1 to 40, but give it a wider span of rating differential.
2) Lower the decay floor to 1699 (it used to be that, along time ago). Especially needed for team game ladder.