RandomPerson {l Wrote}: kimden {l Wrote}:I generally don't understand why new players are treated somehow separately from others.
We don't know how good they are.
But the same is true for players who didn't play for several months. They may be experienced or not, but after a long time past races do not influence the current expectations so much. So there's no reason to treat new players separately I guess, we just have 0 confidence about them and non-zero (but maybe almost 0 for some players) about others.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:Might be right. Maybe the 2000 should be changed into 3000 then.
Do you understand what happens then? Actually the difference of 3000 now plays the role of 2000, that means, all ranking points' differences should be increased by 50%. This is the physical sense of Elo-based systems or their derivatives: winning probability is based only on difference of points, and if we take 3000 or 4000 or 5 or 41 instead of 2000, everything is just scaled with respect to starting points (2000) when converged. So changing 2000 to 3000 might seem like a solution but this just shifts "usual" ranking points from 4000 to 5000 and everything is the same.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:Whoever loses the race (or the placement fight) should be punished.
I personally know players that are very,
very disappointed by losing (this actually happens independently of skill level), and I guess such players (including me, I'm a human lol) won't be very glad if they will get the big punishment that was before for losing like 10s, for losing just 0.1s. Vice versa, players won't want to create a big gap because it's easier to collect powerups, because almost nothing is given for gap and a big amount is given for just being ahead. That's why I say that big jumps in system affect negatively the spirit: sometimes it's not profitable to be faster which shouldn't be the case. With this system, you need to be faster only if you are near someone else.
Also lol, when giving the majority of points to those who win and simultaneously make CC = 10 for all experienced players, the one with extremely high number of races has much more wins and therefore will be much higher in ranking. I prefer to avoid that even if it's profitable for me personally. The current system is overprofitable enough for players with big amount of races, and this is making it worse.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:To come back to the topic of "big jumps between neighboring cases": It doesn't matter in football whether I go from 0:1 to 2:1 in injury time or whether I shoot the opponent 10:0. In table tennis, it doesn't matter whether I win 19:17 in the decisive set or three times 11:0. Then why does it matter in races?
Football has
discrete goals. You cannot have 2.35:4.91, only a few cases are possible, while in racing we have
continuous time. The ranking system should encourage being faster at all times, not only when one is losing. If you are winning, the more you win, the more you should get. I'm actually sad to hear 10:0 equals 2:1 just because in football nobody cares, but do you know any ranking systems for football teams outside of group tournaments? (I personally don't know because I don't watch it but maybe there are... But I never heard.) Table tennis is also discrete, also in most cases we know how many points winner has, unlike racing. Even if there are ranking systems there, they should be very different in terms of calculating expected/real game result.
Corner cases and big jumps can be ok if the game scoring itself consists of big jumps like goals, but in the suggested system, for being a bit faster you get many or very little points just depending on the number of rivals near, or depending on whether rivals have 50/100/250 races. Smoothing is usually done to prevent that.
I don't think this system is bad. I just point out what can make others very frustrated, even more than with current system, and explain, what causes it.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}: kimden {l Wrote}:You lose too many points for quitting.
This is better in my system because not so much is calculated for large time differences. The system also focuses on the placements.
Ok you lose little points for quitting now, like 5 per rival, independently of who are there rivals (which isn't good I suppose?) But quitting was supposed to be harsh for players who rage quit, and I'm not sure this system doesn't bring back this problem which caused quitting penalty.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}: kimden {l Wrote}:A player's ranking never "fades away" after long inactivity.
Benau already said that this will be fixed.
To be fixed, it needs a formula to be done. No formula - no fix. Also how do you suppose the devs to modify your ranking system instead of yours? There is a way to implement that on the current system, but for your system, you know it better and you should suppose the way to do it!
Alayan {l Wrote}:Many players only play ranked races against a limited number of other players, or have a huge proportion of their races against one or a few players. For any ranking system to work well, you need players to play a variety of opponents so that the "links" between players are strong enough. If A and B never played each other, their relative ranking will be much more accurate if you can link them through other players they played against. If you have pools of players that play together inside the pool but rarely will play with someone outside the pool, the ratings get distorted.
A player can refuse to play any ranked race on tracks he dislikes, or against players he doesn't want to face.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:Explain to me why that should be important. The current ranking system really has far worse problems. Nonsense.
If the ranking system doesn't take that into account, you can say hello to groups of players playing same tracks and/or between each other only. Do you think nascartux' points are relevant if he plays 3 tracks 80% of races?
Nonsense, we have other problems than a guy that abused the system for several months and continues! Do you think a group of 8 players cannot have distorted rankings just because they play only each other? We are just lucky that rvc group has only 4 players instead of 8.
nascartux is a very specific case but there's unfortunately a trend on deleting tracks and/or choosing the same subset of them. Let me remind everyone that ranked exists (not counting the fun which is important too) to estimate the skill for a player, and this skill
includes player's skill on every official track. If someone doesn't play a track at all (except maybe black forest but this is another type of problem), he doesn't want to show the corresponding skill so that skill is probably bad because nobody in the world hides good sides.
The same goes for players. I for example don't want to play with certain players because I think I will lose. This is normal but it's bad if I don't play them. Well, you cannot enforce playing with literally all players but if the rivals' subset is very small it's a reason to think about.
"It is also up to the player to decide when to play and when not." is true, but
ranked should give points for speed and take points for being slow. If one utilizes that statement to hide own weaknesses, that's very bad because 1) he can be weak but unfairly doesn't lose 2) in this case he is also not honest to players who don't hide their skill.
RandomPerson {l Wrote}: kimden {l Wrote}:Finally, how do you cope with points inflation?
I don't know what you mean by that.
In a good ranking system, a certain number of points should correspond to certain amount of skill at all times, without major changes. Inflation means that over time, the same skill level corresponds to bigger and bigger amount of points (which shouldn't be the case as I said in the previous sentence). In particular, if the mean ranking points increases, there is probably an inflation because players can stay at the same level but get more points. Most ranking systems have total points change equal to zero in most cases to prevent that, and also the points changes for new players should be adjusted in a correct way. In this system, I guess that's true if all players have >1000 races, but come on, there are only 40 such players as of now! For other cases, as well as for new players' points distribution, I have doubts (or I am just not clever enough to prove, but someone should prove it or at least test it on many, many races! At least virtual ones.)
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:2 other problems:
You can lose points for a win. The problem is solved in my system.
Still have to disagree. Consider four situations:
A) Win by 10 seconds
B) Win by 1 second
C) Loss by 1 second
D) Loss by 10 seconds
Now I'd like to ask everyone, which pairs of situations should be closest in terms of points? For me, it's B-C and not A-B nor C-D. But the suggested system prefers to give B much more points than C and to give A a bit more points than B. Though you need much more effort to have B→A transition than C→B.
I agree that it's painful to realize you lose points for winning (actually now winning 3 seconds on a standard 2-minute races is sufficient to never lose points. If one loses points by winning this probably means big ranking difference so the winner should be able to win 3 seconds!). You can think of it as 'I gained points but I was expected to gain more so something was subtracted'. Positive change always means you did better than expected, negative - worse. And winning by 0.1 isn't always expected lol
RandomPerson {l Wrote}:You have to do a lot of races to be among the top players. Improved in my system, especially through the variable CC.
Good point. However, did you try to apply the formula on some data to prove it? Like take a novice with 2000, take random existing players and see what happens if he mostly wins (mostly, no one wins 100% of races). This is required IMO to say 'it's improved'.
Not sure whether this is needed though, if the community thinks so, ok.
Last but not least, I try to criticise this not because I hate someone (or you personally), not because I want a better rank with new system, not because I'm in love with current system (I want to share my opinion too but a bit later, there are some problems still), but because it's better to criticize now than when the system is enabled and everyone is unhappy.