Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Pointy end of ranks

19 posts, 338 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

11 days ago
Pointy end of ranks, as threshold seems to have widened, do we need a new rank between purple and space lobster?
+4 / -0
The problem might be that a side effect of increasing threshold for variance was that now people that did not play in a long time (ex check Blackdutchie, position 6 in ladder, did not play in 2 months) are included in ranks computations. Previously not playing a long time would increase your variance hence you would be eliminated from rank bands. Now with the widened variance a lot of players that did not play in a long time are included.

I think that ideal is to have both faster inclusion in ranking (current wider band) and elimination from visible ranks computations of inactive players (lets say 1 month).

Edit: out of top20, 6 of the players did not login in more than a month. And at least one logged in but did not play.
+0 / -0
10 days ago
YES!!! make me white with black spots so i can be the white michael jackson
+0 / -0


10 days ago
I could mess around with the variance number some more. I would rather not though as it could feel bad to lose ranks, and I don't even know if anything would change (due to the very wide level up/down leeway).
+0 / -0
10 days ago
Isn't there a direct control for "ignore (not use in computations and not show in ladder) players that did not play in x days" ?

In my opinion higher variance band is fine - although I am a bit confused now as I wrongly asses players, but probably will get used to.
+0 / -0


10 days ago
There is no control for ignoring inactive players.
+0 / -0

9 days ago
Ranks are overinflated since new rank system was introduced. Ranks should experience deflation.
+2 / -0
9 days ago
everyone is purple now...i am sadde i no special anymore :(
+1 / -0

9 days ago
As a patch you could just add a shiny thing to the rank icon for anyone in the top 5 ladder, this is not based on % just pure rank
+0 / -0
This exist for top3, you get a badge.

quote:
Ranks are overinflated since new rank system was introduced. Ranks should experience deflation.

Time for some quantitative easing, bail out the lobsters.

On a serious note, the current ranks system is based on percentiles. They are inflated since Steam because ZK has a bigger community. There are also more bluebloods and royals now because in the year since release, the slower learners in the Steam cohort have finally sorted themselves to their appropriate levels.

(Some of those have shot up near immediately or very quickly, like UltraGodzilla or Sparkles; but the majority takes a longer time).
+0 / -0
Yet the top 20 is all purple mostly, yet a skill gap between them imo

+0 / -0
what baffles me more is that thres plenty of top players NOT purple even though ppl with much lower elo than them are purple.

edit: but this seems very reasonable to me as there seem to be more purple players than blue or silver
+1 / -0
That can happen because of two causes:
- I think the color updates when you play a game, and they did not play in a long time
- there is a range so that you do not switch back and forth between ranks. Once you get to purple, you need to loose more than 1 game to get to blue. And if you are blue you need to win quite some until you get purple
+0 / -0

8 days ago
Offtop but still.
quote:
They are inflated since Steam because ZK has a bigger community.

Do somebody have any statistics about player count bit before steam and after steam? It would be interesting to see it.
+0 / -0
8 days ago
For the "after steam" part: https://steamdb.info/app/334920/graphs/
+0 / -0


8 days ago
+2 / -0
dat spike...the retention was pretty bad but the population incresssed a little,doubled even
+0 / -0


7 days ago
EErankAdminAnarchid you shouldn't just post a chart with no explanation or formatting for clarity.


Here is the same data in a more readable form. Each point is the average over 14 days. The value of each day is the number of unique people that played a game on that day. I think it takes data from the recorded games (ie, those with replay links) and does not include spectators. The increase compared to pre-Steam is about 400%.

A sharp spike on release followed by a slow decline is a common feature of games. I'd say the current value of around 400 compared to the peak of around 1600 is fairly good for 16 months, and we appear to be pretty stable.


Here are some contemporary RTS releases (alongside Supcom and PA) as a comparison. There is some difficulty in comparing these two metrics as the Steam charts show daily peak concurrent players.
+3 / -0

7 days ago
I do think we need a rank between 5% and 1% now.
There's a huge skill difference between people at the two ends of that spectrum.
NLrankmalric and RUrankindaled shouldn't be the same colour given the 300 elo difference. (the top 5 players you can just go by name recognition, so they don't need distinctive colours)
+0 / -0