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

Different Rank thresholds for Competitive/Casual

13 posts, 444 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

8 months ago
Brought this up discord last night. Because the casual playerbase is so much larger than the competitive/mm playerbase, and in particular the population of active players who play competitive long term is substantially better than the population who play casual long term, it becomes much, much harder to increase rank through competitive as it is through casual. In terms of absolute player numbers (with some fuzziness because rank isn't based directly on the WHR values seen in the ladder):
In the casual ladder the top ~150 (~2070+ mmr) are Supergiant, compared to the top ~16 in competitive (~2500+ mmr).
In the casual ladder the top ~75 are Neutron Star (~2280+ mmr), compared to the top ~8 in competitive (~2800+ mmr).
In the casual ladder the top ~15 are Singularity (~2850+ mmr), compared to the top ~2 in competitive (~3200+ mmr).

I don't know if the best solution is simply to lower rank percentage thresholds for the competitive ladder or change to an absolute thresholds system (eg 2000+ supergiant, 2500+ neutron star, 3000+ singularity) but I do think the rank system could use some adjustment so that highest rank isn't = casual rank in 99% of cases where a player is ranked on both ladders.
+5 / -0
8 months ago
It goes by %
If you are top 10% on either you are blue
+1 / -0

8 months ago
I'm aware of how it works! What I'm saying is how it works is bad!
+1 / -0

8 months ago
Sounds like you want: Rank = (Competitive_rank + Casual_rank) / 2.0
What would the result be though?
+0 / -0


8 months ago
Making the percentages different for competitive, based on whatever seems reasonable now, seems like a simple solution with few downsides. Beyond that though....

This has probably come up in a thread like https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/32336 but basically:
  • 1) The matchmaker rating is not good at being a people-friendly league. The rating is fundamentally un-gamified.
  • 2) Some sort of visible "big team room" rating is beneficial for coordination within such games (nobody can keep track of all the yellows and silvers, and knowing what is roughly expected of a front is quite useful).

There has been a lot of minor work on 1). More complete solutions have been discussed but not tried. There are some unappealing yet fairly simple solutions to 2). Perhaps the rank that is displayed ingame could depend on the game type, and globally we could display competitive. Or the shape could be casual rating. Both of these reduce the variety of rank shapes that we would see dramatically, so perhaps it is best to add something extra for competitive (a glow or something).

But strictly speaking, the OP only really needs competitive to have its own set of percentages, which sounds fine. I doubt this would significantly impact teams as 1v1 players are probably a bit more reliable there anyway. This is an invitation for someone to dive into the code and do it.
+6 / -0
Okay so putting formulas to this proposal to just tie it to ladder playercount.

x=playercount

Singularity = MIN(0.08, MAX(0.01, -0.0229087*ln(x-30.9383)+0.167527))
Neutron Star = MIN(0.2, MAX(0.05, -0.0274178*ln(x-45.9861)+0.238104))
Supergiant = MIN(0.4, MAX(0.1, -0.089607*ln(x-15.3846)+0.717594))
Giant = MIN(0.5, MAX(0.2, -0.160736*ln(x+123.831)+1.32909))
Subgiant = MIN(0.64, MAX(0.4, -0.0564065*ln(x-36.3201)+0.787555))
Red Dwarf = MIN(0.8, MAX(0.6, -0.059783*ln(x-15.3846)+1.01173))
Brown Dwarf = MIN(0.9, MAX(0.8, -0.029869*ln(x-15.3846)+1.00586))

At or above 1k players thresholds, current thresholds apply. Below 50 players = 50 player threshholds. Thresholds at given playercounts:

50 players:
8% singularity (top 4)
20% neutron star (top 10)
40% supergiant (top 20)
50% giant (top 25)
64% subgiant (top 32)
80% red dwarf (top 40)
90% brown dwarf (top 45)

200 players:
4% singularity (top 8)
10% neutron star (top 20)
25% supergiant (top 50)
40% giant (top 80)
50% subgiant (top 100)
70% red dwarf (top 140)
85% brown dwarf (top 170)

1000 players:
1% singularity (top 10)
5% neutron star (top 50)
10% supergiant (top 100)
20% giant (top 200)
40% subgiant (top 400)
60% red dwarf (top 600)
80% brown dwarf (top 800)

Graphical representation of what this looks like:
+5 / -0


8 months ago
Looks good. I like how it transitions into the current system at 1000, so it could be applied everywhere without impacting casual ranks.
+2 / -0
Interesting idea! There is an arbitrary variation in your curves, though. The following formulae would fix that:
[CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN to see all graphs (requires cookies)]

Singularity = 0.125 - 0.115*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Neutron Star = 0.25 - 0.20*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Supergiant = 0.375 - 0.275*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Giant = 0.50 - 0.30*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Subgiant = 0.625 - 0.225*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Red Dwarf = 0.75 - 0.15*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
Brown Dwarf = 0.875 - 0.075*ln(min(x, 1000))/ln(1000)
+1 / -0
8 months ago
quote:
it becomes much, much harder to increase rank through competitive as it is through casual.

USrankStuart98: I am curious, do you personally check also your leader position or you check mostly your rank? And in case you check both, which one do you find more relevant?
+0 / -0
8 months ago
I think its ok that MM visual rank gain is harder
+1 / -0
8 months ago
quote:
I think its ok that MM visual rank gain is harder
It's not per se about MM or casual it's about that it's harder to progress in a bucketed rank if the total number of players is smaller.

Still, comparing MM ranks and team ranks will be complex anyhow. My guess is that a gold on MM rank could be blue level on casual (if they would play). I personally look/care in my rank/ladder position only within one category. Being blue on casual has absolutely no value on 1v1.
+0 / -0
8 months ago
Make visual rank MM only so we don't have a bunch of blues that make troll comms anymore.
+0 / -0
8 months ago
/sarcasm: hide MM ladder as there are anyhow 8.5 less people playing that one.

Serious: that's why I was trying to understand in what context the issue appears. Initial request was "harder to increase rank", but in my view color or not you will be on the same position in the ladder you care about. If it is about MM games "to scare your opponent" not sure of the value. Them thinking you are "just silver" and you be almost as good sounds more like an advantage than disadvantage. If it is about to be in some "group" (the blues, the silvers, etc.), making the group larger will decrease "the group value" as well.
+0 / -0