Does Rank mean anything?

[SamTheButcher]

Since Rank is back now I was wondering if there is any real information on a Players skill we can get from their Rank?

Such as Damage Ratios. I would think that a Player with positive Damage Ratios would most likely be good at straight up fighting ability and would also more likely be someone that plays a lot of 2 tm games. Or someone that Plays mostly for kills. This Type of Player would most likely be good at 1v1s.

On the other hand a Player may have negative Damage Ratios but still have a high over all Rank because of a high Games Won %. This would maybe be a Player that plays more FFA and often sacrifices kills or units in order to win the game type. They may or may not be as good at straight up fighting as a Player with positive Damage Ratios but they may be better with tactics and strategy in a FFA game. Maybe not as good in 1v1s but good at FFA knowing who, when , where to attack and reading the over all battle grounds and knowing how to position themselves for victory.

Then you have some Players that have a high Rank due to just sheer number of games played. The may have negative Damage Ratios or even a low win % but still have a high Rank from playing so much. With so many games played you would think that it would translate into experience and higher skill level.

What do you think? Is there any useful info that can be gather from a Players Rank and Stats to give an idea of a Players over all skill and or that Players strengths and weaknesses?

Which type of Player fits best as a role Player in big 2tm games? Or 2tm Player in general?

[wwo]

The current rank system is somehow less reliable than the previous one for determining skill. Witness tirri's post in the Metaserver forum.

[par73]

rank means, whatever you want it to mean


the statistics aren't advanced enough to differentiate between ffa and 2team so you get a mesh of stats. you wouldn't be able to use accurate data from this system to determine those roles, really.

[punkUser]

The only thing it really "means" right now is how much you play (i.e. how active you are). People who win more large games will go up quicker than other but everyone will eventually get high rank in the current season if they keep playing. May or may not do something different for season 2. Damage ratios in "stats" are - as always - completely abusable since you get to choose who you play against, can avoid playing tough matchups, don't have to play certain game types, etc. etc. So they "might" mean something, but they might not.

Don't expect anything from a community this size in terms of rank though. There is no way to do anything statistically meaningful regardless of the system with the current player counts and lack of matchmaking. Tournaments are really the only source of interesting stats and even then it's only really team stats that how any value. There's simply not enough players to get anything interesting out of rabble games.

It's just a fun little side thing which is what folks asked for. Have a bit of fun with it or ignore it, no issues either way.

And par, the "statistics" are just aggregates... I can group them based on whatever criteria I want including 2-team vs FFA or whatever. The issue is the game can't display anything other than what is there, so basically you get "total" and (useless) "per game type" stats and that's it. On the web site it could have more filtering options but it's not really that important anyways.

[BIG KROK V8 SS]

most games played = most skill? LOL

[Silent]

Damage and Kill ratio wouldn't be good indicators even if it differentiated between 2t and ffa, as it's more indicative of playstyle. Someone that trades for Thrall mobs will almost always have a worse kill and damage ratio than someone that goes for costly units, even if they win. Also, some maps are worth way more than others since it goes by actual kills/damage, not percents. One good game on Wars of Reckoning will do more for you ratio-wise than 10+ great games on Gimble.

Ranks and stats are just for fun. Tournaments and 1v1s are the best indicator of skill.

[BIG KROK V8 SS]

this new damage calculation sucks. i like the fact that if you get 100 dmg in a game, its 100 dmg inflicted in your stats, as opposed to the ratio before. but really, the old damage was better.

[par73]

And par, the "statistics" are just aggregates... I can group them based on whatever criteria I want including 2-team vs FFA or whatever. The issue is the game can't display anything other than what is there, so basically you get "total" and (useless) "per game type" stats and that's it. On the web site it could have more filtering options but it's not really that important anyways.

That's what I meant. Having the filtering options such as 2-team or FFA for 'stats' would give better answers for "who is better in 2-team scenarios"

without the filters there is plenty of manual work to be done which no one wants to do, thus safe to say the way the statistics work in their current state would not be an accurate way to represent or determine who's better in 2teams and who's better in ffa.

Sam to answer your question, "what info can we get from statistics for which players would work better in 2-team scenarios", it's not really important anyways. the information we get now cannot accurately differentiate between a population as such populations are mixed, unless the 'tournament' function is used in statistics to group films together or someone manually creates a spreadsheet to filter the data. plus it's simply 'not important enough' to add such filtering features to the stats page.

there is a difference between ranked stats which would offer public 2-team stats (any game with 2 teams) played in ranked rooms... while 2-team tournament stats would offer 2team stats from a 'tournament' position based on specific rosters and match ups. I guess it just goes to show we already have filtering and it wouldn't be important enough to add any more ways to filter the data. PunkUser can group the data in anyway he wants, but its not important enough for us to be able to do that or have a walk through page/thread dedicated on how to do that.

[punkUser]

That's what I meant. Having the filtering options such as 2-team or FFA for 'stats' would give better answers for "who is better in 2-team scenarios"

Yeah for the next "season" I'll probably at least group 2-team vs ffa vs 1v1 into separate categories on the web site just to give a bit more insight. There's still not a lot of meaning to be derived from games that cannot be properly randomized (lack of matchmaking), but hey, it's a bit of fun

[Pogue]

most games played = most skill? LOL

Thor can just keep playing games and he'll stay comet forever. Then the people who all wanted ranked will whine about how shitty the system is. BOOHOO!

[par73]

Yeah for the next "season" I'll probably at least group 2-team vs ffa vs 1v1 into separate categories on the web site just to give a bit more insight. There's still not a lot of meaning to be derived from games that cannot be properly randomized (lack of matchmaking), but hey, it's a bit of fun

well games are properly randomized when players are not joining teams. perhaps that could be an implemented feature as well?
or a different type of ranked room all-together?

[punkUser]

You need to be able to control who plays who, not just what teams they are on. If people are allowed to select what games they play in at all there's really no way to eliminate that bias adequately (again with a community this size). Even if we had proper matchmaking there are too few people online at a given time to form a proper matchmaking pool. There's just nothing much you can do without scheduling people to actually show up and play at the same times (i.e. a tournament ).

[switch]

need to create new ranks that supersede sun and comet also rank manipulation is too easy

[par73]

yeah that sounds really fancy but it seems like this would be a whole lot more work than the current ranking system. not to mention the breeding.