Specton
Survivor
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 107
Firstly I want to say that I know that there's another active thread about ranked matchmaking(http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/ranked-survival-games.109443/#post-1288076), but I didn't feel like posting a reply would get the point across, since I'd like to add a lot to the idea of having a ranked matchmaking system. If this offends anyone, I apologise.
How would ranked matches work?
Instead of the idea of having ranked matchmaking based on your ratio, an idea that was posted recently, I think it would be a better idea to base ranked games on a separate rating, or rather, separate stats. Also, I think it would be a good idea to only allow players with a certain amount of experience to play in ranked matches. I'm not sure about the exact values that would be the right balance between knowing nothing about the game and taking too long to get into ranked, but I think having to either have 1000 games played or have 200 wins would be a good point for people to be able to enter ranked.
There can be two ways to implement this:
1. Ranked leaderboards can work the same way as the leaderboards we have now, meaning that the amount of wins result in a higher rank on the matchmaking system. The player with the most ranked wins will also have the highest rank on the ranked leaderboards.
2. Ranked leaderboards could work with a system similar to for example mmr (DotA 2). This would mean that you gain a set amount of points when you win a game, which could possibly be based on the scores of the other people in your game. I would suggest starting at a rating of 1000. This system could work with a formula like this: If you win a game, you gain an amount of points equal to:
The sum of the rating of every player in your game except for you/ your rating.
Example no. 1: When I win a game where every player has a rating of 1000, the amount of points I'd get is:
(1000*23)/1000=23 points
Example no. 2: When I win a game with 22 opponents with ratings of 800 and one opponent with a rating of 3000, the amount of points I'd get is:
(22*800+3000)/1000=20.6 points
On the other hand, the formula for losing a game would be:
(Your rating/(sum of everyone's rating - winner's rating))*amount of points gotten by the winner
Example no. 3: When I lose the game in example no. 1, then I would lose:
(1000/(24*1000-1000))*23=1 points
Example no. 4: When I lose the game in example no. 2 and the person with a rating of 3000 wins I lose:
(1000/(22*800+1000+3000-3000)*20.6=1.10752688172 points
The players with 800 points would lose:
(800/(22*800+1000+3000-3000)*20.6=0.88602150537 points
If you add it all up, 22*0.88602150537+1*1.10752688172=20,6 points, so no points will be lost or gained in the process of playing matches.
If this plan would be implemented, the change in score would take place after the match is finished, much like the way that the stats page on the website only displays games you've played after they are finished.
Personally I lean more towards the second option, since it still makes playing and winning a lot a vital part to having a good score, while also taking win loss ratios into account. Of course, all other stats in ranked, like wins, games played, kills, chests, should still be available.
Competitive versus Casual
There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not MCSG should be taken competitively.
On the one hand, people have constantly been saying that MCSG can potentially become an esport, and that therefore, MCSG should focus on implementing competitive play. Also, there are a lot of people in this community that care about stats (even though some of them don't admit to it), and for those people, this should also be a welcome addition to the MCSG experience.
On the other hand people have been saying that MCSG is not as fun as it used to be, and that people care too much about winning or losing. The addition of a ranked/competitive mode should, even though it seems weird, also make their experience better. People tryharding for a good ratio, fame, a spot on the leaderboards, will most likely move to the ranked section where they will be facing other competitive players. What this means, is that there will be a lot less people tryharding on the regular servers, and more people who are there to have a good time.
The leaderboards issue
Another aspect of Survival Games that has been discussed a lot lately is the leaderboards. Rather, there is discussion about if they should stay or if they should be replaced by new leaderboards for a fresh start. Blamph made a very well-written thread about this which made some very good points. I used that thread as an inspiration for this section. (http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/read-new-leaderboard-system-proposal.107740/)
The ranked system, if implemented, will provide an alternative to the idea in the thread above. The old leaderboards will still exist (so people won't lose their wins, nor their fame), however, those leaderboards will become the leaderboards for the "pub games", i.e. the games on the regular servers. You will still be able to gain wins on these servers and they will be recorded and you will be able to get higher up on these leaderboards. However, they will not be the main leaderboards for the competitive players, as a rating as described above should be able to display much better who the best players are.
So, there will be ranked leaderboards, which will be able to display a player's skill more precisely than the leaderboards we have now, which are based on wins rather than a combination of wins and win/loss ratio. Also, I suggest adding much wanted features to the ranked leaderboards, like weekly and monthly leaderboards, and also the ability to sort by for example kills or chests. These things would only add to the competitive nature of the ranked games, and are things that have been suggested numerous amounts of times over the past year or so.
In short, a new mode will also mean a new leaderboard, which has been a thing people have been bragging for for a long time.
Teaming problems
A problem for this gamemode is teaming. Teams of five will be hard to play against and moreover frustrating and unfair in a competitive environment.
A possible solution (although far from perfect) is the fact that four of the five teammembers will be losing points when playing, making it less likely for teams of five to exist.
Another possible solution is to disguise every player at the start of the game, to confuse random teamers and somewhat confuse teamers with another means of communication apart from the minecraft chat.
The next solution was found by DakoneGaming, who suggested the idea of only having quickjoin, rather than the usual wall with signs, where you can join any server. This will make it a lot less likely for teams to be able to play together in ranked. This would also mean that you can't see what server you are playing in, to make it even less likely for people to be in the same server.
Please tell me what you think!
-Specton
How would ranked matches work?
Instead of the idea of having ranked matchmaking based on your ratio, an idea that was posted recently, I think it would be a better idea to base ranked games on a separate rating, or rather, separate stats. Also, I think it would be a good idea to only allow players with a certain amount of experience to play in ranked matches. I'm not sure about the exact values that would be the right balance between knowing nothing about the game and taking too long to get into ranked, but I think having to either have 1000 games played or have 200 wins would be a good point for people to be able to enter ranked.
There can be two ways to implement this:
1. Ranked leaderboards can work the same way as the leaderboards we have now, meaning that the amount of wins result in a higher rank on the matchmaking system. The player with the most ranked wins will also have the highest rank on the ranked leaderboards.
2. Ranked leaderboards could work with a system similar to for example mmr (DotA 2). This would mean that you gain a set amount of points when you win a game, which could possibly be based on the scores of the other people in your game. I would suggest starting at a rating of 1000. This system could work with a formula like this: If you win a game, you gain an amount of points equal to:
The sum of the rating of every player in your game except for you/ your rating.
Example no. 1: When I win a game where every player has a rating of 1000, the amount of points I'd get is:
(1000*23)/1000=23 points
Example no. 2: When I win a game with 22 opponents with ratings of 800 and one opponent with a rating of 3000, the amount of points I'd get is:
(22*800+3000)/1000=20.6 points
On the other hand, the formula for losing a game would be:
(Your rating/(sum of everyone's rating - winner's rating))*amount of points gotten by the winner
Example no. 3: When I lose the game in example no. 1, then I would lose:
(1000/(24*1000-1000))*23=1 points
Example no. 4: When I lose the game in example no. 2 and the person with a rating of 3000 wins I lose:
(1000/(22*800+1000+3000-3000)*20.6=1.10752688172 points
The players with 800 points would lose:
(800/(22*800+1000+3000-3000)*20.6=0.88602150537 points
If you add it all up, 22*0.88602150537+1*1.10752688172=20,6 points, so no points will be lost or gained in the process of playing matches.
If this plan would be implemented, the change in score would take place after the match is finished, much like the way that the stats page on the website only displays games you've played after they are finished.
Personally I lean more towards the second option, since it still makes playing and winning a lot a vital part to having a good score, while also taking win loss ratios into account. Of course, all other stats in ranked, like wins, games played, kills, chests, should still be available.
Competitive versus Casual
There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not MCSG should be taken competitively.
On the one hand, people have constantly been saying that MCSG can potentially become an esport, and that therefore, MCSG should focus on implementing competitive play. Also, there are a lot of people in this community that care about stats (even though some of them don't admit to it), and for those people, this should also be a welcome addition to the MCSG experience.
On the other hand people have been saying that MCSG is not as fun as it used to be, and that people care too much about winning or losing. The addition of a ranked/competitive mode should, even though it seems weird, also make their experience better. People tryharding for a good ratio, fame, a spot on the leaderboards, will most likely move to the ranked section where they will be facing other competitive players. What this means, is that there will be a lot less people tryharding on the regular servers, and more people who are there to have a good time.
The leaderboards issue
Another aspect of Survival Games that has been discussed a lot lately is the leaderboards. Rather, there is discussion about if they should stay or if they should be replaced by new leaderboards for a fresh start. Blamph made a very well-written thread about this which made some very good points. I used that thread as an inspiration for this section. (http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/read-new-leaderboard-system-proposal.107740/)
The ranked system, if implemented, will provide an alternative to the idea in the thread above. The old leaderboards will still exist (so people won't lose their wins, nor their fame), however, those leaderboards will become the leaderboards for the "pub games", i.e. the games on the regular servers. You will still be able to gain wins on these servers and they will be recorded and you will be able to get higher up on these leaderboards. However, they will not be the main leaderboards for the competitive players, as a rating as described above should be able to display much better who the best players are.
So, there will be ranked leaderboards, which will be able to display a player's skill more precisely than the leaderboards we have now, which are based on wins rather than a combination of wins and win/loss ratio. Also, I suggest adding much wanted features to the ranked leaderboards, like weekly and monthly leaderboards, and also the ability to sort by for example kills or chests. These things would only add to the competitive nature of the ranked games, and are things that have been suggested numerous amounts of times over the past year or so.
In short, a new mode will also mean a new leaderboard, which has been a thing people have been bragging for for a long time.
Teaming problems
A problem for this gamemode is teaming. Teams of five will be hard to play against and moreover frustrating and unfair in a competitive environment.
A possible solution (although far from perfect) is the fact that four of the five teammembers will be losing points when playing, making it less likely for teams of five to exist.
Another possible solution is to disguise every player at the start of the game, to confuse random teamers and somewhat confuse teamers with another means of communication apart from the minecraft chat.
The next solution was found by DakoneGaming, who suggested the idea of only having quickjoin, rather than the usual wall with signs, where you can join any server. This will make it a lot less likely for teams to be able to play together in ranked. This would also mean that you can't see what server you are playing in, to make it even less likely for people to be in the same server.
Please tell me what you think!
-Specton
Last edited:
