aaaah, ok thanks this makes more sense. It seems to me, we should rather try to do our own system rather than implement an old outdated one. I don't think the difficulty is there anyway. More in the communication between players and the sever
If you really want you could start with only one rating, and as soon as it seems pointful to create a second rating number for another win condition one could still split that.
Yes, I think that's what we might end up doing. Easier to put into place. But I would still like to motivate players to do even map at 4 or 6 players. Those are so fun! See einstein's idea.
Why changed? [selected maps]
- Because that would motivate map creator do make more maps.
- Because it avoid too much repetitiveness for regular players.
- It makes it easier to change the map or the type of game if we see it's needed.
The rating system could encourage more playing. And if tournaments get ranked, it's already a good number of games ...
Yes but I think even big AAA games have troubles finding games for 2vs2, 3vs3 etc.
Before I forget it: It can also happen that somebody who is about to lose quits the match and never continues it. After a while this should be considered as loss...
Yes, we need an "abandon" button as Einstein suggested. And maybe a set time to finish a game? Or maybe we simply don't allow games to be reported? Only like 1 hours for connections problem and the likes?
Age of Mythology used a rating system which also worked for 2vs2, 3vs3 and so forth, this is really not rare. But I don't know how it works...
Most likely either a own rating per "couple" in 2vs2 games or simply a rating per person using the rules proposed by einstein
It may be possible to implement the rating system first and to implement anti-cheat-measures afterwards.
Yes yes yes yes yes!
Team games can be treated as 1 vs 1 player with the values taken as averages.
Yes. If we take 2vs2 and 3vs3 as separate. But I just don't see a way to add all these game to the same ranking and still be relevant. I simply don't think the level of a player in 2vs2 is a good indicator on its level on 1vs1.
Now if we take the 2vs2 games as separate. I'm not sure a direct average is pertinent:
- P1 = 500, P2=1000, P3=1500, P4=2000.
- P1 + P4 vs P2 + P3. Same average number of point. But.
- If P1 + P4 wins. What does this mean? For P4, it shows a good play, because he most certainly carried the game against two relatively good players. For P1, it might no be such a big achievement. Or should we consider the opposite? P1 stood forth against better ranked players whereas P4 simply stood against lower ranked player...
Reasoning is even weirder for the standard deviation. I think the bigger the difference between the two players playing together, the bigger the deviation should be. i.e bigger deviation for P1 & P4 when they win than if P3 & P2 win. You say you know some good rules for that one?
Now average would be much easier to implement. And maybe becomes pertinent after a while? I have trouble making my mind on that.
Maybe we implement what seems best (i.e what you described) and adapt the calculus when we see the need?