Ranking System Needs Changed
Sorry for wall of text but it's complicated proposal. There is TLDR at end. Ranking up to master doesn't need any change. It works fine as is. But once you hit master is where the problem starts. First of all, what does your ranking actually mean? Currently, I would argue that the ranking system doesn't actually rank skill. It is simply a measurement of how active a player is combined with how efficient they are at clearing outposts.
Fortunately, the devs just released the solution to this problem with the sector 2 release. The difficulty rating system. Instead of just determining rank increase by a combination of normal, difficult, brutal and by number of deaths it should be determined by the difficulty rating of an outpost and its average clear time.
The exact numbers are subject to debate but I would recommend something like the following. Take the average clear time and add 1 point for each 3 seconds (20 pts per minute). For each half skull in the difficulty rating add 10 points. This determines the total number of rank points that can be earned by clearing the outpost. This information is displayed in the command center so raiders will be able to make an informed decision. So a 5 skull rating, with an average clear time for 4minutes 21 seconds would be worth 187 points.
Then for each death the raider loses 10 points and for each 3 seconds longer it takes the raider to clear the outpost than average the raider loses 1 point. Using our previous example, if the raider were to die 3 times and take 4 minutes 30 seconds to clear the outpost they would earn 154 points. This can not result in negative points. Abandoning an outpost does not lose points either.
But ultimately, this isn't much different from the old system you say? The most active players still will be at the top. This is the biggest difference. Only the top 5 scores per 24 hours will effect the rank! That changes everything. Now picking the outposts with the highest potential score and performing well will be the key. Raiding huge amounts isn't necessary to be competitive. The top rankings would be an actual reflection on player skill.
What about players that reach master first, wouldn't they have a huge advantage over everyone else in this system? True, that is why I would recommend having a delay period after rank reset before ranking goes live. Something like 30 days to get to master. So that most players who are interested in rank have the same starting line.
That addresses a more fair and accurate ranking system but you also need to address the rewards for ranking. Right now it means next to nothing. What is the point of being rank 1 if no one knows you are rank 1? They should add a menu somewhere in the game for ranking that shows everyone's rank. Or at the very least the top 100 as well as +/- 5 to the player's rank being displayed if they are outside the top 100.
They should also add a player history somewhere in the game. This would display the players current rank, their average rank throughout the seasons, as well as various stats such as attempted raids, successful raids, total deaths, average success rate when raiding, average deaths per raid, how often the player has been killed by various traps/guards, etc. This should also display builder stats as well. How many outposts have been built, how many have reached prestige 10, how many builder kills, average kill per raid across all outposts, how many kills per trap/guard, etc.
TLDR- Raids should be tuned to provide rank points based on difficulty rating and average clear time. Only top 5 raids per 24 hours should be calculated into rank. Add leader board to game.
Comments
-
"But once you hit master is where the problem starts. First of all, what does your ranking actually mean?"
your ranking is a measurement of how efficiently you clear outposts. a deathless brutal comes in at 200 points, a 1 death comes in at 125. if you take 4 minutes to run a deathless but 3 minutes to run a 1 death, after 8 outposts your rank is equal. and the more outposts you do, the more time starts to matter. so the top ranked players are those who clear outposts fast, and the very top are those who clear them fast and regularly don't die.
"I would argue that the ranking system doesn't actually rank skill. It is simply a measurement of how active a player is combined with how efficient they are at clearing outposts."
Efficency is the main statistic. because someone spending even 60 seconds longer per raid means that a 1 hour play session of 4 minute runs will lose out to a 30 minute play session of 3 minute runs even if they are running flawlessly.
activity time becomes less important the faster your runs are.
"The exact numbers are subject to debate but I would recommend something like the following. Take the average clear time and add 1 point for each 3 seconds (20 pts per minute). For each half skull in the difficulty rating add 10 points. This determines the total number of rank points that can be earned by clearing the outpost. This information is displayed in the command center so raiders will be able to make an informed decision. So a 5 skull rating, with an average clear time for 4minutes 21 seconds would be worth 187 points."
this style of outpost would have 2 people run the same outpost and get potentially different points with identical performance is other raids had adjusted average time or kill/death average between the two runs even if no changes have been made to the outpost between those two runs. i don't think that's a healthy place for the game to be. the same outpost should have the same rewards if the performance is comparably identical. (time spent, deaths, traps/guards killed, etc)
"Only the top 5 scores per 24 hours will effect the rank!"
as someone who can clear 5 outposts in under 15 minutes, i'm not a fan of this idea. i don't really fancy hitting my top 5 scores right out the gate and then getting absolutely no reward for any raid for the rest of the day.
with currency capped, limiting rank gain will lead to more stagnation. there needs to be a number that goes up to stimulate the dopamine.
1 -
Okay, I've finished my whole proposal. You should go back and read the rest of it. I'll address the comments you've made though. Having a limited number of raids apply to your ranking per day is completely essential. This changes the mind set of the ranked raider. You aren't looking to blow through raids as quickly as possible anymore. In fact, that isn't the optimal way to rank up at all.
Instead the ranker will need to focus on finding the raids that are actually the most difficult and time consuming. That is a real test of skill. This will also promote builders to build menacing outposts more. Currently, it is really frustrating as a builder to build a proper outpost designed to grind up raiders since typically they will just abandon the outpost after a short period. Since you only get like 3 raids per brutal outpost per outpost rank, it is particularly punishing for builders. This will give those builders a target audience.
Having a limit also doesn't mean that the grinders don't have anything to grind. The top rankers are still going to be the people that keep going back trying to more difficult outposts worth more points and increasing their score. You aren't going to get the highest possible score per day in 15 minutes.
Having a limit also promotes a healthier play/life balance and is more inclusive to a wider group of players. It also keeps it more competitive throughout the season. If it turns out that 5 per day is too little and the playerbase wants it increased then they can always increase it to 7 or 10.
0 -
"You aren't going to get the highest possible score per day in 15 minutes."
You may not. but you can't say i won't.
I promote to master in 7 hours after reset.
4250 for silver 4 -> gold 1
5k gold 1 ->2
6k gold 2->3
7k gold 3->4
9k gold 4-> master
4,464 rank per hour or 22 raids per hour on brutal at flawless. giving us an average of under 3 minutes per run.
now, lets talk about your limiting factor.
as i said i was off for several days due to illness. in your proposed system, because i was sick , i can't rank for those days because i didn't play, and there is no way to recover that deficit. starting later, getting into master a day after someone else puts you at a disadvantage that can't be overcome unless they take a break. if they got there before you, they're probably better than you
only your top 5 scores PER DAY are counted. which means it's related to the RNG of what map you find. so unless you find the same maps (which could be on overdrive and fall inactive due to sucessful raids) you can't make the same number of points because it's not a standardized system.
"Since you only get like 3 raids per brutal outpost per outpost rank, it is particularly punishing for builders. This will give those builders a target audience."
this is a result of the fact there is no penalty for leaving. there is no negative stimuli to quitting hard outposts.
"Having a limit also promotes a healthier play/life balance and is more inclusive to a wider group of players."
Why do you think that the top ranking in the game is meant to be inclusive to a wide group of players?
Manga Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude. the top of the top. it's not meant to include everyone. or even the majority.
"What about players that reach master first, wouldn't they have a huge advantage over everyone else in this system? True, that is why I would recommend having a delay period after rank reset before ranking goes live. Something like 30 days to get to master. So that most players who are interested in rank have the same starting line."
so you have to shut off rank, to make rank work? i get master in 7 hours, why should i be stopped? you seem to want to punish the people who are ahead, to make people who aren't keeping up feel good.
Why don't we just hand out participation medals?
why is it a hard conecpt to understand that rank is a competative feature and if you aren't willing to compete you don't deserve the rank?
1 -
a healthier way to guage skill is to punish the unskilled who quit raids.
a skilled raider won't quit, they'll push through their challenge and win, even if they die.
an unskilled player will quit and find another outpost.
quitting will never be a sign of skill and should negatively affect climbing the master ladder.
make it so quitting has no effect on bronze silver and gold, but that it punishes master ranks.
1 -
I agree with Moe. Rank may not pertain to me as a slow runner and I die a lot but it's at an even balance now. Leave it alone.. Also, if you shut down a part of the game for x anount of days, you lose players.... Who's gunna raid when their rank is at stake and can't get any rank points because it's frozen.... Tbh, didn't read the post in full, but I get the point, and don't agree with the OP. Rank in any game is fought for. Not just freely given. You compete or sit back and watch the fun.
0 -
"
"They should add a menu somewhere in the game for ranking that shows everyone's rank. Or at the very least the top 100 as well as +/- 5 to the player's rank being displayed if they are outside the top 100.
They should also add a player history somewhere in the game. This would display the players current rank, their average rank throughout the seasons, as well as various stats such as attempted raids, successful raids, total deaths, average success rate when raiding, average deaths per raid, how often the player has been killed by various traps/guards, etc. This should also display builder stats as well. How many outposts have been built, how many have reached prestige 10, how many builder kills, average kill per raid across all outposts, how many kills per trap/guard, etc."
This was the only thing you said that actually made any sense in all of your posts.
"Master rank" is named that because you have to work for it. If anything there should be more given to players who successfully run multiple flawless outposts in a certain amount of time to incentivise players to keep raiding and spend more time playing and getting better at the game, of course you have to consider skill and time spent to a point, but you can't push out an entire category of players just because you don't like the play style.
Behavior would be smart to consider giving bonuses to players with higher skill and quicker run times. As well as a smaller bonus for hours played and outposts raided. I don't have an exact number to put on it but you get the point.
The whole idea of player retention is encouraging people to become better at your game and be more competitive with the community.
2 -
Also before I get attacked, I have personally seen MadMoe and a few other great raiders get masters pretty quickly and continue to do so. I don't think penalizing people for hitting masters is the way to go... And that is exactly what the post is suggesting. I won't ever see mr1 but idc. I am just happy to at least hit masters at all. I'm not that great of a raider. I am one of the slower raiders. As for the people I've watched smash bases in mear mins deserve to be where they are and deserve to compete at their pace for mr1... If they get bumped down it's only because they were off and didn't continue raiding through out the night. You may say "that's why they should be limited to x amount of raids to count for rank" but again that's punishing them for doing well imo. Yes I read the OP also all of the comments and still siding with Moe, to leave it the way it is.
0
