Community Forums > General > Suggestions & New Game Support > Plausible Fix for CS Rating

Plausible Fix for CS Rating

 [ Epic_]_shanks


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 25 December 2011
Posts:1358
Posted 9 April 2013 - 9:51 am
awesome idea
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [ Epic_]_shanks


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 25 December 2011
Posts:1358
Edited 9 April 2013 - 9:53 am by [ Epic_]_shanks
i have one doubt .......one of my players are 1616 in cba hero and 2k in cba /////////fi he play cba hero with me ....means game gona unrated .......wht to do then?
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 PrinceAbooAboo


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 6 June 2012
Posts:703
Posted 9 April 2013 - 10:05 am
I don't know, there are players who are really good, they come from GR and create an account on Voobly, they will have to face the lower rated players and then might be accused of smurfing.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [Eot_]Marvel__


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 February 2012
Posts:6237
Edited 9 April 2013 - 10:20 am by [Eot_]Marvel__
i have one doubt .......one of my players are 1616 in cba hero and 2k in cba /////////fi he play cba hero with me ....means game gona unrated .......wht to do then?
All rates would be reset, so you'll be back to 1600 again (your real rate ;lol)
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 Good


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 28 July 2011
Posts:3763
Posted 9 April 2013 - 11:50 am
100% agree with everything that you've said. Really good suggestion - you have my full support.

Also agreed with your comment in regards to DM:
If you were to pursue this change, I'd imagine a ladder reset for CS would be in order for it to be managed effectively. It's worked well for RM, and I think you're decreasing the lifespan of Dm by not enforcing the same changes there. I don't feel CS merits a separate 1v1/TG system for each ladder, but I think the changes I listed above + ladder reset will be a drastically better system of ELO than the current, and allow for newer players to integrate into Voobly easier and in a more friendly manner.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 thunderbird


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 30 November 2009
Posts:686
Posted 9 April 2013 - 12:49 pm
All rates would be reset, so you'll be back to 1600 again (your real rate ;lol)

its kinda hyprocrisy that most people who claim to play unrated games complain the most of about noobs being very over rated.
Ths guy shanks plays regularly with people rated 17++ and above. Its not their fault that every win they get also gets some points.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 Bam


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 31 March 2013
Posts:199
Posted 9 April 2013 - 1:57 pm
Bad idea.

According to your idea this is what would happen:
First: New players or bad rated players are forced to continue playing with noobs, instead of getting better by playing with high rated players.

Second: New players or bad rated players have it much more difficult to get higher rating.

Third: More smurfs will come.

Fourth: No teaching would happen anymore. No good clan would take noobs in anymore and play together with them in teamgames etc.

I find it a very bad idea guys, you should think about the consequences. I don't see ANY advantage in your idea.

Even for 1v1 matches only it would be not good idea. Its perfect how it is... High rated player vs a noob, takes a big risk by loosing many points but only gaining 1 point.

Before you change ANYTHING in the rating system, you have to change this one thing first:
If there is a teamgame and one player dies or drops and his team wins, then he also has to receive points for it ! The way it is at the moment is completely against teamgames. Thats why no teamgame is a real teamgame, no one will ever sacrifice himself for his team, for example.

The problem you are trying to solve is of another nature, therefore has to be solved different.

Better implement a real clan ladder and bring CS gaming to a new level of professionalism.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 RIP_Mackster


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 18 December 2009
Posts:416
Posted 9 April 2013 - 2:40 pm
I disagree totally with the idea for lot reasons.
First, in other world it saids make a discriminate system, where noobs play with noobs and pro play with pro, how the new players will get better level only playing with noobs, because noone pro will play vs a player having the risk of lost, and with the probality of earn nothing...
Why is a sin that a in full game high rates play with low rates?? it is ok for me, if there ar high ranks players is cause they stay lot time in voobly playing to get better each time, now why u wanna benefict more low rates than high rates??
the system should be bair to both kind of players, not get all benefict to low rates, and dropping the high rank players with this discriminate system.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [ViCiouS]TheAussieOne


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 19 September 2010
Posts:5311
Posted 9 April 2013 - 5:07 pm
Bam wrote:
Bad idea.

According to your idea this is what would happen:
First: New players or bad rated players are forced to continue playing with noobs, instead of getting better by playing with high rated players.

Players aren't getting greatly better in this game with the exception of maybe 5-10% of total CSers. It's not a genre like Rm/Dm where you continually learn after each game through trial and error. Experts know the ins and outs of each map they play in CS, noobs aren't taught these for various other reasons.

Voobly has already proven to be non noob-friendly, and with the influx of newbie players that can be gained from HD-Steam, I'd see it to be catastrophic not to find ways to make it friendly for them without forcing them to read pages of articles or watch numerous videos in order to have a chance. People who play casually enjoy learning at their own pace. Those who are more extreme will find sources to help them improve quicker.
Bam wrote:
Second: New players or bad rated players have it much more difficult to get higher rating.

The idea of ELO isn't to be easy to gain points. ELO is intended to be a tool of distinguishing the relative skill between two players. Making it easy to gain points isn't reflective of skill.
Bam wrote:
Third: More smurfs will come.

You had more smurfs on the Zone where it was a non-rated atmosphere. Smurfing is a normal thing with any game. The only realistic way of limiting smurfing is to enforce mandatory paid accounts. Voobly would be unwise to take that stance to limit smurfing for now. I find the smurf argument to be irrelevant.
Bam wrote:
Fourth: No teaching would happen anymore. No good clan would take noobs in anymore and play together with them in teamgames etc.

Teaching isn't dependent on this plan. People will teach others for numerous reasons. I teach people for the love of the game, others to strengthen their clan, to help their peer, to stroke their ego or simply to strengthen the skill pool of players.

Also, I think it would and should have the opposite effect. If I can't get more points because people are too lower rated than me, I'll be forced to teach these guys to improve their rating and you create a cycle of player skill growth. It would be more satisfying to have 1 2.2K account in a ladder than 5 1.9-2k accounts. There's many more who would too.
Bam wrote:
I find it a very bad idea guys, you should think about the consequences. I don't see ANY advantage in your idea.

Even for 1v1 matches only it would be not good idea. Its perfect how it is... High rated player vs a noob, takes a big risk by loosing many points but only gaining 1 point.

There's a relatively low risk when the guy plays a simple map 24/7, exploits the bugs/faults in CS play (like camping, deleting units/buildings, syncing/dropping), examines the player to ensure they aren't likely to beat them, refuses to risk their rating versus a same level player at a similar rating and such.

Also, it's not a dramatic change and the numbers I suggested won't be final.
Bam wrote:
Before you change ANYTHING in the rating system, you have to change this one thing first:
If there is a teamgame and one player dies or drops and his team wins, then he also has to receive points for it ! The way it is at the moment is completely against teamgames. Thats why no teamgame is a real teamgame, no one will ever sacrifice himself for his team, for example.

The problem you are trying to solve is of another nature, therefore has to be solved different.

Better implement a real clan ladder and bring CS gaming to a new level of professionalism.

I'm not really fussed by that issue. I personally like that if a player dies they lose points like you do. It gives you more incentive to try and take a player out in a complete mismatch of a game. If the winning team can't protect their player who dies, why should the entire team be rewarded with points.

There's always been professionalism in CS to some degree. Clan wars were much abundant on Zone (even though we were all immature teenagers who'd dispute a lot and **** talk a lot), Voobly/IGZ continually provide tournaments where the better players perform better.

We had a clan ladder, and it was abused.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [ViCiouS]TheAussieOne


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 19 September 2010
Posts:5311
Posted 9 April 2013 - 5:17 pm
I disagree totally with the idea for lot reasons.
First, in other world it saids make a discriminate system, where noobs play with noobs and pro play with pro, how the new players will get better level only playing with noobs, because noone pro will play vs a player having the risk of lost, and with the probality of earn nothing...
Why is a sin that a in full game high rates play with low rates?? it is ok for me, if there ar high ranks players is cause they stay lot time in voobly playing to get better each time, now why u wanna benefict more low rates than high rates??
the system should be bair to both kind of players, not get all benefict to low rates, and dropping the high rank players with this discriminate system.

The system benefits both types. It's not anyone's right to force players to improve, or force them to play versus experts in order to get a game. There's many people who come to CS just to play some casual games while drinking/smoking, relax from work or what such. Not to be forced into playing against FMT skilled players.

The system benefits and is quite fair to noobs, experts, mediocre players and casual players. If a player wants to improve, they'll beat the competition around them in order to improve and play versus tougher competition. I find most Football competitions to be great examples of this ideology in principle.

At the end of the day, the people will play no matter what kind of ranking system you have. Whether it be non-rated like on Zone/******, a mess-up on GamePark, one CS ladder like IGZ, a multitude of ladders like Voobly or hidden ratings like AOC HD at Steam. Just because a lot of people are comfortable with the current system doesn't mean it's beneficial for the longevity of the game.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 LePoop


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 15 December 2012
Posts:237
Posted 9 April 2013 - 5:33 pm
Nah, it's fine as it is.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [Eot_]Marvel__


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 17 February 2012
Posts:6237
Edited 9 April 2013 - 5:54 pm by [Eot_]Marvel__
This really isn't revolutionary. It's pretty much reset rates and be a little harsher, i personally dont care either way but this will make 0 difference to CS.

Only solution is a non rated CS, which will not happen.
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [_MD_]DaGhostInside


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 20 September 2008
Posts:655
Posted 9 April 2013 - 6:20 pm
Blondie you think too much
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [ViCiouS]TheAussieOne


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 19 September 2010
Posts:5311
Posted 10 April 2013 - 1:52 am
Thinking is believing 8)
लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
 [I3acI]B


Group: Standard Membership
Join Date: 22 August 2011
Posts:3085
Posted 10 April 2013 - 5:01 am
LePoop wrote:
Nah, it's fine as it is.

Who let you back in?


लिंक | उत्तर | उद्धरण
1[2]34
Displaying 16 - 30 out of 59 posts
फोरम कूदो
2 User(s) are reading this topic (in the past 30 minutes)
0 members, 2 guests

Most active threads in past week: