Rank Nerf

[surreal basin]

Does anyone else think that ranks should get a nerf? When I lose a game it drops me down by like 3-10k depending on other ranks and it takes me around 3 games to get back to where I was originally. I think you shouldn’t lose more than 1k and when you win a game you would go up rank depending on the ranks of the other players. For example beginner +50 novice +100
Intermediate + 200 and so on so fourth. I would like to hear anyones opinion on the ranking system.

[dire berry]

Ranking system doesn't work with the rank numbers itself. It works with Skill Points that you get and lose from your games.
https://risk-global-domination.fandom.com/wiki/Ranking_System

[fossil nest]

I agree that the loss penalty is too great. The further up the leaderboard you go, the worse it gets. As a top 100 GM, it often takes me 20-40 games to recover from a single loss. I like your idea of having fixed amounts for wins. I also like the idea of not losing points for losses, given that there is always an element of luck in RISK. This would encourage individuals to play using one account. It reinforces that the way to move up in the rankings is to win – and if you beat higher level players you can move up faster. The current system discourages high ranked individuals from playing – or it motivates them to use alternate accounts. Having high level players use beginner accounts further distorts the ranking system. If you look at the current leaderboard many of the top players have only played a few games all season using their “primary” account. This should not be the goal of a ranking system.

[surreal basin]

Yeah the main ranking system I feel is just complicated. I feel like it would be better to have a set amount of rank for winning a game and losing a game.

[fossil nest]

I’m not a fan of any ranking system that can’t be easily explained or understood. It erodes credibility and fosters distrust.

[surreal basin]

Not sure what you mean in the last part but yeah I agree fully with the first part.

[fossil nest]

When a system is not transparent and easy to understand, people begin to distrust it. As more people distrust a system, its credibility is reduced. This causes frustration, and many will ultimately give up (in this case they will quit playing/watching ads/making in-game purchases).

A good system should be easy to explain and the outcomes should be predictable. You suggest a fixed increase for wins against various rank levels. A system like this is easy to explain and is predictable. For every win against a specific player-level, an individual knows how much his/her rank will increase. If you aspire to a specific rank, you can easily determine how many wins at a specific level are needed.

I would also suggest that the current loss penalty is counterproductive. A novice losing to a grandmaster should not result in a loss of rank. When you have players of similar skill levels, I find that luck often determines the final outcome (e.g. play order, dice rolls, card distribution, one group of players teaming up against another, etc). I don’t believe that a player should be penalized for bad luck. The winner should advance in rank; however, I’d like the to see the loser(s) remain at their current level. This encourages play. It also motivates individuals to seek out games against advanced players, knowing that if they lose their rank won’t be reduced. In contrast, the current system encourages “noob farming” and setting up alternate “smurf” accounts in an effort to minimize rank reduction.

[idle moss]

I think for 1 vs 1 it makes sense to have this elo like chess system. Otherwise when there are more players, it's almost like a team competitive online game. You got more players, so more factors and luck involved. In those other competitive games they use a more fixed system which seems to working for them.

[limber dragon]

I second basically everything JW Heath is saying

[desert thistle]

A ranking system where you cannot lose rank is simply grinding to be at the top of an experience point ladder.

[fossil nest]

1 vs 1 can be more skill based than multiplayer games; however, unlike chess there are still significant luck factors (play order, dice rolls, card distribution, etc). Elo doesn’t account for these items very well. The Elo system is also very opaque in that the ranking points used are not visible to players so you never really know what is going to happen to your rank.

[fossil nest]

I think most would agree that wins (especially against strong players) should drive rankings. I also believe that most don’t like being significantly penalized for bad luck. In my view, any system that encourages strong players to play weaker ones or to use “alternate accounts” is flawed. Both practices are common with the existing system.

[desert thistle]

It is entirely possible to have actual ranking systems for games that have some element of luck, no need to completely remove it by turning it into an experience grind leaderboard.

[fossil nest]

I find that many who oppose a win-based system are individuals that either don’t want to invest the time to play a wide variety of opponents or are seeking shortcuts that benefit a specific gameplay style.

[desert thistle]

The ranking system needs to change, we are in agreement on that. What I want is a ranking that reflects skill, not just amount of time played. A player that wins 90/100 games (assuming all else is equal) should be ranked higher then someone who wins 100/200 games.

[fossil nest]

Agreed. The skill component is easily addressed by making wins against higher level opponents worth more.

[desert thistle]

A 60% win rate will lose to a 50% win rate the plays more games, not what I am looking for in a ranking. Looks like we will disagree on this, just putting it out there that I disagree with a no loss ranking system.

[iron dawn]

Adding to that, the rank system wasn't designed to support 1v1 - so before it became a trending method to rank up, it wasn't an issue (as ffa players would not reach that high a rank)

The rank brackets just support novice-gm range really, excessively above that is "beyond design" scope

[fossil nest]

A very small percentage of the 1-2 million online RISK players are active on Discord or play in tournaments. Building a system optimized for a small subset of users has the potential to alienate the majority. Assigning additional rank points to wins against higher level opponents helps address the skill issue that Scar raises and provides an incentive to play stronger opponents. However, it won’t have much impact unless you eliminate (or at least reduce) the loss penalty. The current system disincentivizes playing stronger opponents as even a loss to a highly skilled player significantly reduces one’s rank. As a result, high ranked individuals play very little (at least on their ranked account) or primarily seek out weaker opponents.

[desert thistle]

In what way does a leaderboard that accurately reflects skill of the players on it alienate the majority of players? What do the majority of players want from a leaderboard?

Also, elimination and reduction of the loss penalties are two completely different ideas imo. Elimination makes the ranking lose almost all meaning, adjusting the amount is perfectly fine.

[plain marten]

I would say many of the players in the tops spots put a lot of time into the game and because of that most are very good and are indeed top players, however there are many good players that don’t care about grinding rank so no it isn’t perfect but it works. Not in the way most would want it to

[iron dawn]

Losing against higher ranked players has very minimal negative impact on lower ranked players, it's just a problem for higher ranked players as they're generally only playing vs lower ranked players

[fossil nest]

There are several ways that a leaderboard can alienate users. For example, a user can become frustrated with a leaderboard if they do not trust or understand it.

Luci seemed to imply that the current leaderboard was designed with FFA tournament players in mind. If this is the case, I would say that this is a fairly small percentage of users.

My guess is that if you polled active players and asked if they had a good understanding of how rank is calculated and if they could accurately project how their rank would be impacted by winning/losing a game, most would say no.

A leaderboard should recognize top players. I think what most players want in a leaderboard is that it provides a fair and understandable way to work their up it without having to rely on gimmicks such as “noob farming” or creating “smurf” accounts.

As for reduction vs. elimination – in a game that includes significant luck components, I’m not sure that a loss penalty serves much purpose other than to discourage play. That said, a reduction in the loss penalty would be an improvement over the status quo.

As a company, I would think that SMG Studio would want as many active players as possible to support ad revenue and premium purchases. As a player, I don’t think many like to see their rank drop significantly because of a loss. Especially when it involves bad luck. By focusing on the positive (wins) players are more likely to continue playing and are less likely to become frustrated.

Luci is correct that the loss penalty becomes more severe as you work your way up the leaderboard. As a beginner a lost might set you back 500 places but can typically be earned back in a few games. As a grandmaster, a loss might set you back 20-40 places; however, a win will typically only increase your rank by 1-2 places (depending on the level). Playing with several players can mitigate this a bit; however, it also increases the chances of bad luck occurring.

[plain marten]

Yea if rank was derived from a different point value than skill points and was accumulated and not lost then it would encourage people in top spots to play.
With that said In that situation I think it should give very low points when winning against players with low skill points and more when against players with high skill points.
Basically it would separate the skill points from rank points.

Skill points would determine class.
And rank points would determine leaderboard position.

Perhaps it could even be a separate leaderboard and we could keep different skill point based ladders

[woven marsh]

I have no clue how to go about it but find a way to associate all those smurf/alt accounts with the top GMs (or other ranks) that play these accounts, and have a leader board or ranks based off of all games played by a individual as opposed to some top players having multiple accounts as GMs or even top 100. Your skill/rank/placement on leader board should be a complete representation of your Risk experience. Again no clue how to go about it but too many alts taking up potential spots for other great players that deserve the recognition of their skill.