Ranked by jack6

[waxen falcon]

Welcome @dusky rain! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion is not shared with SMG.
It is solely for the RISK Community to discuss ideas & provide constructive feedback!

[dusky rain]

Creating class names below Novice or shifting the classifications around a bit would probably be a good idea.

[shell vault]

This is pretty much the opposite of what they were going for and only reinforces the problem they are trying to solve? If there are ranks BELOW where you start, then if you fall below, it is easier to simply start over. As is- I do think the system is woefully inadequate in judging relative skill. Losses are punished devastatingly regardless of resonable issues of pure luck like starting position. Coming in 3rd in a low ranked game is still detrimental when a lot of the time the player in third is the one who finally pushed to break a stalemate. In a high ranked game even fourth can be rewarding when that player is usually the first or second to overreach.

[dusky rain]

I fail to see how the things you mention are relevant for (just) the problem that I described. As explained, the current solution actually hurts low ranked players, but it's only there to make them feel better and prevent making a ton of new accounts. If you don't know you went below the initial level and there is a perceived effort associated with making a new account (the placement period), it seems to me that would prevent the cause that the current approach is trying to solve. Resulting in a solution that is beneficial for new players, by letting them start at a more appropriate level, which also makes it easier to climb while you're improving at the game.

[shell vault]

I mean honestly I don't see a "starting period" without rank solving anything, when people see they've fallen noticeably below "bottom" starting point, they'll make a new account regardless of if not because of the "starting period" of unknown rank.

[dusky rain]

It solves that there is a perceived (immediate) gain from making a new account. The starting point isn't actually relevant in anyway, but that's how a lot of people still perceive it. Thus by changing the perception of a gain and making less clear there is a starting level, you (potentially) directly solve this issue. In a way that's objectively more beneficial to them (and the rest of the leaderboard), compared to the current approach (which is also only there to do something about the perception).

[shell vault]

except it's an obvious and shallow attempt to do so and thus fails?

[dusky rain]

Maybe, I don't think so. Riot does it for their games, probably because it works I guess.

[shell vault]

I could see an argument if it had started that way, but not years into the game?

[jolly forge]

If a player won all 10 placement games, would they get a tempting rank boost worth more than winning 10 normal games?

It would need to be clear that making an alt account and winning placement games, isn’t somehow a fast-track for easier ranking up

[dusky rain]

No, it's only about perception. Getting the preferred solution, without feeling the need to make a new account.

[jolly forge]

Is there any way to disicentivize youtubers and their fans making a lot of alt accounts, for novice-GM runs, or separate accounts for trying different game modes like prog, fixed etc. ?

A lot of people start alt accounts for those reasons too

[dusky rain]

Would be better to discuss in a separate thread I think, since this solution won't contribute to that.

[dusky rain]

It was brought to my attention chess.com also does this (for the first 5 games), fwiw.

[real willow]

@dusky rain I like this idea. Especially with regards to 1v1s but I guess my question is wouldn't this help higher ranked players even more? This has the same effect as starting players at Intermediate currently. So you get the Rank Points for beating an Intermediate with the skill level of a novice.

[dusky rain]

Good question! If you increase the initial point level (and those of existing players with it), that will have no effect on how much points everyone gathers, since all the numbers are purely relative. (You could for example test here #risk_rank message that the absolute numbers don't matter, as long as the differences are the same.) So in that sense there is nothing special about 0, which is why it's common to start at a higher level than 0; so you can go below the initial value without dealing with negative numbers. Hope that answers it, let me know.

[real willow]

Ah ok. That makes sense. You're really just adding more levels below novice. The extra points for everyone are just shifting 0 to the right to make ELO calculations easier. I do think this solves a problem specifically in 1v1s. Winning a 1v1 against a novice gets me 150 points. Winning against a Master gets me 450. I'd much rather play 3 novices than 1 master when realistically I should be getting like 10 points for beating a novice. However, I don't get the point of hiding the initial placement unless you're going to have the ability to start at a different rank point after the placement games. IMO this should be combined with you should have to play 10 "casual" games and based on your results you get an appropriate level of rank points. For example if you go 10/10 you start at Intermediate and if you go 0/10 you start below Novice. Otherwise I still think you are rewarding higher level players for beating a player who has more rank points than they deserve. Right? You still get the points of beating someone with the points of a base novice when they have the skill of a less than novice. Making them get their starting rank outside of ranked play sort of solves that problem (As a side note it would make players take casual more seriously and lead to some actual fun games rather than players quitting as soon as they might not win).