--- VOTE to change RANKING system ---


#1

I do not understand the current system that is adopted for the ranking. I do not understand why losing a game also loses 1000 to 2000 positions in the standings, as I do not understand why a player who plays only 10 games in a week can be better than one who plays 600 (500 wins). A ranking based on the position of the previous week, based on the consecutive number of wins, based on the Opponent you won or defeated, based on number of defeats in replay (or in the last 30 games).
Why do something so complicated and unjust?

My idea is very simple:
When you win + 1 point
When you lose -1 point
( 2v2 +/- 2) (3v3 +/- 3)

Very simple, with this system who plays more, and wins more, has more points, and a better ranking. Already a ranking based on the ratio would be more right than the current one.

In any case leave your vote:

  • Yes . Need to Change this Ranking System!
  • No . It’s Perfect!
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


We compare a supermechs player to a team that must win the championship, which in our case is every week.

  1. Ranking based on the position of the previous week.
    When a new championship begins, it is not that they take the old result to give a different initial starting value. No.
    Every new league is a championship in itself.

  2. Ranking based on consecutive victories.
    Another demonstration that the system is wrong. Always using our example:
    A championship is not won by the team that makes more consecutive victories but by the most winning team. As is it right!

  3. Different conquest or loss of position based on the opponent.
    Even this is something that makes no sense.
    For example, if the top ranked team loses with the last team in the standings, it is no longer losing more than losing with the second ranked. It’s the same. So winning a match with the first of the championship or the last, does not change anything. It’s always and only a game won or a game lost.

  4. Players with few games with a very high ranking
    As in our example, a championship is judged on the same number of matches. It’s not that a team that plays 2 games and wins, wins the league that others have played with 50 games, for example.
    This is something that does not exist, it makes no sense, and it is unfair.
    There must be a proportion between played games and ranking.

etc. etc. etc.

The idea of points is a very simple idea, of course it should be structured. But already so, Would be much better than current.
Structuring the idea and finding the final formula, I do not think it’s a problem. The important thing is to change this system.

Challenges can then be basically based on levels of the player and then on points/ ranking. Like in the current system. So speaking about matches, it would not change anything. It would only earn a better ranking.


#2

The ranking is weird. Say you have one player with 330 wins and 0 losses and Exp bar at 2,453,344, and player with 500 wins zero losses and Exp Bar at 956,454. The one in 1st plac will be the player with 330 wins. That is just dumb. If the experience bar is part of the ranking system then they should only have players battle it out also based on experience.


#3

I totally agree … I also think this system is too unfair and stupid … also does not show that you need to up a position or down a position.


#4

A Example Here…


#5


#6

It’s currently an exaggerated elo system. The elo system is fine, it’s one of the best ranking systems in the world as far as I know. The only problem with it in this game is that this game is not entirely down to skill - if your builds counter someone else’s then you’re very likely to win, and so in this case the elo system is not necessarily representative of who is the ‘best’ player during that week.

However, a system that incorporates just points doesn’t work as well as you’d think either. People can avoid skilled players to avoid getting losses, and some people will get more unskilled players to play against just by luck.

Basically, there are problems with any kind of ranking system you use. Because this game is not entirely skill based, there will always be luck involved in the rankings somehow.


#7

That is known … but this is the system with more problems and without sense that I have seen.


#8

Well I start from here …
If changing does not change anything, then change. What’s to lose?

We compare a supermechs player to a team that must win the championship, which in our case is every week.

  1. Ranking based on the position of the previous week.
    When a new championship begins, it is not that they take the old result to give a different initial starting value. No.
    Every new league is a championship in itself.

  2. Ranking based on consecutive victories.
    Another demonstration that the system is wrong. Always using our example:
    A championship is not won by the team that makes more consecutive victories but by the most winning team. As is it right!

  3. Different conquest or loss of position based on the opponent.
    Even this is something that makes no sense.
    For example, if the top ranked team loses with the last team in the standings, it is no longer losing more than losing with the second ranked. It’s the same. So winning a match with the first of the championship or the last, does not change anything. It’s always and only a game won or a game lost.

  4. Players with few games with a very high ranking
    As in our example, a championship is judged on the same number of matches. It’s not that a team that plays 2 games and wins, wins the league that others have played with 50 games, for example.
    This is something that does not exist, it makes no sense, and it is unfair.
    There must be a proportion between played games and ranking.

etc. etc. etc.

The idea of points is a very simple idea, of course it should be structured. But already so, Would be much better than current.
Structuring the idea and finding the final formula, I do not think it’s a problem. The important thing is to change this system.

Challenges can then be basically based on levels of the player and then on points/ ranking. Like in the current system. So speaking about matches, it would not change anything. It would only earn a better ranking.


#11

What is this? “Supermechs has hit a new low” is it?


#12

I knew that the past system was eliminated because of a certain player who i will dont say who it is, and that was eliminated because the claim the same as you say about the co-pilots … And I think this would not be an equal system, since it would be good … for example winning 3 points in 3v3 starting a tournament and then you lose in 3v3 you would have 0 points … you understand? My English is not very good and other times I do not explain myself well.


#13

could you please make a poll? this would help everyone see how the majority of the community feel about this idea.


#14

Of course, do you can do that? I can not do it. It would be something if the players put LIKE in the post.


#15

YES, what’s the problem? And if you lose 2 games are - 6 points.
what’s the problem?
Now, you do not earn anything if you win or lose, points only serve to make the rankings. And the first ranked will eventually be who will have played the most and with the best ratio. Simple and right!

In your opinion is it right that a player who plays 10 games with a worse ratio has a better ranking than one who plays 500 and with a better ratio? As is happening with this system !

Another idea might be to multiply the ratio for the number of matches.
Example

  1. player plays 10 matches: 8 wins and 2 defeats = 80% ratio
    Then 80 x 10 = 800 points
  2. player plays 500 games: 300 wins and 200 defeats = 60% ratio
    Then 60 x 500 = 30,000 points

Among other things, I think, the same creators of the game are more interested to encourage them to play more than less.


#16

added a poll for you and you can create a poll next time by clicking on the cog in edit (or when creaing post) and clicking on the “build poll” option.


#17

thank you so much @Malicewolf


#18


Guys, seriously, do you really think it’s an right and fair evaluation system?


#19


#20

Rank based on points… mmm i only have one question:

all we know how the 3 top clans works, mean co-pilots 24hrs or any other ways; so if you give points per win and take out per lose, win 3500 times per week or more, 10500 points for each clan… and take out less than 1000 points by lost matches.

How a newbie clan or player will win vs that numbers?
Once you get rank 1, you must fight vs those guys, like or not your ratio will fall to 10% if you are good enough and they miss a move… if not will be 0%.

buuuuuut, every thing has a but always :open_mouth:
if this point system put you to fight vs players with close points to you, will be fair:
example

you has 300 points, and want do 1v1, the system put you to fight vs people with 300(+/-100) or the closer opponent looking 1v1 too, same power same point skills and a fair rank by power mech.

yeah that put your Godmode rank 20 with swarm fight vs another Godmode-swarm of any rank, making it fun, fair and so hard to get real archivements; you will fight vs players with skills like yours and you will enjoy more the game.

thats why i voted yes… of curse if the point system works like i think… :smiling_imp:


#21

I have not seen many co-pilot in the top 3 clans for some time … only 2-3 accounts that use co-pilot but not very often, I do not think it is a problem.


#22

It will become a problem once the system is changed. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again. The reason they moved away from it is because it was not a good ranking system.