GG Rank System

[ZERO]

So now I have compleate control over the stats for gungame! I am working on the programing to make it so I can do point skill based controll via bonus events like how I track xp in wcs for use as rank.

Here is a list of commands I can track and who can get points for them:
gg_win = winner (can track who they won from)
gg_levelup = player who leveled up
gg_team_lose = player on losing team
gg_team_win = player on wining team
gg_leveldown = player leveled down
gg_knife_steal = player stole a level from another player (can track who lost a level from this)
gg_last_level = player is on last level
gg_leader = current leader
gg_knife_level = player is on knife level

What I suggest for the new system is that players start with a base skill of zero and just get points for particular actions with the following formula:

gg_levelup +5
gg_leveldown -5
gg_leader +1
gg_last_level +1
gg_knife_steal +10
gg_team_win +2
gg_team_lose -2
gg_win = 5000

This implies the following difficulty logic winning once is 1000 times as hard as leveling up. Winning is 500 times harder than stealing a level. Winning is 2500 times harder than being on the wining team. Winning is 5000 times harder than being the game leader. Winning is 5000 times harder than getting to the last level. The parts in () may not be possible but regardless I think this will create a system where players with more wins are ranked high and then players with similar numbers of wins or the same number of win are ranked over each other based on the other data.

What do you all think?

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

To show also that using the stats like that is easy to verify:


Levels Gained:
45,975


Levels Given:
32,199


Levels Stolen:
2,224


Levels Lost:
683


Wins:
83






(83*5000)= 415000
(5*45,975)= 229875
(10*2,224)= 22240
(-5*683)= -3415
=663,700 score

Note this does not include the points from being a leader or on last level or winning/losing team.

---------- Post added at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------

Please post opinions on this ranking system. I will be making it so you can track these values on a per client basis as well.

[XX0wnsXY]

I like the breakdown of stats. Very indepth and fun! I don't know about the math or if that is a good or bad thing..but from what I can see..it will seperate people on a different level who may have the same amount of wins. So if you and I had the same amount of wins, but I had less levels lost etc..I would be above you...correct?

the only thing I will say is..do you have to factor in "being on the winning/losing team?" I think everything else applies, however GG is not at all a team game and sometimes that is how it goes. If you're on a losing team, you could very well be on that same losing team for the whole map and that would really be unfair if the teams are stacked in a way to tilt it that much.

[ZERO]

Now I would like to offer some additional options but they will only take effect for stats after I make the programing adjustments please let me know what you all think. (I have verified these are possible)


Trigger a "gg_leveldown" for each level a player loses (currently it just does 1 regardless of the amount taken)
Trigger a gg_lose for the player that caused the game to be lost (-2500 when triggered)

So what do you all think about adding these to make the future stats more complete?

---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------

With above I would recommend this formula:
gg_levelup +5
gg_leveldown -5
gg_leader +1
gg_last_level +1
gg_knife_steal +10
gg_win = 5000
gg_lose = -2500

[ZERO]

I will now be updating the gg logging so that it will count mutiple leveldown events correctly.

Also it will start tracking the gg_loser all stats after today will have this data. Over the next few months it should balance out from the previous 6 of not having them.

[ZERO]

New rank recordings are now in effect.

[ZERO]

You can see example stats here: http://www.ibisgaming.com/gg_stats/

This is just a fee hours worth of data. I am still building the actual parts that let you see wins ect so keep your pants on.

Please note you can see the current win system in work. Notice how the 2 best pacers have the same numbers of wins and then are mostly separated by the gglevel up events.

Now currently we can not count for gg_lose events. However losses starting today will count. So for example if we pretend that this is rank data from today twurk would be in second place which makes more sense as the current data shows that that is where he would belong if we are trying to clearly evaluate the player skill.

[ZERO]

Lets compare how the ranks will differ from those before today and after today: (this does not take into account the higher number of level down events also we do not independently track leader or last level data but you are awarded for it in both of these models)


----------------BEFORE JULY 1st---------------------
Formula: WINS(5000) - Losses(0) + Levelup(5) - Leveldown(5) + knivesteal(10) + leader + lastlevel

twurk = 1st
twurk=42032skill
twurk=8(5000) - 1(0(not counted)) + 345(5) - 34(5) +43(10)= 40000+1725-170+430=41985 [42032-41985=47 times user triggered gg_leader or gg_last_level]

Mutnaggewinu =2nd = 41976skill

----------------AFTER JULY 1st---------------------
Formula: WINS(5000) - Losses(2500) + Levelup(5) - Leveldown(5) + knivesteal(10) + leader + lastlevel

Mutnaggewinu =1st = 41976skill (currently he has no losses so skill does not change)

twurk = 2nd
twurk=39532skill
twurk=8(5000)- 1(2500) + 345(5) - 34(5) +43(10)= 40000-2500+1725-170+430=39485 [39532-39485=47 times user triggered gg_leader or gg_last_level]

So as you see from the data I believe these values to be quite logical. It is based mostly off win# but from there is able to then separate out players that have close to the same number of wins and define who is better.


Please post comments about how you all feel about this ranking.

[Carmichal]

IDK if it is too late for this, but can you please change GG_lose to maybe -500; also GG_win to +1000. IMO it seems a bit much to get +5000 for a win, and a loss is -2500 when the rest of the ways to gain points are so far from that.

IMO. There should be no GG_loss. I can see a lot of regulars, who may not be the best getting frustrated trying to dig out of that hole since you need to kill 500 people to just get rid of that. 5000 thousand point for a win in over kill! Yes you should get a hefty reward for winning, but 5000? I can see many more people get frustrated. I can see people leaving, and that is not good for the server.

If I had my way all the time you would only get 500 points for a gg win, and no points lost for having been naded.

[ZERO]

In the previous stats you got 1 to <1point per kill and 500 points for winning and -500 for losing. You also lost points for level down and got no points for being a leader or having the last level.

Previous rank was determined basically only by wins. This rank is also intended to be win base but also account for who is better for players with close to the same stats.

Here is the rank shown again and then the explanation:
WINS(5000) - Losses(2500) + Levelup(5) - Leveldown(5) + knivesteal(10) + leader + lastlevel

Winning a gungame is 1000 times harder than leveling up and 100 times harder than stealing a level. IT is also 5000 times harder than being the leader or on the lastlevel.

Being the person killed at the end of the gungame is 500 times harder than losing a level.

Stealing a level is twice as hard as leveling up (you also get the level up so when you steal your effectively getting +15)

A better player would logically be one that has more wins relative to losses. Has more levelups than leveldowns has more steals than another player, is more often the gg leader and is on the last level more often.

The current formula makes it so that two players with the same wins makes it so if one has 1 more win give they effectively have .5 as many.

Who is better a player with 500 wins and 20 wins given or a player with 495 wins and 10 wins given to other players. Oh wait these are the same... the amount of losses you need to go down is more than you think. A player with 505 wins for example would need 30 losses to be ranked the same!

Lets take a look at how this formula effects the rank of the past stats:

(remember old stats would drop the skill points if it got too big)
Here is the top 3 winners from 2007 to 2011 and their rank followed by what their rank would be now:
Xerenix | ibis.a RANK175 1,148wins 121losses
Nissan GT-R R35 <ibis.a> PEW™ Rank5808 1,041wins 123losses
Fluffy Frufflebottoms RANK8 809wins 32losses

It is clear given the massive difference in wins that these players should be in 1st 2nd and 3rd. However how does our new rank better deal with people that are close together on wins who deserves the higher rank? Lets take a look:



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill


RellikDloc ™♠
756
54
155,884
5,991
4394465


Penis シ
744
194
123,239
4,787
3827260


yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
3634005





So as you see even with a lot of losses it takes a huge amount before you start dropping below someone else. The amount of levelup events builds up over time as well thus giving the rank of a player that plays a lot a slight buff over someone who just started. This makes ranks stick more which is also logical in a ranking system.

But we can compare more from old data. Here we see how the number of losses still does not cover the difference that simply having many gglevel up events does:



Bink of the North Village

533
53
39,109
770
2724195



کHÅקY V1яU5 ibis.a
512
272
232,259
10,751
2987540


Envy | Ibis.a
501
166
86,933
3,785
2505740





In that example HÅקY V1яU5 ibis.a still had a higher rank than Bink of the North Village despite having less wins. In this case blink would need to keep playing longer in order to close the gap. So we see here that there is already a system that takes into account how much a player is actually playing and rewards them. However we do not want that reward to be too great. Now that score may be a lot closer if we also accounted for the other parts of the model like steals last level and leader but that data does not exist for these players.

So do we still think that the difference between wins and levels is too much? Or is it not enough now? Do we see how taking points for causing someone else to win effects the rank but now critically?

Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

Here is another example:



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill


Rated EC-10
462
274
269,387
8,524
2929315


[???.?]<?????¡??>
456
88
39,995
837
2255790


Vagina ツ
455
162
144,434
6,950
2557420


lietuvis
450
71
30,066
556
2220050



In this case we once again see how having a lot of levels can equate to gg wins on their own over time. Even though ?? has more wins to losses Vagina has way more level gains and thus enough to still be ranked above.

Lets see for some people that have the same gg wins and if the data is looking logical:



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill


Maladjusted

278
119
138,864
7,358
1750030


Kr@zy Simon

278
75
45,018
1,652
1419330


Toffee
277
63
59,300
2,254
1512730



Tyrael
277
73
71,268
1,639
1550645




Now we see again that longer time player comes out ahead even when the gg losses are stacked against them. Maladjusted clearly the worst player out of this group but still has a higher rank right now. This will change though in a few more weeks as the other 3 are gaining wins and other stats at a faster rate.

From what I can see this system allows ranks of long time players to be protected but not at the cost of preventing new players from moving up in the ranks at a reasonable pace. Can we get any comments or suggestions as to other ideas.

If someone else has a more fair way of dealing with the ranks and can show the math I would be happy to use it. :wtg:

[brett friggin favre]

here's my concern: should it be based on "difficulty" or on probability? especially for giving up the gg win, saying it's 500 times harder than losing a level...well look at it probability-wise. let's say it takes 15 rounds and there are 20 players. the average number of deaths would be 15, multiplied by 20 players = 300. that means that about 1 in 300 deaths gives up a gg win. similarly the average number of kills should be 15, again 1 in 300 kills grants a gg win. but the other question is whether or not we should punish the one who gives up the win so severely. probability dictates that you stand (on average) a 1 in 19 chance when the server is full of giving up that win. the fewer deaths you have, the lower your chances, and vice versa. but since it's just a matter of probability, should it really cost 500 kills if you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

another point i hinted at in there is that the good players will get their wins, indeed, but they will also have excellent k/d ratios. so should being the lucky one to get a win be so much more advantageous? to where it's worth 1000 kills? ALSO if some people, say, fluffy, penis, mut, and myself, all get on at the same time...everyone else in the server will suffer rank-wise, because they can't get that win worth 1000 kills, and those of the top players in there (competing for high ranks) would also suffer as we stand much less chance of getting a win as compared to when it's just one of us and a bunch of scrubs. it is my personal belief that the rank system shouldnt be so dependent on how many hours you've put into the server. it should prioritize these three things (after a certain point with wins): win%, kdr, knife kills. to me, those things are the truer display of skill than putting in 900 hours and winning the probability game. after all, the determining factor in this rank is called "skill" and not "determination". i think we need to think in terms of what gets you wins, not just that you have wins. kdr and win% will get you wins, so being the base of what makes you a successful player, it should be the base of the stat system imo.

[ZERO]

The issue is that the only time death is counted against you is when you actually lose levels or lose the game.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Also I was using those numbers to demenstrate the value of one thing over the other. You notice that in the stats that the best players have much less gg_lose events for the number of wins. In the existing stat system I have aldrady shown in mutiple examples above that the new strucutre allows for those with less wins to have a better score than someone with more by that plaer having more level up events.

I would like to see someone actually do the math and see if they can come up with something better. You can see the example data mutiple times in the previous posts.

[ZERO]

Lets Compare some various systems in these we will ignore stats from stealing levels, leader and last level b/c I do not have real world data for those on these ranks.

This is data built from 4 YEARS worth of gg stats. These are real numbers from actual players over that time. Lets see how my system ranks them and how other ideas rank them. Then let us decide which of these methods is the best way to rank players. These ranks come in 3 groups.

Top 5 level rank
Top 100 level and close rank
Low level rank

So here is some variants:

--------------------------------ZERO Ranking-----------------------------



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill
RANK
online time


RellikDloc ™♠
756
54
155,884
5,991
4394465
1
523:01:32


Penis シ
744
194
123,239
4,787
3827260
2
768:24:52


yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
3634005
3
476:20:22












Maladjusted
278
119
138,864
7,358
1750030
4
587:32:53


Kr@zy Simon
278
75
45,018
1,652
1419330
7
269:46:44


Toffee
277
63
59,300
2,254
1512730
6
277:05:53


Tyrael
277
73
71,268
1,639
1550645
5
259:53:38












ying
17
11
51,828
2,180
305740
8
97:17:13


Killer
17
9
4,814
271
85215
9
33:26:10


kamizzza
17
2
913
11
84510
10
9:31:33


traiblazer
17
48
12,097
379
23590
11
142:07:20




-------------------------------------END ZERO RANK-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------1000ggwin -500gg loss------------------------------------



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill
RANK
online time


RellikDloc ™♠
756
54
155,884
5,991
1478465
1
523:01:32


Penis シ
744
194
123,239
4,787
1239260
2
768:24:52


yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
944005
3
476:20:22












Maladjusted
278
119
138,864
7,358
876030
4
587:32:53


Kr@zy Simon
278
75
45,018
1,652
457330
7
269:46:44


Toffee
277
63
59,300
2,254
530730
6
277:05:53


Tyrael
277
73
71,268
1,639
588645
5
259:53:38












ying
17
11
51,828
2,180
259740
8
97:17:13


Killer
17
9
4,814
271
35215
9
33:26:10


kamizzza
17
2
913
11
20510
11
9:31:33


traiblazer
17
48
12,097
379
51590
10
142:07:20




This method produces the exact same results however we see that the difference in skill between Maladjusted and yed has greatly reduced. With this method lets say all else equal Maladjusted can get the same score as yed if he just had 67 more wins. So do you think below is a good result?



yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
944005
SECOND
476:20:22


Maladjusted
346
119
138,864
7,358
944030
FIRST
587:32:53




I just do not see how Maladjusted should have a higher rank than yed sure he has played 100 more hours but he still have hundreds of less actual wins and more actual losses. The point of gg is to win is it not? This is why I reject the idea of setting the difference between wins and level gains so low. Also please remember that level steals have a 10x multiplier and if that was in here it would be even messier for yed.

-------------------------------------END 1000ggwin -500gg loss------------------------------------

-------------------------------------ZERO with no losses-------------------------------------------



wins
losses
L+
L-
skill
RANK
online time


RellikDloc ™♠
756
54
155,884
5,991
1505465
1
523:01:32


Penis シ
744
194
123,239
4,787
1336260
2
768:24:52


yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
990505
3
476:20:22












Maladjusted
278
119
138,864
7,358
935530
4
587:32:53


Kr@zy Simon
278
75
45,018
1,652
494830
7
269:46:44


Toffee
277
63
59,300
2,254
562230
6
277:05:53


Tyrael
277
73
71,268
1,639
625145
5
259:53:38












ying
17
11
51,828
2,180
265240
8
97:17:13


Killer
17
9
4,814
271
39715
10
33:26:10


kamizzza
17
2
913
11
21510
11
9:31:33


traiblazer
17
48
12,097
379
75590
9
142:07:20




With adding a few wins to Maladjusted



yed
719
93
55,603
1,302
990505
2
476:20:22


Maladjusted
346
119
138,864
7,358
1003530
1
587:32:53





Here we have created a real clusterfuck. Basically wins have no real value. This may be surprising b/c what we did was remove the cost of losing which one would think would increase the value of wins. Instead it has a reverse effect.

The reason for this is simple as stated earlier in the thread stats should be based off probability and that is correct. Good stats should take into account the chance of a bad player winning vs a good player wining. yed here managed to get hundreds more wins in 100 less hours than Maladjusted however is ranked lower. It is clear from the stats that most of Maladjusted wins are likely him getting lucky and having played a lot relative to yed that is. This is clear in both the time played and the wins he has gotten. Random chance says the players have == likely hood of winning and losing when these players are on the last level. However we reward winning 2x as much as losing. There is yes a higher chance of losing b/c you can lose on any level. However the data shows that most players with decent wins have more wins that losses. This we would expect. Just as we do not want to count only level up counting only wins and not losses makes it virtually impossible for new players to ever rank up. There needs to be balance, balance that a reletive scale by subtracting some points for losses takes care of. As you see in the original model there is no such problem.

Therefore any method that does not include subtracting losses can not be accepted. ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT LOSSES PRIOR TO JULY 1ST CAN NOT AND THUS WILL NOT BE COUNTED SO ALL PLAYERS PRIOR TO THAT DATE BASICALLY GET A TEMP BUFF THIS SHOULD GO AWAY OVER TIME THOUGH SO NO WORRIES LONG TERM.

-------------------------------------ZERO with no losses-------------------------------------------

So here I have shown mine and 2 popular other ideas and explained and showed with real rank data why my method retains more logical results. If someone can show my model creating illogical results or another model wich creates better results I want to see it.

[XX0wnsXY]

Like I said previously, I don't mind anything but the losing team aspect, which seems to have been removed anyway.

[ZERO]

Yes I agree that the team based stuff was a bad idea lol.

Also are you guys liking the info you can find on the stats pages now? I am not done yet but I am trying to focus on providing more gg related data for things like maps and on the main pages ect than kills ect so we can see the stuff that matters.

[Carmichal]

I'm a bit confused, are the psycho stats new, and what I see are stats from today? Because I'm not on there, been playing a lot today.

[ZERO]

No those are only 6 hours of stats from January 1st which I am using so I can program the web pages to show the stats data. Which I have finished now.

[Carmichal]

Oh well derp! TY.

[StarsMine]

What about weighting the ranks in some form? It would allow the good players to climb the ranks faster.
I mean killing the rank 1 guy is worth more points then killing a rank 400 person. While death from a rank 600 person would hurt your rank more then death from the number 1 guy. Or something similar

Also what about your skill going down slowly when you dont play. So we dont have someone like I like turtles holding the number 1 spot for a year when he only touched the server once.

[ZERO]

A player that has not played in 14 days will be removed from the ranks but their stats will not be deleted. :wtg:

Works exactly like pub, wcs and zm do now.

Also the only way to account for score it to use the inputs already listed.

[StarsMine]

Really? I know ?hack? had some form of rank weighting. I would have to ask Speaker of the dead for what exactly he used.
Its a great way of keeping the stats fairer, as the group of people who play at 3AM are not necessarly as good as the group of people who regularly play at 7pm. Also would prevent the top 10 coming in at the same time and make points during that time period mean a different skill level then points made when you hope in a game and no one in the top 100 are playing.

[ZERO]

The thing that always had and should matter most for gg is the number of wins. This stat is based mainly on that but gives long time plaers a bit of stick to their stats to account for their play time.

New players that are good will get a lot of wins and climb the ranks. :wtg:

[brett friggin favre]

About the players disappearing from the ranks after 14 days...I like the idea but it does make it more difficult to do my hacker snooping, finding alternate accounts and stuff. Any way to make them just drop to the bottom of the list or something? So they don't factor into the ranks but are still searchable

[ZERO]

Like I said it is the same as pub, wcs and zm. They are not ranked but you can still search them. They just get no rank.

[brett friggin favre]

That's odd, I can't seem to search for players who haven't played in over 14 days, for example spasm. No record of him on pub.

[ZERO]

I see the results only show ranked players now. I can change that b/c you can still search and locate them. I will either change the programing of the stats site or release a tool.

For example here is his profile: http://www.ibisgaming.com/pub1_stats/player.php?id=56028

[brett friggin favre]

Sounds good, thanks

[jerm]

i like the new stuff for gg


are u gonna delete all the old stats like the wins, so people can actually try to get first place on wins?

[ZERO]

I have made it so you can search for non ranked plaers but if it returns more than 1 result you can not see them. So lets say you enter a steam id of a non ranked player. That will work.

But if you enter a name or ip they will not show in the results. So you would need to manually compare the profiles.

I am trying to see if I can fix this.

[roshill]

I just hope you could see your all time rank with a command in game. Current ranks should be another section.

!arank should show up our all time rank
!rank Our current performance rank

!atop all time top
!top current top players.

This way we can compare in game on where we stand.

[ZERO]

No, it works exactly like the wcs zm and pub. If a player is not active for x amount of time they will not appear in the rankings until they show up again.

!rank as always will show you your rank based off wins only with all players who have ever won.

[CYBER]

so by "lost the gungame"
you mean whoever actually got naded right? not just the current people in the game at the time of someone else winning?
i fully agree in the first one , because idiot people need to be punished for walking on nades,
whereas if its the ladder, then we might have a problem of people disconnecting towards the end of the game and then rejoin later to rank manipulate...

i like the new system, i personally would have made it so that when u get the nade level, you actually get a lot more points than leveling any other level, i feel bad for people that go all the way to nade ,and then choke lol...

[ZERO]

No it is if you were killed and as a result somone else won the game.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

I can not do the search options right now. I will build a tool later. Remember that right now you can not do any of that stuff anyways as there is no data to search for gg and the rest of the rank systems work like they have for years. :wtg:

On a related note I will try to update the links on the sourcebanks to provide links to users psychostats page. This should help things.