Moving On Up - Improving Planetary Annihilation's Ranking System

I'd say it certainly should be considered, as it's likely to be reflective of the player's skill at least to some degree, but it certainly isn't the be-all-and-end-all.

no but common we all agree old ladder is best ladder.

nobody likes current ladder better. (I got top rank for a week with it and you don't see me defending it)

so why all this talk of subjectivity?

Yes please. Everything. Profiles, Seasons and whatever, I like all of it.

Spoiler

I think the ladder isn't really as important as balance, bugs, and more important gameplay features

I completely agree with everything in that article regarding making the ladder better, and the player profile is something I'd most look forward to.

Uber if you read this article, PA has the potential to have one of the best ladders and matchmaking systems in the history of RTS games.

Which is why Glicko/TrueSkill-type systems are a measure of relative strength rather than absolute strength.

ugh
do not do that.
don't put Glicko and Trueskill together like that.

whatever Uber put in Glicko it is far FAR from trueskill.

As mentioned in the multiplayer thread, 90% of games logged prior to offline server were single player. Ladder had absolutely NO place getting priority over galactic war and gameplay features.

those stats are long gone.

check now.

Probably hasn't changed much, but we can't know because a lot of those single player games aren't logged on uber's servers anymore, again, as stated in the multiplayer thread.

In 1v1 they act very similar to one another because Trueskill it's an enhancement and a extension upon Glicko. The only benefits of Trueskill is able to handle draws, free-for-all, and team games with limitations.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.aspx

Great article, and I agree that StarCraft 2's ladder is great, in spite of the hate the game may get around here sometimes. It's pretty much the only game I have played competitively (as in ranked) a decent amount, and I think a lot of that is due to the fact that Blizzard are good at making things fun. I'll even go as far as to say that it doesn't really matter how technically good the ranking system is so long as it is fun, and I agree with the idea that it is more a tool for getting fair-ish games than an accurate rank compared to other players. The main reason I play ranked is to not get stomped too badly or play too many boring noobstomp games. But the sense of progression is also a big factor, but it's more about the overall progression than my precise rank, a way to gauge that I'm getting better (or worse) at the game.

Uber locked at 1 100 person division would be good. After that all divisions broken into 3 levels I think is good. We don't have player base to do 5 imo. And then just scale up how many leagues there are in each level of each division based off number of players

how do divisions work? considering how many silver players there currently are would the number of divisions rise accordingly or would there be a fixed number?

You'd automatically create new divisions as needed.

Wowsers. Nice one quitch. Really well done

Whence uber / @jables ?

What about a score in Uber rank, similar to LoL's Challenger score system thingy?

Most likely just now getting out of break.

For rating decay:

"I implemented a variation on Glicko/Trueskill for a different game and found it possible to account for inactivity by increasing sigma (RD in this system) by a tiny amount for everyone every day. Since the rank is (mu - 3*sigma), increasing sigma will decrease the rank steadily. Through experimentation, it showed the league was slightly more accurate using this method, and it keeps inactive people off the top of the league."

- Ksevio