Just took a look at it, however the post is very very vague and it doesn't explain the reasons behind the request of the feature, such as cons and pros and comparison with the current pp system (which is great imo, it made me be active in Osu! again) and like i have mentioned itd only affect multiplayer not solo, that should make multi a lot more fun and competitive. I even posted the name of the ranking system and how it actually works, it is unfair to be marked as duplicated imo ):blissfulyoshi wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/1932955/
Marking as duplicate......
forum
ELO ranking for multiplayer
posted
Total Posts
80
Topic Starter
I'd say this is the best feature request concerning Multiplayer rankings, it has the most stars and the best concrete explanation. Unmarking this as duplicate before all is lost. The other "original" feature requests to this are even older than PP.blissfulyoshi wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/1932955/
Marking as duplicate......
This ranking would significantly improve multiplayer.
This has been talked about a few times before, there is one conversation about it here p/738435 but I am sure there are more updated ones around.
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see this happening any time soon with the pp system along side it (yes I did read your reasons against that, but still). I don't ageee that pp is easy to farm especially as it's a constantly evolving system. This just seems like another set of stats to keep track of.
As for denying this as a duplicate or not, it's a hard decision based on the other threads scattered around and will wait for more opinions on the subject.
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see this happening any time soon with the pp system along side it (yes I did read your reasons against that, but still). I don't ageee that pp is easy to farm especially as it's a constantly evolving system. This just seems like another set of stats to keep track of.
As for denying this as a duplicate or not, it's a hard decision based on the other threads scattered around and will wait for more opinions on the subject.
This request does seem both better in terms of explaining and actually supporting it with money. I had a discussion with Hikaros about such potential feature and he seems to know what he's talking about.James2250 wrote:
As for denying this as a duplicate or not, it's a hard decision and will wait for more opinions on the subject.
I suggest we have this more updated (because the other one were suggested before PP), and more supported request as the new starting point for any multiplayer related ranking discussion.
This request doesn't have to be exactly as it says in the OP, it will obviously adapt to the osu! multiplayer from where it came from, chess.
SPOILER
that "original" request has this unofficial way of supporting a request
which isn't allowed nowadays.
which isn't allowed nowadays.
this just sounds like a standard ladder system request to me(correct me if i'm wrong) which has been requested multiply times.
I think this needs some discussion about this.
Now, regarding if this should be a duplicate, it doesn't matter if you have more info the the original, you should just bump the original post with that info, or in this case, repost the OP into one of the old threads.
that's just my opinion at the moment.
I think this needs some discussion about this.
Now, regarding if this should be a duplicate, it doesn't matter if you have more info the the original, you should just bump the original post with that info, or in this case, repost the OP into one of the old threads.
that's just my opinion at the moment.
If you insist... I personally think it is counter-intuitive to have a separate ranking for multiplayer. You are creating a special ranking system for the small subset of people who play multi regularly. This will exclude a lot of players from the ranking system and again it is a terrible measure of actual skill since you need to a. play a lot of multi for your rank to show, b. have dedicated ranked matches (so ppl can play for fun as well), c. get the separate mod per person thing completed (otherwise you need to find a fair way to play matches with mods), or d. some combination of the things stated above.theowest wrote:
I'd say this is the best feature request concerning Multiplayer rankings, it has the most stars and the best concrete explanation. Unmarking this as duplicate before all is lost.blissfulyoshi wrote:
http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/1932955/
Marking as duplicate......
We usually mark the older requests as duplicates if the newer ones is far better, and especially if it has more support.deadbeat wrote:
Now, regarding if this should be a duplicate, it doesn't matter if you have more info the the original, you should just bump the original post with that info, or in this case, repost the OP into one of the old threads.
Not when that support is made by just one person... I usually regard those ppl as ppl who don't look hard enoughtheowest wrote:
We usually mark the older requests as duplicates if the newer ones is far better, and especially if it has more support.deadbeat wrote:
Now, regarding if this should be a duplicate, it doesn't matter if you have more info the the original, you should just bump the original post with that info, or in this case, repost the OP into one of the old threads.
09:06 theowest: I don't dislike it as much as I like it, I just wanted to quickly save it because the idea of having a worse original made my tummy twickly (whatever that means)
09:07 deadbeat: OP quailty should not affect if it should be a dupe or not
09:07 theowest: it has stars
09:07 deadbeat: words and be reposted and OP's can be updated
09:08 theowest: which we've denied requests a million times
09:08 deadbeat: from one person, kinda unfair in some ways
09:08 theowest: this feature request is also much more concrete and to the point than the other shitty requests
09:08 theowest: the idea haven't been suggested that many times, one of which it turned into what we now have: the singleplayer PP
09:09 theowest: the older one is also abandoned, not many people care for it anymore after what have happened the past year
09:10 deadbeat: i think we(mods) need to have a talk about how we manage dupes
09:10 theowest: yeah
09:10 theowest: we need an official way of dealing with them
09:10 theowest: and it has to be the BEST way of dealing with them
09:10 theowest: we currently do add info to the original if that's good
09:11 theowest: sometimes, a more updated person in charge of the OP will update the thread more and make sure it's being discuessed
09:11 theowest: compared to the original abandoned request
09:07 deadbeat: OP quailty should not affect if it should be a dupe or not
09:07 theowest: it has stars
09:07 deadbeat: words and be reposted and OP's can be updated
09:08 theowest: which we've denied requests a million times
09:08 deadbeat: from one person, kinda unfair in some ways
09:08 theowest: this feature request is also much more concrete and to the point than the other shitty requests
09:08 theowest: the idea haven't been suggested that many times, one of which it turned into what we now have: the singleplayer PP
09:09 theowest: the older one is also abandoned, not many people care for it anymore after what have happened the past year
09:10 deadbeat: i think we(mods) need to have a talk about how we manage dupes
09:10 theowest: yeah
09:10 theowest: we need an official way of dealing with them
09:10 theowest: and it has to be the BEST way of dealing with them
09:10 theowest: we currently do add info to the original if that's good
09:11 theowest: sometimes, a more updated person in charge of the OP will update the thread more and make sure it's being discuessed
09:11 theowest: compared to the original abandoned request
Multiplayer is for fun though...
and i thought pp was a good measure of skill anyways.
and i thought pp was a good measure of skill anyways.
You should of course be able to play "unranked" multiplayer. Where the multiplayer matches doesn't go towards this multiplayer ranking.Lily-Kun wrote:
Multiplayer is for fun though...
Let's not hurry the thinking of this idea/implementation of this ranking, inb4 denied. I just think this to be the "original" topic from now on. Currently, us mods are going to try to think of an official way of handling duplicates, etc.
Topic Starter
It is a small subset of people due to the same reason, multi being just for fun and nothing else. a feature like this should encourage a large amount of players in SOLO to join multi, if a player can retry a map over 1900 times (not even exaggerating, this is a real number lol some of you may know who i am talking about and what map haha) they will have no problem in doing a few ranked games.blissfulyoshi wrote:
If you insist... I personally think it is counter-intuitive to have a separate ranking for multiplayer. You are creating a special ranking system for the small subset of people who play multi regularly. This will exclude a lot of players from the ranking system and again it is a terrible measure of actual skill since you need to a. play a lot of multi for your rank to show, b. have dedicated ranked matches (so ppl can play for fun as well), c. get the separate mod per person thing completed (otherwise you need to find a fair way to play matches with mods), or d. some combination of the things stated above.
With ELO you don't necesarely need to play thousands of times to achieve a high rank, the ELO rating system is a real skill-wise rating sytem, based in real time matches with other players not trying to beat the score it took over 1900 retries to do and just a single map.
If you see someone rated 2000 elo then you think: DAMN PRO!
If you see someone ranked 300 in pp then you think: i just might be better :O (could or not be the case)
Exactly!theowest wrote:
You should of course be able to play "unranked" multiplayer. Where the multiplayer matches doesn't go towards this multiplayer ranking.Lily-Kun wrote:
Multiplayer is for fun though...
In that regard, it's similar to other multiplayer games with the leader boards and such. LoL, etc.Hikaros wrote:
Exactly!theowest wrote:
You should of course be able to play "unranked" multiplayer. Where the multiplayer matches doesn't go towards this multiplayer ranking.
With that same logic, how will you ensure this ELO system is any more fair than pp. How will you ensure what songs are played and what mods are used? Also, how many rounds are there per game? What happens if there is a tie? (Well tie, can just give 0)
If all mods are the same, I can just play nc + easy and win every time since basically no one knows how to play it on more difficult maps
If you choose the maps, why can't I play something super unintuitive like unreachable distance http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6509 and win all of those?
If you have a set of maps, just go prove yourself in the charts (unless you insist that mass multiplayer of these songs is obv the best way to prove your skill here)
I hear your reasoning, but what are you planning to do from there? I want some more concrete details before considering to support your request.
If all mods are the same, I can just play nc + easy and win every time since basically no one knows how to play it on more difficult maps
If you choose the maps, why can't I play something super unintuitive like unreachable distance http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6509 and win all of those?
If you have a set of maps, just go prove yourself in the charts (unless you insist that mass multiplayer of these songs is obv the best way to prove your skill here)
I hear your reasoning, but what are you planning to do from there? I want some more concrete details before considering to support your request.
Topic Starter
Itd be 1 per game, it could be a set of 3 songs with breaks of 40s in between, like theowest said it can be adjusted to the need.blissfulyoshi wrote:
With that same logic, how will you ensure this ELO system is any more fair than pp. How will you ensure what songs are played and what mods are used? Also, how many rounds are there per game? What happens if there is a tie? (Well tie, can just give 0)
If all mods are the same, I can just play nc + easy and win every time since basically no one knows how to play it on more difficult maps
If you choose the maps, why can't I play something super unintuitive like unreachable distance http://osu.ppy.sh/s/6509 and win all of those?
If you have a set of maps, just go prove yourself in the charts (unless you insist that mass multiplayer of these songs is obv the best way to prove your skill here)
I hear your reasoning, but what are you planning to do from there? I want some more concrete details before considering to support your request.
As per the "ifs", like i said, the creator of the ranked room sets the rules, you can make it your favourite map + DT+ HD + FL even but is the challenger that decides to accept that, Eventually you will be stucked, you can't gain elo from a 1000 elo player when you are like 1700, you may get like what? 3? and if you by any chance lose the opponent will get A LOT which also means you LOSE A LOT. If you slowly get rating by doing that you will eventually face a real pro and you will lose which will bring your rating down. You can't go up unless you beat people of the same or higher rank.
If i was the challenger, id join your room and see the setup, i know my chances of winning are very very low so i would quit the room since to me is not fair.
The challenger agrees with your rules if the game starts, no one can complain about it.
And yeah it is just for real-time matches in multiplayer. A score in the charts from a player doesn't mean he is better than you, it just means he/she spent waayyyy more time than a lot of people trying to achieve that.
The most immediate example is to compare: rrtyui vs Cookiezi, everyone knows Cookiezi is simply Osu's god lol and yet rrtyui has beaten some scores cookiezi has set but that doesn't make him better.
If youd like another example where the system is used (chess) is simple:
I like to play chess but i can't play with 10 minutes or less. Some people makes chess challenges of 5 minutes, which means i would never ever play those, not until i know i can handle it. I'm the one deciding if i take the challenge or not.
I didn't want to bring this into chat between us 2, but I'll jsut bring up a few more points.
Under your system, most of the time, the room is going to be in the host's favor.
Next, why would people want to play under a system where we need to wait to see if our opponent accepts our rules. All I can see is that it will take forever to find a good match.
The chess example doesn't exactly work because matching making for that can be separated into a few different modes like a queue for 5min blitz players, 10min blitz players, 20min blitz, and one more for unlimited time. That can made into 4 queues that would have sufficient enough players to run. The system your propose can't. Waiting for others is just an annoying thing that no one wants to see in their queue.
On another note, I don't think multi proves skill at all. All it proves is that you can play more consistently than the other player. If you call that skill, go right ahead.
Under your system, most of the time, the room is going to be in the host's favor.
Next, why would people want to play under a system where we need to wait to see if our opponent accepts our rules. All I can see is that it will take forever to find a good match.
The chess example doesn't exactly work because matching making for that can be separated into a few different modes like a queue for 5min blitz players, 10min blitz players, 20min blitz, and one more for unlimited time. That can made into 4 queues that would have sufficient enough players to run. The system your propose can't. Waiting for others is just an annoying thing that no one wants to see in their queue.
On another note, I don't think multi proves skill at all. All it proves is that you can play more consistently than the other player. If you call that skill, go right ahead.
Well, after reading every post that came before mine I can say that I firmly support this.
I hope this doesn't kick-the-bucket anytime soon because it's well thought out and very concrete. I'd like to see more community input on this topic.
I hope this doesn't kick-the-bucket anytime soon because it's well thought out and very concrete. I'd like to see more community input on this topic.
No.
Stefan wrote:
No.
Multiplayer is fun. Stop trying to turn this into LoL Ranked. Look at their community, then look at osu!
you really want the MP Community to become elo tryhards
you really want the MP Community to become elo tryhards
I can relate to that, good point. All I ever want to do in multiplayer is to have funPortalLife wrote:
Multiplayer is fun. Stop trying to turn this into LoL Ranked. Look at their community, then look at osu!
you really want the MP Community to become elo tryhards
The game's multiplayer competition is only indirect. Since you don't influence the score/performance directly of each other by your doings, I see no point in an ELO ranking.
Topic Starter
id mod the formula to fix that (thatd be a test of course), usually you don't need to play a song to know if it is hard or not, and the name "extra/lunatic" sometimes doesn't mean is a hard map, you just need to see the objects, bpm, time.Tshemmp wrote:
I always had this idea, too. But Aqo made a good point here: p/1984310
for example if the song has like 500 objects in 5 minutes and the bpm is like 170, that thing is damn easy. id just add a mod number to decrease the amount of elo gained. simple.
LoL and Osu! are totally different, i hate the LoL community. Besides the LoL community is how it is because it is 5 v 5, this totally depends on you and not other 4 strangers. If you think LoL is the only game that uses the ELO rating system you need to read more ):PortalLife wrote:
Multiplayer is fun. Stop trying to turn this into LoL Ranked. Look at their community, then look at osu!
you really want the MP Community to become elo tryhards
there are always Ranked and Non-Ranked games you don't have to play ranked if you don't want, besides you are asuming 100% of the community will go for ranking matches 24/7 which is not true, not even i would play ranked matches all the time. Some people just love have random fun games which is totally fine and that is the why of the Non-Ranked.
that is the main reason of why this would be great for multi, in multi there is no competition and in solo it is but not so directly, so itd be nice to have some direct competition AND itd show real skill.Loctav wrote:
The game's multiplayer competition is only indirect. Since you don't influence the score/performance directly of each other by your doings, I see no point in an ELO ranking.
play with friends and place bets. winner gets the pool. \:D/Hikaros wrote:
that is the main reason of why this would be great for multi, in multi there is no competition and in solo it is but not so directly, so itd be nice to have some direct competition AND itd show real skill.Loctav wrote:
The game's multiplayer competition is only indirect. Since you don't influence the score/performance directly of each other by your doings, I see no point in an ELO ranking.
Just make a goddamn ladder system with ELO rating, 1v1, matchmaking, etc.
Would make a post about this but it's gonna be considered as a duplicate.
Only way to reach a good ranking system and a fun multiplayer thing is getting what I said, matchmaking, ladder system, just 1v1, and map difficulty rated by a select group of players (tiers from 1 to 10 so everyone can play).
If I get a green light that if I make a long post about this it won't get tagged as a duplicate I'll do it.
Would make a post about this but it's gonna be considered as a duplicate.
Only way to reach a good ranking system and a fun multiplayer thing is getting what I said, matchmaking, ladder system, just 1v1, and map difficulty rated by a select group of players (tiers from 1 to 10 so everyone can play).
If I get a green light that if I make a long post about this it won't get tagged as a duplicate I'll do it.
Topic Starter
That is pretty much what im trying to encourage here, that is what i've been saying every single post lol. But the people comparing League to Osu! are giving a negative feedback just because they think League of Legends is the only game using the ELO gaming system. I HATE to play ranked in LoL. I AM NOT trying to make this like league, i hope they could understand that.Wishy wrote:
Just make a goddamn ladder system with ELO rating, 1v1, matchmaking, etc.
Would make a post about this but it's gonna be considered as a duplicate.
Only way to reach a good ranking system and a fun multiplayer thing is getting what I said, matchmaking, ladder system, just 1v1, and map difficulty rated by a select group of players (tiers from 1 to 10 so everyone can play).
If I get a green light that if I make a long post about this it won't get tagged as a duplicate I'll do it.
No, I don't see the point of having another ranking system at all
I can see how good a player is from their historical data and etc
And I don't think people would bother playing a RANKED multiplayer match
I'd always hit the filter NON-RANKED most of the time
I can see how good a player is from their historical data and etc
And I don't think people would bother playing a RANKED multiplayer match
I'd always hit the filter NON-RANKED most of the time
There should be a ranking system called solo queue, when you queue you get in a 4vs4 team with people of your skill level.
Dodging/failing/Losing as a team will make you lose elo, winning and not failing will make you win elo.
7 maps are decided by the matchmaking system based on what the players have.
The highest ELO player of each team will ban 3 maps ea-
Oh wait might as well play LoL.
Dodging/failing/Losing as a team will make you lose elo, winning and not failing will make you win elo.
7 maps are decided by the matchmaking system based on what the players have.
The highest ELO player of each team will ban 3 maps ea-
Oh wait might as well play LoL.
there shouldn't be any of this
osu multiplayer is not competitive due to the nature of how it works
it's for fun
unlike OWC where there are specific map picks and brackets, random mp in osu is all BUT competitive. it's always highly biased in the host's favor and you're not really playing against the other players anyway
osu multiplayer is not competitive due to the nature of how it works
it's for fun
unlike OWC where there are specific map picks and brackets, random mp in osu is all BUT competitive. it's always highly biased in the host's favor and you're not really playing against the other players anyway
Topic Starter
Aqo wrote:
there shouldn't be any of this
osu multiplayer is not competitive due to the nature of how it works
it's for fun
like i said in this thread over 9000 times already lol, that is why multi only has a very few percentage of the total players online. This is not to make every single player in multi competitive but to make people from SOLO join multi.
People who just plays for fun and are not competitive don't even have interest in self improvement in a competitive way, they are indifferent about it, which means for them pp is useless just like this rating system, therefor is unfair (imo) from them to just come and say instantaniously "no" to this request.
As a competitive player id like to have games against really really good people and not with the normal people frequenting multi but those players have almost no interest in multi because in a way it is just a waste of time compared to the time you can use to break records which is more efficient.
By this i don't mean i look down at other players, no, i'm not like that, i even encourage them to improve and help my friends as much as i can for that. Even i like to play just for fun once in a while.
People who are competitive in osu won't play multiplayer since multiplayer is the opposite of being competitive. You need to grind hard maps nonstop with no breaks if you want to be competitive. Multiplayer gives a break between every map you play, forces to play maps fully (which is often not optimal) and forces to play maps that are not the most suitable for your skill level at the time.
multiplayer in this game is, and will always be, something you either do to pass the time randomly or for fun with friends. it will never be competitive
ELO is something for competitive players in a competitive scene. people who only play for a non-competitive concept of fun don't need it, and if anything it only discourages them from playing.
multiplayer in this game is, and will always be, something you either do to pass the time randomly or for fun with friends. it will never be competitive
ELO is something for competitive players in a competitive scene. people who only play for a non-competitive concept of fun don't need it, and if anything it only discourages them from playing.
Topic Starter
Those are the thoughts of a non-competitive player, you can check the profile of each player who have said "no" or something against this idea and they are low ranks, including yourself, if you check the ones in agreement with this they are on the 2k's or less which means they are more competitive.Aqo wrote:
multiplayer in this game is, and will always be, something you either do to pass the time randomly or for fun with friends. it will never be competitive
ELO is something for competitive players in a competitive scene. people who only play for a non-competitive concept of fun don't need it, and if anything it only discourages them from playing.
This thread's request is directed to and for competitive players. The non-competitive players have nothing to lose with this except seing hard challenges in multi but you can just disregard those just like i completely ignore the huge majority of rooms with Easy/Normal/Hard maps in multi.
Aqo kinda has a point though. If the host picks an Easy or Normal diff, then it's entirely possible a rank 100K could beat Cookiezi, since if both players have SS it comes down to spinner skill (Cookiezi is a decent spinner but a whole lot of people can outspin him, a bunch of noobs can spin 450+ effortlessly, etc.)
No, you can't.[MY] yummy90 XP wrote:
No, I don't see the point of having another ranking system at all
I can see how good a player is from their historical data and etc
And I don't think people would bother playing a RANKED multiplayer match
I'd always hit the filter NON-RANKED most of the time
On match making you don't pick maps, the game should random a map for both to play from a pool (pools from 1 to 10, based on difficulty, rates by a select group of experienced players), best of 3. If you're on high tiers you will play ALL hard maps, no chance of getting easy shit, while low tiers will be easier maps.
I can fully develop this idea but I should make another thread.
Just do it like SC2, maps are random. Pick 10/20 experienced players and make them rate 10/15 maps a day (giving a score between 1 and 10), get the average score from all of those and that's the map difficulty, by doing that you'll get a decent amount of maps by the end of the day. Low tier pools don't really matter since easies and normals are all pretty much the same difficulty (not like insanes where you can jump from [Hard] to [Impossible]).
Actual MP keeps untouched, what we are talking about is match making, click a button, get matched, play 2 (or 3 if 1-1) maps, win/lose, game over. Only way to get an accurate ranking where farming is just impossible (even if you play 24/7 you won't beat those who are better than you, unless you get better than them and thus deserve the spot).
No you can't. Pp can be easily farmed and skew your rankings. Wishy beat me in multi earlier and I know hes a better player. I can't beat few 1 - 2xxx in airman while they whoop my ass cause they happen to do better at jumps or they don't care about pp ranks at all.[MY] yummy90 XP wrote:
No, I don't see the point of having another ranking system at all
I can see how good a player is from their historical data and etc
And I don't think people would bother playing a RANKED multiplayer match
I'd always hit the filter NON-RANKED most of the time
I actually do like this idea. I stalk multi a lot to find people of my rank only to find none or very few. I also feel bad when everyone picks insane diffs a lot even If like 2 players can pass it only. I dont thinks it's fun to play something you won't be able to pass for a good time frame.
Topic Starter
technically you are saying that you, after gaining elo by defeating a lot of good people, are going to join a noob room where you have nothing to win and A LOT to lose? and is not even fun to play that.MillhioreF wrote:
Aqo kinda has a point though. If the host picks an Easy or Normal diff, then it's entirely possible a rank 100K could beat Cookiezi, since if both players have SS it comes down to spinner skill (Cookiezi is a decent spinner but a whole lot of people can outspin him, a bunch of noobs can spin 450+ effortlessly, etc.)
like i've said before several times:
1- ELO gap per room
2- Modifier for easy/hard/insane maps (i already said how can you tell by data and not by title nor stars)
3- Player agrees with whatever the rules in the room are by clicking "ready"
4- I highly doubt there is a pro willing to waste time with a meaningless ranked AND boring game where you are in a LOSE/LOSE situation.
Now that is also a fucking good idea too.Wishy wrote:
On match making you don't pick maps, the game should random a map for both to play from a pool (pools from 1 to 10, based on difficulty, rates by a select group of experienced players), best of 3. If you're on high tiers you will play ALL hard maps, no chance of getting easy shit, while low tiers will be easier maps.
Just do it like SC2, maps are random. Pick 10/20 experienced players and make them rate 10/15 maps a day (giving a score between 1 and 10), get the average score from all of those and that's the map difficulty, by doing that you'll get a decent amount of maps by the end of the day. Low tier pools don't really matter since easies and normals are all pretty much the same difficulty (not like insanes where you can jump from [Hard] to [Impossible]).
Actual MP keeps untouched, what we are talking about is match making, click a button, get matched, play 2 (or 3 if 1-1) maps, win/lose, game over. Only way to get an accurate ranking where farming is just impossible (even if you play 24/7 you won't beat those who are better than you, unless you get better than them and thus deserve the spot).
You should never be able to play easy maps with a newbie if you're good, never. When you get into the ladder thing for a first time you should be able to rate yourself and start out on insane level (pool 5~7), while bad players should be able to select lower tiers (just like on LoL you get asked about how good you think you are, or in SC2 you get to play 5 "test" matches to see get you rated).
Topic Starter
Wishy wrote:
You should never be able to play easy maps with a newbie if you're good, never. When you get into the ladder thing for a first time you should be able to rate yourself and start out on insane level (pool 5~7), while bad players should be able to select lower tiers (just like on LoL you get asked about how good you think you are, or in SC2 you get to play 5 "test" matches to see get you rated).
thatd be amazing as well, at first i was looking into manually made matches just like in chess but automatic is better. I'm gonna edit the original idea a bit.
You just need to make it automatic. Everything must be automatic. All the player has to do is click a button, get into a lobby with another player, get ready and play. After losing getting some notification showing him how much rating he won/lost and that's it.
Mimic a SC2 ladder system (click a button, get matched).
Separate tiers. Like leagues on SC2, any number of players can fit in any league, top league has limited slots so being there is not that easy, you can make 8/9 separate tiers and fit players there, 6 standard ones an the top one, tier level = map difficulty, 1~2 would be easy normal, 3~4 Hards, 5~9 different insanes since the spread is gigantic, and then 10. Players should be able to get matched with people from other tiers (-1 or +1). Of course you will get a big rating boost if you defeat a higher tier player, and he would lose quite a lot. Number of tiers can be discussed, maybe you just need 7, 8, 10 or 500.
A good development for this would be the chance of meeting lower/higher tier players being dynamic. Say tier 1 = 0~99, tier 2 = 100~199, etc. Then if your rating is 590 (meaning you're tier 6 I guess) your chances of playing against a player on the tier above yours would be higher than the chances another user with a rating of 540 would have. Of course this applies the other way around. If your rating is 590 the chances of you playing against a lower tier player gonna be lower than the ones a 540 rated play has. Of course you can just "remove" the tier thing and just talk about numbers. But since map difficulty will change over time, having this "categories" thing helps sort this out. And then since you're playing a harder map than those you use to play on ladder, winning against a player who supposedly has been playing that already should give a little bonus (say 550 vs 540, 550 wins, gets 5 rating, then you get 595 vs 605, 595 wins, you get 7 rating instead of 5).
Use a proper rating/ELO system for calculations.
Rate maps by difficulty (get players to do so, it doesn't need to be 100% accurate, VERY long maps should be excluded, I don't think anyone wants to play some 10m map) so you don't get newbies playing Airman.
That's it, in a nutshell I think.
Mimic a SC2 ladder system (click a button, get matched).
Separate tiers. Like leagues on SC2, any number of players can fit in any league, top league has limited slots so being there is not that easy, you can make 8/9 separate tiers and fit players there, 6 standard ones an the top one, tier level = map difficulty, 1~2 would be easy normal, 3~4 Hards, 5~9 different insanes since the spread is gigantic, and then 10. Players should be able to get matched with people from other tiers (-1 or +1). Of course you will get a big rating boost if you defeat a higher tier player, and he would lose quite a lot. Number of tiers can be discussed, maybe you just need 7, 8, 10 or 500.
A good development for this would be the chance of meeting lower/higher tier players being dynamic. Say tier 1 = 0~99, tier 2 = 100~199, etc. Then if your rating is 590 (meaning you're tier 6 I guess) your chances of playing against a player on the tier above yours would be higher than the chances another user with a rating of 540 would have. Of course this applies the other way around. If your rating is 590 the chances of you playing against a lower tier player gonna be lower than the ones a 540 rated play has. Of course you can just "remove" the tier thing and just talk about numbers. But since map difficulty will change over time, having this "categories" thing helps sort this out. And then since you're playing a harder map than those you use to play on ladder, winning against a player who supposedly has been playing that already should give a little bonus (say 550 vs 540, 550 wins, gets 5 rating, then you get 595 vs 605, 595 wins, you get 7 rating instead of 5).
Use a proper rating/ELO system for calculations.
Rate maps by difficulty (get players to do so, it doesn't need to be 100% accurate, VERY long maps should be excluded, I don't think anyone wants to play some 10m map) so you don't get newbies playing Airman.
That's it, in a nutshell I think.