Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: [Suggestion] Improve MM --> Implement Player Rating

  1. #1
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    110

    [Suggestion] Improve MM --> Implement Player Rating

    Suggestion: Add a Player Rating system to existing MM in order to improve grouping. Its simple and easy to implement; the foundation could be the existing commend system.

    Source and further reading: http://www.thefengs.com/wuchang/work...ayerrating.pdf

    Imo, many problems of the current MM-system arise because the players have a different view or weight of the game principles - some players want to farm for the perfect build, others are searching for a dynamic gameplay. This diametrically opposed playstyle leads to raging, ranting, leavers, etc.

    The most basic assumption of a player-rating based MM are as follows: If player p1 likes to play with p2 and p3, then its most likely that p2 likes to play with p3 as well. --> Player Rating uses the "prior experiences of a playerís peers to determine the reputability of all other peers" . A player rating agent calculates reputation of player X as the weighted average of all ratings (of X). Ratings are not absolute, but rather an expression of the player reputation relative to that of the evaluators.

    Players with a good reputation (from a personal POV; again, ratings are not absolute!) have an increased chance of grouped together. This leads to a group of like-minded, fitting player; the contact with 'inappropriate' players will be kept to a minimum.

    Short Example (pic&cite from linked article):
    dia1.jpg
    A small social network where the observer (self) belongs to a clique
    with friends F1 and F2. Friend F1 dislikes A1 so without having met A1 the
    observer will probably also dislike A1 and her clique. Friend F2 likes F3 so
    without having met F3 the observer will probably also like F3. Furthermore,
    the observer will probably also like F3ís friends F4 and F5, although with
    less certainty.
    Again, 'like' and 'disklike' are NOT the only parameters for MM - the player skill is and remains as the main criterion. Once 10 players with similar skills have been found, Player Rating divides the group into teams: PR seeks to group players, who 'like' each other (directly or indirectly, over a friend F1 f.e.), in the same team. After the game ends, ppl can (but not have to!) rate their team mates. The rating criterion is left to YOUR very own standard, BUT you will play with 'good' rated ppl more often - on the other hand, you will never play with 'bad' rated ppl again.

    --
    Edit; in order to guard against misunderstandings: Player rating is an addition to the 'normal' MM (imo Elo-based).
    Last edited by nurso; 04-30-2012 at 08:15 AM. Reason: to guard against misunderstandings; example

  2. #2
    Basic Member Noya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    12,904
    There is already a Rating, though its hidden to you

  3. #3
    Basic Member DarkLite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Patch Anticipation Station
    Posts
    3,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Noya View Post
    There is already a Rating, though its hidden to you
    This was my first thought, but if you reread the post you'll see that he's not talking about "standard" MMR, he's talking about implementing an algorithm to match players together more often if they are judged to enjoy playing together, which minimizes the games you have to play with trolls.

  4. #4
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
    This was my first thought, but if you reread the post you'll see that he's not talking about "standard" MMR, he's talking about implementing an algorithm to match players together more often if they are judged to enjoy playing together, which minimizes the games you have to play with trolls.
    This.

    I edited my first post to make my suggestion clear.

  5. #5
    Basic Member Andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    395
    match 5 ppl in a team who wants to farm for 6 items.. yeah.. good team..

  6. #6
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    match 5 ppl in a team who wants to farm for 6 items.. yeah.. good team..
    Wrong. Did you read the PDF? The idea is, to match 5 ppl, who think, 30min-farming is the best strategy to win --> This doesn't mean that all players want to farm; it means, that some player are good at farming and some are good to support the farmers. On the contrary, its more than likely, that pure farmer will give other farmers a bad rating.

    Player Rating helps to group fitting ppl together (f.e. farmer&supporter), NOT ppl with the same playstyle.

  7. #7
    Basic Member Noya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    12,904
    Quote Originally Posted by nurso View Post
    Did you read the PDF?
    Seriously TL;DR.

  8. #8
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Noya View Post
    Seriously TL;DR.
    No. Its short and quite easy to understand + i gave a short summary in my first posting.

  9. #9
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Noya View Post
    There is already a Rating, though its hidden to you
    You wouldn't think so from playing.

  10. #10
    Basic Member Automedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by nurso View Post
    The most basic assumption of a player-rating based MM are as follows: If player p1 likes to play with p2 and p3, then its most likely that p2 likes to play with p3 as well. --> Player Rating uses the "prior experiences of a player’s peers to determine the reputability of all other peers" . A player rating agent calculates reputation of player X as the weighted average of all ratings (of X). Ratings are not absolute, but rather an expression of the player reputation relative to that of the evaluators.

    Players with a good reputation (from a personal POV; again, ratings are not absolute!) have an increased chance of grouped together. This leads to a group of like-minded, fitting player; the contact with 'inappropriate' players will be kept to a minimum.

    --
    Edit; in order to guard against misunderstandings: Player rating is an addition to the 'normal' MM (imo Elo-based).
    Correct me if I didn't get it right, but I don't think that this system would work. From what I understood you would want use the commendation system (or something similar) to find out which players like to play with each other and give them a greater chance to be matched together. Sounds like a good idea. From my point of view however the problem will be that the average player would always recommend the best player (= Player with most kills) in the game to increase his chances to get a "superior skilled" teammate in future matches. Given that, most players choosing supporter heroes will not be recommended that often because a good supporter has almost always negative stats (sacrificing himself for carries / let the carries lasthit / use farm for wards, courier, smoke and dust) and be less likely commended while pubstomp heroes will get the most recommendations effectively distorting the ratings. Besides that I don't think its possible to match players like that without decreasing the quality of matchmaking OR neglecting the player ratings. You have to choose one.

    Quote Originally Posted by nurso View Post
    Imo, many problems of the current MM-system arise because the players have a different view or weight of the game principles - some players want to farm for the perfect build, others are searching for a dynamic gameplay. This diametrically opposed playstyle leads to raging, ranting, leavers, etc.
    Quite the opposite. I think that different views on how to play the game are essential for a well-rounded team setup. Players who like to get their perfect gear will most likely pick jungle heroes, adaptive players will pick their heroes accordingly to the other choices, team players will pick supporters or stun/disable heroes. If you now match players accordingly to their most similar "peers" you will inevitably end up with this: Imagine a team full of greeders each of whom would normally pick Naix/Lycan/Lone Druid/SK etc. I don't think the atmosphere in their teamchat would be more peaceful than in an average game, no, quite the opposite.
    Last edited by Automedic; 04-21-2012 at 01:55 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •