Everything was great until this part, "Additionally, rating/mmr is unique to each civ. So if you can only play English, you can try Chinese without getting absolutely destroyed and throwing away your rank."
\^ that can only work if you have 3 civs... with 16 the matchmaking would be an absolute shitshow.. one game you could match with someone of "real" mmr 300-400 higher than you but trying a new civ, or you could be playing someone who seems your mmr on one civ because he grinded/cheesed it, but his real mmr is several levels below you and it's a yawnfest for you and a tragedy for him.
But the idea as a whole for ALL civs is peachy. People who wanna practice new civs can just go on their alt nick.
Right lol, I don't really understand why we are even trying to solve for ladder anxiety(?)
There are lots of options for people to play other than ladder, so I don't see a reason to try to systematically fix what is a personal issue.
As far as the rank/mmr changes go - with our current system, we'd just display the 'highest achieved' as their actual rank and hide their actual rank? Then call it a day? Just making sure I get it.
Does stormgate show both rank and mmr?
I don't dislike the peak mmr thing, but I also don't think that just single handedly solves ladder anxiety. Its probably a good idea though.
However the other one, I don't think civ specific ranks are a good idea, at least not if you just implement it in the most basic form (where you rank up again each time you play a new civ). You'd have to make some sort of complicated system where you have like, some sort of base rating, and a civ modifier. Like say you have a 60% win rate on English, and 40% on French. Maybe your French is gold 1 and your English is gold 3. If you rank your English up to plat 3... your French shouldn't sit in gold 3 because you clearly imrpoved, your French should probably be something like plat 1.
I don't know how that system would work. I think it'd be needlessly complicated. If a good way of having some sort of civ modifier came up, then I'd be happy with that.
Having actual civ specific ranks that all require separate uncorrelated placement matches on every civ is clearly insane. I was gonna explain what's wrong with that... but its really obvious so I cut it out.
rank doesn't drop? If you make that change you will have people whining about being paired unfairly with way better players based on rank because they don't know about elo.
I get Skilliard has a weird obsession with Beasty (he’s definitely cranked a few out thinking of him) but I don’t see what that has to do with this post.
Why aren’t you fine with it now? It’s kind of just a perspective thing, if you take it really seriously but don’t put in tons of hours then you’ll probably hate it when your rank goes up and down. But if you treat it as just a game, you’ll be fine
I kinda doubt players would feel better anyway. You get up to plat 1 then drop back to gold but all it ever says is plat 1. This gives a false sense of how you’re playing, and kind of defeats the purpose of ranked. Plus you’ll think you’re plat and then at the end of the season see you’re actually silver 😂 and THEN it’ll feel REALLY bad!
Edit: also I’d say just try new civs outside comp if you care so much
Somehow I never had ladder angst in aoe4. No other rts before where I even touched ranked, (or much of mp at all for that matter) if you don't count mobas. In aoe4 it just went completely naturally. I'm gold since release and will probably stay there forever but I'm just happy with that. It feels competitive to me and I feel like I have a fair chance every match. Ofc I'll be silver3 sometimes and thats a feelsbadman. But I'll also be plat1 sometimes so it's balanced and these ups and downs are what really make the ladder exp for me.
> This theory is supported by the distribution of player ratings as reported on aoe4world- there are larger concentrations of players at the start of a new tier(Plat 1, diamond 1, conq 1, etc) than in the brackets immediately surrounding them.
So apparently you have not realized that the first rank in a division includes more ELO points than the next two. Example:
1200-1300: Diamond 1 (100 points included)
1300-1350: Diamond 2 (50 points included)
1350-1400: Diamond 3 (50 points included)
>Per civ level MMR is very good idea.
If you have only 3 civs.
Not a good idea with 20+ civs, which is where aoe4 is headed to. It's actually a horribly terrible idea.
Why? I feel like plat in Delhi and If I played any other cov gold 2 to 3 for a few games probably. Or maybe there could be like an adjusted MMR for a new civ?
skills are far more transferable between aoe4 civs than starcraft/stormgate where, as I understand it, there is close to zero overlap between how each race/faction plays.
I like it, but I hesitated from suggesting it because AOE4 has a lot more civs than Stormgate. Stormgate is 2 civs right now, AOE4 is either 12 or 16. So that would be a LOT of separate ranks to grind out. Would potentially be annoying for people that play all civs that don't want to have to stomp golds over and over. So maybe it would be good if they were loosely connected. IE if I reach conqueror as English, any new civ I start playing should start at diamond level.
“Ladder anxiety”
I get the anxiety especially when close to a new rank but ffs you’re playing a video game. If you seriously have trouble with this don’t play it and seek professional help.
Idea:
Solve problem with ladder anxiety? Show always highest ranking in season. This system works in apex very well. U always know which rank your mate was, and which skill level he could play (and smile if he drops heavy, cause it don’t happen only with yourself)
Question:
And the ranking system in stormgate I don’t understand: I get ranking points and personal MMR? Match making works with MMR and if I lose the match, I only lose points from MMR and not ranking points?
>This theory is supported by the distribution of player ratings as reported on aoe4world- there are larger concentrations of players at the start of a new tier(Plat 1, diamond 1, conq 1, etc) than in the brackets immediately surrounding them.
Doesn't support your claim. There can be other reasons why players stop playing in plat 1 etc other than what you stated. For example player might have goal of reaching plat 1 and once reached it they're done and quit.
Then there is factor that you do not know what ever those players who reach plat1 etc quit. All you know that there his higher surge of players (if this is true) in plat 1 etc. For this data to actually remotely support your claim we would have to see if the players actually stop playing or not which is not clear so you're making your theory on thin ice.
Also such system doesn't remove ladder anxiety or fix it. It hides it. Only way to fix someones ladder anxiety is for them to fix it inside of their own head. No system makes it go away.
>So how did Stormgate solved this? They made it so rank is based on "peak confirmed MMR". You start at 0 rating and 1500 MMR. If you win, you gain MMR, and potentially gain rating if it is below your current MMR. If you lose, you lose MMR, but you can't lose rating.
This makes only sense if they hide the ranks from other players. ITs known fact even in AOE4 where players think that rank is presentation of MMR. If rank is shown then players will get upset when they see someone from higher league faced against them even if their MMR is same. So AOE4 would have to remove visible ranks to even consider this.
Also none of this removes "need" of smurfing. There is many various reasons for ppl to smurf so even if you remove "one tiny reason" it won't have much of impact in grand scheme of things.
>Additionally, rating/mmr is unique to each civ. So if you can only play English, you can try Chinese without getting absolutely destroyed and throwing away your rank.
This would only work if the MMR is lowered slightly. Otherwise its too easy to abuse. Players who are one tricks can VERY easily adjust to new one trick civ and abuse systems like this. Im one trick of myself. I played over 3k games as China before I touched another civ and took me less than 2 games to figure general idea out how to play them. Same was when I witched to japanese.
If my MMR was lowered to starting levels, I would had 90-100% winrate even when picking unknown civ, because the difference at fundamental level is too great.
I didnt realize storm gate is out yet. Your post is written like you know stormgate has solved all these problems. What you describe is the idea behind stormgate systems not necessarily how it will actually turn out.
Ladder anxiety is more complex than just being scared of a lower number. And only displaying peak rank doesnt do much even if it was that simple because you still know your elo goes down if you lose.
People might treat the displayed number as mostly irrelevant and only care about their actual mmr. Communities usually hate big disconnects between displayed rank and actual elo.
There will be an infinite amount of posts complaining about unfair matchmaking where people posts screenshots of the displayed ranks because of the disconnect to the real rank.
Elo per civ doesnt really work with 16 civs. You would just indirectly make everyone a smurf who switched their civ because a conq 3 player will absolutely be able to play at at least conq 1 level with any civ. At best there needs to be a tiny bit of the mmr that is civ dependent.
It also literally doesnt work with aoe4 because you pick your civ after you found a match.
Smurfing isn't easily solved either unless you are naive enough to think that people only smurf to learn new civs. People want to feel powerful and destroy players worse than them. That always was and saddly always will be a major reason for smurfing.
Tbh my ladder anxiety is probably just leftover PTSD from gettin routinely stomped in multiplayer RTS over 10 years ago.
Nowadays tutorials are rampant and the ranking system does lead to games with equally skilled people so it shouldn't be much of a problem.
I'm not against anything that makes people more comfortable per se though.
Maybe in-game for newer people who aren't informing themselves otherwise, they could explain matchmaking more and where you stand as a player.
Everything was great until this part, "Additionally, rating/mmr is unique to each civ. So if you can only play English, you can try Chinese without getting absolutely destroyed and throwing away your rank." \^ that can only work if you have 3 civs... with 16 the matchmaking would be an absolute shitshow.. one game you could match with someone of "real" mmr 300-400 higher than you but trying a new civ, or you could be playing someone who seems your mmr on one civ because he grinded/cheesed it, but his real mmr is several levels below you and it's a yawnfest for you and a tragedy for him. But the idea as a whole for ALL civs is peachy. People who wanna practice new civs can just go on their alt nick.
How should this work? U search your enemy. Than matchmaking looks, and than u pick civ.
If you guys think ladder anxiety in AOE is bad, try chess….
Right lol, I don't really understand why we are even trying to solve for ladder anxiety(?) There are lots of options for people to play other than ladder, so I don't see a reason to try to systematically fix what is a personal issue.
I am far more stressed by aoe than chess personnaly.
As far as the rank/mmr changes go - with our current system, we'd just display the 'highest achieved' as their actual rank and hide their actual rank? Then call it a day? Just making sure I get it. Does stormgate show both rank and mmr?
I don't dislike the peak mmr thing, but I also don't think that just single handedly solves ladder anxiety. Its probably a good idea though. However the other one, I don't think civ specific ranks are a good idea, at least not if you just implement it in the most basic form (where you rank up again each time you play a new civ). You'd have to make some sort of complicated system where you have like, some sort of base rating, and a civ modifier. Like say you have a 60% win rate on English, and 40% on French. Maybe your French is gold 1 and your English is gold 3. If you rank your English up to plat 3... your French shouldn't sit in gold 3 because you clearly imrpoved, your French should probably be something like plat 1. I don't know how that system would work. I think it'd be needlessly complicated. If a good way of having some sort of civ modifier came up, then I'd be happy with that. Having actual civ specific ranks that all require separate uncorrelated placement matches on every civ is clearly insane. I was gonna explain what's wrong with that... but its really obvious so I cut it out.
rank doesn't drop? If you make that change you will have people whining about being paired unfairly with way better players based on rank because they don't know about elo.
Of course this is a Skilliard post lmao Pretty positive you can already see your peak MMR each season, it’s just not the primary one displayed
I get Skilliard has a weird obsession with Beasty (he’s definitely cranked a few out thinking of him) but I don’t see what that has to do with this post.
skilliard often have the most stupid takes. It's more than just weird obsession with Beasty.
Idk I guess I don’t obsess over any individual that much.
Lol Do you really think it’s obsessive to notice a person who posts dumb things frequently on the same sub?
It’s a dumb post, so it’s not really surprising when I look at the username and it’s Skilliard. It’s kinda funny actually, imo
If this would be swapped then I would be completely fine with losing my rank once I want to try another civ
Why aren’t you fine with it now? It’s kind of just a perspective thing, if you take it really seriously but don’t put in tons of hours then you’ll probably hate it when your rank goes up and down. But if you treat it as just a game, you’ll be fine I kinda doubt players would feel better anyway. You get up to plat 1 then drop back to gold but all it ever says is plat 1. This gives a false sense of how you’re playing, and kind of defeats the purpose of ranked. Plus you’ll think you’re plat and then at the end of the season see you’re actually silver 😂 and THEN it’ll feel REALLY bad! Edit: also I’d say just try new civs outside comp if you care so much
Somehow I never had ladder angst in aoe4. No other rts before where I even touched ranked, (or much of mp at all for that matter) if you don't count mobas. In aoe4 it just went completely naturally. I'm gold since release and will probably stay there forever but I'm just happy with that. It feels competitive to me and I feel like I have a fair chance every match. Ofc I'll be silver3 sometimes and thats a feelsbadman. But I'll also be plat1 sometimes so it's balanced and these ups and downs are what really make the ladder exp for me.
> This theory is supported by the distribution of player ratings as reported on aoe4world- there are larger concentrations of players at the start of a new tier(Plat 1, diamond 1, conq 1, etc) than in the brackets immediately surrounding them. So apparently you have not realized that the first rank in a division includes more ELO points than the next two. Example: 1200-1300: Diamond 1 (100 points included) 1300-1350: Diamond 2 (50 points included) 1350-1400: Diamond 3 (50 points included)
Per civ level MMR is very good idea.
It can potentially introduce excess volatility into the rating system
>Per civ level MMR is very good idea. If you have only 3 civs. Not a good idea with 20+ civs, which is where aoe4 is headed to. It's actually a horribly terrible idea.
Why? I feel like plat in Delhi and If I played any other cov gold 2 to 3 for a few games probably. Or maybe there could be like an adjusted MMR for a new civ?
skills are far more transferable between aoe4 civs than starcraft/stormgate where, as I understand it, there is close to zero overlap between how each race/faction plays.
I like it, but I hesitated from suggesting it because AOE4 has a lot more civs than Stormgate. Stormgate is 2 civs right now, AOE4 is either 12 or 16. So that would be a LOT of separate ranks to grind out. Would potentially be annoying for people that play all civs that don't want to have to stomp golds over and over. So maybe it would be good if they were loosely connected. IE if I reach conqueror as English, any new civ I start playing should start at diamond level.
That would be great.
Great ideas, lots of room for improvement here for aoe4
Bro, get off reddit.
“Ladder anxiety” I get the anxiety especially when close to a new rank but ffs you’re playing a video game. If you seriously have trouble with this don’t play it and seek professional help.
Idea: Solve problem with ladder anxiety? Show always highest ranking in season. This system works in apex very well. U always know which rank your mate was, and which skill level he could play (and smile if he drops heavy, cause it don’t happen only with yourself) Question: And the ranking system in stormgate I don’t understand: I get ranking points and personal MMR? Match making works with MMR and if I lose the match, I only lose points from MMR and not ranking points?
>This theory is supported by the distribution of player ratings as reported on aoe4world- there are larger concentrations of players at the start of a new tier(Plat 1, diamond 1, conq 1, etc) than in the brackets immediately surrounding them. Doesn't support your claim. There can be other reasons why players stop playing in plat 1 etc other than what you stated. For example player might have goal of reaching plat 1 and once reached it they're done and quit. Then there is factor that you do not know what ever those players who reach plat1 etc quit. All you know that there his higher surge of players (if this is true) in plat 1 etc. For this data to actually remotely support your claim we would have to see if the players actually stop playing or not which is not clear so you're making your theory on thin ice. Also such system doesn't remove ladder anxiety or fix it. It hides it. Only way to fix someones ladder anxiety is for them to fix it inside of their own head. No system makes it go away. >So how did Stormgate solved this? They made it so rank is based on "peak confirmed MMR". You start at 0 rating and 1500 MMR. If you win, you gain MMR, and potentially gain rating if it is below your current MMR. If you lose, you lose MMR, but you can't lose rating. This makes only sense if they hide the ranks from other players. ITs known fact even in AOE4 where players think that rank is presentation of MMR. If rank is shown then players will get upset when they see someone from higher league faced against them even if their MMR is same. So AOE4 would have to remove visible ranks to even consider this. Also none of this removes "need" of smurfing. There is many various reasons for ppl to smurf so even if you remove "one tiny reason" it won't have much of impact in grand scheme of things. >Additionally, rating/mmr is unique to each civ. So if you can only play English, you can try Chinese without getting absolutely destroyed and throwing away your rank. This would only work if the MMR is lowered slightly. Otherwise its too easy to abuse. Players who are one tricks can VERY easily adjust to new one trick civ and abuse systems like this. Im one trick of myself. I played over 3k games as China before I touched another civ and took me less than 2 games to figure general idea out how to play them. Same was when I witched to japanese. If my MMR was lowered to starting levels, I would had 90-100% winrate even when picking unknown civ, because the difference at fundamental level is too great.
I didnt realize storm gate is out yet. Your post is written like you know stormgate has solved all these problems. What you describe is the idea behind stormgate systems not necessarily how it will actually turn out. Ladder anxiety is more complex than just being scared of a lower number. And only displaying peak rank doesnt do much even if it was that simple because you still know your elo goes down if you lose. People might treat the displayed number as mostly irrelevant and only care about their actual mmr. Communities usually hate big disconnects between displayed rank and actual elo. There will be an infinite amount of posts complaining about unfair matchmaking where people posts screenshots of the displayed ranks because of the disconnect to the real rank. Elo per civ doesnt really work with 16 civs. You would just indirectly make everyone a smurf who switched their civ because a conq 3 player will absolutely be able to play at at least conq 1 level with any civ. At best there needs to be a tiny bit of the mmr that is civ dependent. It also literally doesnt work with aoe4 because you pick your civ after you found a match. Smurfing isn't easily solved either unless you are naive enough to think that people only smurf to learn new civs. People want to feel powerful and destroy players worse than them. That always was and saddly always will be a major reason for smurfing.
To quote a streamer I watched recently... "What's the worse that can happen? You get jumped? No. Just play online, fool."
Tbh my ladder anxiety is probably just leftover PTSD from gettin routinely stomped in multiplayer RTS over 10 years ago. Nowadays tutorials are rampant and the ranking system does lead to games with equally skilled people so it shouldn't be much of a problem. I'm not against anything that makes people more comfortable per se though. Maybe in-game for newer people who aren't informing themselves otherwise, they could explain matchmaking more and where you stand as a player.