MArcomage

(Although, this also includes examples of my failing to RTFM and a piece of conversation that was missed.)

Djinn on 03:44, 11. Jun, 2014
_Also, are you sure Exp is based on ELO? I won a couple matches and look at the bar, and it didn't look much different than AI matches.
Djinn on 03:45, 11. Jun, 2014
_Or, wait, scratch that; is it based on relative XP?
Coolis on 03:48, 11. Jun, 2014
_yes, if you win with the guy with higher level, you gain more wxp
Djinn on 03:49, 11. Jun, 2014
_That's interesting; it completely ignores the fact that a player could have a super-bad winrate but has played a lot of games.
Coolis on 03:52, 11. Jun, 2014
_That's good point, winrate should be taken in calculation as well
Djinn on 03:53, 11. Jun, 2014
_Well, for stuff like scoring, and where people are placed in the players list, I would go with the same ELO system that http://games.ravenblack.net/rules/1/winning.html
Djinn on 03:54, 11. Jun, 2014
_-- ah, that is, the system that Ravenblack's Warlocks uses.
Coolis on 04:35, 11. Jun, 2014
_interesting. i'll take a look on that
Djinn on 04:38, 11. Jun, 2014
_Anyway, good game; just remember to bookmark (or something) the link for later before you close the game. Oh, and do you mind if I post some of this chat too?
Coolis on 04:39, 11. Jun, 2014
_Sure, i don't mind
Coolis on 04:40, 11. Jun, 2014
_gg and thanks
Coolis on 04:40, 11. Jun, 2014
has left the game
Djinn on 04:41, 11. Jun, 2014
_(Also, yes, this game was about 6 or 7 times as much bar as an AI game; it spammed me with the list of cards right after I sent Thor.)

I was in too much a hurry at the time, so the link "/1/winning.html", isn't really what I meant; that refers mostly to the number of games the player has won in a row, their "streak". Instead I meant the one linked on that page, here /1/elo.html, which is very much the same system that Chess, and actually a whole load of games use.
Although, this little mistake of mine does highlight how easy it is to have more than one system; Ravenblack uses the streak length to rank players, then an option to rank by Melee streak length, and then on the right (beside activity) the option to rank by ELO.

I don't really expect Mojko to really care about players being rating based on how good they are, since this game is extremely competitive; it's more the thing people just log in every so often to relax or whatever, so they care more about which players will be consistent opponents.

The first idea behind the rating system was something complex that would replace the player's score system. However, it ended as a parallel system to the score. The experience tells you mainly how much did the player actually played, not necessarily how good he is.

Mojko wrote:
The experience tells you mainly how much did the player actually played, not necessarily how good he is.

So it should be constant amount of exp earned after every match, not dependent on opponent's lvl, tower height, etc.

Coolis wrote:
So it should be constant amount of exp earned after every match, not dependent on opponent's lvl, tower height, etc.

Yeah, that's if you take that to the farthest logical conclusion, but if you actually look at how XP is awarded, it's kinda going in the same direction as the ELO equations are going for-- except of course for stuff like surrendering, which gives more points under ELO (since it encourages players to end long games early when they know for a fact they can't do anything to stop losing, also so the winning player doesn't get a lot for possibly no effort).

I think it's ok for the xp system to stay around, but it doesn't seem like the greatest thing to list players by.