32 replies to this topic

[Aristocrat]

Soku Lobby will get a system for ranked matches at some point in the future, so I thought I'd write up a proposal for basic ladder rules and rank point allocation; please do respond and say whether or not you like the system/rule set, and what changes you would make to it. If enough people are in favor of this system, it'll have a good chance of making itself into the final product!

Ranked Ladder Rules:

[indent]Game settings:
Touhou 12.3: Touhou Hisoutensoku v1.10
Touhou 10.5: Scarlet Weather Rhapsody v1.06

Bugs/tricks in game:
Allowed to use:
- Catfish resets
- Bad Luck Omikuji packet reset
- Safejumps
- Input option selects
- Diamond Dust unblockable setups/loops
- Grab resets/Crossup resets
- Native God "Long-Arm-Long-Leg-sama" no-meter cancel
- Subterranean Sun bullet possession glitch
- Time Sign "Sakuya's Special Stopwatch" bullet persistence glitch
- Sakura Sign "Sense of Cherry Blossom" aerial resets

Not allowed to use:
- Iku 623 alt grab glitch
- Moses + Catfish damage glitch
- Invalid deck exploit
- Other gamebreaking glitches

Deliberate usage of these bugs in ranked matches will be punished with:
- Total reverse of the game (if abuser won).
- 1 week ranked match ban. (1st warning)
Second offense:
- Stat Reset & permanent ranked match ban.

Using hacks:
- It is forbidden to use any software that is likely to give you advantage over other players (Macros, auto-blocking scripts, in-game hitbox display, opponent input viewer)
- It is forbidden to use a rigged game client.
Punishment: Clearstats/ranked match ban. On repeated occasions: IPban from lobby.

Game Pause:
- A player doesn't need to ask for pause or unpause. You can pause or unpause at any time.

Map Restriction:
- Ranked matches can be played on any map, although it is highly recommended to use a stage that both players feel comfortable with. Stages like Cirno's Lake, SDM Clocktower, or Bhava-Agra will obscure all bright bullets during weather effects, making some matchups like vs. Yuyuko or vs. Komachi downright silly.
- Refusal to change map after the opponent requests a map change will be treated as BM, especially if the infringing player is using a character that is difficult to fight against on bright stages.

Delay Tolerance:
- A ranked match is invalidated if the average delay throughout the match exceeds 6. At such a high input delay, it would be a stretch to claim that the match result is accurate.

Transfer stats and clearstats during game:
- If a player transfers stats during a game because they are losing the game, player will be permanent banned from ranked matches on both accounts along with clearstats.
- If a player clearstats during a game because they are losing the game, player will be permanent banned from ranked matches.

Match list complaints:
- Only post complaints and reports in English. If your complaint is in another language, it will be denied.

Bad Manner behavior:
- A player can issue a complaint about BM behavior by contacting one of the moderators/administrators of the lobby. The penalty for this kind of behaviour is a Chat Ban, meaning a person won't be able to use message another user (Ex. /msg, in-game chat, and main lobby chat).
- 168 hours chatban is the penalty for 1st or small offense
- Permanent chatban is the penalty for 2nd offense (or 1st offense if Admins decide that user deserved it).
- The third offense results in Clearstats + Lock Account.

Punishable BM behavior:
- Spam with triggers, "not amused" statements, PM, highlights, or otherwise
- Offensive statements directed at another player, in PM or otherwise
- Constant teabagging during games
- Harassment via constant room join/part

Playing against the same person too many times:
You are not allowed to play more than:
- 20 games between D- and D+ in 24 hours
- 35 Games between C- and C+ in 24 hours
- 50 Games between B- and B+ in 24 hours
- A- and Olympic: No more than 1200 points gained from 1 player in 24 hours

Games played over the limit will not affect the scores of either player, and will count as "casual" games that do not contribute towards ranking in any way. If you need to practice with your friend, you can always set the game to non-ranked to avoid hitting the limit before you seriously play.

Prematurely terminated games:
Whenever a player deliberately leaves the game before a KO occurs and that player is in a situation that would imply any significant disadvantage (being hit by a large spellcard, typhoon weather with no hitpoints left, etc.), admins are obligated to give him a -250 points penalty and one loss to game leaver. The player who stays in-game will receive points for winning as usual.

Fake location:
Players cannot request a location that is different from their actual geographical area. Attempting to do so results in a warning.

Free Wins:
It is forbidden to play a ladder game with the intent to give the other player free points. Punishment is account lock/clearstats.

Games vs accounts with the same IP address:
It is forbidden to play a ladder game against an account that has the same IP address as you.
[/indent]

Rank Point Calculation:
Every player starts at 1000 points at the beginning of a season. Winning matches will gain the player points, while losing matches will, of course, cause the player to lose points. Wins/losses are reset at the end of each season, to ensure that rankings are "fresh" and that people cannot get to #1 and stay there forever without playing.



The left column of the above chart shows your respective "rank" level based on how many points you have. Depending on your rank and your opponent's rank, the points given on win/loss will vary. An A-rank player won't gain many points for defeating a D-rank player, for instance. Read the chart by finding the column corresponding to your current rank, and then the row corresponding to your opponent's rank (relative to yours). The green number is the point value you would gain on a win, while the black number is the point value you would lose on a loss.

[The number in parentheses can possibly be the point value gained when you defeat the opponent with "Random", but that is still being debated at the moment. The rules and ladder rating system were taken from iCCup, and for their ladder the number in parentheses were for a "Map of the Day". Since gameplay doesn't change much with a different stage in soku, something different needs to be done. Any ideas?]

[kagamiUinaba]

I'm not sure how srs biz this actually has to be, but I figure I should point out a couple of undesirable properties of this ranking system.

Most notably, it discourages you from fighting people of your own skill if you are a strong player and want a high rank. If everyone plays with a similar-skill level bias (as they typically do in IRC), this system will result in extremely noisy and essentially useless ranking scores.

On the other hand, if everyone plays without any bias toward opponent selection, it heavily stratifies the population into a few (4 with these specific point values) clusters that are quite distant from each other. This is troublesome since it means that there's a very high variance of actual playing ability within a cluster of very similar rank scores. Also, if people actually played with no selection bias at all, simple win ratio would be a much better measure of ability.

Lastly, if you want to get the highest score with this system, and you're an above average player, the best way to do it is to farm unskilled players. The win/loss point differences for doing so heavily favors the better player.

Of course, that's only if someone really really cares about their loli fighting ranking. But if they don't, why do we need a special system anyway? Tbh, self-selected difficulty rankings might be best, maybe coupled with a simple win/loss ratio for the past X games

[Immac]

When you say "tea bagging" you refer to constantly crouching near the opponent's dead body right? But can we constantly crouch when not near? I like that animation, and iv'e done it without knowing that ppl could consider that offensive.

[Aristocrat]

A win-loss ratio is meaningless as a reference for skill level; if I only played nameless or Magister, I'd have maybe a 5% win ratio. I would still trump the players who only pick on newcomers and have 95%+ win ratios.

kagamiUinaba, on 30 May 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

if you want to get the highest score with this system, and you're an above average player, the best way to do it is to farm unskilled players. The win/loss point differences for doing so heavily favors the better player.

I'm not quite sure how gaining 2 points on a win and losing 40 points on a loss favors the better player; it is not feasible to assume that the better player will always win: even the greatest of players can fail occasionally. The reward for winning is meant to encourage the better player to play with the less advanced one, while the significant penalty for losing forces the better player to play seriously; it's easy to lose more than half of your life and possibly drop a round in just one mistake, even against new players.

You wrote your response under the assumption that the ranking system is supposed to distribute players either uniformly or in a gaussian distribution centered around B-/C+. This is incorrect. As is the case with what the iCCup ladder has exhibited, the significant fraction of the playerbase will fail to get past C- due to insufficient skill level. The remaining perhaps 20 percent of players who excel at the game will be distributed across C through A+, with only the top few players actually passing B. The concept of the levels are as follows:

• To sustain your current rank in A- or above, you must consistently win more games than you lose against players of the same rank. Players who deserve to be placed in A- or above are supposed to demonstrate extraordinary skill greatly above that of the remaining population. If you are only going 50:50 against another player, you shouldn't be in the A bracket.
  
• To sustain your current rank in B- or above, your win ratio must be 1:1 against players of the same rank. This means that you cannot move up if you simply aren't better than other people at your own level.
  
• To sustain your current rank in C- or above, you will not be able to fight players one level below you and get away with a 1:1 win ratio. This point is where most players get stuck: if they don't improve, they are simply unable to advance past this point. Only by increasing your actual skill level can C be reached.
  
• To advance past D, a 1:1 win ratio against players of the same rank is sufficient. This generates positive feedback for players and encourages them to play games against people of similar skill level, since they gain more than they lose if the win/loss ratio is roughly 50:50. Note, however, that the point difference between a game won and a game lost decreases significantly at D+ if you are fighting another D player. This is a sort of "snapback" effect: You can get to D+ by being average, but you won't be able to move any further by playing against D players. You must defeat other D+ ranked players to advance.
  
• If you lose the significant majority of your games, you will be demoted to E. However, note that E-rank players are only eligible to play opponents who are D or D- level. Someone winning 33% of his games will stay at D, while someone winning 20% of his games will stay at D-. This provides for a population of new or relatively unskilled players with whom E-rank players can train against, possibly leading to mutual improvement. The low point loss at lower tiers will encourage gameplay, such that people don't think "I would play you, but if I lose, my rank will take a big hit, so no thanks". It is undesirable for unskilled players to have the mentality to only fight those weaker than them, because they will not learn anything. The increased rewards and decreased risks for fighting better players encourages new players to play better opponents.

Again, stratification is desirable in this case. New players should be encouraged to play other new players, while skilled players should be encouraged to play other skilled players instead of fighting against newbies. Most people will be at C- or below, the better part of the community will be at C or above, while the top few will make it to B- or above.

While it is true that a lot of players clustered around the 2xxx range will differ in skill level, players who are in general better than the rest of the group naturally advance into the next stratum of ranking and leave the group, while players who are in general worse than the rest of the group will be drained down to a lower tier. To achieve actual equilibrium with random opponent selections, players in each group cannot significantly differ in skill level, or in other words, have skill level discrepancies that lead to more than a 6-4 win/loss ratio.

Immac, on 30 May 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

When you say "tea bagging" you refer to constantly crouching near the opponent's dead body right? But can we constantly crouch when not near? I like that animation, and iv'e done it without knowing that ppl could consider that offensive.

Yes, that is what teabagging means. The act is generally a taunt with connotations implying that the teabagger believes himself/herself to be significantly better than the other player. Even if the implication is true, such an act is still considered offensive, and hence, bad manners. We are supposed to be at least somewhat nice to each other; that's why people are encouraged to say "ggs" after a series of games. You won't lose anything by not doing it.

[kagamiUinaba]

Aristocrat, on 30 May 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

A win-loss ratio is meaningless as a reference for skill level; if I only played nameless or Magister, I'd have maybe a 5% win ratio. I would still trump the players who only pick on newcomers and have 95%+ win ratios. ...

Yes, this is clearly true and is a frequently pointed out issue in using naive estimates of skill. I meant to point out, however, that the iccup system fares much much worse than a simple win/loss ratio if you are playing people in your skill bracket.

You can run a simulation and this comes out quite clearly, but it should also be pretty obvious. If you assume the ranking system is doing what it's supposed to do, then when I fight a person of my equal rank value, I should have a 50% chance of winning. If that happens, I get pushed down toward B if I'm high ranked and pushed up toward B if I'm low ranked. Therefore, the method of escaping B rank must be to play people of different levels, which means either beating up on weak players or fighting stronger players with the hope of a win or two that rockets you up in a single go. Which way is preferable depends on the specific point values you assign to win/loss between ranks. Either way has obvious undesirable qualities.

A simple fix for that within this system would be to make same-rank win/loss penalties equal for all skill brackets. In any case, this system is highly volatile unless you can ensure that playing people who are better or worse than you is generally worse for you than playing people of equal rank. The point values necessary to do so end up being equivalent to binned e-lo win-loss penalties.

Another thing people often claim is that winning 2 point to losing 40 (the most extreme condition with the above point values) is unfavorable to the person losing 40. I assure you that anyone who would have been ranked lunatic on irc would essentially never lose to a low ranked ranked player, much less than 5% of the time, unless he has a power failure or gets stricken by lightning or w/e.

Again, my suggestion is self-selected difficulty level together with a very basic stat page.

[Aristocrat]

kagamiUinaba, on 30 May 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

Again, my suggestion is self-selected difficulty level together with a very basic stat page.

This sounds like a good idea, but if it ever gets implemented, then something like 80% of the playerbase would set themselves to "lunatic" or whatever the highest rank is, completely disregarding their actual skill level, thus making the self-selected difficulty level meaningless to an outside observer.

kagamiUinaba, on 30 May 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

Yes, this is clearly true and is a frequently pointed out issue in using naive estimates of skill. I meant to point out, however, that the iccup system fares much much worse than a simple win/loss ratio if you are playing people in your skill bracket.

How so? Skill levels are not static, and you are never at the exact same skill level as anyone else. Something like 99% of the player base will be at a different skill level from you. Hell, out of the 13,000 or so games I have recorded on Tensokukan versus over 300 people, only six players are in between 40%-60% for my win ratio against them (Four of those six players only played two games against me, at one win/one loss). From my experience, I either utterly destroy my opponent or end up being stomped most of the time; even people "close" to me in skill level end up with skewed win/loss rates that hover around 2-1 or even 3-1.

Playing a few games against a random opponent will most likely shift both players closer to their respective deserved ranks, especially if done in the middle of a season when most players are already around their final relative ranking.

kagamiUinaba, on 30 May 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

If that happens, I get pushed down toward B if I'm high ranked and pushed up toward B if I'm low ranked.

No, you get pushed up if you win, and you get pushed down if you lose. This system by no means pushes players towards B for playing people of the same skill level, because as soon as your rank changes, you are in a different bracket of players. If you advanced from D to D+ by winning 50% of the time against D players, you'll get pushed down to D again very quickly if you are not at the skill level of other D+ players.

"Escaping B" is done by actually getting better at this game. Of course, you would have to be pretty good to get to B in the first place, not to mention that the gravitating effect you postulated is fictitious in the first place.

kagamiUinaba, on 30 May 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

Another thing people often claim is that winning 2 point to losing 40 (the most extreme condition with the above point values) is unfavorable to the person losing 40. I assure you that anyone who would have been ranked lunatic on irc would essentially never lose to a low ranked ranked player, much less than 5% of the time, unless he has a power failure or gets stricken by lightning or w/e.

I took something like four or five games off nameless (and a lot more rounds) out of 80 or so games against him in my first week playing, even though I was by no means good. "Never lose" is a rather terrible assumption, because no matter how good you are, an uninformed player randomly pressing buttons still has a chance to defeat you, simply because the characters in the game are the same for everyone. This is in no way analogous to a level 5 fighting a level 90 in a MMO: an inherent difference in basic stats completely prevents the low-leveled player from winning. In a fighting game, everyone starts on equal grounds, and it is very realistic for a good player to lose two lifebars due to mistakes.

Again, I must emphasize that you are commenting on a system with which you have no personal experience with, so it is only appropriate for me to take what you say with a grain of salt and think about what I actually saw when I still played BW on iCCup. As far as I remembered, the system worked out quite nicely; a D+ player would lose most of his games against a C- player, and a D player at ~1800 was generally much better than a D player at ~1200. If I ended up with a Terran player at 4300 points in my ladder game, I could get a rough picture of his skill level before the game starts, by referencing from memory what other ~4300 Terrans played like. This typically turned out to be exceedingly accurate, simply because the scale is so large that actually moving a statistically significant amount on the scale required actual improvement. Can I look at two people with 5000 and 6000 points on iCCup and immediately discern a difference in skill level and be able to estimate where that difference came from? Yes I can. But can I do the same by seeing two players at 2300 vs 2400 elo rating? No I cannot. (To demonstrate this: say a new player somehow beats a guy at 2400 rating, then proceeds to get 9 more wins against unskilled players. BAM! He is now at somewhere around 2300 rating. The number is completely useless to anyone trying to gauge skill level by looking at rating. A player trying to pull something similar under the current system wouldn't get anywhere.)

I do admit that elo rating is statistically more "clean", but it isn't the practically superior solution for every ladder system in existence. If a system has been proven to work, claiming that it doesn't work by poking at specifics and ignoring the perfectly fine previous results and feedback from a large community using said system is far-stretched.

[Immac]

OT: I Just want to take the opportunity to Apologize to anyone who thought i was tea bagging when i won a round, I was just watching the crouching animations (Specially suika's and Reimu's animation).

IT: I don't really like ranking systems, but sometimes they are good for keeping people from fighting people who either aren't a challenge, or will wipe the floor with you in a sec.

[bob51]

Anything dealing with Randomness is dealing with probalities non-dependant on the player's skill (Although mash kind of enters this category, it is still a player decision). It is incorrect to judge someone's skill with something that is not dependant on their ability. That is, random factors. So I suggest getting rid of Aurora, and possibly Mountain Vapor. You can deduce certain type of cards in your deck while in vapor, but doing so is not possible for all deck types, if that matters or not I guess will depend on your judgement, but you can't know aurora's weather on spot like in SWR, so I still think that should be removed. (Ever had someone graze your string in graze when you have no idea it was haze? All of my rage.)

[Aristocrat]

It's definitely possible to figure out the exact weather that Aurora gives, as well as prevent yourself from being caught off-guard by the weather. The big offenders like Typhoon and Spring Haze can be confirmed as soon as you try to block something, and in any case, knowing how to confirm Aurora weather can give you a huge edge, especially if you can figure it out before your opponent does.

• Mountain Vapor, River Mist, and Cloudy are immediately apparent to the players.
  
• Spring Haze can be confirmed if grazing projectiles or blocking any attack produces weather crystals.
  
• Tempest can be confirmed if a dash or attack affected by the speed increase is performed.
  
• Scorching Sun can be confirmed by HP loss when character is positioned high.
  
• Typhoon and Calm can be confirmed as soon as an attack connects.
  
• Sunshower and Hail can be confirmed with fast crushed orb recovery or the effect from wrongblocking attacks.
  
• Hail can be confirmed with fast spirit recovery.
  
• Heavy Fog will be noticeable if substantial damage is dealt.
  
• Sunny can be confirmed with free BE/lower cost flight.
  
• Snow is confirmed usually only after a card is destroyed due to the effect, as it is difficult to notice the card gauge dropping.
  
• Monsoon and Diamond Dust can be confirmed after a knockdown.
  
• Sprinkle and Drizzle can only be confirmed by attempting the specials/spells. For some characters, Level 4 skills are visually indistinguishable from the level 0/1 counterparts, making confirming the weather difficult without landing a hit.
  
• Blue Sky can only be confirmed by attempting to cancel specials into other specials.
  
• Sand Storm is difficult to confirm since it is not simple to distinguish induced counterhits from normal counterhits.

The fact that randomness exists in soku can't be denied, but if we ban randomness, we would need to ban both Sanae as well as cards (card drawing is random as well; what can you do if you draw three hangekis and two coins while the opponent draws all of his useful cards immediately?)

It's easy to get past most events with a random element, however, so I vote to keep the random elements in the game.

[bob51]

I was going to chew you out, but.

Quote

The fact that randomness exists in soku can't be denied, but if we ban randomness, we would need to ban both Sanae as well as cards (card drawing is random as well; what can you do if you draw three hangekis and two coins while the opponent draws all of his useful cards immediately?)

Good point, nothing else to say.

[DangoBFC]

Practically whats said has been said. To a good player, weather should not be signficant in altering the course of the game because they will know how to manipulate weather at that level. If you aren't fluent with knowing how to use weather, it just means you don't really deserve the win that you are aiming for. Every weather has a catch to it, and it contributes to their strategy. Like aristo posted above, there is always a way to identify weather and that you should adjust accordingly. Weather is part of soku; if this is a ladder for soku, then all features of it should be included. Besides, if weather is the trouble, you can always run tenshi system card.

Also, for the map, you could just use something like

-Maps BANNED:
SDM Clocktower (Reason: Wisps and Cirno's Ice transparent in clock)
Misty Lake (Reason above)
Hakugyokurou (Reason: Dark attacks like Suwako 22B/Sanae 22B misfortunes cannot be seen)

-Maps RECOMMENDED:
Scarlet Devil Mansion (Reason: No weather showing/reduces delay)
Cloudy Sea (Reason: Minimal weather effect)
Forest of Magic (Reason above)

Thought i'd point out that Land cancelling suwako 4card limbs is not a bug, but a legit technique like very other land cancel.
Well, the rest, i'd say is set.

Quote

IT: I don't really like ranking systems, but sometimes they are good for keeping people from fighting people who either aren't a challenge, or will wipe the floor with you in a sec.

Well, at the same time, this kind of ranking system forces both players to be serious because.. say hypothetically
A lower rank person challenges that of a high rank.

The lower rank will want to win because he/she can get a huge point boost if they do so. However, the higher rank also must contribute to this seriousness because one loss could mean that their rank will drop drastically. And since delay 6+ games are voided, there wont be any due-to-lag win/losses either.

[GoingUP]

Aristocrat, on 30 May 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

Punishable BM behavior:
- Spam with triggers, "not amused" statements, PM, highlights, or otherwise
- Offensive statements directed at another player, in PM or otherwise
- Constant teabagging during games
- Harassment via constant room join/part

Just wanted to say that teabagging shouldn't be that bad. I sometimes like taunting my opponent, either if it's constantly crouch spamming, teabagging, going back and forth in a rapid manner ( 464646464646464 inputs ) or more sophisticated taunts like doing Iku's dance with infinite spirit or forcing annoying weathers at every opportunity ( typhoon, river mist, even aurora ) while canceling the cool ones ( like blue sky, sprinkle, sand storm etc ) just to anger my opponent.

What exactly is bad mannered during an actual match is relative. Every player might find something BM others might not.
It's like doing fatalities in MK9, it's considered bad mannered, but it shouldn't be a bannable offense, is it?

Anyway, I voted yes for the system and I was wondering if we going to have individual ranking chat rooms. Something like a D ranked room, a C ranked room, a B ranked room and so on.

[Aristocrat]

I think a good rule of thumb is that if the other guy tells you to stop, then you are being BM.

GoingUP, on 31 May 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

Anyway, I voted yes for the system and I was wondering if we going to have individual ranking chat rooms. Something like a D ranked room, a C ranked room, a B ranked room and so on.

If we ever get hidden chat rooms or "sticky" rooms (rooms that persist even with no one in them), this is a possibility. I like the idea though.

[GoingUP]

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

I think a good rule of thumb is that if the other guy tells you to stop, then you are being BM.

I agree.

Also will a season mean something like 3 months long ?

[Nehara]

These would be perfect rules... for an offline ranbats, but nope. This is online, online on a game that doesn't even have that many players. Look at the Japanese, they simply use the tenco ranking system, there's no need for "Man, he used the Iku grab glitch. So I win instead of him." Or even, "Man this guy is disrespecting me over the INTERNET. Please do something about this please kthxbai." If you win, you get a win. If you lose, you lose. If you force disconnect, then you're a terrible person. Only thing on the line is points, and that's not even worth fighting for.

All these rules are WAY too strict for online play and a public chat room. So what if bob51 disconnects when I win and then tells me I'm trash when I lose. Yeah, I'm offended (not really <3), but no one else needs to care. All it does is inspire me to win and to shut him up anyways. All those chat punishes are way too harsh. Trying to build a community here, not weed out the bad mannered.

Here's how I think it should work, just do it like SF4. You have character points and player points. The greater the difference in points from your opponent the more you gain/lose. Character point determine rank, player points just tell you how good the player consistently is. If they won after using Iku glitch then they won. If they lost after using a catfish reset then they lost. So what if this guy farmed points buy having someone purposefully lose. He'll just have a big e-penis and lose (or disconnect) when he actually fights a good player. We're a small tight-knit community anyways, we know who's ok and who's good.

Ranking matches should be, enter ranking match, lobby finds random opponent based on certain specs, rules would simply be that lobby would make certain stages locked when you pick random, and the match is played. People who disconnect frequently should be made known. There should never be a time where a stat reset is even necessary.

If you really want a ranking system, here's my solution: Weekly/Monthly Ranbats. If you've ever seen 3s ranbats that's what I'm talking about Example. All these rules that are listed would be used (mostly) and it'll be a king of the hill format in pools of about 5-7 players. Whenever you win you get +1 points and when you lose you get -1 points. Whenever you reach say +5 points you advance to the next rank, and if you get -3 points you get lowered a rank, and the ranks would be titles granted by admins. Say 2 people would advance on to the first rank of "Master," then they would quit playing in no rank ranbats, and eventually when there are like 6 "Master" rank players, there would be two ranbats that week, one for no ranks and one for "Master" rank players. The "Master" rank players would be competing for "Grand Master" rank and also trying to not get -3 points and get lowered to no rank. These ranks would probly be a better indication of skill than any point system, mostly because it's like a mini-tourney where all these rules and be easily applied and supervised.

[FearNagae]

EDIT: Nevermind

[Aristocrat]

Nehara, on 31 May 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

All these rules are WAY too strict for online play and a public chat room. So what if bob51 disconnects when I win and then tells me I'm trash when I lose. Yeah, I'm offended (not really <3), but no one else needs to care. All it does is inspire me to win and to shut him up anyways. All those chat punishes are way too harsh. Trying to build a community here, not weed out the bad mannered.

So you are saying that we should encourage bad-mannered behavior because it's inspirational? I don't quite see how that applies to random ranked matches. You know bob well and so you wouldn't mind it if he trash-talks, but what if you are matched up against a complete stranger who does the same thing to you? You would definitely not be thinking the same way.

The rules in place are not there to restrict what you can say to your friends, but rather, to discourage general bad-mannered behavior directed towards strangers. It would be bad if a newcomer had to deal with BM in his first two games; he might quit soku forever, even though he might have stayed had the opponent acted in a more civil manner.

Nehara, on 31 May 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

We're a small tight-knit community anyways, we know who's ok and who's good.

You have no idea how big the soku community as a whole is. Doujinstyle and #hisouten are just the tip of the iceberg. I have seen many lobby regulars who can put up a decent fight whom I have never heard of until they joined lobby.

Nehara, on 31 May 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Ranking matches should be, enter ranking match, lobby finds random opponent based on certain specs, rules would simply be that lobby would make certain stages locked when you pick random, and the match is played. People who disconnect frequently should be made known. There should never be a time where a stat reset is even necessary.

Stat resets are in place to prevent a player from, for instance, farming up to 10xxx points then quitting forever. Resets ensure that rankings are fresh and recent, and that the relative scores of players really do reflect their relative skill levels. Without ranking resets, players like Xeno might grind soku for two months, then quit when he reaches 8000 points. When he comes back and plays with epic rust, he might only be at the 2xxx level, but his opponents have no way of knowing that. With regular stat resets, players will be measured based on their recent performance, allowing the rank system to act as a better indicator of skill.

Nehara, on 31 May 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

If you really want a ranking system, here's my solution: Weekly/Monthly Ranbats.

Did you see how the last two attempts to host soku ranbats turned out? Neither of them finished because players lost interest, the NA one due to low participation and the EU one due to the same guy *cough*Kuraperunat*cough* winning every tournament. protip: No one wants to show up at a strict scheduled time each week to play in a ranking tournament. What if a good player is only able to play on Mondays? Ranbats honestly reward participation more than gamining expertise no matter how you try to organize them. No, you are not DP. Shoryukens won't save you from bad arguments.

IMO, someone wanting to be ranked should be able to play ranked matches whenever he wants, against whomever he wants. This ladder system is one way to go about doing so without diverging too much from the voluntary opponent selection model that most soku players are accustomed to. A lot more players would be willing to play in ranked matches rather than scheduled ranbats; ranking matches should be accessible to all players, not only tourneyfags.

FearNagae, on 31 May 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

EDIT: Nevermind

FFF-

EDIT>

DangoBFC, on 31 May 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Also, for the map, you could just use something like

-Maps BANNED:
SDM Clocktower (Reason: Wisps and Cirno's Ice transparent in clock)
Misty Lake (Reason above)
Hakugyokurou (Reason: Dark attacks like Suwako 22B/Sanae 22B misfortunes cannot be seen)

-Maps RECOMMENDED:
Scarlet Devil Mansion (Reason: No weather showing/reduces delay)
Cloudy Sea (Reason: Minimal weather effect)
Forest of Magic (Reason above)

Thought i'd point out that Land cancelling suwako 4card limbs is not a bug, but a legit technique like very other land cancel.
Well, the rest, i'd say is set.

I thought I responded to this earlier, but apparently my post didn't go through for some reason D:

Thanks Dango, I added the map bit as per your suggestion, although I suppose players should still have the freedom to choose the unrecommended stages if neither side has a problem with it. Obviously, stuff like the pure-black stage or catfish stage need to be removed from "Random" during ranked matches since those backgrounds are just ridiculous.

[Nan0teck]

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

The rules in place are not there to restrict what you can say to your friends, but rather, to discourage general bad-mannered behavior directed towards strangers. It would be bad if a newcomer had to deal with BM in his first two games; he might quit soku forever, even though he might have stayed had the opponent acted in a more civil manner.

Pretty much what happened to me (and several other people I know). I didn't quit the game immediately though, just stopped going to the IRC.

The fact that this wasn't enforced AT ALL in IRC was just the nail in the coffin.

Not that anybody would care here.

[kagamiUinaba]

Well, my suspicion is that the ranking system proposed won't work out so well for soku, but the only real harm in trying it out is the effort that you have to put in coding it.

Will the stats you collect from matches be publicly available? I would love to take a look at them if they are. There aren't a lot of public databases out there for games like this, and it would amuse to no end if I can get a paper out there modeling soku matches.

[Nehara]

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

So you are saying that we should encourage bad-mannered behavior because it's inspirational? I don't quite see how that applies to random ranked matches. You know bob well and so you wouldn't mind it if he trash-talks, but what if you are matched up against a complete stranger who does the same thing to you? You would definitely not be thinking the same way.

Nope, pretty sure I'd want to shut him up too.

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

The rules in place are not there to restrict what you can say to your friends, but rather, to discourage general bad-mannered behavior directed towards strangers. It would be bad if a newcomer had to deal with BM in his first two games; he might quit soku forever, even though he might have stayed had the opponent acted in a more civil manner.

That's the same as saying someone would quit the internet because they found /b/. So if I went against a new guy and all I had to say was bad things like, "Man, your movement is bad," "X isn't safe on block, stop doing it," "That skill is terrible stop using that," or "Why don't you block?" Would it be BM if he quits because of it? What if I go easy on a new player and they get offended? What if I go all out even though they said go easy? As silly as it is, this is a competitive fighting game. You have to deal with not being good, and trash talking.

Only thing I would have a problem with is "Fuck you, you're garbage, stop playing this game." Those people should be lynched.

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

You have no idea how big the soku community as a whole is. Doujinstyle and #hisouten are just the tip of the iceberg. I have seen many lobby regulars who can put up a decent fight whom I have never heard of until they joined lobby.

Same could be said of any fighting game community. SF has SRK as a base; however, that doesn't mean that EVERY SF player is on SRK. SRK is a community. SF players are NOT a community. #hisouten is a community. Every Soku player ever is NOT a community.

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

Stat resets are in place to prevent a player from, for instance, farming up to 10xxx points then quitting forever. Resets ensure that rankings are fresh and recent, and that the relative scores of players really do reflect their relative skill levels. Without ranking resets, players like Xeno might grind soku for two months, then quit when he reaches 8000 points. When he comes back and plays with epic rust, he might only be at the 2xxx level, but his opponents have no way of knowing that. With regular stat resets, players will be measured based on their recent performance, allowing the rank system to act as a better indicator of skill.

You should know that rank means nothing. You might farm 8000 points, and then fight Magister who might not even play ranking and has 0 points. Does that mean you're 8000 points better than Magister? Doubt it. Let the scores stay. Why? Imagine a Pac-Man machine where you finally beat the #1 score by 10 points and leave your initials. You don't play it for months however you go to the machine every now and then to see that you still left the mark that you were #1. Would it be fair to say "Hey, you never played Pac-Man is months, your score is invalid. Your hard earned achievement and mark on this machine will be deleted forever."

Aristocrat, on 31 May 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

Did you see how the last two attempts to host soku ranbats turned out? Neither of them finished because players lost interest, the NA one due to low participation and the EU one due to the same guy *cough*Kuraperunat*cough* winning every tournament. protip: No one wants to show up at a strict scheduled time each week to play in a ranking tournament. What if a good player is only able to play on Mondays? Ranbats honestly reward participation more than gamining expertise no matter how you try to organize them. No, you are not DP. Shoryukens won't save you from bad arguments.

IMO, someone wanting to be ranked should be able to play ranked matches whenever he wants, against whomever he wants. This ladder system is one way to go about doing so without diverging too much from the voluntary opponent selection model that most soku players are accustomed to. A lot more players would be willing to play in ranked matches rather than scheduled ranbats; ranking matches should be accessible to all players, not only tourneyfags.

Players lost interest because it was a season. This is a once per week thing where you get a title. That's a little more than the pride than that ranbat was for. So what if not enough people show up? That just means no title gets handed out. It's not like "Hey, we can't finish the season because not enough people are showing up." It's not "Ok, every week from now on we're gonna get together and play for points, most points at the end of the season is the best." It's more "Come to this thing at the end of the month where people come together and try to get a title, even if you don't wanna play, then you can watch a certain level of game play depending on what rank you decide to watch. Admins could even encourage people to enter/watch by giving out special titles like "Spectator" or "Entrant" if they don't wanna play or didn't get past the first rank.

Ranking matches should be can be random or pick your opponent, I prefer the random because it encourages players to play with most other people instead of that high ranking guy that they can beat repeatedly until they stop getting points, and if you get the choice to pick, then you get the choice to pick someone else's choice. "I wanna fight this high level guy that keeps showing up in the list but every time I try to join someone else has already joined [/disappointment]." If you want it to be accessible to all players, why are you enforcing tourneyfag rules?