agree with you Enix.

tom wrote: Well the problem is how do you calculate a ranking based on a team performance?

Actually I suppose it could be calculated the same way as the current rankings. It wouldn't be 100% fair but it would be a start at least.

This might be what you had in mind:

In a non-team game each change in rating is based on 20*(loser rating ) /(winner rating).  For team games you could calculate the average rating of that team.  The change formula becomes 20*(losing team average rating)/(winning team average rating).  

For each losing team, subtract this number from each player's rating on that losing team and add it to each player's rating on the winning team.  This would satisfy most of the requirements you'd want:  teaming up with a highly rated team player means you don't gain as much, beating teams with a low average rating doesn't gain much, zero sum, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick example:  2v2v2, team A has a 1000 and a 1400 rated player.  Team B has two 1600 rated players.  Team C has a 2200 and an 1800 rated player.  Team B wins.  

Each player on team A loses 15 points, leaving a 985 and a 1385 rated player.  Each player on team C loses 25 points, leaving a 2175 and a 1775 rated player.  Each player on Team B gains 40 points, leaving two 1640 rated players.  

Yep that sounds perfect thanks Hugh.

EnixNeo wrote:

Hugh wrote:

While a good idea, I think a more direct approach makes sense as far as rankings go. You create a team, invite specific players to join, and give that team a name. If there are two players on the team, the team may only join 2-player team games, if three on a team, only 3-player team games, etc. You would be allowed to join several teams. The team's rank data is recorded similarly to individual rank data.

I never really thought of it that way but I really like that idea.  The only problem might be that the term "team" then might become too restrictive.  In other words, if any one teammate on the team stops playing (or goes on hiatus) then the whole team is essentially done.  The way I envisioned it, a guild could recruit players and the players would play team games on behalf of their guild.  I have about six friends that I play with regularly (I introduced them to WG or converted them from WF)--it would be cool if anyone of us could create a team game and then everyone in the guild would automatically receive an invite/notification into the game.  If the game was a 3v3 then the first three players in the guild to join would play that match.  This way as I introduce people to WG, they can join the "team".  At the same time, if a player stops playing on WG, the entire team (of every team that player was involved in) doesn't have to retire.

I had pretty much this exact thought as EnixNeo wrote here while mowing the lawn last weekend.  (I was surprised to see it here while doing some back reading, but not really - I'm not that original of a thinker.)  

Any chance this idea is floating to the top of the "Things that will be coming sooner rather than later" list? 

So what's to prevent someone from forming a guild of two?  My point: Why not treat team games just like regular games, only when it comes to compiling stats, you take the average rating of each player. .To start everyone will have ratings of 1000.  But over time they will change.

For instance, When a team of two forms with ratings of 1040 and 1100, they play with a weighted rating of 1070.  This handicaps the team for scoring purposes.  If I have an individual team rating of 1300, I would be more willing to play with someone who has a rating of 900 knowing that when stats are compiled, The team plays as an 1100 entity.

This whole team stats thing is new to me so I'm sure this has idea been raised before 'cause it seems pretty obvious, ..so what's wrong with it?

M57 wrote:

So what's to prevent someone from forming a guild of two?  My point: Why not treat team games just like regular games, only when it comes to compiling stats, you take the average rating of each player. .To start everyone will have ratings of 1000.  But over time they will change.

For instance, When a team of two forms with ratings of 1040 and 1100, they play with a weighted rating of 1070.  This handicaps the team for scoring purposes.  If I have an individual team rating of 1300, I would be more willing to play with someone who has a rating of 900 knowing that when stats are compiled, The team plays as an 1100 entity.

This whole team stats thing is new to me so I'm sure this has idea been raised before 'cause it seems pretty obvious, ..so what's wrong with it?

How is this different from what Hugh said a few posts above you?

Uhmm.. It isn't.  I missed the post.   Although I'm thinking through it and wondering how and if it is fair to the better player on each team.

What really got me thinking about it is when I joined the Fall of Rome tourney awhile back I wanted to be on a team with two other people who I know in RL. I sent a message to them saying I joined - come and join also. 1 got on. Before the other could someone else joined on the team I started. They are probably an alright player, but I was thinking it would be nice to sign a whole team up at once in some way. So I got thinking of having a group that got an invite when someone from that group joined a team game, and those interested joined.

M57 wrote:

Uhmm.. It isn't.  I missed the post.   Although I'm thinking through it and wondering how and if it is fair to the better player on each team.

A formidable answer to this question is that the better player needs to get over themselves.  However, I advocate allowing a single player to belong to multiple teams/guilds, which completely solves the strong player's burden issue.  This way, the better player would belong to at least one dream team that has a high ranking going as well as some lesser teams where they don't expect the ranking to be as high.  

From a playing perspective, you'd get more team games belonging to multiple teams, so it maximizes fun as well.

Hugh wrote:

A formidable answer to this question is that the better player needs to get over themselves.

Hey! I resent that.

Oh, hold on - On second thought I'm totally sure you didn't mean me.

Hugh wrote:

In a non-team game each change in rating is based on 20*(loser rating ) /(winner rating).  For team games you could calculate the average rating of that team.  The change formula becomes 20*(losing team average rating)/(winning team average rating).  

For each losing team, subtract this number from each player's rating on that losing team and add it to each player's rating on the winning team.  This would satisfy most of the requirements you'd want:  teaming up with a highly rated team player means you don't gain as much, beating teams with a low average rating doesn't gain much, zero sum, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick example:  2v2v2, team A has a 1000 and a 1400 rated player.  Team B has two 1600 rated players.  Team C has a 2200 and an 1800 rated player.  Team B wins.  

Each player on team A loses 15 points, leaving a 985 and a 1385 rated player.  Each player on team C loses 25 points, leaving a 2175 and a 1775 rated player.  Each player on Team B gains 40 points, leaving two 1640 rated players.  

Ok, I've been rethinking the mean (average) rating idea, trying to think why better players wouldn't like it and I'm beginning to think that it is in fact fair to all players.

In your example above, consider the 2200 rated player who of course blames the loss on that incompetent 1800 team-mate.  But 2200 is risking less because he's effectively playing as a 2000 kind of guy, and if he wins, he stands to gain more points than if the team was rated at 2200, i.e. a better player should relish the opportunity to win a game with a lesser team-mate.

Even better, if you consider that better players have the ability to coach their teammates during games, effectively raising the level of their team's play, you could actually argue that the team who has the highest rated player has an advantage.

..but then again this would be mitigated because we all know that most top players have their heads up their butts.

As Hugh said, "zero sum".  I think it's a strong system.

I just realized I responded as though your comment were relative to guilds/teams. The thread switches back and forth between "per game" rankings and guilds/teams.

The "per game" ranking idea is even fair to those of us with our heads... for the reasons you mentioned.

No pressure of course tom, but it sounded as though you were close to implementing this :)

So I've read back through this and I'm confused.....
Are we advocating a Guild system for team play rankings or individual rankings based off of the averages of the players on the team?

I like both ideas but I'm just concerned because I like team games but who would ever want me in their guild as I would just bring them down.

So I've read back through this and I'm confused.....
Are we advocating a Guild system for team play rankings or individual rankings based off of the averages of the players on the team?

I like both ideas but I'm just concerned because I like team games but who would ever want me in their guild as I would just bring them down.

Where we were when the thread began was a discussion of forming guilds or teams. Eventually someone posted the idea of having a team ranking for individuals that is updated with each public ranked team game played.

The system devised takes into account the skill level of your teammate, so that there is incentive to play with lower ranked players. Even within guilds, the same idea can be used, but we don't require guilds to begin ranking team games.

I had originally thought guilds were the way to go, but now that I understand this ranking system that sounds cool too and guilds are sounding messier.

Here's a thought for sort of a fake-guild idea. When joining a team game get the option to invite other people (as many as you wish) to join your team a-la private games/tournaments meanwhile the system doesn't allow anyone else to join your team. The first to do so plays. If no one does in, say, two days then the restriction on others joining your team gets lifted.

One of my motivations for this is to work with some weaker players whom I'm attached to for one reason or another. If other players used this to reach out to newer people then that could really help get them into the community and keep them here.

The problem I see with guilds is that they need a gatekeeper (who allows/invites new players in) whereas a team could be created by simply inviting someone (someones) to it and if they all accept, the team is created, if one declines, then the team is destroyed. (I don't like the idea of inviting 10 people to a 3 person team and the team becomes the first 2 to accept plus the originator).

I don't know how messy the auto-accept would be with standard players, but it seems like this would be a programming issue and maybe teams should be a premium feature or not count toward the ten game limit, or ...