Hello,

I'm fairly new on here, but I just realized my teamplay wins aren't counting for ranking at all. 

I understand why teamplay shouldn't be factored as importantly as individual wins.  But, shouldn't those people who excel in cooperative play get some reward? 

I have over a 50% teamplay ratio, and 88% on A&A. I didn't get that by piggybacking someone else's success, but by teamwork and communication with my allies...

itsnotatumor wrote:

I have over a 50% teamplay ratio, and 88% on A&A. I didn't get that by piggybacking someone else's success, but by teamwork and communication with my allies...

Can you prove that you weren't perhaps piggy-backing on better skills of your team-mates?

If the system you propose were to be used, why wouldn't anyone who values their global rating only join teams with higher rated players (such as you)? ..and if they notice that the other team is potentially stronger, why shouldn't they withdraw from the game?

I think there was some discussion at some point for team ranking to factor into global ranking.  Same thing for tournament ranking.   I can't remember if there was a consensus, but I thought the agreement was that it should be done, but it's not at the top of the list.

M57 - I'm not sure what you mean by this:

if they notice that the other team is potentially stronger, why shouldn't they withdraw from the game?

I also think that unless someone is just a complete puppet to their team mate, their play will contribute to whether you win or lose.  Even if I have the best team mate in the world, if I play badly we will not win much.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 - I'm not sure what you mean by this:

if they notice that the other team is potentially stronger, why shouldn't they withdraw from the game?

Assume in the below scenario that all players have the same global ratings..

Say I'm 50% player (when playing on teams), and I see that a 60% player has started a 2v2 game ..so I decide to join on his team.  The next player that joins the game (on the other team, of course) is a 70% player.  Things don't look good, so I decide to withdraw from the game before the 4th player joins -- knowing that the probable loss will affect my global rating.

I believe when the site was originally set-up the people then decided to not count team games in -

I agree with tumor and think that was a wrong decision and would like to see team and tournament games count altogether with standard public games in some sort of overall site ranking -

But, like Ozy said, there may be bigger things to take care of first -

M57 - Couldn't what you are claiming play out just as easily in non-team games?  i.e. I join a regular game, a bunch of good players join, so I quit the game before it starts?

Also need to factor in that many team games, such as A&A, have random team setup that you only realize who your teammate(s) is/are after the game starts. Perhaps only the random team games should count...? I haven't thought it thru completely, so just throwing it out there.

M57 wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

I have over a 50% teamplay ratio, and 88% on A&A. I didn't get that by piggybacking someone else's success, but by teamwork and communication with my allies...

Can you prove that you weren't perhaps piggy-backing on better skills of your team-mates?

If the system you propose were to be used, why wouldn't anyone who values their global rating only join teams with higher rated players (such as you)? ..and if they notice that the other team is potentially stronger, why shouldn't they withdraw from the game?

Actually, yeah I can.  Look back at all my team games and the amount of team chatter in coordination to the history, especially in A&A, where the Simulplay necessitates a much higher level of coordination against good opponents, and you'll see my contributions.  Thingol is also right that most of them were random teammates. Or at least, after the self selection of those who like the A&A team format.  But, does that even matter? You have a two-three person team with dead wood and you aren't going to win that often. I'm just saying that as it stands there is a disincentive for cooperative play and team games on this site. 

Ozyman wrote:

I think there was some discussion at some point for team ranking to factor into global ranking.  Same thing for tournament ranking.   I can't remember if there was a consensus, but I thought the agreement was that it should be done, but it's not at the top of the list...

 

Yes there was some interesting discussion :
http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854p1/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

Sadly, no consensus was found.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 - Couldn't what you are claiming play out just as easily in non-team games?  i.e. I join a regular game, a bunch of good players join, so I quit the game before it starts?

In non-team games, when you join a game with better players, you win (or lose) an amount of Global points proportional to their abilities and yours -- as single players.  Yes, you can choose to pull out of games against better players, but the reward for winning those games is significant while the penalty for losing is reduced. (Yes, I know -- stating the obvious)

Let's assume for argument's sake that the Global points for each team are summed for purposes of calculating the number of Global points awarded each player.

Now go back and consider the scenario I created in my last post. If all players in the game have equivalent Global scores ..so the number of points I will win or lose is equal, why would I wish to play against a superior team?

It becomes in my best interest to play only in games with better team-mates (with higher team-rankings) who have lower Global Ratings (perhaps they are not as good when playing alone).

It may be possible to change the way points are calculated to mitigate the problem, but I haven't been able to come up with a clean one.

It may be possible to change the way points are calculated to mitigate the problem, but I haven't been able to come up with a clean one.

Factor in teammates rankings...

I think it is best to leave the team ratings separate from individual.  If the ratings are grouped together it may be a disincentive for those who value their rankings.

ratsy wrote:

It may be possible to change the way points are calculated to mitigate the problem, but I haven't been able to come up with a clean one.

Factor in teammates rankings...

Not so easy.. How?

How is the team score calculated now?

It becomes in my best interest to play only in games with better team-mates (with higher team-rankings) who have lower Global Ratings (perhaps they are not as good when playing alone).

I don't really see this being that big of a problem.  Between random pairings and the fact that team mates have to 'agree' to team with you (or they can drop out), it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal.

SquintGnome wrote:

I think it is best to leave the team ratings separate from individual.  If the ratings are grouped together it may be a disincentive for those who value their rankings.

They should be kept separate for people to compare that way, but also combined to make another, overall statistic

SquintGnome wrote:

I think it is best to leave the team ratings separate from individual.  If the ratings are grouped together it may be a disincentive for those who value their rankings.

Hmmm.... I'm having trouble seeing how that is less fair than the current penalty to cooperative players.  As it stands team play is clearly less valuable.   The implication appears to be that since it doesn't count cooperative play is only for practice and dicking around not "real" play.

If people are really worried that scoring teamplay is going to tank their rankings, what does that say about their broader gaming ability? Not too mention, just like you can always pick your maps you can also pick you're teammates. I've already noticed several pairs of guys who team regularly together. Where is the loss?

There's just clearly a bias here, and the majority of the arguments against it so far seem to be based on fear for the status quo, not what is the most fair and reasonable evaluation of a players skills.

Oh btw, I loved your "Math behind the game" posts.  Really cool analysis.

Another side to consider it from, there are alot of teams I won't sign up for because I know the player is really good, and I can't carry my weight. Never want to be the "brick".  

But then again, I was assuming the team games counted for points like the individual games.

itsnotatumor wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

I think it is best to leave the team ratings separate from individual.  If the ratings are grouped together it may be a disincentive for those who value their rankings.

Hmmm.... I'm having trouble seeing how that is less fair than the current penalty to cooperative players.  As it stands team play is clearly less valuable.   The implication appears to be that since it doesn't count cooperative play is only for practice and dicking around not "real" play.

If people are really worried that scoring teamplay is going to tank their rankings, what does that say about their broader gaming ability? Not too mention, just like you can always pick your maps you can also pick you're teammates. I've already noticed several pairs of guys who team regularly together. Where is the loss?

There's just clearly a bias here, and the majority of the arguments against it so far seem to be based on fear for the status quo, not what is the most fair and reasonable evaluation of a players skills.

Oh btw, I loved your "Math behind the game" posts.  Really cool analysis.

 

I am pretty sure that teamplay does count, there is a separate team ratings button on our stats page.  Granted, it is not publicized like individual rankings, so you could considered it de-emphasized.  Also, I agree that teamplay skills do demonstrate broader ability as you note.

Having said that, though, I prefer stats that reflect my play only -  for better or worse.