Rating needs to be fixed, like, yesterday

Discussion in 'Bugs / Suggestions / Support' started by Cyberaddict, Jun 17, 2020.

?

Do you think the rating system needs to be fixed?

Yes, ASAP - it's a real problem 6 vote(s) 66.7%
Yes, but not top priority 2 vote(s) 22.2%
No, I sincerely think it's fine 1 vote(s) 11.1%
No, because I like abusing it 0 vote(s) 0.0%
  1. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I've exclusively played PvP for the last 2-3 weeks, and I've come to the conclusion that the rating system is such an issue, that I'm considering leaving this game. I've abused the system myself with my Skaven Warband (Underworld Undefeatables, around 700 rating). And I've seen other players abuse it with other builds. But it's not because we are smart enough to exploit a failing system that it shouldn't be fixed, for the sake of fairness (if more people enjoy the game, the PvP queu would be under 10 seconds).

    There are fair builds :
    • Sisters
    • Witch Hunters
    • Dwarves
    • Undead
    • Mercs or Possessed w/o magic
    • Skaven (without focus)
    And there are unfair builds :
    • Skaven (focused : pistoliers or ninjas)
    • Magic focus (solo Captain being the ultimate abuse ; Warlocks Warbands included)
    • Mercs pistoliers, but to a lesser degree
    Assuming same rating, fair vs fair is fine. Unfair vs unfair is also fine (but tricky, because there are different levels of unfairness). But fair vs unfair is downright ugly (I say that, and I've been on the unfair side too often to recall).

    An unfair Warband can easily take on a fair team with twice or thrice the rating without breaking a sweat. All the while being protected by the Underdog shield. And also farming experience points on the back of other real life persons who's Warband not only get zero from the encounter (so, no possibility to train and eventually outgrow that unfair team), but also terribly suffer from injuries. We've all benefitted from this system, but it is disgustingly unfair.

    I consider myself a very good player, with excellent strategies. For the sake of diversity, I've tried to build successful fair teams. My latest attempt being with Sisters (one of the best fair faction out there), and to great success... until matched up with unfair teams with SAME OR LESS rating than mine. Then, no expert strategies would help (and I know them all, ask @Shangular). I'm either routed/dead before I can retaliate, or just unable to have a meaningful impact on my turn.

    And it's not that I'm a bad loser. I don't mind losing as long as I'm being entertained. But it simply feels there are NO WAY such encounters can be turned a tiny bit in my favor (even with more gold or experience). That feeling of being totally overwhelmed is very depressing, and we shouldn't be surprised if the community is so small : we are INTIMIDATING other players away.

    Educating the community to these flaws wouldn't help diversity. How fun would the game be if all Warbands are Skaven or Solo Captains? If I'm forced to play an unfair team to enjoy this game (which I increasingly feel bad about, I feel for my opponent... who isn't AI), I may as well quit.

    For more than 18 months, players have complained about the rating system. It hasn't been fixed yet. Really, Developpers, what are you waiting for? Take a week or two off from your other projects, and fix this once and for all. It's only mathematics... You may feel this will not increase your income, but do you know how much players you have lost after they rage quit seeing their favorite 1000 Warband gets utterly destroyed (like, serious injuries and ZERO experience) by a 500 unfair opponent?

    I'll post suggestions next. This introduction is way longer than I wanted it to be...
    studer1972, CzaRus and Erkebrand like this.
  2. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I'm no expert, but here's a suggestion at fixing the rating system. I complain about fairness, but it wouldn't be fair if I just complain without contributing to the solution. My suggestions may be flawed, or wrong, but we have to start somewhere.

    The way I see it, the rating should be the sum of the different axis on which a unit is built :
    • Melee combat
    • Range combat
    • Speed
    • Magic abilities
    • Miscellaneous
    This is just a draft, and in no way complete...
    MELEE COMBAT :
    • Base = ( WS + S ) / 10 ... pretty simple and understandable.
    • Output = Base x A x ( 1 + Crit% ) ... these are multipliers because 3 attacks on a unit with low WS shouldn't have the same impact as 3 attacks on a unit with high WS and S ; same goes for Crit%.`
    • Gross Melee Value = Output x (1 + Defence% + Parry%) ... because high Defence and Parry are derivatives of WS, and should thus be multipliers and not flat value.
    • Note that some skills, like Pit Fighter and Unstoppable Charge are not always active. Only half of their bonus should be added to WS for figuring out the rating.
    • Weapons that limit opponent's Defence should be assigned a value according to their tier :
      • max 40 : +1
      • max 30 : +3
      • max 20 : +6
    • Total is Net Melee Value.
    RANGE COMBAT :
    • Base = ( BS + range S ) / 10 x Accuracy% ... pretty simple and understandable.
    • Output = Base x range A x ( 1 + Crit% ) ... because 3 attacks on a unit with low BS shouldn't have the same impact as 3 attacks on a unit with high BS and range S ; same goes for Crit%.
      • Note that without the Hunter skill (free reload), range A should be 0.5 (and not 1).
    • Gross Range Value = Output x ( 1 + Dodge% ) ... Elven Cloaks, Dodge skill and Aegis of Sigmar all grant stackable Dodge% ; these should be a multiplier, because it's more valuable for a high BS unit to be able to resist ranged attacks, than for melee units that are moving closer and helping the ranged unit's accuracy.
    • Again, some weapons and skills should be assigned a Range Combat Value according to their specific bonuses :
      • Pistols and Warp Pistols (-15 D) : +3 to +5
      • Shurikens (stay hidden) : +3
      • Trick shooter : +3
      • Nimble : +3
    SPEED VALUE :
    • Base = Initiative / 10 + Movement ... pretty simple and understandable ; yes, a level 1 Skaven should get a higher rating than a level 1 Dwarf simply because the Skaven will strike first and reach a Dwarf that couldn't do the same in the same position.
    • Output = Base + half Movement on turn 0 + 12 x flying% ... Infiltration, Mining and Flying add up to Speed (not multipliers).
    • Perception and Hide in Shadows should also be included here, with an identical (opposing) value.
    • Lanterns, which add to Initiative checks, should be given a Speed Value.
    • Anything else?
    MAGIC ABILITIES :
    • Flying is already considered in Speed Value.
    • Sword of Rezhebel should be implemented as an alternate Melee Combat Value (multiplied by casting%), and highest score between normal and magical is considered in rating.
    • Silver Arrows of Arha should also be implemented as alternate Range Combat Value (multiplied by casting%), and highest score between normal and magical is considered in rating.
      • Other equipment spells, like Hammer of Sigmar and Armour of Righteousness should probably follow the same rules as Silver Arrows of Arha.
    • Fires of U'Zhul should be an ADDITIONAL Range Combat Value. It adds to Range Combat Value because a unit may well fire with a weapon AND cast this spell (granting an additional attack). Value is thus = ( casting% x spell's S ) / 10.
      • Other damage spells like Warpfire, Gnawdoom and Soulfire should probably follow the same rules as Fires of U'Zhul.
    MISCELLANEOUS :
    • Wounds... should they be a Melee multiplier? A swordsman with 14 Wounds, WS 50, S 40 and A 3 is a lot more fearsome than one with 5 Wounds and the same stats. Maybe assign values like this :
      • Basic starting Wounds
      • +3 for level 1 Increased Wounds
      • +6 for level 2 Increased Wounds
      • +9 for level 3 Increased Wounds
      • So a unit starting with 5 Wounds that has taken 3 levels in Increased Wounds would score 23 (5 + 3 + 6 + 9).
    • Leadership... all around useful to resist Fear, All Alone and Rout checks. Maybe just a straight value of 1/10 the stats?
    • What else?
    All I hope, is this draft will inspire the Developpers. Take nothing written above as granted. I may have failed to see something super important. It's just a starting point...
    studer1972 and Erkebrand like this.
  3. Prabdeep Bazaz Social Media Manager

    Message Count:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    46
    We appreciate this thread. We're always trying to find ways to improve the our rating system and you've made some good points. If you feel that any other skills are undervalued or overvalued please let us know!
  4. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Magic, pistols and well developed ranged units are pretty OP, in general. These need to be fixed.

    Also, I think the rating system should take into account the solo and duo players. As it is, you could have one really powerful unit that is near impossible to hit or damage by a full Warband of similar rating. The only way to fix this would be to have a multiplier that applies if you don’t expand your team at certain points. Example : x2 if you don’t have 2+ units at 75 rating, or 3+ units at 150 rating. Solo players will not be happy (sorry Shagular, I mean it), but I think this is necessary to make this game more fair, and played as it is supposed to be played.
    studer1972 and Algirdas25 like this.
  5. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I think there are 2 issues here being discussed and want to make sure that we address them separately.

    1) First issue Rating System: I know the current rating system has gone through a couple of adjustments - when initially it came out, melee attacks were heavily weighted (Combat master and Unstoppable Charge), now it seems like it shifted to ranged attacks (sniper rifle). I agree that some items should have their weights adjusted but we need to be careful because problem is that it may seem overpriced at low levels but at end game, it levels out. For example, the Skaven armed with the greatly undervalued throwing stars may seem over powered at low levels. But at end game, not so. The reason for this is that at low levels, people develop their warrior progressions differently (some start focusing more on combat skills, others strength skills, etc.) How a player decides to allocate skill points when starting out is not is the player's choice and the results (either positive or negative) are a consequence of the player's decision and not necessarily the rating system. The Sword spell on a warlock may seem powerful at low levels because oftentimes it may target a warrior how hasn't developed either their WS or perhaps Defense, but trust me it sucks at high levels when wielded by a warlock. I laugh when a warlock with that spell charges my Middenheimers.

    At end game, most warriors are already developed to where a player wants and imo the game is balanced there. The problem why I think this topic is brought up is that people are forced to "manage ratings" in order to get PVP games which is more a symptom of the number of active players). I know Legendary's intent isn't for players to have to manage rating and if you don't care about finding a PVP match easily, you don't have to. Imo, Legendary should encourage players to reach end game or add a level cap so end game is more easily accessible by all, but that is another discussion. For this reason, I voted, Yes, but not a priority and because only a few skills and weapons that really need adjusting and end game works well for the most part.

    IMO the undervalued skills and weapons are:
    • Any skill that gives multiple ranged or melee attacks (Combat Master, Knife Fighter, Quick Shot), warplock pistols, and throwing stars. Concerning these 2 items, I think the scaling of point value is too low at the beginning although at high levels it is fine.
    • Skills and Weapons that increase crit value: This issue here is not necessarily the value but the scaling value (it starts too low, but at high levels is fine)
    • For this reason, you can get a bargain Skaven warband with multiple star attacks doing a lot of crits (I've done this too with my Skaven warband and would agree it is undervalued because of that at low levels. It is fine at end game). A
    Over valued skills and weapons are: Sniper Rifle (its good but for example doubling a 700 rated captain from 700 to 1,400? Not that good) Again with this, the scaling is too high.

    2) So the second topic that is inter-mingled here is the concept of a solo/duo. Not sure why this is deemed unfair just because someone has a hard time beating it. TBH, it's just a wizard captain and a trollslayer. Yes, we all know how OP a trollslayer is right? I can think of more "unfair" warbands like a Skaven with the warplock pistol or stars set-up. I'm also saying these comments from personal PVP experience on both sides. I've had a Skaven with those set-ups and know full well how powerful they can be but also know how to beat them as well. TBH there is a tactic that can easily beat a wizard and trollslayer which you haven't used (I'll let people figure it out ;) ) but it's something I would do if I faced such a warband. Another item I'll bring up is how people develop their warband? Not sure how you're developing your Sisters. I know you only use PVP and not farm the AI, but that is a limitation you voluntarily place on yourself and not one where the game standard should be set. I farm the AI to get XP and build up my warbands.

    From experience in playing a solo wizard captain and fighting a solo wizard captain in PvP, there is nothing unfair about it, especially under this current rating system. The solo build isn't meant to be overpowering, but rather just for fun. If you don't know the counter tactic, it may seem overpowering but that is because of the player and not necessarily the game. Again this is one of those situations where at high levels, a solo or duo build is not practical.

    @Prabdeep, I think it may warrant a dedicated time on Discord to have a live chat before any changes are made. If you want to schedule a specific time so others can join in, perhaps it would be good to post that time here and on Discord.
    studer1972 and CzaRus like this.
  6. Erkebrand Major

    Message Count:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    21
    This was necessary long time ago, maybe with the help of many veteran players we could get something balanced taking everything in consideration, and with the approval of the community, and we will miss on many things to solve later. If we could be able to see how the rating affects it could be much easier to help. If this at least could be visible at the beta in sure many people may want to help there and get involved trying to make it as fair as we can. Nice work cyber, I'll try later to find some points to help on
    Shangular likes this.
  7. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Also see people's comments on the Why Solo thread. Not one mentions because it is an overpowering way to win in the current rating system. In fact one person stated that with the current rating system, it takes finesse to make it work right.
  8. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I like Erkebrand's comment above. In order to best give this input it would be helpful to see the current rating system formula. Otherwise, we're just making recomemndations that may be based on incorrect assumptions.
    studer1972 likes this.
  9. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    One dude, rated 200. Against a 4 dudes, each rated 50. None is able to hit or do significant damage when they do (hit% under 30%, damage is correlated to that %), while the single 200 dude rarely misses and deal enormous damage every time (70%+ to hit, high damage because, again, it's correlated to that %). No amount of strategy can fix that situation. The 4-men warband will get destroyed, with no Underdog protection. I already got a strategy to beat solo players (and you know it), but it needs an unfair warband that also abuses the rating system. If there's another strategy we're unaware of, please share it with us. Otherwise, I think it proves the point that solo Captains are exploiting the rating system to crush fair builds. I don't judge you for that, as I've been the beneficiary of that system myself. But I'm trying to see the big picture and be objective in my understanding of the situation. Maybe I'm not. Are you?
    studer1972 likes this.
  10. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Otherwise, I agree mostly with what you have said, @Shangular. However, Magic is missing from the things that are undervalued and overpowerful. It's both. And proof to this : how efficient these units are in the current rating system.

    Another problem to the rating system in PvP is not just the required management to get games. It's how you really NEED to keep it low, because unfair builds know they'll eventually face other unfair builds (like Skaven vs Solo Captain), and these matches only are fair at about the same rating (so, don't inflate it with bad choices of skills or weapons). And also because fair builds, when they'll fatally be matched against unfair builds, they NEED to have condensed power (rating management) to hope not get wiped out before given the opportunity to retreat.

    All in all, I think these proof the points I've made above. A new fair ground need to be established, and unfair strategies need to be recognised as such to acheive that goal (skaven with throwing stars or warplock pistols, solo captains and undermaned warbands, etc.).
  11. Shangular Brigadier

    Message Count:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I'm looking at the big picture as well which is why I keep cautioning about adjusting something at low level that may mess something up at mid to high levels.

    In your example above, it shows my point that everyone develops their warband different. If you have 4 warriors and choose to equally develop each warrior, you may be behind against someone who chooses to develop one or two of their warriors at the expense of the other two. But being behind only at low levels. At end game when all 4 are developed or close developed to a player's satisfaction, you will find that it evens out.

    I've had my share of killing opponent solo captains with non solo warbands:
    1) Use shooters to ambush (solo captains wear robes to get 100% flight and are susceptible to ambushing).
    2) Position your warriors so that the solo opponent has to use Flight and Attack and can only attack one warrior, then counter charge with the remaining warrors.
    3) Undead players: Vampires, most solo captains won't be able to kill a vampire in one round (unless extremely lucky with RNG generating lots of crits). When a vampire counter attacks, he should be able to kill the captain. Also have your Necromancer with Doom behind a building somewhere to try to get a lucky shot.

    These are general tactics I've used to easily kill a solo captain. Also as I've mentioned before, at higher ratings, the solo build isn't practical. The solo build is really just meant for fun and not to be the most competitive build. That cap and trollslayer duo was really just an experiment to test how powerful a slayer is (which I am disappointed, see my other posts on Trollslayers) Based on the current rating system today, if I wanted to have the most competitive build like for an official tournament set at the 1,000 level or so, I'd use a Skaven warband to take advantage of the current rating system well before a solo warband.
    Erkebrand and Cyberaddict like this.
  12. CzaRus Major

    Message Count:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    31
    The skill focus is primary, too. If those 4 dudes all have decent WS (~50+?) and have something more than a dagger, and the player knows what to do with those 4 dudes may easily crush the 1 dude. If you do not prioritize WS with melee henchnen, you are doing something wrong. Skill beats luck, but in Mordheim I have had guys hit 1% at range for 8 crits at times. RNG makes up for tiny unfairness. And again, if you overlooked my reply on what does it take to make such cap....
    I can not count how many warbands I have abandoned because rating screw me up, but I have learned. I have rage quitted twice, and I always returned, ready for the challenge again. Fair vs Unfair seen by you is very subjective, too. Yes, of course some builds will be more efficient at start, but those hardly last through mid to late game. You talked about rage quitting because of unfair bands? Imagine the percentage of player that will rage quit because the rating will make their bands they worked hard on worthless, useless and just garbage.
    Erkebrand and Cyberaddict like this.
  13. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Problem with a sensible subject as this one, is that we're all right, to some degree. :)

    You guys all have strong and valid points. I don't want my Skaven to get nerfed, but it would be fair that their rating is doubled (from 700 to 1400). Even against +2 Underdog, I could often easily win. I know it's not the end game at that level, and that eventually I would need to change from shurikens to pistols, but then that's personal choices on development. It would certainly mean that my Underworld Undefeatables would no longer be matched against 350 warbands (a snack), and that 700 rating fair warbands would at least get the underdog bonus (instead of nothing, and me just rolling over them).

    As for magic... look, I don't want to be the guy that ruins your fun. But it seems pretty obvious to me that magic doesn't get the rating it deserves (much higher). I'm surprised we can't agree on this.

    And solo builds? I know this is the most sensible subject, both for me and for you. Other unfair builds set aside, the solo Captain is pretty well designed to prey in the range of 100 to 1000. It certainly takes a while to build it correctly, but I think vs AI, this is just repetitive grinding. The rating will remain low, but their power is very condensed and hard to vanquished. Like for magic, I'm surprised we can't agree that a Solo Captain is an unfair match against almost all fair builds of the same rating. But then, you seem as convinced as I am in my opinion. Maybe we should get stats on that?
    CzaRus likes this.
  14. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    SUGGESTION : Maybe the rating of a Warband could be something like that...
    • 100% rating of most powerful unit
    • + 80% rating of 2nd most powerful unit
    • + 60% rating of 3rd most powerful unit
    • + 40% rating of 4th most powerful unit
    • + 25% of all other units
    I think it would encourage players to expand their Warbands. As it is, each additional unit dilutes the power of the gang. For a game that is supposedly designed for teams and not individuals, this is a step in the right direction, right?
  15. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Forgot to mention to @Shangular : The all mighty star throwing Skaven can't Ambush a Solo Captain. I know, I've tried. :p The moment you fly in and reveal my dudes, Ambush is cancelled and it never happens. Ambush will only works with long range weapons. Which again brings us to range skills being pretty much overpowered for their rating value. Isn't it strange that only unfair builds can compete against Solo Captain? What kind of matchup is hard for you, at the same rating?
  16. CzaRus Major

    Message Count:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Hard to tell. There is no optimal result that will satisfy all of the playerbase, I am talking about players which do not have the luxury of defending their opinions on subjects like this for various reasons, the simplest being they have bo idea that forum such as this even exists. Or Discord.
    I have rage-quitted twice, first time shortly after Reik speed nerf, as I built all my warband members around sentry-nesting, and 2nd time when my best characters died (while wearing max D and having max WS) to a guy with flame sword (+25% parry zweihander for ~80 gold, ridiculous RNG).
    About relaunching, I think making the game a bit different and actually putting in *a usefull tutorial*, not the garbage one that forces you to buy 2 henchmen despite their qualities (most will suck) and doesnt even tell you most of the basic stuff, the player must either go to wiki, or as in my case, figure out everything themselves. That is not noob friendly at all. Besides the rating, tutorial should be also a priority in development.

    And every early strat has a counter strat (with right focus):
    Solo > Spam
    Solo < Elite
    Elite < Spam

    This is a very rough triangle that has many exeptions, but generally works. These strats will eventually get replaced with universal "warband" with some aspects of previous strat (level difference for example).

    So, to clarify: Rating should be revamped, tutorial needs serious rework.
    Erkebrand and Cyberaddict like this.
  17. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Care to define Spam and Elite?
  18. CzaRus Major

    Message Count:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Spam is spam. You just buy as many henchmen and hiredswords (and as many pets) as you can, and progress the levelling by a slow pace, but you have strong numerical advantage, which may play great at low ranks.

    Elite is elite. You focus on getting "elite" henchmen or hiredswords, usually 3 (2 or 4 might work depending on faction) and you let them focus on different roles, but supporting eachother, so if you go F.E. Middenheim, your henchmen elite will be strong melee (you have an army of pit fighters so duh), you focus on WS and let every member get different arms, f.e. sword&shield, axe&shield and mace&shield, that way you are prepared for both weaklings and tanks. Your cap will work:
    1)as a member of elite (you need one less starting henchmen)
    2)as a support (shooter/caster/whatever you need atm)

    To summ it up: Spam = Pure numbers, Elite = skill focused controlled numbers, or the "golden middle way".
  19. Erkebrand Major

    Message Count:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    21
    The tutorial needs a bit more explanations maybe we should create a thread on what to add there, for if devs want to include something more.

    About this forum and discord, I have been for long playing and ignoring them, and they are a source of good tips and info. There should be a pop up or a signature somewhere when you open the game to make people meet this two places.

    Returning to the main idea of this post. I find a mistake on the actual rating system. When you unlock a skill and you are not going to use it anymore it will score up. I mean, for the ninja with shurikens, when you go to pistolier, the throwing weapon mastery, and knife fighting counts, but if you are wearing pistols they are scoring being useless skills for using this kind of weapons. This works for many skills, and I sometimes get on purpose skills to rise my rating even if they're useless for that character.
  20. Cyberaddict Major

    Message Count:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Not sure about what you are saying. I found out that when I equip a melee weapon (other than claws) to a skaven with Art of Silent Death, the rating drops a lot. Makes sense, because the benefits of this skill are no longer there.

    Anyway, that is why I'm proposing a system based on current abilities (which means, what unit can do with weapons in hand). Thus, if you're an expert with swords but equip a staff, then these skills no longer apply to your rating.
    studer1972 likes this.

Share This Page