Every 10 F11, the system evaluate the stats and decide who wins the round (1 round = 10 F11).
The "end of the game", from the the point of view of the Ranking System, happens when 1 player resign or drop or alt-F4 or crash or the game become uneven for some raison.
At the end of the game, the score is caluclated like this (only the 3 last rounds counts)
Just to make sure I understand: If game ends F11 31, then round 1 (0-10 F11) does not count, and round 2 (10-20 F11), round 3 (20-30 F11) and round 4 (30-31 F11) counts?
the loser's score(the fist guy who resigned or dropped or crashed or defeated): +2 points for each round win, -2 for each round lost, -4 Penalty for Defeat.
the winner (the other guy) : +2 for each round win, -2 points for each round lost, +4 Reward for Victory.
ex: if you win 2 rounds, you lose 1 round, but you win the game, your score = 2 + 2 - 2 + 4 = 6 points
your opponent's score = - 2 - 2 + 2 - 4 = -6 points
To be honest I'm not sure what the purpose of these ten minute rounds are, and just on the top of my head I see quite a few problems with it. If I'm playing someone exactly my level (we're playing equally good) and the only difference is that one of us got a better map, this person is going to win every single round just because of the map. That means that instead of just getting the penalty for losing the game, you are also getting penalized by getting a worse map. -2 - 2 - 2 - 4 = 10 points lost. Not only is this bad enough, but this kind of system means that there is even less incentive to try and play the game out to see if you are able to come back if it's a liga game (that usually don't last f11 30). The longer that game goes on the more rounds there will be. It's with this system better to see the map (knowing your against someone same level as you) and just drop so it's only -2 -4 = 6 points lost, than actually trying to play a steep uphill battle that most likely will just add more rounds to the game.
Another example is if we're playing identical. Same cit count, same amount of resources gathered, everything exactly the same except 1 player did a range upgrade, and the other made 1 more unit. For example Player A has 6 grenadiers with +1 range, and Player B has 7 grenadiers without any upgrades. In stats Player B will win, but Player A has spent more food/iron on his army, (Grenadier costs 40 food 40 iron, range upgrade for it costs 60 food 60 iron). This is just an example of how this system can have the opposite effect of what you want. Player A is outplaying Player B here, but loses the round because the stats don't care about upgrades.
Another example would be Stone age, one player uses his Spearman to kill 1 hippo and 4 elephant from the enemy, but loses the Spearman in the process. This is actually a good trade for him, but he will lose points in the stats by losing a unit and therefor if everything else is equal he will lose the round because of it.
I could go more into detail of why this might be problematic (like how this would incentivize someone who could win by attacking, to just stay in base and make the game longer so he wins more rounds), but I don't want to bore you with way too much text.
Suggestion: Right now 60% of the points comes from rounds, I think it should be more like 20%. For example 1 point per round and 12 point per win so 1 + 1 + 1 + 12 = 15.
Team ranking works like 1v1. each player is evaluated indivdually compared to his direct opponenent(=the guy in front of him).
In team game, the "Loser" is the first player who resigned or dropped or crashed..., the "Winner" is the player in front of him.
- Winner's score = +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. +4 reward for victory.
- Loser's score = +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. -4 penalty for defeat.
- pocket/wing of the Winner = +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. +2 reward for victory.
- pocket/wing of the Loser = +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. -2 penalty for defeat.
- the other members of the winning team : +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. +1 reward for victory.
- the other members of the losing team : +2 for each round win, -2 for each round lost. -1 penalty for defeat.
Admittedly I am much less concerned with team game rankings, so I wouldn't prioritize improving this over the 1vs1 ranking, but I see quite a few problems here as well. Mainly how much rounds matter.
Mid SH 4vs4
Yukon(w)+Kaz(p)+Fly(p)+Fire(w) vs Jack(w)+Dave(p)+MnM(p)+Bandito(w), me and you are against Jack+Dave. This game you and Jack just defend and play equally good (same number of swords). F11 8 I need to help other side and I go and do so, meanwhile Dave decide to harass you. You lose 3 cits in the process and he gets away without losing any CA. Meanwhile I go and kill 3 cits on other side and get away without losing any CA. This would mean that Me+Dave (if we play equally well) would have same stats. You on the other hand, through no fault of your own, are losing the round to Jack.
How is this fair?
Generally speaking I think winning the game should give more points. Team game rankings are almost impossible to make 100% fair, but I think eventually the players that win more games deserve more points. Sometimes you get doubled and hold it (lose a lot of units and citizens in the process) allowing the rest of your team to win the game. With the current system you would lose all rounds here (-2 - 2 - 2 + 1 = -5), but in fact you were the main reason your team won.
- In fact, you win/lose more or less than 2 points per round, and more or less points per victory or defeat. depending on balance of power between you and your direct opponent.
- The Ranking System uses Elo formula to determine the amount of points you win or you lose.
- Your opponent's score is always the opposite of your score.
I hope that was clear.
So imagine me and Dave having similar Elo score.
Example A: I'm facing Dave and I'm teamed with noob1, noob2 and noob3. Dave is teamed with Krass, Samuel and Nafrayu. My team end up losing (surprise surprise).
Example B: I'm facing Dave and I'm teamed with noob1, noob2 and noob3. Dave is teamed with noob4, noob5 and noob6. My team end up losing.
Just to be clear, are you saying I'll be losing the same amount of points in example A and B?
I think the Elo formula that determine the amount of points you win or lose in a team game should take into account what team you have and what team your direct opponent has. If not we're just going to end up with people complaining even more about the team selection.
At this point I very rarely face a direct opponent with similar skill to me. We therefor balance the game so I get a weaker wing or pocket than him to make the game more fair. With the current ranking system for team games I would get completely screwed over if my teams Elo and my direct opponent teams Elo doesn't count when the system determine the amount of points I win/lose.