Most Up To Date Pokémon Simulator

Pokémon Online is the most popular, accurate, and complete Pokémon battle simulator out there. Open source, it's currently available in 11 languages, on your computer or your Android device. It hosts more than a million battles per month. Download the latest version and enjoy competitive battles across all six generations in real time against trainers from around the world!

Download
v 2.4.2


New Rating system

Discussion in 'Gen 5 Discussion' started by coyotte508, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    Basically i'm going to introduce a new rating system with some decay as it's better fit, very soon hopefully.

    The decaying system will be like that:

    I was thinking that good default values would be:

    V - 3
    W - 12
    X - 50
    Y - 6
    Z - 3

    Basically meaning that a player fighting two rated battles a day won't suffer any decay, otherwise 6% per day (3% per 12 hours) and that if they play enough they can be inactive for 3 days without decay. And that alts are erased after 3 months of inactivity.

    This will help keep the ladders up to date, it's not a bad system for the users (they only have to fight twice a day to keep their position), and anyhow they can always gain back what they lost by being active again.

    Maybe shorten it to 1 battle per day and 5% per day, in order to not put too much stress on the users?

    It'll be customizable by any server, i'm just talking about the default values. Also, the find battle range won't be customizable anymore and will be set to, 300? (min variation: +4)

    In case you missed it: THE REAL RATING IS SAVED IN THE DATABASE, THE RATING DISPLAYED IS A DECAYED VERSION OF IT. YOU'LL GET IT BACK AFTER A FEW BATTLES EVEN IF YOU WERE INACTIVE FOR LONG.

    Edit: For Beta Server, here are the values:

    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011
  2. User Name

    User Name Life is a maze

    Messages:
    1,761
    By alts being erased, does that mean the whole team is erased, or that they're removed from the rankings? ._.
    Because I have a few teams I dig out every now and then.

    Otherwise, seems fine, though this'll mean my rank's going down. XD
  3. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Messages:
    782
    I think these are good default values, or to be more complete, I don't see anything wrong with these default values. I just have a question about this:
    Do you mean that player won't suffer any decay on average, and that at the 12-hour mark, the server reduces the score by 3%, or that at the end of the day, the server tots up all of the alts that have spent a multiple of 12 hours inactive and reduces their score by the appropriate percentage?

    Also, I think that an option to have Z be infinite (meaning that no alts will ever be erased from the ladder) should probably be an option, as (I believe) it was the default for the simulator before this new rating system, and that some servers will probably want to keep all alts active, if it's a private server or whatnot, meant to only be used very little.
  4. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    you can always set Z to 120 months, it's 10 years.

    Also if a player plays more than he needs it'll be saved, so there'll be no decay at all. And even if he doesn't play one battle on time his rating will decrease by 3% at the 12-hour mark but next battle those 3% will be removed.

    Also I'm tempted by the 5% and one battle per day.
  5. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Messages:
    782
    >.> Didn't think about that. Duh.

    Thanks for the explanation, I didn't realize that the way it would update the ranking would be so dynamic. I also somehow didn't see the 5% idea. It makes a bit more sense to only require a user to play a single battle per day, as that would, I believe, show that the user is at least able to get to a computer and battle, more than being able to get onto a computer twice a day or for an extended period of time (e.g. 3% every 12 hours). Really, any length of time would work, however long or short, as a bout of laddering usually entails enough battles that it offsets quite a few days worth of not battling, while the only consideration would be making it too long, allowing users to not battle for a while and still retain the same rating. But that's up to the administrator of each server. I think these defaults are just fine, and the decay system a welcome improvement.
  6. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    For that one, you can set the maximum with Y. (which is 3 days for me - 6 periods of 12 hours. Though you could do instead a week and require them to battle a bit more, as during the w/e they have free time)
  7. PhoenixClaw

    PhoenixClaw New Member

    Messages:
    120
    I would like to second this. Put simply, for anyone who is a casual gamer, playing once every 12 hours can be difficult if not impossible at times.

    As a personal example, I go to bed at 10pm in order to get up at 6am and be at work for 8am. I get home at roughly 4pm. So, the latest I can usually play is 10pm followed by 4pm, a span of 18 hours. This means I get hit on a daily basis for tending to my RL responsibilities (This further assumes something else doesn't come up which requires my attention, pushing me to two or three 12 hour blocks missed). I understand that you get the 3% back at the next fight (wasn't quite clear on how that works), but the 12 hour time frame is still troublesome.

    On a more general example, any grade school kid would probably be going to bed at 11pm-12am and getting back from school at 3-4pm. That's a minimum gap of 15 hours right there. Unless you're sneaking matches before breakfast or during class, 12 hours just doesn't seem like the best idea.

    EDIT: Sorry. Forgot to say that the idea sounds nice overall, just not the 12 hour part. ^_^
  8. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    PhoenixClaw, it said once per 12 hours but if you battle 4 times during the evening it would be enough to fill your day and not even having to play the next day. See it more like "twice per day" or even "6 times per 3 day".

    Also i forgot to mention you won't be able to set a range in find battle (auto to 300), it'll help prevent people who fight friends taking their alt in order to rise ranking.
  9. Harry

    Harry Banned

    Messages:
    707
    Please don't take away our variation setting, Coyotte. I play at 200 because I feel actually sick when I lose 27 points to Hax. It's just.. awful. 250 Minimum...
  10. PhoenixClaw

    PhoenixClaw New Member

    Messages:
    120
    So that Y=6 part means you can stock up any time, essentially 'topping off the gas tank' each chance you get to play? If it's that easy to stay ahead of the 3% hit, then the 12 hour deal becomes a non-issue. Thank you for helping me to understand. Still, the 24 hour/5% hit might be easier still since it streamlines things a bit more. Not that one extra calculation a day makes a huge deal, but over several thousand accounts, maybe it does?
  11. destinybond

    destinybond Server Staff

    Messages:
    649
    I agree with Harry here. Although I don't have the standing he does I have been ranked high on a few ladders, and that is when I want to use variation. Please don't take the option away.

    EDIT: maybe to solve your problem, set a min rating variation? Maybe 50?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
  12. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    Actually it will be calculated daily and at each server restart
    maybe limit the variation in find battle between 200 & 300? That way you can still choose 200 but if you choose 100 it will be put to 200?
  13. Harry

    Harry Banned

    Messages:
    707
    I'm fine as long as I can play at my 200/250

    I agree, that it's dumb to set it to 100 or something, or people who set it so that they play a specific person... t_t
  14. Contest Master Majin

    Contest Master Majin New Member

    Messages:
    266
    So, will the variations be customisable by the user, or just at a set limit, but all in all have to add up to the same thing? If that makes sense...

    I love the idea. I'm rarely off for two days in a row, so it should be good for me. And it really helps laddering for everyone who can be bothered, not just the people who get to 1580 and stay there.
    As always, nice work Coyo.
  15. Drigger

    Drigger Fabula Nova Crystallis

    Messages:
    1,001
    I totally agree with harry and my avatar says it all it really burns losing 27 points to someone because the haxed you it really suks hard, 200 is better because then you lose around 22 the most to battles like that

    Also i love the decay introduction may help to illiminate payer that try to have 20 different alts at the top of the ladder
  16. MistBorn

    MistBorn New Member

    Messages:
    87
    I'm all for the decay introduction... Brilliant idea, stops people from lazing around at the top.
    ^_^
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
  17. Luck>Skill

    Luck>Skill call me Fata Lina

    Messages:
    2,493
    PO Trainer Name:
    Luck>Skill
    How about ladders that get barely played, like the 4tg gen NU one...or LC ubers or any other tier that doesn't get many battles...
  18. Pizza

    Pizza I'm so bad at this game.

    Messages:
    353
    200 and 300 are too high. Even if you get reasonably high (not even the top) of the ladder, you're going to be getting at best +8 -22.


    I also want to be able to play at my 100.
  19. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    It's not at best. It's at worst. If the minimum variation available to choice is 200 and you choose 200, at worst you'll get +8 -22, and at best you'll get +16-16.
  20. Archerknight

    Archerknight Legends

    Messages:
    2,433
    PO Trainer Name:
    Archerknight
    I like the current varations. I don't like the idea of losing points if you don't get battles or are afk for a while, because sometimes we just can not get onto PO.

    Like in NU adv. Sometimes we just can't get a game.
  21. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    you don't lose them for real though, if you battle rated they come back.
  22. IFM

    IFM HODOR HODOR HODOR Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    1,328
    This is fine by me. The only concern that I really have is what happens in the lesser played tiers and what is the minimum you can drop? Besides that I think this system should be fine, and obviously if some of the variables need changing that is relatively simple to do.
  23. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    The maximum you can drop is set by the server (50% by default).

    In the lessed played tiers, if you can't get 7 battles in a week... well they're dead tiers, sorry...
  24. Erebos

    Erebos Banned

    Messages:
    745
    Perhaps the idea of setting this separately for each tier instead of having universal server values might be a good solution for less played tiers? I know this might mean more work for you, coyo, but it'll make it a LOT more customisable and a LOT more versatile, so consider it.
  25. Archerknight

    Archerknight Legends

    Messages:
    2,433
    PO Trainer Name:
    Archerknight
    Dead tiers should still have leaderboards. :l

    With this implemented, it would mean I would have to go on everyday to play all the different tiers so I don't lose points...

    Keep the old one please.
  26. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    @Erebos: It'd be complicated to program, though

    @Archerknight: I give up, you didn't read.
  27. Pizza

    Pizza I'm so bad at this game.

    Messages:
    353
    The tiers that don't get enough battles generally have smaller communities that play them. In these smaller communities, your ranking means less, because there is most likely a consensus among the players about who is the best. In things like Adv NU, the people who consistently play that tier will know who the best players are, even if they can't get on and play every day.
  28. Drigger

    Drigger Fabula Nova Crystallis

    Messages:
    1,001
    Ok I don't understand anymore...

    lets assume I have 1500 points and based to inactivite and the decay system i'm reduced to 1469 after x days so if I play on day y in a battle rated +10 -21 and I lose which rating will be affted the Decay score of 1469 or the original 1500?
  29. Meteor64

    Meteor64 TM1337 Falcon Punch

    Messages:
    306
    I don't agree with the decay rule as it is currently being discussed. Like people have already said, on lesser played tiers, it's just not that easy to get a battle. I play OU Adv, and its quite often the case when I log on that I'm the only player online. Other days, there might be plenty of people to play against.

    What your rule currently proposes is that on those days when I can't get a rated battle, I lose points.

    What I think would be a better system is that the decay only comes into effect after, say, a week of non-use from an alt. This means people with many alts can keep their ranking without worrying about using it every day, while those who ladder to the top and then never use an alt again will have to play at least twice a week or lose their ranking. At least two rated battles a week sounds plausible in the lesser played tiers, right?

    I have a feeling I might not have explained myself clearly enough, but I'll let you decide that :P
  30. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    Ok I have to explain all over again ^^
    Your rating will be (1500-21) decayed by (x-1) days.

    It's already there! Read the OP carefully please. That's what Y is for. Though it's a bit more clever, cause you can't just play once a week, but a little more battles. You just don't have to play each day, you can play during the weekend only if you want.
  31. Meteor64

    Meteor64 TM1337 Falcon Punch

    Messages:
    306
    No, I did read the OP, but what about those more casual players who don't play enough to save up for that "inactivity time"? Or those who play tiers which aren't full enough of players in the first place to build up that spare time?

    Simply put, the idea of having to "overtime" to get "days off" isn't attractive to me. I have a friend who rarely plays, but enjoys to play. Should he lose ranking points simply because he can't get on often enough?
  32. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon is an espeon.

    Messages:
    855
    I was going to suggest what Erebos said. Less played ladders need to be able to have different decay settings, or the option to turn decay off for some ladders. You can't reasonably get a few battles a day on some ladders without waiting a very long time, wheras it's easy on an active ladder. Decaying everyone's rating just makes the leaderboard even less useful. And I'd suggest fairly low rating decay rates, just enough to prevent people laddering up and leaving it, so having a high rating but being out of touch with the game.
  33. Blue Harvest

    Blue Harvest Banned

    Messages:
    439
    Coyotte508 used Math! Its super effective!
    Pokemon Online became confused!
  34. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305

    You have a point, it may mean to require less battles. It's jsut the values that needs fixing though, as someone shouldn't be allowed to stay with the same rating for several months especially at the top of the ladder.
  35. PhoenixClaw

    PhoenixClaw New Member

    Messages:
    120
    That might just go in my signature. :D

    Overall, maybe this should be explained piece by piece. The OP, while informative and concise, might be a bit too technical for some. More or less, it works like this (I think):

    If ya don't play for like half a day, your score goes down a lil' bit. That's cool though 'cause you can delay that by playing a few games and freezin' the decay thing. Even if ya do get some points shaved off, they'll come right back when ya play again. Oh yeah, and it you don't play for a really long time, the account gets trashed.

    That's the condensed version, summarizing the roles of all five variables.
  36. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    thanks, i'm always bad at explaining
  37. Xavier Final

    Xavier Final New Member

    Messages:
    157
    I thought.... way back in the very beginning we decided not do this....
  38. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    I didn't want a battling system that forced you to play too often. This one doesn't even decay if you play a little, it's just to prevent alts filling and inactive players at top =s
  39. Xavier Final

    Xavier Final New Member

    Messages:
    157
  40. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Administrator Administrator

    Messages:
    6,305
    it's just rating though... real accounts aren't deleted ...

Share This Page