Ratings – Alternative system
Ratings available at:
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/ratings.php
The main idea behind this rating is that victories can be carried over: if player A wins player B and player B wins player C there is a good chance that player A wins player C. The chance depends on win/loss ratio and the number of games played.
It’s also assumed that different maps test different “amount” of player skill. Games on small maps end faster and have lower number of tactic and strategic decisions made by players. Due to this reason a game on New Paradise influences your score more than a battle on Emerald.
Relative Score:
12 Emerald
40 NewParadise
25 NobleRust
18 Antarticus
8 Bizzaria
40 Wasserland
30 Anubis
10 Brimstone
15 Crateus
It’s also assumed that a player can have a bad setup of allies. So the rating encourages players to know when to retreat from battle and decreases the significance of those matches that were ended in few turns. In general 3 turns are allowed on small maps(20% value), 4 turns on medium (Anubis, Noble Rust) for 30% value and 5 turns on large (Wasserland, New Paradise)(40% value) to decide whether you want to play. The value of a game reaches 100% at turn 5,6,7 respectively.
The last but not the least feature: it reduces the significance of old games to represent your current skill, not your average skill.
Conclusion:
This alternative rating system is much fair in terms of identifying the strongest player of Massive Assault Network than the one experience-based used in game. So the best way to take the first place is to challenge a player from top-20 and win (and do it several times).
Comments:
turns:
it's your only choice whether to surrender or not. If your PL opponent invaded 2 of your disclosed allies on his first turn and your ally distribution is bad you may consider surrender. The idea was taken from Prefferance game (if you have bad random cards you can say "pass", but don't complain about it). The other thing: rewards for longer defensive fights were implemented originally, but now they are off because we don't want to force longer games. The turn count also deal with "multiple challenges" problem.
Points awarded: points are recalculated every 12 hours on the basis of games finished. There is a simple iterative process to distribute points of each game between players (player A wins B on Emerald, B wins C on Wasserland, C wins A on Noble Rust...). It's like a affiliate (referential) program. The degree of affiliation of first level between players depends on their relative score in matches between them and the total score of their matches. Other levels of affiliation are calculated when needed.
A one global coefficient applies here to determine the percent of points gained through affiliation.
The total sum of all scores in table equals the total scores of all games.
One more thing: games with MENTORs are ignored.
Regards,
Wargaming.net Team