While winrate may not show the true skill of a player , I suggest that every game each player can choose the player who played the best and the wrost this game in his team.
This could make ranked play work much better, its really anoying for an experienced player to play with bad/child players.
It can also prevent reports about gamethrowing when the player just played bad.
Ehh. It’s good in theory, but I could see so many exploits to this: Alt accounts voting the same guy so they can troll at higher Elos; People not knowing every single piece of information about that game; People taking credit for things other people did. But if there could be ways to make it foolproof, sure, why not?
Personally I would hope if a ranked system were implimented it had multiple factors.
Points earned or lost for team actions while you were on said team. IE cult/unseen players gain, bd players lose points if BD members are executed. BD players gain cult/unseen lose points when cult/unseen members are executed. and a smaller extent of points gained/lost when cult/unseen kill BD etc…
individual points. IE investigatives get points when evils they checked get executed. Princes/hunters/knights get points when they kill a badie, lose points when they kill a BD (or themselves in knights case etc…
win/loss.
I would say a voting system could go well on top of that, I do support that. It does need to be a bit smaller than most automatic factors to avoid either bias, or bad information. (most players won’t be able to know whether that butler that was a detriment to BD the whole game, became a butler n2 and thus did great by harming BD, or got converted n10 and thus never spent a single day being helpful for his team)
Princes/hunters/knights get points when they kill a badie, lose points when they kill a BD
Im not sure thats always a good idea, somtimes you should kill/exe a bd when you know you are going to win anyway.
For example: you are a prince and you know king is good. one of the other 2 players are the possesor. you should just random exe one of them and kill in the knight the other one
I suggest from my experience based on hundreds of pointing systems i have seen :
Reset the Ranking every month! That way every month every player will havet he chance to go up the ladder, rather than give up cos there are people with billion points above them.
Month is way too short in my opinion. Two to three months would work better in my opinion, with soft Elo resets when you get higher than a certain point.
Also, i am against the voting system. Sure, let add one, but not for ranking, but for … Who played the best?
Also, soft elo reset will favour only those that have achieved some kind of elo before hand. Full Elo Reset sounds better, and adds more competitiveness.
Well, the question is what is the ranking system for? if its for competitive issues, then votes shoudn’t be allowed. I don’t think you can make a good competitive ranking system without votes, because who won/lose doesnt give you enough information.
My idea of ranking system is for better player experince. As an experienced player I want to play with experience players and not dumbs or new players.
Saddly, there is no way to prevent that. Good luck trying tho. With my experience, bad players will always be there no matter what 
My suggestion for ranked games would be to make a ranking based on this calculation:
(Win rate% * 100) + Amount of ranked games won - The ranked games you left
So if you played 20 games, and won 8, left 0, that would mean a rating of: 4008
You’d get a rating after playing at least 20 ranked games.
Leaving a ranked game will also always count as a loss.
Also, aside from the overall ranking, make one for every class.
(In this case the win or loss is attributed to the class you end with, not the starting class)
You’d get a ranking if you played at least 5 games with that class.
(Win rate% for that class * 25 ) + Amount of ranked games won with that class - The ranked games you left with ANY class
Players who are low on the overall ranking can still be high up with some specific classes, encouraging to keep playing ranked. But if they get classes they are low with, they can’t just leave as it will hurt the ratings for all classes.
So if you are a horrible player but have a good team you win points?
And if u died at n1 and lost or left, what could you do?
I think the game should use a vote system for ranked play,
So if you are a horrible player but have a good team you win points? Yep, he would get the points. Lucky horrible player.
And if u died at n1 and lost or left, what could you do? If you died first night as an alch, that would be bad luck. You could not have done anything most likely.(not going into a specific discussion over N1 Stoneskin)
Point is: Yes there is luck involved. But luck tends to even out in the long run, so I don’t see it as that much of a problem. These rankings wont be based on just a few games for most of the players. (And the ranking system encourages playing more games to climb the ratings as won games will earn you points, not just the win rate)
A voting system is far more abusable imo. People a are already bragging how they carry games, ranked games would derail because they would only revolve around getting those votes.
Staying or leaving a game after you die is still a choice. I’d like to see people stay during ranked games. There could be exceptions to such a rule, like neutrals that have lost and don’t have a team to support.
Here’s where IMO the problems go in on that method, based on what I saw in Town of Salem’s ranked.
When you start dividing people up… that’s where the system gets flawed.
First and foremost we need to agree on one premise. The amount of luck factors involved. Means in the short run… IE 50 less games or so, luck most likely has a larger effect than skill.
Second, that the side balances, are likely to shift based on skill level. In town of salem’s ranked there was a point where in the unranked and low ELO modes, mafia’s winrate was somewhere around 50-60%, while in high elo ranked, town won 85-95%ish.
This creates what’s considered ELO hell. In which say if you have bad luck for your first batch of games. You get put with the worse group. While you are in the worse group, it is harder for your skill to impact the game (as people won’t begin to understand the logic when you ask them to do pretty basic strategies, or won’t listen to you when someone is obviously evil, or worse of all intentionally will act evil as BD, turning good detection skills into liabilities). This of course leads to more losses, which puts you with worse players and the cycle continues.
Meanwhile if luck happened to shine bright on you during the first 10 games, you get paired up with better players. You will win more games when you are in the majority side. Regardless of whether you played great or just mediocre.
All that being said I don’t think a voting system is much better, very subject to bias. Friends playing together, people salty against people that played better than they did. Not to mention misconceptions of when someone was converted. IE was the BD destroyed by a brilliant cult member that kept them running around in circles all game, or an idiot BD player that just happened to be converted.
That’s still why I support more of a system that uses as many factors. both individual, team, voting could be thrown in as a small factor.
Deep down though, maybe ranking just isn’t a good idea to begin with, and all we really need is a vets club… IE just people who have played 200 (game amount could be adjusted), can play seperated from those who have not played that many games.
DbD resets every months and I’ve seen peole hit rank 1 quickly
(I know their ranking system is different, but using their timing method) [ALSO HI LORD BUCKEZT HEAD. BEST LORD]
This idea assumes that all players can tell the difference between good play and bad play, an assumption I don’t agree with. I can’t even count how many times someone has insulted someone for their play, despite it being 100% the right call. And that’s in obvious cases. There will be times two good players just disagree on tactics and both think the other played poorly without any real way to prove if a strategy is good or not.
There’s also the problem that players don’t have perfect information, even after the game is over. There could be a big play that changed the entire game and half the players in the game might not even know how it happened or who was responsible.
This idea assumes that all players can tell the difference between good play and bad play, an assumption I don’t agree with. I can’t even count how many times someone has insulted someone for their play, despite it being 100% the right call. And that’s in obvious cases. There will be times two good players just disagree on tactics and both think the other played poorly without any real way to prove if a strategy is good or not.
There’s also the problem that players don’t have perfect information, even after the game is over. There could be a big play that changed the entire game and half the players in the game might not even know how it happened or who was responsible.
This exactly. And it’s even worse. People might also vote strategically to get ahead of certain players. As such the voting becomes a weird part of the ranked game.
Once again, my idea is not for competitive issues but more for higher level players will play togethor.
If you want a competitive idea:
Key roles (prince, MM, king, psychic) games will have more influence on your rating (For example, prince win will count like 2 wins, prince lose will count like 2 loses)
the longer you are alive as BD, the more influence on your rating
Doing great things at night should earn/lose you points:
For example: cold steal unseen as night, healing bd, occupy an assasian, wolf to evil, executing the right person as prince.
Late converted players will get less influence on their rating (for example, last standing BD get converted is basicly like losing in my opinion. Also important for people not asking / waiting to get converted.
Yes, if you play enough games you don’t need those rules, but enough is about 500-1000 games
Although far less games than 500 are needed to spread luck out, I really do like you suggestions regardless. They make far better proxies for quality of play than voting and my initial suggestion (flat calculation based on wins and win rate)
I’m not sure though about 2. The longer you are alive the more influence you had on the outcome. So it should your rating more imo. (If you got killed day 1 as prince, not much you could do!)
Here is a first draft how to gain or lose points. (will need to be refined for sure. Only did Blue Dragon so far)
General
All calculations are based on end class, not starting class.
Each player starts with a ranking of 2.000.
BD faction
Good King, Psychic, Prince: 9 points
Other classes: 5 points
X days alive: X times 2 points (max. 16 points)
If BD wins the game, you gain the total of these points above. If BD loses, you lose these points.
You can then gain or lose some points based on specific actions:
This is regardless whether you won or lost as BD.
In total, you cannot gain more than 5 points. (after deduction of penalties)
Each bonus/penalty can be gained only once.
Bonusses
1 point for voting Execute on a Cult, Unseen, or Neutral killer which lead to an execution
1 points for voting Pardon on a Blue Dragon member that got executed anyways
1 point for having a Neutral Killer, Cult or Unseen die to your Bear of Wolf (dying by bleeding out).
1 point for killing a Neutral Killer, Cult or Unseen with Sacrifice or Cold Steel (achievable by DK too)
1 point for smiting a Cult Leader to death.
1 point for jailing and executing a Cult, Unseen, or Neutral killer
1 point for executing a Cult, Unseen, or Neutral killer by using Decide Faith.
1 point for having an Evil King die to poison (Butler)
1 point for healing a Blue Dragon the night it was attacked (and thus saving him from death)
2 points for staying until the very end of the game (Score screen).
Penalties
-1 point for executing a Blue Dragon by using Decide Faith.
-1 point for jailing and executing a Blue Dragon
-1 point for having an Good King die to poison (Butler)
-1 point having a Blue Dragon die to your Bear of Wolf (dying by bleeding out).
-25 for leaving on day 1
-15 for leaving any other time than day 1 while still alive
