Obviously not, I believe we are all in agreement that it is a combination of luck, your teams compound skill vs your opponents skill, as well as your individual skill. But we can squabble all day on what percentage each factor has.
you canāt have it both ways.
either
a, individual skill will increase your win percentage
or
b, the game is random and skill has no impact on the game .
If a is true then a win loss ratio is sufficient to rank players .
If b is true then there is no purpose in a ranking system for a game where your actions cannot influence your out come .
I feel like itās this:
Skill will increase your win percentage, but just not necessarily directly/immediately, due to other players/random chance
1 Like
A is true, but not perfectly trueā¦ Right off the bat if you are BD, you yourself are 10% or less of your team. Look at any sport, how often is the highest rated player on the team that wins the (insert name of big finish game). On just wins/losses it would take several hundred games to fairly compare 2 different people.
Letās compare this to a MOBA okay?
Just cause someone gets a lot of kills, doesnāt mean theyād be able to do the same unless they had a good team backing them up.
The support is just as important as the tank or the damage dealer, and vice versa.
But the most important factor of whether a team wins or not is how good they are at working together.
And sometimes youāll face up against people who work together better.
Itās random chance unless every game you play is with 15 other people you know.
Itād be impossible to show real stats determined on how good you are at the game when the game relies on team work and luck.
Another question is by how much can skill alone increase your win percentage.
If a highly skilled player has only a slightly bigger win percentage than others, way less skilled, then the system is flawed.
if skill doesnāt increase your win percentage significantly then the game is pointless .
2 Likes
My point exactly
That would be a problem that extends to casual gameplay however. Plus that is simply not true. Newer players are less likely to be on the winning team because thier team is less likely to win. Letās put it this way. Good players increase the chances of a given team winning and bad players reduce the chances that a team will win. That means that if you are a good player then your team will always have at least one good player thus increasing your chances of winning.
If you have a ranking system you also are putting all of the best players into one game thus magnifying any differences in skill compared to everyone else. This is an engagement loop that makes it much more likely for a game to be decided by skill simply BECAUSE of a ranked system.
But not on a 1:1 ratio is my point. A bad BD player in a mostly good team, is very likely to get 1 BD executed, then himself killed by the prince, thus taking out 2 BD and crippling the prince. A good BD playerā¦ might catch a replacable bad guy earlierā¦ Though not even that as scumreading is virtually impossible when you have bad players in the mix.
One horrible player can tank a solid team with waay more efficiency than one excellent player can carry a bad team. Especially because a great player in a horrible team, effectively has no tools of deduction. Sure you can tell that every single action done by several players has been purely detrimental to the BDā¦ but that doesnāt mean they arenāt just terrible.
My point is no matter what in a social deduction game like this, if you are underestimated early onā¦ you are very unlikely to fix that. Being good is often a detriment if you are on bad teams. Iāve gotten executed several times because when we caught the assasain red handed day 2, I wanted to occupy/jail him instead of execute him immediately and let the MM replace him.
No one is saying skill doesnāt increase your win percentage, over a significant number of games across an even playing field. The point Iām making is
-
In a small scale, say 50ish games or so. Variables outside a players control, will still have a larger impact than his own skill.
-
After you divide people up, the playing field stops being even. People who are put on the worse ranks, will lose more games, while people in the upper ranks will win more games, regardless of their skill level. If you took someone from the depths of elo hell with 10 wins 90 losses, and someone at the peak of the games records with 90 wins 10 losses, and inverted who went in which games, youād see the former winner lose most of his games, and the former loser winning most of his games. Maybe not to the same extent eachother had, maybe it would turn to 70/30s for each. But trust me itās a huge difference.
In town of salem, I sank down to 600 ELO when I started out, I tried for 4 months, I occasionally climbed up to 1100 before getting shot down over and over again. I made a new account (which starts at 1200), and happened to win my first few games. I absolutely breezed in 1300 ELO range and easilly had a near 90% winrate as town.
Then for giggles I went and tried to see if I could dig myself out on the old accountā¦ 8 losses in a row. I wasnāt magically great when playing on the 1400 ELO account and terrible on the 700 account. I simply was good enough not to be a deterant to my team at 1400s, so the teams usually won, while with unskilled teams there was just no way I could turn them around most of the time.
Skill plays a factor, but when you divide up the playing fields, which field you are in is a much bigger factor than yourself.
A player that tanks his team will ALWAYS be on a team that gets tanked. That alone makes being good increase winrate a ton
Right, but my point is, the good players that will also ALWAYS be on a team that gets tanked. The qualifiers/starting area that judges skill, will be a grab bag, some people will get lucky and get good teams, some people will get unlucky and get on teams with tankersā¦ and if you were unfortunate enough to be tanked in the placement matches, you then get pulled down with tankers, and continue to always get tankers.
Like I said with town of salem, the ONLY way I was able to get out of ELO hell was to get a new accountā¦ Iād rather not have to buy throne of lies again if I get unlucky at the start.
Not true. There will be plenty of times were the players that are tanking are on the other team if you are good.
If you are the one tanking your team then that is impossible. You are always on your own team after all.
BD makes up most of the players in most gamesā¦ odds are if there is a tanker, it will be on BD, and odds are you will be on BD. When a ranked mode is implimented, in the higher skillrates, BDās winrate will be significantly above BDās winrate in the lower skill pools. Which will also lead to one of 3 things.
-
The game will be balanced around the uper skill ranks, resulting in a ludicriously high evil winrate in low skill tiers.
-
The game will remain balanced for āaverage players across the boardā, resulting in a very high BD winrate in the upper tier.
-
The devās attempt some kind of seperate rules for seperate levels (not going to happen).
Whatever the case, in the higher rank/elo/whatever it will be called mode, BD will win more, meaning more average winners per game the higher up you go.
Now they can compensate for that like town of salem does, where winning as town earns fewer points than winning as mafia, and losing as town costs more points than losing as mafia.
But whatever the caseā¦ that difference still falls in, at lower skill levels, thereās going to be a much fewer average winners per game, than at higher skill levels. Thatās just an unescapable fact. No matter how you slice it, BD will win more in higher skill modes than they do in lower skill modes, and as you have a higher chance of starting on BD per game, you have a higher chance of winning your average game, if you are in the higher skill tier.
My question for people in favor of a ranked system.
-
How many games do you think it takes on an even playing field, to get a good estimate of someones skill. 10? 50? 100?.
-
What mechanism do you think can work for getting people who were misjudged at first to actually get back up to the level they belong in? Or do you really think that a players skill can dig him out when he is constantly with bad teams?
1: Somewhere around 50 as a minimum. From there more is better. Btw I mean that for ToL spacificaly not games in general.
2: There are 2 ways. A: The conversation mechanic means that good players are more likely to be on the evil team which you just established is the team that usually wins in low Elo games. It also means that there are often a majority of winners in a BD loss. B: The system overwatch uses in low Elo of tracking more than just winrate. The devs already said that the system they use will involve lots of math so I think they will do this