Which Rank X System was better? S2 or S3

[missingno]

Batching the results by only showing a rating update every few games is a valid way to conceal the variance of some games being worth more than others. But they need to keep the results as-is and not override them.

 

[Supa Fern]

If I stay in the enemy base for most of the game just painting as much as I can, I might get #1 turf inker and enemy base inker and special user, but I'm not helping my team win nearly as much as I would be if I went back and fought with them. Should I really be awarded extra points for that?

Some of the games I personally had the most impact in were ones where I got relatively few splats, even for E-liter. I positioned very well, and kept enemy players away from fights they would rather be helping with. But there aren't badges for those. They simply can't make a badge for every possible factor that influences the outcome of a match. The only way to accurately determine how much any one player contributes to winning is to look at when that player wins and loses. Because the objective of the game should be winning.

I think you are missing the point. I am not saying at any point that it should it include any of that list, I am stating what glicko2 uses to calculate points in both S2 and S3.
The thread is discussing the clamping part of the points instead of raw Glicko2 values which is independent of the badges you get after the match. Those are 2 different things

 

[Supa Fern]

The 'problem' with S2 using pure unmodified Glicko-2 is that players don't like the honest truth about how good they really are. It feels frustrating to the player when your wins are worth +2 and your losses are worth -30, but that's happening for a reason. It means you're getting matched with players you were expected to beat, so if you do lose your rating needs to be corrected accordingly.

But number go down makes you feel bad! We can't have that!

So S3 now lies to make you feel better. You went 3-2 in the set? You're gaining points no matter who you were pubstomping, even when the truth is that it should've been a net negative. And as a result, there's runaway inflation for the top players at the far end of the bell curve who rarely, if ever, lose points. Conversely, players on the low end can get stuck in a defeatist spiral even when they sometimes get a few wins that should save them. Your rank is now a lot more dependent on the luck of the draw in who you get matched with, whether you got a set you'll go 3-2 or 2-3 in.

It's too common in modern games to have systems that lie to make players feel good. It boosts engagement. Keeps you coming back to farm those dopamine points, number go up. Frustrated players are at risk of leaving, so we lie to minimize frustration.

But lying isn't good, and there are consequences for that lie. Ratings are not accurate now, and if the ratings aren't accurate, then the matchmaking isn't either. If you're not happy with the state of S3's matchmaking, you have to realize this is a big part of why.

So what do you want out of a rating system? Do you want the game to lie so you'll feel better, or do you want the truth no matter how uncomfortable it is?

So by your logic, the current highest player https://x.com/melon1_game/status/1753390810664731085?s=20 shouldnt have lost any matches; They are above everyone they fought. I think you are confusing being the best with being undefeated

And you are not seeing the perspective that this is a 4v4 game. Even if Melon played macthes perfectly, their teammates can cost the win.

 

[zyf_]

It is! Sendouq uses raw OpenSkill points (well, an affine transform on it but basically raw!) as its SP rating. That’s why it does such a good job at rating players, even if players don’t like that sometimes they win and only get 0.07 SP for the win or if they see higher level players get more SP for a win than they did.

players not using XP (assuming it was raw glicko-2) for a competitive measure is fine, XP only measures how good a player is in that environment in relation to other players. But as far as for whether it’s worthwhile to have accurate XP more generally, I’d argue yes! Not only for bragging rights that soloq warriors can engage in, but also to monitor the health of the system. It’s much easier for me to monitor the health of sendouq when I know everything about the system can be described mathematically with the given inputs!

gonna push a little bit further here and be a bit of a devil's advocate, but what does "healthy" mean to you?
i'm plenty of a mathematical purist myself, but I have to wonder if that makes sense in the context of splatoon and nintendo as a company

again, in sendouq, I completely agree that an accurate system is utterly, 100% critical
but as far as nintendo is concerned, isn't a healthy X rank queue just an active one?

 

[zyf_]

reposting this video that i posted in the other x rank thread cuz i think it's relevant:

 

[Supa Fern]

reposting this video that i posted in the other x rank thread cuz i think it's relevant:

thank you for sharing this awesome video. Matchmaking is very hard and has many subjective points people have to choose, which can compromise the experience for players to enjoy the game.

 

[Yosi Spring]

Splatoon 2's system should result in more accurate player rankings, but Splatoon 3's system feels better to grind because the numbers are always either going up or down. Splatoon 3's weapon matchmaking also makes the games feel more fair than Splatoon 2 (and the other modes in Splatoon 3). The main issue I have with Splatoon 3's system is that the min/max point changes are too large now. The fact that you can be guaranteed +-75 points at low power, and +-20 at high power is kinda insane.

 

[Supa Fern]

Splatoon 2's system should result in more accurate player rankings, but Splatoon 3's system feels better to grind because the numbers are always either going up or down. Splatoon 3's weapon matchmaking also makes the games feel more fair than Splatoon 2 (and the other modes in Splatoon 3). The main issue I have with Splatoon 3's system is that the min/max point changes are too large now. The fact that you can be guaranteed +-75 points at low power, and +-20 at high power is kinda insane.

It does feel too much for sure, but I do not have the Knowledge to find the better value
if I am not mistaken, S2 did implement weapon matchmaking too

 

[Shenorox]

easily s2's. the only flaw with s2's x-rank system imo was the poor matchmaking (which isn't even the ranking system's fault.) the poor matchmaking is what led to the +0.0s and the -100s.

s2's letter ranking system also clears s3's by far

 

[Yosi Spring]

Splatoon 2's system should result in more accurate player rankings, but Splatoon 3's system feels better to grind because the numbers are always either going up or down. Splatoon 3's weapon matchmaking also makes the games feel more fair than Splatoon 2 (and the other modes in Splatoon 3). The main issue I have with Splatoon 3's system is that the min/max point changes are too large now. The fact that you can be guaranteed +-75 points at low power, and +-20 at high power is kinda insane.

You know what, after playing more Rank X today I take back all the good things I said about Splatoon 3's system
Losing 3 times in a row and getting hit with a -75 pierces your soul unlike anything else

 

[missingno]

It does feel too much for sure, but I do not have the Knowledge to find the better value
if I am not mistaken, S2 did implement weapon matchmaking too

The 'better value' is to just use the actual output of the Glicko-2 formula. If you're gonna use Glicko-2, use Glicko-2.

 

[Supa Fern]

The 'better value' is to just use the actual output of the Glicko-2 formula. If you're gonna use Glicko-2, use Glicko-2.

based on what
what is your Metric to affirm it is the “better value”?

my initial intention to these post was to actually hear the other side of the argument, anyone can think and S2 or S3 is better.And I appreciate everyone that did reply they said S2.

But if you are defending your point, bring me facts. I am trying to find a document that says this addition of points is bad for the system. But if you have it, please do share how it proves your argument and me and others can understand better the bad things of S3 system.
So far I can only theorize from what I have seen it is causing the points to be higher while rewarding players that play the game the most. This is yet, on my theory, not a good or bad thing.

 

[missingno]

Based on the fact that Glicko-2 is a tried and true formula based on hard math and statistics. As soon as you start messing with it and ignoring its output, you aren't getting correct data anymore.

 

[vitellary]

based on what
what is your Metric to affirm it is the “better value”?

my initial intention to these post was to actually hear the other side of the argument, anyone can think and S2 or S3 is better.And I appreciate everyone that did reply they said S2.

But if you are defending your point, bring me facts. I am trying to find a document that says this addition of points is bad for the system. But if you have it, please do share how it proves your argument and me and others can understand better the bad things of S3 system.
So far I can only theorize from what I have seen it is causing the points to be higher while rewarding players that play the game the most. This is yet, on my theory, not a good or bad thing.

the "better value" in an objective sense is the one that measures precisely the skill of players relative to each other. it is fair to argue that this is the "better value" since x-rank is a mode that explicitly has a player ranking leaderboard; it will tell you the positioning that you are on your region's leaderboard, and it awards badges based on your position relative to those other players. i would argue that there is an objective answer for what x-power should represent, judging by the leaderboard presentation that both games use

glicko-2 is a formula that can accomplish this precise measurement, given a series of wins and losses against other opponents in that same system. splatoon 2 (to my understanding) uses glicko-2 and does not modify it, calculating your power per game without any inflated points. splatoon 3 does modify it, meaning the data that glicko-2 would generate becomes wildly inaccurate, and it is no longer an accurate measurement of how people rank compared to each other

i think it wouldn't be nearly as one-sided a debate if it weren't for the fact that splatoon does seem to pride itself on these leaderboards. the fact that the game updates you constantly on what your positioning is on the leaderboard is in your region is a clear indicator that that's what they want x-power to represent, but they're using a formula that is worse at calculating that than what they were using before

edit, wow this messages gets really redundant whoops i didn't really proofread this lol
tldr splatoon likes to tell you how you're doing relative to other people even though s3's system is worse at actually knowing that data

 

[Oliy]

I know most people are talking about points, but the weapon matchmaking system in 2 is also generally better imo. 2 assigns every weapon a "range" value and makes teams based on that, while Splatoon 3 sorts weapons into groups to form more balanced teams. Theoretically S3 has a good idea, but the groups in S3 are too large to be internally consistent and have some weird categorizations like Squeezer being lumped with most backlines and all chargers being in a separate category rather than being with other midlines/backlines. S2 had inconsistency in teams which could absolutely kill your score but was ultimately very interesting to play. S3 just kind of has "solutions" that favors specific things and ends up being repetitive and boring in matches.

 

[Supa Fern]

Based on the fact that Glicko-2 is a tried and true formula based on hard math and statistics. As soon as you start messing with it and ignoring its output, you aren't getting correct data anymore.

the "better value" in an objective sense is the one that measures precisely the skill of players relative to each other. it is fair to argue that this is the "better value" since x-rank is a mode that explicitly has a player ranking leaderboard; it will tell you the positioning that you are on your region's leaderboard, and it awards badges based on your position relative to those other players. i would argue that there is an objective answer for what x-power should represent, judging by the leaderboard presentation that both games use

glicko-2 is a formula that can accomplish this precise measurement, given a series of wins and losses against other opponents in that same system. splatoon 2 (to my understanding) uses glicko-2 and does not modify it, calculating your power per game without any inflated points. splatoon 3 does modify it, meaning the data that glicko-2 would generate becomes wildly inaccurate, and it is no longer an accurate measurement of how people rank compared to each other

i think it wouldn't be nearly as one-sided a debate if it weren't for the fact that splatoon does seem to pride itself on these leaderboards. the fact that the game updates you constantly on what your positioning is on the leaderboard is in your region is a clear indicator that that's what they want x-power to represent, but they're using a formula that is worse at calculating that than what they were using before

edit, wow this messages gets really redundant whoops i didn't really proofread this lol
tldr splatoon likes to tell you how you're doing relative to other people even though s3's system is worse at actually knowing that data

here how it works:

int MatchesWon = 0
int MatchesLost = 0

Int AccumulatePower = 0

While(MatchesWon<3 or MatchesLost<3){

_______ // Splatoon 2 power of Glicko2 when a match finishes
_______Accumulate Power += Played match result

_______If match == win
____________MatchesWon +=1
_______else
____________MatchesLost += 1
}

if MatchesWin == 3
_______if Accumulate Power<10
____________FinalPower += 10
_______else
____________FinalPower += Accumulate Power

if matchesLost ==3
_______if Accumulate Power>10
____________FinalPower += -10
_______else
____________FinalPower += Accumulate Power

glicko was a method made for 1v1 games
a type of game that makes sense only the taking as an input who won and lost, and if the games is a draw.

glick-2 came as an adaptation in which now you can apply into 4v4 scenarios by calculating the amount of points simplifying a 4v4 into 4 1v1 for each player.

then noticing how limited glicko2 is limited and doesn’t evaluate in game performance. Nintendo decided to change in their game to behave like this.
and their intentions do align with the fact in S2 your performance doesn’t change your MMR outcome

Anarchy series is a method in which they implemented extra points based on the stamps you get at the end. If in S4 they decide to only use it as a rank method is a topic for another discussion.

when using statistics to determine data through Machine Learning there is a lot of different mathematical equations to recognize patterns and they are not strict. Even bots generated with AI using statistical models are not going to be always equal when you run your samples, and modifications will be made.

we saw the video that making matchmaking is not easy. even they mentioned about latency restricting players from ever play against each other. Thus the he region Tent and Tak were created.

my point is, some of you being strict with Glicko2 and taking that it should never be modified, given it started as a modification of Glicko. please I am waiting on proof or even a hint that Nintendo’s modification(see above for algorithm) is broken with any scientific data. From the current data, this modified Glicko2 is an improvemen compensating for features its original version can not calculate

Now if you all are just getting overwhelmed by the amount of 3k people, thinking it is a broken system or are just nostalgic about S2 I do not know

 

[zyf_]

oh by the way hot take
best ranking system was splatoon 1 LOL

i kinda wish we just had a simple system reminiscent of splatoon 1 (except maybe uncapped?)
keep the bo5s cuz those feel more satisfying tbh i feel like even if the mmr is more impure it definitely feels better to play + gives great defined endpoints to stop playing

but id like it if there was just like

completely flat (and SMALL!) point gains and losses, irrespective of how you did in the set lol

maybe im crazy but I feel like that system would also balance out skillwise eventually

and at the top you just make it really harsh, you make it like +5 per set win and -25 per set loss or something

 

[vitellary]

my point is, some of you being strict with Glicko2 and taking that it should never be modified, given it started as a modification of Glicko. please I am waiting on proof or even a hint that Nintendo’s modification(see above for algorithm) is broken with any scientific data. From the current data, this modified Glicko2 is an improvemen compensating for features its original version can not calculate

you are continually making the assumption that arbitrarily adding points is somehow accurately representing what you as an individual player accomplished in a game. this is not true and i'm not sure under what basis you're concluding that it is

there is no accurate way to determine what a player's performance actually contributed to in a game, which is why judging purely based on whether your team won or lost is the only thing you can do to measure skill. adjusting this value just to guarantee points are gained even when unnecessary does not measure anything at all; you could have contributed nearly nothing to a game and won it due to it being a game you were expected to win anyway, and with the new system, you still gain points for that, when the older system would more accurately determine that your rank should not be affected much by that game since you were already predicted to win it

essentially, the crux of your argument is that s3's system accounts for in-game factors that s2 doesn't, when it is clearly the case that a flat addition of points regardless of the difficulty of the game is not actually accounting for those factors at all

it's pretty easy to determine that splatoon 3's system was changed to make x-rank feel more fun to climb. because that's what it accomplishes, and that's what nintendo benefits most from: it encourages people to play the game more. it would be perfectly reasonable (and, in my opinion, more interesting) to debate whether or not that approach is better than an approach that favors accuracy over emotions, but you're instead arguing that s3's system is somehow more accurate to player skill than it was before, when it's fairly trivial to conclude otherwise

Now if you all are just getting overwhelmed by the amount of 3k people, thinking it is a broken system or are just nostalgic about S2 I do not know

worth responding to this too: at least for me i can say i am not nostalgic for s2 at all, because i never played that game. splatoon 3 is the first splatoon game i've played, but i can critically analyze the difference between the two formulas and pretty confidently conclude that s3's is very simply biased towards extremes in a way that s2's wasn't. i'm just debating it because i do feel like there's an objectively true conclusion to be made about this and it's less interesting than the other stuff we could be discussing about it

 

[Supa Fern]

you are continually making the assumption that arbitrarily adding points is somehow accurately representing what you as an individual player accomplished in a game. this is not true and i'm not sure under what basis you're concluding that it is

there is no accurate way to determine what a player's performance actually contributed to in a game, which is why judging purely based on whether your team won or lost is the only thing you can do to measure skill. adjusting this value just to guarantee points are gained even when unnecessary does not measure anything at all; you could have contributed nearly nothing to a game and won it due to it being a game you were expected to win anyway, and with the new system, you still gain points for that, when the older system would more accurately determine that your rank should not be affected much by that game since you were already predicted to win it

essentially, the crux of your argument is that s3's system accounts for in-game factors that s2 doesn't, when it is clearly the case that a flat addition of points regardless of the difficulty of the game is not actually accounting for those factors at all

it's pretty easy to determine that splatoon 3's system was changed to make x-rank feel more fun to climb. because that's what it accomplishes, and that's what nintendo benefits most from: it encourages people to play the game more. it would be perfectly reasonable (and, in my opinion, more interesting) to debate whether or not that approach is better than an approach that favors accuracy over emotions, but you're instead arguing that s3's system is somehow more accurate to player skill than it was before, when it's fairly trivial to conclude otherwise


worth responding to this too: at least for me i can say i am not nostalgic for s2 at all, because i never played that game. splatoon 3 is the first splatoon game i've played, but i can critically analyze the difference between the two formulas and pretty confidently conclude that s3's is very simply biased towards extremes in a way that s2's wasn't. i'm just debating it because i do feel like there's an objectively true conclusion to be made about this and it's less interesting than the other stuff we could be discussing about it

Actually I never sad accurate or accurate placing players at any point.
my entire argument was compensating for something Glicko2 doesn’t measure, the players performance by given them the 3 win lose system

”I am reading the rest dw”

 

[Yosi Spring]

my point is, some of you being strict with Glicko2 and taking that it should never be modified, given it started as a modification of Glicko. please I am waiting on proof or even a hint that Nintendo’s modification(see above for algorithm) is broken with any scientific data. From the current data, this modified Glicko2 is an improvement compensating for features its original version can not calculate

Just to make sure we're all on the same page - you're talking about the new 6.0.0 Rank X system and not the Anarchy Series system, correct?