An alternative Ranking system for the AMM Ladder

I'm just throwing this out there; not supposed to be a suggestion or request or anything..

Now, "Levels" are a vague indicator of a player's relative skill, say a Level 30 player versus a Level 31 player would be a lot different than an L1 versus an L2.

Instead of Levels, each player could have a more finely-grained "Score."

Consider this;
  • Every Unit (or Structure) is worth a certain number of Points, which're based on how much it costs.
    i.e. every 50 minerals are worth 1 point (so a Zergling is worth 0.5 points) and every 50 gas is worth 1.5 points.

  • A Unit is worth 0 Points if it never sees combat,
    that is, decreases the HP of an enemy Unit by attacking or using an special ability, or has its own HP decreased by the enemy.

  • If you win a match, all the Points from the enemy Units you killed, as well as the Units you made (which Saw Combat) are added to your global Score.

  • Even if you lose a match, only the Points from your Kills are added.
    so you can't just sit there and mass irrelevant units, but if you lost by a narrow margin, it'll still have counted for something.

  • In a Team match, all the Kills that your allies make are worth 25% of their Points to your own Score.

    Fractions are, of course, rounded down.

So, when using Automatic Match-Making to begin searching for a game, you could specify the Score Margin for your preferred opponent, say from like 100 to 1000, in relation to your own Score.

There may be flaws in this, of course, one of them being "rigging" by opponents who agree to help each other out, or a player with 1000 losses scoring higher than a player with 100 wins. Maybe some kind of weighing, positive or negative, should apply depending on the amount of time a match lasts, how often a player loses, and how often a player wins, and so on. What do you think?


Post a Comment

Agree/Disagree? Think this idea can be improved? Share your thoughts!