Destroyed Ships Rating / Skill Rating

Game Discussion Miscellaneous
1

I’m eager to have a discussion about the so called ‘destroyed ships rating’ - and achieve the following:

 

  • Learn exactly how it works, as this is ambiguous at best.
  • Discuss whether or not it is a fair/accurate representation of skill.

 

How does it work exactly?

 

This part is the least clear. From what I understand, having discussed this with many people - the rating goes up and down based on who you kill and who you get killed by. Largely speaking, the results of various matches support this theory, but not always. I’ve had situations where I made 17 kills, died once and still lost rating. That might still be correct, but that would suggest the system isn’t without flaws - in such a situation you shouldn’t lose rating purely because you might have hit the mines of someone who has ~800 rating, or someone just got lucky.

 

I’d love to hear experiences/thoughts on this part - and find out exactly how it works. if the devs have some input here and could clarify that would be even better.

 

Is it a fair representation of skill?

 

In any game which displays this sort of statistics, it becomes a bit of an e-peen affair. People start comparing their ratings and use it as a membership requirement in corporations. However, does the rating really represent someone’s ability to play the game - or the way they might support their team, or is the rating inherently flawed at the moment?

 

Which leads me to;

 

Does the rating advocate or even encourage poor team play?

 

If the rating works the way we think it does, it is rewarding players who sit back and rack up kills. We see more and more people hitting the long-range frigates or hanging back doing virtually nothing to support their team. You see people running away from fights, warping to the edge of the map, etc. etc.

 

The worst part of this is, that it is punishing players who play for objectives on some game modes. For example, I love the Detonation mode and used to fly an interceptor there as it’s nothing but pure adrenaline-pumping action-filled fun. But picking up the bomb in most cases is a free ticket straight to your untimely demise. I don’t mind that, making plays is what this mode is all about. But the game is punishing players who do by literally tanking their ratings - which take a nose-dive if you engage in this type of gameplay. Meanwhile the players sitting back sniping 2-3 people and then doing nothing/running away the rest of the match, are rewarded with an increase in rating.

 

The second example is Combat Recon. Try facing a giant frigate ball near the enemy captain. No problem - you can make a couple of organised and timed suiicide runs with a wolfpack (see what I did there) - but again this type of behaviour is discouraged by punishing the players who do this. You take out the captain and effectively win your team the match - your rating goes down.

 

Conclusion

 

This leads me to this discussion. At the moment, the rating is a poor representation of actual contribution to matches. I believe it should take your contribution towards the actual objectives into account. I give you this weekend as an example, I started close to 1400 rating and after a long weekend of gaming (where we won the vast majority of the matches) even though I ended up in the top-3 on the team in 90% of those matches and 3rd/11th respectively in ‘most kills’ on the overall leaderboard on Saturday and Sunday - I still dropped rating massively. And that just because we played as a team and went for objectives?

 

Don’t get me wrong, the rating isn’t all that important, which is why we just go for objectives and ‘ignore’ our rating. (Read: xxxxx and moan about it to one another and just continue doing what we’re doing in the meantime - British style. :P)

 

But shouldn’t we be rewarding people who make those great plays that win the team the game? So that as a result, we see more of those plays? I sure as hell would find it more fun to see more giant cluster-fks than the mexican stand-offs we get in some games. Balls-deep fighting rather than playing long-distance semi-stationary duck-hunt, which is what the current method is encouraging.

 

I’d love to hear thoughts/opinions.

 

 

2

Imo it’s not a representation of skill, but more of a playstyle.

Win rating represents your benefit for the team, so that is probably closer to what represents your skill.

 

But the bottom line is if you have both of these ratings high, you are good player.

Destroyed ship rating(DSR) is pretty much standart elo rating with starting number of (i think) 1200, but some have said that it is 1000, and as you said earlier depending how high ranked enemies you kill or get killed by it changes accordingly.

 

Win rating could be considered average at 1.00, but I would say that it’s not entirely true. ~0.90 I would say is the average. Why? Because there are  exceptional players who have winrating over 2, and even over 3, and I think there are some even over 4, but might be mistaken, meanwhile there are pretty much no players who have winrating below 0.5, except for some very new players who have less than 50 games.

 

My 2 cents on the matter.

 

in such a situation you shouldn’t lose rating purely because you might have hit the mines of someone who has ~800 rating, or someone just got lucky.

In a long tearm “lucky” kills even out, but my personal opinion is that if you get killed, it’s your own fault, regardless of enemy rating, or even that he was not aware of what he did.

 

People start comparing their ratings and use it as a membership requirement in corporations.

You’r putting to much though in that. If some corp is taking players based on DSR, then it’s simply because they need at least some sort of information about the player. It’s still better than nothing.

 

Meanwhile the players sitting back sniping 2-3 people and then doing nothing/running away the rest of the match, are rewarded with an increase in rating.

Player won’t get far by doing only that, nor will he get high DSR.

 

At the moment, the rating is a poor representation of actual contribution to matches

DSR represents exactly what it says - how well you perform in killing others ships, and not get killed, and i believe it should not be changed.

However thats pretty much the only rating we have to evaluate players skils, and I do agree that it is not enought! Some sort of aditional rating which is based on your performance would be a usefull thing, but at current point I dont see how that could work.

3

I’m eager to have a discussion about the so called ‘destroyed ships rating’ - and achieve the following:

 

  • Learn exactly how it works, as this is ambiguous at best.
  • Discuss whether or not it is a fair/accurate representation of skill.

 

How does it work exactly?

 

This part is the least clear. From what I understand, having discussed this with many people - the rating goes up and down based on who you kill and who you get killed by. Largely speaking, the results of various matches support this theory, but not always. I’ve had situations where I made 17 kills, died once and still lost rating. That might still be correct, but that would suggest the system isn’t without flaws - in such a situation you shouldn’t lose rating purely because you might have hit the mines of someone who has ~800 rating, or someone just got lucky.

 

I’d love to hear experiences/thoughts on this part - and find out exactly how it works. if the devs have some input here and could clarify that would be even better.

 

Is it a fair representation of skill?

 

In any game which displays this sort of statistics, it becomes a bit of an e-peen affair. People start comparing their ratings and use it as a membership requirement in corporations. However, does the rating really represent someone’s ability to play the game - or the way they might support their team, or is the rating inherently flawed at the moment?

 

Which leads me to;

 

Does the rating advocate or even encourage poor team play?

 

If the rating works the way we think it does, it is rewarding players who sit back and rack up kills. We see more and more people hitting the long-range frigates or hanging back doing virtually nothing to support their team. You see people running away from fights, warping to the edge of the map, etc. etc.

 

The worst part of this is, that it is punishing players who play for objectives on some game modes. For example, I love the Detonation mode and used to fly an interceptor there as it’s nothing but pure adrenaline-pumping action-filled fun. But picking up the bomb in most cases is a free ticket straight to your untimely demise. I don’t mind that, making plays is what this mode is all about. But the game is punishing players who do by literally tanking their ratings - which take a nose-dive if you engage in this type of gameplay. Meanwhile the players sitting back sniping 2-3 people and then doing nothing/running away the rest of the match, are rewarded with an increase in rating.

 

The second example is Combat Recon. Try facing a giant frigate ball near the enemy captain. No problem - you can make a couple of organised and timed suiicide runs with a wolfpack (see what I did there) - but again this type of behaviour is discouraged by punishing the players who do this. You take out the captain and effectively win your team the match - your rating goes down.

 

Conclusion

 

This leads me to this discussion. At the moment, the rating is a poor representation of actual contribution to matches. I believe it should take your contribution towards the actual objectives into account. I give you this weekend as an example, I started close to 1400 rating and after a long weekend of gaming (where we won the vast majority of the matches) even though I ended up in the top-3 on the team in 90% of those matches and 3rd/11th respectively in ‘most kills’ on the overall leaderboard on Saturday and Sunday - I still dropped rating massively. And that just because we played as a team and went for objectives?

 

Don’t get me wrong, the rating isn’t all that important, which is why we just go for objectives and ‘ignore’ our rating. (Read: xxxxx and moan about it to one another and just continue doing what we’re doing in the meantime - British style. :P)

 

But shouldn’t we be rewarding people who make those great plays that win the team the game? So that as a result, we see more of those plays? I sure as hell would find it more fun to see more giant cluster-fks than the mexican stand-offs we get in some games. Balls-deep fighting rather than playing long-distance semi-stationary duck-hunt, which is what the current method is encouraging.

 

I’d love to hear thoughts/opinions.

BRITISH STYLE FTW.

 

I think your rating does start at 1000, and then alters per death/kill depending on who killed you/you killed. If this is correct, I do agree with the promotion of tactless play. The rating should alter based on how well you completed your mission objectives. You protected the cap against an onslaught? Did you fearlessly storm a beacon/hold out against a myriad of enemies? Did you - by your lonesome - blitzkrieg the enemy captain and survive? These are the things that should get you rating.

4

Imo it’s not a representation of skill, but more of a playstyle.

Win rating represents your benefit for the team, so that is probably closer to what represents your skill.

 

But the bottom line is if you have both of these ratings high, you are good player.

Destroyed ship rating(DSR) is pretty much standart elo rating with starting number of (i think) 1200, but some have said that it is 1000, and as you said earlier depending how high ranked enemies you kill or get killed by it changes accordingly.

 

Win rating could be considered average at 1.00, but I would say that it’s not entirely true. ~0.90 I would say is the average. Why? Because there are  exceptional players who have winrating over 2, and even over 3, and I think there are some even over 4, but might be mistaken, meanwhile there are pretty much no players who have winrating below 0.5, except for some very new players who have less than 50 games.

 

My 2 cents on the matter.

 

In a long tearm “lucky” kills even out, but my personal opinion is that if you get killed, it’s your own fault, regardless of enemy rating, or even that he was not aware of what he did.

 

You’r putting to much though in that. If some corp is taking players based on DSR, then it’s simply because they need at least some sort of information about the player. It’s still better than nothing.

 

Player won’t get far by doing only that, nor will he get high DSR.

 

DSR represents exactly what it says - how well you perform in killing others ships, and not get killed, and i believe it shouls not be changed.

However thats pretty much the only rating we have to evaluate players skils, and I do agree that it is not enought! Some sort of aditional rating which is based on your performance would be a usefull thing, but at current point I dont see how that could work.

 

Not according to my experience.

 

I can have a match with 17 kills, 29 assists and 1 death and still lose rating. That tells me that the system is wrong. Sorry but no way I should lose rating in such a match even if the person who killed me is the absolute worst person in the entire game.

5

Not according to my experience.

 

I can have a match with 17 kills, 29 assists and 1 death and still lose rating. That tells me that the system is wrong. Sorry but no way I should lose rating in such a match even if the person who killed me is the absolute worst person in the entire game.

I know, that happened to me as well, So if you care about your DSR, then play only T3. There was a time when i cared for it. got up to 1600(0.8 frig fest patch), but realized, that I no longer enjoy the gameplay. Honestley… who cares about some mystical number in your profile…

6

The Destroyed Ship Rating (DSR) takes into account kills, assists and losses. Kills and assists seems to account against similar rated pilots and your losses depend on who shot you, as well. If you got taken out by a rookie pilot (even if it was just the killing blow), it might affect it.

 

In all honesty, I’ve no idea how that thing even works, but it’s useless because it doesn’t tell you how you accomplish objectives, just how many ships you kill and how effective you are at it. This, however, only works on Recon matches.

Domination & Beacon Hunt matches should be about capturing and holding Beacons, not shooting down your enemies on the other side of the map.

Detonation should be about shooting down the bomb carriers and planting bombs yourself or supporting team mates carrying bombs (bomb plant assist, I guess), not shooting down everything that shows up in your face.

 

The DSR is pretty much a useless stat if you want to assess a pilot’s skill at exiting a match victorious. It’s excellent if you’re assessing a pilot’s survivability and if you want to be an elitist prick about shooting down every living thing that was unfortunate enough to be lined up with your gun barrels.

 

 

The game needs something so you can assess how well a pilot performs at completing missions, not at how itchy his trigger fingers are.

7

account kills, assists and losses

AFAIK assists are not taken into account.

8

AFAIK assists are not taken into account.

You assisted in destroying that ship, I see no reason it shouldn’t be taken into account. I’ve had matches where I’ve killed no one, assisted 15+ kills and died none times and still my rating went up. Unless it gives you a bonus for not dying, I see it that way.

9

ELO ratings work the way that if someone get points, then someone lose points as well. It would be illogical to lose more points when killed by several players(1 last hit, and others assist), than killed by sipmly that one player.

Also other option is that if anyone assisted, then points get distributed among them as well, and killer dont get as much as he would get when getting kill alone.

But who knows, we are just guessing without a solid proof. 

10

If you keep killing things without dying you rating will go up.  Assists doesn’t seems to affect it.

 

Imo its a terrible system that discourages good play.  Grabbing the bomb in emp, going for the captain in recon, and playing as the engineer in pug beacon hunt will generally destroy your ratings.

11

Assists don’t influence the DSR.

I dislike that rating as well; It’s too dependent on play style, descourages playing the objectives and is simply too easy to manipulate. For the first 500 games my rating was about 1100 ish. After setting myself the goal to increase that I ended up with 1500 rating and had less fun doing that. Now I’m at ~1400, don’t look after the rating and enjoy the game overall much more.

 

If you really want an indicator for player skill, I’d suggest to introduce an efficency rating , which takes kills, assists (not deaths) and achieved objectives into account. Get rid of the DSR.

12

If you really want an indicator for player skill, I’d suggest to introduce an efficency rating , which takes kills, assists (not deaths) and achieved objectives into account. Get rid of the DSR.

 

http://star-conflict.com/en/ratings/battles/current/eternal/2013-07-01/avgContribution/

 

Ask and you shall receive. 

There is overall, last week, and last 24 hours.

13

The destroyed ship rating is calculated on the :

 

number of kills you do ingame + Number of death + Your rating +The enemy rating (that you killed / who killed you)

 

That why I loose Points while I made 9 kills and die 2 time… Because the ship rating of the players I’ve killed was too low and when i get killed, mine was too high.

This system do not use the fact it’s not an 1V1 combat most of the time.

 

And it’s really easy to break the system by not playing the objectives of the game mode and Just play the kills. I saw some player just focusing the best rated player in the enemy team.

 

Efficiency rating will not be fair too. How do you reward people who stand with a captain to defend it instead of rushing to make kill (and points)? How do you will reward players who stand near a captured beacon to defend it or prevent futur attack? Not enough fair for players who choose to use tactical positionning instead of Zerging.

 

 

Edit : And again, this time 3v3 against T4 player while flying only T3, 6/1/0 (Kda), still losing rating… 

14

http://star-conflict.com/en/ratings/battles/current/eternal/2013-07-01/avgContribution/

 

Ask and you shall receive. 

There is overall, last week, and last 24 hours.

 

will this ever be searchable? Clicking through hundreds of pages does not sound like fun

15

will this ever be searchable? Clicking through hundreds of pages does not sound like fun

A search function is on the list of improvements.

 

As for DSR, I agree that it encourages people to play for kills and not objectives. However, in all situations including running EMPs, playing high-priority ships, and going for captain kills, a pilot is more useful to his or her team alive. In the end, DSR represents what it was intended to represent: how good a pilot is at killing compared to how often he dies. It is up to the individual and corporations to decide whether this number carries any weight. Most competitive corps will look at more than just DSR and win ratio when evaluating potential recruits.

 

Since it was mentioned though, I would like to see an “Average Efficiency” on the in-game profile. Save me the trouble of searching the leaderboards. ;]

16

Yeah, that would be a good stat to add.

 

I still think the DSR is currently promoting poor team-play, though. And if you have a 17:1 K/D ratio in a game, your rating should NOT go down, the system needs to evaluate your performance across a whole match not just each individual kills in isolation.

17

Yeah, that would be a good stat to add.

 

I still think the DSR is currently promoting poor team-play, though. And if you have a 17:1 K/D ratio in a game, your rating should NOT go down, the system needs to evaluate your performance across a whole match not just each individual kills in isolation.

The potential problem I see with this example is that without taking into account the DSR of the opponent, it would further encourage playing for kills as farming players becomes more effective. May I ask which tier you are playing, EvilTactician? I have not heard of such a K/D ratio causing the player to lose rating in T3. Unless, of course, you happen to have a DSR of 1600+ and are matched against 1000-1200s.

18

I agree for a display of individual efficency rating on the profile page in the game.

19

dsr, kdr, elo, eff/match etc will never be able to measure team contribution. u have no way to appropriately rate teamplayers. a guard floating idly in the right position at the right time doing absolutely nothing other than deter the opposition from winning and buying his own team a shot at an epic comeback. or that engineer selflessly respawning death after death because he’s the only one willing to take on the frontline support role etc. a tackler targeting someone shooting at a team mate gets the same points as another tackler targeting an AFK ship

 

tier differences also is a huge factor.

1,400 DSR in T2 don’t necessarily translate the same in T3

I stopped caring when I found out I can bounce from 1,100 in T3 to 1,400 in T2 in just a couple of sessions

 

in my eyes DSR gains is just as broken as DSR losses and not worth caring about. I’ve seen 900 newbies in rank5 ships on my team being in the right places doing all the right things while the 1200’s are all flying around making kills and giving away the win to the enemy emp runners.

 

in the end - why care?

20

The potential problem I see with this example is that without taking into account the DSR of the opponent, it would further encourage playing for kills as farming players becomes more effective. May I ask which tier you are playing, EvilTactician? I have not heard of such a K/D ratio causing the player to lose rating in T3. Unless, of course, you happen to have a DSR of 1600+ and are matched against 1000-1200s.

 

This specific example came from a series of T2 matches. I had reached ~1400 (it seems very hard getting much higher to that in T2, due to a lot of people being 800-900) and started finding that no matter the performance, the rating would more or less drop. Especially when trying to actually play the game.

 

In one match a corp mate (Kipps) and myself made a great play by using a jump gate to warp literally 1 inch from the exhaust pipes of the enemy captain. Blew him up but obviously died in the fiery ball of hell that followed. Such plays make or break games - but the system punishes the player by tanking your rating. I lost a good ~20 rating for that move. It’s not like it’s massively important - but I do believe that it’s not a particularly great method at the moment.

 

I agree with you that DSR of each individual kill must be taken into account - and I wasn’t suggesting that it shouldn’t. What I meant was that the system should string together the individual kills in a match and calculate the rating hit/loss at the *end* of the match - taking not just each kill individually into account, but also the performance as a whole.

 

For example, the player might have died against an 800 rated player and would normally take a hit for this. But if this person made an enormous contribution towards their team in the match, the system should recognise this and compensate accordingly, even if they only increase by the tiniest amount. If someone consistently performs like this, I don’t see a good reason why their rating shouldn’t go up. Ultimately they’re better than everyone around them.

 

By artificially keeping the rating down for some people like this, we’re actually making the situation worse for other players. The match making system keeps throwing us against people who don’t really stand a chance as it doesn’t recognise that in reality there’s a bit more difference between player A and player B than the 200 rating difference is suggesting.

 

If we can somehow find a way to make the rating more representative of actual contributions - the match making further down the line will massively benefit from it as the devs can start avoiding (at least more than now) that ‘lesser rated’ players get repeatedly slaughtered by those with a lot more experience. You’ll never avoid it entirely, but you can try and improve it.

 

It’s a difficult one to get right - even mega (professionally) competitive games (think for example league of legends) struggle with it.