I've seen some complaints about how the current tiers system is working, as well as some proposals on how to solve it. Here I shall present my thoughts on it.
The short version:
My opinion is that you should divide players, not games, into tiers, and select which tiers should be allowed in a game. Progressing through tiers should be mainly based on games played, but a least number of wins might be required just as a set amount of wins might be enough regardless of how many games you have played (I do not know how the current level system counts). Also, there should be more than three tiers to differentiate slightly more than what is done now.
The long version:
The current tiers
As it is now, there are three tiers for games:
Noobs Only - Only players with a low experience level may join
Noobs Allowed - Any player may join
Pro - Only players with a high experience level may join
That is, a tier dictates which experience levels players must be to join. This, to me, seems sub-par since it restricts a lot for hosts who want to decide how experienced players they want to play with as well as leaving new players at the mercy of joining Noobs Allowed games where they may get devestated.
A different approach
Consider instead the alternative of placing every player in a tier, much like the levels are now but much more general and with names that do not necessarily imply skill level but how much the player has played. For sake of argument, let's divide all the players into 5 tiers names as such:
Tier 1 - Beginner
Tier 2 - Acquainted
Tier 3 - Versed
Tier 4 - Seasoned
Tier 5 - Veteran
Consider tier 1 and tier 2. Tier 1 would be the tier that is supposed to cater to those who have never played a game of this genre before and has not played any larger amount of HoN either. Tier 2 would be the tier that caters to people who have played another game in this genre but no HoN or have not played any games in this genre, except for HoN which they have played enough games in to be acquainted to some extent with the items, heroes and mechanics of the game.
To measure progress
So when a player joins for the first time, he is a beginner; he's in tier 1. But what makes someone get better at the game or, in other words, progress through the tiers? Mainly: playing. This is why I believe that games played should be the basis of the player tier system. For those who have played DotA before, to such an extent that they were at least decent at it, it's so far mainly a question of learning what the similarities and the differences between the two games are, such as item names, hero models, slightly different skill sets, etc, while someone who is entirely new has to learn everything from scratch.
That introduces the problem of having players that are too skilled for their tier. I don't think this problem can be properly solved, as in that every player would always be in the right tier for them, but the problem can be lessened if every win you get counts for more than every loss, or if you progress automatically after a set amount of wins, since it seems fair to presume that those who are acquainted with the game or games of the same genre will do better that those that has never tried such a game before.
For the sake of argument, let's assign values of minimum amount of games played and games won to progress. Let us also assign an override amount of wins at which it doesn't matter how many games you have played:tier:
Tier 1 - At least 50 games and at least 15 wins, or 25 wins
Tier 2 - At least 150 games and at least 50 wins, or 75 wins
Tier 3 - At least 300 games and at least 120 wins, or 150 wins
Tier 4 - At least 500 games and at least 225 wins, or 250 wins
Tier 5 - no progress available since this is the top tier.
These numbers are chosen so that if you win more than 50% of your games, you will progress faster through the tiers and if you win less than 30/35/40/45%, respectively for each tier, you progress slower. (Well, 33% on tier 2 really; winning 52.5 games sounded strange, so I rounded it down to 50). I am just going to reiterate that I have no idea if these are good numbers, they are just there to provide an example of how it could be.
Player tiers in effect
This would all form the basis for the player tier system. (Amount of tiers, required games played or won and all such data is, as I said, just for arguments sake; whether there is 3, 5, 10, 15 or more tiers is of less relevance than there being player tiers.) Then, when you host, you are allowed to select an interval of tiers that are allowed to join your game. If the game is ranked, you may not select tiers below your own. If using a 5 system tier, the tiers allowed in a game could in the game list either be shown as a number ("Tier 1 - Tier 5") or by some fancy symbols, where the higher tiers look more menacing, such as a progressively more evil skull, while the icons for the tiers that are unallowed are grayed out.
That is my proposition for the tiers system. Any constructive feedback is welcome, though I will most likely not be able to answer anything for at least 7 hours.
Some have proposed systems where K:D:A ratios come into play. I find this lacking. While there are few heroes that do not gain either assists or kills and bad players tend to die, this is a system that, unless the stats are reset, will consider your entire playing history when judging your worth. This would have the effect of favouring those who knew what they were doing from the beginning which is something I see as a serious flaw. It would also mean that one might actually go down in tiers. I don't know if the general opinion agrees with me, but I would prefer not to see that be possible.
This is definitely something that could work; if this is what is being implemented, I'd preferably see a really flexible system where there are no real tiers, only the rating and where the host selects the interval of rating that may join the game. For ranked games, there might be a fixed interval around the host's PSR that is allowed in the game, to hinder total pub-stomping or stat-farming.
Last edited by Malle; 08-08-2009 at 08:44 PM.
I like it, but the only problem is that the rate at which you gain tiers is a bit flawed. What I mean is that you could have 500 games played, but you could suck ass. People can carry you, so that is a bad way to decide. There should be a way to show k:d and winning percentage that gets you into tiers, not just how many games you have played. For example I saw a kid with like 10 games played and he was 2-94. Now if you were to see that for 500 games that would be 1000-47000 at that rate. Now who wants a kid of that ability playing at a tier 5 level? Now yeah I doubt that player would be that bad forever, but still think about it lol.
Zulijan, was the person you were talking about mysticque?
LOL me and another friend brought her onto our team. Literally UNCARRIABLE.
0-16-1 30 mins.
On topic, I don't care about tiers, the host can put what they want in the GN right now. I usually play RD 1600+ since 1750+ never fills ;P
[1:48:23 PM] Bdiz: sometimes i have a burning desire to make out with dudes
[1:48:38 PM] TJ \ Sai: yeah that doesnt surprise me
[1:48:38 PM] Bdiz: wanna play lol and mb kiss a little? x)
Quake live has a system where they make you do a couple of solo challenges (ie certain jumps) and then fight a bot in a 1v1 to test your initial skill and put you in the correct tier.
Something similar could be worked out for HoN?
Na sai I don't know who it was, but I've played with a ton of baddies, and I've lost a lot of pub games and my record was effected by a lot of these players. This system sounds good, but I cannot be stuck in the noobie level, sinceI joined yesterday, with all of these terrible players.
dude, I dont want to have to play 100 games to get into a decent game. So ****ing boring going 10-2 in every game because I'm forced to play against people worse than me