Ranked changes are coming!

[oliy]

Town Power is an alignment people want implemented for the most powerful of Town roles, usually Mayor, Jailor, and Retributionist.

Except Ret needs some buff to make it reach town power levels. At the moment it's a variant on protective

Ret is insane so I don't konw what you're talking about.

Agreed. Two confirmed townies and it can bring a role back from the dead at any point in the game. Even the slightest buff would make it ridiculously OP. Although it is the weakest out of the town power roles.

*Insert Mafia CC here*
The only way to be sure is investigatives (of course) or claiming before you revive, and in how many cases is that successful to say who you're reviving?

[oliy]

Yeh anyone can do that because revives are predictable. I've pulled that off in a game myself and got my ret CC executed by the Jailor

[cmitc1]

Too add on to this, what if we had like 5 balanced ranked lists, and we made the role list invisible, and let RNG pick one of those 5 ranked lists for the game.

You can edit your post... but w/e

Do you mean that no one knows what the role list will be or no one knows what the role list is in game?

no one will know which role list is being used in the game (its invisible) until the end of the game. (or if your smarter, you can figure it out late game.

[PurpleSidewalk1]

Yeh anyone can do that because revives are predictable. I've pulled that off in a game myself and got my ret CC executed by the Jailor

Sorry I didn't see the next page.

Also that is the worst logic ever. If confirming ret adds a level to the game of predicting revives then why the fuck are you complaining? If you manage to get the prediction right then good for you! But the fact is that no one tries to predict the revives, as of yet, and if you execute the whisper like Kirize says then everyone will believe you to be confirmed.

Too add on to this, what if we had like 5 balanced ranked lists, and we made the role list invisible, and let RNG pick one of those 5 ranked lists for the game.

You can edit your post... but w/e

Do you mean that no one knows what the role list will be or no one knows what the role list is in game?

no one will know which role list is being used in the game (its invisible) until the end of the game. (or if your smarter, you can figure it out late game.

I don't like this. I like the layer it adds but it seems unnecessarily complicated and would have an impact on the way the metagame and therefore would shift the "balance" of the role lists entirely. We wouldn't know what is balanced or not.

[Technetium]

Or if you plan on fakeclaiming Ret, ready a whisper to the person you think is the most likely revive target and ninja the real Ret!

[soapyfoten]

Sounds perfect! I've been wanting to play ranked with my friends for a long time!

[oliy]

Yeh anyone can do that because revives are predictable. I've pulled that off in a game myself and got my ret CC executed by the Jailor

Sorry I didn't see the next page.

Also that is the worst logic ever. If confirming ret adds a level to the game of predicting revives then why the fuck are you complaining? If you manage to get the prediction right then good for you! But the fact is that no one tries to predict the revives, as of yet, and if you execute the whisper like Kirize says then everyone will believe you to be confirmed.

If I were Disguiser and there's a dead Jailor, I would kamikaze into trusting the Jailor. The mislynch is worth it.

[PurpleSidewalk1]

If I were Disguiser and there's a dead Jailor, I would kamikaze into trusting the Jailor. The mislynch is worth it.

Not really sure where you are going with this. Good for you?

Do you mean you would set up a whisper expecting the jailor to be revived? If so good, for you. What was the point of saying that?

[oliy]

If I were Disguiser and there's a dead Jailor, I would kamikaze into trusting the Jailor. The mislynch is worth it.

Not really sure where you are going with this. Good for you?

Do you mean you would set up a whisper expecting the jailor to be revived? If so good, for you. What was the point of saying that?

It's easy to CC a Ret is my point, and it's not at Town Power level yet.
I CCed the Ret in SFM8 as Godfather, probably the scummiest person out there, and I still barely lost in the endgame.

[kandriann]

Have you ever considered to change the ELO system in a way that good players are rewarded even if they lose the game?
It's bad when you play smart but you still get -7 ELO because town was slow to vote or to think. Maybe a way to assign a grade (-7/+7) to players from other players in the game when the game is over may be a fair solution, with the obvious checking strategies to avoid troll voters.
What do you think?

[onothing]

Hello! As a ranked player, is it possible to keep all current ranked players, so they dont have to play 10 practice ranks?

[MyraBones]

Perhaps, instead of assigning elo based solely on winning or losing, you could award a standard number of elo for every game. This would stop your elo from dropping horrendously due to trolls:
for example, award five elo for every game played. If you've lost this game, you only get three elo. If you've won, you get seven. This way, even if you die quickly as a surv, get lynched because ''always lynch surv'' have gamethrowers or random votes, the worst that will happen is that your elo doesn't rise as quickly.

This will also help with getting people with similar skills together. New players will have a standard elo (say, 0) and will be paired with other new people with, say, 0 to 200 elo. At most, these will have played 67 games of ranked, and at least 29, giving them the required skills to move to the next stage. These groups will continue, perhaps with the role list being more difficult every time: the second stage will have one TS removed for RT, for example, or something more general. The last stage could have a jailor, two TI and the rest RT, with 3 RN, a gf and two RM. This would make it more difficult and therefore, more fun.

This would resolve the problem of losing elo quickly because of (sorry) dumb towns, gamethrowers or anything else, and it would be easier to pair people with similar skills together.

(but that's just my idea)

[PurpleSidewalk1]

This will also help with getting people with similar skills together. New players will have a standard elo (say, 0) and will be paired with other new people with, say, 0 to 200 elo. At most, these will have played 67 games of ranked, and at least 29, giving them the required skills to move to the next stage.

To clarify why the players aren't matched up with people from the same range of ELO, there are very few players that queue in the 3 minutes of wait so the chances of there being enough players to sort into multiple groups of 15 based on ELO are ridiculously low. It ends up being whoever joined the queue first gets to play, or if there are only a few players queuing then the 15 is made up of the only options that are left which could be a range of ELO values.

Perhaps, instead of assigning elo based solely on winning or losing, you could award a standard number of elo for every game. This would stop your elo from dropping horrendously due to trolls:
for example, award five elo for every game played. If you've lost this game, you only get three elo. If you've won, you get seven. This way, even if you die quickly as a surv, get lynched because ''always lynch surv'' have gamethrowers or random votes, the worst that will happen is that your elo doesn't rise as quickly.

I do think that if an evil is killed in the night they should lose less ELO then if they were lynched. If a town role dies night 1 and their team wins they shouldn't get as much ELO as they didn't do anything. If a town role makes it to the end of the game alive and is a role that would have a major influence on the outcome of the game, say spy or jailor, then they should be getting the most ELO (implying that town wins). However this continuously growing ELO is not how the ELO system works, I understand the logic behind it, but you can look at exactly how an ELO ranking is set up by following this link. Further information on the ELO in Town of Salem specifically can be found here. As you can see there is a variety of ways to lose and gain points. This system can be massively improved upon which is why the devs have stated (here) that there will be

Ranked seasons and rewards

implying that they will be taking ranked much more seriously and hopefully balancing out the ELO system so that it is actually functioning better than the current system.

Something I didn't notice before:

Matchmaking for all queues

this might mean there will be a "Ranked" All Any sometime soon, but I could be misunderstanding.

[MyraBones]

- On the subject of pairing people with similar skills together, it's true that this is nearly impossible due to the shortage of people in the queue. I merely said that it's easier to know what skill a player has with this form of elo: with the current form, it's very easy to make someone lose elo drastically with random lynches and gamethrowing.

- With the elo, it's a bit more difficult. I agree with you that my suggestion was not the way the elo system was originally intended, but I did take the time to read through the link you send me, and for me there were three requirements for this elo system to work effectively:

It has to be a game where you can either win or lose.
It has to be a game where multiple people compete with each other.
It has to be a game consisting of serious, if not professional, players.

While Town of Salem does fit the first two, I think we can all agree that at least some of the players right now are not playing seriously. This is bad for the elo system, because it means the game played was not played fairly and was not a subjective measurement of the player's skill. If a chess player decided to just ignore every rule, reach out and knock over his opponent's king, it would not be fair to say that his opponent lost the game.


I do agree with your suggestion for changing the elo system so that, rather than just based on winning or losing, the amount of elo you gain depends on how much you've contributed to the game, but this will be difficult to do. I once had a game where someone died n1: however, he was a very good player and a good role counter. Since I was the medium, I was basically his spokesperson: despite him being a bg who was attacked night one, he did manage to get me to lynch two mafia and a ww. It wouldn't be fair to give him less elo because he was a bg who did not die protecting someone.

However, with other roles it's easier to change the elo system. An Amnesiac, for example, definitely shouldn't lose any elo if they die night one, since they had no possible way of completing their goal at the time, and it wouldn't be fair to say they lost.

I also think that the elo system could be much better if, when someone is found guilty of gamethrowing in one or more games, the elo lost due to this should be restored. An example: I played a game yesterday where the original vampire kept a list of people he'd bitten -> a list which turned out to be completely true. While this was very useful for us, and town won that particular game, the vampires had no way of winning once it turned out that this list wasn't just trying to get us to lynch each other. Now, say the original vampire is found guilty of gamethrowing (which I did consider it to be) I think the ones who lost that games as vampires should regain the elo they lost at that time, since no skills could have made them win.


Now, I'm not a game developer, nor do I have any in-depth knowledge of how the game itself works, so these are merely suggestions. I know they likely contain as many mistakes as legitimate ideas, but this was just my idea of how I believe that the elo-system could be improved.

[PurpleSidewalk1]

It has to be a game where you can either win or lose.
It has to be a game where multiple people compete with each other.
It has to be a game consisting of serious, if not professional, players.

The last one can be difficult to achieve when it is a team based game which is why we need a more complex system of assigning ELO points in ranked. CSGO is a good example of how ELO can be a difficult concept because of trolls and team based play.

I agree with almost all of your points. As for the Medium thing I think there should definitely be a bonus for if there is a medium and the player doesn't leave. Maybe we could have roles such as medium, a random Mafia member, and a random towns member rank their teammates play which would have minimal effects on the resulting ELO maybe a difference of 1 point?

[cmitc1]

I just got a retri in ranked that didnt know how to revive........ your doing great BMG

[Backtired]

I hope they do something for the pathetic GUI of the game because honestly this is just embarrassing
EDIT: I thought this was the new patch thread, lèl

[orangeandblack5]

The GUI isn't bad...?

[acire]

Is there possibly anything in the works where veteran players can play together ONLY? Dealing with noobs can get awfully tiring, especially lately....

[Backtired]

The GUI isn't bad...?

I never said it's bad.
It's worse than bad, it's pathetic, plain stupid and full of bugs.

[orangeandblack5]

Such as...?

I've never had any problems with it myself.

[ProjectSYD]

Veteran players only play together? Half the vets aren't that good and can't even do simple math. Then complain about how everyone else is stupid.

[orangeandblack5]

Such as...?

I've never had any problems with it myself.

ok, lick some more i guess

What the heck am I licking?

Your failure to actually provide examples of what you would want changed with the GUI is going to get you warned for shitposting/trolling. Please try to actually say what is wrong with it, because some users, myself included, have seen no problems that would require more changes to the GUI than simple bugfixes.

[PurpleSidewalk1]

Is there possibly anything in the works where veteran players can play together ONLY? Dealing with noobs can get awfully tiring, especially lately....

I'm confused isn't this just what Ranked is supposed to be?

[acire]

Is there possibly anything in the works where veteran players can play together ONLY? Dealing with noobs can get awfully tiring, especially lately....

I'm confused isn't this just what Ranked is supposed to be?

Yes ranked is SUPPOSED to be for veteran players. But 50 games or 10 ranked practice games does NOT make anyone a veteran. I personally have around 5000 games and would like to play with players who have around 800-1000 played or higher. People who know the rules, roles and gameplay by heart. People that actually use strategy well. That's what my question was more meaning to.