Online rating system suggestion (for all Clausewitz-based games)

[starkwolf]

First, I want to apologize if this is the wrong section. Looked around and this appears to be the best place to put it. First post on the main website here.

The problem I have been having is I have always wanted to play games like HOI, EU4, and CK2 in an online setting at some point, but I shy away from online play on the basis that I don't know many, if anyone personally to play with, and I find playing with strangers a bit intimidating due to houserules and expecting the game to be quite frustrating. I can complete games of EU4, for example, to the end date, but I have no idea how good I am relative to most players that play online, I expect probably not very good and it would be an exercise in frustration. On the otherhand, if it turns out I am better than I thought, I don't want the game to be boring either. Some house rules I don't really understand either since I haven't really been able to exploit them to much effect in singleplayer, such as not researching ahead in certain techs in HOI4. Sometimes, but not consistently, which indicates to me it would probably just be frustrating.

What I would really like to see is a rudimentary rating system, displayed or undisplayed, where after you get a group of people to play with, an algorithm suggests factions for each player to play as for greater skill balance (i.e. better players play weaker nations, worse players play stronger nations, and with a more sophisticated algorithm if the whole group hasn't done well everyone is suggested stronger nations, and if the whole group is good everyone is suggested weaker nations). I think this would probably keep things more fun, and you have player stats to go by to get a vague idea of who should play what. Perhaps after selection, a player's selection could be shown in green text if it closely follows the suggestions, yellow text if a bit more powerful than the suggestions, red if much more powerful than the suggestions, blue if a bit weaker than the suggestions, and purple if much weaker than the suggestions. I am thinking maybe the algorithm could use a system of labeling countries on a scale of 1-10 measuring overall strength/difficulty, similar to what already exists in singleplayer for EU4 and CK2. Of course, a more sophisticated rating system would be nice, but even having a foggy notion would be greatly appreciated to avoid the waste of time!

 

[shiro the bushi]

its a good suggestion but something like that requires a rank system which is kinda weird in a paradox game, like eu4 has its rank system but say in ck its very easy for a player to have a game go right or wrong with pure luck alone.

With finding a group its pretty easy, just ask around online in things like discord or something. the forums also have people looking to group up and stuff, dedicated groups may have house rules but just a quckly formed one wont.
I hoped this helped bud

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Right now, for HOI IV at least, in competitive games you will generally see nation restrictions based on number of hours played (for example, Germany needs 1000+ hours, other majors need 800+, etc.). However, this doesn’t necessarily take into account skill (there is no indicator as to how long was sp vs mp and time played doesn’t always equate to skill. A rating system of some kind could help with this, but I struggle to see how it could be implemented.

Unlike say an RTS, paradox games don’t really have “win conditions”. This is even more true for longer games like Europa Universallis and Crusader Kings.

Depending on the group and competitiveness of the game, weaker players may actually be better off playing larger/stronger nations as a sort of handicap. In others, the balance of power requires experienced players on major powers.

Generally, I would say that if you join an mp game or group, you can tell the players this is your first time in mp, and they will suggest some good starter nations for the type of game they run.

 

[starkwolf]

its a good suggestion but something like that requires a rank system which is kinda weird in a paradox game, like eu4 has its rank system but say in ck its very easy for a player to have a game go right or wrong with pure luck alone.

With finding a group its pretty easy, just ask around online in things like discord or something. the forums also have people looking to group up and stuff, dedicated groups may have house rules but just a quckly formed one wont.
I hoped this helped bud

On Steam mostly what I have found are dedicated groups, and groups that seem to have already played multiplayer for quite a while. Hopefully I will have more luck here. As for your concerns, I would refer you to my response to the quote below.

Right now, for HOI IV at least, in competitive games you will generally see nation restrictions based on number of hours played (for example, Germany needs 1000+ hours, other majors need 800+, etc.). However, this doesn’t necessarily take into account skill (there is no indicator as to how long was sp vs mp and time played doesn’t always equate to skill. A rating system of some kind could help with this, but I struggle to see how it could be implemented.

Unlike say an RTS, paradox games don’t really have “win conditions”. This is even more true for longer games like Europa Universallis and Crusader Kings.

Depending on the group and competitiveness of the game, weaker players may actually be better off playing larger/stronger nations as a sort of handicap. In others, the balance of power requires experienced players on major powers.

Generally, I would say that if you join an mp game or group, you can tell the players this is your first time in mp, and they will suggest some good starter nations for the type of game they run.

What I had in mind wasn't a particularly good rating system, just a rating system. A system based on capitulation or lack there of for a more rudimentary idea to start off with.

I was thinking that, for HOI4, if you capitulate as USSR or USA, that would greatly reduce your rating. If you survive a war against anyone as, say, Luxembourg, without capitulating, your rating is significantly increased (though not nearly as much as capitulating as USA or USSR would).

For EU4, CK2, Vic 2, and similar games, it just goes by the starting strength of your nation and whether you reached the end date if the game went on that long.

It would be a system based almost entirely on survival, for starters. Of course, as the top quote mentions, with CK2 there is a lot of luck involved, and this would also be the case for some nations in HOI4. But, as you say currently players base it off of hours played (I didn't even realize that was a thing, so that's cool at least). A system as rudimentary as this I think would be better than nothing. And perhaps with some tweaking and experimentation, it could get better, and not only could a more accurate survival-based system be implemented, but in time a more complex system that takes into account how much you expanded your country territorially, what your economy looks like (where relevant), and so forth could gradually take form through trial and error.

Like I said, I personally wouldn't mind a bad system at first, it would be better than nothing. Although I do recognize many may not see it that way. I think declaring it as early beta could provide some context though.

To be clear, I am not necessarily expecting a rating system that is good right out of the box. Doesn't even really need to be decent. As long as it is vaguely not terrible, I would say it is better than nothing. There is time to improve. And if it doesn't, still better than just guessing by hours that don't separate MP from SP or consider nations.

 

[Eldoran]

On Steam mostly what I have found are dedicated groups, and groups that seem to have already played multiplayer for quite a while. Hopefully I will have more luck here. As for your concerns, I would refer you to my response to the quote below.



What I had in mind wasn't a particularly good rating system, just a rating system. A system based on capitulation or lack there of for a more rudimentary idea to start off with.

I was thinking that, for HOI4, if you capitulate as USSR or USA, that would greatly reduce your rating. If you survive a war against anyone as, say, Luxembourg, without capitulating, your rating is significantly increased (though not nearly as much as capitulating as USA or USSR would).

For EU4, CK2, Vic 2, and similar games, it just goes by the starting strength of your nation and whether you reached the end date if the game went on that long.

It would be a system based almost entirely on survival, for starters. Of course, as the top quote mentions, with CK2 there is a lot of luck involved, and this would also be the case for some nations in HOI4. But, as you say currently players base it off of hours played (I didn't even realize that was a thing, so that's cool at least). A system as rudimentary as this I think would be better than nothing. And perhaps with some tweaking and experimentation, it could get better, and not only could a more accurate survival-based system be implemented, but in time a more complex system that takes into account how much you expanded your country territorially, what your economy looks like (where relevant), and so forth could gradually take form through trial and error.

Like I said, I personally wouldn't mind a bad system at first, it would be better than nothing. Although I do recognize many may not see it that way. I think declaring it as early beta could provide some context though.

To be clear, I am not necessarily expecting a rating system that is good right out of the box. Doesn't even really need to be decent. As long as it is vaguely not terrible, I would say it is better than nothing. There is time to improve. And if it doesn't, still better than just guessing by hours that don't separate MP from SP or consider nations.

I still cant see what to achieve with that maybe you can clarify your goal or what your exact problem is you want to solve.

I mean to find a mp group you aimply head up to the forum, reddit discord or you name it and ask for a group. Maybe you describe yourself and what you looking for and in 99 % of the cases you get a message from someone inviting you. Then you can play mp...and for all that nonsene of competitive gaming, well i cant get my head around how you could play pds games competitivly so i cant comment on that at all. Pds games are played in mp to have fun not to best others imho

 

[starkwolf]

I still cant see what to achieve with that maybe you can clarify your goal or what your exact problem is you want to solve.

I mean to find a mp group you aimply head up to the forum, reddit discord or you name it and ask for a group. Maybe you describe yourself and what you looking for and in 99 % of the cases you get a message from someone inviting you. Then you can play mp...and for all that nonsene of competitive gaming, well i cant get my head around how you could play pds games competitivly so i cant comment on that at all. Pds games are played in mp to have fun not to best others imho

I think some clarification is indeed necessary. I know usually when a rating system is usually mentioned, it is in the context of a competitive ladder for ranking to determine matters relating to tournaments and the like. While I am not opposed to this evolving into something like that way down the road if it got to become a good system, that is not at all the intention.

The intention is for this to be an upgrade on what players currently do: use number of hours played to estimate what nation would make the game fun for each player to play. As mentioned further up, just using player hours to determine who plays what country is bound to be of limited effect. It doesn't establish how quickly any player learned that the game (let alone any given nation), how much experience carried over from similar game, or how many of those hours were single player. The core intention is to upgrade that. Have the game keep track of as many facets of player "success" as possible, but even something as simple as separating time played in SP vs MP would be helpful. Overall, the goal is to give players something better than raw hours played to determine what would make a more pleasant game.

If the best player is playing USSR in HOI4 and the worst is playing Italy, nobody will have fun, the best player will be bored and the worst frustrated. If the best player in a game of EU4 is playing Ottomans, worst is playing Byzantium, won't be fun either. These are extreme cases to illustrate my point and hours would probably be good enough to sort it out. But it would be good to use more information yet to avoid frustration or boredom. Yes, there are huge challenges in determining what will be frustratingly difficult for a given player or boringly easy, but even a vague system that is a little better than counting raw hours could avoid frustration or boredom.

Of course, if down the road it could be used competitively, which I doubt, I wouldn't really mind. But I wouldn't even have an interest in that sort of competition even if it did anyway, the point is for it to be an aid for nation selection for maximum enjoyment.

 

[Eldoran]

I think some clarification is indeed necessary. I know usually when a rating system is usually mentioned, it is in the context of a competitive ladder for ranking to determine matters relating to tournaments and the like. While I am not opposed to this evolving into something like that way down the road if it got to become a good system, that is not at all the intention.

The intention is for this to be an upgrade on what players currently do: use number of hours played to estimate what nation would make the game fun for each player to play. As mentioned further up, just using player hours to determine who plays what country is bound to be of limited effect. It doesn't establish how quickly any player learned that the game (let alone any given nation), how much experience carried over from similar game, or how many of those hours were single player. The core intention is to upgrade that. Have the game keep track of as many facets of player "success" as possible, but even something as simple as separating time played in SP vs MP would be helpful. Overall, the goal is to give players something better than raw hours played to determine what would make a more pleasant game.

If the best player is playing USSR in HOI4 and the worst is playing Italy, nobody will have fun, the best player will be bored and the worst frustrated. If the best player in a game of EU4 is playing Ottomans, worst is playing Byzantium, won't be fun either. These are extreme cases to illustrate my point and hours would probably be good enough to sort it out. But it would be good to use more information yet to avoid frustration or boredom. Yes, there are huge challenges in determining what will be frustratingly difficult for a given player or boringly easy, but even a vague system that is a little better than counting raw hours could avoid frustration or boredom.

Of course, if down the road it could be used competitively, which I doubt, I wouldn't really mind. But I wouldn't even have an interest in that sort of competition even if it did anyway, the point is for it to be an aid for nation selection for maximum enjoyment.

Ok i can see what you are looking for. But that would mainly be a concern for competitiv play with more or less strangers. Since i do not play in such a way nor have i ever considered pds games as games for such a playstyle i therefore cant contribute any further to this.

I guess for the intended purpose your suggestion seems reasonable, but since it requires manpower to implement idk. I cant see enough demand for such a system, obviously there is demand but it seems a very niche case