About the ranks


Since there has been some confusion, I want to explain the rating system we are using (in the Steam version; for which you can get a beta key if you email us).

We are using the Elo-System. Arpad Elo invented the rating system in chess, and we are using exactly this.

This basically just checks wether you've won, tied or lost a match and then you get or lose an amount of points that also depends on the rating of your opponent.
If you tie against someone with the same rank, you get zero points. If you win or lose, you get or lose 15 points.
If you beat a higher rated opponent, you'll get more than 15 points, depending on how high he is.

Since in Supraball you don't play 1on1 but for example 5on5, it takes the average rank of both teams, and each player of the same team gets the same points based on that.

This system is supposed to balance out ranks on the long run, not in one single match.



We have 10 ranks (bronze 1-3, silver 1-3, gold 1-3 and diamond) that are each 100 points apart. So in average you need to win 7 matches to get to the next higher rank. If you lose 3 you need to win 10.
Everyone starts at the bottom end of rank 3.

Once you will be able to create teams, those will also have a rank (independent from the players).

Why so easy?

Some have been disappointed, that their quality of play didn't matter, because they might have put up a good performance but still lost the match and rating points. They want to be rewarded, even though they lost, because they think other players on their team are responsible for the teams loss. If you think a bit about it, it becomes clear, why this is impossible.

How would you rate the performance of a defender, an attacker or a keeper? How would you measure it objectively?

You could ask, how much the defender intercepted or knocked out. But you can still do great defense without ever touching the ball or anyone else, just by standing in the right places. How would that be measured? Same applies for all positions. There is nothing really that tells you for sure, that this player has been doing great. And in different play styles, different things are useful for the team. We can impossibly tell what's always good.

We've been discussing this for a long time, but for every idea on how to measure a players quality you quickly find counter arguments that make everything invalid. And imagine: what if people understood the rating algorithms? People would just do stupid things that pimp their rank without being efficient for their team. They'd maybe just pass around without purpose or similarly pointless things.

Basically it would kill teamplay. But if only the win for your team matters, you make sure, that everyone is really struggling with their team to get the best result. Only this way, you have tension till the last second. Same applies if you win 10:9. The goal difference doesn't matter, only the winner.



Right now we still have a balance problem. The ranks don't really show how everyone is doing yet.

There are several reasons for this

  • Currently teams are still put together manually; this can make teams be unfair when friends get together on the same team.

  • People haven't played enough yet.

  • We'll soon add a system in which you only get a rank after 10 matches. During these 10 placement matches you get double-elo. So if you win, you get 30 instead of 15. This should help distinguish more quickly how good or bad you are, so you have an adequate rank.

  • We will also add an autobalance feature to the lobby matches, but this still requires people to have an adequate rank.