Introducing Rating 2.0

Tgwri1s
June 14th, 2017 17:35

We're pleased to introduce a new upgrade to our site in form of Rating 2.0, an updated formula for the Rating which we use to quickly assess player performance. It now incorporates data like damage dealt, opening kills, 1onX wins, traded deaths and more, and thus better encapsulates the different ways players contribute in the game.

We recently updated our entire website's design and introduced a number of new features, which as we pointed out was just the beginning of our new era and a foundation for future improvements. One of those improvements is Rating 2.0, a new version of our nowadays commonly used Rating.

What is Rating?

For those who are unfamiliar with Rating, it is a relatively simple concept based on statistics that we introduced back in 2010 to improve upon the then commonly used K/D Ratio with the hope that a quick glance at Rating gives us a better idea about a player's performance. It basically tells us if the player put up above or below average numbers, with 1.00 being the average.

And while it has been doing a good job across both CS 1.6 and CS:GO over the years, there was always room for improvement and we never stopped looking for ways to do that. Over the past year, we overcame some obstacles in data collection and processing, with the biggest step forward being the addition of ADR (average damage per round, introduced to our site in early 2016).

You also may have noticed the addition of KAST (percentage of rounds with a kill, assist, survival or traded death) to our site last month, which is a stat that is best described as round-to-round consistency. It helps us notice players who might not put up the big numbers but often contribute to their team in some fashion (a good example of this would be a player like Epitacio "TACO" de Melo).

And thanks to this various new data we've been able to create Rating 2.0 which we hope will give you an even better idea about a player's performance, whether in a match, event or across a certain time period.

What's new in Rating 2.0?

Rating 2.0 is based on the same principle as Rating 1.0 – we take the expected value (average) for certain statistics (like kills per round) and check how much above or below that expected value a certain player is.

The first difference is that we now calculate these values separately for CT and Terrorist sides, as expected values differ that way. The second is that instead of previously dividing by the average to find how much a player stands out (or not), we check how many standard deviations the player is above or below average, which produces more accurate results.

The average value for Rating 2.0 will still be 1.00, and it will behave exactly the same way as before – good performances will give ratings higher than 1.00, and bad ones below 1.00.

The biggest difference is that there are many more factors going into the calculation of Rating 2.0, including the above-mentioned ADR and KAST and much more. The exact formula won't be public this time, but here is how it compares to Rating 1.0.

It includes ten components, five per side (compared to three in total previously), which are:

  • Kill Rating
  • Survival Rating
  • KAST Rating
  • Impact Rating (updated formula based on multi-kills, opening kills, 1onX wins and more)
  • Damage Rating

Those components were chosen through research because they provide a good balance between favoring statistics that more directly lead to winning rounds (such as multi-kills, damage and just kills in general) and statistics that are a result of less impactful but consistent contribution (such as KAST and surviving).

Some of the five components have additional parts to them, such as Kill Rating being less rewarding towards kills that dealt less than 60 damage (assisted kills), or Survival Rating being less punishing towards deaths which were traded.

How does it look in practice?

The main goal in moving to Rating 2.0 was to provide a more accurate representation of a player's performance, especially to discontinue underrating players who contribute in less impactful ways while continuing to reward those who have high impact on the game.

And during our testing Rating 2.0 has done exactly that. Here are only a few examples, such as the match between Immortals and Astralis at IEM Katowice where Lincoln "fnx" Lau had an 18:20 scoreline and a 0.83 Rating. What the old Rating missed out on was that fnx also had 8 assists, dealt the most damage in the match (109.6 ADR) and contributed in match-high 79% of rounds, all of which describe that his contribution extended beyond just getting kills, which was also evident during the eye test.

And as you can see in the above picture, Rating 2.0 gives him a 1.14 mark, good for the 2nd highest in the team compared to 5th previously. And while the newly included data increased his rating, it still wasn't increased far enough to be above Lucas "steel" Lopes, who was the obvious Player of the Match.

Another example would be Andreas "Xyp9x" Højsleth's performance on Overpass during the grand final of ELEAGUE Major, where he was by most accounts the clear standout player of the map, but according to the old Rating his 1.25 ranked behind Janusz "Snax" Pogorzelski's 1.33.

That was in part because his 1vs3 clutch, 4 opening kills, and map-high ADR and KAST weren't included. With Rating 2.0, he is more accurately rated at 1.44, the highest in the map, whereas Snax remains around the same level with 1.31.

Of course, these are only limited examples to give you the idea about what Rating 2.0 is supposed to help with, while you'll have to discover yourself over time whether this is a notable change and an improvement or not.

Where can you find Rating 2.0?

We have updated all of our stats pages where we have the data needed for Rating 2.0, and those places are clearly marked as the 2.0 version.

That includes match pages as well, where you will additionally be able to find this graph in the "Player highlight" section, outlining the components that go into the Rating 2.0 calculation and how they compare to the average:

On the other hand, on stats pages containing data older than February 2016, as well as players' career stats which go that far back, we cannot calculate Rating 2.0 so we will display Rating 1.0.

 

Keep in mind that statistics and our Rating are just one possible interpretation of what happens on the server, and that for various reasons (like anti-eco rounds for example, or different importance of kills within a given round) they are not telling the full story, so it's always best to also watch the matches yourself for the most accurate assessment of a player's performance.

Having said that, we'll continue working on providing you as many as possible stats to help you digest the crazy world of competitive CS:GO, starting with the addition of match economy-related numbers in the near future.

As always, you can use the comments below to let us know if you find a bug related to the new Rating or if you think of new features you would like to see added in the future.

Brazil Epitacio 'TACO' de Melo
Epitacio 'TACO' de Melo
Age:
22
Team:
Rating 1.0:
0.97
Maps played:
540
KPR:
0.63
DPR:
0.63
APR:
0.13
Brazil Lucas 'steel' Lopes
Lucas 'steel' Lopes
Age:
23
Team:
Rating 1.0:
1.01
Maps played:
507
KPR:
0.67
DPR:
0.64
APR:
0.13
Poland Janusz 'Snax' Pogorzelski
Janusz 'Snax' Pogorzelski
Age:
24
Team:
Rating 1.0:
1.07
Maps played:
1107
KPR:
0.73
DPR:
0.65
APR:
0.14
Denmark Andreas 'Xyp9x' Højsleth
Andreas 'Xyp9x' Højsleth
Age:
22
Team:
Rating 1.0:
1.03
Maps played:
1130
KPR:
0.67
DPR:
0.62
APR:
0.17
Brazil Lincoln 'fnx' Lau
Lincoln 'fnx' Lau
Age:
27
Team:
Rating 1.0:
1.07
Maps played:
412
KPR:
0.73
DPR:
0.66
APR:
0.17
#4
 | 
Poland Austinn 
Wow
2017-06-14 17:35
#191
 | 
Sweden proffs 
What if friburger would have had 5 in rating with the new system!!!!!!! Nip bring him back
2017-06-15 17:30
#5
 | 
Europe Brian_Furious 
Wow
2017-06-14 17:35
#6
 | 
Japan HentaiReviewer 
omg
2017-06-14 17:35
wat
2017-06-14 17:35
#9
 | 
United Kingdom Fizzhaz 
Yee hope its good :D:D
2017-06-14 17:35
#11
 | 
Singapore Guard_CSGO 
wat
2017-06-14 17:35
WHAAAAAAT
2017-06-14 17:35
#14
 | 
Germany vipitis 
can I use this for my own mm stats?
2017-06-14 17:35
Nop
2017-06-15 23:23
nice
2017-06-14 17:35
#17
NiKo | 
Croatia AzorAhai 
Cool
2017-06-14 17:36
#19
SIXER | 
United Kingdom KemNG 
nice
2017-06-14 17:36
#20
s1mple | 
Czech Republic Tomsha 
N1
2017-06-14 17:36
#21
 | 
Portugal cufwipe 
RIP Device lmao
2017-06-14 17:36
noice
2017-06-14 17:36
#23
 | 
Germany HLTVBach 
lmao wut
2017-06-14 17:37
#24
 | 
Norway L0KEN^ 
ofc this happens right after friberg is kicked
2017-06-14 17:37
#29
 | 
United Kingdom stunnnn 
They did it because the average rating would drop by 0.2 if he still played for NiP
2017-06-14 17:38
#34
 | 
Norway L0KEN^ 
He's rated higher with the new system tho, as he should be (high ADR, few kills)
2017-06-14 17:39
#35
 | 
United Kingdom stunnnn 
Its a joke lol
2017-06-14 17:39
#39
 | 
Norway L0KEN^ 
not really funny tho as the punchline is dependent on a situation which is the opposite of reality
2017-06-14 17:41
#48
 | 
United Kingdom stunnnn 
k
2017-06-14 17:42
#57
 | 
Norway L0KEN^ 
no u
2017-06-14 17:44
#59
 | 
Brazil bandicoot 
it was funny if your not a nip fan, don worry m8
2017-06-14 17:45
#190
 | 
Norway L0KEN^ 
was it tho? seeing as it wasn't based in reality, it's basically just a non sequitur, which is regarded as very basic humor you won't see any decent standup comedians performing non sequiturs like that
2017-06-15 13:42
#197
 | 
Germany lawlig 
im not a nip fan and it is still not funny
2017-06-16 00:17
hahaha
2017-06-15 13:20
Cool
2017-06-14 17:38
Xyp9x & steel >ALL
2017-06-14 17:38
NOICE
2017-06-14 17:38
#28
rain | 
Norway insy 
Rip bntet?
2017-06-14 17:38
Coolio
2017-06-14 17:38
lmao @ using TACO as an example. do people feel bad for him or something or why do everyone always feel the need to point out his "contributions" that somehow goes unnoticed? anyway new rating will be interesting
2017-06-14 17:39
he will always be shit imo
2017-06-14 17:54
this seems to raise the rating for people in general, so is the average rating just going to be higher now or?
2017-06-14 17:39
No, average is still 1.00
2017-06-14 17:40
its a small sample size, but on average the players ratings in the matches presented above went up by +0.08
2017-06-14 17:58
Rating 1.0 was using expected values of combined CT/T sides (and outdated values at that), while T side averages are a bit lower so it was always underappreciating players a bit, especially those who do better on the T side (compared to average).. Additionally, as intended with 2.0 it's supposed to encapsulate things players do outside of fragging too so a lot of the players will benefit from that as well (but none should skyrocket though).
2017-06-14 18:29
alright thanks, but will some players go down, while others go up, to average it at 1.00, or will the average just be higher now?
2017-06-14 18:32
The average is still 1.00 of course and unless players suddenly all start doing more and playing closer rounds, it will stay that way. We'll also keep updating the expected values over time to adjust for that if needed
2017-06-14 18:40
No sense, your logic is broken. If you have only 3 variables into consideration the average of then tend to have a higher fluctuation. When you add 10, you ease this nuance, specially when you are adding figures where almost no player should be under performing.
2017-06-14 18:53
Not sure we're talking about the same thing. I was saying if players suddenly start getting 8 kills per round instead of 7 on average (meaning all 10 of them combined), which is never going to happen, it is just an exaggerated example, then all of them would end up with much higher ratings over a long period of time.
2017-06-14 18:55
What i am trying to say is that the avg rating will/should start to increase. Not saying that this is a bad thing tho, as the former system used to punish support players, and hide many other game fundamentals other than kills/adr. See if you can understand my logic here: the new rating system adds more variables that can hardly punish players who are already performing well within the former system. Meaning that the new system will only boost the rating for players who where underperfoming (as per the former system POV), and in the end, increasing the average rating of the whole system.
2017-06-14 19:08
Ok yea, I see what you mean, we indeed weren't talking about the same thing and I'm not sure which one of us answered what the OP had in mind :) By average rating you meant how often you'll be seeing rating around 1.00 and how that it will fluctuate less now, while I meant the rating that represents an average performance is still 1.00, which is now defined differently due to more components included. And yes, what you said is correct, and that was the intention because the old rating wasn't rewarding non-fragging contributions to the game.
2017-06-14 19:05
yeah I guess that's what I meant. Since the system is designed to boost more supportive players ratings, and seemingly doesn't decrease star players numbers, doesn't that in theory lead to the average rating for all players increasing?
2017-06-14 19:17
It does among the top players, those who win more, and I guess those are the ones you will be noticing more. In general as Adrenzolo said the rating will fluctuate less because of more components being included. The bad players will still have bad ratings though. Give it time, you'll see how it works in practice, although I have been posting Rating 2.0 on my Twitter for many months now.
2017-06-14 19:41
I think the missing variable in this conversation is the expected values. Thus, just because more variables are introduced doesn't mean the ratings will go up because each variable (or all of them taken together) is weighed against some expected value that is intended to index a player's rating 2.0 against a value of "1". This is the same as it was for rating 1.0 so there should be no difference, as the expected value is still, I presume, based on the performance of all players and thus adjusts with the performance of all players.
2017-06-14 19:54
For sure it will go higher. The new rating takes into considerations more variables that can boost the rating rather than droping. Meaning that players who already had high Rating will not drop as they cover all fundaments of the game, and players who had a bad rating with the former system, will start to reach higher figures as new variables, ones where they might not be under performing, are added to the balance, boosting their numbers.
2017-06-14 18:57
Cool update but you HLTV guys responding on this thread are dead wrong. The average ratings will go up for all players and the 1.0 rating is no longer an accurate benchmark. Look at your two examples of Rating 2.0 in this thread. Compare the average ratings. Example 1: Team rating for Astralis: Rating 1.0 = 4.35 Rating 2.0 = 4.84 Team rating for Immortals: Rating 1.0 = 5.19 Rating 2.0 = 5.49. Example 2: Team rating for Astralis: Rating 1.0 = 5.08 Rating 2.0 = 5.56 Team rating for VP: Rating 1.0 = 4.71 Rating 2.0 = 4.9. Therefore in Example 1: Astralis team rating rose by .49. Immortals team rating rose by .3. In Example 2: Astralis team rating rose by .48. VP's team rating rose by .19. Based off of this we should no longer expect 1.0 to be an accurate benchmark for player performance. We will see increased ratings across the board.
2017-06-18 23:52
#216
 | 
World neomax360 
Why will should no longer expect 1.0 to be an accurate benchmark for player performance? He seems like you don't get it. 1.0 is still the expected value for an average performance. The rating 1.0 system doesn't take into account some aspect of the game, and the results were giving an accurate rating to some players who contribute well on others aspects of the game. Now the rating is more accurate. By adding data corresponding to others aspects the expected value for an average performance doesn't change (still 1.0), but the results in rating of the players in the game is more accurate (since some others aspects to contribute in the game were just left behind in the previous rating system).
2017-06-22 21:24
Nice!
2017-06-14 17:40
#38
 | 
United States Tater_Hater 
It appears like when discussing the Astralis and VP match different data was used. The numbers in the text do not match with the numbers in the tables.
2017-06-14 17:40
It has both rating 1.0 and rating 2,.0 to illustrate the difference, try reading the text again, it references them a bit back and forth.
2017-06-14 17:41
#55
 | 
United States Tater_Hater 
Personally, I would have put both 1.0 and 2.0 ratings in the tables if I were going to be discussing both in the text; Nevertheless, nice addition to the site as a whole!
2017-06-14 17:44
Oh nm, you are actually correct, we'll get the picture updated, good catch! :)
2017-06-14 17:44
i like
2017-06-14 17:41
lullo
2017-06-14 17:41
#42
 | 
Finland Emvi 
Awesome! Obviously hard to tell how balanced every aspect of it will be yet, but the added details and the examples you gave look fantastic. Glad you guys at hltv at still working hard after all these years
2017-06-14 17:41
#44
 | 
Poland Banan18 
Very nice
2017-06-14 17:41
> we check how many standard deviations the player is above or below average One detail/design-choice everyone should be praising HLTV for in this current system. Edit: Any research done on the (natural) correlation among components?
2017-06-14 17:44
Not particularly on the correlation between components, but yes on the correlation of each stat within the components and round winning. And yea, we're aware that this is basically a few pieces of data, all correlating to each other spread out in seemingly different components. But the components are practically different ways to get the most out of that data from different angles, and at the same time assigning more weight to the more impactful variables by including them in several components (like kills in KillRating, KAST, Impact Rating and naturally all damage dealt is also largely ending up in kills). Of course, I wouldn't go as far as to claim this is the perfect combination and weight of each component, but it does a good enough job.
2017-06-15 04:55
#46
HObbit | 
Germany sanos 
rip thorin finally device exposed
2017-06-14 17:42
look up his rating next time
2017-06-15 03:48
#47
 | 
Poland Banan18 
I would love to also see shots accuracy
2017-06-14 17:42
Would sadly require demos, which is a very big hurdle to collect perfect copies of for every single match.
2017-06-14 17:45
#72
 | 
Poland Banan18 
I see. Great job with the new rating anyway.
2017-06-14 17:51
#49
 | 
Other Horlock 
Nice!
2017-06-14 17:43
#50
 | 
Moldova OptimusBlyad 
noice
2017-06-14 17:43
#51
HObbit | 
Spain Alser 
Finally! Love the work you do Petar
2017-06-14 17:43
ez for Coldzera 2.0 rating every game
2017-06-14 17:44
#53
Nomad | 
Switzerland anokasta 
niiiiiice
2017-06-14 17:44
#60
Snax | 
Poland Mikkyy 
bad :(
2017-06-14 17:45
#61
coldzera | 
Brazil ezSK 
Cool
2017-06-14 17:45
Who will be the biggest winner out of this?
2017-06-14 17:45
Role players (see xyp9x and fnx in the above tables). By splitting up T and CT side ratings, and including ADR, it should also help entry fraggers (at least numerically) . ... Those players will still likely be hovering near the bottom of the ratings list, just because it's how the game works.
2017-06-14 17:53
#111
 | 
Albania Heavon 
ADR is the most overrated stat you can go off and I'm shocked to see people take this as the overall the best "stat" to recognize the best player of a certain match..
2017-06-14 18:38
Some statistics are certainly legacy and have only stuck around because they are generally quite simple to collect, and there's no point to not collect them --- this general sentiment applies more to Baseball than CS atm. Often, it comes down to ADR being the easiest statistic to present while offering up the most information to the reader/viewer. With something like ADR though, there is always the question of its correlation to other statistics, and what does it capture that other statistics don't capture (either directly or indirectly) and vice-versa.
2017-06-14 19:04
#104
 | 
India StraightEdge 
flusha. even when his kdr is low he does a lot of damage
2017-06-14 18:30
#112
 | 
United States Tater_Hater 
Shroud
2017-06-14 18:38
#64
ReDWateR | 
United Kingdom Runt 
good to see hltv improving their analytics, useful when you cant watch a match
2017-06-14 17:45
#65
 | 
Yugoslavia Tuxuttaja 
Very noice
2017-06-14 17:46
#68
 | 
Malta +EV Master 
Kreygasm
2017-06-14 17:47
finally !!! 1.0 was a big shit. flusha top 1 inc
2017-06-14 17:49
#71
 | 
Greece ZYNGA_ 
n1
2017-06-14 17:50
#73
 | 
Singapore scrubi 
device to stay in red every game against tier 1 teams
2017-06-14 17:51
#77
 | 
Finland coswell 
Thats a nice update! The Rating 2.0 is a good combination of all factors.
2017-06-14 17:53
hi
2017-06-14 17:57
And you still can't figure out to take skill of the enemies or at least relative equipment value into account...
2017-06-14 17:59
Yea we must be real stupid, why didn't we think of that! Good thing we got you!
2017-06-14 18:15
#160
 | 
Germany No_Kappa 
xD
2017-06-14 20:57
Thank you how should I send my bank details?
2017-06-15 03:38
#83
cAmyy | 
Brazil ToRu 
nice
2017-06-14 18:00
lol device noob 0.76 rating 2.0 kick him ffs
2017-06-14 18:02
Great!!!!!
2017-06-14 18:04
#88
1annN | 
Yugoslavia 1annN 
Device noob eco fragger :D:D:D
2017-06-14 18:05
#95
 | 
Germany AdiZen 
haha only player out of all ten whos rating fell hahahahah
2017-06-14 18:12
nice
2017-06-14 18:07
Neat
2017-06-14 18:07
#93
 | 
Indonesia fhmifu 
Thats Great.. so Rating not just about frag overall... its justice for support player
2017-06-14 18:07
'match economy-related numbers in the near future.' What does this mean? Nice update btw, although I thought that HLTV was going to skip Rating 2.0 as a whole and just directly implement Rating 3.0 when they were done with it.
2017-06-14 18:11
So everyone gets a higher rating?
2017-06-14 18:12
No, average is still 1.00, but this is averaged around all players, so the top players in a final may well all be above the average player, even if they are losing.
2017-06-14 18:25
Witam. I see. Honestly I think it was a great improvment. A lot of viewers only care about stats, and players like TACO, friberg and pronax never had their justice. I hope now it's easier for us to see their value.
2017-06-14 18:33
You are wrong. If you want to make the average 1.0, then you have to take the faults into account also. For example: When a player cluches 1 vs 3 if he gets 1 point then you should subtract 1/3 points from those 3 players. If you give a player a point for assist, then you should subtract it from the fraggers points. Summary: When you give a player points for right play you must give other related players minus points to make the average 1.0
2017-06-14 18:45
No, we have no interest of averaging the players over the match played. We compare against a global pool of players, not the ones in your match. Would make no sense to say that for some player to be good, someone else has to be bad, many players can play above the global average in a tight match, even if their opponents are better.
2017-06-14 19:03
#98
 | 
Brazil GKR48 
LUL
2017-06-14 18:12
#102
 | 
Brazil rolifreds 
really nice
2017-06-14 18:28
#105
 | 
Turkey Mustafa- 
hltv working hard LUL gj
2017-06-14 18:31
#108
 | 
Brazil BuddyINSANE 
That is really cool! Good job HLTV, we appreciate that! We smart, we loyal, we friendly, we are from BRAZIL! Kreygasm
2017-06-14 18:34
We dropped in rating 2.0
2017-06-14 18:47
#110
 | 
Germany sunnyrain 
finally, this was a much needed improvement
2017-06-14 18:35
#115
 | 
United States aust9n 
+1
2017-06-14 18:40
#117
 | 
United States aust9n 
great improvement - good job HLTV
2017-06-14 18:41
Really good update to the system.
2017-06-14 18:41
#119
BnTeT | 
China vp4ever 
R.I.P Allu
2017-06-14 18:41
#124
 | 
Europe HowAboutNo 
Overall really great update but not perfect yet. What about risk/reward or spent teammoney. krimz vs astralis @the major for example. a few clutches, always dropping for teammates and playing famas after dropping awp + m4 to twist/olof. money matters. For example: 89 ADR overall CT Side with famas only > 89 ADR ct side m4. how much teammoney it takes for 1 kill matters too. imgur.com/a/gjnGI I demand a 3.0 rating for krimz at least.
2017-06-14 18:53
very nice to see this added in, it does some players much more justice as they had alot worse stats previously while we knew they contributed a whole lot towards the team & how they played.
2017-06-14 18:56
#129
 | 
Sweden Daquan 
nice peter
2017-06-14 18:57
very very nice changes to the stats system and will be a more accurate way to assess a players performance.
2017-06-14 18:58
rip xantares
2017-06-14 19:04
haha
2017-06-14 19:34
actually zantares has 1.37 dafuq
2017-06-14 22:45
#138
device | 
Israel Aarod 
I like this new system.
2017-06-14 19:14
#140
fer | 
Argentina MyMatkhev 
Good job HLTV, congratz to the crew.
2017-06-14 19:17
In the examples you gave, by using Rating 2.0 everyone in the match got better rated. How is that consistent with the previous rating?
2017-06-14 19:24
The rating compares to a global average, not an average of the players in the match, so it is quite possible that everyone in the match did better compared to the new average, especially since they are all top players.
2017-06-14 19:36
So why do players such as hltv.org/player/1331/Xp3 and hltv.org/player/1328/flowsicK who have ratings 2.0 >= 1 show they are in the bottom 40% on their stats pages?
2017-06-14 22:40
I replied in your thread, lets take it there.
2017-06-14 22:46
#158
 | 
Brazil VAC0 
taz and dupreeh got worse
2017-06-14 20:48
#143
 | 
Argentina dazen1 
nice one HLTV! congratz
2017-06-14 19:32
tacos 2.0 rating is still 0.96 ...
2017-06-14 19:45
Thank you guys, great job!
2017-06-14 20:24
Great news. Sadly a year or two "late to the party".
2017-06-14 20:25
#155
 | 
Brazil Charizaldo 
noice
2017-06-14 20:26
Cool shit guys!
2017-06-14 20:29
#159
 | 
Brazil VAC0 
confirmed! coldzera never stayed lower than 1.0 in events
2017-06-14 20:59
#161
 | 
Germany No_Kappa 
Could you give any info on the technology involved to calc these stats? A daemon? Cron jobs? Manual click in admin panel? PHP? Go? Java? Python? C#? I understand if you don't want to share any of this but i'm always interested in the tech side of it even if it simple. <3
2017-06-14 21:01
Borland
2017-06-14 21:14
LETS GO NEW NIP! Crush this new rating
2017-06-14 21:14
How did you decide the weights for the components of the rating?
2017-06-14 22:00
Yes this is must known thing to really analyze the stat.
2017-06-15 04:31
fantastic
2017-06-14 22:14
#170
 | 
Other Rasenringu 
Really great update, thank's !
2017-06-15 00:00
Nice, this makes xantares look even more better :DDD
2017-06-15 04:11
Painful to see HLTV implement and work so hard on Ratings when some harvard or stanford dudes are gonna come in when money in scene rises and then open up a paid stat site that would be better but 10000$ per year
2017-06-15 06:04
#183
 | 
Sweden shirre 
This is awesome! Great job guys! :)
2017-06-15 08:29
Brilliant guys, love it! I think this does exactly what it is intended to - giving a more clear and precise picture of the impact and performance of the individual player.
2017-06-15 10:52
Edit : Nothing...
2017-06-15 12:34
#186
 | 
Romania Tise 
Awesome remake :o
2017-06-15 12:39
Great stuff.
2017-06-15 12:55
Is there gonna be ranking 2.0?
2017-06-15 13:21
#194
 | 
United States duhsmersh 
You really need to redo all your ranking shit.. Gambit is not #6 and Optic is not #7 there are many better teams than both and this update is even fucking worse.. Now you're just highlighting all the crap players who don't play enough pro games to have accurate stats from the accumulated data
2017-06-15 22:01
#202
 | 
World neomax360 
Lul. You are talking about stats, but the previous rating doesn't take into account all data and stats to rate the player. Basically with the previous rating, player who never take any risk and only bait their teammate to trade kills, hunt eco frags & exit frags in other to have good stats who will be consider as the best player according to their stats whereas in reality they have almost no impact in the victory of their team.
2017-06-17 17:09
#196
 | 
Costa Rica a2103024 
XANTARES 1.37 coldzera1.24 It's hard to credit but is HLTV b8ing ?
2017-06-15 23:47
#198
 | 
Indonesia rizkypanca 
hltv.org/stats/players nah BnTeT 1.37 rating XANTARES 1.25 coldzera 1.22
2017-06-16 05:01
#199
 | 
Poland Hell2k 
godOCEAN 0.75 rating lul
2017-06-16 14:54
#200
 | 
Brazil SK_SENSUS 
Now coldzera will have 1.8+ rating every map! OMG!
2017-06-16 16:56
#201
 | 
World neomax360 
VERY GOOD Job HLTV ADMIN. Now playes who have low stats but a lot of impact in a team will be put on the line.
2017-06-17 17:03
expected
2017-06-17 22:14
Cool update but you HLTV guys responding on this thread are dead wrong. The average ratings will go up for all players and the 1.0 rating is no longer an accurate benchmark. Look at your two examples of Rating 2.0 in this thread. Compare the average ratings. Example 1: Team rating for Astralis: Rating 1.0 = 4.35 Rating 2.0 = 4.84 Team rating for Immortals: Rating 1.0 = 5.19 Rating 2.0 = 5.49. Example 2: Team rating for Astralis: Rating 1.0 = 5.08 Rating 2.0 = 5.56 Team rating for VP: Rating 1.0 = 4.71 Rating 2.0 = 4.9. Therefore in Example 1: Astralis team rating rose by .49. Immortals team rating rose by .3. In Example 2: Astralis team rating rose by .48. VP's team rating rose by .19. Based off of this we should no longer expect 1.0 to be an accurate benchmark for player performance. We will see increased ratings across the board.
2017-06-18 18:11
The change nickmane is broken!
2017-06-18 20:19
#213
 | 
Andorra TYZ4 
"nickmane"
2017-06-21 19:09
#207
 | 
Poland eksnajn 
WOW! Very good work devs. Nice as hell.
2017-06-19 00:20
i like it
2017-06-19 13:25
Is there a formula to follow to get this info?
2017-06-19 13:36
#210
 | 
Luxembourg alex24 
would this be applied to HLTV users also ? that would be so nice
2017-06-19 14:19
what does KAST stand for?
2017-06-21 00:10
#212
 | 
Andorra TYZ4 
kill, assist, survival or traded death
2017-06-21 19:08
thanks man!
2017-07-13 18:35
Can this rating be implemented to Faceit?
2017-06-22 20:04
proper grenade/molotov/flash usage should also have its own rating
2017-06-22 20:07
great
2017-06-23 02:14
You guys have to change ADR system... The AWPers very often have less ADR with like 25 kills than Rifler with 15 kills. You should work at it.
2017-06-30 19:16
You should share this with valve, ESEA and/or FaceIT. Having HLTV rating on player profiles. Would be awesome : ]
2017-07-07 12:53
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.