Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
aaaaaaaaaaaargh stop asking me
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 8:46 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST
okay - to not type this out for the 30th time... here's how the new ranking / top 25 thing works.
Rank - click on the top 25, it is the 0.00 value on the left. Think of it as how much ass someone has kicked in the past. (ie, were they ever #1 in elo, or top 5, etc, or how many times they played in the 1900s+ finishing the games in the top 10 and way up there) Elo - the number by your name and in your profile. Think of it like this, the higher you are, the more in position you are to ADD to your rank. So imagine someone with a rank of 1.52, if their elo is down in the 1700s, they probably wont add much to it. But if they are in the 1900s, 2000s and at the very top they can add significantly to it. Technical mumbojumbo: ____________________ How's this actually work? Rank has do with Elo - just like the previous scoring system did. It is calculated: 1/your place in elo meaning, say player A wins a game and has 1900 elo. That means nothing, what matters is how does it compare to others. If 1900 is the 10th best elo rating, then that person gets 1/10, or .10 added to their rank. if you finish a game with 1750 elo and you have the 1500th best elo rating in the game, you get 1/1500, lets just say thats tiny cuz my calculator just gave me an error HEHE. SUMMARY: Rank is how much ass someone kicked in the past. Having high elo compared to others = putting yourself in position to add significantly to your 'rank' value. Pros: What's really cool is if someone is #1 in elo and kicks ass, then has a few bad games and drops, the game respects them by keeping them in the top 25. So no more slipping from 2nd place to 26th cuz you tried to take over 1st spot. Now, people gradually drop off the top 25 as others pass them, rather than massive jumps. It rewards people for being great players. Ok, youve never had the lucky streak to get to #1 elo, but you play a lot of games in the top 10 of elo, well, that's 1/10 or 1/9 or 1/11 added to your rank, .1, .11 etc, good values. You'll get rewarded, despite never making it to the top. Cons: It's new, people always dislike what's new until they master it. It's weird at the moment cuz how do you know what position you are, how do you know what 1840 elo means compared to others? it doesnt really show you unless youre on the top 25 (at the moment), probably other cons but im tired of typing Note: people say playing often can pad your score. While this is technically true, u have to maintain high elo while you play a lot. And again, 1 game in 2nd or 1st place of elo instantly massacres all the gains someone else makes playing 70 games in 100th. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 51 - 56 of 56
|
the brain wrote
at 8:50 AM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST "as for the Brain's comment - you can't even remove luck as an aspect of a game that uses dice. It's kdice, live or die by the rolls."
True, you can't remove luck from the game. But you can remove it from a ranking. Theoretically it's just noise over the true skill, and by taking enough samples, noise can be removed. Simple example, take the weighed average of the percentages of 1st/2nd/etc. Over few samples luck is still a big factor, over a lot of samples luck will have evened out, and you have a ranking that is 'true', in the sense that luck is effectively removed. I'm not argueing about whether or not this would be a fit rating system (with a logarithmic scale factor for the number of games it might be), this is just to show that luck can be removed and it SHOULD be. |
|
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 9:46 AM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST I am not suggesting by any means that the new scoring system is perfect. This game is still technically in beta so that is why changes are being tried out. I have to say, Ryan is doing a helluva job lately by the sheer effort he has put into the game. Like the changes or not, I think it is pretty awesome that the game developer listens to players suggestions so much and is willing to try and improve this already great game.
Can we think of an even better score system? maybe, there are flaws with any system, the key is to find one that tries to not count luck so much and instead reward skill, but that can be so elusive to judge sometimes. Your suggestion of weighted percentages could work - what exactly do you mean. Looking at the 1st / 2nd / 3rd - 7th %'s of each player and creating a top 25 classifaction based off that? First off, there would be a couple major problems (not saying your idea couldnt work, but this is something to seriously consider). differences in Elo would influence things greatly. A top 25 player could go play vs lower elo opposition just to get a win vs an 'easier' opponent, in theory, to pad their 1st, 2nd, 3rd win %'s. Also, what about players who in general, compete against each other at the top tables? Is a win on an unrated or 1500 table worth the same as a win on the top tables? Seems a bit silly in that regard, seeing as a 1900 elo player has to beat other 1900 (ie, supposedly really good) players to get a 1st whereas others on the 1500 tables get the same credit, in essence, for beating easier opposition. another system for ratings / rank could work, and I think Ryan is always up for suggestions. But it has to be very well thought out, pros and cons, no matter what it is. |
|
rndaxs wrote
at 9:52 AM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST @wolf:
'nd no one holds the person in 1st in high regard, just the spot' - who are you? |
|
ryan2 wrote
at 12:41 PM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST the brain is right. The goal of the ratings and rank is to measure the skill part of the game no matter how big or small it is. The ideal rank removes the Luck noise.
I feel like the current rank does the best job so far. And grun is right that there is room for improvement. However the current system solves so many problems that I have to be very hesitant about anything new since it would have to solve all of the same problems and take one step for the better. At this point im not sure what a better step is but I'm open to suggestions. One better step that I see is to consolodate rating and score/rank. In other words just have one number that does everything rating and rank does. It should be one equation and be would simplify understand the numbers but It should have all the features of the current rating/score system. |
|
Tech wrote
at 1:17 PM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST a'ight, a'ight, sorry about the 'hollow rhetoric' bit, I figured that was too much.
Incidentally, to remove luck noise, the system must be able to determine what's luck and what isn't. That's some fancy pattern recognition for you to code, innit? |
|
lick_my_scrotum wrote
at 3:05 PM, Thursday March 8, 2007 EST ryan,
to consolidate rating/rank you'd basically be going back to the old system, but adjusting elo much more slowly (or taking number of games played into account in the elo adjustment) as number of games increases.. no? think you'd require a reset again for that ;p |
