Player Ranking in Allegiance

ogorass · Post by **ogorass** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:02 pm

Time based newbie tags rocked... There was practically no way to find someone w/o a newb tag that doesn't know how to nan stuff... Now you can see quite a lot of (12) or something guys so utterly and drastically clueless it's painful... Bring back the time-based newb tags i say!

Post by **BlackViper** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:20 pm

Concur on this. One of the most dramatic changes I have noticed over the last year. There is a definite group of people who only play very small games. Hardly ever on the "larger main games". NOW please read this next sentence. There is nothing wrong with that. Not a thing. But what has happened is there are people who have played nothing but DM or Out money games. But they have ranked up.

The best example I personally saw was a (12) who rammed a bomber through a camped aleph. When confronted, his reply was "Why would I not ram a bomber through a camped aleph?"

A (8) this past week who asked how probes worked and how to deploy them. (Dead serious)

Just an observation. (Hmmm a system that would lock someone from going above a certain rank until they took a written test???)

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:37 pm

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Dec 21 2007, 10:20 AM) (Hmmm a system that would lock someone from going above a certain rank until they took a written test???)

Hey, that's my line! /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Somewhere recently I said that. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Another option I mentioned before was to change the minimum game size to count from 10 players to 20, I"m not so sure this is a great idea, though it might be worth looking into.

Something else I think Frag said somewhere- to only have people that played a year to vote in issues like this. I'm not sure that's the best idea, however since almost anything that becomes the next rating system will hurt the ranks of 0-7 (it can't get better imo) you'll have new players controlling a vote block. I'm not sure they shouldn't be able to vote in matters of this nature, nor do I know what's best, it is though an interesting point.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:41 pm

Instead of enforcing a number limit enforce a minimum total skill level.

At least (10 x 10 =) 100 HELO per side or it doesn't count.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:06 pm

Interesting. But then aren't you using total skill level to limit smaller games from counting based on total skill level, all circular?

Another option, give out points earned on a percentage scale based on total players... 25v25 game 100% of points earned, 10v10 game 40% of points earned, or something like that. I doubt very much that idea will work as it gets into the rating system. Seems easier to say 'game to small, not counted'.

*shrug*

Post by **TheBored** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:38 pm

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Dec 21 2007, 01:20 PM) Just an observation. (Hmmm a system that would lock someone from going above a certain rank until they took a written test???)

Been brought up quite a few times over the years. It generally dies when "Why should people have to take a TEST to play a game?" comes up.

TB

Post by **BackTrak** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:50 pm

Naboki wrote:QUOTE (Naboki @ Dec 21 2007, 08:59 AM) http://www.eloratings.net/europe.html

doesnt look to wrong the elo rating or?
Italy is worldmaster in soccer, france vice....

And from the link of the deep inside Trueskill, i cant see that they use a 3 standard deviations, i onlysee 2

Ok, hope I don't get this wrong it's been a few weeks since I looked at the TS doco.

Naboki, the key difference is that they players on those teams don't change from match to match which preserves ELO's 1 on 1 formula. Trueskill takes shifting teams into account.

Trueskill smooths out the oscillations in the elo adjustment so that it homes in on the player's actual skill level much faster than ELO. I think somewhere in that MS article they state that a player begins to approach their actual rate after 3 games (that may have been for 1v1 match ups, larger teams take more games to establish individual ranking IIRC).

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:04 am

BackTrak wrote:QUOTE (BackTrak @ Dec 21 2007, 06:50 PM) Ok, hope I don't get this wrong it's been a few weeks since I looked at the TS doco.

Naboki, the key difference is that they players on those teams don't change from match to match which preserves ELO's 1 on 1 formula. Trueskill takes shifting teams into account.

Trueskill smooths out the oscillations in the elo adjustment so that it homes in on the player's actual skill level much faster than ELO. I think somewhere in that MS article they state that a player begins to approach their actual rate after 3 games (that may have been for 1v1 match ups, larger teams take more games to establish individual ranking IIRC).

OK to help this discussion

ELO is never ever meant for anything other then head to head play. For a team based game inwhich the individual players change teams from game to game ELO is a complete non-starter.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:56 am

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Dec 21 2007, 06:04 PM) OK to help this discussion

ELO is never ever meant for anything other then head to head play. For a team based game inwhich the individual players change teams from game to game ELO is a complete non-starter.

Elo is used in a variety of systems in which individual players change teams from game to game.

I used it just like so in a ~150 player league for 2 years or so, we had no where near the depth of games used here, but we did have ratings that were more accurate then what I see with helo. The reason for that is compartive awarding of points.

Do a forum search, huge write up somewhere.

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:38 am

*cough*

Need I remind people that we used to use Elo? It was a typical Alleg Moanfestâ„¢. Why does everyone keep bringing up Elo as if it's the solution to our problems? Am I missing something? Did I imagine the whole Elo ranking episode, or what?!