Official Proposal by Supreme Ruler Bacon:

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:33 am

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko2.doc/example.html

Romeo_ · Post by **Romeo_** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:48 am

Gstar wrote:QUOTE (Gstar @ Nov 5 2006, 01:07 AM) One option would be to make the ranking system so incredibly complicated that no one person could possibly understand it.

That way no one can argue with it. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

/laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
If only that were true......but the last thing we need is another BCS ranking system like college footbal has. /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />

Aoreias · Post by **Aoreias** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:15 am

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Nov 4 2006, 09:33 PM) http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko2.doc/example.html

That system is based on the same flawed premise as ELO, applying individual ranks over a team based system.

ELO is broken, but the primary problem is that while ELO will eventually converge, it'll take far too long a time. If you want something that's realistic make stats matter, and then use a system based off of those. Give realistic point values. Code in a way to work out points for nans and scouts. Yes the system will have flaws, but it'll be much less unflawed than what we're currently using.

Post by **TheBored** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:44 am

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Nov 5 2006, 12:33 AM) http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko2.doc/example.html

I am convinced that mathematicians use those dumb symbols to make other people feel stupid. WTF happened to 'x' ?

TB

Dengaroth · Post by **Dengaroth** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:37 am

What a great thread this has been at post #4. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> And I was really hoping the point would get through this time.

Guess not. (the amount of people in write-only mode is simply amazing)

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:02 pm

Aoreias wrote:QUOTE (Aoreias @ Nov 5 2006, 05:15 PM) That system is based on the same flawed premise as ELO, applying individual ranks over a team based system.

ELO is broken, but the primary problem is that while ELO will eventually converge, it'll take far too long a time.

Did you even read the link? The entire idea of Rating Deviation, volatility, etc. are to a) make it converge faster and

account for contribution to a composite rating.

Here, read this one too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

Aoreias wrote:QUOTE (Aoreias @ Nov 5 2006, 05:15 PM) If you want something that's realistic make stats matter, and then use a system based off of those. Give realistic point values. Code in a way to work out points for nans and scouts. Yes the system will have flaws, but it'll be much less unflawed than what we're currently using.

...

Ok, so what's your proposed point system?

How much is a kill worth? A base kill? A miner kill? A con kill? Is killing a bomber firing at your base worth more than whoring a newb?

X-Box live uses a modification of Glicko for ranking and balancing in its online team games.

Ozricosis · Post by **Ozricosis** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:35 pm

Grow up.

Anything you can do to $#@! with this game seems to be happening.

This is quickly looking like a little power trip again.

I have always wanted balanced games. But everything I have said goes ignored.

Balanced commander ranking, then player skill rank.

enjoy your little playground you never seem to play on.

mcwarren4 · Post by **mcwarren4** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 pm

I agree commander ranking needs to be considered, but how would you propose to balance commander ranking Ozzy? Commander wins/losses are probably skewed by the stack more so than player ranks.

I think they are going about it the right way. Realizing that ELO can't be correct until a balance button is implemented and commander rankings can't be correct until there is an assurance of even teams I don't see any other way to make it work.

Herein lies the problem. You yourself say you want balanced games, but that isn't completely true. You want balanced games with the stipulation that you fly only for commanders you want to fly for. Get four or five more highly skilled pilots like that on a team and then the game is too stacked to make any statistical sense out of it. Everyone says they want games that are evenly matched, but they don't want to go through the pain of getting the system in place to foster evenly matched games.

Ozricosis · Post by **Ozricosis** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:11 pm

We have no choice BUT TO GO THROUGH the pain of getting in place.

Giving players a free rank 15 when they have only played for 3 months is one major problem with this system.

Let's just keep it real simple and start there.

Whore-based stats is just disrupting gameplay.

This is just Pook having his fun screwing with the settings.

Post by **Tigereye** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:23 pm

Yup, that's pretty much it.

Once R3 goes live and the TEAMS are roughly balanced each game, then we can start working on a way to balance the comms.

As long as comms can have uberstacks underneath them to prop them up, it'll be near-impossible to distinguish the good comms from the bad comms.

--TE