Why ELO discourages antistacking

[Psychosis]

consider:

A game is in progress, there is a stack on the other team, but its not to the point that the game will not count. Now, if I antistack here, I have the potential to gain, SOME Elo. Due to the current formulae, I will gain a % according to the amount of time i have spent in game. So antistacking here, is going to get me, a decent amount if we win, but not great. However, If the game ends in anything over 5 minutes from my join point, voila, i lose the full amount of ELO for the game. and guess what, i just brought the team ELO up (possibly even making the game count), making my lose MORE points.

now i can see why this also affects stackers, because a late joiner to the stacked team, has the potential to lose a HUGE ammount of Elo, for a possible gain of, nothing, or very close to nothing.

the end effect is increased stacking, because people dont want to lose elo (i say this in general, there are some people that enjoy antistacking, more power to you). Also, it makes people drop more, if I drop lets say <5 minutes, I dont lose anything, cause heh, it doesnt count. if I antistack to help a team, decide its hopeless, and drop while under 5 minutes, it doesnt hurt me, but it hurts the game, cause the stacked team is now up by 2 players.

want to make your ELO go up? play from the start of the game, and dont join in at the middle/ end. wow, that kinda kills the fun of alleg doesnt it?

Elo, is a overall rank lowering formulae, please disable it until you can fix it. ( i can provide a fancy chart if you really want it)

p.s. sorry for the sarcasm, but its hard to completely erase my distaste for the system.

EDIT: and I know what my rank is. i works by "anti-stacking" your team with low elo vets, and taking down a team full of random voobs, assigned the automatic rank (15), when they are really about a (2) skill level. Elo <> skill

[Raveen]

I think your argument falls down because stacking is no more prevalent now than it was before ELO was introduced. If anything stacking happens less now than it did before. Now maybe that's a function of the different timezones we play in but overall I don't see that your argument holds water.

Saying that I agree that the "full ELO for losers" is probably not a good idea (although the concept is laudable) from a mathematical POV. Is it in fact still in use or did it get taken out at the reset?

[Grimmwolf_GB]

I think it is still in effect.

[Dengaroth]

Psychosis, don't you have other things to do besides trying to stir up the same thing over and over (and over) again?

[Terralthra]

PsycHosis's point is valid, in my opinion, and it doesn't just affect anti-stackers. It affects anyone who joins games in progress and doesn't win 100% of them. Even if it's a perfectly even game, 50/50, say each lasts 40 minutes, if you join in for the last ten minutes of each game, you have to win 4 out of 5 games just to maintain your present rank. It takes someone seriously awesome to affect a 50/50 game to the point of winning 80% of their games, yet this seriously awesome person is only treading water. Make it half the game, and you only have to win twice as many as you lose? That's not an answer. It's a serious downward distortion to ranks in general.

[Aoreias]

The root problem is that there's no way to tell the following conditions right now near as I can tell: Who is there at the end of a game, when people join, when they leave. You can't tell the difference between someone who joins 10 minutes in and bails when you lose your opening op and between someone who joined in the last 10 minutes when they've been whoring your garrison with mk3 tech while you're sitting on your duff with gunships.

[Grimmwolf_GB]

Psychosis is right.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Nov 13 2006, 12:29 PM) Psychosis is right.

No. Psychosis is correct that punishing late joiners is a problem. I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that this has affected stacking/antistacking whatsoever. Although, as I said before, things may be different outside of my usual playing hours. If there is any evidence that stcking is now worse than it was pre-ELO then I'll conceed the point but I strongly suspect that this is not the case.

[Pook]

Actually Psychosis is working on an invalid assumption which invalidates his entire argument.

Even if you lose, you don't lose full points if you jump into the middle of a game. You lose points based on the time you started until the time the game ends.

The point is to discourage people from bailing in order to try and save their rank. It's a common theme in many systems including ones that work in a similar fashion, such as the Halo 2 ranking system.

So, to Terra's point - if you join the last 10 minutes of a game and you lose - you lose "10 minutes worth", not the value of the whole game.

Code: Select all

DATEDIFF(second,@PlayerJoinTime,@GameEndTime)

Perhaps before stirring the pot you should check your assumptions. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

[Flower]

post deleted until further data gathered.
oops seemed I believed Psychosis hypothesis about 'full loss'
need to double check this.
have a nice day /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> -- Flower

Ok here is more data:

Code: Select all

- LOSERS WHO DROP GET DEDUCTED FULL POINTS
         UPDATE @Accounts
            SET AdjustedGameTime = dbo.ASGSGetPlayerMaxGameTime(@GameID, Member_ID)
          WHERE Winner = 0
            AND AdjustedGameTime >= 300

This seems to indicate quite clearly that the game time is adjusted to max for those who lost.

Pook, can you confirm that this part of the code is obsolete or unrelated to the issue?
(or that I was too hasty and quoted a unrelated part of the code /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />, due to mental deficiencies on my side)