Elo Formula
Congratulations, you have now just made ELO worse by making it many many times easier for people to hit 30. Keep up the good work.
All in all you are a very dying race // Placing trust upon a cruel world. // You never had the things you thought you should have had //
And you'll not get them now, // And all the while in perfect time // Your tears are falling on the ground. -- Squonk, Genesis
Well, a cadet has a rank 30 and I am at 29. Someone else who is generally useless in game has a higher rank than myself. Oh look, another person is rank 30! but wait, they are flying in circles!
Now, I understand that the devs are TRYING to create a balanced ranking system and that alone is probably very difficult. but seriously, Augz has a 30? AUGZ!?
today I feel scared that my beloved Allegiance is dying because people want balanced games.
People want an accurate system to gauge peoples skill... Well, time obviously doesn't equal skill.
So now when you see the little number next to the teamname is mean absolutely NOTHING because AUGZ is a rank 30 and I am a rank 29. Period.
I understand the devs take a lot of crap. I also understand that there are a lot of people who want evenly matched games.
in my mind there is only one solution and that comes from within. As a community. They will either stack and have a 20 minute game or not stack and have a long hard battle.
No ELO or time rank system is going to fix this. It will only give excuses to the losing team as to why they lost.
Put yourself in the commanders chair and Pick between 2 pilots.
Augz(30) or Global_Hawk(19)
Now look me in the eye and say Augz is a better overall pilot than Globe.
K thanks. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />
Now, I understand that the devs are TRYING to create a balanced ranking system and that alone is probably very difficult. but seriously, Augz has a 30? AUGZ!?
today I feel scared that my beloved Allegiance is dying because people want balanced games.
People want an accurate system to gauge peoples skill... Well, time obviously doesn't equal skill.
So now when you see the little number next to the teamname is mean absolutely NOTHING because AUGZ is a rank 30 and I am a rank 29. Period.
I understand the devs take a lot of crap. I also understand that there are a lot of people who want evenly matched games.
in my mind there is only one solution and that comes from within. As a community. They will either stack and have a 20 minute game or not stack and have a long hard battle.
No ELO or time rank system is going to fix this. It will only give excuses to the losing team as to why they lost.
Put yourself in the commanders chair and Pick between 2 pilots.
Augz(30) or Global_Hawk(19)
Now look me in the eye and say Augz is a better overall pilot than Globe.
K thanks. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
-
MadAccountant
- Posts: 2610
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
I agree with Oz regarding the age crap. I don't agree with him that the community will fix it without some type of system. It hasn't worked yet and I doubt the people responsible for that will change anytime soon.
Cap the age impact and let ELO ride. With balancing, ELO should make some sort of sense. It wasn't too far off imo before. Isolated instances were bad of course but overall it seemed to be reflective....other than the kills bonus (augz was 30 before as well due to his endless playing time).
Having 25%-50% of the community at rank 30 is just ludicrous. I appreciate your efforts guys and wish you luck with it.
Cap the age impact and let ELO ride. With balancing, ELO should make some sort of sense. It wasn't too far off imo before. Isolated instances were bad of course but overall it seemed to be reflective....other than the kills bonus (augz was 30 before as well due to his endless playing time).
Having 25%-50% of the community at rank 30 is just ludicrous. I appreciate your efforts guys and wish you luck with it.
-
Terralthra
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Err, yes, they are. Do some research on "Zone Promotions" in almost any western military.Cunnuk wrote:QUOTE (Cunnuk @ Sep 1 2006, 11:56 PM) Make the system mimic real life.
Are promotions give to someone just because they been around the longest?
In the real world, someone is promoted by what they do, not how long they've been there.
Lots of comments - some constructive, and some not. It's time to add some of my own to the mix.
I'm pretty sure the Age was included as a component of the rank because 99% of older players have the knowledge necessary to be a contributing member to a team. While it is true that there are some older pilots who are STILL clueless, I would bet good money on a 3-year old player over a 3-month old player regardless of how many kills they got in the last game.
Age isn't representative of skill, no, but age DOES definitely play a part in determining whether or not that player has jumped the steep learning curve of this game.
... and yes, I can think of MANY instances where someone gets a promotion for the time they spent in an organization. Because of their experience, 9 times out of 10 they deserve it. Yes there are younger more productive people too, but there are always outliers in every general case. Isn't it better to be right 90% of the time instead of being right 10% of the time?
Now. Technically, there's no reason to ever apply a positive modifier based on age. We could simply use it to lower the rank for newbies.
The downside is that there's no 'persistence' to the rank... and even longtime vets could end up with a low rank. This would mean that we would have Ozzys and BlackVipers who have played for ages but their rank could be well below Shizoku and Lykourgos who are skilled but have not been here long at all.
Other alternatives would be dividing positive modifiers by a higher number, or capping the maximum age adjustment. My instincts agree with most of you here: Age seems to be weighted too heavily. Only time will tell for sure, though.
Next, regarding players' current ranks: I agree there are far too many players on both ends of the spectrum. This is because there are 0 games under their belts: Everything was reset just last night!
I'm sure after a week or two once we have all played a few games it will become more apparent that the weight of the "Age" component in the Rank is either too heavy, too light, or just right.
And in response to TMC's concerns that adjusting for cheaters/droppers will prevent "convergance" of ranks - I have to disagree.
These two checks were added to counteract the two easiest methods of exploiting the system. With these checks, players can't join one team - see it's losing, jump to the other and win with the stack. It also correctly penalizes players who decide to drop when their Expansion Complex gets destroyed instead of trying to fight harder to win with their teams.
Both of those acts show poor sportsmanship, and players should not get perks or have their nerfs limited because they ditch their team the moment things get rough.
All changes take a while for us all to absorb what has changed and see how it will work out in the end. We should refrain from making quick judgements without giving the system a chance to show its true colours. It may seem wrong now, but remember: it's basing that on all of 1 or 2 games we've played since last night. I wonder if it will still be wrong after everyone's played a few hundred games?
--TE
I'm pretty sure the Age was included as a component of the rank because 99% of older players have the knowledge necessary to be a contributing member to a team. While it is true that there are some older pilots who are STILL clueless, I would bet good money on a 3-year old player over a 3-month old player regardless of how many kills they got in the last game.
Age isn't representative of skill, no, but age DOES definitely play a part in determining whether or not that player has jumped the steep learning curve of this game.
... and yes, I can think of MANY instances where someone gets a promotion for the time they spent in an organization. Because of their experience, 9 times out of 10 they deserve it. Yes there are younger more productive people too, but there are always outliers in every general case. Isn't it better to be right 90% of the time instead of being right 10% of the time?
Now. Technically, there's no reason to ever apply a positive modifier based on age. We could simply use it to lower the rank for newbies.
The downside is that there's no 'persistence' to the rank... and even longtime vets could end up with a low rank. This would mean that we would have Ozzys and BlackVipers who have played for ages but their rank could be well below Shizoku and Lykourgos who are skilled but have not been here long at all.
Other alternatives would be dividing positive modifiers by a higher number, or capping the maximum age adjustment. My instincts agree with most of you here: Age seems to be weighted too heavily. Only time will tell for sure, though.
Next, regarding players' current ranks: I agree there are far too many players on both ends of the spectrum. This is because there are 0 games under their belts: Everything was reset just last night!
I'm sure after a week or two once we have all played a few games it will become more apparent that the weight of the "Age" component in the Rank is either too heavy, too light, or just right.
And in response to TMC's concerns that adjusting for cheaters/droppers will prevent "convergance" of ranks - I have to disagree.
These two checks were added to counteract the two easiest methods of exploiting the system. With these checks, players can't join one team - see it's losing, jump to the other and win with the stack. It also correctly penalizes players who decide to drop when their Expansion Complex gets destroyed instead of trying to fight harder to win with their teams.
Both of those acts show poor sportsmanship, and players should not get perks or have their nerfs limited because they ditch their team the moment things get rough.
All changes take a while for us all to absorb what has changed and see how it will work out in the end. We should refrain from making quick judgements without giving the system a chance to show its true colours. It may seem wrong now, but remember: it's basing that on all of 1 or 2 games we've played since last night. I wonder if it will still be wrong after everyone's played a few hundred games?
--TE
Last edited by Tigereye on Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Allegiance community currently hates their sysadmin because he is doing: [Too Much] [____________|] [Too Little]
Current reason: Removing the PayPal contribute page. Send Bitcoin instead: 1EccFi98tR5S9BYLuB61sFfxKqqgSKK8Yz. This scale updates regularly.
i mentioned this elsewhere, but instead of a raw age rank, maybe based on time played? I haven't looked at the formula and don't have time now, so I'm sorry if that is what it is doing. Age (the way I think it currently is implemented) would have someone who created an account and plays once a month getting the same "age" bonus as someone like vandal who never exits the game (I still think vandal is a bot sometimes;)). Maybe time played would be better than raw age since account creation?
Again, forgive me if this is what the code is already doing . no time to look.
Again, forgive me if this is what the code is already doing . no time to look.
Tiger, please add "age" to KB. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Age = sqrt(days*2) Where days is the number of unique days logged in (each day logged in counts as 1 unique day).
For example, to...
Age 1 = 01 unique day
Age 2 = 02 unique days
Age 3 = 04 unique days
Age 4 = 07 unique days
Age 5 = 11 unique days
Age 10 = 046 unique days
Age 15 = 106 unique days
Age 20 = 191 unique days
Age 25 = 301 unique days
Age 30 = 435 unique days
So to be no longer a perfect newb (rank (5) or higher) a player needs to play 11 unique days, if they play 1-3 days a week, that's about a month (1½-4 weeks). To be Age 30, they have to log in a full 1¼ years of days, if they log in every other day then that's close to 3 years of game time.
Age = sqrt(days*2) Where days is the number of unique days logged in (each day logged in counts as 1 unique day).
For example, to...
Age 1 = 01 unique day
Age 2 = 02 unique days
Age 3 = 04 unique days
Age 4 = 07 unique days
Age 5 = 11 unique days
Age 10 = 046 unique days
Age 15 = 106 unique days
Age 20 = 191 unique days
Age 25 = 301 unique days
Age 30 = 435 unique days
So to be no longer a perfect newb (rank (5) or higher) a player needs to play 11 unique days, if they play 1-3 days a week, that's about a month (1½-4 weeks). To be Age 30, they have to log in a full 1¼ years of days, if they log in every other day then that's close to 3 years of game time.
Last edited by jgbaxter on Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...
Youre an idiot and did not even read what I quoted.jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Sep 1 2006, 10:48 AM) Actually Tmc, elo's not perfect, but the reason you quoted don't help your cause.
1- Is there to give players a chance to have a peek at a game and decide if the side they chose is worth playing.
2- Is there to mitigate those who would cheat by joining one game and leaving to join the winning team.
The fact that players lose full points when on the losing side (even if they only played half the game) is simply there to influence people not to bail, by saying "if you leave, you still lose the points, neener neener". This reduces a player's ELO even though he might not really have taken part in the loss.
Exactly, it penalizes the player.'tiger' wrote:It also correctly penalizes players who decide to drop when their Expansion Complex gets destroyed instead of trying to fight harder to win with their teams.
The goal of ELO is to give a just representation of one's skills. Not to penalize people with poor sportsmanship.
ELO is used too much as a way to penalize and reward players (here, if you antistack, have extra points for being a good boy, regardless if you actually know how to play) instead of a method to accurately and objectively rate a player's skills in order to create an autobalance button.
Last edited by tmc on Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why the personal attack?
Why is SysX members becoming more aggressive and rude of late?
My comments stand, and Tiger pointed out again why they're pertinent in case you don't take my comments as constructive attempt at swaying you.
EDIT TO ADD: The purpose is to exactly penalize a player who is playing a team game.
Why is SysX members becoming more aggressive and rude of late?
My comments stand, and Tiger pointed out again why they're pertinent in case you don't take my comments as constructive attempt at swaying you.
EDIT TO ADD: The purpose is to exactly penalize a player who is playing a team game.
Last edited by jgbaxter on Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...