Game counted?

[Raveen]

QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ Sep 12 2006, 12:19 PM) there is no fair way you can reward nanning and probing (it would be very easy to exploit and create a point farm)

I'm not sure that it would be so easy to exploit. As long as it only records nannage of friendly ships. I'm assuming the 10 people limit counts here too, in which case you'd need to get a lot of people together dedicated to spoofing the stats (something which should be appended to the RoC as a bad thing btw). I suppose there are sections of this community dedicated to stat hacking so maybe there would be 10 people available but it wouldn't be too hard to set the system to tag any games with unnaturally high nan points compared to all the other points available and have an admin check them out.

[Lindy_Hop]

QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ Sep 12 2006, 07:19 AM) - as long as nanning or probing gets no points it is unfair and detrimental to good gamemplay (not to mention that lotsa peeps wouldn't nan anymore and just go chase a newb so they could pod him /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> )

I am going to call bull$#&* on this and I am going to tie this into a general elo rant.

Based on my experiences when stats were collected, in the large period of time when stats were not collected, and from watching what is happening to elo atm.

In terms of fun, shooting someone else down is always more fun than dropping probes or shooting blue rings at a bomber. Noone, not even long time recognized nan whores like myself, enjoys nanning. You could make naning/probing worth double the points of dogfighting and that still would not change the fundamental fact that these basic activities are not fun.

But people still did them under the old point system, people still did this when points were not an issue, and people will still do this regardless of elo. Those activities win games, and regardless of personal enjoyment of dogfighting or point accumulation, winning is the ultimate drive that has supported these activities and will continue to support it.

Some people look at points to validate game play and that is just plain stupid. Pilots build reputations for themselves that transcend any silly ranking system. Simply playing the game will let anyone with half a brain build a dosier of their fellow players, who the uber whores are, who the nans are, the probers, the miner killers, the circle flyers, the people who others think are good but really suck, etc. And no ammount of points or elo is going to change that fundamental fact, at best it might make me shuffle a couple of people from one mental folder to annother a little quicker but thats about it.

My mental dosier is in general going to be stronger than any point system and will only lose out to my fellow players who may have a better mental dosier. Proof? The original point system was flawed and everyone knew that Gerald4 was horrible despite however long he might labor and try to improve. In the new elo system everyone knows Shizoku is a wonderful pilot despite the fact that his elo is dropping like a rock for anti-stacking.

Elo does not and will not ever measure a pilots ability. It is simply impossible. It does measure his ability to pick the winning side.

But what about the balance button? Well two scenarios.

Scenario A, we have balanced and unregulated games. Strong players like Shiz keep wrecking their elo doing the right thing to antistack, similarly weak players good at picking teams build their elo. Every so often we hit the balance button and these two categories of players suddenly unbalance the teams crazily but these single games do not end up correcting elo since they are too few.

Scenario B we only have balanced games. In this instance everyone should hover around a 50 50 win loss as increasing elo will become difficult as the higher ones elo becomes the liklier it is that they will draw crummy team mates and be knocked back down. At this point elo ceases to be a measure of skill in the traditional sense and instead becomes a tool to knock someone on a winning streak back down to earth.

Summary. I know my worth and the worth of most of the other players out there playing. So does everyone else. No point system or ELO ranking is going to change that and my personal knowledge is going to be better than those systems.


Oh and as for chasing noobs to pod them... Everyone should do it. It takes half a minute, feels good, and more importantly raises your kb so you can do something useful later.

[Terralthra]

QUOTE (FingerBang @ Sep 12 2006, 02:36 AM) If im playing a RELATIVLY EVEN GAME, and i log 50 kills, and that 50 is over 2 times as many as the whole rest of the team combined, should i not get more ELO than the others who didnt get kills, same for base killing.

The whole point of Elo is that it's at a more abstract level.

QUOTE (FingerBang @ Sep 12 2006, 02:36 AM) AND FOR GODS SAKE A DRAW IS A DRAW, NOT A LOSS!!!!!!!!

Draws aren't counted as losses, they're treated as outcomes of 0.5, meaning in an exactly even game, neither team's rating is adjusted, but a severely stacked team will lose points, as the outcome was less than the expected outcome.

[FingerBang]

QUOTE (Terralthra @ Sep 12 2006, 10:03 AM) Draws aren't counted as losses, they're treated as outcomes of 0.5, meaning in an exactly even game, neither team's rating is adjusted, but a severely stacked team will lose points, as the outcome was less than the expected outcome.

prove it

[ImmortalZ]

Uhh, what do you mean Finger?

Just start a game with someone with a different ELO than yours and draw it. You'll see that you'll lose points if your opponent's ELO is less than yours or vice versa.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (FingerBang @ Sep 12 2006, 04:34 PM) prove it

http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=24048

Specifically:

Code: Select all

-- IF NOBODY WON, DECLARE A DRAW
  IF (SELECT MAX(Winner) FROM @TeamELO) = 0
  BEGIN
    UPDATE @TeamELO SET Winner = .5
  END

That 0.5 is then taken forwards as the result which would be 1 for a win and 0 for a loss. Therefore a draw is half a win for each team and the ELO difference is calculated based on those criteria.

[jgbaxter]

Right.

So if you're stacked and accept a draw, be aware you'll lose points.

So if the stacked team were to get 5 and the unstacked team were to get 15, then you're looking at a 10 point gain for the unstacked team.

[Raveen]

what would be ideal is the seperation of Draw into "Neither Side Can Win" and "We're Drawing This Stackfest To Be Nice To The Noobs".

If you legitimately grind down a stacked team so they can't beat you and elect to draw then you deserve points. If the stack is drawing to be nice then no, you don't.

[bigheadzach]

QUOTE (Terralthra @ Sep 12 2006, 11:03 AM) The whole point of Elo is that it's at a more abstract level.
Draws aren't counted as losses, they're treated as outcomes of 0.5, meaning in an exactly even game, neither team's rating is adjusted, but a severely stacked team will lose points, as the outcome was less than the expected outcome.

Actually, a team expected to win (> .50) that draws will actually lose points, while a team that is expected to lose (< .50) that draws will gain points.

[Grim_Reaper_4u]

QUOTE (Lindy_Hop @ Sep 12 2006, 04:39 PM) Summary. I know my worth and the worth of most of the other players out there playing. So does everyone else. No point system or ELO ranking is going to change that and my personal knowledge is going to be better than those systems.

I agree and I've proposed time and again to just make invisible (or even visible) rankings of players by Admins that allow even distribution over teams. If we were to put our best players into groups and divide those groups evenly over teams then we would have no more stacks :

- Top 10 int/fig ho's
- Top 10 bomber/HTT pilots
- Top 10 scout ho's
- Top 10 miner killers
- Top 20 int ho's 2nd grade /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
(- Top 10 nans)

(if there is more than a 10 great players in a category this category can be expanded of course)

This is all you need to balance games, $#@! ELO and $#@! any other system, we know who's good and who's not. If we design a system that will balance these players over both teams then we don't need anything else.

Don't tell me we can't agree on who should be in those categories because I know it's not that hard /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />