Another elo suggestion while we're at it

[apochboi]

I am sober, I just wanted to say what my experiance with my brothers account was. Also i had a question. Who is SAL ?

[Pook]

Thalgor is. There are others currently nominated to succeed him but that is still in process and the voting hasn't even begun yet.

[apochboi]

Thanks.

[vlad13]

QUOTE (General_Freak @ Nov 6 2006, 09:48 PM) I asked a question online once, but it was never answered.

Is it true that the current elo system allows (0)s to sign up to ASGS, wait 15 weeks, and get their elo set to 1500 without them having played a single game?

As i understand it, everybody starts with 1500 elo now, it's just that there is also an age component so that new people have no age so their rank is smaller. Age is calculated in individual days logged in. So i guess as long as u log in asgs daily your rank will eventually go to 15, provided that you have not lost any games.(or played any). You need 120 days i think.

[IB_]

I thought you couldn't lose points as a newb.

[Raveen]

QUOTE (IB_ @ Nov 8 2006, 01:54 PM) I thought you couldn't lose points as a newb.

The system has changed since then IB.

Back in the days of yore a newbie started with 100 (or possibly 0 I can't remember the details) ELO and couldn't lose ELO until they reached 800. This was causing problems in the system as a whole as ELO is designed to be a 0 sum system (in other words every time someone gains an ELO point someone else loses one). If your midpoint is 1500 then the average ELO points/player should also be 1500. If you add in a bunch of new people with 400 ELO (effectively what the no lose till 800 rule meant) then the average ELO/player will drop. This was a problem and needed fixing.

The current system starts off all players with 1500 ELO. Newbies then have a rank (not ELO) modifier based on how many weeks they have been playing. When weeks played = 0 then the rank modifier is -15. An ELO of 1500 = Rank (15), add in the modifier and your newbie has rank 0. Every full week after creation the modifier is reduced by 1 until it equals 0 and the only rank displayed is the ELO rank.

[Elephanthead]

In my experience, you have 2 types of games, you have off peak games, and on peak games. The people that play offpeak and win, build ELO faster then people that play on peak. In smaller games that have a small tight knit group of player it is much easier to play many more shorter games, manipulate the game settings so you have an advantage for the faction, strategy you are using, and you have a captive opponent, one that has no other game optiondue to the small quantity of player. The problem is that there is no differentiation between division IA and division little school of orphans. We have the same problem with Louisville and Rutger, they may be kicking ass in the big 8, but they would get killed by even a middle level big ten team. Not all wins are the same, not all playtimes are the same, yet off peak wins count the same as on peak wins= a large amount of voobies with high ranks because they play alot of off peak games.

[Pook]

So, how do you fix that?

How do you programmatically classify games? Size? Average skill of the players involved?

[Elephanthead]

We I would require 15 per side games, or you can add another weight to the granted elo that considers game size. If the people that play during off peak hours only play themselves it really doesn't matter, those games are usually miserably boring anyway, no amount of balance is going to make them better, though they may cause trouble in balanceing the prime time games, I personally think it is not the player mix that causes games to be unfair, but the faction balance, and the only solution to that is pook core with only 1 faction!