Rank Discussion

Wasp · Post by **Wasp** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:29 pm

Ok, if you're here, you already know ELO is not an influence of RANK. Rank is an attempted measurement of a player's individual value. It is calculated using formulas that rely on games played/won. This post is for input concerning the method of calculating RANK.

I was told the noob modifier post wasn't the place to discuss this, and Pook has indicated that bastard's post probably isn't the place to discuss rank either.

So here we are... /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Remember this is a discussion, not an arguement. If you really are offended by the ranking system, just ignore it.

Post by **Raveen** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:40 pm

Rank is simply your ELO/100 rounded down. ELO is the set of formulas based on games won/lost. Try reading my first post in Bastard's thread, it gives a basic rundown of what ELO is and how it works (but doesn't go into numbers).

Edit: There's also a newbie modifier on Rank which changes as a player plays more games. This rank is still ELO based at heart though.

Wasp · Post by **Wasp** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:30 pm

It is my opinion that the method of calculating rank is terribly flawed. I believe for the purpose of discussion we must consider rank a measurement of skill, so what we're really talking about is how do you measure skill.

It is assumed that over time a player becomes more skillfull and thus more valuable to a team. While this is true at the beginning, there comes a point where time has little influence on a player's skill. I feel that skill must be measured on how well the player can capitalize on what he's experienced in the time frame of his exposure to the game and how well he can demonstrate his utilization of what he's learned regardless of the outcome of the game itself. The game's outcome can not be considered as an individual's skill would be too influenced by the team and not enough by the player himself. This would be comperable to measuring the Red Baron's skill by the outcome of the war. It assumes that over time, his country would win the war if he's always a pilot in it. Since the outcome of a war or game is influenced by so many factors beyond the individual's contribution, I cannot see how the outcome of the game can even be considered.

For an accurate or even approximate measurement of a player's ability, one must look at where that player stands at that moment of measurement. A time based measurement will only provide information of the player's statistics...ie...total time played, games played, games won and so on. It is my opinion that this data cannot possibly provide enough information to form an approximation of a player's skill level.

Without rank being accurate, the ELO will also be innacurate by the ammount of misrepresented ranks.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:56 pm

Wasp wrote:QUOTE (Wasp @ Nov 22 2006, 05:30 PM) While this is true at the beginning, there comes a point where time has little influence on a player's skill.

Nice to know you agree with elo then. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

There is a certain point when that occurs...

'Pook' wrote:

Code: Select all

SELECT Count(*)
FROM GamePlayerELO
WHERE GamePlayerELOModifier >= .50
AND GamePlayerELOMemberID = @Member_ID

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Nov 21 2006, 04:11 PM) ...15 games seems about right (2 per day * 7 days + 1 to make a nice round number).

And then pure skill takes over, more or less. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Post by **Raveen** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:55 pm

It's actually 10 games per rank now Bax (Pook hath spoken!!!).

After 150 games rank is purely ELO based. Skillful players win games and gain ELO. Unskilled players lose games and lose ELO. Thus rank is determined by skill.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:49 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Nov 22 2006, 06:55 PM) It's actually 10 games per rank now Bax (Pook hath spoken!!!)

All hail Pookahantos! /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

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

Wasp · Post by **Wasp** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:46 am

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Nov 22 2006, 11:55 AM) It's actually 10 games per rank now Bax (Pook hath spoken!!!).

After 150 games rank is purely ELO based. Skillful players win games and gain ELO. Unskilled players lose games and lose ELO. Thus rank is determined by skill.

Thus we have the fundemental flaw. When you associate the outcome of a game to an individual's contribution, you've created the error in measurement. Therefore, the ranking system cannot do what it was intended to do, determine an individual's skill level. If using this quantum mechanic logic with a large enough sample base (players) and enough time to measure enough games (perhaps millions) then you'd be able to come up with an average measurement of the total player's skills combined. But to try to measure the individual's skill by this means will yield innacurate results.

If stacking alone can influence rank by increasing your chances of winning regardless of your contribution, then rank is much more a measurement of picking the winning team than it is a measurement of skill resulting in an ELO that is also in error.

Post by **Pook** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:48 am

Wasp wrote:QUOTE (Wasp @ Nov 22 2006, 06:46 PM) If stacking alone can influence rank by increasing your chances of winning regardless of your contribution, then rank is much more a measurement of picking the winning team than it is a measurement of skill resulting in an ELO that is also in error.

Which is exactly why we've said that ELO needs the autobalancing system before it can be properly evaluated.

Thank you, Thank you, I'll be here until Tuesday.

Try the beef.

Good Night Cleveland!!

javaswiller · Post by **javaswiller** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:35 am

Wasp wrote:QUOTE (Wasp @ Nov 22 2006, 08:46 PM) If stacking alone can influence rank by increasing your chances of winning regardless of your contribution, then rank is much more a measurement of picking the winning team than it is a measurement of skill resulting in an ELO that is also in error.

I am forever going to try to pick the losing team just so I can skew the system. Maybe, then we will be able to put this all behind us and just forevermore hide the number.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:08 am

Good idea, intentionally subvert the system. /glare.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":glare:" border="0" alt="glare.gif" />

Oh wait, that won't work, because as you become more of a loser your impact on the game elo and the impact elo has on you becomes less. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />