Spidey's Command List

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:52 pm

I'm sorry, did you get all dicktatorial on this? Surely you're not saying what the majority of the community wants it doesn't get?

I'm not sure what you're saying there, fortunately or unfortunately.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:54 pm

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 10 2007, 05:52 PM) I'm sorry, did you get all dicktatorial on this?

/laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Thought it was a misspelling at first /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:11 am

Sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Here's your original post, cropped to the relevant portions, with only the cogent statements bolded.

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 7 2007, 09:19 AM) And I still think we need at the least to have helo+AllegAge averaged to give anywhere near an accurate ranking system. Last time i polled that we had majority interest in the idea of using AllegAge as a governor (helo can't exceed AllegAge), I'm sure if we did a poll on asgs about averaging it (less controversial) something to the effect of;

"Do you support averaging AllegAge (experience) and Helo (success) to determine a players rank?" Yes/No[/b]
It would pass by 2/3 - 3/4 support.

n.b. I did not equate Helo with skill, just success, as that's what it measures. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

An accurate abstract ranking system depends almost solely on the statistical validity of the input data, the mathematical validity of the underlying system, and the rigour with which those algorithms are applied. HELO is statistically invalid. Adding a rather irrational and silly modifier to an already invalid system (and fiddling with which games are acceptable input) is not going to magically fix it; at best it will be the same as it is now (almost entirely inaccurate) and at worst it will be significantly worse. The fact that you think the majority of people would agree to this stupid modifier in no way changes any of the above-stated facts. If the community as a whole, or at least a plurality of the community, wants an accurate ranking system (which I don't actually believe, given the actions the 'majority of the community' has taken in the past), and then proceeds to vote for your proposed modification, it does not mean that your modification will actually lead to an accurate ranking system, it simply provides yet another example of a population with a significant number of people who make decisions squarely against their own interests.

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 11 2007, 08:52 AM) I'm sorry, did you get all dicktatorial on this? Surely you're not saying what the majority of the community wants it doesn't get?

I'm not sure what you're saying there, fortunately or unfortunately.

As stated previously, if the majority of the community wants an accurate ranking system, they can certainly have it. They don't seem to actually want one, yours isn't one, and the majority of the community supporting your proposal doesn't mean it's accurate. It's not. That is what I meant when I said that mathematics and statistical rigour is not up for democratic fiat.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:51 am

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Dec 10 2007, 07:11 PM) As stated previously, if the majority of the community wants an accurate ranking system, they can certainly have it.

Sweet! You've figured out the problem? What's your solution?

P.S. I agree with your conclusions regarding HELO and JG's suggestion.

quackdamnyou · Post by **quackdamnyou** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:02 am

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Dec 10 2007, 04:11 PM) it simply provides yet another example of a population with a significant number of people who make decisions squarely against their own interests.

Because of course you are in a better position to dictate what is in the interests of those people? This is the kind of rationalization that people make when they are on the losing side of a democracy. You imply that the majority is stupid. The answers to such things are never absolute, and I'd rather trust the will of the majority to leave such decisions to someone so presumptuous as to know better than everyone.

Specifically speaking, I think AllegAge would be a step in the right direction. Right now helo only does one thing well: it shows you which players have only been playing for a very short period of time. It's in the middle where you lose definition, and AllegAge would make it easier to identify and accommodate players with only a short time in the game.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:13 am

quackdamnyou wrote:QUOTE (quackdamnyou @ Dec 11 2007, 12:02 PM) Because of course you are in a better position to dictate what is in the interests of those people? This is the kind of rationalization that people make when they are on the losing side of a democracy. You imply that the majority is stupid. The answers to such things are never absolute, and I'd rather trust the will of the majority to leave such decisions to someone so presumptuous as to know better than everyone.

Specifically speaking, I think AllegAge would be a step in the right direction. Right now helo only does one thing well: it shows you which players have only been playing for a very short period of time. It's in the middle where you lose definition, and AllegAge would make it easier to identify and accommodate players with only a short time in the game.

If enough people vote that 1+1 = 3, does that become true? This is not a matter of me knowing better than them, this is the math being self-evident. HELO is not a zero-sum system, a reversible system, a net-correcting system, or a Bayesian-compliant system. It is completely inaccurate. Mucking about with arbitrary constraints (Aarm gets a new account, plays for 1 week, wins 50+ games in a row, loses none, but he's a (1), that's accuracy!) is not going to fix the problems. You seem to be casting this as a democratic issue, when it is not.

Mathametical rigour is not something to which democracy applies. You say "the answers to such things are never absolute," but in math, the answer to "is this system accurate?" can be absolute. Math contains absolute answers to problems, in the vast majority of cases. A system which is inaccurate does not become accurate by popular consent. That's not a "rhetorical trick of someone losing a vote," there is no vote. The population of Allegiance can most certainly decide to use a system, and that's perfectly within their rights, but that doesn't make it an accurate system.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:26 am

takingarms1 wrote:QUOTE (takingarms1 @ Dec 10 2007, 03:54 PM) /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Thought it was a misspelling at first /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

It was a misspelling, apt perhaps, perhaps not. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

=-=

@Terra

There will never be an accurate system, too many variables, I'd think you can agree on that.

The idea I mentioned is definately more accurate, therefore it would be an improvement. For that reason it's worth looking at.

Absolutely nothing will ever create an accurate ranking system, at least without a team of Nasa scientists, 25 metric tonnes of twinkies, and a jar of magic powder.

=-=

@Quack

Terra knows all, leave him be. There's also the tendency to start talking about wookies and ewoks in order to confuse the issue.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:33 am

How do you define a mathematical system to describe someone's skill at allegiance? The measure of the system's accuracy is ultimately going to be a subjective judgment, since there is very little in the way of objective criterion to evaluate what HELO is supposed to evaluate.

You have a very nice, well-reasoned critique of HELO which isn't terribly useful since it fails to provide a better alternative or even a way to improve the current system.

Personally, I think hours played is just about as accurate as HELO in assigning rankings that can help create more balanced games. Which is to say, neither one is very accurate but either one is probably better than nothing.

If we want a real, practical system for creating more balanced games, how about this simple idea: code the game so that newbs can only join the side with fewer newbs on it, thus resulting in even newb distribution before and after launch. I guarantee that would do more than HELO or some balance button to aid in bringing about more balanced games.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:36 am

takingarms1 wrote:QUOTE (takingarms1 @ Dec 10 2007, 08:33 PM) Personally, I think hours played is just about as accurate as HELO in assigning rankings that can help create more balanced games. Which is to say, neither one is very accurate but either one is probably better than nothing.

While I give more weight in both Helo and AllegAge then you do (especially the latter), that is the point exactly.

If Helo is acceptable until something better comes along, and you feel comfortable with AllegAge until something better comes along...

Why not average them, surely together they are better than apart...

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:49 am

HI

I MrChaos knows:

1) Terra is correct in the fact voting doesn't change math, statistical models etc
2) More about the ranking systems then he EVER wanted to know and spent countless hours working on one
3) What he is talking about since his degree, pay check, papers and boss tell him so
4) he is not willing to get into this stupid $#@!ing debate again and WHY, NO @#(!, you guys don't have a ranking system that works through math, statistics, and probability

To some of those disagreeing, and with all do honest proper respect, it's this kind of foam at the mouth response which has kept a extended effort with a ridiculous number of man hours from every seeing the light of day. The team leader ( I am but an egg to another who ironicly enough has none of my above qualifications ) just isn't interested in the @#(! STORM. So keep arguing without any bases in education or experience and see when it actually sees the light of day.

How good was it? MSResearch asked HIM his thoughts and wanted him to publish his work ( no Terra isnt the team leader )

Hugs and Kisses
MrChaos