You'd be right about that scenario. But you can't guarentee that every game will have both sides having an average rank of exactly 1500.Grim_Reaper_4u wrote:QUOTE (Grim_Reaper_4u @ Oct 23 2006, 05:43 PM) Fixing ELO is much harder than fixing the stat system, esp. for the purposes we need it for. If we only play balanced games (50-50 give or take 5%)) then who needs ELO? You might as well only show win/loss stats for someone right? Start at 1500, Win 10 times 15 points (or whatever you get for winning a 50-50 game), lose 10 times 15 points and end up with the same ELO again or a win/loss of 1.
Now I'm a bit tired atm so I might not be thinking right but what's the difference between ELO and Win/Loss if only balanced games count. 0 right?
ELo=(Win-Loss)*15+1500
So in short :
a) games only count with auto balance on, right?
games will then virtually always be balanced within the range where both teams win/lose the same ELO, right?
c) you can throw out ELO because in this case a persons ELO=(Win-Loss)*15+1500, right? There is no need for ELO in a game where both sides are considered equal
Why use a complicated system when all you need to calculate rank is a persons win/loss statistic?
Since I've just had a 22 hour day my logic may be at fault so feel free to shoot holes in it /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />
Beta testing and balance
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."