Free Allegiance Forums

I played my 1st pu game in several months and got a +7 rank increase. I guess I'm better when I don't play


I'm just wondering about the stackrating:
I thnik that using the total imbalance can be misleading when you compare players who don't play with similar game sizes.

My point is that an imbalance of 20 when teams got over 300 total skill isn't what I'd call a stacked game. However, in a smaller game with total skill around 80, an imbalance of 20 usually means a big stack.

I think the information provided by the stack rating would mean more if it averaged each team's rank and used the difference to calculate the stack rating instead of the total number.


But as for the ranks themselves, I'd like to say not only good work, but thanks for keeping it up. I remember a time when everyone seemed to be against a new Helo, but you guys still kept on working on it and now, it's the official ranking system. I'm not a statistic expert(I only took basic stats courses in college/university), but this systems makes much more sense to me than the old one.

I love to see stat tracking

Ranks based on stats for balance, not so much

hotnoob wrote:QUOTE (hotnoob @ Jan 20 2009, 09:56 PM) point 2.
and y are the ranks simply based off of win/lose ratios? thats just gay. and i doubt it is, cause wouldn't that make a noob like a 20 after 1 game?

Dear Wasp,

Please come back. Can you see the level that the anti win/loss people have decended to? At least with you there was room for proper discussion even if we vehemently disagreed. This goes for you too Bacon.

Ta muchly!

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Jan 21 2009, 06:19 AM) Ranks in generally look a bit more accurate, stats are nice too.

I agree... Duck got what he worked so hard to get.
Im proud. Go duck....

Tigereye wrote:QUOTE (Tigereye @ Jan 21 2009, 07:03 AM) So... AllegSkill?

As the joke says, in one word: good ! In two words: not good ...

Seriously, though it's hard to tell whether the new ranks are more accurate, the math behind it is definitely a huge improvement.

Still lots of problems to solve, but now we got a system which can actually be tweaked. This will take take time, but the old system was just rusted shut.

In short: AllegSkill, Change We Can Believe In !

Dogbones wrote:QUOTE (Dogbones @ Jan 20 2009, 08:25 PM) Oooh, oooh, I like these sorts of comments. My IQ is in the 172 to 176 range and I have an MD/PhD. I also have a very large shoe size...

In Germany the middle intelligence is at 100, but I heard that the US uses a different system, where the scores are usually a bit higher, but I could not find anything about it on wikipedia.
If you use the same system, what kind of test measures in this kind of region? Most of the tests are more or less accurate in the range of about 70-130 (iirc).

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Jan 21 2009, 10:22 AM) In Germany the middle intelligence is at 100, but I heard that the US uses a different system, where the scores are usually a bit higher, but I could not find anything about it on wikipedia.
If you use the same system, what kind of test measures in this kind of region? Most of the tests are more or less accurate in the range of about 70-130 (iirc).

Now that grimm got us back on track... i don't believe its intelligent to talk about the mind as a number.. so lets just say that those that do need to set a number on the mind are either immature, have a low self esteem or the shoes don't fit the feet... or was it the other way around... ohh well, depends on whos shoes your wearing..

Duck still got what he worked so hard to get..
Z

the numbers don't mean too much, different places use different systems, they get scaled with age.
the number is jsut used to put you in a percentile, I'm in the top 1% for UK (or atleast i was when i had my test)

Regarding intelligence, I can easily break "smart" people down into two groups: those who demonstrate their intelligence by their accomplishments, and those who tell me they have a high IQ.

Regarding Allegskill, I think quite a few people took a disproportionately large rank hit due to the calculation of conservative rank. That's the only problem I see right now.

The certainty difference between 3sigma and 2sigma isn't all that much (2%), so it may be worthwhile to adjust your conservative rankings a bit. Even 2.5 would work. Of course, you would have to retool the "beginning" mu and sigma.

IQ is more flawed than Allegskill!
Good job for getting this online, my rank dropped but that's due to my high sigma, since I haven't been here that long. Many players' ranks (especially squadded players) have dropped quite a bit. Is this because they are more likely to anti-stack, or to probe and nan rather than dogfighting? Please comment.