Elo Formula

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:50 pm

Age in game isn't needed to indicate skill. It's an ego massage for OGs.

Statistical methods needed using a gaussian distribution works sweet

Baxter want to share your work too?

Tiger thanks for your hard work and are we looking to modify things before next update?

MrChaos

Cunnuk · Post by **Cunnuk** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:23 pm

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Sep 1 2006, 02:25 PM) Err, yes, they are. Do some research on "Zone Promotions" in almost any western military.

And that was a problem in the past, with most organizations and some countries militaries, when faced with a problem; they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Lock at the fortune 500 list form the most productive businesses.
Most have placed their brightest and most aggressive personnel in key rolls.

And as for most modern militaries, the US, Britain, and Germany just name a few, have been rewarding the people that are motivated and get results.

So I would say it's time you checked your facts, and stop quoting out dated data.

Post by **Tigereye** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:59 pm

Yeah - lets try to cut through the personal attacks and stick with debating the issues at hand.

Ad hominem never helps.

And MrChaos, I did not do the work. I'm just the fall-guy for everyone to yell at if things don't work as planned /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

--TE

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:30 pm

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Sep 1 2006, 04:42 PM) Why the personal attack?

Why is SysX members becoming more aggressive and rude of late?

My comments stand, and Tiger pointed out again why they're pertinent in case you don't take my comments as constructive attempt at swaying you.

EDIT TO ADD: The purpose is to exactly penalize a player who is playing a team game.

1) The attack was because you were acting stupid. You did not read my quote before commenting on it.
(also the sysx members are not more aggressive, I just play more often and am myself rude and aggressive)

2) The purpose of ELO should not be to penalize anyone for any reason. It is to accurately tell what someone's skill is. There should be NO penalties of ANY kind. Period. Otherwise, it is completely IMPOSSIBLE for this thing to converge.

Furthermore, both the total ELO, and the ELO/(number of players) are constantly dropping. This prevents convergence. There is mathematically no possible way whatsoever for this system to converge, period. I hope this is clear enough. It CANNOT converge.

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:36 pm

Ideally, for ELO to converge:

-There is no penalty for leaving a game early. The total amount of ELO lost from the losing sides must be equal to that gained by the winning sides (after enough games). This is currently not the case, because the system tries to penalize players instead of trying to create a correct ranking. If the goal of ELO was to make a leaderboard, then fine, penalize away (players who bail would end up helping their team less). But here, the fact that bailers dont help their team as much as people who stay there the whole game is ALREADY taken care of (the team's total ELO takes it into consideration, and thus makes the vet who played have the game less useful than the voob who played the whole game). The penalty simply makes the system converge, and that's a mistake.

-New players must start somewhere between 0 and 1500, depending on the newbie retention rate. The idea here is that the amount (totalELO / numberOfPlayers) must be constant. If one were to assume that new players stay forever, then they would start at 1500; similarly, if no newbie ever stayed, then they should start at 0. We need to find which point in-between is correct.

Now, those will only work if ELO itself works at giving/removing points according to the stack. However, it would be an improvement over what we currently use.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:14 am

Cunnuk wrote:QUOTE (Cunnuk @ Sep 2 2006, 08:23 AM) And that was a problem in the past, with most organizations and some countries militaries, when faced with a problem; they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Lock at the fortune 500 list form the most productive businesses.
Most have placed their brightest and most aggressive personnel in key rolls.

And as for most modern militaries, the US, Britain, and Germany just name a few, have been rewarding the people that are motivated and get results.

So I would say it's time you checked your facts, and stop quoting out dated data.

The modern militaries you reference all still use zone promotions.

Post by **TheBored** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:04 am

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Sep 1 2006, 04:35 PM) Tiger, please add "age" to KB. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Is your post correct? If you are sure or Tiger confirms it, I will add it to the KB.

TB

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:41 am

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 1 2006, 06:30 PM) (also the sysx members are not more aggressive, I just play more often and am myself rude and aggressive)

Should we ship you off to XT then? /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:46 am

I'm too good for XT

Post by **BlackViper** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:29 am

TMC, I understand your side of the issue completely. I just wonder what you would propose to head off the abuse's we saw in the past? You know it will be abused, it has happened before and will again.

And that is an honest question, not a smart ass question. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />