Free Allegiance Forums

All I got out of this is Shizy > ELO.

all I got out of this was winning 2 games means I go from rank 29 to rank 15. Awesome.

Showed you skill!

Alright, things have changed once more.

Before, an age modifier was added or subtracted to your Elo to produce your rank. If you were new, a negative modifier was added to drop you down. If you were old, a positive modifier was added to bring you up.

As of now, the positive modifier is no longer applied. That means that until you reach 15 weeks old you will be modded down in your Elo. After that, your rank will be purely based on your Elo.

--TE

Derailing a bit, Cunnuck you are pretty much wrong as Terraltrha said. You actually get medals not promotions for your performance on battlefield. However, you are not totally wrong, as at later stages those medals do help you somewhat to get a promotion easier.
You are also wrong about the other stuff you said, because it has been shown that promoting people just for their merrits can have extremely bad consequences. If you have people which are very good with small group tactics and quickly promote them to say general, they will mostly perform badly at their position due to many factors like inexperience in strategic thinking or just lack of appropriate education.
Also, comparing it to businesses in such simplified manner, although intriguing, is simply silly. Enron? Dot Com bubble companies?

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Sep 2 2006, 12:29 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.

-Remove any and all penalties which unbalance the mathematics behind the calculations.

-Hide ranks and stats. No leaderboard, no post-game ELO things, no nothing. Absolutely everything is hidden (except from pook and other devs, who can see them in order to make sure it actually works). If we want ranks, seperate them from ELO altogether. Base them on age and ingame points or something, but not on ELO.

-Lower the stack% for a game to not count. Bring it from 85% to 75% or something.

-Stop counting multi-teamers until the system works.

-Increase the width of the ELO distribution. Right now, a fairly small difference in ELO points brings a huge difference in expected results. I dont think 1 player affects the game that much.

-Newbies are treated completely differently. Newbies start with an ELO of (0), which increases linearly (read: depends only on # of games played, regardless on who wins or what the stack is). After a certain time (something like 2-3 months), his ELO is reset to 1500, and he is now treated as a regular player.

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Sep 1 2006, 09:50 PM) Baxter want to share your work too?

What work do you refer, the simple math about age ranks? /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 1 2006, 11:30 PM) 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)

I was not acting stupid, that's your opinion, and one which I deny. I did read your quote, and my comments were a direct result of reading your words, however, our opinions don't match.

Don't attack people because you think they are stupid (heck, think of the post counts you'd encourage for replies to yourself or others- haha, not meant as attack, seriously trying to be funny). /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

As for sysX in general possibly seeming to be more rude/aggressive than normal recently, perhaps it is just that you play more, I suppose everything can change. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />





QUOTE 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.[/quote]

You're perfectly right, +30 elo ranks for cheaters, for the figured out how to abuse the system... seriously, that's your opinion and your entitled to it, no matter how wrong you may (or may not) be. Mind you, I do take your point.

jg..

1. You were stupid for the following reason: I posted a quote from the code about how if someone bails from the losing team, he loses the number of points as if he had stayed for the whole game. To this, you commented about the 5-min period where one can leave, which seemed, to say the least, quite off-topic.

2. Again, the point is NOT to penalize cheaters. The ranks would ideally be hidden, so giving them some stupid penalty only harms the system and prevents convergence. This of this as a math problem, not as personal stats. That being said, of course we should not encourage the switching of teams. If someone switches teams, then he should be awarded no points. Making him lose might be a bit harsh (unless he played most of the game on the team that eventually lost before switching teams, in which case it would be appropriate). I'd say simply to not count his game if he switched teams. That being said, practically noone ever switches teams, so this is a moot point which does not affect the system as a whole.

I'd like to add: theres no such thing as abusing the system if there is nothing to gain from it. If ranks are hidden, there is no more abuse, and any error found with ELO (such as people's ranks going up indefinitely) is to be treated as a problem in our model, and not with the actual players.

QUOTE You were stupid for the following reason: I posted a quote from the code about how if someone bails from the losing team, he loses the number of points as if he had stayed for the whole game. To this, you commented about the 5-min period where one can leave, which seemed, to say the least, quite off-topic.[/quote]

Again, another personal insult. STOP IT.

To your point... You don't want someone to lose full points if they leave, I want someone to lose full points if they leave past the 5 minute grace period... do you understand?

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Sep 2 2006, 04:07 AM) Again, another personal insult. STOP IT.

To your point... You don't want someone to lose full points if they leave, I want someone to lose full points if they leave past the 5 minute grace period... do you understand?

But why? Mathematically, this makes absolutely no sense. This simply makes the total number of ELO points go down, continuously. The player's ELO cannot mathematically converge (and I assure you, this is a mathematical certainty) unless the average player's ELO stays constant (and in this case, 1500). If the ELO always drop, the ranks cannot and will not plateau.

Tigereye wrote:QUOTE (Tigereye @ Sep 2 2006, 01:24 AM) Alright, things have changed once more.

Before, an age modifier was added or subtracted to your Elo to produce your rank. If you were new, a negative modifier was added to drop you down. If you were old, a positive modifier was added to bring you up.

As of now, the positive modifier is no longer applied. That means that until you reach 15 weeks old you will be modded down in your Elo. After that, your rank will be purely based on your Elo.

--TE

Sounds better /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

As MadAccountant said:

Cap the age impact and let ELO ride. With balancing, ELO should make some sort of sense. It wasn't too far off imo before. Isolated instances were bad of course but overall it seemed to be reflective....other than the kills bonus (augz was 30 before as well due to his endless playing time).

Having 25%-50% of the community at rank 30 is just ludicrous. I appreciate your efforts guys and wish you luck with it.