Free Allegiance Forums

Somehow Opera $#@!s up the rank column, if you sort it...

sgt_baker wrote:QUOTE (sgt_baker @ Jan 19 2009, 06:35 PM) There is also a minor flaw in your logic. If sigma were to slowly increase, shouldn't mu slowly tend toward 25 during periods of inactivity? This is not to suggest that I support the idea for a moment, by the way. More of an indication that there are deeper problems to address when artificially manipulating skill ratings.

Note that I didn't suggest anything at all. I was just trying to come to terms with current system. I appreciate your work very much and I take for granted that you've spent more time researching the topic than me.

sgt_baker wrote:QUOTE (sgt_baker @ Jan 19 2009, 06:35 PM) Edit: Please READ the wiki next time.

The words
QUOTE \gamma is the dynamics variable, which prevents sigma from ever reaching zero[/quote]
do not exactly mean that
QUOTE In the case of trueskill, a player's sigma is increased by a small constant value (25/300) every game[/quote]
But yes, all this conversation couldn't happen if I read the WHOLE wiki, especially the Player's Rating article with all the formulae.

this sucks... i was just reaching vet rank, and now IM A 8!!!
>.>

and my kills per hour is way tooo low...
its been 14.75 for the past like month!
on average i get atleast 20 per hour.

And for all the months before that?

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 19 2009, 10:44 AM) And for all the months before that?

well just before 14.75 it was like 15...

and well... theres a couple of inactive years... donno wat that would of done...
n... even when i was noob i got relatively high kills...

maybe not while i was commanding main... as a 4

20 kph is about the top 10 whores in the game. you sure you got the numbers right?

Zruty wrote:QUOTE (Zruty @ Jan 19 2009, 05:34 PM) Note that I didn't suggest anything at all. I was just trying to come to terms with current system. I appreciate your work very much and I take for granted that you've spent more time researching the topic than me.

Thanks.

QUOTE But yes, all this conversation couldn't happen if I read the WHOLE wiki, especially the Player's Rating article with all the formulae.[/quote]

Apologies if I seem abrupt. I've spent two years hearing people's arguments for why, and I quote, 'RANKING BLAAGH WILL NEVER WORK WAAAAH'. Of course I reserve the right of poetic license here, but you get the picture. (Lots of people have been all for True/AllegSkill, and I'm not forgetting all the encouragement you've all provided)

The bottom line is this: If something does transpire to be out of whack, I will do everything within my power to sort it out. This, after all, has been a project of learning, observation, experimentation, politics and the unexpected. Only a fool would assume everything to be well on the day a system such as this went live. (/me crosses fingers) I've already made it clear that AllegSkill may diverge significantly from the vanilla MS implementation as or when the need arises. That's what this is all about: Serving this community's needs. We have unusual gameplay and unusual people, along with everthing that that entails....

Bloody nightmare you lot and your complicated game ;P

B

The question APPEARED, at least to me, to be one in seemed to indicate that you hadn't read the Wiki. An FYI Zruty, if your a relative newcomer, is ranking systems are a bit of a sore spot around these parts. People got pretty heated up in the past and this system is an order of magnitude more complex so reading the background is part and parcel of getting a direct answer i.e. don't take it personal, Baker is actually a fine fellow indeed

my two cents:
By allowing sigma to be higher through the use of the terms you refer to, the player who one day is struck by a bolt of lightning and then vastly improves will be recognized by the system quicker... Someone mentioned something along the lines of, "I sucked when I started and now I'm grand. So isn't the ranking system unfair to me?" If a person is bad for a long time ( think a at least six months of daily play let's say) without any noticeable improvement and THEN gets better in a week or two ( I'm not belittling the idea since I stopped using a touchpad and used a mouse. The results were immediate and profound ,so it is possible ) and then the two terms help the system be more nimble in picking up those changes. However most of us went through I suck and now I don't suck phase, skill general increase in some kind of linear rather then a quantum fashion , and the fact that only I am dumb/stubborn enough to use a touchpad for that long means we are all on pretty equal footing to the above semi-quote.


A question of my own

Baker

Are you displaying the ranks of the abysmal with a rank of 6.25 ( for those such as myself ) but computing them to their true ranks? Have you been able to determine how artifically pegging skills to a value that is higher then their true skill in computations effect the underlying population distribution? Buckets and leaky holes analogy if you follow my thinking... or maybe in this case one on a hillside with the water sloshing out. You can PM me the reply if you wish as the esoteric nature of the discussion is sure to bore 99.9987% of the community to tears

Thanks
MrChaos

edit: see told you Baker was an ok guy

hotnoob wrote:QUOTE (hotnoob @ Jan 19 2009, 05:41 PM) this sucks... i was just reaching vet rank, and now IM A 8!!!
>.>

and my kills per hour is way tooo low...
its been 14.75 for the past like month!
on average i get atleast 20 per hour.

The maths behind kills/hour aren't really up for debate. Hint: It's kills/hours played!

I have planned to expand the non-Trueskill stats envisaging someting along the lines of kill-rating/bomber-rating etc etc. There are certain constraints preventing me from doing so at this time. Hopefully they will resolve in the near future.

I'm not done with this project. Today is Day 1.

Note: Day 0 started 2 years ago.

Baker has only slept once in that time.