frag is right.
before elo I didnt care much about winning / loosing, the game experience was more important.
but with elo I suddenly saw I was not in the top 100. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" /> so I changed that. by joining the winning team. which is pretty easy to determine if you know the community.
Even if auto match was enabled and thus teams were equal elo wise, what about commanders?
even teams and uneven commanders ==> guess who is winning. so we need equal comms as well. we need a command rating. which needs to be displayed in game.
Elo Formula
-
Spunkmeyer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 4 2006, 08:53 AM) no, they can always join the same team. Unless youre talking about after an autobalance button gets implemented.
Is anyone claiming ELO does anything useful as it is right now? I don't think so. It's all about the autobalance button.
MoGas: re: the commander - yes, I'm sure something like that will eventually be done. In fact, if a working patch is submitted I'm sure the dev team will check it out.
Last edited by Spunkmeyer on Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want bigger games? Log on to play at the official game time: 9pmET/8pmCT/7pmMT/6pmPT every day of the week. Also Saturdays 8pm UTC.
-
RenegadePeon
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:00 am
I agree with Spunk that the elo system works. I agree with tmc that the current elo system does not work.
tmc is right about how the current system is artifically skewed to give lower elo ratings because of the fact that when you win, you only gain as much elo as amount of time played, but when you lose, you lose all elo. I think this should be changed. Either your lost elo equals the time you were in the game, or when you win, you gain 100% elo just like when you lose. This makes both sides of the equation equal, and will result in a working elo system.
The goal is to make elo work the exact same way for both wins and losses.
tmc is right about how the current system is artifically skewed to give lower elo ratings because of the fact that when you win, you only gain as much elo as amount of time played, but when you lose, you lose all elo. I think this should be changed. Either your lost elo equals the time you were in the game, or when you win, you gain 100% elo just like when you lose. This makes both sides of the equation equal, and will result in a working elo system.
The goal is to make elo work the exact same way for both wins and losses.
Last edited by RenegadePeon on Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-ßÇ-
Hmm, I didn't realize this topic existed until just now.
Just curious, but why is it that a team that ELO predicts has a .8 probability of winning in theory, while in reality if ELO says a team has a .8 probability of winning they win more like 90% or 95% of the time?
Why is ELO not tied to reality in the way it awards points? To prevent having to repeat myself let me refer to this topic....
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...amp;#entry23615
On page two of that topic I posted a logic that would be more reasonable... but perhaps not, since I don't know ELO inside and out.
But the real point to my thread is that ELO cannot work under any circumstance unless you stop counting games where ELO predicts the probability of a team winning is .80. Frag is right, he can all but guarantee his ELO rank goes up. Strip the temptation and don't count games unless they are more closely balanced... like .7 or .65.
Just curious, but why is it that a team that ELO predicts has a .8 probability of winning in theory, while in reality if ELO says a team has a .8 probability of winning they win more like 90% or 95% of the time?
Why is ELO not tied to reality in the way it awards points? To prevent having to repeat myself let me refer to this topic....
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...amp;#entry23615
On page two of that topic I posted a logic that would be more reasonable... but perhaps not, since I don't know ELO inside and out.
But the real point to my thread is that ELO cannot work under any circumstance unless you stop counting games where ELO predicts the probability of a team winning is .80. Frag is right, he can all but guarantee his ELO rank goes up. Strip the temptation and don't count games unless they are more closely balanced... like .7 or .65.
What Allegiance needs is a little more cowbell. 
Is there anything wrong with implementing the old lovely AZ leaderboard? When FAZ came online, I actually expected this to be a matter of course (sorry, devs, for my unreasonable expectations). If you feel like tweaking it, add points for hull repaired, with a modifier low enough to make exploiting this stat as difficult (or easy) as exploiting any other.
Then hide elo, as tmc said (*gasp*). The only thing about ELO that should ever be seen is the following message:
"You could not join this team, because it would unbalance the teams."
There. You have a system to balance things. You also have a system to measure wangs.
Then hide elo, as tmc said (*gasp*). The only thing about ELO that should ever be seen is the following message:
"You could not join this team, because it would unbalance the teams."
There. You have a system to balance things. You also have a system to measure wangs.
Until game balancing is up and running it would be suicide to start anything like the AZ leaderboard. The only incentive with a leaderboard like that is to have the most kills, base captures, and have the most base kills (if you remember, the AZ leaderboard didn't track wins and losses, only command wins). The best way to climb a leaderboard like that is to always be on the strongest team. There is no incentive to even games out under that type of system.
What Allegiance needs is a little more cowbell. The old AZ leaderboard and other nicities were part of the MS Zone, which we don't have code for.
We have some code that interfaces with a "Club" project that controlled all of that, but it's really old/buggy/incompatible with anything we have now.
--TE
We have some code that interfaces with a "Club" project that controlled all of that, but it's really old/buggy/incompatible with anything we have now.
--TE
The Allegiance community currently hates their sysadmin because he is doing: [Too Much] [____________|] [Too Little]
Current reason: Removing the PayPal contribute page. Send Bitcoin instead: 1EccFi98tR5S9BYLuB61sFfxKqqgSKK8Yz. This scale updates regularly.