Hey, I was thinking about the league system and I was asking myself why you lose points as a penalty when you already lost time (time=potential points by winning) and thus have to re-earn them which costs even more time. I also believe that when you penalize people for losing with points loss that it encourages avoiding better players; better players sitting on a big lead so they don't risk losing them and general inactivity. It also makes you feel less "discouraged" if you don't lose your hard earned points. What are your thoughts? There are many examples from other leagues back in W:A as well as completely different video games as well as real life sports where losing doesn't penalize the looser with the loss of points.
Wtf loose/loosing fail. xD fixed.
Cause all that would matter is how active a person is. People like me, who have nothing to do all day, would easily pwn the guys with a real life. That's pretty wrong :-[
As far as I can see the more active league players are already mostly near the top in the current system. It's by no means a handicap.
You can try suggesting an alternative, not just the 'idea' of an alternative that you claim exists in other games, and be detailed. Then we may better understand what you'd rather prefer in a league system so we can react to it, not just saying that you dislike losing points.
You can find previous discussions on this in Announcements forum threads
https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/write-leagues-system-from-scratch-6453/
https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/new-plan-for-leagues-started-7003/
And I'm sure there were more threads, in other subforums around that time, but you can start another here if you really want to get detailed about a new idea to spark a new conversation.
If you couldn't lose points then what HHC just said, imagine someone with 60-70% winning ratio and plays 100's of games a season lol.
Compared to someone who plays 50 a season with win ratio of 80-90%
Woah, slow there franz don't jump on conclusion so quickly! I was not saying I dislike the current system, I was just asking the reasoning behind the current one and arguing with the benefit of having no loss of points when losing. I would expect that encouraging people to play vs. each other is a driving source of motivation and thus I believe that taking away points from people that lost when already losing ground to the persons that are winning and the time investment you lose is enough and that it "can" cause avoiding better players as well as players with huge points pool to stop playing once they reach a certain threshold where noone can kick them out of the top position (PO spot for example).
I am just throwing in some food for thought about the current system and what in my opinion would be beneficial to activity.
If anything, the system in place can give more incentive to beat better players because it's usually at low risk/high reward due to the Season Rating/Overall Rating relationship.
Quote from: Komito on March 20, 2013, 09:37 PM
If you couldn't lose points then what HHC just said, imagine someone with 60-70% winning ratio and plays 100's of games a season lol.
Compared to someone who plays 50 a season with win ratio of 80-90%
this reminds me on playing this weird pes online league where couldnt lose points, i owned muhahaha.
I personally think that failiure should be severly punished..But avoiding a battle due to fear of failiure should be punished even more..However this is hard to achieve in a leauge of this nature and in a leauge of this kind no system will be perfect...
Perhaps making players who have alot of points lose less points when losing to a lesser opponent while the lesser winner still earns the same ammount of points would work well as many people are cowards who do not want to risk losing points.
Fair enough, I just aimed to get an idea what people prefer and/or like about the current system, there was no hidden agenda that I strive to change anything. :)
Seems like many people favor the current system and I was just unaware of the fact that it has been discussed to it's full extent already. Well kind of forgot it, I do remember the threads you provided franz.
The points show how strong someone is that season(or overall).
The point is that if you reach the rating that accurately shows how strong you really are, then if you play 10000 games, you would keep the same rating; if you play only against Mablak, you'd lose 10 times 5 points for the losses but gain 50 points for the one win (just an example). If you were to play me, you'd win 100 times 1 point and when I get lucky 1 game, you lose 100 :)
If your rating is too high, then obviously, playing would ultimately cost you points. If it's too low, then playing would ultimately gain you points.
Yeah I can see that, makes sense D1. But wouldn't it be possible to keep the core system (balancing out your true rating that reflects your skill) without negative points? If you lose vs. someone that is obviously so much better than you that it will result simply in a loss so you are not worse standings wise, just that it is the expected result reflected from the rating and doesn't need adjustment. Something like the first half of the season determines your (balanced) rating (with + and -) and further games just use that static first half rating to determine if you gain points or not.
I think what you're describing Anubis is likened more to a simple Ladder system, which actually has been done before back in the day actually. Just google 'worms 2 ladder' and you'll find the old Case's Ladder: Worms 2: B&G standings and Worms 2: Roperz subdivision as well. In that system (taken from their Rules page):
-When you defeat a member that is ranked higher on the Ladder, you move up in rank half the distance between their rank and your own.
-Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you.
-When members ranked below you are victorious against members ranked above you, it's possible the member will jump over you in rank and you will move down one rung. This depends on the ranks involved.
It's not necessarily all that bad of a system, in lots of cases it can be great, but as you can see --> these were for specialized one scheme standings, so such a system would likely not be a great overall system for a collection of schemes like we do for Classic.
You may not understand how ratings work, but you're still a better league admin than Kiros in my book, Kainubis. :-*
TGL is always gonna be there, it's unhackable because google is the sponsor!
Quote from: DarkOne on March 20, 2013, 11:11 PM
The points show how strong someone is that season(or overall).
The point is that if you reach the rating that accurately shows how strong you really are, then if you play 10000 games, you would keep the same rating; if you play only against Mablak, you'd lose 10 times 5 points for the losses but gain 50 points for the one win (just an example). If you were to play me, you'd win 100 times 1 point and when I get lucky 1 game, you lose 100 :)
If your rating is too high, then obviously, playing would ultimately cost you points. If it's too low, then playing would ultimately gain you points.
+1 for u :)
Without loosing pts I will stop raging, so I'll.loose sense of playing instead of.points
Quote from: Impossible on March 21, 2013, 06:52 AM
Without loosing pts I will stop raging, so I'll.loose sense of playing instead of.points
it would greatly enhance activity if we remove the penalty! Think about it, friends will meet daily to lose 10 and win 10 against each other for win-win situations!
A system where players lose points doesn't motivate them to play more. There are also some drawbacks in overall ratings: top players are not interested in playing at all, so how to beat them and to "steal" their points? Maybe they should lose points with time (similar system existed in Warcraft III ladder, inactive players started to lose points after a week or two).
Also dt instantly lost first place in BnG after Barman quit. I know it makes sense, BUT we put so much effort into gaining those points, it shouldn't be possible to steal them in several days just because of 2-3 lost clanners to a new clan.
Also barman refused to play TUS TTRR with me just because he did care about his points too much. I can understand it. You play several month to get into top 5 and then some good player comes and steals all of your points in 30 mins. Not very fair, huh?
I agree with what you are saying Statik kinda, it's a bit complicated lol.
Like, 1 of the main reasons dt became strong in BnG was after Mablak shared the notching techniques, and barman the star BnG player picking BnG more than dt used to before this, I imagine you guys don't BnG as much as you used to, and although you have Mablak who is extremely good, but rarely plays, and also Statik/OrangE who are very very good also, but I never see them online together, in fact isn't OrangE in 69 now? I feel safe to say barman/myself are a stronger team.
I think it's completely fair you lose these points now, but the way that it happens isn't very fair, by this I mean, me and barman having 1000 rating winning a BnG for 60-70 points against dt as our 1st BnG game is very very unfair in my opinion, we are obviously better at BnG than our rating shows, but remember soon our points will cap out and we won't win much points, and you guys are all good enough to beat other clans to build points in this scheme, I feel you won so much points because at the time barman was addicted to BnG and it was through him you got so much points here, if you guys picked BnG as much as back then against all clans, I think you could reach #1 again.
The system shouldn't react THAT fast to players transfers. And you shouldn't be able to become TOP1 in 1 day (it is more than possible now). Yes, you are stronger in BnG, but our best strategy would be to avoid you until you get as high rating as ours. And it's not about avoiding, it's about logic. Reach an "appropriate" level first, then get a chance to fight the best (who spent much more time gaining all their points) :)
Now let's say I wanna get higher in Roper overall ratings. It doesn't seem to be possible if I won't play with Zippo/Dulek/Random00/Crash. I'm pretty sure I can beat all of them and become TOP1 in several days, but I don't even have a chance to do it because their summary activity is 2%. If I will play with Cheslea and he will win 1 game out of 20 (pretty possible with cr8 rape), then I will only lose points. What's the point to play TUS then? I'm fine with funners/clanners :)
Quote from: Statik on March 21, 2013, 01:51 PM
The system shouldn't react THAT fast to players transfers. And you shouldn't be able to become TOP1 in 1 day (it is more than possible now). Yes, you are stronger in BnG, but our best strategy would be to avoid you until you get as high rating as ours. And it's not about avoiding, it's about logic. Reach an "appropriate" level first, then get a chance to fight the best (who spent much more time gaining all their points) :)
Yeah I agree with that, and i'd be happy to do that, but it's hard enough to even find enough clanners these days, we like to play for 6-8 hours a day on our days off sometimes, and you really only get 2/3 clanners, should be able to get like 10+ in this time but there isn't enough people playing clanners :(
So our only choice is to pick either what we enjoy most or most points with what clans are available...
Quote from: Statik on March 21, 2013, 01:51 PMNow let's say I wanna get higher in Roper overall ratings. It doesn't seem to be possible if I won't play with Zippo/Dulek/Random00/Crash. I'm pretty sure I can beat all of them and become TOP1 in several days, but I don't even have a chance to do it because their summary activity is 2%. If I will play with Cheslea and he will win 1 game out of 20 (pretty possible with cr8 rape), then I will only lose points. What's the point to play TUS then? I'm fine with funners/clanners :)
Well yeah this is why I don't bother with TuS singles much, you can't play the top players enough games.
The way I read your story, Statik, does make it unfair - for barman. The way you make it sound, barman is the biggest reason dt got a big BnG rating, which means it was mostly him getting the big points.
It actually isn't fair that you still have a big BnG rating after barman left.
Statik, do you know that we have seasonal ratings now? Since a while, at least. Your overall rating stays, but your seasonal rating resets every season. The fact that your overall rating is very high has absolutely no effect on your seasonal rating. None. And you're going to lose overall rating anyway, even if you don't play Komo/barman, because your overall rating is too high.
Back with barman, you could win 40 games in a row (example), winning you an average of 2 points each, and then you lost one game that cost you 80 points.
With barman gone (assuming he was the best in your group), you'll win, let's say 15 games before you lose a game. So that's an overall loss of 50 points per 16 games. This trend will continue until you get to your actual strength: then you will win 15 games in a row, each giving you 4 points (cause you're lower ranked), and you'll lose one costing you 60 points (again, cause you're lower ranked).
Your reasoning is very limited, DarkOne (sorry for the ropa's mode lol). You are talking only about dt and barman's clan. It would be ideal if we could play any clan any time. Then we would choose stronger opponents and wait until new clans get to the our level. You say it's fair if we will lose all our points to Komo/Barman. Yes, compared to THEM. But not compared to other clans we can't even play (TaG, cFc, CF; we don't even have a chance to play with them cuz of timezones/activity).
Quote from: Statik on March 21, 2013, 02:16 PM
Then we would choose stronger opponents and wait until new clans get to the our level.
I just explained to you (with number examples) that you would also lose points against them. Not my fault you don't understand.
Statik, when we play rr/roper TUS fest? Weekend fits you anyhow?
@edit
Let's just move to PMs.
You don't even play singles/clanners, so all your examples are from vacuum with a spherical cow inside.
All your judgment implies that players/clans have a wide choice of opponents and play many games with each other. But the reality is different. Some clans and players don't even meet each other during a season. I don't remember if dt played vs BFW the previous season, so our first meet was in POs lol...
to be honest, rating change should be specific to the team playing...
example: you will earn more ttrr points by beating barman and statik, then you will barman and avirex... you will win .5 points for beating avirex, and nino.
also you will win more vs barman and mablak in bng, then you would win vs avirex and barman.
now, when barman leaves dt all the points he earned, are going to be locked in as points that really can not be earned back as easily, because now anyones option is only avirex and statik, or statik, and mablak... but no barman and mablak
and here is my reasoning behind this.... first of all, barman put in alot of work in dt, and he did it for a reason... because that was his clan and wanted to... his work and efforts should not be taken away so easily... and i have a feeling he wouldnt want them to.
now that he has changed does not mean we should get raped by everyone, and especially not by low seed clans with huge names such as barman2 and Komo... because take a look at what happens... barman2 and komo create a clan, and run through dt points...
now dt is like wtf?? where did all of our points go... ah f@#! it, we will go to sleep...
then we wake up to barman3, and komo2. (aef) now they get to steal points from us as a fresh bng team playing vs vets..... OH HOW FUN!!! (keep in mind, alot of dt points are locked into Q.... forever)
so i know i can be confusing at times, so let me say it as clear as possible...
why are barman and komo capable of keep creating fresh young virgin skill levels, when everyone on wnet knows their skill (we dont need komo to tell us each post) but dt is just a sitting targets waiting for darts to be thrown.
if rating change was pin pointed down depending on each set team, we would not have this problem...
Thx Dulek for posting, I think you will help me with an example...
Let's say we are pretty much equal in Roper, so he will lose points after our games even if he will win more games or it will be 50%. It's fair for a perfect world where only me & Dulek live, BUT it's absolutely unfair in a world of Zippo/Crash/Dulek. First two won't play with me, so they will get points for free (I mean "relative" points, relative to Dulek). So there should be a penalty for inactiveness at least.
Quote from: avirex on March 21, 2013, 02:42 PM
to be honest, rating change should be specific to the team playing...
I've been saying this for years...
Edit: I totally agree with everything avi just said, and trust me, I do feel awkward with the Q - AeF thing, I do hope you realise that if myself and barman could play 100 BnGs with low rated clans before playing the high ranked ones, we would...
That's why I really wish we could adjust points to fit the players playing...
Just last night me and bar took 111 points from TaG with a BnG/Hysteria, I am surprised they even agreed to play us because I wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
Quote from: Komito on March 21, 2013, 02:57 PM
Quote from: avirex on March 21, 2013, 02:42 PM
to be honest, rating change should be specific to the team playing...
I've been saying this for years...
It's not that simple. What is clan's TTRR rating? The rating of the 2-3 best teams? Or the overall roping skill of all clan members? I agree, winning tita+nino in RR shouldn't cost us 70 points like it was a win vs me & mablak, but it can be a problem to catch the best clan team to get good points...
P.S. When analyzing clanner points, there is a possibility to specify players, but I don't think it affects anything... Would be interesting if it could change :)
Well the way I figured it'd work would be each player has an individual rating for each scheme, when you pair someone with say 1000 and someone with 1200 together it's like 1100.
see statik, that bring up another point....
it brings up a problem to catch the best clan team, but then also an incentive.
as it is now, (im not saying all clans) most clans avoid the hell out of Mablak, if they see mab in AG... they dont wanna clanner dt... and i dont blame them... why the hell do they wanna ttrr clanner vs mab and statik, when they can just wait for mablak to leave and ttrr vs avirex and statik for the same amount of points??
and statik, your clans overall is whatever it adds up to....
what changes??? except that your going to earn less points with a win with mablak on your team, then you will with nino on your team....
and if it me and nino ttrr'ing then we are not going to lose all of yours and mablaks earned points... overall is not going to be affected
and how you want to do this? i mean how you want to catch the skill of an individual player? by the points he earned in current season? let me give you an funny example:
ttrr aef:
1st: kyho +148
2nd barman +47
3rd Peja +40
do you really think this is in any way a more accurate method? if you go for overall points in clanners it doesnt make it better. imagine i would go back to tdc when i became uber pro and still all my previous loses would affect overall points.sounds like a huge mess. another way would be using results from singles but that would be just stupid.
i guess you guys are trying to solve the problem from the wrong end. what about a system like beeing used in onl? if you lose a bng to barman there while he is low ranked your points will be adjusted during the season in relation to his performance in the league.
That isn't how it would work Peja.
It would recognise overall individual players games, not how many points they won for the clan during a season, if a player changes/swaps clans, they keep their rating.
Unrelated - Also remember kyho has been in AeF for longer than barman, in 1 month this would be different I assume.
Quote from: Statik on March 21, 2013, 02:37 PM
You don't even play singles/clanners
That has absolutely no bearing on understanding league ratings and all that. I also play chess, so that should make me an expert on rating systems if I follow your reasoning.
Quote from: Statik on March 21, 2013, 02:37 PM
All your judgment implies that players/clans have a wide choice of opponents and play many games with each other. But the reality is different. Some clans and players don't even meet each other during a season. I don't remember if dt played vs BFW the previous season, so our first meet was in POs lol...
The example I mentioned works if you have 500.000 possible opponents and if you have 2 possible opponents. They are statistics. Their accuracy improves the more games are played, regardless of whom you play against.
At any rate, for playoffs, qualification depends on your seasonal rating, not your overall rating. The only effect not having your top players in the clan is that your seasonal rating will reach its plateau sooner. The overall rating has only one purpose: to display your actual strength. The rest is just your pride, but league mechanics shouldn't care one bit about pride.
Quote from: Komito on March 21, 2013, 03:36 PM
That isn't how it would work Peja.
It would recognise overall individual players games, not how many points they won for the clan during a season, if a player changes/swaps clans, they keep their rating.
Unrelated - Also remember kyho has been in AeF for longer than barman, in 1 month this would be different I assume.
if its that way lets change it today, guess im the player with the most lost points in clanners in the history of tus. but i already see statik or avirex opening another cry topic if they lose a elite vs aef ;D
so once again how you want to do it?
Lol Peja, I didn't open this topic, I would never open it cuz I don't pay much attention to points. But since it's already open, I feel like adding 2 cents here... I use my own example and dt example simply because it's easier. It would be strange if I would talk about other clan. But I already made some examples about other players.
Yeah but you do make a good point statik, it's exactly how I felt when I was in cFc, moaning about the BnG points, we all know how that went down :D
Quote from: Peja on March 21, 2013, 03:43 PM
Quote from: Komito on March 21, 2013, 03:36 PM
That isn't how it would work Peja.
It would recognise overall individual players games, not how many points they won for the clan during a season, if a player changes/swaps clans, they keep their rating.
Unrelated - Also remember kyho has been in AeF for longer than barman, in 1 month this would be different I assume.
if its that way lets change it today, guess im the player with the most lost points in clanners in the history of tus. but i already see statik or avirex opening another cry topic if they lose a elite vs aef ;D
so once again how you want to do it?
are you an idiot peja???? wtf is your little example about showing kyho has more points then barman, who has been in the clan less then a week... pretty stupid..
and me and statik are not crying... we are just raising points that should be discussed (we are both talking about 2 different things fyi)
i guess statik felt the same way i did, and thought it would be best to use his personal traits, and clan as an example... it would be rude to say things like...
"peja sucks, and now barman and komo are in the clan playing great bng games... it would not be fair to sweep in and own the newb peja and earn the same amount of points as it would to beat komo and barman"
can you understand that statement better peja?
its a risk well taken by recruitment. im just trying to show that your idea basicly sounds nice but theres no way to transfer it working into reality. or did i miss any point concept you have already given which isnt flawed by the past of the players? besides the logical fact it would just make stats for a team complete absurd if you consider every single player different. maybe this is the main reason why it is common to do it that way.
the stats for the clan is going to be the same...
but each individual pair is going to be different.... komo said it best, if (i will use my clan as example, not to cry, but to be fair not to put other people skill level down) if my skill is say 1000, and mablaks is 2000, when we play as a team our skill will be 1500... it makes sense in every possible way.....
i dont see how u fail to see this...
yeah, your at risk for recruiting good players as the league stands... does that make sense???
let me give one more example of how this system is flawed... CF has very high overall ratings, im not taking any thing from anyone in the clan, they are all great.. but at their peak of clanner activity, random00 was the most active in the clan...by far... so, it was pretty easy for them to gain, and keep points...
dt is nowhere in the comparison for overall skill level because our best members are not as active... should we be punished?? if mablak comes online and wins 5 games for us, should we be punish all those points just in one loss as soon as he leaves?? i dont think so.... i guess you do?? wheres your logic my friend?
we talk about overall points right? so you suggest each player gets an overall rating based in on all games he has played so far on tus in clanners for each scheme? or how the f@#! do you come to your numbers lol.
yes, each player gets a rating based on his TUS clan league performers, that was a very good assumption peja... gj
kk get it. Clan Overall Rating should be based on individual player stats instead of stats of the clan.
Yeah Peja, the clans overall rating will be the average of the individual players ratings. Seems fair to me :)
I like the way this discussion is heading since that is what I was aiming for, realizing that especially for clans the current point system has it's flaw. Clans are handled as individuals while there are often 10 and more players involved. The Q and dt example is perfect for this (and now that bar and komo joined AeF it still shows a good point). When we first encountered dt I remember that statik was pretty unhappy with the fact that the points he and (insert good dt rrer here) where going to be choped off. It does feel unfair even for me as a Q member I thought that it makes little sense that the clan gets punished so hard. Btw, I would happily transfer the Q bng scheme standings to AeF since 2/3 of it's member are at AeF now. And for the most part bar and komo played the bngs.
Clans should be handled by pairs points. Each pair gets its own scheme ratings, the database just needs to be updated to that since the reporting already offers individual player choice. (Why is it even important to track who played if it doesn't even matter, artificial statistics ftw :P) I am sure MI could easily implement the feature and the only question that is important is:
Do clans count as one single unit (which is technically only possible with a 2man clan) or do we want fair individual pair ratings? I would love to have an individual rating with each player, it would allow better arrangements since no clan needs to worry about the fact that if you play with a weaker clan member you are going to lose the hard points you earned with a stronger mate. It encourages teamplay with weaker teammates. I would play with Peja TTRR/Roper nonetheless if we were in the same clan, but it would be awesome if TUS even supports this kind of supportive behavior! :)
Don't forget about 3vs3 clanners :P
in fact it would encourage scheme specialists over an good allround lineup. guess thats the last thing an overall rating should do. on the other hand overall rating is just a competition to see who has the biggest cock. i seriously cant believe people even care for overall points instead of season points when picking a scheme.
ok peja, at first i thought you were being a smartass... even though you understood, you were dismissing the idea completely, just to be a smartass... now despite you were still being a smartass, i can see that you dont understand completely... (and neither does komo)
the overall rating of the clan is going to be 1 number, no matter what, each clan is going to have an overall rating, but each clan member is going to have one as well to determine how many points you earn/lose to your overall rating...
im going to give some examples, all based by 10s,100s,1000s
dts overall ranking is 1000 in all schemes....
each player is giving a ranking 1-10 in ttrr, i would be a 5.. mablak, and statik both being 10s....
if i play with either of them our average is 7.5... now we if play a team that also has rates at a 7.5 average between the 2 players in a clan, points should be adjusted accordingly to the winner...
if me and nino were to play ttrr... nino would be maybe a 2 lol... im a 5... our average is 3.5... if we play a team ranked 7.5 or even higher such as mablak and statik, a perfect 10... and we win, we should get good points!!
the points are added or subtracted to the current overall clan rating of 1000, but the only difference is the amount that is added or subtracted... if mablak and statik win ttrrs together, of course they should not win many points... but if me and nino play and win, we should!!
players individual ratings travel with them to other clans, as it is now, when a clan gets a fresh player that has a very high end skill, its like he is able to start fresh. it really should not be that way...
think of komo's bng rating getting set to zero every tus single season, while everyone else's stays the same.... would be a rape fest.
Quote from: avirex on March 21, 2013, 07:14 PM
the points are added or subtracted to the current overall clan rating of 1000, but the only difference is the amount that is added or subtracted... if mablak and statik win ttrrs together, of course they should not win many points... but if me and nino play and win, we should!!
Exactly, remember when me and bar lost vs. you and Free in that TTRR where I messed up? We lost not even close to what that win should have represented.
exactly... thats a good example anub...
im a 5, i guess free is a 7... we are a 6 combined...
barman is a 10, anubis is a 9 or a 10, i dunno... so they are 9.5 at the least...
but yes, when we won.. me and free got maybe 10 points? i guess? lol and if we had lost, we were subject to lose 50+... think about it peja, tell me where the logic is in this.
the logic is right in front of your eyes but for emotional reasons u dont see it ;)
I prefer the way I said it.
your an idiot peja ;D :D ;D :D ;) :) ;D 8)
Guys, these aren't "points", they're rating interchanges. When a clan loses its two best BnG players, its BnG rating should start declining rapidly with every loss. This is a good thing, it means that the rating system is efficiently looking for that clan's new equilibrium in that scheme, i.e. the rating that their current roster actually deserves to have. The more games a clan plays, the more accurate their rating is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Hmm, who would be #1 if there was no deduction from losing?
Phantom? Or Random?
Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on March 21, 2013, 08:49 PM
Guys, these aren't "points", they're rating interchanges. When a clan loses its two best BnG players, its BnG rating should start declining rapidly with every loss. This is a good thing, it means that the rating system is efficiently looking for that clan's new equilibrium in that scheme, i.e. the rating that their current roster actually deserves to have. The more games a clan plays, the more accurate their rating is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Yeah it all makes sense, in singles. But for clans I honestly believe the current method of validating the scheme rating is not accurate. It expects the clan players to always play with their strongest team, which is often a problem and unrealstic. There is a reason why Playoffs are often delayed because people want to play with their best setup which is of course reasonable. But during the season this is often impossible to do. I am not even saying the rating system is bad, I am just saying the clans rating is not accurately shown with the way it is now. It just comes down to the question whether you think the clans effort is best presented on a global level, it is like 10 players play under the same account, do you think that is an accurate showing of the clans skill? I don't. I would prefer a separate individual teamwork effort. And no, this is not like just take the singles scheme ratings and combine both players. Clanners are for the most part genuine different in gameplay and tactics. =)
There are too many different topics being discussed there...
Elo system is fine, but for 1vs1 ratings. I'm not sure it works well for team games.
Also it encourages top players to avoid many games. But the worst thing there is no penalty for inactive players. KRD says points are not points. I understand them as some relative players skill measure. Then remove Zippo from all ratings, because his current skill is below Peja's level.
One more thing I don't like can be illustrated with the following example:
Mablak decides to play TUS and play some RRs... He plays with Dulek, franz and they successfully lose all their points. barman just avoids Mablak and becomes first in overall ratings.
In a perfect world all players should play vs all other players, but WA is not chess... Some players come, some go, some are inactive, some are avoiding. There are many different ratings and formulas, because all leagues are different and maybe it's time to create our own :)
Just a side note: Elo rating system was designed for tournament-based competitions, in which you play against an assigned opponent and have no way to avoid anyone. In leagues where you can freely choose your opponent, like TUS, the system used in NNN (I don't know what's its official name) works a lot better, because it actually encourages you to play against the top players, and your own rating is dynamically changed based on everyone else's performance.
But TUS is small enough that we can easily live with Elo.
i can tell this is going nowhere....
with people like peja who are trolling just for fun, im not even sure if hes reading...
and KRD who brings up a great point, and i think we all agree its perfect for singles.. but im not sure if hes thinking about clanners..... or just does not care, and is forming a biased opinion on the fact the elo system works so well with singles, has to work with clanners too? dunno ..
the way the system is now, it benefits the clans whos top players, are also most active.
so when CF was active, and Random00 was playing quite often, they had a great advantage.
cfc always remains active and dainub plays 90% of all clanners, and they have a great advantage (i think dainubs one of the top all arounders)
but clans like dt, who have a great line up.. but just are not active in the right areas and times get penalized.... i think with aef's new line up peja will soon see what i mean, until then.. he will just troll
im not saying that the Elo system is horrible in clanners, im saying it can easily be improved... and make for a more accurate representation of the clan as a group, and not just a representation of the clans most active members
I think the points won/lost should be calculated from clan's scheme ratings instead of the players playing the clanner
why? because clan is as strong as its weakest player
For starters, I would start picking things like Elite/T17/TTRR WAY WAY more often and BnG less and less, if the points weren't so shit for clanners.
I could happily play T17/Elite with Peja and not risk losing HHC/barmans T17/Elite points...
Same with TTRR etc...
lol why is peja always the man at the bottom of your list??
peja is the boss in elite, you havent noticed?
but yeah, if the games were calculated by the specific team, not the clan you would see more activity... clans wont wait until they have the ideal players, they will play more freely, pick a wider variety of schemes, etc...
:( i dont think this will change tho... doesnt seem like too many people are interested.
Quote from: avirex on March 22, 2013, 07:57 PM
lol why is peja always the man at the bottom of your list??
peja is the boss in elite, you havent noticed?
but yeah, if the games were calculated by the specific team, not the clan you would see more activity... clans wont wait until they have the ideal players, they will play more freely, pick a wider variety of schemes, etc...
:( i dont think this will change tho... doesnt seem like too many people are interested.
it could change if we had a clear idea from where to get these ratings for the players who played the clanner...
Lol avi, I am actually at bottom of the list, Peja is above me :P
It's like can't cook & won't cook together xD
woot your a f@#!ing legend in this game and im just a troll and a idiot lol ;D
thats a good point husk, that would be the next phase of the discussion i spose...
but whats the point of taking it there when only about 4 people have showed interest in this change? others either troller, or did not post.
Well avi, no one's complained yet, that's a 1st :o