Why is losing punished with points?

Anubis · March 21, 2013, 06:39 PM

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

) 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!

Statik · March 21, 2013, 06:43 PM

Don't forget about 3vs3 clanners

Peja · March 21, 2013, 07:05 PM

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.

avirex · March 21, 2013, 07:14 PM

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.

Anubis · March 21, 2013, 07:19 PM

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.

avirex · March 21, 2013, 07:24 PM

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.

Peja · March 21, 2013, 07:26 PM

the logic is right in front of your eyes but for emotional reasons u dont see it

TheKomodo · March 21, 2013, 07:28 PM

I prefer the way I said it.

avirex · March 21, 2013, 07:48 PM

your an idiot peja

KoreanRedDragon · 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

Free · March 21, 2013, 09:02 PM

Hmm, who would be #1 if there was no deduction from losing?

Phantom? Or Random?

Anubis · March 21, 2013, 09:38 PM

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. =)

Statik · March 21, 2013, 09:52 PM

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

barman · March 21, 2013, 10:08 PM

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.

avirex · March 21, 2013, 10:42 PM

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