ELO Rating system

[Mythrandir]

yes

Ok, hearing this, I agree that K (= the maximum rating change) should drop when a squad has played more.

K starts off with 50
K drops with 1 (or 2) by every game played, until K is down to 25

[pv=nrt]

or instead of doing that restrict the range in which you could challenge. say a squad cannot challenge for a rated game outside of 250 pt difference. that way we eliminate the new vet squad from doing any real damage.

or as its used in the online utopia game. you cannot challenge outside of 20% of your score. this would also restrict who can challenge who, but as the scores get bigger the range of challenging will also increase.

example.
team A has 1450 pts
team B wants to challenge and has 1300 pts
with a 20% score difference limit
team b can challange anyone from 1560-1040 pts.
therefore team B can challenge team A

this way K can also stay the same. you dont want the scores to stabilize to much with the low K. using the example from aphix with the assumption that cripples is already down to k=25 they can only get 2.75 points if they win.

[aphix]

sounds a fair idea, it would also encourage squads to schedule more games, to make sure they keep competitive with the better squads. At least within the said 20%.

Aswell as stop squads, for example Onix/Crips doing a Michael Shumacher, and gaining a phenomenal lead in points.

It will keep squads tighter together. But is that what we want, where a squad lower down the rankings is unable to try and give say Onix a run for their money in a game of javs.

Dosn't this partly remove the element of fun.

Also another thing to consider is that ultimatley it is the squad owners decision to accept or decline the challange, if he/she accepts and they loose, and move down the rankings due to a poor judgement of the competition, the squad will just have to suffer the consequences, making further challanges to claw their way back up the ladder. It also goes for a squad who think they can take on the big boys, and get a good ass whipping, becuase of it.

A squad isnt successfull only becuase it has good players, but good management too, a captain who knows which battles he can win, and which ones he should walk away from. Untill his squad is stronger/more competitive.

I think myths suggestion would allow greater competition, and lead to a more exiciting season.

Although PV's idea does make a hell of allot of sense.. im sitting o nthe wall on this one

-aphix

[Sleepy Weasel]

Wow, lots of subspace guys play Utopia. Great game

[Webbb Llama v1.5]

It just occured to me-

If a squad starts off badly say- losing 15 of their first 20 games then their K would drop so that it'd be very difficult for them to raise their rating, so they'd just quit or start a new squad?

Am I misunderstanding it?

[Troll King]

Isn't that kinda like the reason ?scorereset isn't enabled?

[Webbb Llama v1.5]

Originally posted by Troll King
Isn't that kinda like the reason ?scorereset isn't enabled?

I don't get it what does ?scorereset have to do with a squad getting a bad rating and having a low K?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or making a point that went over my head

[Troll King]

If people start playing and they get a bad start to their stats, the idea is that because they cannot scorereset, they make up an alt-nick and start again. That's kind of like how a squad with a bad start might want to start over with a clean slate by changing its name and starting again. Both situations face similar problems.

[Sleepy Weasel]

It's a lot more effort for a whole squad to do that than for just one guy to create an alt nick. Obviously no established squad would change their name even if they started poorly, and I can't imagine that many other squads would either. I don't see it as a problem.

[Dabram]

If you lower the K till 25 the squads that've played a lot of games can't lose a lot of points anymore but can't win much points either. This means they will get stimulated to create a new squad with the same players when doing "bad". Maybe you should only get a rating that actually "counts" after hm 10 games or something. This will make sure squads cannot just dissolve and try again with a new name since they start at 0 again and will have to play a lot of games. Maybe an idea is to let the amount of wins or maybe even games played count aswell, a squad that plays like 50 games deserves some credit aswell. I think it would be a good thing to stimulate squads to stay alive and play alot of games.

-bram

[aphix]

surley this would be a mistake for any squad who want/have a reputation to start a new squad, if they are doing badly.

Agreed, that a newly formed squad for TWD would have nothing to loose by reforming a squad, under a new name, however, i dont know what myths rules are going to be with regards to a player leaving a squad, to join a new squad. If all players kept the same name, this would be obvious what was happeneing, and something could be done.

Also, if a squad had a good thrashing in every game they played, over 6-10 matches, then starting anew squad would put them back on 1000 points. Where they could have been on 128 pts previously. you now have a squad that has climbed back up to break even points within a week. There should be some kind of rule, if not allready that prevents this, possibly working from IP address logs, to stop double ID's, again, i dont know the details on this..

And as sleepy says, no established squad is going to risk damaging their reputation.

-aphix

[Verthanthi]

Originally posted by aphix
And as sleepy says, no established squad is going to risk damaging their reputation.

And I personally think it'll be fine for a new squad to do it. If some pubsquad is doing m'eh, then suddenly develops massive talent, I'd rather have them start again at 1000 than work their way all the way to the top before the high ranking squads will take a chance playing them.

[Mythrandir]

I have thought about that a couple of weeks before:

A. The squad should be signed up for a week until it is allowed to play (kind of like the 3-day eligibility time of a player)


B. There will be a minimum amount of games played per squad before they appear in the ladder. Somewhere in the range from 5 to 10.

[Eric is God]

Formula seems sorta simple . . . you should add in standard deviations for squad performace, and correlation coefficients between certain players or squads. Of course then you run into the problem of heteroscedasticy and some multi-collinearity but as long as you could change the formula to a log-form and put in a couple proxy variables it should be fine.

All of the preceding were actual words

Honestly though, looks nice. If Blizzard uses it, it must be good.

[Mayo Inc.]

i get it. wow. go statistics.