ELO Rating system

[Jason]

Originally posted by 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.

Honestly, who the hell are you trying to impress? Not a single one of us give a flying fuck about the number of big words you're capable of using. Goddamn Eric, are you ever going to learn that your condescending behavior annoys the living shit out of most people?

As for the formula, it looks to be just fine. Although, give TWD a few weeks and I'm sure some moron will figure out a way to abuse the system and ruin the fun for the rest of us, at which time you'll have to rethink your entire strategy anyway.

[Isreal]

is the raiting for twd devided to 3 diffrent ladders? or are TWD-B/D/J all togther?
cause i like the idea of all 3 togther.

[Mayo Inc.]

Originally posted by bloodzombie
mant, that doesn't work becasue thent he winner is the squad that plays the most games, not the one that plays the best.

Oo thats an interesting point, could we get this cleared up myth? or is bz just being funny and making me look stupid?

[Overstrand]

hmm

Its 3 ladders.

[Mythrandir]

Originally posted by Mayo Inc.


Oo thats an interesting point, could we get this cleared up myth? or is bz just being funny and making me look stupid?

bloodzombie was replying on Mantra-Slider's idea, not on ours ^^

[bloodzombie]

myth sees all.


mayo just makes himself look stupid.

[Mayo Inc.]

swish

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Sleepy Weasel
The math looks fine to me, it's not really complicated people.


I suppose there is a problem with say a new "vet" squad forming. They'd start at 1000 points, could beat someone with like 1600 points and knock them down close to 50. With the max possible you could lose being 50 it's not really that huge of a problem, it's still a slight problem though.

It would be nice if it could be done so losing to a newly formed squad wouldn't knock you down quite as much, maybe only half as much, but would still improve them as much as normal if they won. Thus they could get to their "proper" rating quickly without destroying the ratings of sqauds above them on their way up.

It would also help out the problem of a group of "vets" creating a fake aliased squad pretending to be new and just take down a highly ranked squad a bunch of points.

So yeah, something like until a squad has played 5-10 games or so they only drop a squad half as much as usual is my idea. I'm sure you can think of a better mathmatical way to do this, but I'm sure you follow my reasoning.

Why can't you all be like this guy? Jeese..

[Cops]

I dont think any of us exept 2 understand how it work's but I am looking forward to TWD. =)

[pv=nrt]

probably most of you don't have a clue waht algebra is. it is just a formula. nothing difficult. you people make it sound like its grad research.

[Divine Rides]

I'm just glad the friendly robots are calculating all this nonsense.

[Mr. Spam]

sounds like a pretty good formula to me. I like how you factor in the probability of winning into the final scores to give a little boost.

[Tigerex]

Originally posted by Sleepy Weasel
It would be nice if it could be done so losing to a newly formed squad wouldn't knock you down quite as much, maybe only half as much, but would still improve them as much as normal if they won. Thus they could get to their "proper" rating quickly without destroying the ratings of sqauds above them on their way up.

It would also help out the problem of a group of "vets" creating a fake aliased squad pretending to be new and just take down a highly ranked squad a bunch of points.

So yeah, something like until a squad has played 5-10 games or so they only drop a squad half as much as usual is my idea. I'm sure you can think of a better mathmatical way to do this, but I'm sure you follow my reasoning.

Thats a very good point raised right there. However Aphix has recently been appointed to deal with such issues i believe. As part of his new duties on the TWD site it mentions checking for double squadders, which i am sure he will do a great job at Go Aphix <3 :P

[aphix]

Tiger thanks

At this moment in time there are very few features available (to me or in general) to check for double squadding. If i can get myth to let me have a "search on player/IP" then it will be simple. I also have no idea how myth has dealt with players signing up to squads. As of this moment in time, the only way to check for double squadders is too manually view each roster. This is almost impossible not to mention tedious.

Theoretically once a player is signed to a squad, then he/she shouldn't be able to sign to another, and maybe some kind of time period should be implementated. So that a player who quits Paladen, can't immediatley go and stick his name on Cripples roster.

I also don;t know how "vets" who create a fake aliased squad can be spotted straight away. Im making the presumption that each "vet" is under a differnt alias. Meaning we need another form of identification. Such as IP, however this isnt solid, as a vast percentage of the TW population work off a dynamic IP from their ISP.

With regards to point allocation. I think a variable value for K on the ELO system (depending on some factors) would help. As suggested ealier if i remeber correctly.
There must be quite a few ideas people have of getting round this issue. Or even if myth has his own idea to implentate in the near future.

-aphix

[aphix]

I knew i had seen it somwhere. I think thats a fair suggestion.

Originally posted by 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