PDA

View Full Version : About the New Rating System


nobodyhome
04-10-2011, 01:54 AM
The new rating system has undergone some modifications from season 1. The base formula is still the same, but there are modifications on top of them. As a reminder, the base formula is:

New Rating = Old Rating + [ 50 * ( S - E ) ]

Where S is 1 if you won and 0 if you lost, and the value of E is calculated for each team as follows.

E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of your opponents)-(Avg rating of you and your teammates)] / 400)]

----------------------

However the change to your rating is now multiplied by a variable that we will call "uncertainty". This variable is influenced by two factors:

Inactivity/newness: If you have played less than 16 games in the past two weeks, the less games you have played, the higher the multiplier is. This is to allow new or rusty players to settle to their correct rating faster.

Streaking/trending: If in the past 16 games you have won more than you lost (or lost more than you won) then your multiplier will be higher. This is to settle people to correct ratings faster if they are somehow very incorrectly rated (either they are a new player to ladder and 1500 is too high or too low, or they somehow became drastically better or drastically worse, for example by starting to play a new plane).

----------------------

Secondly, your rating change is divided by a variable that is a composite of the uncertainties of everybody else in the game. The higher everybody else's uncertainty is, the greater the divisor is. In essence, what this does is to make a game "worth" less in terms of your possible loss or gain if there happens to be someone in the game that is incorrectly rated (in this case, whether you win or lose is more determined by which way these incorrectly rated people are rated, as opposed to your own ability).

----------------------

Finally, you are given a few extra bonus points for each game you win. This serves as an inflationary factor to ladder making ratings trend upward over time, so that new players start near the bottom of the ladder rather than near the middle as previously, which more accurately reflects reality.

Karl
04-10-2011, 07:54 AM
I'm not sure if you're aware but there's some guy who implemented TrueSkill in C# and PHP http://www.moserware.com/

CCN
04-10-2011, 11:26 AM
I'm not sure if you're aware but there's some guy who implemented TrueSkill in C# and PHP http://www.moserware.com/

after months of pain over the new rating system, after implementation Karl says this....

I don't know whether to laugh or cry :/

nobodyhome
04-10-2011, 11:33 AM
I actually saw that already (well, not the PHP implementation, but the article and the C# implementation) and felt that TrueSkill had a lot of properties we didn't need and was lacking in 1-2 properties we did need. I also didn't quite understand all of it so I was uncomfortable with implementing something I couldn't get a full grasp of.

Although I suppose if I had seen the PHP implementation I could've just plugged it in and it would've been 10x faster and had come out nearly as good anyways. Oh well.

Ribilla
04-10-2011, 12:02 PM
I actually saw that already (well, not the PHP implementation, but the article and the C# implementation) and felt that TrueSkill had a lot of properties we didn't need and was lacking in 1-2 properties we did need. I also didn't quite understand all of it so I was uncomfortable with implementing something I couldn't get a full grasp of.

Although I suppose if I had seen the PHP implementation I could've just plugged it in and it would've been 10x faster and had come out nearly as good anyways. Oh well.

Well these changes look good anyway.

Save trueskill for season 3!

Karl
04-10-2011, 07:19 PM
Do you save the match data? If so I would be curious to see a comparison of your rating system vs TrueSkill.

I would be willing to run the comparison if you could get me the data.

edit: removed my derailing parts of post

elxir
04-10-2011, 07:38 PM
Do you save the match data? If so I would be curious to see a comparison of your rating system vs TrueSkill.

I would be willing to run the comparison if you could get me the data.

edit: removed my derailing parts of post

Do you mean this data? (scroll down) http://altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=219&mode=tbd_5v5

Or like, the actual logs for his code...:eek:

Karl
04-10-2011, 07:46 PM
Do you mean this data? (scroll down) http://altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=219&mode=tbd_5v5

Or like, the actual logs for his code...:eek:

Indeed, all you need is the players on each team and which team won. So yea we could run a comparison of NoboSkill vs TrueSkill :)

nobodyhome
04-10-2011, 10:49 PM
I can give you access to the database and you can grab the match data off of there. The only thing that might not make this 100% accurate is that the balancing mechanism is based off of NoboSkill and not TrueSkill, so the games that are played if ladder was truly using TrueSkill would be different.

andy
04-11-2011, 02:37 AM
Finally, you are given a few extra bonus points for each game you win. This serves as an inflationary factor to ladder making ratings trend upward over time, so that new players start near the bottom of the ladder rather than near the middle as previously, which more accurately reflects reality.

Does this mean that mass gaming will provide a huge benefit to your rating?

shrode
04-11-2011, 04:56 AM
Does this mean that mass gaming will provide a huge benefit to your rating?

Yeah I'm pretty turned off by the idea because of this reason. Doesn't the 'first-game multipliers' and stuff already aim to solve that same problem? And if that isn't sufficient, wouldn't a smarter way to solve the problem be to gradually decrease the starting rating for players? I do not want to see major rating inflation by those dominating in the 'games-played' category 6 months from now.

elxir
04-11-2011, 05:02 AM
Yeah I'm pretty turned off by the idea because of this reason. Doesn't the 'first-game multipliers' and stuff already aim to solve that same problem? And if that isn't sufficient, wouldn't a smarter way to solve the problem be to gradually decrease the starting rating for players? I do not want to see major rating inflation by those dominating in the 'games-played' category 6 months from now.

i think this is counter-balanced by people who play fewer games but are more efficient, due to the multipliers involved in the lower rank/streaking combo

nobodyhome
04-11-2011, 05:51 AM
The inflationary value is negligible. The scenario you are worried about will most likely not happen because your expected value per gain is still governed by the base equation. As soon as you get too many points from the inflationary value, you quickly become "overrated" and end up simply giving those points away.

andy
04-11-2011, 10:44 AM
The inflationary value is negligible. The scenario you are worried about will most likely not happen because your expected value per gain is still governed by the base equation. As soon as you get too many points from the inflationary value, you quickly become "overrated" and end up simply giving those points away.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Tekn0
04-11-2011, 10:56 AM
How many matches under the new ladder scheme does one have to play to be ranked somewhat accurately??

Ribilla
04-11-2011, 12:35 PM
How many matches under the new ladder scheme does one have to play to be ranked somewhat accurately??

Well that depends on how accurately everyone else is ranked, I lost 5/6 games on the trot last night because everyone is around 1500 and I kept getting crappy teams. Until it's balanced out you won't trend as fast as you should.

Tekn0
04-11-2011, 02:39 PM
Well that depends on how accurately everyone else is ranked, I lost 5/6 games on the trot last night because everyone is around 1500 and I kept getting crappy teams. Until it's balanced out you won't trend as fast as you should.

Sigh... same here. I'm not sure if I should play ladder when it's still so unbalanced.

But what I wanted to know was, in the previous season they said you need 100 games once things are balanced to reach accurate rating.

With this new algorithm one should reach their "true" rating much quicker (again once others are mostly balanced). So roughly how much would it be once many of them are rated properly?

ryebone
04-11-2011, 07:42 PM
Sigh... same here. I'm not sure if I should play ladder when it's still so unbalanced.

But what I wanted to know was, in the previous season they said you need 100 games once things are balanced to reach accurate rating.

With this new algorithm one should reach their "true" rating much quicker (again once others are mostly balanced). So roughly how much would it be once many of them are rated properly?


To be fair, the unbalanced nature of teams thus far is a still a crapshoot in terms of which side you end up on. While it is possible to lose 5/6 games completely due to imbalanced teams, one could just as easily win 5/6 games because of it. I can understand if you don't want to play due to the uncertainty of team balance, but just be aware that it can go both ways. Besides, it'll eventually cancel itself out once players are more accurately rated, so there's really no harm done.

The 100-game rule we made up for last season was completely arbitrary- I actually claimed 50 games was enough to get a rough idea of where you stand. The defining factor has always been winning ~50% of your games. If I had to guess, I'd still peg the number to be around 50(doesn't apply right now, because teams are still far from being balanced). As the season goes on and the majority of the player base has been balanced, new players will reach their proper ratings even quicker than 50.

Fun fact: I discussed with nobo yesterday, and despite not giving me the actual formula for calculating rating (understandable, since it's secret like the Bush Baked Beans recipe), he confirmed that the theoretical maximum rating change is about 900 points in one game. Obviously you'd need the perfect conditions for that, such as a new player just starting out, on a massive losing streak, with everyone else perfectly rated and the team balance as skewed as possible. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if, towards the middle-end of the season, new players were seeing point changes of up to 100-150 per game.

Karl
04-11-2011, 07:51 PM
Other rating systems such as TrueSkill (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/) require between 46 and 91 games to really figure out good you are. I don't know what NoboSkill takes but it's safe to say everyone should go play 70 Ladder games so we can get this party started.

[Y]
04-11-2011, 07:56 PM
Only if you and Lam come play =)

Ribilla
04-11-2011, 09:53 PM
http://www.altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=374&mode=tbd_5v5

I don't understand why I have lower point gain than all the other players, take blln:

I had a slightly longer win streak, my rank was much lower and I have less games played.

Why is this?

nobodyhome
04-11-2011, 09:59 PM
Streaking is an imprecise term to use actually--a better word to use is trending. Your immediate streak doesn't matter, it's how much you have won or lost in the past x amount of games that matter. In this case you averaged about even in your most recent games, whereas ball'n is trending in the upward direction.

XX1
04-11-2011, 10:03 PM
Streaking is an imprecise term to use actually--a better word to use is trending. Your immediate streak doesn't matter, it's how much you have won or lost in the past x amount of games that matter. In this case you averaged about even in your most recent games, whereas ball'n is trending in the upward direction.

Hmm so like the better you do, the more points gained after each match based upon your previous games?

nobodyhome
04-11-2011, 10:07 PM
Not quite. More like, the farther you are away from a 50/50 record (in either direction) the next games will be worth more (whether you win or lose). If you are on a win streak and then you lose, the game you lose will result in more points lost even though you were on a win and not a loss streak.

Pieface
04-12-2011, 03:11 AM
If you're on a super win streak, why should you lose more points as well? Shouldn't ladder assume that a huge streak means you're underrated and should be trending upwards quickly (losing less points, gaining more)?

nobodyhome
04-12-2011, 09:54 AM
The thing is that if you take a look at the base formula above, the way it works is that E is set so that it's actually the probability of your side winning. Then, it works out so that if the players are rated accurately, the expected gain (amount point gain * probability of winning - amount point loss * probability of losing) is set to 0. This is the behavior we want.

When we put in the multiplier, this multiplier is done to both gains and losses, so that no matter what the multiplier is, the expected value still remains 0. I suspect that if we make it so that the multiplier is applied to only gains if you are on a winning streak and vice versa, getting on a win streak will actually end up pushing you past you correct rating, which will lead you to having to streak downward below your correct rating afterwards, etc, causing weird fluctuations (of course I am kinda theorycrafting here).

JWhatever
04-12-2011, 10:49 AM
What is the maximum and minimum amount of points one could get after a win/loss?

-J

Rainmaker
04-12-2011, 05:59 PM
50 -> see first formula.

@ what nobody said:
Theoretically, you want the sum of all points lost and won to be zero.

Putting it on simple word its kind of a risk theory:
If you are willing to run a big risk, for a big reward, then the losses must be big as well.

For what nobody is telling about the streak thing it seems to work this way:

Whenever you are on a streak (either winning or loosing) you have a bigger fluctuations of points; if you are having a 50-50 streak (in 30 games you have 16 won and 14 losses) then your points won and lost should be nearly the same (assume 24~26 per game, as that is the average when you are playing on a 50% ratio)
So 24*(16-14) = +48 on your rating.

If you are having in a 30 streak: 8 wins and 22 loses; then the difference will be much greater. (maybe something like ~37 when you are on a 75% ratio)
37*(8-22) = -518 on your rating
My guess, is that this is based that when you are on 50% ratio you are playing at your rank lvl. If you are having streaks, it means you are rated incorrectly (either underrated or overrated). So giving you higher fluctuation its easier to make you move down or up in the board; until you reach a 50% ratio.

I think that it always takes into account your last 30 recent games.
Can you confirm or deny anything from this nobo? :confused:

tupapito
04-15-2011, 04:33 AM
Add the ranking option! ;) that would be great

elxir
04-15-2011, 05:17 AM
What is the maximum and minimum amount of points one could get after a win/loss?

-J

900

chars

nobodyhome
04-15-2011, 05:29 AM
900 is the theoretical maximum. in practice that will never happen, something like 225 is closer to an achievable maximum.

elxir
04-17-2011, 06:47 PM
syphun has 131 more points than me and we have the exact same W/L. RIGGED!

Joaquin
05-20-2011, 02:14 PM
Hi,
I'm asking admins or anyone with some alti point ranking system knowledge to explain to me on the concrete case of this match:
http://www.altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=4772&mode=ball_6v6
how did I earn minus 102 points.
Tx!

It's almost impossible to scratch out to at least top 50 if you get minus 102, minus 80, minus 60 etc for loss while you get almost everytime around 30 points for victory.

I'm not a computer programmer, but a point system with the focus on actual team contribution (goals, kills...) would be much fair. This is just ridiculous.

York
05-20-2011, 02:17 PM
Hi,
I'm asking admins or anyone with some alti point ranking system knowledge to explain to me on the concrete case of this match:
http://www.altitudeladder.com/match.php?id=4772&mode=ball_6v6
how did I earn minus 102 points.
Tx!

It's almost impossible to scratch out to at least top 50 if you get minus 102, minus 80, minus 60 etc for loss while you get almost everytime around 30 points for victory.

I'm not a computer programmer, but a point system with the focus on actual team contribution (goals, kills...) would be much fair. This is just ridiculous.

You had the better team by 200 points. You were the worst on your team by 50 points. You guys had a 68% win chance and you couldn't win. Obviously your fault

yankinlk
05-20-2011, 04:39 PM
You had the better team by 200 points. You were the worst on your team by 50 points. You guys had a 68% win chance and you couldn't win. Obviously your fault

Wow. That is a very interesting explanation for it! So thats the - accelerate people to their correct rating factor - with emphasis on the lowest ranked losing player?

Seems harsh, but fair.

Tekn0
05-20-2011, 05:17 PM
You had the better team by 200 points. You were the worst on your team by 50 points. You guys had a 68% win chance and you couldn't win. Obviously your fault

What do you mean "worst on your team by 50 points" ?

Joaquin
05-20-2011, 05:31 PM
You had the better team by 200 points. You were the worst on your team by 50 points. You guys had a 68% win chance and you couldn't win. Obviously your fault

The worst?? I had the least points if you mean that. So you're saying: because I've had the least points in the beginning of the match from my team, therefore I'm destined to be the person who will pay the most for the loss. Are you kidding right?!

Joaquin
05-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Wow. That is a very interesting explanation for it! So thats the - accelerate people to their correct rating factor - with emphasis on the lowest ranked losing player?

Seems harsh, but fair.

- Seem harsh, but fair. - LOL, has mother taught you any different phrase than this one?!
What is fair about it, Mr. Smartypants?!

yankinlk
05-20-2011, 05:57 PM
What is fair about it, Mr. Smartypants?!

Well lets see, i wasn't there but i can see there were 3 randas in that game - you could argue that you are better than both tmic and para - not really for me to say - but its probably likely with the huge amount of plane switching you all were doing that there was a heated discussion on who would play what plane setup. You scored once as both planes and im sure that wen to your head (it would mine) , but you only scored twice - so obviously its your fault - you see in order to win you have to score 6 goals, sorry thanks for playing.

- LOL, has mother taught you any different phrase than this one?!

Ohnoehedidn't. I will be pewpewin' u when i see ya.

mikesol
05-20-2011, 06:38 PM
Ignoring any of the insults presented - I'd like to point out that how many goals you scored, how many kills you got, etc are all irrelevant in this rating system.

This system is fairly well explained here (http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?p=116069).

If I had to take a guess as to why you shot down in rating those two games it would be because you didn't play for awhile and were on a general winning streak. The system adds this multiplier when you are winning more games than you've lost in the past 16 games that makes games worth more for you so that you can go up to your real rating faster. Unfortunately, this means that if you are on a winning streak any games lost also plummet your score. You'll notice you did get a +62 after you lost those two games indicating that the system is still unsure where to place you.

The other fact of the matter is that both of the games you lost your team should have won. If a bunch of really good players lose to a bunch of bad players they are penalized more.

I hope that makes some sense and if you need further explanation feel free to ask. :)

Edit: Now I realize there are many arguments for why this system is flawed. I agree that there definitely are many flaws with this system - however I was merely trying to explain why this system did what it did for you in those games.

Joaquin
05-23-2011, 01:36 AM
to yank:
please pew-pew me, anything that makes you happy ;) as long as it will keep your mind from the fantasies about our 'plane setup heated discussions' etc.


to mikesol:
Thank you for taking some of your time and responding in some kind of constructive form.

Dark_Sage
10-13-2011, 09:07 PM
Hey nobo I'm curious about something maybe you could explain it. If you look at my ladder games (http://www.altitudeladder.com/matchlist.php?id=0a9725b5-57aa-4804-a530-bdddf5e3f4e9&mode=tbd_5v5) you'll see that I went from gaining/losing around 20 points a game to 46 in the first game on October 12. I was wondering why there was a sudden jump, as I don't think I was on a streak and was active two days before. The team I had in that game also had a 46% chance to win so it wasn't due to being overrated. Just curious, I'm not really upset or anything as I know I'm far from the best tbd player in the world.

Plauze
12-11-2011, 11:06 PM
He guys!

I just wanted to point out, that I really do not like this rating system and do not understand it. It should be a rough value for the skills of a player, but imao it is everything but that.

I had some games I really played well, including mvp as well as most deadly, some goals, goals assists and so on...and yet my rating still dropped, because the game was lost (no matter whether at the result of 6-5 or 6-0).

In contrast to that, if I play badly and win, my rating increases. If you have a look into the bladder top players list, you can see that each and every guy standing at the top has a winning streak going on or had one recently.

Do not get me wrong, winning or loosing should be a part of the ratio, but imao at a weight of 1/6, as there are 6 players and it is really frustrating to play 3 games well (and I mean really well) and still see my rating drop just because they were close and in the end we lost.

So, why do winning/loosing streaks do have such a great impact on the rating? Winning or loosing says nothing about my skills and how well I played and I therefore do not understand the rating as well as the top list...It basically says how many games in a row I have won.

BR,

[x Plauze x]

PS: And I know that I am not the only one holding this opinion, many other ppl do not understand this either.

Aki1024
12-11-2011, 11:15 PM
Elo systems in general are for your rating over time, not performance per game. The outcome of your rating up or down is strictly a binary choice of did you win or lose. It isn't designed to know a person scored the most points for their team, or had a strong kda. The complexity of such a system is above the practicality of coding it verse this being a community ran project.

Karl
12-12-2011, 03:34 AM
He guys!

I just wanted to point out, that I really do not like this rating system and do not understand it. It should be a rough value for the skills of a player, but imao it is everything but that.


Skill ≈ Probability of Winning.

A good article about TrueSkill a modified Elo by Microsoft could shed some light on your concerns as Nobo uses Elo:
http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/computing-your-skill.html

malakas
12-13-2011, 08:12 AM
Do not get me wrong, winning or loosing should be a part of the ratio, but imao at a weight of 1/6, as there are 6 players and it is really frustrating to play 3 games well (and I mean really well) and still see my rating drop just because they were close and in the end we lost.

So, why do winning/loosing streaks do have such a great impact on the rating? Winning or loosing says nothing about my skills and how well I played and I therefore do not understand the rating as well as the top list...It basically says how many games in a row I have won.


Likewise if you play 3 games really poorly but win, your rating increases. Unless there is a panel of neutral judges appointed to each game to watch each player's performance, wins/losses are the single best way to rate...as others have mentioned...over time. That's the point. Play enough games and it all comes out in the wash.

Quite often a player will consistently get the ball/bomb over others almost all of the time. Therefore some players end up scoring more than others even though the quad kill or triple assist someone else got to make that score possible is just reflected in the stats like 4 run of the mill kills, etc. MVP in ball especially is all about goals, nevermind what the rest of the team did to set them up. Sometimes 1 or 2 goals can mean MVP, while someone else can have twice as many kills as anyone else on the team, 6 assists and tons of key plays that don't make the leaderboard and they lose out on MVP.

Some players score. They are good at it and that's their role. Others stay back and defend, which is equally as important but will never win you an MVP or get you any stats other than maybe some kills by default. And we all know (due to the complexity of coding and whatever) that saves aren't recorded but are just as crucial as goals.

So for any one game, your ranking can go up if you suck or go down if you're awesome. But over time your over all play and its contribution to whatever random/balanced teams you're on will better reflect your quality as a team player regardless of if you average several goals or mvp's a game or never. To change the scoring system as you suggest to any significant degree would merely promote individual stat padding over winning by any means necessary.

If you feel like your over all rating is lower than it should be, play more games and it will all come out in the wash and settle to where its supposed to be.

JMHO.

trendy11one
12-13-2011, 10:40 AM
Some players score. They are good at it and that's their role. Others stay back and defend, which is equally as important but will never win you an MVP or get you any stats other than maybe some kills by default. And we all know (due to the complexity of coding and whatever) that saves aren't recorded but are just as crucial as goals.


so what role rev rubber acid cover?

elxir
12-13-2011, 10:49 AM
so what role rev rubber acid cover?

comic relief

malakas
12-13-2011, 08:39 PM
so what role rev rubber acid cover?

Acid does a great job of general supression and team force multiplying. All too often ball is just 12 players going bat stool crazy afterburing towards the exact same point in space and time. Acid punishes this quite well, and downright severely if even one person on your team targets those dripping with acid. Basically spam the choke points and significantly dammage and de-armor (and then some) an entire push. Your remaining pew usually gets a kill and that leaves someone else in your team to supress the enemy with enhanced team damage output that acid provides.

Of course not everyone seems to realize that enemies dripping with residual acid are extra vulnerable, so all too often you see a push crew of 2 or 3 bad guys fly right by a team mate who waits until they stop dripping with acid and then fires. Whatever. Some gais gets it though.

Every ball team needs an acid IMO, but like I said, your team mates have to understand how to use it as well because its very much a team perk. Who wouldn't want a HC or lasor or bomber or explo or even DF loopy that does 33% more dammage? That's what acid does for the whole team.

As for rubber let's face it, we are in the age of thermowhores and it looks like that's here to stay. No nerf, just suck it up. Almost every ball team has 2, sometimes 3. When I play armor or drone on most maps most of my deaths come from being slammed into walls and the same goes for everyone on the team. How many ball games do you press tab and see two thermos in the enemy's top 3 in kills? Constantly. It is extremely effective and responsibile for a massive amount of kills, quite often the most kills, and yet everyone wears armor to protect from bullets and missiles that are responsibile for killing less and they accept crit-hits by terrain as an unavoidable fact of life.

Rubber avoids this very nicely. While it doesn't make you immune from dying even when the other team is pwning your team with thermos, it does allow you to stay alive longer and, convieniently enough, usually just long enough to drop one more acid bomb through a choke point before you die. A thermo slams you against the wall but you bounce off and live, grab a health pack and now you're in the fight longer than if you had double armor.

Its worth noting that a really, really good thermo player can partially compensate with precise aim targeted towards you (the rubber hull player) but even most good thermo players aren't very good at that and those who are still play the odds most of the time and go for the sure thing via a wall kill because worrying about the one player with rubber is too much to keep track of except the occasional 1v1 here and there.

As an added bonus, have you ever heard players complain about emp? I thought so. Rubber nerfs emp as well, so that's just icing on the cake. It also provides significant protection against any other whale spam (from either end) and even a little against nades and flack and sometimes even nerfs the effect of a wall that would have otherwise killed you by stalling you into a hard surface.

As for rev, getting around in ball is vital and the more options you have for that the better. Its not for every plane all the time, but IMO its great for acid because the rate of fire for acid isn't much different with rev or either of the batteries (yeah, that just happened, deal with it). You sacrifice a pew here and there but you're able to get where you need to go faster than aferburner while still charging too so if you rev a lot its better than turbo in some circumstances. It also buffs drone in that respect on those maps rev acid drone makes sense. With your superior mobility you can cover a lot of ground and with rubber you can slam into your own goal at any angle or speed and linger there for a while and end up kicking out what would have been an enemy goal you either wouldn't have been able to get to without rev, or ended up dead from contact with the goal without rubber.

I'm not saying rev rubber acid is right for everyone. But I've tried all kinds of configs for several different planes and it ends up working better for me. This season in bladder I'm hovering in the 1400's, which is about 200-300 points higher than I've been the past couple seasons when I played armor and drone. Not all star numbers by any means, but the point is I'm doing better with rev rubber acid so far than I've done consistantly with any other config.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Y'all keep on flying towards your armored enemy holding down F. Whatevs.

And y'all keep on armoring up to take 20% more dammage while using a battery to shoot 20% more at your armored enemy and please keep flying through those choke points in large groups and be sure to tell me how mah acid tastes.

malakas
12-13-2011, 08:40 PM
comic relief

nou.


amirite?

Jrathje
12-14-2011, 12:39 PM
Great post, Malakas!

Plauze
12-14-2011, 03:45 PM
Hi guys!

Thank you for your replies and your explanations. I will still be frustrated when I play well and my rating drops, but now I at least know why x]

I get your point, winning or loosing is the greatest indicator over time. But I still disagree. I cannot select my team mates and therefore I can only hardly influence the game's result.

I also get your point about the coding issues concerning defense players and good actions that are hard to track and evaluate.

I will keep your thoughts in mind and hopefully time will prove me wrong x] In the end I play bladder because the best players are there and I want to improve my gameplay. And for me the rating and the top list are not that important after all.

BR,

Plauze

MadCat
12-15-2011, 09:36 PM
I cannot select my team mates and therefore I can only hardly influence the game's result.

Team composition is taken into account by the formula. If your team's average rating is worse than the opponent's, you will lose fewer points for a loss and gain more for a win than you would otherwise. Play enough games, and your rating should decently correlate to your skill level.

elxir
12-15-2011, 09:59 PM
oh my god madcat sighting