PDA

View Full Version : Prendre martre pour renard


mssv
05-24-2011, 04:50 AM
"... The idea behind the ladder was to give players a chance to rank their competitive ability ..."

The result though is an individual evaluation of your performance, an individual performance which is evaluated by just one parameter; wins/loses.

While it could be proper way to evaluate it, I think it's like like trying to estimate the average weight of a given sample by analysing their feet length. It could give us some brushstrokes of what the reality of that given sample is in terms of weight as we could believe that longer feet would mean higher weight, and I'm sure there's a kind or proportional relation between those two factors, but, that would be too vague, far from the precision of just weight the sample in the scales.

So this writing is about how the concept of ladder is shown.
There's a lot of interesting statistics for each player (Ball for instance): Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries.

In a Ball match, each player haves a maximum of 16,66^% of margin to influence the end result of a match, 83,33^% it's out of individual control. TBD is obviously more accurate since each player haves a 20% of influence and 80% of non control but still it's measuring feet length to estimate weight.

That said, why not to calculate your individual performance according to your individual performance? All those statistics could be used combined with win/lose as bonus factor taken in the calculation in order to output an accurate result of your performance. (I wonder if XP summarized all them up, it could be used as a summarized data if yes).
Then, in order to estimate ratings all those factors (Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries) would be taken in consideration for each team, giving more or less rating points to players according to their share of that summarize and in combination with Win or Lose.

That could be executed in a 1000 different ways and I haven't thought much about that but, the main idea here is to utilize all that data in order to evaluate individual player performance. Using a team data to evaluate a individual skill is very far from accurate.

elxir
05-24-2011, 05:13 AM
because any equation gauging the relative value of each stat would be arbitrary and likely contrary to the actual tactics required of a good team

nobodyhome
05-24-2011, 05:23 AM
By "competitive ability" we mean your ability to win. And in order to judge your ability to win, we measure how often you win.

With your analogy, it's more like saying we are judging how heavy you are by putting you on a scale and measuring it. If we were to rate players based on their stats and then say that that's how good you are at winning, THAT would be like measuring your feet size, neck diameter, arm length and trying to figure out how much you weigh.

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:07 PM
"because any equation gauging the relative value of each stat would be arbitrary and likely contrary to the actual tactics required of a good team"

team?? Where? It's a bunch random players who plays what they feel like.

"By "competitive ability" we mean your ability to win. And in order to judge your ability to win, we measure how often you win."

In a team of 6 my ability to win is only a 16,6% of the final result, 83,3% is out of my ability to win control.

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 05:14 PM
"because any equation gauging the relative value of each stat would be arbitrary and likely contrary to the actual tactics required of a good team"

team?? Where? It's a bunch random players who plays what they feel like.

"By "competitive ability" we mean your ability to win. And in order to judge your ability to win, we measure how often you win."

In a team of 6 my ability to win is only a 16,6% of the final result, 83,3% is out of my ability to win control.

I understand what you mean, but stats don't give a full representation of the game. For instance, killing a whale when your team is pushing is worth a lot more than you chasing and killing a smoking loopy while you should be defending. A lot map control is about maintaining a presence and area denial, something that no stat, other than win/loss shows.

While it is true that you only represent a small part of your team, it evens out in the long run. I think we could all agree that rankings based on the win/loss of every single permutation of players (i.e. every single different team of 6 vs every single different team of 6 possible) would be fair. All the current system tries to do is take a representative sample of this.

Again the problem lies in the poor balancer, which still seems to be in place despite the general hatred from 90% of the ladder community.

VeRiTaS
05-24-2011, 05:15 PM
"because any equation gauging the relative value of each stat would be arbitrary and likely contrary to the actual tactics required of a good team"

team?? Where? It's a bunch random players who plays what they feel like.

"By "competitive ability" we mean your ability to win. And in order to judge your ability to win, we measure how often you win."

In a team of 6 my ability to win is only a 16,6% of the final result, 83,3% is out of my ability to win control.

1+
agreechars

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:20 PM
"I understand what you mean, but stats don't give a full representation of the game. For instance, killing a whale when your team is pushing is worth a lot more than you chasing and killing a smoking loopy while you should be defending. A lot map control is about maintaining a presence and area denial, something that no stat, other than win/loss shows."

How is that? we have: Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries. How Win/Loss is more representative that those stats when evaluating you?

sunshineduck
05-24-2011, 05:22 PM
that would be true if you literally could not influence your team beyond your own set limitations. if you only play to set yourself up to do well individually and ignore the team concept (you seem to be doing that), you're limiting your overall impact on the game.

that's one of the things that annoyed me most about tbd ladder. people that refuse to even attempt to compensate for their team's inability to play at a high level and instead just complain and point to their individual impact on the game just bug the crap out of me. if you're a laser and you keep flanking but the bomb runner keeps blowing by you and hitting the base anyway, you have to adjust for the fact that your team can't pin him down and start covering the base. you can't just complain and complain, or you're never going to win those games. if you just say "no, i'm covering the base, that's the whale's job. i'm going to keep ramming my head against this wall and hope it breaks" then you are going to lose. the same thing applies to bomb runners - if you are not getting a push, then stop taking the bomb, tell someone that isn't killing anything to run the bomb, and roll up your sleeves and do the dirty work. i'm getting really sick of prima donnas that complained that their ****ty teams lost them every game and would never adjust their play to compensate for their admittedly ****ty teams.

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:24 PM
"that would be true if you literally could not influence your team beyond your own set limitations. if you only play to set yourself up to do well individually and ignore the team concept (you seem to be doing that), you're limiting your overall impact on the game."


If you ignore team concept you will probably fail at: Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries, and then, be punished according to your lack of team concept.

sunshineduck
05-24-2011, 05:25 PM
the concept that you're somehow struggling to grasp is that the entire point of ladder is to rate/rank players according to their ability to win ladder games. consequently, the best way to rank players based on their ability to win said games is to count how many games they are winning and losing.

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:32 PM
I am going to evaluate how much do You (sunshineduck) recycle, for that I'm going to grab your country recycling statistics and decide if You (sunshineduck) are doing well or wrong at recycling.

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 05:34 PM
"I understand what you mean, but stats don't give a full representation of the game. For instance, killing a whale when your team is pushing is worth a lot more than you chasing and killing a smoking loopy while you should be defending. A lot map control is about maintaining a presence and area denial, something that no stat, other than win/loss shows."

How is that? we have: Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries. How Win/Loss is more representative that those stats when evaluating you?

I would have thought that would be easy to understand.

You kill a whale in a push this results in +1 kill, +10 EXP and probably a bomb hit
You kill a fleeing loopy while should be defending this results in +1 kill +10 EXP, but probably a bomb hit for the other team.

The only stat which indicates a difference between these two scenarios (one of which the player has done well, the other badly) is the win/loss. Further, I don't think that bomb blocks are registered (as opposed to just being nuked) and they are very important.

As previously stated the only stat which is affected by area denial/map presence is your win loss as you can push from a more forward position, resulting in more hits. This would not reliably effect your kills, assists, deaths etc.

Maybe I am explaining it poorly. my analogy of choice would be this:

you are in a 6 man relay race, different members are expected to run at different speeds. The current ladder system places different players in different relay combinations and awards the winners points. Once someone has played enough games they will have been in so many combinations they will be rated accurately (the more players per team, the more games required to be rated accurately)

What you want to measure is how fast each player runs, compared to how fast they are expected to run. You cannot measure this in ladder directly.

What you are asking to measure (kills, deaths, passes, etc) is: Breathing rate, heart rate, number of steps, hand-over skill, etc and then asking to try to interpolate the running speed from those results. The is an incredibly hard task to do reliably and would be much harder in ladder because one team has a direct effect on the other, whereas in this analogy, they are independent.

The current ladder ranking method is sound, however it takes an almost infinite amount of time to converge if players are put in very uneven games, which is the case with the current ladder balancer. It also makes players volatile if the games are uneven leading to further streaking.

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 05:38 PM
I am going to evaluate how much do You (sunshineduck) recycle, for that I'm going to grab your country recycling statistics and decide if You (sunshineduck) are doing well or wrong at recycling.

This analogy is wrong. What ladder does it this.


SSD moves around regularly. He lives in small communities of 5 or 6 people. Analyse how much each small community recycles compared to average, over 100 communities, and you can make an educated guess at how much SSD recycles.


This is what you want to do:

Measure SSD weekly shopping bill, measure the amount of plastic SSD uses, measure the amount of newspapers he reads, measure how green SSD is rated in surveys of the local populace, etc... then try to interpolate those results to see how much he recycles.

sunshineduck
05-24-2011, 05:39 PM
I am going to evaluate how much do You (sunshineduck) recycle, for that I'm going to grab your country recycling statistics and decide if You (sunshineduck) are doing well or wrong at recycling.

if you can't see how retarded this analogy is, you are beyond help

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:43 PM
Rib ehmm... Ok, let's try.

You make 99 base points damage, you kill 30 bomb runners, your ratio is 100-20, you defend very solid defusin 25 bombs. Yet, another guy in your team haves 0 base damage, 0 runners kills, super negative ratio, 0 bomb defuses. You lose, here's your -35 rating points.

Now, please tell me, again with a big text, that the end result of win/loss is more accurate to evaluate your PERSONAL performance in that game that all those statistics.

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:44 PM
if you can't see how retarded this analogy is, you are beyond help

Hehe, that's funny :p

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:45 PM
Guys, ofc is wrong... Do you know what sarcasm is?

It works, that made you think and get my point.

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 05:48 PM
Rib ehmm... Ok, let's try.

You make 99 base points damage, you kill 30 bomb runners, your ratio is 100-20, you defend very solid defusin 25 bombs. Yet, another guy in your team haves 0 base damage, 0 runners kills, super negative ratio, 0 bomb defuses. You lose, here's your -35 rating points.

Now, please tell me, again with a big text, that the end result of win/loss is more accurate to evaluate your PERSONAL performance in that game that all those statistics.

If you got that player EVERY SINGLE GAME, then you are absolutely correct; but you don't. Over many games you won't play with him or he will be on the other team etc, and you will win. It just takes time for you to trend to the correct ranking. This situation only ever comes about because of very uneven win% anyway. If you play well you should be rewarded with a win, not just a smaller reduction in points than normal.

Two things you don't seem to understand:

Teams are small (hence your country analogy is wrong)
Teams don't remain the same (hence why your statement above is wrong)

If you are telling me that you still don't understand any of my analogies (either the recycling one or the relay one) then I don't think I can help you.

mssv
05-24-2011, 05:59 PM
I understand your point, I fail to understand that you still believe that just one parameter: win/loss, is still more accurate than your personal: Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries as a criteria to evaluate your personal performance.

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 06:02 PM
I understand your point, I fail to understand that you still believe that just one parameter: win/loss, is still more accurate than your personal: Kills, Assists, Deaths, XP, Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries as a criteria to evaluate your personal performance.

What you are saying is this:

I want to find out how much you earn.

Rather than know the average earnings of 500 groups of 5 people, all containing you, I would like to know how many socks you buy, what peas you use and the consistency of your sh*t.

mssv
05-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Why the average salary of 2500 guys would be more accurate than my job contract where it explains exactly and on detail my salary?

sunshineduck
05-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Rib ehmm... Ok, let's try.

You make 99 base points damage, you kill 30 bomb runners, your ratio is 100-20, you defend very solid defusin 25 bombs. Yet, another guy in your team haves 0 base damage, 0 runners kills, super negative ratio, 0 bomb defuses. You lose, here's your -35 rating points.

Now, please tell me, again with a big text, that the end result of win/loss is more accurate to evaluate your PERSONAL performance in that game that all those statistics.

if that happens, then you will lose 35 points and the other terrible person will also, presumably lose points.

now, after that game, if you are underrated, you will make up those points. if you are overrated, you will continue to lose points.

placing arbitrary point values on various statistics will only mean that people will focus on pumping those stats instead of actually, you know, winning games.

mssv
05-24-2011, 06:08 PM
How is pumping goals not winning? Could you elaborate pls?

sunshineduck
05-24-2011, 06:11 PM
if you score a ton of goals, then you're likely winning a **** ton of games. see: the top of ball ladder.

if you're scoring a ton of goals and still losing all those games, then you're not scoring enough goals to compensate for your ****ty team.

mssv
05-24-2011, 06:12 PM
"if you're scoring a ton of goals and still losing all those games, then you're not scoring enough goals to compensate for your ****ty team."

OK, I see. How accurate O_O

Ribilla
05-24-2011, 06:15 PM
Why the average salary of 2500 guys would be more accurate than my job contract where it explains exactly and on detail my salary?

BECAUSE THE JOB CONTRACT ISN'T AVAILABLE, YOU ARE ASKING US TO MEASURE SOMETHING FROM A BUNCH OF INDIRECT, UNSTEADY RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHANGE BASED ON COMPLETELY UNMEASURED CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR INSTANCE, HAVING LOADS OF KILLS, IF ALL THOSE KILLS ARE OF A SINGLE BAD PLAYER, IS COMPLETELY USELESS. You are either completely backward, which seems unlikely, or you aren't even trying to understand other people's posts. I addressed that question in the relay analogy, now go and read it.

If I know the average salary is 20,000 and measure the average salary of 1000 teams of 5 and I find that the average total salary of each team that you belong to is 103000, then the chances are that you earn 23000. This is very very basic statistics and you don't appear to understand it.

mssv
05-24-2011, 06:24 PM
"For instance, killing a whale when your team is pushing is worth a lot more than you chasing and killing a smoking loopy while you should be defending. A lot map control is about maintaining a presence and area denial, something that no stat, other than win/loss shows."

That in my opinion is :SOMETHING FROM A BUNCH OF INDIRECT, UNSTEADY RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHANGE BASED ON COMPLETELY UNMEASURED CIRCUMSTANCES.

But: Goals, Goal Assists, Ball Possession Time, Receptions, Completed Passes, Ball Carrier Kills, Ball Recoveries is not SOMETHING FROM A BUNCH OF INDIRECT, UNSTEADY RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHANGE BASED ON COMPLETELY UNMEASURED CIRCUMSTANCES.
It's recorded for each game, each player. You situational awareness is not but I hope we agree on that if you kill the bomb/ball carrier a lot, if you assist goals, your situation awareness is good.

P.S: BECAUSE THE JOB CONTRACT ISN'T AVAILABLE, yes it is. Statistics.

Dark_Sage
05-24-2011, 06:30 PM
Ladder isnt, and will never be, perfect. Both TBD and Ball are team games, so yes; you can't ever 100% guarantee a win for your team. I agree that it's silly in ball when you're a loopy or randa and score 4 goals and have 20 ball carrier kills but lose more points than other players on your team; or in tbd if you go 40-15 with laser and have 50 base damage. But it's part of the game. Stats give a decent general overview of who did what and how well, but overlook things like a loopy emping all the whales on a push towards goal or someone forgetting to drop the bomb on a neutral map. In the end I think ladder could use some adjusting, but no matter what people (myself included) will always complain cause, well, everyone wants to win.

mssv
05-24-2011, 06:46 PM
It's not about being perfect, but more precise. When I realised that there was so much info about each game and players, I was like wow, that's cool, but hey, why don't use all that data for a more accurate rating. And that's my point here. there's a lot of cool data missing that could be used.

For instance if a player did really good and still loses, negative rating could have a kind of reduction according to how well he did and how bad other team-mates did (a kind of position over the average). Deciding how good/bad is a player by just it's win/loss with all that info available is a waste of accuracy.

I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't a constructive critic, as I believe ladder guys did a great work on it and I suppose they want it to be the closest as possible to perfection.

Greekjr14
05-24-2011, 07:19 PM
Less QQ more PewPew

York
05-24-2011, 08:05 PM
Perhaps nobo could implement a system where your personal stats effect your gain/loss more.

You lose a game 5-6, you score 5 goals and have 10% of the kills for your team as well as 20% of the deaths. You obviously did extremely well so perhaps your loss won't have to be as bad. Your loss can be multiplied by like .95 or some other variable that is based on your personal stats. The better you do, the less your variable is when you lose and the more it is when you win.

elxir
05-24-2011, 09:40 PM
Perhaps nobo could implement a system where your personal stats effect your gain/loss more.

You lose a game 5-6, you score 5 goals and have 10% of the kills for your team as well as 20% of the deaths. You obviously did extremely well so perhaps your loss won't have to be as bad. Your loss can be multiplied by like .95 or some other variable that is based on your personal stats. The better you do, the less your variable is when you lose and the more it is when you win.

i will just get a 4:1 ratio every game and see where it takes me

York
05-24-2011, 10:53 PM
i will just get a 4:1 ratio every game and see where it takes me

Perhaps kill death ratios will only increase your gain by 1.01 so you will only gain 1 extra point for every 100 you get. Thats why the number would need to be something reasonable.

Carlos98
05-25-2011, 01:32 AM
What happens when you everyone on your team bombs for 19 damage, kills 30 bomb runners, ratio is 100-20, defends very solidly, defuses 25 bombs AND YOUR TEAM STILL LOSES? Everyone on this team shouldn't lose points then right? They all played perfect games right? Should ladder just explode? WATDUE?

This whole discussion is ridiculous, I'm leaving you in the hands of Snoop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2kqeOXYcdk

mssv
05-25-2011, 02:01 AM
It's obvious, there's no reduction for playing well since all the team is on the average.

Sigh, nevermind, system is ok as it is.

Tekn0
05-25-2011, 01:35 PM
I think the frustration is from scoring 3 or 4 goals (or base hits or whatever in TBD) and still losing.

The problem is if you keep getting more or less the same teams over and over for like several games in a row (a session). This is very possible. With the new "randomness" introduced in the balancer it's probably a bit better.

However this is restricted to only one ladder session, your next session might be better... but will it be totally balanced in your favour as unbalanced your previous bad session? Probably not.

The aim is that over time, everything averages out.

Tekn0
05-25-2011, 01:38 PM
Perhaps nobo could implement a system where your personal stats effect your gain/loss more.

You lose a game 5-6, you score 5 goals and have 10% of the kills for your team as well as 20% of the deaths. You obviously did extremely well so perhaps your loss won't have to be as bad. Your loss can be multiplied by like .95 or some other variable that is based on your personal stats. The better you do, the less your variable is when you lose and the more it is when you win.

I too felt a team that loses 5-6 shouldn't be penalized as one that loses 0-6 but this idea was shot down a long time ago while discussing season2 rating algorithm for the same reasons mentioned here.

mssv
05-25-2011, 06:04 PM
The aim is that over time, everything averages out.


So at the end all comes to how lucky you are or how much you have to wait to be in place? That doesn't sounds accurate to me.

Ribilla
05-25-2011, 06:14 PM
There is no such thing as luck over a large enough sample. Further, ANY rating system takes time for you to trend to the correct location. This IS accurate over a long enough period of time.

blln4lyf
05-25-2011, 06:59 PM
There is no such thing as luck over a large enough sample. Further, ANY rating system takes time for you to trend to the correct location. This IS accurate over a long enough period of time.

techinically, if the system only tracked kills and nothing else you would not trend to the correct location(you only would for tracking rating based on kills only) :P

But yeah, second thread I read today that Rib is just ****ting on people. +1

andy
05-25-2011, 07:49 PM
Rib ehmm... Ok, let's try.

You make 99 base points damage, you kill 30 bomb runners, your ratio is 100-20, you defend very solid defusin 25 bombs. Yet, another guy in your team haves 0 base damage, 0 runners kills, super negative ratio, 0 bomb defuses. You lose, here's your -35 rating points.

Now, please tell me, again with a big text, that the end result of win/loss is more accurate to evaluate your PERSONAL performance in that game that all those statistics.

If you play like that every game id bet you would have a W% close to 90.

mssv
05-25-2011, 08:27 PM
There is no such thing as luck over a large enough sample. Further, ANY rating system takes time for you to trend to the correct location. This IS accurate over a long enough period of time.

God, if something needs long periods of time to be accurate its because it's not precise. Do you really can't see that?

mssv
05-25-2011, 08:41 PM
techinically, if the system only tracked kills and nothing else you would not trend to the correct location(you only would for tracking rating based on kills only) :P

But yeah, second thread I read today that Rib is just ****ting on people. +1

lol, epic fail

lemon
05-25-2011, 09:09 PM
God, if something needs long periods of time to be accurate its because it's not precise. Do you really can't see that?

Suggest something better then. Converging systems similar to ladder are used all over the place, when you don't really know for sure what the correct answer is, or whats your true rating is in our case but you want to find out. In mathematics when you want to solve non-linear equation systems you use methods very similar to our dear ladder to approximate the solution. Each iteration (think a single ladder game) you try to get closer to the answer but depending on how fast the convergance is you might actually get further away. The longer you iterate, the more accurate your answer becomes. This very method you are bashing so much is in fact a standard and essential tool to solve problems like these. You want precision? It takes some time. To dub the whole system not precise just shows how ignorant you are. In fact, before writing this post I thought for good 5 minutes trying to figure out if you are trolling or not...

So yeah, it works flawlessly in maths and works flawlessly here too. Just recently I've been very busy and I'm very tired when I play so in just a few short sessions my rating plummeted by more than 300 points to reflect that. Funnily enough, I was doing much better stat wise than usual: I had nicely positive ratios (usually im in negative) and I was blocking bombs and I was getting some bomb hits almost every game. And I still lost a lot because I was doing all those things at wrong times. If your suggested "improvements" would be implemented I'd have incorrectly lost less points than I should.

mssv
05-25-2011, 09:19 PM
I've already posted a way to make it more accurate, I can elaborate it more if you want but the idea it's already there and my suggestion is not to revamp the whole ladder thing, but add all that precise data to enhance or lesser your rating according to how was your real performance.

I agree with you that when you don't have much info, that's a way to get a vague idea of what the sample is. But, it's not the case.

You haven't read the whole thread, lemon.


Edit: could you please elaborate how is getting bomb hits, blocking bombs and killing a/in a wrong time?

lemon
05-25-2011, 09:37 PM
Okay maybe things such as blocking bomb hits and hitting cant be done be done at a wrong time, lol. But even so, those are actually team activities. If I'm pushing with a team and I hit with bomb its not only my achievement, its the whole teams'. But in statistics after the game they get 0 credit even tho they might have done all the work and I just had to drop it.

There's definately such thing as killing at wrong time and I know it all too well. If I can snipe some smoking planes when skirmishing in the middle but I can't kill anyone when the organized push with bomb comes then all of my kills don't mean anything at all. This exact scenario happened a few times yesterday and it was so painful :(.

mssv
05-25-2011, 09:57 PM
Ok, as I see you are editing and starting to insult...

Is that simple. Let's take an example of elo rating system in chess. Let's say my real rating is 1700, maximum rated guy is 1800, I'm starting with 1500 and the average rating skill of the whole community is 1500. Let's say there's a 50 points per win against same rating opponent.

I'm going to need 4 matches to get to my real rating (1500, 1550, 1600, 1650). That's quite precise way to rate you, right?

Now let's imagine, that I have to play with a random guy in 2v2 teams since the beginning, where each guy makes a move per turn. I hope we agree at this point, that I'm going to need more than 4 matches in order to get my real rating (1700) since the random factor gets me far from the optimum of 4 matches. Maybe i'll need 6 or maybe 5, maybe 8, maybe more.

Now, let's introduce a third random guy. And now a fourth, and so on until 100 guys. I hope you see that the more guys I add, the more time I'm going to need to get to my real 1700 rating. Since there's no way to evaluate how good compared to those random guys I'm doing I can't speed up the process.

Ok, how to solve that? How to speed up that process in order to get to my real rating faster?

I'll leave that question to you, if you give me a solution I'll consider your opinion, if not, please, keep your insults for yourself.

mssv
05-25-2011, 10:04 PM
I can't kill anyone when the organized push with bomb comes then all of my kills don't mean anything at all. This exact scenario happened a few times yesterday and it was so painful :(.

I hope you realise that there's a statistic called Bomb carrier kills and another one called Bomb defuses.

Ribilla
05-25-2011, 10:30 PM
I hope you realise that there's a statistic called Bomb carrier kills and another one called Bomb defuses.

Mssv, I don't think you understand basic statistics. All your analogies are wrong, due to one simple thing.

In your analogies you are able to measure directly how good someone is at winning, by looking at their win % when they compete on their own. There is no way to do this ladder, ability to win cannot be equated with your statistics.

You then rightly point out that rating people in teams converges slower (BUT IS NOT LESS ACCURATELY) than this.

You then ask us to use stats to measure how good someone is, even though these stats have very little bearing on actual wins. In your chess analogy, this is equivilent to asking people to rate players based on how many rooks they have left at the end of the game. The best indicator of your ability to win, is your win %, NOT your kills etc...

mssv
05-25-2011, 10:51 PM
Rib, for your info, I've studied advanced statistics and I'm at the very right in a Gaussian curve measuring IQ. Open your mind or stop pretending being intelligent. All your comments shows how you cannot link different shape logics, you have the answer in front of you yet you don't see it.

Just solve the problem, there's is a solution.

classicallad
05-25-2011, 11:10 PM
Lol, i Wiki'ed gastric curve or whatever it was, looked at it for 10 seconds and got a headache

[Y]
05-25-2011, 11:17 PM
Isn't it a snobby way of saying standard bell curve?

mssv
05-25-2011, 11:29 PM
I guess so, here it's more common to call it "campana de Gauss" which literally is "Gauss's bell"

[Y]
05-25-2011, 11:34 PM
Ah, well at least Spanish people know who is associated with it. I wouldn't be surprised if half of America's youth believed Alexander Bell invented that curve.

mikesol
05-25-2011, 11:37 PM
Seriously can you guys stop pretending like you know everything about every subject? I don't care how smart any of you think you are - insulting people or saying stuff like "you just don't know <insert xyz>" is just stupid. If you can't understand the other person's point of view - say so or try rewording it. If you can't grow up and talk about this in a polite way I'm just going to have to start deleting / infracting / closing more subjects which I really don't want to do.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Y]
05-25-2011, 11:42 PM
Dear Mr. Sol,

I do believe that the Duel Cup Week 1 thread requires your presence.

Sincerely,
Sincere

mssv
05-25-2011, 11:42 PM
"Ah, well at least Spanish people know who is associated with it. I wouldn't be surprised if half of America's youth believed Alexander Bell invented that curve."

lol

Ribilla
05-25-2011, 11:51 PM
Well good, mssv, do you understand my points/analogies then and why I don't think your method makes any sense?

mssv
05-25-2011, 11:54 PM
Yes I do. I don't know how to explain my point further, so we should agree to disagree.

MajorPayne257
05-26-2011, 12:40 AM
i think elxir is a pretty cool guy. he chutes plains with no perks and doesn't afraid of anything

ryebone
05-26-2011, 02:59 AM
The instant that something other than win% becomes a factor in determining one's rating, people will stop playing for the team, and begin playing for themselves. People will ratio whore. People will camp bomb spawns. People will ballhog. I can go on and on with this list, but it's dinner time and I'm hungry.

sunshineduck
05-26-2011, 03:14 AM
people will be ryebone and their ratings will plummet accordingly

mssv
05-26-2011, 03:56 AM
I want the bomb hitting ratio whore in my team, can I has?

elxir
05-26-2011, 04:46 AM
i think elxir is a pretty cool guy. he chutes plains with no perks and doesn't afraid of anything

thanks i try

Greekjr14
05-26-2011, 05:09 AM
I want the bomb hitting ratio whore in my team, can I has?

well I can only do the ratio whore part. My services are not needed here i see.