Altitude Game: Forums  

Go Back   Altitude Game: Forums > Altitude Discussion > Ladder Discussion
FAQ Community Calendar

Ladder Discussion Everything related to altitudeladder.com and the ladder servers goes here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-21-2010, 06:20 PM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

Thanks to eth the Altitude Ladder is now more legit with the Domain Name www.altitudeladder.net!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-21-2010, 07:09 PM
DiogenesDog DiogenesDog is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,016
Default

Holy ****, this is amazing. You guys are my heroes.

LADDER TIME BITCHES
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-21-2010, 07:28 PM
tgleaf tgleaf is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: being a video game clan CEO is not that prestigious
Posts: 2,737
Default

Really, really impressive setup.

Would love a ball ladder at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-21-2010, 07:47 PM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

Just because this might not be so obvious, but you can click on anyone's name in the ladder and it will bring you to a profile page for that person. This page includes a list of statistics for that person. On that page you will see "Total Games" and then a number followed by the word Matchlist. If you click on matchlist you can see details about every game they played including the teams (by mousing over the winning and losing team) and also the map played and duration.

I realize that this may be obvious to some people, but figured I would throw it out there anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-21-2010, 07:59 PM
Nikon Nikon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ball_grotto
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgleaf View Post
Really, really impressive setup.

Would love a ball ladder at some point.
Yeah I would LOVE a ball ladder really soon.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-21-2010, 08:28 PM
eth eth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hamar, Norway
Posts: 594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon View Post
Yeah I would LOVE a ball ladder really soon.
Everything is more or less setup for ball and duel ladders, the only thing they depend on is the activity of the current ladder. If it ends up being really popular I'm 99% sure we'll add these modes later on. But yeah, don't expect new modes until the end of Season 1 at the earliest.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-21-2010, 08:58 PM
wolf'j'max wolf'j'max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,846
Default

Yay 7th place. I really like this and with this invented for altitide we can get an even higher level of play AND more players! Good job guys!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-21-2010, 09:42 PM
Pax Pax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Over the hills
Posts: 40
Default

Great job, guys!

This is the beginning of a new era in Altitude!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-22-2010, 12:16 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eth View Post
Realtime autobalance(no need to type in names/IDs) is in the works. At first it'll be on the website, but we'd like to make an Altitude Ladder Launcher later on which displays autobalance in-game.
That is so awesome I don't even know what to say.

Thanks so much for creating all of this, guys. It's great.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-22-2010, 12:36 AM
Vi* Vi* is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 468
Send a message via AIM to Vi*
Default

It's pretty cool. Kinda frustrating when people lag/leave/take ****ing forever between games.

Obviously you should add deathmatch.

One other concern is that the list is pretty cluttered with people who've only played one match. You should probably make it so you only get on the official list after playing a bunch.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:19 AM
Esoteric Esoteric is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Default

The current formula is, right now, a poor one.

ELO is a system that works based on assigning each player/team "odds" of winning, and then rewarding based on that. For instance if you have two players, player a with 1900 and player b with 1500, player a should beat player b 10 times for each time player b beats player a -- A wins 10/11 times.

However, we're dealing with teams rather than a 1v1 so we need to estimate the odds that team a beats team b. You, however, compare a player's ELO against the enemy team's ELO. You are, essentially saying that each person on my team has different odds of beating the enemy team. Obviously, this is somewhat nonsensical. I can't have a 2/3 chance of winning while my teammate has a 1/2 chance--we have an equal chance of winning as we're on the same team.

Currently:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Rating of player 1)] / 400)]
Recommended:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]


Your current system encourages people to play only with those better than them on their team, as you have the same personal "odds of winning" whether your teammates are A-list talent or demo loopies. That is a broken--but easily fixed system. Team autobalance will not fix the issue--though it would be a tremendous boon to gameplay.


There's also the separate question of "is averaging player's ELO rating a good estimate of the team's ELO." I don't have an answer for that one, doubtful anyone does, but I'd recommend keeping track of all games played so you can modify the formula later if necessary. I'd imagine a team's variance has an effect but no way to know without keeping records.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:24 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Here is a simplification of the rating system.

On the left is YOUR score minus the enemy's AVERAGE score. On the right is the amount of points you will GAIN if you win.

The amount of points you will DROP if you lose is just whatever number will make the two add up to 50. (For example if you could win 30 points, you could lose 20).

(if you are infinitely worse than the enemy you will gain 50 points (and stand to lose 0))
-500 = 47
-400 = 45
-300 = 42
-200 = 38
-100 = 32
-75 = 30
-50 = 28
-25 = 27
-10 = 26
0 = 25
10 = 24
25 = 23
50 = 21
75 = 20
100 = 18
200 = 12
300 = 8
400 = 5
500 = 3
(if you are infinitely better you will gain 0 (and stand to lose 50))

An interesting side effect of the equation is that if 100 players are on the ladder, they all stay active and no one else joins them, their ranking points will always sum to the same amount even as some players drop and others gain in rank.

However every time a newbie joins the ladder, plays one game and then quits, he essentially "feeds" 125 points into the ladder (25 to each of his five opponents, who then trade them around the active portion of the ladder). This means ladder scores will slowly rise over time.

This isn't a bad thing as points will still flow to the best active players. Actually it is a good thing since you cannot get a great ranking, then quit the ladder to "protect" your position. The ladder will always reflect who the best player is among those who are still active and playing.

tl;dr: Kinda genius.

Last edited by Sarah Palin; 01-22-2010 at 01:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:26 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Edit conflict with eso reading his post, he makes a good point and the change he recommends would not remove the benefits of the current system that I pointed out.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:31 AM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

I was the one who was "in charge" of coming up with the equations for the rating system. There are obvious issues with adapting the Elo system, which was designed for 1v1, to a team based game. The problem of averaging a player's teams rating and then using that to adjust the rating is that everyone will gain/lose the same amount of points. This will allow high ranked players to continually inflate their rating by virtue of this function.

The idea behind the way it currently works is to view the game as if it were all 1v1s. This is accomplished by averaging the rating of the opposing team first rather than computing 5 "1v1" match ups and then dividing by 5. Just think of it as if Player 1 on Team A played a 1v1 vs. Player 1 on Team B, Player 2, 3, 4, and 5 and then that final point gain/lose was divided by 5. I know this isn't an ideal way of doing things, but I don't think anyone has come up with anything better out there (trust me I searched the web). Most games that have team based play modes that also use a personal rating system use a system either the same or similar to what we have implemented.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:33 AM
Esoteric Esoteric is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Default

Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.

Example:

Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!

Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.

Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:37 AM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
However every time a newbie joins the ladder, plays one game and then quits, he essentially "feeds" 125 points into the ladder (25 to each of his five opponents, who then trade them around the active portion of the ladder). This means ladder scores will slowly rise over time.
This is mostly correct except for the number. A player playing against an team with an averaged rating equal to his will either gain/lose 25 points. You make the mistake in assuming that each player gets 25 points, but in reality each player is only getting a percentage of those points.

If 5 1500 ranked players play 5 1500 ranked players. 5 will end up at 1475 and 5 at 1525. That means that each player either gave up or received 5 points from his opponents.

The premise is correct if you assume that most newbies that play their first ladder game are going to lose. However, looking at the ladder right now there are roughly equal amounts who are 1-0 as compared to 0-1 (14 are 1-0 and 17 are 0-1). So as a result their effects are almost zero sum. At this point if none of them played again then 75 points total were "fed" into the ladder. Not that big of a deal.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-22-2010, 01:39 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
The problem of averaging a player's teams rating and then using that to adjust the rating is that everyone will gain/lose the same amount of points. This will allow high ranked players to continually inflate their rating by virtue of this function.
Hmm, good point. A pro player could just play with a newb team against a newb team and gain 15-20ish points every time (not infinitely - eventually his score would be so huge and weight the average so much, that the exponential score curve would start to kick in again).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoteric View Post
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.

Example:

Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!

Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.

Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
Eso, that's because the current system doesn't work for 2v2s, only 5v5. I suspect the "400" in the equation has something to do with this.

For 5v5s, the sum of pre game scores will be the same as the sum of post game scores, I'm almost certain.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:19 AM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoteric View Post
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.

Example:

Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!

Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.

Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
This was a problem that I think we thought might happen, but we never tested it mathematically to make sure it wasn't happening. We wrongly assumed that by averaging the opposing team that it would auto correct itself, but there were other factors we forgot to include.

We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:39 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Eso is right apparently:

Team X: 1380, 1410, 1540, 1560, 1600 (avg 1498)
Team Y: 1200, 1300, 1450, 1560, 1580 (avg 1418)

Team Y wins. They gain a total of 148.48 points.

Team X loses 151.84 points.

It's a small error but it's there.

Last edited by Sarah Palin; 01-22-2010 at 02:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:53 AM
Pieface Pieface is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,265
Default

Just played a couple of games and the system so far is riveting. Using the balance teams function at the start makes the games generally more even, with a few exceptions. I definitely think the rating system could be improved a bit, but the work you guys have done so far is exceptional. I'm only 4-1 so far but can't wait for more!

As a small point, I'd love to see the person ranked first also displayed on the home page with their number of points. It seems that you're showing some of the more important stats prominently, but it would also be nice to have the highest ranked player shown there as well. Obviously it's pretty easy to just click the "Ladder" link on top, but this seems like it could be a good addition.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:53 AM
porpus porpus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nesnl View Post
This was a problem that I think we thought might happen, but we never tested it mathematically to make sure it wasn't happening. We wrongly assumed that by averaging the opposing team that it would auto correct itself, but there were other factors we forgot to include.

We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
I think it's necessary though. If the rankings aren't 0 sum then they will be quickly exploited too the point where 3/4ths of the players are over 2k.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-22-2010, 03:00 AM
nobodyhome nobodyhome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nesnl View Post
Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
ASLJASKDFJLKLAD!!


Anyways, eso makes a good point that the current system makes it so you are encouraged to play with people higher ranked than you (and you lose nothing by doing so). Furthermore, it encourages higher ranked people to stick with other higher ranked people (because when you win, your teammates' scores aren't taken into account).

Let's take a look at the options.

Here's eso's system:

E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]

The pro is that people are rewarded for playing with lower ranked teammates (if they win). The con is that in a win, everybody on your team gets the same score. This may not necessarily be desirable, since it somewhat assumes that everybody on the team contributed equally (which as we know, is not the case. Higher rated players definitely contribute more to the team than lower rated players).


Maimer's proposed system: 25 1v1's, 5 1v1's calculated between you and every member of the opposing team. This one to me seems to suffer from the same problems as the first. Although at least this one is zero sum, your teammate's ratings aren't taken into account when calculating your gain. Thus, you have the same incentive to play with solely higher-ranked players.


Given no better options, I would like to put my vote in favor of eso's system, and perhaps have some way to distribute the points in a spread that rewards the bigger contributers (i.e. the higher rated players) in a win. Thus, we would use eso's system to determine the points given to an individual player, multiply that by 5, and then redistribute the points unevenly.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-22-2010, 03:29 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

OK I have an additional proposal.

First, calculate the game as a simple 1v1 between two "fictitious" players A and B whose score is the sum of the team's score. This would be zero sum, with one of the teams gaining X and the other -X (with X->250 as teams are more even).

Then, in step two, X will be split up AMONG a team's members according to a weighting scheme.

This seems like it would be easier to program than a series of 1v1s and would ensure zero-sum in the first step.

Not sure about the weighting scheme though. It seems obvious that in the case of victory the higher ranked players should get more points. What about in case of defeat...
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-22-2010, 04:05 AM
jeppew jeppew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 79
Default

actually giving more points to the higher ranked people just awards you for playing in games below your rank. If you play with noobs against noobs the game will award you more points for beating the players below your rank. Like this extremly likely scenario:

1450, 1450, 1450, 1450, 1700
vs
1500, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1500

here the average rating is equal on each team, if the first team wins with their high skilled player he will be awarded alot of points for beating people below his rank.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-22-2010, 04:24 AM
Esoteric Esoteric is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Default

The beauty of ELO is that it's based simply on the odds of each player/team winning. It's purely based on that, not a system of reward/punishment based on how much players contributed. If someone has a higher rating that means they're expected to do more. That's why they have a higher rating...because they do more. If they did less, they would have (and will have) a lower rating.

The goal is to get people the the right score for their skill level and then...stop there. This isn't a system where you keep on "leveling up" because of your efforts. If you want a system like that, look elsewhere (or reduce the penalty for losing so it's no longer zero-sum.)

The ideal system leaves you ambivalent about the makeup of your team. If the rest of your team is ****ty, no problem, the system accounts for that. If you stacked your team like mad--no problem, it accounts for that too. If you want to appear to "reward" top players more you can toss some pretty system on top of the ELO to make them feel special. ELO isn't about who did the most--it's about who did better than expected.


This all, of course, depends on an accurate calculation of "Team ELO"

Currently they are a direct average.
Team ELO = Avg Rating

If you feel that a pro/newb jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average, you could try something along the lines of:
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/4.

If you feel that a pro jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average but a newb jumping in is more disadvantageous you could modify the team's ELO by the third moment around the mean (or skewness*stddev.)
Team ELO = Avg Rating+u3(Team's Ratings)/4

Or if you feel that pros are more advantageous but newbs are accounted for roughly correctly you do both.
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/8 + u3(Team's Ratings.)/4



*I used the population mean for easy numbers. I can provide pseudocode for nobo if you like any of these schemes. Note that, though the calculation is more complex, it only needs to be done once per game--it's more elegant than it appears.


Here's some example teams and several ways of rating their Team ELO. Every single game, assuming players are at their "correct" ranking, should have a neutral expectation. What rating system seems most accurate? Describe something to me and I'll make a mathematical model of it for you. But don't make a system where people want to be in certain types of games but not others based on the scoring system.

Last edited by Esoteric; 01-22-2010 at 04:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-22-2010, 04:26 AM
Esoteric Esoteric is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Default

And here's a chart. Votes on what type of system seems the best estimation of Team ELO?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ELO.jpg (27.5 KB, 39 views)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-22-2010, 06:12 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

Look at it like this: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 vs. 11, 11, 11, 11, 36? I know I'd be betting on the first team. That one clutch veteran can't be everywhere at once.

I agree with Eso that a team's true ELO is more than the average. One really bad noob can ruin a team, but one semi-noob can't hurt it too much. One good pro can help a team, but he can't win by himself even if he's a REALLY good pro.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-22-2010, 06:19 AM
Triped Triped is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
Look at it like this: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 vs. 11, 11, 11, 11, 36? I know I'd be betting on the first team. That one clutch veteran can't be everywhere at once.
I don't know. Have you seen Mikesol run bombs on asteroids?

I think that for now, the ladder should calculate using multiple methods. Perhaps show them both on a separate page for people who care. After enough people play, it will become clear what actually works well and then the official ladder can use that method if it is not already.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-22-2010, 06:43 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...l/default.aspx
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...l/details.aspx

This is a Bayesian generalization of ELO that can infer individual skill from team performance... created by Microsoft for XBox.

Looks complicated and I'm struggling to understand it, but it shares with ELO the characteristic that over time a player's score will gravitate towards a settled number that defines their probability of contributing to a team win.

The problem of extracting individual performance from team performance is thornier than I first realized.

Overall however, don't take my discussion of this as a rejection of the ladder, I think it works just fine for now... the players who win more games, and more challenging games, are near to the top.

Last edited by Sarah Palin; 01-22-2010 at 06:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: a little bit about CCN: he is 22 yrs old, blonde hair blue eyes, athletic build, great smile/persona
Posts: 1,687
Default

Awesome work guys, but individual stats for a PuG 5v5 format seems kind of wierd. Seems to be all luck of who gets the good team.

Why is there no 1v1 Ladder? That seems like a great use for the system. Or factor in individual stuff into the stats - bomb drops, ratio, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-22-2010, 06:51 AM
GGQ GGQ is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada, the frozen north
Posts: 937
Default

The idea is that if everyone plays enough games on the ladder, the random factor of who gets a stronger team will be normalized. You can't get unlucky forever.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-22-2010, 07:00 AM
Sarah Palin Sarah Palin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 467
Default

http://atom.research.microsoft.com/t...alculator.aspx

This looks like just what you want (only 5v5). Select game mode "2 large teams" and draw probability 0%.

Mu is your skill rating (0-50) and Sigma is the standard deviation (high for newbies, goes down as you play more games and the system is more certain of your skill rating). I fiddled around with some of Eso's scenarios.

The system calculates the probability of either team winning based on the skills of each player (and how certain it is about them). If the underdog team loses then everyone's sigma uncertainty goes down, as the system predicted the outcome.

If the underdogs win then everyone's sigma appears to go up (that makes sense, the current rating for each player didn't predict the game's outcome) and the underdogs get a large rating boost while the team expected to win loses rating. It all seems to make very good intuitive sense.

Matchmaking would be straightforward, just try to balance the sum of mus (basically the same as balancing the sum of ELOs on the current ladder).
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:14 AM
DiogenesDog DiogenesDog is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,016
Default

On accuracy: I've seen a lot of ladder systems based on ELO or GLICKO or TrueSkill or whatever, and they all have one thing in common: they're terrible at showing who the actual best players are. And I think that's fine!

I mean, in a perfect world they'd all be great at it, and it doesn't hurt to strive for that goal, but meh. I think they all do the job of being good enough at what they do to get people playing more seriously and having fun striving for the best rank they can get.

Anyway, mostly just wanted to say that you guys shouldn't be surprised if you struggle for a long time with this. And also that I'd personally rather have some cool new ladder feature (automatch! party system! whatever!) rather than a lot of small incremental improvements in the rating system.

or actually, some servers closer to europe would be nice.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:33 AM
Smushface Smushface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,004
Default

Regardless of what the balancing / rating system is, this is a great addition to Altitude. Now I can find good 5v5 fairly balanced tbd games at most hours of the day. Props.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:37 AM
NomNom NomNom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 209
Default

Is there a ping cap?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:49 AM
nesnl nesnl is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
Default

Just a quick update. We are taking into account a few different possibilities of what the system that will be used to calculate rating. I think the important part is getting it zero sum and then working from there. While the changes may not happen immediately and you may feel that playing with certain people at this point might not be advantageous to your score, know that we have all of the games records stored safely on our servers and when we do switch the scoring system we will just pump all that data through the new system and all the games will be recorded and that under the new system the effect of playing with a worse team will either be removed or minimized as much as possible. So keep on playing and don't worry so much right now about what games are going to make your PSR go up/down based on the team make up.

To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.

In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:51 AM
tec27 tec27 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 178
Default

There's some routing issue between southwestern Virginia and these servers right now. Now what am I going to do at 4AM?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-22-2010, 09:06 AM
NomNom NomNom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nesnl View Post
Just a quick update. We are taking into account a few different possibilities of what the system that will be used to calculate rating. I think the important part is getting it zero sum and then working from there. While the changes may not happen immediately and you may feel that playing with certain people at this point might not be advantageous to your score, know that we have all of the games records stored safely on our servers and when we do switch the scoring system we will just pump all that data through the new system and all the games will be recorded and that under the new system the effect of playing with a worse team will either be removed or minimized as much as possible. So keep on playing and don't worry so much right now about what games are going to make your PSR go up/down based on the team make up.

To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.

In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.

Well as far as I see it the main reason to do this ladder is to promote competitive play. It's nice that after half a year people finally realized how dumb the 7v7s are and are starting to play 5v5, that's a step in the right direction.
However to make it truly competitive you can't have people with over 200 ping or with spikes playing the game because that just makes it a luckfest of bombs going through, getting shot behind walls etc... Which is kind of what you're trying to get away from I assume.
Yes the community is small but you can leave one server with no cap and one with, so people can choose.
Also you can put a level cap cause no one under 60 will get to play anyways, might as well prevent them from clogging up the servers.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-22-2010, 09:32 AM
Beagle Beagle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: a little bit about CCN: he is 22 yrs old, blonde hair blue eyes, athletic build, great smile/persona
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NomNom View Post
However to make it truly competitive you can't have people with over 200 ping or with spikes playing the game because that just makes it a luckfest of bombs going through, getting shot behind walls etc... Which is kind of what you're trying to get away from I assume.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to tell Maimer and all the ladder guys how much I appreciate there not being a ping cap.

Also, wanted to reiterate I think this is great, I was just voicing my concerns on the stats thing.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-22-2010, 09:45 AM
DryBone DryBone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seoul
Posts: 510
Send a message via Yahoo to DryBone
Default

so much awesome stuff while i wasn't on the forum! :O
AWESOME xD
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2008 Nimbly Games LLC