Surn, on 16 May 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:
and as i stated earlier, Elo is basic and based on assumptions of a normal distribution. We have far more data available than wins and losses, things that can account for close games, like scores...of which there are none in chess.
-Pieces lost
-Pieces removed
-Pieces left compared to opponent
-Which pieces were removed
-Which pieces were lost
-Which pieces were lost to what pieces
-Which pieces were removed with what piece
-How many rounds were played
BTGbullseye, on 17 May 2018 - 08:38 PM, said:
And a pure win/loss rating for anything other than determining if you won or lost, is useless. It says very little about skill when taken out of context, like with what mech you're using. (a meta Anni takes a lot less skill to win with than a BlAsp)
It's not a rare occurrence to see long range assault mechs do a lot of damage, but still lost the team the game, because these assault mechs would've been of better use sharing armor at the front than stand in the back accumulating a high damage. Something they were capable of doing as they're usually some of the last remaining players and have more time to dish out damage.
And here's the question regarding the game:
Are you there to win?
Why not take the Meta Anni then?
Your ability to win, is making less mistakes than your opponents.
Edit: Even in the OP, it states that someone can gain rank because they "did good amount of damage".
"Hey, you don't need to win, you just need to pad your stats"
As with Halo: Reach's initial ranking system, that promote selfish playstyles which does not benefit the team.
And the more variables you put into an algorithm, the more complicated it'll become to balance, and easier to exploit.
Edited by Naqser, 19 May 2018 - 02:23 AM.