26 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

Let’s begin the calculation:

Old Rating = 1350
Maximum Change Allowed = +50 for a win, -50 for a loss (as seen in Figure 1)
WinFlag = 1
Probability of Winning = 0.41

1350 Players new ranking = 1350 + 50 x (1 – 0.41)
= 1380

1410 Players new ranking = 1410 – 50 x (1 – 0.41)
= 1381

A player’s rating will only go down if they are beaten by a player who has a lower rating than theirs. In this case, if the 1350 player lost, their score would not change since the Match Maker was correct in its prediction.



Ok Bryan... This explaination begs a few questions

1. If the 1350 player loses and doesnt lose any points to the higher ranked 1410 player, what happens to the 1410 players rating?

2. Based on the same info above, if we all start at 1300, playing and beating somone else at the same rating, no change occurs. So basically we are all forever stuck at 1300. You have to fix that.

Unless there is more to this calculation you didnt tell us.

The other thing is performance based scoring... You mentioned that would also be accounted for. But I dont see how ELO(a system based only on win/loss) can incorporate in game performance scoring. They would have to be 2 separate rating systems, because in game performance can be stellar, and you still lose a game, or the opposite can happen, Win yet do poorly in game performance wise.


The other thing to consider, is premades. A good premade team will have an average performance across the whole team. I have found this to be true with my own team.... I find it harder to score very high when I have a whole team of *** kickers with me. And if I am pugging or doing 4 man premades, I find I get much higher scores in general than if I am with 8.

I dont know just how complex you intend to make this matching system... but there are alot more variables at work than just numbers. Even different modes of play will have different things that count for doing well that another mode wouldnt.

And perhaps it shouldnt be complex. Might be better to keep it simple win/loss. Also have a ranked play, and a non ranked play choice.

Also for ranked play to be completely on even ground mech wise, there needs to be a hard limit in either tonnage and battle value(tonnage would be easier to calculate) for ranked play. Unless you would prefer to have even more crazy match calculations going on in the matchmaker in regards to what mechs ppl bring...

Edited by Teralitha, 19 December 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

win/loss and performance are, of course, not the same thing- but if the correllation is close enough, then matching based on win/loss may provide a matchmaking system that is good enough, even though it doesn't encompass all of the possible details.

They're planning to/already are comparing their Elo system versus the actual data seen in actual matches to see if the calculation is close enough to the actual result.

[Grokmoo]

To the OP, you are not understanding how the Elo system works.

(1) If the 1410 player wins against a 1350 player, the 1410 player's rating increases.

(2) Beating someone with the same rating as you increases your rating. So, after that first match, the winning player will have a higher score than the losing player.

[Teralitha]

Redshift2k5, on 19 December 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

win/loss and performance are, of course, not the same thing- but if the correllation is close enough, then matching based on win/loss may provide a matchmaking system that is good enough, even though it doesn't encompass all of the possible details.

They're planning to/already are comparing their Elo system versus the actual data seen in actual matches to see if the calculation is close enough to the actual result.

Yea, I read they are testing, and yet... there seems to be something vital missing in their posted example

Grokmoo, on 19 December 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

To the OP, you are not understanding how the Elo system works.

(1) If the 1410 player wins against a 1350 player, the 1410 player's rating increases.

(2) Beating someone with the same rating as you increases your rating. So, after that first match, the winning player will have a higher score than the losing player.

thats what I figured... but they didnt include that in their posted example... so I have to wonder.
I still think that if 2 evenly ranked players, by even I mean like only a very small difference, the loser should still lose rank. If you were ranked just 1 point above your opponant, and they beat you, that you drop ranting like a rock. while if you win, they lose nothing? Hardly seems fair.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 December 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[PhigNewtenz]

Good post. I'm still working through it and will comment on the rest in a bit. This, however, is just wrong.

Teralitha, on 19 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

2. Based on the same info above, if we all start at 1300, playing and beating somone else at the same rating, no change occurs. So basically we are all forever stuck at 1300. You have to fix that.

If both players (or teams) have an Elo Rating of 1300, then they will have a rating difference of zero.

In that case, P_o = 1 / (1 + 10^(0/400) ) = 1 / (1 + 10^0) = 1 / (1 + 1) = 1/2 = 0.5.

So, the winner's new Elo would be 1300 + 50*(0.5) = 1325.


I agree that it doesn't make sense for the loser's rating not to decrease, but that's a separate issue.

[Purlana]

Wait how do they figure out which "player" beat you? Or do they take the other teams average rating vs your teams average rating?

Edited by Purlana, 19 December 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[Apoc1138]

beating someone with the same score as you will cause your score to increase, getting beaten by someone with a score the same as you will cause your score to decrease

usually, Elo systems include a calculation so that the first x number of matches (e.g. 50) get a higher score adjustment than subsequent matches, so that new players coming in to an existing system will get to their correct level quicker than the organic approach... though they've not mentioned if they intend to or even think this might be neccessary

[Teralitha]

Purlana, on 19 December 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Wait how do they figure out which "player" beat you? Or do they take the other teams average rating vs your teams average rating?

it would just be by whether you won or lost the match.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 December 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Apoc1138]

Purlana, on 19 December 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Wait how do they figure out which "player" beat you? Or do they take the other teams average rating vs your teams average rating?

the post they made indicates that it will be based off your position on the XP leaderboard at the end of a match
so your team can lose the match, but if you single handidly killed half their team then chances are your score will actually increase compared with those at the bottom of the table who all get decreases

Edited by Apoc1138, 19 December 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Teralitha]

Apoc1138, on 19 December 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

beating someone with the same score as you will cause your score to increase, getting beaten by someone with a score the same as you will cause your score to decrease

usually, Elo systems include a calculation so that the first x number of matches (e.g. 50) get a higher score adjustment than subsequent matches, so that new players coming in to an existing system will get to their correct level quicker than the organic approach... though they've not mentioned if they intend to or even think this might be neccessary

They said the lower ranked player losing to the higher ranked player takes no loss in rating.

[Apoc1138]

Teralitha, on 19 December 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

They said the lower ranked player losing to the higher ranked player takes no loss in rating.

but we are talking about players with THE SAME rating, not one that is lower
otherwise there is no way for any player to decrease from 1300... some players will get an increase but then everyone at 1300 will be playing people with the same rating or higher and will never get a decrease

Edited by Apoc1138, 19 December 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Teralitha]

Apoc1138, on 19 December 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

but we are talking about players with THE SAME rating, not one that is lower

Right, we assume the winner goes up, but the loser would stay the same...

[PhigNewtenz]

Teralitha, on 19 December 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I still think that if 2 evenly ranked players, by even I mean like only a very small difference, the loser should still lose rank. If you were ranked just 1 point above your opponant, and they beat you, that you drop ranting like a rock. while if you win, they lose nothing? Hardly seems fair.

I agree. If you lose in any other Elo rated game, then your rating decreases (unless the change is so small it's undone by rounding), regardless of your opponent's Elo rating. If that doesn't happen, then you will clearly be inflating ratings at an alarming rate. Points will be entering the system, but never leaving. I'm guessing when Bryan said:

Quote

A player’s rating will only go down if they are beaten by a player who has a lower rating than theirs. In this case, if the 1350 player lost, their score would not change since the Match Maker was correct in its prediction.

that he was mistaken.

[Purlana]

Apoc1138, on 19 December 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

the post they made indicates that it will be based off your position on the XP leaderboard at the end of a match
so your team can lose the match, but if you single handidly killed half their team then chances are your score will actually increase compared with those at the bottom of the table who all get decreases

So losing and winning does not refer to the match, but positions on the score bord? Then it would be possible to win the match but still lose ELO?

Edited by Purlana, 19 December 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[Apoc1138]

Purlana, on 19 December 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

So losing and winning does not refer to the match, but positions on the score bord? Then it would be possible to win the match but still lose ELO?

Yes, as I read it. Start looking at where on the leaderboard you tend to come now and you'll get an idea on how often you might go up or down when the new system first comes in.

[Jakob Knight]

I agree that this system seems flawed at the basic level as it is built around a dueling environment, the exact opposite of MWO's proposed team-based environment. A player that is 'beaten' (presumed killed) by a 'lower ranked' player because they delayed the entire enemy force in order to allow their team to complete a capture is penalized for being a good team player, but a bad soloist. Conversely, a pilot who isolates themselves from their team, engaging only targets others have weakened to the point that the kill requires only a single shot (in essence sacrificing their team to pad their kill scores) are rewarded by a higher score.

This doesn't even cover the error in calculating win probability without consideration of the equipment used. A 50 rating player in an ECM Streak Commando matched up against a 2000 rating player who must engage them in a Catapult equipped with only LRMs and Streaks is -not- the underdog here, but a near 95 percent chance to win because the -equipment- will override anything the pilots can do.

Seems like the Devs need to think a bit more about which game they are working on.

[Elizander]

There should be a range, but you should almost always lose rating even if you fight a higher rated opponent.

The closer the gap between a low-rated player and the higher-rated player, the more points to be lost/gained, but there should be an amount where each player loses/gains points with diminishing values the further their ratings are from each other.

[PhigNewtenz]

Jakob Knight, on 19 December 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

player that is 'beaten' (presumed killed) by a 'lower ranked' player

I'd being will to wager heavily that this is exactly NOT what 'beaten' means. It has to do with wins and losses.

[Purlana]

Apoc1138, on 19 December 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Yes, as I read it. Start looking at where on the leaderboard you tend to come now and you'll get an idea on how often you might go up or down when the new system first comes in.

It just seems strange to me. What if the lowest ELO player comes in first?

Everyone else losses ranking?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Jakob Knight, on 19 December 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

I agree that this system seems flawed at the basic level as it is built around a dueling environment, the exact opposite of MWO's proposed team-based environment. A player that is 'beaten' (presumed killed) by a 'lower ranked' player because they delayed the entire enemy force in order to allow their team to complete a capture is penalized for being a good team player, but a bad soloist. Conversely, a pilot who isolates themselves from their team, engaging only targets others have weakened to the point that the kill requires only a single shot (in essence sacrificing their team to pad their kill scores) are rewarded by a higher score.

This doesn't even cover the error in calculating win probability without consideration of the equipment used. A 50 rating player in an ECM Streak Commando matched up against a 2000 rating player who must engage them in a Catapult equipped with only LRMs and Streaks is -not- the underdog here, but a near 95 percent chance to win because the -equipment- will override anything the pilots can do.

Seems like the Devs need to think a bit more about which game they are working on.

I would imagine, this is first stage ELO.

Group ELO certainly at 8 v 8 group level, should add the ELO together of the 8 players / 8 for the average ELO and match accordingly.
Your ELO shift is dependent on the average ELO of your opposition team, not the individual players.

Im not sure why PGI has decided to communicate this system as if it were 1v1 because that makes no sense.
Define the term beaten, because this is always 8v8 be it pug or group.