|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jun 18, 2017 7:17:42 GMT -5
Actually, No. At some point a Player would stall and stop earning points until they can Upgrade, form better strategies, etc... It's a valid system that works. Tried and Tested for more than 250 years lol Where has this been tried and tested? I already know: totally different circumstances. It just doesn't work your way. Think about it: I got a 12/12 hangar, but I don't play very much. So everybody that plays more passes me. So I'll face opponents that just started the game: in my 12/12 whatever I just blast them to scrap metal in the blink of an eye. And the most active players move to the top. Skill doesn't matter, hangar doesn't matter, just how much they play. Guaranteed recipe for bad and unbalanced gameplay. Yes, you would "blast" right by them and quickly, too. However, it would only be once, maybe twice that you would encounter them and head straight to the Top. And just like every other Real World League, it is dependant upon how often you participate. New Teams and Players who play only half a Season could never earn enough Points to take the Cup, Championship, Trophy, etc... Skill has to matter because you could fail/stall at earning Points. The purpose of a League system is to earn as many Points as possible within a given timeframe. If you Win you get Points. If you Lose you get no Points. If you play hard and well (Tie) you can earn half-points because your Opponents are equal - it could've went either way. The current League system is acting more as a Class-based system and that is because Elo is not meant to include multiple participants. Elo is a valid system for 1v1 but it simply can't account for all the variables that are introduced by having several people of varying Skill/Equipment. Elo is good in Theory to Match Players of equal Skill/Equipment but through practical application, we know it cannot work because the variables it calculates are manipulated by Players giving false information to the system. Therefore, it is impossible to be accurate. Elo cannot and does not work in a multiplayer environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jun 18, 2017 7:23:14 GMT -5
Actually, No. At some point a Player would stall and stop earning points until they can Upgrade, form better strategies, etc... It's a valid system that works. Tried and Tested for more than 250 years lol By stall, you mean they never win again? There's no points being exchanged in your system. It's like printing new money for every transaction. -Amid Your analogy is not quite accurate. A better analogy would be: Earning Interest on your Investment (Hangar/Experience). The more Experienced you are the greater the chance of advancement (ROI). By, "Stall" I mean the Player would stop gaining Points until either Skill/Equipment or both improve. |
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jun 18, 2017 7:42:15 GMT -5
Actually, No. At some point a Player would stall and stop earning points until they can Upgrade, form better strategies, etc... It's a valid system that works. Tried and Tested for more than 250 years lol Ummm, yeah, too bad this isn't chess, sooooooo, no. It HAS to be zero sum, otherwise everyone would be champion league. Why do you keep quoting, "zero sum?" It does not have to equal zero nor should it. If there is no advancement then the current League system equals: -1 The Points distribution that are used by Leagues is scalar. It works because the Leagues are time constrained (Vector). Not everyone would be a Champion because not everyone has the Skill/Equipment to progress. |
|
|
|
Post by CharismaticReaper99 on Jun 18, 2017 7:43:42 GMT -5
Ummm, yeah, too bad this isn't chess, sooooooo, no. It HAS to be zero sum, otherwise everyone would be champion league. Why do you keep quoting, "zero sum?" It does not have to equal zero nor should it. If there is no advancement then the current League system equals: -1 The Points distribution that are used by Leagues is scalar. It works because the Leagues are time constrained (Vector). Not everyone would be a Champion because not everyone has the Skill/Equipment to progress. Zero sum just means that when you get something, you lose something, no way you can have both. |
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jun 18, 2017 7:58:23 GMT -5
Why do you keep quoting, "zero sum?" It does not have to equal zero nor should it. If there is no advancement then the current League system equals: -1 The Points distribution that are used by Leagues is scalar. It works because the Leagues are time constrained (Vector). Not everyone would be a Champion because not everyone has the Skill/Equipment to progress. Zero sum just means that when you get something, you lose something, no way you can have both. I'm familiar with, "zero sum." It implies a Loss to Gain. The point I'm making is you Invest time and effort for advancement. If Leagues lost points, there would be no Playoffs because you could never determine the Best. The current League system is: -1 |
|
|
|
Post by ΒΣRΖΣRKΛ²³ on Jun 18, 2017 12:39:22 GMT -5
Where has this been tried and tested? I already know: totally different circumstances. It just doesn't work your way. Think about it: I got a 12/12 hangar, but I don't play very much. So everybody that plays more passes me. So I'll face opponents that just started the game: in my 12/12 whatever I just blast them to scrap metal in the blink of an eye. And the most active players move to the top. Skill doesn't matter, hangar doesn't matter, just how much they play. Guaranteed recipe for bad and unbalanced gameplay. Yes, you would "blast" right by them and quickly, too. However, it would only be once, maybe twice that you would encounter them and head straight to the Top. And just like every other Real World League, it is dependant upon how often you participate. New Teams and Players who play only half a Season could never earn enough Points to take the Cup, Championship, Trophy, etc... Skill has to matter because you could fail/stall at earning Points. The purpose of a League system is to earn as many Points as possible within a given timeframe. If you Win you get Points. If you Lose you get no Points. If you play hard and well (Tie) you can earn half-points because your Opponents are equal - it could've went either way. The current League system is acting more as a Class-based system and that is because Elo is not meant to include multiple participants. Elo is a valid system for 1v1 but it simply can't account for all the variables that are introduced by having several people of varying Skill/Equipment. Elo is good in Theory to Match Players of equal Skill/Equipment but through practical application, we know it cannot work because the variables it calculates are manipulated by Players giving false information to the system. Therefore, it is impossible to be accurate. Elo cannot and does not work in a multiplayer environment. But but but.!. the matchmaking does work. It may not work the way you like, but it does work. it HAS to be a give and take. That's fundamental. |
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jun 19, 2017 7:34:12 GMT -5
Yes, you would "blast" right by them and quickly, too. However, it would only be once, maybe twice that you would encounter them and head straight to the Top. And just like every other Real World League, it is dependant upon how often you participate. New Teams and Players who play only half a Season could never earn enough Points to take the Cup, Championship, Trophy, etc... Skill has to matter because you could fail/stall at earning Points. The purpose of a League system is to earn as many Points as possible within a given timeframe. If you Win you get Points. If you Lose you get no Points. If you play hard and well (Tie) you can earn half-points because your Opponents are equal - it could've went either way. The current League system is acting more as a Class-based system and that is because Elo is not meant to include multiple participants. Elo is a valid system for 1v1 but it simply can't account for all the variables that are introduced by having several people of varying Skill/Equipment. Elo is good in Theory to Match Players of equal Skill/Equipment but through practical application, we know it cannot work because the variables it calculates are manipulated by Players giving false information to the system. Therefore, it is impossible to be accurate. Elo cannot and does not work in a multiplayer environment. But but but.!. the matchmaking does work. It may not work the way you like, but it does work. it HAS to be a give and take. That's fundamental. Can you explain why it, "...HAS..." to be, "...give and take..." Elo is 'give and take' and its measurements are creating Matches with Players of wildly varying Skill and Equipment. It's not working as intended and the Points system is static rather than dynamic, which Elo requires - so, it's not a true Elo system to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Jun 19, 2017 8:58:27 GMT -5
Snip...
Our ELO has to factor in power (and how it is applied). The current scoring weights to power. If it doesn't weight to power (ala pre 2.9) and weights to winning, then It will demote you till your power normalizes against your winning. ...Snip What exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the points change where beacons get a bonus? Or are you telling me that they incorporated something that takes your hangar levels into account? Source? |
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Jun 19, 2017 11:10:40 GMT -5
Snip...
Our ELO has to factor in power (and how it is applied). The current scoring weights to power. If it doesn't weight to power (ala pre 2.9) and weights to winning, then It will demote you till your power normalizes against your winning. ...Snip What exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the points change where beacons get a bonus? Or are you telling me that they incorporated something that takes your hangar levels into account? Source? It relates to power by being based largely on damage ranking. Previously winning/losing was the major factor in point levels, with damage being minor. -Amid |
|
|
|
Post by ⓣⓡⓘⓒⓚⓨ48 on Jun 19, 2017 11:19:13 GMT -5
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the points change where beacons get a bonus? Or are you telling me that they incorporated something that takes your hangar levels into account? Source? It relates to power by being based largely on damage ranking. Previously winning/losing was the major factor in point levels, with damage being minor. -Amid OK, so the fact that the positive points can be gained from either losing or winning team makes Power the main component with winning a secondary consideration. Gotcha. So nothing to do with the hangar levels... and it is still going to be common to see tankers with maxed hangars in Silver. Very well... Is what it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jun 19, 2017 11:59:50 GMT -5
Okay, I will post THE ULTIMATE TRUTH once again.
It is very easy to fix the MM. One just need to distribute league points based on Ancile+Shield+Bot damage, not just Bot damage.
And leave Gold\Silver rewards the same.
This would not let tankers to feed off Anciles to generate insane silver income in pre-set cheat matches, but will move good guys up (the supporters, who was busting enemy shields off, especially midrange anti-ancile ones).
|
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jun 19, 2017 13:27:03 GMT -5
It relates to power by being based largely on damage ranking. Previously winning/losing was the major factor in point levels, with damage being minor. -Amid OK, so the fact that the positive points can be gained from either losing or winning team makes Power the main component with winning a secondary consideration. Gotcha. So nothing to do with the hangar levels... and it is still going to be common to see tankers with maxed hangars in Silver. Very well... Is what it is. In the pre 2.9 version of the league points AKA winner take all, it wasn't just "winning" that was at issue. The window for advancement was very narrow: at a %50 win rate, assuming you got top damage in every game, it would take you 34 games to 200 league points. However if your win rate dropped (40%) or you fell out of those top spots (because you ran a bunch of snipers) you would be pushed DOWN in league points. So lets talk about that pilot who makes poor life choices and picks too many long/mid range bots. There are maps where they can make a massively outsized contribution (yama, springfield, canyon). There are maps where they make less of a contribution (dead city, power plant) there are maps that are mixed (shenzhen) and ones that just make them suck (moon). So our sniper player has some maps where they really gets to SHINE and others where he just isn't going to get close to the top spot, because they can't brawl. Over time, our player is actually going to slide DOWN in rank. Simply because they can not stay "in first" and they aren't going "for the win". How far do they go down? They go down till their POWER becomes the decisive factor, probably till they can end up in 1st or 2nd in every game, win or loss. The impact of this player becomes rather large on the system, because they are reducing the window for advancement for everyone else. It doesn't take a LOT of these players to stagnate the entire system, if there is one in every match, it now takes 66 games for you to advance, if there is two, 200 games to gain 200 league points at a %50 win rate. Are there enough poor players to do this? No, but there aren't enough players who were good enough to have finishes that high that consistently... People end up frustrated and play LESS "ill do my daily tasks and upgrade my gear". The problem is that makes the issue WORSE, because they aren't advancing as fast as their gear, and lots of players around them are doing the same locking them out of those narrow windows. The current version forces sorting on relative power. Top two finishers always move up, winners always move up, winners who can finish well always move up. If you get out of your depth (and you can) you will quickly fall down. If games are truly balanced, then over time you end up with an equal chance at landing in every spot and will assuming you aren't completely ignoring how to play the game. |
|
