Forum Message
| City: | Evanston, IL USA  | | Personal Data: | Male, born: July 17 1944 | | Membership | 20years 76days ago. | | Last Login | 13years 125days ago. | | Last Move | 13years 164days ago. | Bombadil is currently  | Send a mail to Bombadil |
| | Message text Falconfab wrote:
scotireb wrote: Bombadil wrote: markrendl wrote: Falconfab wrote: Hi pilots, since i frequented this site the first time i'm asking for a better scoring system that could indicate the real strengt of a player. I feel this as a must! The statistics make fakes. For two reasons, first of all, you don't know witch scenario and plane are used, even if much has been done. But the second reason is that you don't know the real power of people against he played... there are good pilots, great pilots ad bad pilots... but a kill is alwais a kill. The best solution, in my opinion, is to have a self-adaptive evalutation system. the system should compare the strenght of the two players and make a table, if the "strong player One" wins it would give him few points, if the "weak player Two" wins give him many points. In case of even game give few points to the weaker player. In the mean time, the loser player would lose the same ammount of points the winning would have. Chess players use the Elo rating system that, even if not perfect, is much better than simple statistics!  http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_systemAn interesting concept, but given the number - and variety - of scenarios, I think it would be really tough to calculate. For example, some people play a lot of 1 vs 1 matches and others gravitate toward large scale matches. Quantifying and assigning valid weights to all the possible variables would be a major undertaking. However, I'm not a mathematician, so what do I know ?  markrendl I agree with mark. A key vairable for me is Game Size. In a 1:1 game you can only loose to one other pilot (using a point syetem to etermine a 'winner'). In a 4:4 game you can 'loose' to Seven other pilots. Another thing that effects 'Winning' is if a given pilot tends to routinely fly the stronger aircraft. Early on when I found this site I looked at those factors and in my personal assessment I look at a player who has about a 30% won/loss ratio as holding his own. That evaluation might not hold up in relation to to my ideas from above specialy if a given pilot really skews by not playing other than 1:1 or never takes a weak plane, but I'm not sure how much of that really goes on. That assessment may not hold water. Each of us has opinions. I agree with Mark that the math to Falconfabs breakdown would be overwhelming for this site. A column on the "Old Stats Page" showing W/L percentage might be helpful and interesting, and not to hard to implement. A mathmatical formula could be applied in standard games (excluding the luck factor) to determin pilot skill but would not work with advanced games. A more useful and simple salution might be to add on the players ID page the % of wins to losses, % of kills to deaths and their average die roll. That's what i say... statistics are fake! % of winning rate is so different if you usually play vs 7 players than if you play vs 1! Even killing ratio is fake, if you play against rookies 1 vs 1 or with a better plane or... or... my idea is to have a scoring system based on: ELO personal ratio AND ELO scenario ratio. I mean a table like the following (numbers are only an example) Player ONE - ELO 1200 (rookie) Player TWO - ELO 1200 (rookie) Player TREE - ELO 1600 (veteran) Scenario ALFA 1VS1 Winning ratio (fist player) - 25% Losing ratio (fist player) - 25% Even ratio - 50% ONE Vs TWO _____ Win Even Lose ONE +50 +25 -50 TWO +50 +25 -50 ONE Vs TREE _____ Win Even Lose ONE +90 +50 -10 TREE +10 -50 -90 As you can see this is the standar ELO System, based ONLY on the strenght of pilots(that's because the senario is "even")
Scenario BRAVO 1VS1
Winning ratio (fist player) - 10%
Losing ratio (fist player) - 40%
Even ratio - 50%
ONE Vs TWO
_____ Win Even Lose
ONE +80 +25 -20
TWO +20 +25 -80
ONE Vs TREE
_____ Win Even Lose
ONE +50 +25 -50
TREE +50 +25 -50
TREE Vs ONE
_____ Win Even Lose
ONE +95 +70 -5
TWO +5 -20 -95
This is for ONE Vs ONE scenarios.
For many VS many scenarios would change nothing. The ELO would be the SUM of all ELOs, and Elo Lost would be directly divided between losers as Elo gain would be divided between winners.
Please let me state, I'm not trying to be a 'smartass' (if anything I'd consider myself a 'dumbass' about all this stuff), but here in the States we have a "system" that ranks/rates College Football. It's called the BCS System (for Bowl Championship Series, I think). It ranks the top 25 or so college football teams.
Rankings are based on, among other things, Your won/loss record, Your strength of schedule; Your Opponents strength of schedule; where and when you play; Number of points you win or loose by; and a number of other criteria which I neither know or care about. Heck, the Game Anouncers, analysts, Sports writers, and I would guess the majority of coaches and players don't have a clue what it all means.
I watch the games on TV and enjoy them regardless. The better team usually screws up less, scores more points, and wins the game.
I think we may be getting hung up in our shorts about alot of this stuff. If one looks at the "Old Stat Page" and sees the top 10 or 15 names in the Total Wins List and the Net Kills List you have a pretty good idea who the top (red) players are. It's not really a mystery.
It all seems like a lot of work for marginal results. I think the webmasters time would be better spent killing Bugs.
PEACE!!! I'm NOT trying to get people riled-up, It's just my thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
