Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Change ELO calculation?

67 posts, 2806 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 4 (67 records)
sort

9 years ago
Hi!

Few recent events have caught my attention and I believe fueled the need to change the current ELO system:
1. SErank[Er0]Godde lost his 1st place in the ladder due to few losses (one of them was that he needed to go I believe)
2. USrankkaen GTG in one of the games with lower elo player, which costed him place in 1vs1 top-50.

Now the rationale.

The current ELO rating system makes low-skill vs high skill player matches uneven. High skill player has a lot to lose and almost nothing to win. Besides an accidental loss to lower skill player, a lot of things might go wrong: crash, desync, disconnect, urgent GTG, smurf of high level player, etc. A low skill player on the other hand doesn't practially risk with anything.

Secondly, lots of existing players don't play anymore, however stay in the ratings. I believe some change was made like month or two ago and inactive players don't appear in the ladder, however when they reappear, they still will have the same old rating.


The proposal is following. To change the ELO rating calculation that it only takes into account wins and ignore losses. As before, the amount of elo gained by wining, would still depend on the difference between pre-game elo, however some small changes might still be needed here. To compensate for increased ELO of the winner the ELO of the rest of the gang (basically all other players in the list/ladder) should become "deflated" in order that medium or median ELO stays say around 1500.

The benefits:
1) Single accidental loss to lower ELO player wouldn't harm like it does today. Urgent GTGs, disconnects, loss to smurfs, etc. are also compensated by this change.
3) People will play more:
3a) Less mental blocks, like "a loss will cost me my 1st/top-10/top-50 place".
3b) The more people play(and win) the more they gain and the more the rest of the playerbase gets deflated
4) Inactive part of the playerbase doesn't preserve their place in the rating and gradually goes down the ladder.


Let me know what you think, folks.
+0 / -0
What you are proposing is not Elo, however. You should pick a new name :)
+0 / -0


9 years ago
What is the purpose of your ranking system and do you have any proof that it achieves this purpose? For example the ELO system makes statements about the proportion of wins you can expect against another player.
+0 / -0
Well if there should be any ELO change, I think some sort of elo decay system should be introduced, e.g. your elo goes down by some certain amount for every 2 weeks or month that you havent played. I've been out of the game for a fairly long time and do not play anymore like my elo suggests.
+0 / -0

9 years ago
Thanks for argument, guys.

EErankAdminAnarchid, sure it's not a vanilla elo. If the name is the only obstacle, then it's solvable :)
AUrankAdminGoogleFrog, have you carefully read the post? It has answer(s) to purpose question as well as stating possible benefits. I don't have a math proof that the new system gives an accurate proportion of W/L against a player. The only change I practially propose here is to replace substraction of loser's rating with global deflation, so the proposed system may well retain the W/L ratio at least to some extent. Secondly, I question if knowing of the W/L ratio is really of value. To me boosting amount of matches played and praising active, winning players is much more important than a theoretical statistical result of "!predict"

@Saab, the proposed system will move you down the ladder the longer you don't play (or strictly the more matches are played w/o you).
+0 / -0
9 years ago
agreed,I want to lose moar elo than win more!
+0 / -0

9 years ago
If Godde plays a couple more games in such a way that he deserves to be #1 then his rating will change to reflect that. Over time small anomalies like players leaving games, etc. even themselves out. I don't see a particular need to change the rating system.

That being said, something else has occured to me: there are at least a few players ranked highly in 1v1 who play the mode very rarely, if at all, but retain their position on the 1v1 list by virtue of playing teams games. I'm not sure if this is desirable.
+8 / -0


9 years ago
AUrankAdminAquanim, yeah and they can also retain the spot by merely spectating 1v1 or teamgames.
+2 / -0

9 years ago
RUrankivand
It seems like that kind of system would be exploitable. Win trading would be an easy way to get high up in the ladder.

Game quality might degrade as well since trolling could be done without risking to lose (much) Elo, especially by higher Elo players when playing against lower Elo players.

I find my own Elo to usually be around 40 from my average and in rare cases change up to 70 from my average. This isn't really a big change and indicates that the system works fine.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
FIranksprang come back!
The name I suggest is "freelo".
But seriously, don't cry over spilt milk/lost elo, just win more if you think you do not have enough elo.
You always get the elo you deserve, off course it fluctuates, but this means it can also raise higher than your deserved elo.
If you gtg, just tell the other player and start a !voteexit. In case of disconnect, hope your opponent pauses the game in time, in 1v1 this should be automatically imo.
But this one occasional loss of elo doesn't really matter actually, you will be back up to your 'deserved elo' after a few games.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
ELO is based on whether you won against another player or not. if the formula is changed, a new name is needed.
+0 / -0


9 years ago
Yet again, another example of modern gamers wanting every sharp corner cushioned, sanded smooth and with a free reward for passing around it..
+1 / -0

9 years ago
Elo Decay could be a way to keep non-players out of the ladder. Something like -3elmos/day after 2 weeks of not doing an actual game.
+1 / -0
quote:
Something like -3elmos/day after 2 weeks of not doing an actual game.

1) Godde quits ZK at 2178 1v1 elo for 8 months to play PA / go on vacation / finish thesis.
2) 14 days after he's gone, his elo starts decaying at 3 poinst per day.
3) That is 226 days of elo decay, worth 678 elo points.
4) Now Godde comes back and he has 1500 1v1 elo.

And he didn't really lose most of his skills.

You should probably do some research into how Elo math works and do something better than merely linear decay.
+1 / -0
Skasi
quote:
Few recent events have caught my attention and I believe fueled the need to change the current ELO system:
1. [Er0]Godde lost his 1st place in the ladder due to few losses (one of them was that he needed to go I believe)
2. kaen GTG in one of the games with lower elo player, which costed him place in 1vs1 top-50.

The two points you brought up are no reason to change how Zero-K calculates a player's expected skill. Godde did not play for some time so he got rusty and his elo number now reflects this properly. As for kaen, I couldn't find a game where they 1v1'd a new/much weaker player. Either way, elo taking everything into account is by design - by ZK rules being forced to leave a running game means you lose.
+0 / -0
quote:
To change the ELO rating calculation that it only takes into account wins and ignore losses.

Then it will not be about the skill level anymore, it will be about the number of games played.
quote:
the ELO of the rest of the gang (basically all other players in the list/ladder) should become "deflated" in order that medium or median ELO stays say around 1500

There is no such thing as "the rest of the ladder", the top-50 cutoff is absolutely arbitrary. That means your "rest of the list" will be the entire playerbase. Excluding inactive accounts means the goal to achieve elo decay for inactive players wont be reached. Not excluding them means you will have to deflate tens of thousands accounts, 99% of which are dead.
quote:
I believe some change was made like month or two ago and inactive players don't appear in the ladder

It has been like that for ages.
quote:
High skill player has a lot to lose and almost nothing to win.

He also has high chance to win and almost no chance to lose. Thats the whole fucking point of elo. If you find the prediction unfair for you, then its either because your elo is too high and you dont deserve it, or your opponents elo is too low and you just dont want to be the one to help him increase it to where it should be.
quote:
Inactive part of the playerbase doesn't preserve their place in the rating and gradually goes down the ladder.

As noted by Anarchid, your system doesnt account for loss of skill very well, as any player can fall to 1500 given enough time. In reality, rustiness works in a very different and more complex way. And the only way to reliably account for it is empirically - by playing games and performing worse than your old elo would suggest.

I do agree that hiding of inactive players should work a bit more efficiently though. As i understand, right now it is enough to play any game, or possibly even just log in to become visible on the ladder. I believe the the player should be required to actually play at least 1 game of selected type in order to stay visible on the ladder.
+3 / -0


9 years ago
The self-correcting nature of Elo is what makes it great. Sure, a freak loss can make you lose a position in the ladder.. but then if your skill is constant, you will drift back up. Godde will certainly occupy the 1v1 seat once again.

The main problem here is actually how Elo is used to balance team games, which is fubar.
+3 / -0

9 years ago
Thanks for feedback guys.
Seems like it's only me, who doesn't like to lose both games and elo. :)

Sounds like a /thread for me.
+0 / -0
9 years ago
quote:
Seems like it's only me, who doesn't like to lose both games and elo. :)

It is true for everyone, but people just understand theres no way around this.

Another problem with your suggested system, by the way, is that it is very easy to exploit.
Its called killswapping. Or, in your case, it would be winswapping. Get a friend to play 1v1 against you repeatedly, with each winning 50% of the time. Since you both win 50% of the time, neither gets a big rating gain penalty and both players can easily inflate their rating to absurd values without ever having to play against anybody else.


As far as i know, all competitive games currently use the elo-type system, where you gain points by winning, lose points by losing, and usually have modifiers for skill difference.

Even the "casual" mode in most of those games usually uses hidden elo for balance, it just doesnt display it.
+0 / -0


9 years ago
Elo sits much easier in your mind if you think of it as a system of placing you against opponents who are challenging but that you can beat, rather than as a ladder system. Losing elo just means next game you will be more dominant.. while gaining elo actually just means your team will be increasingly useless.

Because current team balance by elo system is fubar fubar fubar!
+0 / -0
Page of 4 (67 records)