| 1 |
[quote]
|
1 |
[quote]
|
| 2 |
So our team Elo is bork and should first convert to some sort of log function before the linear average.
|
2 |
So our team Elo is bork and should first convert to some sort of log function before the linear average.
|
| 3 |
[/quote]
|
3 |
[/quote]
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you want X + X vs (X - 120) + (X + 120) to result in 4:5, we'd just have to use your formula:
|
5 |
Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you want X + X vs (X - 120) + (X + 120) to result in 4:5, we'd just have to use your formula:
|
| 6 |
{{{playerstrength=2^(ELO/120)}}}
|
6 |
{{{playerstrength=2^(ELO/120)}}}
|
| 7 |
This is the same as comparing players to a theoretical 1 elo player. The linear averages would then be off by this factor of 1.25.
|
7 |
This is the same as comparing players to a theoretical 1 elo player. The linear averages would then be off by this factor of 1.25.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
One
thing
current
balance
theoretically
allows
is
a
<0
strength
player.
As
far
as
I
interpret
this,
it
would
mean
a
player
whose
metal
would
better
be
discarded
than
given
to
him.
The
exponential
function
wouldn't
allow
for
this.
|
9 |
One
thing
current
balance
theoretically
allows
is
a
<0
strength
player.
The
exponential
function
wouldn't
allow
for
this.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Forum broken, here's a closing bracket to fix it: >
|
11 |
Forum broken, here's a closing bracket to fix it: >
|
math bork