1 |
[quote]for mostly curiousity, I would like to see data for (2v2 - 4v4), and (4v4 - 16v16).[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]for mostly curiousity, I would like to see data for (2v2 - 4v4), and (4v4 - 16v16).[/quote]
|
2 |
I have posted those values [url=http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/22899]here[/url](Small Teams/Big Teams). But as I've seen when measuring their significance, they are completely pointless to look at. Be happy if you're on top, you won the dice roll!
|
2 |
I have posted those values [url=http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/22899]here[/url](Small Teams/Big Teams). But as I've seen when measuring their significance, they are completely pointless to look at. Be happy if you're on top, you won the dice roll!
|
3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
4 |
[quote]Dein also states certain results do not reflect true skill level, I didnt know Dein had a true skill level gauge to compare this stuff too. [/quote]
|
4 |
[quote]Dein also states certain results do not reflect true skill level, I didnt know Dein had a true skill level gauge to compare this stuff too. [/quote]
|
5 |
Indeed I do, also you didn't read [url=http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/22898]how I calculate things[/url].
|
5 |
Indeed I do, also you didn't read [url=http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/22898]how I calculate things[/url].
|
6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
7 |
@malric
|
7 |
@malric
|
8 |
Same link goes for you, all I'm doing is exactly that: If 3 1900 loses vs 3 1500 the system is wrong, and that's what happens with the old values. This is why there is no point in the Team/1v1 ELO values when we have combined ones.
|
8 |
Same link goes for you, all I'm doing is exactly that: If 3 1900 loses vs 3 1500 the system is wrong, and that's what happens with the old values. This is why there is no point in the Team/1v1 ELO values when we have combined ones.
|
|
|
9 |
\n
|
|
|
10 |
[quote]I like to see ladders. I did not feel that the previous ladder was incorrect, on the contrary I had a feeling that was "generally" ok.[/quote]
|
|
|
11 |
You did? You think you 1v1 ELO of ~1300 was correct? It could hardly be any more wrong.
|