| 1 |
[quote]Actually it's not exponential but a Binomial coefficient (N choose floor(N/2))/(2 - N mod 2).[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]Actually it's not exponential but a Binomial coefficient (N choose floor(N/2))/(2 - N mod 2).[/quote]
|
| 2 |
According to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient#Both_n_and_k_large]Wikipedia[/url] this is ~ 2^(n)/(2*sqrt(pi*n/2)) for large even n; so there is a pesky sqrt(n) term in the denominator.
|
2 |
According to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient#Both_n_and_k_large]Wikipedia[/url] this is ~ 2^(n)/(2*sqrt(pi*n/2)) for large even n; so there is a pesky sqrt(n) term in the denominator.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[quote]Rather the average of all players in their team.[/quote]
|
4 |
[quote]Rather the average of all players in their team.[/quote]
|
| 5 |
I think this is (implicitly) correct for the LegacyBalancer code used for large teams. I was thinking of the PartitionBalancer which [url=https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K-Infrastructure/blob/master/ZkLobbyServer/SpringieInterface/PartitionBalance.cs#L95-L99]explicitly adds a dummy player before choosing teams[/url]. The practical difference is probably minimal.
|
5 |
I think this is (implicitly) correct for the LegacyBalancer code used for large teams. I was thinking of the PartitionBalancer which [url=https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K-Infrastructure/blob/master/ZkLobbyServer/SpringieInterface/PartitionBalance.cs#L95-L99]explicitly adds a dummy player before choosing teams[/url]. The practical difference is probably minimal.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[quote]I have the theory that the rating of players who tend to get 2nd coms is distorted to compensate the misconsideration on average.[/quote]
|
7 |
[quote]I have the theory that the rating of players who tend to get 2nd coms is distorted to compensate the misconsideration on average.[/quote]
|
| 8 |
As
a
ballpark
estimate,
even
the
#1
player
only
gets
an
extra
commander
about
1/4
of
the
time
(
assuming
half
of
all
their
games
are
uneven,
which
is
probably
a
high
estimate,
and
half
of
all
uneven
games
put
the
#1
player
on
the
team
with
fewer
players,
which
is
possibly
also
high)
.
According
to
DeinFreund's
data
the
winrate
in
4v5+
games
for
the
larger
team
is
less
than
53%
(
and
uneven
games
below
that
threshold
are
no
longer
played
by
default,
though
historical
games
do
still
affect
rating)
.
|
8 |
As
a
ballpark
estimate,
even
the
#1
player
only
gets
an
extra
commander
about
1/4
of
the
time.
|
|
|
9 |
[spoiler]Assuming half of all their games are uneven, which is probably a high estimate especially in relatively small teams where it matters more, and half of all uneven games put the #1 player on the team with fewer players, which is possibly also high.[/spoiler] According to DeinFreund's data the winrate in 4v5+ games for the larger team is less than 53% (and uneven games below that threshold are no longer played by default, though historical games do still affect rating).
|
| 9 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 10 |
By definition these games must be priced in to the ratings of higher-rated players, but it seems hardly sufficient to explain the 500-600 rating gap between the top of the casual and competitive ladders. I think the simplest explanation for that is that a high rated player influences much more of a 1v1 game than they do a teams game, even a 2v2, so they have more opportunities to turn superior skill into a W.
|
11 |
By definition these games must be priced in to the ratings of higher-rated players, but it seems hardly sufficient to explain the 500-600 rating gap between the top of the casual and competitive ladders. I think the simplest explanation for that is that a high rated player influences much more of a 1v1 game than they do a teams game, even a 2v2, so they have more opportunities to turn superior skill into a W.
|
B1403384 23 on Comet Catcher Redux v3.1 (Multiplayer)