| 1 |
[q]The system that was originally used at the time produced team games with chances close to 50%. If we analyze the data with a different system, chances will deviate more from 50%. If the calculation system is inherently too close or too far away from 50% or the used scoring rule inherently overly punishes being too close or too far away from 50%, we get a scoring distortion depending on whether the system is further away from the original system.[/q]
|
1 |
[q]The system that was originally used at the time produced team games with chances close to 50%. If we analyze the data with a different system, chances will deviate more from 50%. If the calculation system is inherently too close or too far away from 50% or the used scoring rule inherently overly punishes being too close or too far away from 50%, we get a scoring distortion depending on whether the system is further away from the original system.[/q]
|
| 2 |
This
supports
that
the
current
dataset
has
a
baked-in
tendency
for
games
to
be
somewhat
balanced,
and
that
a
bias
is
in
general
possible
as
a
thing.
|
2 |
This
supports
that
the
current
dataset
has
a
baked-in
tendency
for
games
to
be
somewhat
balanced,
and
that
a
bias
is
in
general
possible
as
a
thing.
Although
i
must
say
that
"scoring
algorithm
rule
inherently
punishes
too
far
from
50%"
is
a
bias
in
the
scoring
rule;
and
"games
in
this
dataset
tend
to
be
50%
odds"
seems
to
be
a
facet
of
ground
truth.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
However, TinySpider's claim is that the bias is towards more data increasing prediction accuracy *and* that it is *caused* by the balancer using 1v1 data for balancing, and i find that while 50% bias is quite likely, this is still preposterous nevertheless. Or at least quite extraordinary, with all the proof offered so far being "cuz i think so, also you are trolling if you disagree".
|
4 |
However, TinySpider's claim is that the bias is towards more data increasing prediction accuracy *and* that it is *caused* by the balancer using 1v1 data for balancing, and i find that while 50% bias is quite likely, this is still preposterous nevertheless. Or at least quite extraordinary, with all the proof offered so far being "cuz i think so, also you are trolling if you disagree".
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
How would one go around designing a balancer with the goal of deliberately introducing such bias while it also being a purely artifactual phenomenon and not a true correlation?
|
6 |
How would one go around designing a balancer with the goal of deliberately introducing such bias while it also being a purely artifactual phenomenon and not a true correlation?
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
Hmm. Didn't ZK have separate 1v1 vs everything else ladders at some point before WHR, split by team size? If so, then teamgames from that epoch are not balanced using 1v1 data.
|
8 |
Hmm. Didn't ZK have separate 1v1 vs everything else ladders at some point before WHR, split by team size? If so, then teamgames from that epoch are not balanced using 1v1 data.
|
Do 1v1 games improve multiplayer balance