PDA

View Full Version : [BUG] Strange ELO calculation



Bloodaddict
05-02-2013, 01:56 PM
Hi,

I just played a rank match and won against Yth. After the match he had 1610 ELO and I had 1525. I don't know what he had before, but I had 1523, so I only gained 2. A few days ago I had a similar situation in the other direction: I only lost 2 ELO when I lost against someone who was not in the Top 20. So I cannont say howmuch ELO he had, but it was not enough to explain just the small loss on my side.

Bloodaddict

ps: T think at lest Yth was playing QM against me playing ranked, since he tried a new setup. Should that make a differenece for ELO calculation? If so, I would still call it a bug...

Evil Laughter
05-02-2013, 02:31 PM
When someone is queued for a QM then ELO only changes a max of 2

netnazgul
05-02-2013, 11:14 PM
yeah, Evil Laughter answered your question correctly. QM and ranked have the same queue for p6/p12 so that playerbase is minimally split (you still can't play vs not p6/p12 when you do ranked). The same way to prevent Elo inflation as much as possible, ranked player Elo is changed only +2/-2 when playing against QM player (QM player's Elo is not changed as you would guess).

Aleonymous
05-03-2013, 02:50 AM
Hello Bloodaddict.

If you don't mind a little read, check these articles out at the wikidot-site:

1. Ranking/Elo calculation (http://bannersaga.wikidot.com/rankings)
2. Match types descriptions (http://bannersaga.wikidot.com/matches)

They explain pretty much all the formulas related to Elo etc.

Bloodaddict
05-03-2013, 03:19 PM
Thanks all! So I guess this can be closed, since it seems to be a feature and not a bug. If I like it or not...

Kletian999
05-03-2013, 04:29 PM
The "problem" I see is with Ranked players getting quickmatchers at 6 and 12, it leaves even fewer opportunities for ranked vs ranked to happen. People with high Elo who don't expect to reach the next achievement lose the motivation to try ranked outside of the official tournaments, which makes it even harder for newer player to try to climb the ranks.

You also get the unlucky situations where all your wins were Qms, then lose a single ranking opponent and end up worse than you started.

Aleonymous
05-04-2013, 02:44 AM
The "problem" I see is with Ranked players getting quickmatchers at 6 and 12, it leaves even fewer opportunities for ranked vs ranked to happen. People with high Elo who don't expect to reach the next achievement lose the motivation to try ranked outside of the official tournaments, which makes it even harder for newer player to try to climb the ranks.

You also get the unlucky situations where all your wins were Qms, then lose a single ranking opponent and end up worse than you started.

All too true.

I've been trying to raise my ranking outside tourney matches to very small success. I either end up waiting >2 mins for a match, and/or I eventually play against QMs as you says only hoping for a +2 change. I'm sure tourney matches are the best way to raise your ranking, but I believe that the opponent-level there is too high. The one-and-only time I entered a tourney I got a -10 streak and a -200 to my ranking... Still trying to summon courage for another "go" :o

I think players should be more encouraged to play RMs. And I'm not talking only about the top-20 players (who might have worked hard to get there = understandable), but those near about 1000-1300, where casual-to-mid level players are supposed to reside. Heck, that's exactly the essence of the ranking system: you play until you reach your "true level" and, once you've reached it, you play against similar opponents at thrilling 50%-chance-to-win! :cool: On the contrary, my QMs (at power6) are ~70% very easy matches where I win with 3-4 units alive, ~10% evenly-matched challenges and ~20% abysmal defeats.

Suggestions:


much more generous renown-bonus for RMs; e.g. a +5R for a win (instead of a +1R) along with a +3 for a streak (instead of a +1R)? In my opinion, the prize of +1R (for maintaining a win streak) is just not worth it for most players, who then prefer the "safe" choice of QM.
tourneys for various rankings? e.g. 900-1200, 1200-1500, 1500+ ? It is a little to much to divide the (already small) player-pool in two or three, but it would actually give a chance to win those 100R trophies...

InfiniteNutshell
05-04-2013, 01:06 PM
I haven't really been playing enough lately to know if the ranked match vs quick match pools are a problem, but I guess my Elo has been growing pretty slowly. I've been doing only p6 ranked matches since coming back from a month or so not playing.

Aleonymous, assuming your diagnosis is correct (and it does sound reasonable), I like your suggestion of increased renown for winning a ranked match. I have mixed feelings about increasing the win streak bonus, and I think your tourney idea would divide the player pool too much, but that first suggestion is a good one.

Aleonymous
05-04-2013, 02:31 PM
Aleonymous, assuming your diagnosis is correct (and it does sound reasonable), I like your suggestion of increased renown for winning a ranked match. I have mixed feelings about increasing the win streak bonus, and I think your tourney idea would divide the player pool too much, but that first suggestion is a good one.

You're probably right. Placing too much value on winning streaks could make people do weird stufff, like Alt+F4 out of the game, or trying to convince opponents to lose etc. Actually, I don't really like the whole concept of winning-streak. It's just another thing to "scare" semi-casual players away from RMs. Winning-more-than-you-lose is quite enough for me.

Also, the division of the tourney queues is also a risky idea, I admit it. Actually, I've not played any tournament matches lately to check the average waiting time statistics for Europe-zone (i.e. playing at weekday-evenings and weekends), but it can't be worse than trying to play RM in weekday mornings (when Americas are sleeping)!

netnazgul
05-05-2013, 07:11 AM
You're probably right. Placing too much value on winning streaks could make people do weird stufff, like Alt+F4 out of the game, or trying to convince opponents to lose etc. Actually, I don't really like the whole concept of winning-streak. It's just another thing to "scare" semi-casual players away from RMs. Winning-more-than-you-lose is quite enough for me.

Alt+F4 drops the winstreak now

Kletian999
05-09-2013, 04:38 PM
On a whim yesterday I dropped to rank 6 and played ranked. I was happily reminded of the days before rank matching existed where I got opponents fast, victories easy, and a steady Elo rise. I'm starting to think it might be better if Rank 6 and Rank 12 teams were ONLY ranked, it's not hard to be down up or down one level if you don't want to be scored, and it would ensure the people who like achievements and rankings have reasonable wait times and scoring potential.

Aleonymous
05-10-2013, 08:21 AM
I'm starting to think it might be better if Rank 6 and Rank 12 teams were ONLY ranked.

I'm not sure if that is the best approach; scared-to-lose players would just play at p5/11 or p7/13... I personally think its better to encourage Ranked games (e.g. with more Renown gained), at all team-powers. I prefer ranked matches, but I hate the waiting time.

*Whining*Warning* Yesterday evening I was in QM (power6, Elo~1100) against a guy who was RM (power6, Elo~1700 [yes, 1700]), and at a high winning streak. You can imagine how the match went out; adding also that we were set on opposite sides of the fire-pit map, and given the "stormy & violent" seas of yesterdays, you can imagine how exciting the match was... :(

Kletian999
05-10-2013, 11:00 AM
Aleo, given enough time you'll Ranked match someone at the same power with 600 more Elo than you as well. What quick matches do right now is remove viable competitors from the ranking levels to give rank 4,8,10, etc. teams faster queues, leaving the rank matching players stuck with those quickmatching their exact levels after long waits.

People who play Quickmatch are already "losing" in terms of failing to build streaks, get bonuses, and gaining Elo. The only people the current system benefits are the longtime players who got very high ELO back when the system was bugged and/or exploitable and know they stand to lose it if they keep playing ranked.

Aleonymous
05-10-2013, 11:35 AM
I agree, Kletian. I am actually up for a world with Ranked-MAtches only, at all power-levels. Friendly matches should be enough for experimenting, and losing/winning (streaks & Elo) should not bother people at all. All those "I'm the best" complexes mingled with "lose-o-phobia" are quite petty, and really un-viking-like (in my humble opinion)...

:) On 2nd read, this post sounds really angry; that's not the case though, I assure you!

netnazgul
05-10-2013, 01:41 PM
I'd say ranked mode doesn't fit my current game approach at all - I'm either playing tournament games where I'm still ranked obviously, or QMing to relax and experiment a bit (since it's easier to find matches in QM than it is in ranked)

Kletian999
05-10-2013, 03:31 PM
I was thinking if QM wasn't an option for rank 6 and 12, it'd be easier to find matches in RM :)

netnazgul
05-12-2013, 06:51 AM
I was thinking if QM wasn't an option for rank 6 and 12, it'd be easier to find matches in RM :)

It would actually be worse as noone would play p6/p12 and you can't even be matched with anything else

Kletian999
05-12-2013, 02:11 PM
People play ranked matches now when they want a good fight and/or a chance to rank. The reason the queues are long though is a combination of eligible players being taken by quickmatchers and the long queues discouraging people from trying (vicious cycle). Not everyone wants the consequence free games, so people wouldn't avoid levels 6 and 12, the queues would become shorter and more people would be willing to play in rank mode.