Mopolauta

Elasto Mania board
It is currently 17 Aug 2017, 18:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 07:59 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
I think it's time to return back to these ranking systems because the release of new elma online seems to be not so far in the future anymore. We were talking about these ranking systems with milagros last night. Basically I was favouring my own system and mila his own system. The systems were these:

my system:
zebra wrote:
ok, i was thinking about something like this:

at the beginning everybody has 0 points.

let p(x) be the points of the player x.
let d be the duration of the battle in minutes.
let b(x) be the amount of players the player x beat in the battle.
let k be a tiny constant, let's say 0.01.
let m be another constant, let's say 0.1.
let n be another little bigger constant, let's say 20.

players a,b and c play a 10-min-battle and a wins, b is second and c last.
before the battle, a had 300 points, b had 500 points and c had 200 points.
now, if p(b) - p(a) is positive (i.e. player b has more points than a), player a gets (p(b) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated b. Likewise, if p(c) - p(a) is positive, player a gets (p(c) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated c. Additionally player a gets b(a) * (d + n) * m points ((d + n) * m points for each player which he beated). These 'additional' points have to be there to get the points to rise from 0 to some bigger numbers.

In this case player a would get (500 - 300) * (10 + 20) * 0.01 + 2 * (10 + 20) * 0.1 = 66 points. That means that he gets 60 points for winning player b who had more points than him, and 3 points for each player which he beated.
Player b gets 1 * (10 + 20) * 0.1 = 3 points because he beated c.
Player c gets 0 points (the last player would never get points).

Now, player a has 366 points, player b 503 points and c has 200 points, so their ranks are 2, 1 and 3rd (assuming that there aren't any other players in belma at all).

Now, you wouldn't lose any points by playing, which make sense.
You could only get higher in ranks by playing, which make sense.
You wouldn't be punished from playing battles.
Good players would get many points at the beginning. When they reach their level, they wouldn't get any points so easily anymore.
Bad players would only get points from players which they beated, which is not much, but is still something.
You would get more points from winning a longer battle. By adjusting the constant n the effect can be made smaller or bigger.

About the problem that some players would get points easily by just playing against each other while no-one other is around: yes, they would get some points but not much, and the best player of those would get only the 'additional' points (which i mentioned above) which would be very low. Also, there won't be much times when such situation occurs, because everybody is welcome to join at any time.

The values of the constants k and m has to be chosen relatively small to avoid player points to go too big. And player points should be floats (or doubles) so that the pointing would be accurate. Ranks (positions) could be integers.

About the 0-apple problem, i think it's better to leave it out of the point system. Simply take away the 0-apple-players and the designer of the level from the results before making any kind of calculations, so they wouldn't get any points (and other ppl wouldn't get any points for beating them).
If more than one ppl gets for example 1 apple, those shouldn't be tied, but to give points in the order in which they got the apple (like it is now in the results). More generally, with this pointing system, the time/apple amount which you get in the level would not be relevant, only your position in the battle results.


Good things in this system: people won't lose their points they have already gathered. They can freely test the level without losing points - though someone else might get more points by beating them.
Bad things in this system: you have to play a certain amount of battles to get to your level, and the people who play most will be little higher in the rank as they deserve to be.

milagros's system:
milagros wrote:
it was like this
lets say players on 1.-4. position had ranks A,B,C,D before
after balles ranks will be
A(n+1) = A(n) * (1 + k*exp(q*(B(n)-A(n)))) * (1 + k*exp(q*(C(n)-A(n)))) * (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-A(n))))
B(n+1) = B(n) / (1 + k*exp(q*(B(n)-A(n)))) * (1 + k*exp(q*(C(n)-B(n)))) * (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-B(n))))
C(n+1) = C(n) / (1 + k*exp(q*(C(n)-A(n)))) / (1 + k*exp(q*(C(n)-B(n)))) * (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-C(n))))
D(n+1) = D(n) / (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-A(n)))) / (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-B(n)))) / (1 + k*exp(q*(D(n)-C(n))))
there will be also some max/min value of exp(..) so it wont be any unstable
these rules would keep A(n)*B(n)*C(n)*D(n) constant
if someone much better beats someone who sax, it will increase his coefficient by some 1.000001 and decrease the others one byt same 1.000001, if someone much worse beats someone, ez increase weight a bit more, constants q,k will be some 0.01 or smth, simply somehow set (it means the speed of ranks changing), starting value will be some 1000 or 1.000 or smth, goodplayers will have >1, bad players <1
its not decided if 0 apples results are taken, if same times means same position or not and if same apples means same result (definitely for 0 apples)


Good things in this system: your rank would reflect your skill level quite fast and you don't have to play much to get a good rank, if you really are a good player
Bad things in this system: you can't test the levels and then quit playing because then you will end up last and lose much points. It's better just to observe in battles if you come in late, which will not be so funny. And if you receive a high rank, you will easily lose points so you may choose not to play at all. Also new players who come in (total noobs) can be in the better rank than players (below average players) who have played much but lost all their points.

The biggest difference in these systems is that in mila's system you can lose your points.

It might be that in the end mila's system works better but I still think that my system is better.

Both systems need some kind of system which will reduce everybody's points slowly in the long run that peoples points will not go in the millions. In my system the total amount of points increases when battles are played, in mila's system the amount increases when new players register in.

I heard that there is a new spying mode in the new elma online which reduces the problem with 0 apples. But I still think those shouldn't be counted to results.

I base my thoughts to trackmania nations forever pointing system. There are nearly 2 million players and their system is working fairly fine. New players start with 0 points and you get points by beating better players. That means that you don't get any points from winning a battle if all the other players are noobs. This is not the problem there. But there has been some problems at the top and they have some weird system which won't give you more points if there are too many players who have 90000-100000 points (100000 is the maximum) and you have 89999 points. Also players without time (the 0-apple problem) won't be counted in in the results.

But I heard now that there will be at least two different ranking systems in the new elma online: the mila's system (battle skills points) and the old system (battle experience points) in which you will get 1 point when you are last in battle, 2 points if you are second-last and so on. In this way you can choose whether you play for skills points or experience points, so the problem about which ranking system is the best, is not so big problem anymore.

I hope this didn't confuse you only even more... I just wanted to clear out my thoughts and discuss about these things. In the end the ranking systems are not so important - we play for fun don't we? But now when it's very easy to change the ranking system it's time to think about those.

Comments?

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2008, 08:29 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Posts: 4525
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.
you could run both, can't be too hard to have like some "points" and then underneath some "exp" or "level"

points keeps going up, xp/level varies, or maybe exp should keep going up and points varies, because longer you play = more experienced.

_________________
TT: 39:59:02 | AvgTT: 42:02:00 | Targets: 5 WC, 33 Pro, 16 Good | 20 Australian Records | Cyberscore! |
"Feelings of love are just a temporary lapse in judgement. Like a kind of mental illness." -- Suzumiya Haruhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 00:24 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 07:11
Posts: 2766
Location: Not on lauta
I vote for milagros, though your system isn't bad.

I think balles you played less than half of the time shouldn't be counted, so people with 0 apples are considered if they played for more than half of the time. I also think that same times should be considered as first one better, but same number of apples = same result.

I see a little problem, if you enter a balle after half of the time and score quite great, it won't count... maybe you can choose the balle to count or not if you play less than half of the time... :?

Maybe it's a little complicated, though, but I think that's the best option :wink:

_________________
:mrhat:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 10:12 
Offline
35mins club
User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 15:54
Posts: 3693
Location: suo mesta
A system where activity doesn't matter is much better.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 14:27 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
i think it's idiotic too lose points... actually i like zebra's system better

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 18:03 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 13:17
Posts: 446
Location: Finland
Zweq wrote:
A system where activity doesn't matter is much better.

I agree with this!
And it's ok for me to be able to lose points, I get more excitement while playing balles :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 19:44 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
if you can lose points, it will suck for pipe haters. when they download level, see it's a pipe, and don't play, they will lose many points.
can't you make a combinatino of mila's and zebra's system?^^

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 20:19 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Posts: 6294
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
Lukazz wrote:
if you can lose points, it will suck for pipe haters. when they download level, see it's a pipe, and don't play, they will lose many points.
can't you make a combinatino of mila's and zebra's system?^^


In new version there's new freecam spy you can use to see the level without playing, so that won't be a problem.

_________________
Kopasite ^ 39 level packs and 1193 levels for your höyling pleasure
LaMe world of Kopa ^ Team LaMe
Elma Online ^ Moposite Records ^ Upload


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2008, 22:10 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
Lukazz wrote:
if you can lose points, it will suck for pipe haters. when they download level, see it's a pipe, and don't play, they will lose many points.
can't you make a combinatino of mila's and zebra's system?^^


mila suggested a version of his system where nobody's points wont be divided by anything, only the multiplications would remain in his formulas (see above). Then it would be like my system (you couldn't lose points) but the point gaining would still be exponential. Dunno how it could work.

Like I said, that kind of system where you can't lose points by playing, there should be system which reduces everybody's points for example by multiplicating them by 0.99 once a day. In that way also the most recent points would count most, which I think is a good thing because then you should play once in a while to stay at the top - you couldn't just stop at 1st rank and be there to the end of the universe. The rankings would reflect the current skills of players - there wouldn't be some mystical players at the top from the past who nobody wouldn't remember anymore.

hmm.... what did you exactly mean by combination of our systems? :)

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 04:23 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Posts: 4525
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.
SmaXa wrote:
you could run both, can't be too hard to have like some "points" and then underneath some "exp" or "level"

points keeps going up, xp/level varies, or maybe exp should keep going up and points varies, because longer you play = more experienced.

_________________
TT: 39:59:02 | AvgTT: 42:02:00 | Targets: 5 WC, 33 Pro, 16 Good | 20 Australian Records | Cyberscore! |
"Feelings of love are just a temporary lapse in judgement. Like a kind of mental illness." -- Suzumiya Haruhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 07:24 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
SmaXa wrote:
SmaXa wrote:
you could run both, can't be too hard to have like some "points" and then underneath some "exp" or "level"

points keeps going up, xp/level varies, or maybe exp should keep going up and points varies, because longer you play = more experienced.


I think that's the current situation.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 10:40 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 00:01
Posts: 30
Location: Russian
I think you should not reinvent the wheel. There are a lot of time-tested rating systems, like topcoders system or chess ELO system. Take a look.
http://www.topcoder.com/wiki/display/tc/Algorithm+Competition+Rating+System


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 13:10 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
NaDiRu wrote:
I think you should not reinvent the wheel. There are a lot of time-tested rating systems, like topcoders system or chess ELO system. Take a look.
http://www.topcoder.com/wiki/display/tc/Algorithm+Competition+Rating+System


hmm, very complicated system but yeah, it could work, if only kopaka can implement that. There seems to be very rare functions like the inverse of stardard normal function and error function.

But i think the nature of that system is at the end the same as in mila's system. It's just more general and subtle.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 15:53 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Posts: 6294
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
Someone else posted that aswell. To be honest I don't understand it at all :?

_________________
Kopasite ^ 39 level packs and 1193 levels for your höyling pleasure
LaMe world of Kopa ^ Team LaMe
Elma Online ^ Moposite Records ^ Upload


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 22:34 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
NaDiRu could maybe explain it to you :)

About the mila's system once more:
Even though the new elma has the new spy mode, think about the players who suck at pipes and still want to play for good rank: if a pipe level is started, they have to spy the whole battle (or do something else while waiting) because if they even once tested the level, they would lose much points. It will be frustrating and i'm afraid that in the end ppl will either give up playing for high rank or test the levels offline to see if the level fits for them.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 23:03 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
zebra wrote:
NaDiRu could maybe explain it to you :)

About the mila's system once more:
Even though the new elma has the new spy mode, think about the players who suck at pipes and still want to play for good rank: if a pipe level is started, they have to spy the whole battle (or do something else while waiting) because if they even once tested the level, they would lose much points. It will be frustrating and i'm afraid that in the end ppl will either give up playing for high rank or test the levels offline to see if the level fits for them.

yeye! i agree.

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Nov 2008, 23:44 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
It is quite liberating these days when there are no stats and such, to just be able to play any battle for fun even if you enter when there are only a few mins left. I don't want to get some annoying thoughts at the back of my head saying "better nat play this, will ez lose points". Still though, a stats system shouldn't really change one's way of enjoying the game and the battles, but it's a shame if it does.

When it comes to 0 apple results: Some levels are very difficult to finish, yet have no apples, so a lot of people may play the level extensively yet not be able to finish. Perhaps there are only one or two finishers. Erasing all 0 apple results will be a bit unfair to winners of such levels (yet keeping 0 apple results for all levels would obviously be unfair). Perhaps if a level has apples, the 0 apple results could be erased, but kept if the level has no apples? Just a thought that just came to be, possibly bango. Another, probably stupid idea: If you get 0 apples (in any lev), the result will be erased if you've only played a small fraction of the battle, otherwise it's kept.

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 03:56 
Offline
38mins club
User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2003, 00:30
Posts: 4604
Location: Dangerously close to the St-Lawrence River
i don't see what the big problem is.

System should not make you lose points.
If you play a level for a few second, then you end up in last positions and make almost no points.
If you play a level and you suck at it, you get almost no points.
you win, you get many points.
you are average, you get average amount of points.

what's so complicated about that?

_________________
Website || TT:38:05:33 || WC5:15th || HHIT for life || 9th world wide ... BAP is next


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 03:58 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2008, 07:11
Posts: 2766
Location: Not on lauta
Problem is: Zweq plays 3 balles, wins 'em all, let's say he has 3000 points.
I play 60 balles, I suck hard, I get 3200 points.
Yay, I'm better than Zweq then :wink:

_________________
:mrhat:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 07:06 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
The_BoneLESS wrote:
i don't see what the big problem is.

System should not make you lose points.
If you play a level for a few second, then you end up in last positions and make almost no points.
If you play a level and you suck at it, you get almost no points.
you win, you get many points.
you are average, you get average amount of points.

what's so complicated about that?

Sure, it's not a problem if you don't lose points by playing a level for a few seconds only.

And Jappe, I'm fully aware of that, which is part of the reason why I called them stupid ideas :P

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 09:20 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
Bismuth wrote:
Problem is: Zweq plays 3 balles, wins 'em all, let's say he has 3000 points.
I play 60 balles, I suck hard, I get 3200 points.
Yay, I'm better than Zweq then :wink:

well, that is how online game statistics work...

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 09:25 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
Bismuth wrote:
Problem is: Zweq plays 3 balles, wins 'em all, let's say he has 3000 points.
I play 60 balles, I suck hard, I get 3200 points.
Yay, I'm better than Zweq then :wink:


Such situation is imaginary because everybody knows that zweq plays belma 24/7 ;)

But I guess if such situtation really existed, you would deserve a better rank than zweq because you would have played hard to get your rank up. Of course when zweq plays his 4th battle, then he'll beat you.

Jappe wrote:
theres just too many factors like that to be considered, its not worth for mila to spend time coding such tiny details that in the end require lot of time to make. things like that have minor effect on the stats in the long run anyway.

I think this ranking thing falls into Kopaka's hands. Mila doesn't have to do much to get the ranking working. Only thing I can imagine which would involve milagros is that if he wants to show the ranks and gained points inside belma.

The_BoneLESS wrote:
i don't see what the big problem is.

System should not make you lose points.
If you play a level for a few second, then you end up in last positions and make almost no points.
If you play a level and you suck at it, you get almost no points.
you win, you get many points.
you are average, you get average amount of points.

what's so complicated about that?


Yeah exactly, that's what i'm trying to tell to kopaka and mila :)

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 10:00 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 11 Sep 2004, 22:09
Posts: 189
Location: .ro
hi.
there are and will be many talks about how good/futile statistics are. i'd like to make a suggestion: if it is doable, there should be a percentage representing the time spent on a battle. for example, at a battle of 10minutes 1second represents 0.0166%. if i play the level for only the last minute, it doesn't really matter that i'm last because the percentage will be very small and not influence my overall rating.
this will also be a good thing for those who choose not to play the actual battle (if this will be implemented), but hoyl it 'offline' and come back in the last seconds and do get first place.

if this was proposed before ignore ^


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 10:55 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
nony wrote:
hi.
there are and will be many talks about how good/futile statistics are. i'd like to make a suggestion: if it is doable, there should be a percentage representing the time spent on a battle. for example, at a battle of 10minutes 1second represents 0.0166%. if i play the level for only the last minute, it doesn't really matter that i'm last because the percentage will be very small and not influence my overall rating.
this will also be a good thing for those who choose not to play the actual battle (if this will be implemented), but hoyl it 'offline' and come back in the last seconds and do get first place.

if this was proposed before ignore ^

So you think someone who plays a battle for a short amount of time, yet still manages to win, should also be affected by this small percentage? So he won't get many points for beating the others? That's a lot more unfair than someone losing some points for getting a bad place. If something like this is implemented, I feel it only should affect people who get 0 apples (if all 0 apple results won't be erased), to minimize damage and maximize the gain.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, this probably won't matter too much in the long run anyway, even if mila's system (or similar) is used. But it is unfortunate if it affects the "psychology" of players when it comes to playing battles. The old zebra stats system for #battle might have had some of the same: People might not have always told their times, so they wouldn't get a worse win percentage. But hopefully people won't be that cynical, and will care most about the fun and enjoyment of playing battles. Stats should just be a fun bonus.

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 11:42 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 11 Sep 2004, 22:09
Posts: 189
Location: .ro
i like belma and i play it on a (almost) daily basis. and been doing it for 7-8 years. i like it, it's fun. so that's the main reason behind it and it won't stop me if i'll get bad ratings.

SveinR wrote:
Stats should just be a fun bonus


yes, i definitely agree with this, it's only that some people are very competitive and it will make a difference for them if they are 13th or 38th. what i'm saying is to try and make it as fair as possible.

SveinR wrote:
So he won't get many points for beating the others? That's a lot more unfair than someone losing some points for getting a bad place


i also agree that if jt comes in the last 3 minutes he can win a battle played by noobs mostly, but i think there are fewer cases of this happening than cases of others joining in and finishing closer to the low places. anyway, all the other guys lost already few minutes of their lives more than jt, at least this should get them a few extra decimals :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 11:50 
Offline
35mins club
User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 15:54
Posts: 3693
Location: suo mesta
I've read it all and it's very interesting and the decision will be a tough one, however I still think the best decision would be a rating system where everyone who take part in the battle trade points according to their positions and who(and how many) did they win/lose to. The problem of this system is exactly how Sveinr described it: Would suck if the stats system started affecting the fun factor, by not wanting to play a battle that has 5 mins or less time left, meanwhile you'd really much want to play it.

WHAY? Simply because it'd be boring if activity was the main factor of the rating system. You have amount of battles played for those that want to compete with activity, for mong's sake.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 13:44 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 11 Sep 2004, 22:09
Posts: 189
Location: .ro
well... you can just keep it simple then. you can make the stats like they are done at the olympic games:
1st player: 6 no1s, 17 no2s, 3 no3s
2nd player: 3 no1s, 19 no2s etc
3rd player: 0 no1s, 64 no2s etc.
etc etc.
so no more ratings or points, it only matters the places.
ez.

ps: some guys will do their best in overcoming ratings, like when they are 2 start a battle and be the first all the time and so on. from my point of view to have a fair rating this should depend on: time played, battle time, total number of players, players that played the whole time and for just 23 seconds and probably many other variables that I cannot think of right now which seems to be quite difficult to implement. so... maybe just keep it simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 15:06 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
nony wrote:
well... you can just keep it simple then. you can make the stats like they are done at the olympic games:
1st player: 6 no1s, 17 no2s, 3 no3s
2nd player: 3 no1s, 19 no2s etc
3rd player: 0 no1s, 64 no2s etc.
etc etc.
so no more ratings or points, it only matters the places.
ez.

ps: some guys will do their best in overcoming ratings, like when they are 2 start a battle and be the first all the time and so on. from my point of view to have a fair rating this should depend on: time played, battle time, total number of players, players that played the whole time and for just 23 seconds and probably many other variables that I cannot think of right now which seems to be quite difficult to implement. so... maybe just keep it simple.


didn't understand at all your system.

But in trackmania it works so that you have to be present in the start of the battle to get points.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:21 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
zebra wrote:
But in trackmania it works so that you have to be present in the start of the battle to get points.

That would, at least, suck. I guess we all can agree on that.

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 16:39 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
SveinR wrote:
zebra wrote:
But in trackmania it works so that you have to be present in the start of the battle to get points.

That would, at least, suck. I guess we all can agree on that.

Yes, because that's not even possible in belma because you have to download the level and THEN start. :P

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:52 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
Lukazz wrote:
Yes, because that's not even possible in belma because you have to download the level and THEN start. :P

Well, not if all battles were like first finish or one-life. Bet let's not give anyone ideas.. :P

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 18:01 
Offline
Kuski

Joined: 11 Sep 2004, 22:09
Posts: 189
Location: .ro
zebra wrote:
nony wrote:
well... you can just keep it simple then. you can make the stats like they are done at the olympic games:
1st player: 6 no1s, 17 no2s, 3 no3s
2nd player: 3 no1s, 19 no2s etc
3rd player: 0 no1s, 64 no2s etc.
etc etc.
so no more ratings or points, it only matters the places.
ez.

ps: some guys will do their best in overcoming ratings, like when they are 2 start a battle and be the first all the time and so on. from my point of view to have a fair rating this should depend on: time played, battle time, total number of players, players that played the whole time and for just 23 seconds and probably many other variables that I cannot think of right now which seems to be quite difficult to implement. so... maybe just keep it simple.


didn't understand at all your system.


maybe i didn't explain myself well enough. here's a world ranking for the olympic games: http://www.olympic.it/english/medal
the main factor for establishing it is how many gold medals (first places in battles) someone has. if equal, then the number of silver medals is more important. if someone has 1 first place but no other rankings, he will be better ranked than any other player who has tens of second/third places, but no 1st place. (eg: see in the link 95th and 98th place)
ppl are doing this for years at the olmpic games and i find this to be fair enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 18:35 
Offline
Moporator
User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Posts: 5333
Location: Oslo, Norway
nony wrote:
maybe i didn't explain myself well enough. here's a world ranking for the olympic games: http://www.olympic.it/english/medal
the main factor for establishing it is how many gold medals (first places in battles) someone has. if equal, then the number of silver medals is more important. if someone has 1 first place but no other rankings, he will be better ranked than any other player who has tens of second/third places, but no 1st place. (eg: see in the link 95th and 98th place)
ppl are doing this for years at the olmpic games and i find this to be fair enough.

It works for the Olympics but it would easily suck as a means of creating belma statistics.

_________________
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 1 Dec 2008, 10:31 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
SveinR wrote:
zebra wrote:
But in trackmania it works so that you have to be present in the start of the battle to get points.

That would, at least, suck. I guess we all can agree on that.


I agree on that. But you (all of you) should really try to download trackmania nations forever (it's free full game) and see how well the ranking is working there.

It seems that this conversation here didn't change anything after all... mila and kopa have decided the ranking and it seems to stay. And it isn't so bad, but there is that one thing that still bothers me: you shouldn't lose your points by playing...

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 1 Dec 2008, 22:17 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Posts: 6294
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
I will try to make that tmn system some day, see how it turns out, just been kind of busy with university lately (and will probably be untill jan 9.) so I've only done some smaller stuff on site lately. We'll see (:

_________________
Kopasite ^ 39 level packs and 1193 levels for your höyling pleasure
LaMe world of Kopa ^ Team LaMe
Elma Online ^ Moposite Records ^ Upload


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 1 Dec 2008, 22:55 
Offline
36mins club
User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2004, 12:10
Posts: 5167
well i don't like the trackmania nations system so much. it wouldn't be nice for belma at least i think, because there are not so many players. in trackmania you can't get points, if there are no higher ranked ppl on the same server.
in elma that would be kina boring because let's say zamppe is number 1 but can't play for one week or two. jaytea is 2nd and he wins 100 battles but he still doesn't get any points because he doesn't win against zamppe.
not so good imho.

_________________
TT: 36:59:53 || Avg TT: 38:09:65


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 2 Dec 2008, 08:32 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
Lukazz wrote:
well i don't like the trackmania nations system so much. it wouldn't be nice for belma at least i think, because there are not so many players. in trackmania you can't get points, if there are no higher ranked ppl on the same server.
in elma that would be kina boring because let's say zamppe is number 1 but can't play for one week or two. jaytea is 2nd and he wins 100 battles but he still doesn't get any points because he doesn't win against zamppe.
not so good imho.


yea, I noticed that problem too and there are multiple solutions.

The first solution is this which I explained already in my original idea:
zebra wrote:
let p(x) be the points of the player x.
let d be the duration of the battle in minutes.
let b(x) be the amount of players the player x beat in the battle.
let k be a tiny constant, let's say 0.01.
let m be another constant, let's say 0.1.
let n be another little bigger constant, let's say 20.

players a,b and c play a 10-min-battle and a wins, b is second and c last.
before the battle, a had 300 points, b had 500 points and c had 200 points.
now, if p(b) - p(a) is positive (i.e. player b has more points than a), player a gets (p(b) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated b. Likewise, if p(c) - p(a) is positive, player a gets (p(c) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated c. Additionally player a gets b(a) * (d + n) * m points ((d + n) * m points for each player which he beated). These 'additional' points have to be there to get the points to rise from 0 to some bigger numbers.


Another solution would be to give player points also for beating a player who is little worse than he is. The given points could be for example (p(b) - p(a) + r) * (d + n) * k points where r would be a new constant defining the point difference. Those points would be given if p(b) - p(a) + r is positive. (compare with previous example). Actually, if this solution was used, no other formulas would be needed.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2008, 13:26 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2004, 23:05
Posts: 4023
Location: Tórshavn, Faroe Islands
Orka search for it, so no idea if anyone suggested it before.

What about a Player vs Player battle mode. So you battle against ONE person.. and then you get wins against that curten person and overall PvP wins =)

And then same concept
Team vs Team mode: And then teams can only see their own members so it's a matter of teamwork =)

Then results is Team Wins against other teams. And overall team Wins :D

This would put another dimension to the game

_________________
Thorze wrote:
I just wanted to make a cool topic like Juish have cool topics..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 00:30 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Posts: 4525
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.
that is fucking idea of the day ^_^

PVP, TVT lol, + this could add to your experience.


is there an inbuilt ranking viewer or somesuch? or a link in the game to elmaonline website?

_________________
TT: 39:59:02 | AvgTT: 42:02:00 | Targets: 5 WC, 33 Pro, 16 Good | 20 Australian Records | Cyberscore! |
"Feelings of love are just a temporary lapse in judgement. Like a kind of mental illness." -- Suzumiya Haruhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 04:15 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2004, 23:05
Posts: 4023
Location: Tórshavn, Faroe Islands
Jappe wrote:
you want elma 3d?
look jappe2
Below ME! :D

_________________
Thorze wrote:
I just wanted to make a cool topic like Juish have cool topics..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2009, 13:08 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Posts: 6294
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
zebra wrote:
ok, i was thinking about something like this:

at the beginning everybody has 0 points.

let p(x) be the points of the player x.
let d be the duration of the battle in minutes.
let b(x) be the amount of players the player x beat in the battle.
let k be a tiny constant, let's say 0.01.
let m be another constant, let's say 0.1.
let n be another little bigger constant, let's say 20.

players a,b and c play a 10-min-battle and a wins, b is second and c last.
before the battle, a had 300 points, b had 500 points and c had 200 points.
now, if p(b) - p(a) is positive (i.e. player b has more points than a), player a gets (p(b) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated b. Likewise, if p(c) - p(a) is positive, player a gets (p(c) - p(a)) * (d + n) * k points because he beated c. Additionally player a gets b(a) * (d + n) * m points ((d + n) * m points for each player which he beated). These 'additional' points have to be there to get the points to rise from 0 to some bigger numbers.

(...)



Okay I tried coding this system, you say that you should start with 0 points, but that way you get very little points in the for a long time. On test server the one with most points has 0.35 (to compare he has 69 with old school battle points). Ofcourse it will be better when it's open for everyone and there's more players, hence more points to get. But maybe some start amount of points would be good?

_________________
Kopasite ^ 39 level packs and 1193 levels for your höyling pleasure
LaMe world of Kopa ^ Team LaMe
Elma Online ^ Moposite Records ^ Upload


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2009, 11:02 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
Kopaka wrote:
Okay I tried coding this system, you say that you should start with 0 points, but that way you get very little points in the for a long time. On test server the one with most points has 0.35 (to compare he has 69 with old school battle points). Ofcourse it will be better when it's open for everyone and there's more players, hence more points to get. But maybe some start amount of points would be good?


hmm, nice to hear :)

What are the constant values you picked? Maybe you should make them a little bigger?

The point amount at the beginning doesn't matter at all because the formulas just look at the point _differences_, not at the actual points.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2009, 20:51 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007, 01:05
Posts: 3299
kopaka asked to paste IRC ideas, cuz he'll forget, he's getting old :P
new ideas:
- watch a non-winner rec
- search levs to a specific winner
- site map
- in the help tab, would be nice to explain what factors increase points
- for the chat, make like battles, search from- to-
- when there are like 500 lines, make different pages
- possibility to sort by date, alphabetic order, maybe more?
- upload recs to implant times done before elma online, might be useful to get tables for packs, auto-compute TT, bla bla bla, USEFUL

bug to solve, or explaination maybe?
- removing useless dates like 31 febuary 2009
- adding automaticly years to the search when current one is finished (there's no 2009)
- what about watching apple or flag tag battle mode replays?
- what is going to happen if two levs have same filename? does it mean there should be a folder for each lev? what will be the results?
- some levs are txt files, weird (example 250app01.lev.txt by zworqy) and it causes no replay and no map

offtopic: kopasite
- if mila has removed hooked bug from results of belma, maybe you could do it for the kopasite?
- possibility to remove times/delete account on kopasite
- add country flags to all members

even more offtopic: how to show extensions to all my files like .txt / .lev / .jpg / .exe ?

_________________
Website || TT:41:45:64 || Team Image
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2009, 03:32 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 10:45
Posts: 4525
Location: Deep in your Imagination, Twirling your Dreams and Weaving your thoughts.
perhaps have a scrollbar in belma to scroll up and down in chat for liek suggested. 500 lines, clicky with teh mouse.

_________________
TT: 39:59:02 | AvgTT: 42:02:00 | Targets: 5 WC, 33 Pro, 16 Good | 20 Australian Records | Cyberscore! |
"Feelings of love are just a temporary lapse in judgement. Like a kind of mental illness." -- Suzumiya Haruhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2009, 12:47 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007, 01:05
Posts: 3299
found something, I have Vista and if someone is interested:
Code:
Show or hide file name extensions

A file name extension is a set of characters added to the end of a file name that determine which program should open it. Follow these steps to choose whether Windows displays these file extensions.
Click to open Folder Options.
Click the View tab, and then, under Advanced settings, do one of the following:
To hide file extensions, select the Hide extensions for known file types check box, and then click OK.
To display file extensions, clear the Hide extensions for known file types check box, and then click OK.

_________________
Website || TT:41:45:64 || Team Image
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2009, 19:55 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
I think that's one of the stupidest feature of all windows versions. It should show the extensions by default.

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 6 Mar 2009, 16:44 
Offline
39mins club
User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2004, 23:05
Posts: 4023
Location: Tórshavn, Faroe Islands
For suggestion and inspiration to the live elma stats check the QuakeLive.com stats system (it's still in beta version so all stats are not getting recorded atm) though it's still amazing :P every tiny detail recorded.

_________________
Thorze wrote:
I just wanted to make a cool topic like Juish have cool topics..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 8 Mar 2009, 14:52 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 12:30
Posts: 1157
Location: Norway, Sandnes
bungie also got a nice recording system for halo 3

_________________
TT:39.59.86|| AvgTT:41.49.24 || Multi TT:27:43:82 || Team [TR]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2009, 03:42 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007, 01:05
Posts: 3299
Μαхδαмαлτцѕ' personnal archieve, ofc not all levs but all levs his bot got
http://ntus.uni.cc/ballelev/
http://ntus.uni.cc/ballelev/current.htm

EDIT:
i asked him and he made belma chat logs:
http://ntus.uni.cc/ballelog/

_________________
Website || TT:41:45:64 || Team Image
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2009, 08:36 
Offline
Kuski
User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 15:35
Posts: 872
Location: Finland
that maxdaman's site is one of the places i searched when i made the elma level archive. Nice amount of levels there. Log files are good too :)

_________________
A winner of 4 GAA's (mc2 included), winner of mkup206, and a proud member of team TAP.
Play uni levels: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/uni.html
Homepage: http://koti.mbnet.fi/zebra/elma.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group