Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: October 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6593) new ranking demo update
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6593) new ranking demo update

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6593) new ranking demo update
From: "Horn Gábor" <Horn.Gabor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:08:59 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi!

I quote from the gamasutra article which is the base of the current
ranking (pq is the ranking point):
---

For an above average player that is not competing any longer, PQ will
steadily approach the average rating, but never drop below. For a player
with below average rating, however, not competing will increase the PQ
till it approaches the average.

If this seems unintuitive and unacceptable to you, remember that PQ is
our estimate of player ability. If we do not have any data, be it
because a player has just joined, or because a player is just not
playing, then our best estimate is that the player has average strength
- it is the most likely result, after all. 

---

And as it can be seen the lack of decay renders the result unreal. Eg
now imho DDD is the strongest dueller  his 9th place isn't real, and
same is true for Iuz's, Pille's or Pedjolino's place (well the lack of
reason is only one of the reasons why the high ranked players on
civerver and the ffa in the new are underranked in duel/team, i
explained the other).

I think it's possible to store a "best rank achieved by the player" too
(in fact i already store it), or maybe calculate and index which
represents how long he has at certain ranks (so a kind of weightened
avergae) but there's a need for decay also. 

bye, hirisov  


> I do not like the idea of ranking decay. I do not like it at all. This
> penalizes recreational players far too much. Why should not playing for a
> while change your rank?
> 
> -mike





[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]