Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
Joacgroso wrote:If this is implemented and grinding becomes impossible, shouldn't elo ranks be closer to each other?
alex1234321 wrote:James2 wrote:This will be the case if each game is elo neutral. Which is why I proposed regularly cancelling out faction elo gains/losses (say, every day) rather than making each game non-inflationary/deflationary.
I thought about this, but I prefer the idea of forcing each game to be neutral. If cancel out factional changes at the end of the day, people will experience Elo changes without doing anything. It would be extremely infuriating to find out you made Master Elo only for your Elo to decrease at the end of the day. Players would be rewarded or punished based on the outcome of other games that they have no control over. I know these would balance out in the long run, but the ToS playerbase is small and you'd have to balance minimizing random deviations with keeping Elo up to date.
I agree with the priority list that you previously mentioned although I would order the points 1, 3, 2, 5, 4 in terms of importance. Having a daily correction would slightly violate your second point while preventing the fourth one from being violated. Also, I would argue that Mafia should have a larger K-factor than Town since each Mafia member has a larger influence on who wins the game than each Town member. That's also why Mafia leavers are so much more annoying than Town leavers.
James2 wrote:The thing is elo gains/losses from things outside a player's control (such as the quality of eight other townies) will cancel out in the long term. Whereas giving mafia wins/losses a greater impact on elo substantively favors those who are better at mafia and worse at town. The issue is clear if we look at the extreme cases:
1. A player who always wins as mafia and always loses as town while playing people with the same elo. This player wins 4/13 games (leaving neutrals aside), which is by definition less than average. Yet under your system he'd neither gain nor lose elo.
2. Individual townies have no control whatsoever over whether they win or lose. In this case, town wins and losses are effectively noise that cancels out in the long term. Thus even if town wins/losses have the same impact as mafia wins/losses, players' elo would still represent their skill as mafia (which is as it should be in this scenario).
Superalex11 wrote:Joacgroso wrote:If this is implemented and grinding becomes impossible, shouldn't elo ranks be closer to each other?
It depends on BMG's preferences. Assuming they're using the standard preference of 10x odds per 400 elo (which I did in my calcs a post prior), the current rank tiers are arguably too close/small. Though of course playercount does play a big role, so there's no easy answer.
James2 wrote:alex1234321 wrote:James2 wrote:This will be the case if each game is elo neutral. Which is why I proposed regularly cancelling out faction elo gains/losses (say, every day) rather than making each game non-inflationary/deflationary.
I thought about this, but I prefer the idea of forcing each game to be neutral. If cancel out factional changes at the end of the day, people will experience Elo changes without doing anything. It would be extremely infuriating to find out you made Master Elo only for your Elo to decrease at the end of the day. Players would be rewarded or punished based on the outcome of other games that they have no control over. I know these would balance out in the long run, but the ToS playerbase is small and you'd have to balance minimizing random deviations with keeping Elo up to date.
I agree with the priority list that you previously mentioned although I would order the points 1, 3, 2, 5, 4 in terms of importance. Having a daily correction would slightly violate your second point while preventing the fourth one from being violated. Also, I would argue that Mafia should have a larger K-factor than Town since each Mafia member has a larger influence on who wins the game than each Town member. That's also why Mafia leavers are so much more annoying than Town leavers.
The thing is elo gains/losses from things outside a player's control (such as the quality of eight other townies) will cancel out in the long term. Whereas giving mafia wins/losses a greater impact on elo substantively favors those who are better at mafia and worse at town. The issue is clear if we look at the extreme cases:
1. A player who always wins as mafia and always loses as town while playing people with the same elo. This player wins 4/13 games (leaving neutrals aside), which is by definition less than average. Yet under your system he'd neither gain nor lose elo.
2. Individual townies have no control whatsoever over whether they win or lose. In this case, town wins and losses are effectively noise that cancels out in the long term. Thus even if town wins/losses have the same impact as mafia wins/losses, players' elo would still represent their skill as mafia (which is as it should be in this scenario).
Regarding the psychological aspect of it, people would gain elo as often as they'd lose it (assuming a decent algorithm). If frustration were enough of an issue you could just refraining from updating people's scores in real time (or label real time elo "provisional elo" or something else that sounds less important).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests