Ezradekezra wrote:is there a tl;dr
cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
Flavorable wrote:cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
There is no way to decide what playing well means in a text based game unless you have a full team of experts reading through every single game, and that isn't happening.
kyuss420 wrote:cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
also promotes high risk plays, with a big payoff for success and not so much of a punishment for failure. which , in certain circumstances, would lead to sub optimal plays for max elo increase. like, would a vig take a shot with a 80/20 chance of hitting town instead of waiting a day for a 50/50?
also rewards lucky plays that took a random click to pull off cos theres no way to tell between a lucky click and a purpose click.... like a vig shooting n2, with 2-3 town claims as info.
so whats the difference between a ''well played'' game vs a won game that wasnt well played?
How would that work for medium?
a lot of that would depend on your role, which in turn, total ELO would depend on how many times you got a powerful role in the season, which is purely RNG
cob709 wrote:Flavorable wrote:cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
There is no way to decide what playing well means in a text based game unless you have a full team of experts reading through every single game, and that isn't happening.
don't need experts. just need some forum-level intelligent people to look through it and vote.
copy+paste the trial system and instead make it an elo system where voters vote on if players do well
plus, endgames can be similar to each other. so new system can just reuse previous games to reduce work
Colorbolt wrote:cob709 wrote:Flavorable wrote:cob709 wrote:a more simple elo rework is to just award players elo based on whether or not they played well
There is no way to decide what playing well means in a text based game unless you have a full team of experts reading through every single game, and that isn't happening.
don't need experts. just need some forum-level intelligent people to look through it and vote.
copy+paste the trial system and instead make it an elo system where voters vote on if players do well
plus, endgames can be similar to each other. so new system can just reuse previous games to reduce work
"This guy is my friend so I'm gonna give him a lot of elo even though he played like trash".
Yeah, it sure will be a great system.
Unless you plan to implement the same 9-votes system, which would be an equally terrible idea as no one ever wants to wait 10+ days to get their elo for a game.
Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
cob709 wrote:don't need experts. just need some forum-level intelligent people to look through it and vote.
copy+paste the trial system and instead make it an elo system where voters vote on if players do well
plus, endgames can be similar to each other. so new system can just reuse previous games to reduce work
joaodasalmas wrote:Abilities: You can reveal yourself as the King Potato, and now you can't be voted.
superdog551 wrote:cob709 wrote:don't need experts. just need some forum-level intelligent people to look through it and vote.
copy+paste the trial system and instead make it an elo system where voters vote on if players do well
plus, endgames can be similar to each other. so new system can just reuse previous games to reduce work
There would be way too many games and way too many players to grade for this method to ever be viable. Trial system deals with one person at a time and can be done quickly because most people are reported due to a single message or action. This would require each "judge" to check through 15 people per game, and grade everything they do for that entire game, for every ranked game played. Elo should just be reworked like Alex is suggesting rather than taking on such a drastic change
Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
Joacgroso wrote:Since I'm not an expert in statistics, I have a question. In order to keep elo constant, you'll have to take elo from the mafia and witch every time town wins and distribute it among the townies. Doesn't this mean that evils will always lose more elo and gain more elo while town games are less impactful. regardless of the outcome?
cob709 wrote:Someone brought up that it would incentivize individual plays instead of team plays. However, this can be counteracted by only applying rewards when a player wins and only applying penalties when a player loses.
Joacgroso wrote:Since I'm not an expert in statistics, I have a question. In order to keep elo constant, you'll have to take elo from the mafia and witch every time town wins and distribute it among the townies. Doesn't this mean that evils will always lose more elo and gain more elo while town games are less impactful. regardless of the outcome?
James2 wrote:people who act in a way that hurts their faction (but is rewarded) will still win sometimes, and people who act in a way that helps their faction (but is penalized) will still lose sometimes.
cob709 wrote:Actually, each role should be rewarded/penalized for each action they make. Something similar to what this user suggested.
For example:
Spoiler:
Someone brought up that it would incentivize individual plays instead of team plays. However, this can be counteracted by only applying rewards when a player wins and only applying penalties when a player loses.
kyuss420 wrote:Now if you want to get into OGT (optimal game theory) - making the move that has the highest chance of success over a large number of games - you are going to end up with ELO creep, which is what we have now...But if players are using OGT moves, theyre always going to gain ELO by grinding no matter what the system is. And Masters players seem to work out the OGT moves fairly quickly for any given role list scenarios.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests