Think if there is something wrong with that.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
I have to end this conversation now. I still need to finish a report before bed.
Moderators: Beer Hunter, Tembest, Entr0py
I think the current bot can handle that, by having different setting values for different arenas and then having a different sector in each arena.jim the chin wrote:As it's causing too much confusion, I'm willing to get rid of the kill-bonus altogether. We could make pracs like the current league where the only points come from bell flags and a set value for each kill. In this case, 120 would be too high and something closer to 80 would be needed. Also, this would make it much easier to adopt a system where the set kill value is different for each sector.
What about:
West: 60 (Temb, this might seem slightly high, but remember there are fewer kills in west)
South/East: 80
North: 100
Entropy, would you be able to put something like this into the bot... e.g.
If sector=north
killbase=100
If sector=east
killbase=80
and so on..? Then get rid of the killflagpoints (5*flagcount).
Sever's values are still a tad too high though. A kill should at most count for 2.5 flags hence:Entr0py wrote:I think the current bot can handle that, by having different setting values for different arenas and then having a different sector in each arena.jim the chin wrote:As it's causing too much confusion, I'm willing to get rid of the kill-bonus altogether. We could make pracs like the current league where the only points come from bell flags and a set value for each kill. In this case, 120 would be too high and something closer to 80 would be needed. Also, this would make it much easier to adopt a system where the set kill value is different for each sector.
What about:
West: 60 (Temb, this might seem slightly high, but remember there are fewer kills in west)
South/East: 80
North: 100
Entropy, would you be able to put something like this into the bot... e.g.
If sector=north
killbase=100
If sector=east
killbase=80
and so on..? Then get rid of the killflagpoints (5*flagcount).
Don't worry about it. Your rating system works fine and most people like it. I don't think anyone agrees with Falc. He doesn't even play pracs.Entr0py wrote:I'd like as much as anyone to have a rating system that relies only on a player's performance during a match, and not on the ratings of the other players. However, I'm at a loss to think of a fair way to do that. The problem is with the definition of a player's "performance". It's just not the case that all match outcomes of equal point margins are equal, because achieving those point margins may be much more difficult when playing against some teams than against others. The current rating system tries to take that into account as follows:
1) It uses the average ratings of the players on the teams to determine a % chance of victory as well as a predicted point margin.
2) It sees if your team won (affects winR) and if your team beat the predicted point margin (powR)(the predicted point margin can be negative, if it predicts you to lose!). It determines the total change in rating of the teams for both winR and powR. For winR, the number is entirely based on if the team wins, and what the avg. rating difference is between the two teams. For powR, the number is based on the difference between the predicted point margin and the actual point margin.
3) It divides the change in rating of both winR and powR among the players on each team based on their performances relative to each other, based on their "Team Rating" stat. Players with higher team ratings relative to their teammates get a better change in rating than players with lower team rating.
The details are more complicated, but that's the basic outline of how the system works.
Same question, if no, then we might as well try this:Tembest wrote: Ent, I take it there is no way to base it on the number of players in without creating multiple arenas?
So Killbase=80 and killflagpoints = deleted.Tembest wrote:Just switch it to 80 and get rid off the kill bonus for now.