Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 12:00 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
Yea, this is really cool. :) Thank you to Maelstrom and Morda!!!

And yes, I AM KING OF BIZZARIA!!! HAHAHA I like Crateus too tho, very similar play-style, but a bit larger, so I might move in there also. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 12:18 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
Mrakobes wrote:
and again it is noncence i have won more battles on New Paradize that ANYBODY and still am i on 10th place?and somehow i am placed higher than Drakon on Emerald ...

phew screw this lame glicko ....


What are your net victories? It may make sense if you subtract your loses from your wins (total wins - total loses). Basically, it seems like a win is roughly +90 pts, depending on the score and RD if your opponent. A loss is roughly -90, again, depending on the score and RD of your opponent. 90 seems to be the default amount based on a score of 1500 and RD of 300 (starting stats). I haven't actually looked at te formulas, so if I'm incorrect, someone please jump in. :)

Here's an example, I've played 35 games on Biz, MacTob has played 49 games, but I have a much higher score than him because I probably have more net victories (wins - loses). Also, two of my wins were against MacTob, he won one against me (and is about to win a second one), and I have two wins against Tiger, needless to say, these wins bare a much greater weight than wins against people with lower scores.

In the end, I think these ratings are even less of an indivator of skill than the overall rankings because of the relatively few games played in each particular map. Just look at the RDs on even the most-played maps. Bottom line, if you think you should be at the top of a particular list, just challenge whoever's in the #1 spot, and beat the tar out of him. That'll prove you should be #1, and if you keep it up, you will be #1 very soon. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 1:24 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
redfox wrote:
Yea, this is really cool. :) Thank you to Maelstrom and Morda!!!

And yes, I AM KING OF BIZZARIA!!! HAHAHA I like Crateus too tho, very similar play-style, but a bit larger, so I might move in there also. :)


Similar play style! How do you get that? With so many allies and the countries so small and packed together, Crateus is a Brawl! :)

On the other hand, Bizarria has long borders with lots of trees, and very few countries, so its all about initial placement.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:34 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:00 pm
Posts: 693
Karma: 0

Location: University of Tennessee, USA
Actually, I agree that the two maps have a similar *feel*, though each for its own reason. On Bizarria, the borders are so long and the countries are so poor that a battle line can only work in two or three spots. Thus, it usually turns into tanks and mechs wandering around hunting each other, with the occasional LAV line thrown up to stall them. On Crateus, the countries are so small and the terrain is so open that guerillas have nowhere to hide, letting you simply conquer your way around a stalemate. Thus, it usually turns into tanks and mechs wandering around hunting each other, with the occasional LAV line thrown up to stall them.

So while they're very different on paper, Bizarria and Crateus both devolve into the same sort of tank/mech rugby scrum, with the difference being that Crateus has a MUCH higher kill count and a MUCH lower dependance on early positioning.


For the record, this is a very simplified version of what I think happens on these two maps...the gist of it, if you will.

_________________
Q: How many ADHD people does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Oooh look, a kitty!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 4:35 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
Artanis wrote:
So while they're very different on paper, Bizarria and Crateus both devolve into the same sort of tank/mech rugby scrum, with the difference being that Crateus has a MUCH higher kill count and a MUCH lower dependance on early positioning.


My thoughts exactly Arty! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 4:41 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
Artanis wrote:
This is also why I agree with map weighting, but for reasons of time, instead of skill. If I can finish six games on Emerald in the time it takes to finish one on New Paradise, I should get six times as many points for New Paradise, regardless of whether it takes more skill or not.


heh, I kept forgetting to post about this, but finally remembered. :)

Yes, I do agree with this, games on NP do take longer to complete than games on Bizzaria and are very time consuming to manage, so people who invest the extra time into those games should be awarded accordingly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 11:13 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
redfox wrote:
I agree that there are different strategies and styles of play for different maps and different SA layouts, and some do pick up on them faster than others. So having rankings by planet would be cool.

I don't think we should be assigning weights to different planets tho. A map is a map, and each requires it's own style of play. If a player can only win on a certain type of map, either big or small, that suggests the player is limited to that niche. This happens with the Non-Pay accounts. Since they can only play on Emerald, they get very very good at it, but if you take them out of Emerald, their unfamiliarity with the terrain and long-term strategies will destroy them. A really good player will be able to adapt to any situation and do well on any map, even one they've never played on before.

It's kind of like the Olympic Decathalon. You can't say that the 100m dash is any more or less a measure of an athlete's ability than the hurdles or pole vault. Each event requires certain talents, but the athlete who receives the gold medal is the one who is the best overall.


I agree with redfox. There is a sort of snobbery among some of the top players which says that the only real map is a large or medium map. It's a nonsense. Yes, the larger the map the greater emphasis on strategy and the less on tactics, and good for them if they enjoy that, but let's do away with this nonsense that somehow strategy is worth more.

What this boils down to in the end is they're worried that large maps take longer to finish. Well, that's the point of a statistical system like this (and its advantage over the MA system), in you don't need to play hundreds of games every day for your skill to be recognised.

Having an "overall" league, along with one for each planet and perhaps the ability to filter out players with an RD > 100, would make for an excellent rank IMO.

_________________
"Massive Assault is a game for those, who like to think. In this game random factor exists without doubt, but it doesn't play a decisive role." - Tiger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 11:18 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
Mrakobes wrote:
and again it is noncence i have won more battles on New Paradize that ANYBODY and still am i on 10th place?and somehow i am placed higher than Drakon on Emerald ...

phew screw this lame glicko ....


You really haven't left the MA score system mindset behind, have you? If you don't understand that LOTS of wins are not the be all and end all indication of skill, then, frankly, you're never going to understand what the glicko results are telling you.

_________________
"Massive Assault is a game for those, who like to think. In this game random factor exists without doubt, but it doesn't play a decisive role." - Tiger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:02 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
oh yes...if i won 25 battles on that planet (perphabs losing 10) and Enforcer won 4 of course i suppose he is better than me...
very logical system system..next time Glickot will say you that some n00b who won one game over tiger and left the game forever is the best.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:56 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:12 am
Posts: 603
Karma: 1

Location: New York
I just had an idea, why not list a player's MAN score and rank with the Glicko score, then we can view skill and experience together to get a better picture of a player's overall skills.

_________________
Never stop fighting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 3:05 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:00 pm
Posts: 693
Karma: 0

Location: University of Tennessee, USA
Think of it like this: say there are three players. Player A has had six matches and beaten Tiger six times. Player B has had twelve matches, beaten me nine times, and lost to me three times. Player C has had 22 matches, beaten the Easy AI 20 times, and lost to the Easy AI twice.

Obviously, Player A is the best. The Glicko system would agree, placing him at #1 among the three.

Although I'm no Tiger, I'm also not a pushover, so Player B would be the most experienced. The official ranking system would agree, placing him at #1 among the three.

However, Player C has the most wins. Under your logic, the player who went 22-2 against the Easy AI would be the "best".

_________________
Q: How many ADHD people does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Oooh look, a kitty!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 3:29 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
Artanis what you rambling...i was not speaking about AI games or about games against easy opponent.i would not even spend time playing on NP against anybody with rank less than major.and had beaten TIger on NP too and others were also colonels and generals.
so you example about games against AI does not fits here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 4:19 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:00 pm
Posts: 693
Karma: 0

Location: University of Tennessee, USA
We apparently are working on different definitions of "skill". By "skill", I mean how difficult somebody is to beat, which is what the Glicko system tries to count. As you see in my example, official rank does not necessarily mean skill (Player B).

This is not to say that opponent rank counts for nothing, of course. The higher the rank, the more likely the opponent is to have a high Glicko (for example, playing against a Marshal guarantees an opponent in the top 6% of the Glicko standings), but there are exceptions. Just look at the "Elite League" standings, where 1 in 4 Colonels has a losing record. By your logic, beating Colonel grtbrit (19 wins to 52 losses) would be more of an accomplishment than beating Zippo, who has played Tiger twice and never lost!

This is also not to say that number of wins count for nothing, either. Every time you win, your Glicko ranking goes up, no matter how bad your opponent is. You could beat a house plant on Bizarria, and it would still raise your Glicko! What the Glicko system does, however, is make a victory over the house plant, or me, or Pitor count for less than a victory over Tiger.

_________________
Q: How many ADHD people does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Oooh look, a kitty!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 5:15 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 143
Karma: 0

Location: Bergen, Norway
Just an apropos: The game "Laser Squad Nemesis", which has much of the same structure as MA (turn based, two player, play-by-email-ish) uses the ELO rankning system divided into three divisions (Novice, Veteran and Elite) and everybody is very pleased with it. ELO is almost the same as Glicko if I'm not mistaken.

And in case I blabbered too incomprehensibly, what I meant was: "Glicko = Good".

If anybody wants to get a feel of how difficult a houseplant is to beat, send me a challenge. It amounts to the same thing. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 5:39 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the RD (ratings deviation). The fewer the games played, the higher the RD is for everyone. High RDs represent uncertainty of that player's actual score. So, while Mrakobes has a score of 1825 on NP, his RD is by far the lowest on that map. Another example is with the overall Glicko ratings, Zippo is #1 with only 14 games because he beat Tiger twice, and is undefeated. However, his RD is double Tiger's, so there is much uncertainty whether he is truly skilled, or just lucky.

Glicko is based on ELO, and has been proven to work with time. Since we are still at the very early stages of this game, I imagine it will take some time for the truly skilled players to make their way to the top. I think eliminating extremely high RDs is a good idea. But again, the best way to prove you're the best on a particular map and increase your score would be to beat the people at the top of the list. If you really are the best, then you should be able to defeat the other top players consistently.

So challenge away, and let's see who comes out on top. :)

EDIT: Was trying to see if it would add my sig, think it will for my next post. In case you're wondering, my avatar is Talim from Soul Caliber 2, because she's my fav character and she kicks ass.


Last edited by redfox on Sun May 02, 2004 5:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2004 6:41 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
I've checked my list of battles. Both my games with Zippo was on Antarcticus (for both sides). I've sent new challenge and I hope we'll fight again :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 7:58 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
redfox wrote:
The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the RD (ratings deviation).


How the RD is supposed to work: Basically it is the deviation of what your actual score could possibly be. The Lower your RD, the more accurate the score is. So if you have a score of 1700 with an RD of 100, your actual score could fall anywhere between 1600 and 1800, and so with more battles you will find your score stabalizing at where your skill at the game would put you.

The RD is also used to increase the score won or lost in a match. If you play against someone that is more established with their RD, it affects your rating more. So if you beat Tiger, with his high score and low RD, you will obviously prove yourself to be a good player, and your score bonus will reflect that.

On the other hand, if you are beat by a weak player with a low RD, you will lose a lot of points. That player has proven that they aren't very good, and by losing to them, you show you aren't as good a player.

Losing to someone with a high RD does not hurt nearly as bad, as they have not established how good they are yet. They have had no chance to prove how good or bad they are.

In short, the best way to improve your score is to play and win against the people with the highest score and the lowest RD. But by the definition of how Glicko works, these people will be the hardest to beat.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 10:15 am 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
the meaning of any ranking system is - the defining who is the best.
as i see the clicko ranking does not do this job - ranks there matter little because you have to consider all that RD maths.(sounds quite annoying to me).
We need the strict definition who is the first who is the second but instead we hear again "consider RD blah blah blah"
fact is - the clicko ranking places somebody who play just a few games and win over someone who play alot win alot but still lose sometimes
if you play alot you can not win all the time - you can be very good player but still there are some situations with deployment where you just can not win...even Tiger somehow faces the situations where he has no choice but surrender
in clicko penalties for losing are VERY high so high that they actually can pull down the best player who lost a few games by accident.
such system may be meaningful for a game where isnt ANY random but in MA the secret ally position matter alot
the current buildt-in MA ranking (as it is not very good) but however it inspires the players to play more.
this "glicko" system actually NOT inspires to play the game at all.


Last edited by Mrakobes on Sun May 02, 2004 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 10:34 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:12 am
Posts: 603
Karma: 1

Location: New York
That's true, this game has a random element that Glicko was not designed for. I nearly got beaten by a rookie because he was PL and had a good ally setup. Imagine what that would do for his Glicko ranking.

_________________
Never stop fighting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 1:31 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:45 am
Posts: 41
Karma: 0

Location: USA
I agree as well, there is definately a random element involved, and this has happened to me a lot as well. The only solution is to (following Tiger's example) re-challenge the person who beat you, I usually ask for best 2/3, and since I lost, I choose PL. I can usually win on the rematch as PL, and if you do, you've effectively cancelled out the loss because after their first win, their score will be higher, and their RD will be lower, so you should get at least part or all of your points back.

Then again, if you get unlucky a second (or third) time, then you're just screwed. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 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 © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y