Posted on 14 July 2014 - 02:34 AM
Just wondering, why exactly was rating removed as a whole? imo, it made the server a lot more fun, but now its just "you're rank 87!" and thats it :/we could have kept rating, and just implemented the new algorithm for elo dropping and such, and it would have been fine. i was on earlier and there were a few who agreed with me. im not demanding it, but i just wanted an explanation :I
@MasterGberry
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 02:36 AM
Ye I like the old elo system betterPosted on 14 July 2014 - 02:49 AM
ELO system is perfect for games like chess, but in a game like Minecraft where someone who is a lot lower than you can cheat and beat you, it's not. People were complaining about being in the 1800s and losing 32 elo just because they lost to a 1400 elo hacker. At high elo, it is very difficult to climb when most of the people you are matched up with are low elo. The rank number represents the rank your skill is at in that ladder out of EVERYONE in that ladder. If I was rank 1 in vanilla and if there were 5000 other people who played the vanilla ladder, that would mean my skill level is higher than everyone. Rank 5 would mean that I'm the 5th best in that ladder.Posted on 14 July 2014 - 02:58 AM
@SmellyPenguin no you're misconstruing what i said. i understand what the current system is, but what i was asking is - why we didnt just combine the two. keep the elo (rating) and the current algorithm and scrap the "rank" stuff and the old algorithm. for example, i had 1800 elo. but i lost to a 1400 hacker. i would lose maybe 2 elo but they would still gain 32. it's in the same proportions as the current system, just with elo. (elo makes it more fun)Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:03 AM
If that hidden rating was made public, people would find a way to abuse it.Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:04 AM
-snip-Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:06 AM
jetflamingo wrote
Yeah, like ur equivalent ELO. For exemple: alelameira (#37 - 1800) has beaten (raped) Jetflamingo (#4000 - 1300)
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:10 AM
alelameira wrote
jetflamingo wrote...
Yeah, like ur equivalent ELO. For exemple: alelameira (#37 - 1800) has beaten (raped) Jetflamingo (#4000 - 1300)
exactly! except you would be the one getting raped '3'
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:24 AM
jetflamingo wrote
We might do something like this in the future. We were on a time crunch and did what made the most sense at the time, might add some form of rating back. The current system has a lot of factors, and publishing it is difficult.
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:43 AM
My 2 sense-The old system was fine, except for a few things that was messed up. This new system has many errors to make up for it, such as, why do people gain points when they lose? That is just flat out stupid.
It should be like this. The old elo system, except, you lose a lot of points from people close to your rank, not people much lower then you. That would work perfectly, not this confusing new system.
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 03:56 AM
BetterSprint wrote
The old system was fine, except for a few things that was messed up. This new system has many errors to make up for it, such as, why do people gain points when they lose? That is just flat out stupid.
It should be like this. The old elo system, except, you lose a lot of points from people close to your rank, not people much lower then you. That would work perfectly, not this confusing new system.
I already explained your first point. Go find my post.
Posted on 14 July 2014 - 06:16 AM
BetterSprint wrote
The old system was fine, except for a few things that was messed up. This new system has many errors to make up for it, such as, why do people gain points when they lose? That is just flat out stupid.
It should be like this. The old elo system, except, you lose a lot of points from people close to your rank, not people much lower then you. That would work perfectly, not this confusing new system.
Tbh I don't think this new system is confusing at all, a lot of the players on Badlion just don't get it or don't take the time to try to understand how it works.