new ladder: Points system needs tweeking?

[mendelbop]

edit again:

There might have been some error in my previous calculations because i now got "only" 59 points for one game but its still way too much. 59 points is something like what he should have gotten, should he have won the game.

So maybe the point system is a bit reversed?

anyways. 10 games, 459 points. <- way too much :D

edit: I dug up a little bit and found this

http://jt7-315a.tky.hut.fi/mendel/emperorscore.jpg

thats a total of 205 points from 9 games in westwood ladder, compared to 400 points in fed ladder

In westwood ladder it took me total of 24 games to get past the 400 point mark.

original message:

9 games vs 0 -pointers -> 400 points to me???

Doesn't that sound a bit weird?

I'm not saying it would be bad, it's probably same for everyone so it doesn't matter so much, that's just not the same points system it used to be, or what do you think?

Anyways I guess at least we need a few more players with lots of points to see what happens when other player has something lot more than 0 points :)

back to topic... surely there must be something wrong with the points system.

Look at it this way. the first game i play with 0 points against zero pointer, i get 32 points, right?

After that if i keep playing versus zero pointers i should be getting less points / game, right?

Well lets presume, that I however did get exactly 32 points for every game, it would be too much right? Well, 32*9 = 288.

And I got 400? That's more and more points per game when I should be getting less and less!!

I will have to research scores i get in next game closely, to see if it follows this formula and if there is something wrong with that formula.

btw, so im not much of a programmer so one question...

pow (10, 2)

Does that mean like 10^2?

Therefore likely result in next game should be vs another zeropointer...

(64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, (400 - 0) / 400) + 1)))

= 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, (400/400) + 1)))

= 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, 1+1)))

= 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, 2)))

= 64 * (1 - 1 / 100)

= 64 * 1-0.01

= 64 * 0.99

= 63.36 points

Is that calculated correctly?

(edit: no, but we still have a problem here. See JB's post.)

That would be way too much for one game wouldn't it?

winner_points = (64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, ($points_winner - $points_loser) / 400) + 1)));

$loser_points = min(64 - $winner_points, $points_loser / 10);

$players[$winner] = $players[$winner] + $winner_points;

$players[$loser] = $players[$loser] - $loser_points;

// $players[] => holds the player name and their points

// $winner_points => the number of points to add to the winner

// $loser_points => the number of points to remove from the loser

// $points_winner => the current number of points for the winner

// $points_loser => the current number of points for the loser

[Brennq]

yea it should be nice that the ladder uses the old point system :)

I hope i can play as fast as possible on the ladder. I always get sending : failed.... really dont know what it is :'(

[mendelbop]

Have you any firewalls or some such things?

[Brennq]

Have you any firewalls or some such things?

nope uhm maybe its Norton antivirus i ll check that.

nope its not norton :'(

[mendelbop]

Hey comments please. Should the point system stay like this or should it be changed?

[JB]

(64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, (400 - 0) / 400) + 1)))

= 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, (400/400) + 1)))

No, it is 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, 400/400) + 1)), the +1 is not inside the pow function.

But that still gives you 640/11, about 58 points for such a game.

winner_points = (64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, ($points_winner - $points_loser) / 400) + 1)));

This formula is strange, because if the difference in score ($points_winner - $points_loser) is extremely large and positive, the winner should get almost no points for such a victory. But the formula gives scores closer and closer to 64 for increasing score difference!

While if the winner has much less points than the loser of the match (surprise win against a strong player) the difference is large and negative, and the awarded score goes to zero! (see picture) I think somthing is reversed here, what was the point formula for the original WOL ladder system?

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[mendelbop]

No, it is 64 * (1 - 1 / (pow(10, 400/400) + 1)), the +1 is not inside the pow function.

But that still gives you 640/11, about 58 points for such a game.

Well close enough. I got 59 points for the game. I guess that proves your math correct.

While if the winner has much less points than the loser of the match (surprise win against a strong player) the difference is large and negative, and the awarded score goes to zero!

Ok, previously I thought the system wasn't necessarily so bad, just different. But that getting zero points for surprise defeating a high ranked player... that would be a serious issue - Someone would be disappointed badly :)

So I understand this ladder is still at beta stage, but this is something that would need a fix before we can call the ladder anything like "official".

edit: f***ed up the quotes

[mendelbop]

Ok well now. I played two games with zilents.

First game I won. Scoring something like 60 points.

second game i lost. I lost 0 points, zilents scored 2.

[mendelbop]

ya darnnnn lol!!! so in this ladder basicly whoever reach 500 is GOD of all.. untouchable.. heuhehuehuehueuhe =)

pretty much yea :D

[Gobalopper]

Hmm I will take a look, since I'm on vacation I don't have much time but its obviously not doing something right. :D

[mendelbop]

If the used point counting formula is really the one that you posted in our own wol thread. Then its doing exactly as instructed. Only there seems to be something reversed in the code if JB is right and he seems to be.

Anyways Gob great great great thanks for the new ladder! Also don't let me disturb your holiday, you can have a few days off :) Im having a joyride here with points falling in so im not complaining :D

[Gobalopper]

Well its doing the calculations right but I'm not 100% sure if the input is correct. I was just translating the code from Olaf's which didn't have any comments. :)

[mendelbop]

Points seem to be recalculated now. I seem to have a little over 300 points now which seems more close to the original point system.

However, Im still not sure about zilents having gotten only 7 points.

edit: also there seems to be people with negative points now.

[Gobalopper]

Yep I think I should do a point per game sort of view like what WW did on their ladder, it would be easier to find the problem.

[mendelbop]

qtips69  0  1  5

kr1zho3  0  1  2

so they have lost won 0, lost 1 game each and they got points out of it.