How are the points calculated in the ranked beta?

[psycodiver]

Sorry if this doesnt belong here.
I am wondering exactly how the elo is calculated after a game.
Could someone reply with the lowdown of how the elo is calculated? The formula would be best. Or provide a link to where it is?

I have noticed that no matter how good you go in a game *if* you lose, you still lose points.
Is tank kills/deaths counted at all?

Also how does the auto balance work? Equiem seems pretty sure that the two players with the highest elo are always split.

Thanks!

[Equiem]

http://btanks.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3349

Auto balance is highest ranked + 3rd highest + 5 and so on vs 2,4,6. Based on ELO. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Velocity2k]

Auto balance is highest ranked + 3rd highest + 5 and so on vs 2,4,6. Based on ELO. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not correct. I'm not 100% into it but as far as i know the 1. and 2. are in different teams and the rest is calculated based on ELO.

If you would balance 1.+3.+5.+7.+9. vs. 2.+4.+6.+8.+10. the second team would always have a lower sum which wouldn't be balanced.

[Equiem]

Auto balance is highest ranked + 3rd highest + 5 and so on vs 2,4,6. Based on ELO. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not correct. I'm not 100% into it but as far as i know the 1. and 2. are in different teams and the rest is calculated based on ELO.

If you would balance 1.+3.+5.+7.+9. vs. 2.+4.+6.+8.+10. the second team would always have a lower sum which wouldn't be balanced.

Ah, good to know. Is it based on ELO sum for the whole team or just the last 8 players?

That would actually explain a lot and why my teams are always so much worse... actually that is quite bad for someone with a high ELO.
Guess this would put my streak of extremly bad teams in a whole new perspective.

[eSVau]

• Balance
  The highest und lowest score will be put into one team, the second highest und second lowest score into the other team (@those "i-want-to-kick-my-feeder-because-i-cant-bear-a-fair-game"-players: yes, thats why there is always a feeder in both teams fur "sure")
  
  The missing six players will be distributed in a way that score sums of both teams are the closest or rather they will be distributed that the difference of both sums is the closest possible to zero.
  
  
  
• ELO score
  Thats rather complicated, especial for teams. My point of view (POV) will be the victory side, loser will be handled symmetrically.
  
  At first an expected value will be calculated for every player by
  Code:

  1 / ( 1 + 10 ^ ( ( eloTeamB - ( 2 * eloPlayerA + 3/5 * eloTeamA ) ) / 2000 ) )
  as you may notice it's twice player ELO plus three-fifths of this players team vs the sum of the other team.
  
  This expected value defines someone winning probability - the higher someones probability is the less he will win or the more he loses (score wise).
  
  In our system someone score gain is biased by game stats therefore a game performance value will be calculated
  Code:

  stat1 * factor1 + ... + statn * factorn
  Those factors are hierarchised into three levels and every level is weighted double to its predecessor level in other words some stats are more importent than others.
  All those performance values will be normalized teamwisely so that the best player of a team has a performance of 1.00 and the worst 0.85 (loser side is between 0.00 (worst loser) and 0.15 (best loser))
  
  With this normalized performance value and expected value someone score gain will be calculated by
  Code:

  20 * (performanceValue - exceptedValue)
  You can interpret those performance value as a 100% victory (best) or 85% victory (worst) and yes, it would be possible to lose points even as victor :o

[RaptorXI]

Very nice concept.
What I (grammatically) don't understand:
"This expected value defines someone winning probability - the higher someones probability is the less he will win or the more he loses (score wise)."

exspectaveram:
"This expected value defines someone winning probability - the higher someones probability is the less he will win and the more he loses (score wise).

[Equiem]

So err, after fiddling some with the numbers it seems that in most games I get the worst team but is still defined as the probable winner which means that I will loose more points for a loss and win less points for a win.

But just to check some I looked at my last game ID 3033(disregarding the last 2 digits):

Total ELO for the top team / Average ELO for the team
7712 1542

Total ELO for the 4 worst players of the top team / Average ELO for those players
6099 1524

Total ELO for the bottom team / Average ELO for the team
7808 1561

Total ELO for the 4 worst players of the bottom team / Average ELO for those players
5959 1489

I understand that this will look a lof different depending which players and what ELO they're at and someone with a very low rating will make these numbers look quite weird. But just looking at these numbers my team has an average that would indicated that they normally loose and the average player of the other team is more likely to win.

So testing some regarding:

The missing six players will be distributed in a way that score sums of both teams are the closest or rather they will be distributed that the difference of both sums is the closest possible to zero.

Mid 3 players total ELO of the top team / Average ELO
4620 / 1540

Mid 3 players total ELO of the bottom team / Average ELO
4525 / 1508

The difference here is again quite large so I'm not really seeing how this could be even. Lets say you switch them around a bit.

Total for all 6 "mid" players / Average
9145 / 1524

Then start picking the players based on that adding the highest ranked and the lowest ranked into one of them then balancing the ELO of the teams and you come up with:

3x Rating / Total / Average / Total ELO for the whole team

Top: 1526 1538 1518, 4582, 1527, 7674

Bottom: 1531 1551 1481, 4563, 1521, 7846

So instead of a 32 points difference you end up with 6 for the "medium" ranked players. The difference between the teams is quite large in total but if you remove the difference between the higest rated on the both teams the top team is still in favor ELO wise.

I know this is most likely flawed and that it will look a lot different depending on teams / ELO and players but just testing some theories.

So why arent the 6 missing players balanced between themselves instead of towards the team?

[Prog]

So err, after fiddling some with the numbers it seems that in most games I get the worst team but is still defined as the probable winner which means that I will loose more points for a loss and win less points for a win.

Which is exactly like it should be. Otherwise it would be just a mass gaming thing, but with this system it becomes deciding how long you can win enough games to overcompensate the points lost when losing.

[Equiem]

So err, after fiddling some with the numbers it seems that in most games I get the worst team but is still defined as the probable winner which means that I will loose more points for a loss and win less points for a win.

Which is exactly like it should be. Otherwise it would be just a mass gaming thing, but with this system it becomes deciding how long you can win enough games to overcompensate the points lost when losing.

...but it also means that it will be impossible for anyone to get past a certain ELO theshold since the teams you're getting wont be good enough to win with however you play. That point where it really doesnt matter if you're going 100-0 and doing everything right because your team wont be anything at all and just feed the whole game.

If you track my last ~40 of so games a trend emerges quite fast. I seriously belive that its completely impossible to go above 1950 rating if you're not extremely lucky with disconnects and/or kicking everyone on your team.

Mass games just wont help after a while, you'll still need to stay above a 3:1 or 4:1 record at all times so it really doesnt matter if you play a ton of games or just a few. The ratio stays the same. Around 1900 rating you loose about 13 points a game and win a maximum of 5 and keeping up a 3:1 record with those teams that you're getting is just ridicoulus. Just winning all the time is fairly easy when you're getting even teams but when you're also the constant underdog it just gets frustrating.

[Prog]

It's true that at some point noone can get past a certein ELO, the important thing is that this point differs from player to player. Some players might reach their max ELO at 1600, some at 1800, some at 1850 and some might get to 1900 or even 2000. I don't know which ratio you need to have on average to get to 1950, but I do think that your ~3 to 1 ratio is not even close to what is possible, you might have just reached your peak faster as you played more than others and now you struggle a bit to improve (which naturaly takes time).

[Equiem]

It's true that at some point noone can get past a certein ELO, the important thing is that this point differs from player to player. Some players might reach their max ELO at 1600, some at 1800, some at 1850 and some might get to 1900 or even 2000. I don't know which ratio you need to have on average to get to 1950, but I do think that your ~3 to 1 ratio is not even close to what is possible, you might have just reached your peak faster as you played more than others and now you struggle a bit to improve (which naturaly takes time).

I understand what you mean and thats why I added the last section. Its not hard at all to win a lot when the teams are even and a 3:1 doesnt sound that much but considering who you play with its a whole other thing. I would rather play with bots on my team then any team you're getting above ~1850 rating, you just dont stand a chance.

But I really feel like you should try setting your ELO to say 1900 and play a few games, its a Drastic difference from 1800 and up.

Maybe its just me thou and I do get it. I'm eagerly awaiting CoMPee to get a bit higher since I would like to hear what he thinks since I know he's a much better player then I am.

Edit, just to underline:

Around 1900 rating you loose about 13 points a game and win a maximum of 5 and keeping up a 3:1 record with those teams that you're getting is just ridicoulus. Just winning all the time is fairly easy when you're getting even teams but when you're also the constant underdog it just gets frustrating.

^ This is the main problem, not keeping a good record.

[RaptorXI]

And wasn't that your aim? Remaining as an underdog? :wink:
If you don't like public games, don't join them.

Offtopic: current league beta is more advanced than the current map

[Althend]

The problem can be resolved later by a specific bot for high elo players ^_^


There is stil the problem of some players who avoid "top players" to not lose points....

[Equiem]

And wasn't that your aim? Remaining as an underdog? :wink:
If you don't like public games, don't join them.

Offtopic: current league beta is more advanced than the current map

The public games argument is kinda low really. Its not that I dont enjoy public games its again (for the humpteenth time) constantly playing with teams that I have no chance in hell to win with. There's a difference here which I've outlined pretty well above.

The problem can be resolved later by a specific bot for high elo players ^_^

There is stil the problem of some players who avoid "top players" to not lose points....

You want an active league with the top players actually playing the game to keep their spot. You dont want people that selectively plays games just to grab a specfic amount of points or a position. The league shouldent be something that is just dead after a few weeks or less it should be something people keep playing in order to be competitive. At least thats my view on it.

I've never avoided a game just because there's another player in it, the downside is that the game is usually decided as soon as you enter the game and see how the teams are :roll:

So err, after fiddling some with the numbers it seems that in most games I get the worst team but is still defined as the probable winner which means that I will loose more points for a loss and win less points for a win.

Which is exactly like it should be. Otherwise it would be just a mass gaming thing, but with this system it becomes deciding how long you can win enough games to overcompensate the points lost when losing.

Mkay, trying to explain myself a tad better this time. Addressing the underlined section.

Obviously playing a lot of games shouldent be rewarded and getting less points for each win the higher the score is something that is seen on pretty much every ladder there is and this is how it should work. The problem is (I just keep saying the same thing..) that you're also getting worse teams the higher you climb. I have not played a single game or ladder where you also have to deal with having a worse team the higher you get.

I'm guessing the reasoning behind it is that there should be even games, right? Problem is that right now the teams just arent balanced in any way and should the rest of a team really be punished just because you happen to get a high ranked player on your team?

[Althend]

I've never avoided a game just because there's another player in it, the downside is that the game is usually decided as soon as you enter the game and see how the teams are :roll:

Who accuse you? ^_^

[Equiem]

I've never avoided a game just because there's another player in it, the downside is that the game is usually decided as soon as you enter the game and see how the teams are :roll:

Who accuse you? ^_^

Noone, just stating facts. Add a huge smily at the end of that sentence instead and you'll get what I meant in the first place 8)

[RaptorXI]

Battletanks has no niveau when you play alone.

[Prog]

In my opinion (really my own, not speaking for dev team or anything) balance function is necessary to create at least enough difficulty to make league games any challange at all. When we had beta league with shuffle and not with balance we had top players with ridiculous win ratio - that can't be the way to go. Especially as there are quite some people who can play 9-1 ratio or better, it will become a mass gaming fest, as the ratio is so good that the ELO peak will only be reached after hundreds of games. With the balance function the ELO peak should be lowered a lot, making it possible to reach it in less games and it makes it possible to have a form of challenge for the top players (that does also imply that it might help to improve in certain aspects - if you team is worse you are not allowed to make any mistakes).


Another thing to add: Until the balance formula was changed recently the team with the top ELO player was stronger than it should have been. So you played with better teams then you were supposed to until recently - that might explain your feeling of incredibly bad teammates in the last couple of games/days.

[Equiem]

In my opinion (really my own, not speaking for dev team or anything) balance function is necessary to create at least enough difficulty to make league games any challange at all. When we had beta league with shuffle and not with balance we had top players with ridiculous win ratio - that can't be the way to go. Especially as there are quite some people who can play 9-1 ratio or better, it will become a mass gaming fest, as the ratio is so good that the ELO peak will only be reached after hundreds of games. With the balance function the ELO peak should be lowered a lot, making it possible to reach it in less games and it makes it possible to have a form of challenge for the top players (that does also imply that it might help to improve in certain aspects - if you team is worse you are not allowed to make any mistakes).

I think that argument is somewhat flawed. This can easily be addressed by adding a harsh curve to the ratio needed for the ELO and force people to peak earlier to avoid mass gaming. Lets say you need a 9:1 ratio at 1700 or 1800 already. In order to progress at all you need to keep this record and always improve. This is how almost all other ladders work so I dont see any problems with it. Maybe adding a major bonus to playing versus someone that has a ELO close to you to encourage players to not choose their battles.

I know a fair amount players that only played 1-2 point games in the old league to progress, is this the main reason why you have changed it to this way instead?

Another thing to add: Until the balance formula was changed recently the team with the top ELO player was stronger than it should have been. So you played with better teams then you were supposed to until recently - that might explain your feeling of incredibly bad teammates in the last couple of games/days.

This explains quite a lot. Maybe I've been unlucky with my matchups aswell or just plain played worse, hard to tell. Felt like I hit a brick wall the last 10 or so games.

[Prog]

The main thing we changed the league system and put in shuffle/balance was that a couple of players dodged good opponents all the time and played only when they knew their team is stronger. (You can still dodge players and some do that, but with balance you might have a hard time even against not well known players once you reach a higher ELO).

Concourning your rebuttal of my argument: You address only 1 part, not the "challenge" thing, which is equally important. I don't see any challenge for good players with just shuffle.

This explains quite a lot. Maybe I've been unlucky with my matchups aswell or just plain played worse, hard to tell. Felt like I hit a brick wall the last 10 or so games.

Really hard to name a single reason, most possible it's a combination thing, just wanted to point out what might be another reason why you felt the games tougher.