aaaahh ok! I get it! Well my table is correct then
Topic: Rating system
Posted at: 2019-07-12, 19:23
Posted at: 2019-07-15, 11:38
Ok, I've been thinking the last few days. Let's talk a bit about implementation and deadlines. Otherwise the idea will die soon.
First implementation stage
Entirely web based. Allowing us to test the rating system as well without asking too much coding time from the game dev.
Deadline: October fest. I will have only a few hours on sundays, but it should be manageable
A few options:
4 subpages, accessible like in the profile page, on a small menu:
One table with current rating of everyone from best to least best.
If you are ranked your name appears green and it gives your RD.
If you're not ranked a message "you are not yet ranked in this mode" on top of table.
Or maybe change the name, we might not need people to upload the replay everytime?
From map, type and other plays, automatically infer which type of game this is (1vs1, 2vs2, all modes)
--> send message to other player when game has been submitted.
He will need a special role on the website.
He sees one more button in the index page for moderation
Set map pool
Get 2 tables, 1vs1 and 2vs2 on which he can add/edit/remove lines for each map with:
List of last submitted game from newest to oldest:
Add red color when same game was submitted twice?
Options for each game:
Second implementation stage
If we found our rating system works that's when we add all that has been discussed
game info send to server after game is played
Edit: I think I will try integrating the glicko system in python first. It will help me train integrating math for Einstein's calculation afterward
Posted at: Yesterday 14:22
I'm impressed by your posts, you seem to do a lot for this.
Why removing the playtime scheduler? I'm rather against that.
Sounds like the best option to me.
I think that replays are more or less necessary, to prevent abuse...
Isn't it easier to make it impossible that games get submitted twice?
Calculating each map 1 by 1 seems to make a lot of sense.
Looks expectable, good. Usually 6 games are not enough to bring a "stable" rating. The chess website Lichess.org considers ratings as "provisonal" (unstable) if the rating deviation is above 110, and the players get a question mark behind their rating in that case, and the ratings cannot appear in leaderboards because they are too uncertain.
This sounds unfair to me. Should somebody who is ranked 1000 points below his teammate really get as many points as his teammate, even though he didn't have to do anything for the victory?
Okay, maybe you are right.
“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert SwanTop Quote