| 1 |
[quote]for most active players skill is not moving a lot outside of fluctuation[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]for most active players skill is not moving a lot outside of fluctuation[/quote]
|
| 2 |
I
call
bullshit.
We're
talking
about
a
multi-year
time
frame
with
many
new
players
joining
and
climbing
the
ranks.
Maybe
your
idea
of
a
(
currently)
"active
player"
is
a
pro
that
is
just
poking
around
in
big
teamgames,
but
even
in
the
1v1
scene
there
is
substantial
movement
whenever
players
decide
to
actively
work
on
their
game.
I
distinctly
remember
@[ISP]Lauri
experimenting
and
improving
a
lot,
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
other
players
both
at
the
visible
top
of
the
ladder
as
well
as
in
the
lower
ranks
whose
skill
is
constantly
changing.
|
2 |
I
call
bullshit.
We're
talking
about
a
multi-year
time
frame
with
many
new
players
joining
and
climbing
the
ranks.
Maybe
your
idea
of
a
(
currently)
"active
player"
is
a
pro
that
is
just
poking
around
in
big
teamgames,
but
even
in
the
1v1
scene
there
is
substantial
movement
whenever
players
decide
to
actively
work
on
their
game.
I
distinctly
remember
@[ISP]Lauri
experimenting
and
improving
a
lot,
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
other
players
both
at
the
visible
top
of
the
ladder
as
well
as
all
through
the
ranks
whose
skill
is
constantly
changing.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[quote] if i happen to play a number of 1v1s and lose them all (maybe because im bad at it), and my rating drops a lot because i gained a lot of elo in teams before (maybe im good at it), does my rating then properly reflect my skill because it was formed by the maximum amount of available data? [/quote]
|
4 |
[quote] if i happen to play a number of 1v1s and lose them all (maybe because im bad at it), and my rating drops a lot because i gained a lot of elo in teams before (maybe im good at it), does my rating then properly reflect my skill because it was formed by the maximum amount of available data? [/quote]
|
| 5 |
That example was cited in the other thread, too, and while it's clearly disfavoring the combined elo, apparently this situation is a lot less common than people having played too few games in either mode to make the respective predictions accurate.
|
5 |
That example was cited in the other thread, too, and while it's clearly disfavoring the combined elo, apparently this situation is a lot less common than people having played too few games in either mode to make the respective predictions accurate.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
I'd actually go so far as saying that an influx of new players favors the 1 measure system a lot more, because it's twice as fast at establishing decent elo values, whereas split elo is good for long term players that have played a ton in both modes.
|
7 |
I'd actually go so far as saying that an influx of new players favors the 1 measure system a lot more, because it's twice as fast at establishing decent elo values, whereas split elo is good for long term players that have played a ton in both modes.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
Maybe it would be possible that 1v1 and team elo stay identical (i.e. calculated based on the same game set) until you have played enough games in either mode that they can be assumed to be reasonably accurate when (from that point on) only being calculated with games of the respective type?
|
9 |
Maybe it would be possible that 1v1 and team elo stay identical (i.e. calculated based on the same game set) until you have played enough games in either mode that they can be assumed to be reasonably accurate when (from that point on) only being calculated with games of the respective type?
|
Predictiveness of the new ELO Split in 1v1-4v4