betiko wrote:Mets, you have edited your post AFTER I commented on it; then I got fastposted by your second post and just went to bed. What I was commenting on had NO example and I have quoted exactly what I was replying to.

The post I objected to (the one talking about my "bullshit idea") had the numerical example in it, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

You're going to have to do a lot more work before this makes sense. If I play 10 1v1 games and lose all of them, and then play 10 12 player games and win all of them, my win ratio according to the nominal formula would be 300%. Deciding to just call that 100% is not providing a subtle fix to an otherwise reasonable formula, it is exposing how inappropriate it is for measuring what we normally think of as win ratio.

No that is wrong. if you have played thse 20 games the way you said it (by the way, no way someone could get those numbers; no one would ever win 10 12 player games straight (unless they are noob farming in freestyle).

So basically your argument is that no one could ever get those numbers... except when they could.

I understand that actually getting above 100% in practice would be difficult. That is not the point. The point is the fact that you

could demonstrates why this is a flawed system. Since it is a flawed system, it will still give flawed results even when those results are below 100%. The flaw is, as I stated in my above post, that this is not properly normalized. It is an inherent problem with the method that can be stated precisely mathematically, and that means you can't get around it by appealing to the fact that in practice no one will be able to

tell that it is flawed.

If you have read what I said, and you said you did, you acknowledged that the win rate would be capped at 100% per game mode. In your example, the win rate with my method would be 50% (half of the games at 0%, half of the games at 100%)... so the same as CC. My method is ALWAYS between 0% and 100% as you would have a capping! Don't make me repeat it a fourth time.

My point was to explain that the capping you propose is an

ad hoc bandage to fix a broken system; my numerical example is to show how badly you would need the capping to fix it. You are correctly recognizing the symptoms of an improper normalization, but you are fixing it the wrong way. The problem of course here is that you're trying to reward people more for winning games with more players, but then you start

taking away that reward if they win too much and get above 100% on any game type. Essentially you are penalizing people for winning.

I might be wrong, but I have not seen you specify that if you don't win the game you don't get the kills. In fact, what you were trying to do, from what I understood was to reward kills to those who don't win games (and again; there was NO numerical example from you when I replyied, editing your old posts to insert numerical examples when the conversation is happening live is not the best thing to do.

So now that you understand what I am proposing, are you going to respond to it?

I have mentioned it earlier. This is supposed to be an "aggregated expected win rate index". Just find me one player who can achieve 60% win rate on a game type where the expected win rate is 25%.

Your argument is "my system may be broken but that's OK because people will never realize it." It is not a strong one.

And again: CAPPED AT 100%. But the more I think about it, the more I think taht it's dumb to cap... and I have no problem to see this going above 100%

Then it is clearly not a win ratio (which was my original point).