## [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

## Thoughts?

a) I agree with the suggestion
1
6%
c) I disagree with the suggestion
1
6%
c) I agree with the suggestion, and further agree that bot games should be excluded.
12
67%
d) I disagree with the suggestion, but agree that bot games should be excluded.
1
6%
d) I am positive, but the suggestions need work
2
11%
e) I am against this. I would like Win Ratio to remain as it is
1
6%

### Re: winning rate

• Create an extra stat in player's profile, offering a percentage of won games, including adjustment for how many players participate

Specifics/Details:
• If a player wins a 6 player game, his percentage will adjust, just like he won 5 different games. If a player loses 7 games with 7 players, his score adjusts like he lost 1 game with one opponent, etc.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
• The idea is that currently, the percentage victory scores on player profiles mean absolute nothing. They are random numbers that cannot get a meaning and create comparisons without studying what kind of games the player is participating. This way, the number, which will naturaly be around 40-60 % for most players, will have a definite objective meaning and 2 players can immediately be compared

I am in full agreement, and further stipulate that I'd like to see bot games removed from the statistic.

The poll could be something along the lines of:

a) I agree with the suggestion
c) I disagree with the suggestion
c) I agree with the suggestion, and further agree that bot games should be excluded.
d) I disagree with the suggestion, but agree that bot games should be excluded.
d) I am positive, but the suggestions need work
e) I am against this. I would like Win Ratio to remain as it is

Arama86n

Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Medals: 66

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

yes, the problem is that kaskavel's suggestion is the good one, not the one from the OP.

I'm not sure kaskavel has worded it clearly enough though, and it might need further explanation.
Basically, adjust the win rate to the expected win rate depending on the amount of opponent you have.

1 opponent = 50% expected win rate -> no readjustment
2 opponents= 33% expected win rate -> readjust it to 50% on this 33% basis for 2 opponents game

so on up to 11 opponents games. For BRs... maybe don't include them at all. And as arama said... remove the bot games.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

iAmCaffeine

Posts: 9959
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm
Medals: 147

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

I agree that bot games should be removed from the equation, too.

macbone

Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:12 pm
Location: Running from a cliff racer
Medals: 107

### Re: winning rate

Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio, but since suggestions are always merged on this forum even when they are not the same thing, kaskavel's suggestion was the one we wanted to bump with arama. Forget about the OP, and let's get the title changed by a mod.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio, but since suggestions are always merged on this forum even when they are not the same thing, kaskavel's suggestion was the one we wanted to bump with arama. Forget about the OP, and let's get the title changed by a mod.

I've spoken to jamesker1. He's going to do it within the next few days when he has time. We'll take it from there.

No idea what we should change the thread name too, "Refinement of win-ratio calculation"?
I'll reflect on that matter over a few ale.

Arama86n

Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Medals: 66

### Re: winning rate

iAmCaffeine wrote:I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

actually my idea might not be exactly the same as kaskavel's... I'd like the win rate we currently have to be replaced by a formula that readjusts to 50% all game types that have more than one opponent based on each of their expected win rate. It's kind of hard to word is simply...

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: winning rate

Arama86n wrote:
betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio, but since suggestions are always merged on this forum even when they are not the same thing, kaskavel's suggestion was the one we wanted to bump with arama. Forget about the OP, and let's get the title changed by a mod.

I've spoken to jamesker1. He's going to do it within the next few days when he has time. We'll take it from there.

No idea what we should change the thread name too, "Refinement of win-ratio calculation"?
I'll reflect on that matter over a few ale.

lol I think the "winning rate" title kaskavel used is just fine. the current one and the OP are definitely something completely different.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

actually my idea might not be exactly the same as kaskavel's... I'd like the win rate we currently have to be replaced by a formula that readjusts to 50% all game types that have more than one opponent based on each of their expected win rate. It's kind of hard to word is simply...

I'm honestly finding it all pretty confusing. Just as soon as I think I've grasped the concept I try and work it out in a practical manner and get stuck. If, like Kaskavel's suggestion, winning a 5 player game counted towards your percentage as though you'd won the same as 5 x 1v1s, it won't correspond with the amount of games won/played. Is that an issue? Maybe not.

iAmCaffeine

Posts: 9959
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm
Medals: 147

### Re: winning rate

iAmCaffeine wrote:
betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

actually my idea might not be exactly the same as kaskavel's... I'd like the win rate we currently have to be replaced by a formula that readjusts to 50% all game types that have more than one opponent based on each of their expected win rate. It's kind of hard to word is simply...

I'm honestly finding it all pretty confusing. Just as soon as I think I've grasped the concept I try and work it out in a practical manner and get stuck. If, like Kaskavel's suggestion, winning a 5 player game counted towards your percentage as though you'd won the same as 5 x 1v1s, it won't correspond with the amount of games won/played. Is that an issue? Maybe not.

well his concept basically would bring in too much weight in those multiplayer games on the game total, so I think mine would give a more accurate result. winning 5 1v1 games should still have more weight towards your win% than winning 1 5 player game. What I'd like to see, is that 5 player game win % readjusted to your expected win rate. Supposing each win/loss gives 20pts, you need 1/5 to break even on those 5 player games. so you need to win 20% of them. In a 1v1 you'd need to win 50%.
That means that you need 2,5 times less wins to break even on 5 player games, therefore your win rate in 5 player games should be multiplied by 2,5 to make sense if you aggregate everything the way it's currently done.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio

I think you should want to. The current and proposed metric hurts people who play a lot of Terminator games and eliminate lots of opponents but end up losing overall.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: winning rate

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio

I think you should want to. The current and proposed metric hurts people who play a lot of Terminator games and eliminate lots of opponents but end up losing overall.

Well it s their choice. They go for the points instead of going for the win. You go for the win to get terminator kills for your medal. No one cares to dammage his win rate by playing terminators and not being the last one standing if they went for points... The win rate is a complete crap stat. Just play millions of bot games if you want to inflate it.

I mean, i don t care if we have a kill ratio stat on top of the win rate, why not. But it s less of a priority comparing to fix what we already have.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

I think it'd be quite nice to see people's different win rates for different size games. You could count 2v2 as 1v1, 2v2v2 as a 3 player and so on.

iAmCaffeine

Posts: 9959
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm
Medals: 147

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

iAmCaffeine wrote:I think it'd be quite nice to see people's different win rates for different size games. You could count 2v2 as 1v1, 2v2v2 as a 3 player and so on.

Well, this could be kind of a drop down menu with the detail of all game types, but it would still be interesting to see an aggregated figure... One that shows how much above or bellow the expected win rate a player is.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:I think it'd be quite nice to see people's different win rates for different size games. You could count 2v2 as 1v1, 2v2v2 as a 3 player and so on.

Well, this could be kind of a drop down menu with the detail of all game types, but it would still be interesting to see an aggregated figure... One that shows how much above or bellow the expected win rate a player is.

Agreed x2.

iAmCaffeine

Posts: 9959
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm
Medals: 147

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

In aggregate, call this "adjusted win ratio" or "normalized win ratio". A neat number that can sit on the profile.

Then give us integrated maprank and we can calculate anyone's win ratio on anything.

Swifte
Chatter

Posts: 2429
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: usually Mahgreb
Medals: 203

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:If we are really talking about "kill ratio," then we should be talking about number of opponents killed, not number of games won.

we don't really want to talk about kill ratio, but since suggestions are always merged on this forum even when they are not the same thing, kaskavel's suggestion was the one we wanted to bump with arama. Forget about the OP, and let's get the title changed by a mod.

If you believe there has been a mistake made in merging, please just PM me... I'd rather fix it than it be passively criticized. It's very possible I or another mod made a mistake, but we don't go around merging everything in sight, if there is a difference then they stay separate threads.
Join CrossMapAHolics!

Stephan Wayne wrote:Every day is Fool's Day on CC.

A new era of monthly challenges has begun...

JamesKer1

Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:47 am
Location: Good ol' Kentucky
Medals: 43

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

Arama86n

Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Medals: 66

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

And if anyone is doubting that they include bot games in the win Ratio, they do. I was looking at a player last week with 89% Win Ratio, that I assure you he shouldn't have had

Arama86n

Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:32 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Medals: 66

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

actually my idea might not be exactly the same as kaskavel's... I'd like the win rate we currently have to be replaced by a formula that readjusts to 50% all game types that have more than one opponent based on each of their expected win rate. It's kind of hard to word is simply...

I'm honestly finding it all pretty confusing. Just as soon as I think I've grasped the concept I try and work it out in a practical manner and get stuck. If, like Kaskavel's suggestion, winning a 5 player game counted towards your percentage as though you'd won the same as 5 x 1v1s, it won't correspond with the amount of games won/played. Is that an issue? Maybe not.

well his concept basically would bring in too much weight in those multiplayer games on the game total, so I think mine would give a more accurate result. winning 5 1v1 games should still have more weight towards your win% than winning 1 5 player game. What I'd like to see, is that 5 player game win % readjusted to your expected win rate. Supposing each win/loss gives 20pts, you need 1/5 to break even on those 5 player games. so you need to win 20% of them. In a 1v1 you'd need to win 50%.
That means that you need 2,5 times less wins to break even on 5 player games, therefore your win rate in 5 player games should be multiplied by 2,5 to make sense if you aggregate everything the way it's currently done.

This intuitively makes more sense but I am struggling with how you would apply it using that formula. If I play 10 1v1 games and win 6 my win % is 60%. If I then play an 8 player standard game and win, what is my overall win % ?. Is my multiplier 4? Would that mean I now have 10 wins in 11 games for a win % of 91%? Or, are you saying I would have 10 wins in 14 games or 71% ? With the proposed formula from Kaskaval would my wins now be 17 - 4 or 81%?

loutil

Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:40 pm
Medals: 86

### Re: [PC] Kill Ratio to Replace Percent Won

seems like the proposal needs refinement, or that several proposals need to be considered.

for starters, it would be great to just remove bot games from current win%.

hopalong

Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:15 am
Location: not sure ... but it feels kindof good.
Medals: 85

### Re: winning rate

loutil wrote:
betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:
betiko wrote:
iAmCaffeine wrote:I find Kaskavel's description easier to understand than betiko's..

actually my idea might not be exactly the same as kaskavel's... I'd like the win rate we currently have to be replaced by a formula that readjusts to 50% all game types that have more than one opponent based on each of their expected win rate. It's kind of hard to word is simply...

I'm honestly finding it all pretty confusing. Just as soon as I think I've grasped the concept I try and work it out in a practical manner and get stuck. If, like Kaskavel's suggestion, winning a 5 player game counted towards your percentage as though you'd won the same as 5 x 1v1s, it won't correspond with the amount of games won/played. Is that an issue? Maybe not.

well his concept basically would bring in too much weight in those multiplayer games on the game total, so I think mine would give a more accurate result. winning 5 1v1 games should still have more weight towards your win% than winning 1 5 player game. What I'd like to see, is that 5 player game win % readjusted to your expected win rate. Supposing each win/loss gives 20pts, you need 1/5 to break even on those 5 player games. so you need to win 20% of them. In a 1v1 you'd need to win 50%.
That means that you need 2,5 times less wins to break even on 5 player games, therefore your win rate in 5 player games should be multiplied by 2,5 to make sense if you aggregate everything the way it's currently done.

This intuitively makes more sense but I am struggling with how you would apply it using that formula. If I play 10 1v1 games and win 6 my win % is 60%. If I then play an 8 player standard game and win, what is my overall win % ?. Is my multiplier 4? Would that mean I now have 10 wins in 11 games for a win % of 91%? Or, are you saying I would have 10 wins in 14 games or 71% ? With the proposed formula from Kaskaval would my wins now be 17 - 4 or 81%?

I am not certain I understood your example but I will take it the way I understood.

so you would have played a total of 11 games and would have won 7, so with the actual count that would make 64% on your wall
with the count I'm suggesting:
6/10 games won in 1v1 with no mutiplier
1/1 game won in 8 player games. your expected win rate there is 12,5%, normally a x4 multiplier should apply, but given that you are already at 100% your 8 player games should remain with a 100% win rate.
I guess the multiplier should apply only up till 100% (let's face it, this example is based on way too little games)
with my suggestion, if you have played 7 games, well the win rate will always be calcuated on 7 games; multi single games don't hold more weight. The win rate would remain 64% in your example.

Let's take an example with a larger amount of games to make more sense:

player A has played 100 games and has won 35:
-50 games in 1v1/team/poly and has won 20 (40% win rate which is bellow the expected 50% win rate)
-25 games involving 2 opponents and has won 10 (40% "normal" win rate, which is above the 33% expected win rate in 3 player games; a 1,5 multiplier would apply to that win rate; this would be equivalent to 60% win rate)
-25 games involving 3 opponents and has won 5 (20% "normal" win rate, which is below the 25% expected win rate in 4 player games; a 2 multiplier would apply to this win rate, this would be equivalent to a 40% win rate)

player B has played 100 games and has won 40:
-100 games in 1v1/team/poly and has won 40 (40% win rate which is bellow the expected 50% win rate)

Player A for conquer club has a 35% win rate; which is below player B's 40%

With my calculation player A would have the following aggregated win rate: (40%*(50/100)+60%*(25/100)+40%*(25/100)=45%

so player A's win rate would become higher than player B; and assuming they've only faced players of the same level (giving them or taking them 20 points each) player A would have a higher score anyways. he would indeed have a better game record...

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

### Re: winning rate

betiko wrote:Let's take an example with a larger amount of games to make more sense:

player A has played 100 games and has won 35:
-50 games in 1v1/team/poly and has won 20 (40% win rate which is bellow the expected 50% win rate)
-25 games involving 2 opponents and has won 10 (40% "normal" win rate, which is above the 33% expected win rate in 3 player games; a 1,5 multiplier would apply to that win rate; this would be equivalent to 60% win rate)
-25 games involving 3 opponents and has won 5 (20% "normal" win rate, which is below the 25% expected win rate in 4 player games; a 2 multiplier would apply to this win rate, this would be equivalent to a 40% win rate)

...

With my calculation player A would have the following aggregated win rate: (40%*(50/100)+60%*(25/100)+40%*(25/100)=45%

If Player A had won all of their games, their win rate would be above 100%. This formula therefore makes no sense. You can't just hide behind "well if you play enough games my formula gets a number below 100% in practice." That doesn't magically make it valid. It's obviously wrong because someone who has lost only a few games will have a displayed win rate of 100% or greater even though their actual is below that.

Metsfanmax

Posts: 6711
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California
Medals: 51

### Re: winning rate

Metsfanmax wrote:
betiko wrote:Let's take an example with a larger amount of games to make more sense:

player A has played 100 games and has won 35:
-50 games in 1v1/team/poly and has won 20 (40% win rate which is bellow the expected 50% win rate)
-25 games involving 2 opponents and has won 10 (40% "normal" win rate, which is above the 33% expected win rate in 3 player games; a 1,5 multiplier would apply to that win rate; this would be equivalent to 60% win rate)
-25 games involving 3 opponents and has won 5 (20% "normal" win rate, which is below the 25% expected win rate in 4 player games; a 2 multiplier would apply to this win rate, this would be equivalent to a 40% win rate)

...

With my calculation player A would have the following aggregated win rate: (40%*(50/100)+60%*(25/100)+40%*(25/100)=45%

If Player A had won all of their games, their win rate would be above 100%. This formula therefore makes no sense. You can't just hide behind "well if you play enough games my formula gets a number below 100% in practice." That doesn't magically make it valid. It's obviously wrong because someone who has lost only a few games will have a displayed win rate of 100% or greater even though their actual is below that.

betiko wrote:so you would have played a total of 11 games and would have won 7, so with the actual count that would make 64% on your wall
with the count I'm suggesting:
6/10 games won in 1v1 with no mutiplier
1/1 game won in 8 player games. your expected win rate there is 12,5%, normally a x4 multiplier should apply, but given that you are already at 100% your 8 player games should remain with a 100% win rate.
I guess the multiplier should apply only up till 100% (let's face it, this example is based on way too little games)
with my suggestion, if you have played 7 games, well the win rate will always be calcuated on 7 games; multi single games don't hold more weight. The win rate would remain 64% in your example.

betiko

Posts: 10204
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
Medals: 233

PreviousNext