[OFFICIAL W:ET] Discussion new rating method

[daredevil]

When it's Ready ASAP!

[Onni:]]

I think you also should make a rating system where the rate goes to the chosen name, you can't put dots or anything to your name to avoid minus rating. It's stupid how many of players in top 50 might play 9/10 rounds a row with a dot in in their name because they are not doing good, then 1/10 of the games they manage to get rating. I mean, that doesn't tell anything about skill. Or it does and it means the player isn't really good . Not so many players in Top50 who can take also the minus but still stay there

[Paul]

We have been testing the new tracker in the past days (as could have been seen on Twitter). We still face some minor problems but we hope to fix them asap and get it running

[nrgy21]

Would definitely be nice and I know others have been waiting for a while as well, especially with the conditions of the current system and many players who are in the high rankings who definitely don't belong. Hope so see the new tracker in action soon!

[testforecho]

Hi everybody,

this is my first post in the forum, I actually registered to write here because this new tracker idea is great, in the past years I played around a lot with etpro statistics taken from demos (ettv and not), I took statistics (with custom mods ofc, you can't do that without modding) like splitting damage in parts (1on1 damage, crossfire, sideshoot), calculating damage per second in fight (excluding prefire and gibbing). I must say that I like player stats.

I always knew it is impossible to calculate a player's skill from numbers, even though I got some consistent numbers there (for example damage per second in 1on1 ranging from 50-55 for low players to 75+ for highskill is pretty much consistent even in different maps, at least on etpro), and 1on1 damage ratio gives an accurate idea of a player technical (aim) skill if compared to his enemies, while crossfire+sideshoot damage ratio is more a tactical/teamplay skill index.

Of course I know that this new system is not a mod, so you can't do some things I did in my test mods, for example I had a table to calculate 1on1 damage (players who hadn't received damage from others in the last x seconds), had to make a dot product of player vectors to check if it was backshoot or not, etc. Knowing only stats is different. I just wanted to tell that I have a bit of background on the subject.

After reading all these posts in this thread I would like to share a couple of ideas, of course I am conscious it's all imho, after all I come from a different background and even if now I play jaymod and not etpro I'm not a rater, but I think this new system could make others interested in rating.


Coming to the point, about all those formulas, at first the most logical thing would be to look at damage. The problem is, on etpro (and I think most mods) if I have 1 hp and someone hits me with a panzerfaust, he gets 1hp damage given, on jaymod I think not, so damage on jaymod is *not* reliable, or heavy weapons users would get tons of points. Also I would give points for airstrikes and satchels, not arty because that is generally not 'skilled'.

Reading about headshots being used in formulas I frowned a bit, because if I kill someone with 50 acc and lots of bodyshots it doesn't mean that I'm less skilled than one who does lots of hs, but has an ubercrappy 30 accuracy, but if you take headacc and acc into account you can have a number telling you *how fast* that player gives damage when he shoots, for example if an hs is 2x a bodyshot (it's not, but it is an example), accuracy + headaccuracy would be proportional to damage/sec (well, there is prefire and all, but sort of), and who gives damage faster takes enemy hp first, and receives less damage than given because he kills the enemy first, so that could be a useful parameter.

Since headshots do slightly more damage than 2 times a bodyshots, accuracy(hits/shots) + headaccuracy(heads/shots) * somefactor, would give an account of how fast they give damage when they shoot (aiming skill). Well, provided that they are not penalized too much for preshooting, and taking into account that if one always backshoots he can have an amazing accuracy and still suck.

About total damage given, since damage is not reliable in jaymod you can roughly calculate it with hits and headshots, ignoring damage distance falloff (cannot be taken from stats) and assuming for example (mp40) 18hp for bodyshots and 40-50 for hs. This way you can separate heavy weapons damage from actual aiming skills.

For damage received, I see no other solution than looking at deaths, because of that ugly jaymod bug.

Plus maybe giving some points for xp. (Not from medipacks or ammo, maybe battle sense, reviving and engi xp, even my grand grand father can give medipacks to someone, that is not skill and it's not even team play in many cases, like, why the heck should I give medipacks at spawn to someone, he should selfkill and gtfo instead of asking for medic there with those freakin short spawntimes).

And, last but not least, I think these statistics should be compared only with teammates not enemies, because maps are not symmetrical, and teams could be stacked, so you must compare how well the player does if compared to his team mates, who play against the same enemies, and have the same problems with maps favoring axis or allies, makes no sense to compare someone with a player in another team.


atm I have no full formula of mine, maybe I will try one later,
sorry for the long post, I just wanted to give a couple of ideas, good luck with the new tracking system

[mirqli]

And, last but not least, I think these statistics should be compared only with teammates not enemies, because maps are not symmetrical, and teams could be stacked, so you must compare how well the player does if compared to his team mates, who play against the same enemies, and have the same problems with maps favoring axis or allies, makes no sense to compare someone with a player in another team.

Dunno about others, but this is exactly what I have been thinking too and this the way your performance should be compared to others. Almost without exception defending team makes more damage in total than the attacking one so this should be definitely considered too.

[Le_Furet]

I agree with the whole post of testforecho

[testforecho]

Well probably they already decided how to make it by now , but I guess making suggestions doesn't hurt.

Anyway:
Thinking about accuracy, damage and k/d, we must say that all stats are relative (to the skill of our enemies) but some are more stable.

For example if Goodplayer1 makes an 1on1 vs Goodplayer2 he will give and receive the same dmg, and have the same K and D. If Goodplayer1 then makes an 1on1 vs Noobplayer3 his K/D and damage ratio will improve dramatically, while his accuracy will be only a little higher, if not almost the same. Certainly not double.
So accuracy is closer to an 'absolute' skill index, pity that it can be faked by sparing bullets, so I would use it only as a 'bonus' or not use at all.


At the end of the day, and given that damage is bugged, I think the best way is to look at the good, old, kills and deaths, which has the additional benefit of being simple, after all if players have no idea about why they are getting a good or bad rating, they won't be happy.

To this frag-based score, which shouldn't be calculated for weapons like arty, mines, or mortar (you can frag even when you are not facing the enemy with those ones), that is, no kills and also *no deaths* from those weapons, I would add, as extra bonus, accuracy and a class/teamplay/xp score.

For accuracy bonus, it would be a little bonus based on that damage/second formula I posted before, or maybe even headshots per fight (that is hs/(kills+deaths) from light weapons only) for headshot statistics lovers (not me). But hs per fight boils down to hs/hits, so it's probably useless.

In the XP score you would have things like 'hits' for the weapon 'Syringe' (revives) (counted as 4XP each), and xp for Battle Sense, Engineering, Light weapons (but this is already taken into account with frags so better not) or any other thing that cannot be abused by whoring and not counted already.
Kills for arty/mortar/mines, which can account for being a good fops/engi/soldier, etc. and all those, er... 'nub' weapons not counted in the 'frag' score will give 3XP per frag and go together with the 'XP' score. This way you can have a sort of 'selective' XP score which doesn't take whoring into account, and is kept separate from frag score.

All these 3 (frag + bonus + xp) would be weighted with some factors and turned into a single number, then compared with teammates only, to encourage balanced teams instead of stacking.

edit:
best way would be to:
1. convert all light weapons kill amount to some 'pseudo XP' score, 4 points each kill (giving a little bonus (max +1) or penalty (at most -1) for headshots or accuracy in some way, but it should only affect delta scores not global, so it must be made in step 5).
2. give a negative score for all deaths from light weapons as above, but make it a constant -4 points or so per death.

Heavy weapons or nonstandard/nub/whatever weapons are not counted in points 1 and 2, neither kills nor deaths from these weapons go there.

3. take battle sense and engineering xp (only these, the rest has been handled already, or will be handled at point 4)
4. calculate the remaining xp, by using revives from weapon stats, and counting 3xp for each heavy weapons and other weapons kills (no rnade because it goes into engineering skill already)
5. from these 4 xp values calculate the deltas, and correct only the 'frag xp' delta with a factor for accuracy, this way you can range from 3xp to 5xp per frag (see point 1)
6. having xp deltas, sum them for total variation, and calculate ppm

hope I made no mistakes

[giriel]

That seems a nice suggestion and takes away some issues encountered with the current solution.
I don't understand what you want to do with those delta's though.
Is it something like rewarding or punishing for a certain accuracy and headshot ratio?
Taking 75% or 125% of that total?

[testforecho]

That seems a nice suggestion and takes away some issues encountered with the current solution.
I don't understand what you want to do with those delta's though.
Is it something like rewarding or punishing for a certain accuracy and headshot ratio?
Taking 75% or 125% of that total?

First of all, thanks for reading my (long) posts.

With deltas I just meant the difference in score between one sample taken and another, I don't know if you need a score per minute or not, but I wasn't much clear, you can just sum everything into a single score, I made it overcomplicated because I was sort of thinking out loud .

About hs ratios and accuracy, I think that giving scores for frags already takes into account aiming skills, after all you need accuracy to get kills with light weapons, I don't know if it's useful to give an extra bonus for that. And accuracy is lower in fast shooting servers, so those players would be penalized.

I was thinking more about giving a little penalty for 'frag stealing', but for fragstealing you need to know damage per kill (to see if they kill people with few hp or full hp), and damage is not ok in jaymod, plus if you calculate damage from hits and hs, you should take adrenaline into account, and again that would be a difference between servers.
Since penalizing frag stealing is the same as giving a bonus for having a high damage per kill, and headshots are damage, and not affected by adrenaline, after all giving a bonus for headshots doesn't sound so bad.

If you want to take hs into account as an 'aim quality' bonus, and make it similar to the old XP system, you could just give 3 points per kill, and 1 point per hs, so someone giving 2hs per kill would get 5 points per frag.


Anyway, my general idea was converting all infos you have from weapon stats into a sort of XP value, add it to those XP scores which cannot be altered by whoring (battle sense, etc.), and with this total score doing the usual ppm, this way players would be more or less familiar with the way scores work.