billcarey Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Hmm... I have recieved numerous reports of the ladder calculating things in odd ways (read: completely wrong ) and I do know what the problem is. I added force multipliers at the very last minute at great expense because when I wrote the majority of ladder I only had the beta demo (with no force multipliers). Consequently all the scores submitted so far are wrong... Sorry, that's my fault. I have, oif course, sacked myself and hired 10 llamas to replace me coding the ladder. I am working through the algorithm to find what I screwed up (lesson: never add things to a program at the last minute. You will break something) and will likely have it correct before anyone gets the game I would ask that no one submit games for a day or two until I straighten this out. Then I will set all the scores back to 1000 and people can resubmit their games (or, if I can, I will do it automatically.) Thanks for your patience. - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Well you should know that anything involving algore would be screwed up. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Ah ha, so that means we just check every once and a while, and when our score resets we re-enter. This is going to drastically lower my position. I registered as Moose and my draw with Doug put me at number 2 on the ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Hall Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 And a plea please Bill that the mathematical formula used to calculate points is PUBLISHED - not in Perl, but the straight mathematical formula with a brief explanation of the terms used in it. The ladder is great and we all really appreciate the work and the effort you are putting into it, but as far as we know at the moment it could be little green men who are putting randomly generated numbers onto the ladder - that's true isn't it ? The ladder has to have CREDIBILITY if it is going to be effective, which means the formula used has to be PUBLISHED and available for all to see. Otherwise, unfortunately, neither you nor anybody else can justify results to be correct and that would be a great pity. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Yeah, and you should get Al Gore away from it. He may have invented the Internet, but I don't trust him managing my CM Ladder scores. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popfreak Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 AL gore invented the internet???? Seems I've heard that rumor before. Funny I watched on the history channel last night a segment on the history of the internet. Al's name was never mentioned, Dammit you cant trust the media for nuthing these days. A little trivia for ya. In 1992 there were only 50 different web pages on the internet, Today there are millions. Pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted June 16, 2000 Author Share Posted June 16, 2000 I don't have a copy of the algorithm as anything but code anymore... It is a product of Fionn's mind, not mine. I will see what I can do about distilling a version from what I have, but if Fionn still has it, more power to him! - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 So what you're saying is Al Gore's rhythm is a product of Fionn's mind. If Al Gore invented the Internet, and Fionn's mind produced Al Gore, then a big round of applesauce to Fionn for inventing the Internet!! DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Hall Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 So we now know the code is unfortunately wrong because some of the scores produced are incorrect. Then the code was either wrong originally or because of the mods recently done to it, or even both. How can you possibly correct an algorithm if you do not know the formula you are coding it against as you state in your reply above? Whatever language you are coding it in, it must be coded against some formula somewhere, even if it is only in Fionn's mind . If you know the formula you are coding it against, the formula can be published as a mathematical expression and the results can therefore easily be verified against the formula. Surely to publish the mathematical formula for the algorithm is a very simple request to satisfy, however complex the algorithm itself may be? Bill, I am in no way trying to give you grief as you have already done a really great job with the ladder, but you have to show the ladder participants the implementation of the algorithm being used produces the expected results. Otherwise there is no validity to the results. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted June 17, 2000 Author Share Posted June 17, 2000 I found Fionn's original e-mail! This is the algorithm (except the points are modified to take force multipliers into account. This is what screwed it up. I will add this to the FAQ of the ladder.) I was thinking of using a couple of equations basically... They can be made into one large equation obviously but since I have three prime factors involved in the equations and each is calculated separately I think it makes sense to explain it as three equation PLUS I can't write squared etc etc using simple text and it'd be confusing otherwise. The first two are from chess... Rn = Ro + K(W-WEM) Rn is the new rating. Ro is the old (pre-event) rating. K is a constant (32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above). W is the score in the event ( from 0 to 100... To fit the CM scores into the formula the score willhave to fit into the range 0 to 1 (in other words a score of 50 in-game will = 0.5 W ) WEM = Win Expectancy Modified WEM = ( 1-We) x ( ( attackers point value squared over 1000) divided by (defenders point value squared over 1000) ) ) divided by points factor constant determined by role in game e.g. if meeting engagement then points factor constant = 1.. If attacker than points factor constant = 2.5... If defender than points factor constat = 0.4 (reverse of 2.5) We is the expected score (Win Expectancy) from the following formula: We = 1/ (10 (dr/400) + 1) Where Dr = difference in ratings. This system would take into account the degree of the win, the ratio of forces committed and the inherent increase in difficulty due to being the attacker (and thus the fact that the attacker needs more points).. Without the WEM factor the attacker would ALWAYS be penalised for having more forces since the formula would assume that an attacker attacking with 2000 points has an equal chance of winning the game as the defender if the defender has 2000 points.. My testing has shown me that the attacker would need roughly 3200 points to have an equal chance of winning with an equal level of skill. It is a modification of the chess system to reflect the following: 1. Not ALL sides are equal. 2. Not all ROLES are equal. 3. Not all VICTORIES are equal. Comments? Fionn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts