Jump to content


Quality Rating 2 - designed to favour non-pad gamestyles


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
170 replies to this topic

Ioituma #41 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10041 battles
  • 1,964
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
Maybe finally a proper quality rating formula: (nths * 100) + 1.
nths: number of Quake tournaments you won back in high school. The scale is as follows:
101+: unicum (0.0001%)
1: scrublord (99.9999%)

nerderklaus #42 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
@newaccountlowbob: the main concern of the rating is disabling baddies from getting easy stats and try to claim skill as you do via easy account. You must be really butthurt. How does it feel for someone like you who values these that you are not able to pad them in the old account like countless other people managed to? That is so funny, I have a good laugh about you. It's like at school when I bullied these weaklings and laughed about them suffering on it.

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Still waiting for an answer to my questions about my rating that isn't a crazy, drooling rant.

Flanders thanks you for your money.

Flanders would also like to point out that Siema-land aka Poland for example was the biggest growing economy in the EU last year, and that that is one country your money isn't flowing too.

Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Ireland are other matters, of course.


Also, you don't technically start counting from 0. 0 is an abstract number. To learn more, I strongly recomment the Book of Nothing by John D. Barrow. It's a great book. About nothing.

They simply capitalized on an EU-made issues when they still could. The money gained from that enabled things to come later. Explaining what happened there will surely give warning points and RO from the mods and it would take too long anyway as too much things are involved in a chain reaction.

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM.


GiveThemNothing #43 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8536 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostIoituma, on 08 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Maybe finally a proper quality rating formula: (nths * 100) + 1.
nths: number of Quake tournaments you won back in high school. The scale is as follows:
101+: unicum (0.0001%)
1: scrublord (99.9999%)

Epic formula made my day. :'D

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

It's like at school when I bullied these weaklings and laughed about them suffering on it.

This is clearly the source of your profound education level. You must be so strong and manly.... I bet the girls love your 6+ hours of gaming per day... it lets you grow this manly and irresistible moustache because you have no time to shave.

Private_Miros #44 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25238 battles
  • 10,152
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
Q.

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Explain why you call out stat padders that they skip grinds with premium (faster xp earning) and free xp (thanks to premium you also get more free xp), but your own own stat-pad free rating focusses enormously in favour of those that have premium (avg xp). Isn't that a bit contradictory?
Same question for stat padders in TC. Will also score higher in your rating.

A.

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

They simply capitalized on an EU-made issues when they still could. The money gained from that enabled things to come later. Explaining what happened there will surely give warning points and RO from the mods and it would take too long anyway as too much things are involved in a chain reaction.


I see...

You appear smart.

System98 #45 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 19626 battles
  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    12-02-2010
This thread is amusing. :Smile_popcorn1:

@nerderklaus:

Although I fail to see the "Quality" in "Quality Rating 2" as the influence of capping and suicide-spotting still is way too high. XP as basis of a rating? Seriously?  :Smile_smile:

Why beat around the bush? I think this is what you want:

Posted Image

:Smile_trollface-3:

nerderklaus #46 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:25 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
The user above me is either failing to troll or unable to read. The WN6 rating is the one that implements the pedobear whining and non of the other ones. My rating would only remove various padding options such as the troll with his 2k ER new account uses to pretent being good. Just calculate values for 1.5, 3 and 4,5 points in scouting, capping and defense in my algorithm and you will be surprised.

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

@newaccountlowbob: the main concern of the rating is disabling baddies from getting easy stats and try to claim skill as you do via easy account. You must be really butthurt. How does it feel for someone like you who values these that you are not able to pad them in the old account like countless other people managed to? That is so funny, I have a good laugh about you. It's like at school when I bullied these weaklings and laughed about them suffering on it.

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Q.
Insert random post

A.
Put in 100% clear message towards noob who claims to be good cause of making stat account


I see...

You appear smart.

Which of my points did you intent to proof? "unable to read" or "stupid and proud of it" or both?

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 09:31 PM.


Private_Miros #47 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25238 battles
  • 10,152
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Which of my points did you intent to proof? "unable to read" or "stupid and proud of it" or both?

Well, maybe answer legitimate questions about your rating instead of randomly insulting and spewing political nonsense..?

Still waiting on my response.

D0va_SPALE #48 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:36 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011
Obviously Nerderklaus drinks daily the condensed unicum juice he extracts from all the unicums he slaughtered in WoT the earlier day, so he's far beyond our reach in epicness by now.

Just watch out, I think we are dealing with a true INTERNET badass here.

You're cute, want to go out?

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 09:36 PM.


nerderklaus #49 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Well, maybe answer legitimate questions about your rating instead of randomly insulting and spewing political nonsense..?

Still waiting on my response.

Emmm, I am just explaining you what your posts are saying. Another example of that would be claiming something that definetely belongs to economy (probably referred to how the polish did get the money for the structural increase) politics, but probably you (don't) know better already. I don't know what to explain to you as there is way to many to explain already... In fact you already remind of these people who randomly burn cars and call everybody above average income a fashist.


View PostD0vahkiin, on 08 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Obviously Nerderklaus drinks daily the condensed unicum juice he extracts from all the unicums he slaughtered in WoT the earlier day, so he's far beyond our reach in epicness by now.

Just watch out, I think we are dealing with a true INTERNET badass here.

You're cute, want to go out?

Did it hurt so much when we faced, you were in a platoon of your ridiculously overrated clan and all your team was rightfully flaming your platoon for the loss? :) You harmed me that day, because I almost laughed to death.

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 09:46 PM.


D0va_SPALE #50 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:48 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

Quote

Did it hurt so much when we faced, you were in a platoon of your ridiculously overrated clan and all your team was rightfully flaming your platoon for the loss?

That's a lie.

And yes, I care about a single match  :Smile_trollface-3: I hope you drank some of my unicum juice.

It would be so great to be a part of something like you.

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 09:51 PM.


Private_Miros #51 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25238 battles
  • 10,152
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Emmm, I am just explaining you what your posts are saying. Another example of that would be claiming something that definetely belongs to economy (probably referred to how the polish did get the money for the structural increase) politics, but probably you (don't) know better already. I don't know what to explain to you as there is way to many to explain already... In fact you already remind of these people who randomly burn cars and call everybody above average income a fashist.

Again, what relevance does this bear to your rating and the question I asked?

So, I ask you again. Why do you favour a rating that plays in the favour of pure stat padders if you claim your goal is to act against stat padders (like me?)?

nerderklaus #52 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
Ahhh then you probably were as harmful to others too. You really need a weapon's license for yourself. I would need to get close to people or have a weapon capable of oercoming the distance, but you simply can do it through the game. I am scared now and need to hide behind new statistic account and 3k ER even though not playing different like DontHaveAnyAbilities

nerderklaus #53 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Again, what relevance does this bear to your rating and the question I asked?

So, I ask you again. Why do you favour a rating that plays in the favour of pure stat padders if you claim your goal is to act against stat padders (like me?)?

Already explained in the main post. Just make an excel table about the segments with the ln for cap, scout or def, look in particular for values between 1 and 5 there wil be a difference to a linear increase which is the task the logarithmus naturalis is intended for. After that look at the don't guys profile and follow that by checking the formula ;) This guy complains for good reason compared to people who don't use his trick.

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 09:58 PM.


D0va_SPALE #54 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:57 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

...

Am I a wizard if this is my first account?

Btw, I deal more damage with a 85mm scout gun than you do on your JT. But that just shows that I'm a noob statpadder, right? You can see right through my "statpadding pattern", right? :d

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 09:57 PM.


Pretty_Pony_Princess #55 Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 8037 battles
  • 685
  • Member since:
    11-30-2010

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Advantages compared to other ratings:
-no tank choice restriction
So the fact that this "rating" is inaccurate because it doesn't take played vehicles into account and can't tell a scout that helps his team immensely by spotting without doing much damage and getting barely any points in your rating from artillery that deals gigantic amount of damage for its tier and gets a huge number of points because of that is an advantage?
Summed up in one word: fail

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

-learning curve granted
How? It has been shown that average stats increase with the number of battles. Compensating for a learning period should be done by increasing ratings of inexperienced players with low number of battles and reducing rating for players with high number of battles. Instead, you increase ratings based on the number of battles which is the complete opposite.
fail again

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

-new accounts for stats are punished (highly effective padding method)
And to counter that, you created a rating in which the best padding method is simply playing a ridiculous number of battles even if you suck some major balls.
third fail

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

-more values/actions are incoporated
The only values that you included and other ratings don't include are the number of battles (that punishes players who just recently started or don't have much time -> FAIL) and average experience that is heavily influenced by premium account (FAIL2).

Private_Miros #56 Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25238 battles
  • 10,152
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

Already explained in the main post. Just make an excel table about the segments with the ln for cap, scout or def, look in particular for values between 1 and 5 there wil be a difference to a linear increase which is the task the logarithmus naturalis is intended for. After that look at the don't guys profile and follow that by checking the formula ;) This guy complains for good reason compared to people who don't use his trick.

You create a rating that is based on playing many battles and having premium.

What relevence do both have to do with ability.

If anything playing many battles and failing at all the rest is the opposite.

Then a new stat account may be inflated, but is still a vastly better player.

Yet according to you a 40k battle player 39% 550 avg xp tier X player is vastly better than a 3k 65% 500xp tier VII free player. Can you argument that?


On the other hand, someone that buys tons of gold, skips to high tiers, shoots only gold will have a massive rating your scale after 5k battles of stat padding.

Junkie29 #57 Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:15 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 53717 battles
  • 270
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012
pls dont stop, i want this thread to continue... :(

nerderklaus #58 Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostPrivate_Miros, on 08 February 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

You create a rating that is based on playing many battles and having premium.

What relevence do both have to do with ability.

If anything playing many battles and failing at all the rest is the opposite.

Then a new stat account may be inflated, but is still a vastly better player.

Yet according to you a 40k battle player 39% 550 avg xp tier X player is vastly better than a 3k 65% 500xp tier VII free player. Can you argument that?


On the other hand, someone that buys tons of gold, skips to high tiers, shoots only gold will have a massive rating your scale after 5k battles of stat padding.


The rating's main intention is to remove the people who easily gain 1000 addional ER/WN points for a new account. More or less all of the best players of the game are in the 5-digit area. So the important comparisons can still be done. Based on the system the game is made most people in these regions will have a premium anyway. Probably clearly over 90%. I still said some finetuning might be needed, f.e. maybe put the number in the game account to another value so that the difference between 15k and 25k battles is like 5%. Just a matter of fine tuning.

The thing is quite obvious that it would be effectful. This noob who had to make a new account for stats proofed it by how butthurt he was. A lot of people are like him, doing that, pretent to be good (even though every pato player can do what he did) and bang... This abuse can only be countere by making the game number influence the rating which is the point. Actually someone who wanted to bash with the lack of ability he obviously had provided good proof why this system perfectly archieves this goal.

The game difference makes the 40k battle player familiar with more vehicles. I think it is fair to say that ability to drive more vehicles and knowledge of more tier areas (nwer player still can be stuck in mid tiers if playing multiple trees) and such stuff justified something as the 40k battle player easily can have experience in more than 5times as much vehicles. So when it is about "overall" I think that is worth influencing. The rating still is very damage heavy which allows a gap reduction. Addionally once the criticals are in the stats (rumored to come with profile remake) there will be crits and kills taking influence too. So meaning firing in a way that every shot does damage and crit something will grant increased points again. So the difference I estimate is like comparing a 1000 ER player and a 1100 ER player without capwhoring or things like this.

View PostJunkie29, on 08 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

pls dont stop, i want this thread to continue... :(

Take 5 gramm at once and it is gone, mr. junkie. You can do it and make the thread dissapear.

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 10:19 PM.


Private_Miros #59 Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25238 battles
  • 10,152
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

More or less all of the best players of the game are in the 5-digit area.

More or less all the worst players of the game are in the 5-digit area.

You've got the true bots of course, but simply also because average (when compared to a 2000 battle player - still the average played) becomes bad with that much experience.


Just like some people prove, having more battles don't make you more experienced. They just might cement your own believes of being good making it unable to learn from your mistakes.

D0va_SPALE #60 Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011
40K battles player having an advantage over a clearly better player because he has more experience? Rofl. Please.

If he had so much experience he would get better results. It doesn't sink into him. People with low winrates are slow learners, slow to adapt, slow at everything(looking at you Nerderklaus).

That's why you still can't get over 53% WR even at 24K battles. You are too slow to learn.

Knowing where to shoot or where to go on a map won't help you when you are slow anyways :) You can't adapt to the enemy fast enough, you won't learn from it, etc. And we can see that in your stats, nothing you can do about that.

Quote

Just like some people prove, having more battles don't make you more experienced. They just might cement your own believes of being good making it unable to learn from your mistakes.

:)

So Nerderklaus, maybe you should get over the fact you are slow in the brain and that might even help you improve a bit. You are in denial.

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 10:31 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users