ONS Ladder 2 Rankings -- 12/05/2005

[Lord_Xan]

Time for another rankings update:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Lord_Xan/ONS%20Ladder%202/th_ONS2Rankings2.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Lord_Xan/ONS%20Ladder%202/ONS2Rankings2.jpg)

So far, so good. :)

[<A>BioGizzard]

funny how my rank just keeps dropping all the time....how shit can i really be

i think the top4 ppl in the ranks are smurfing and should be banned
besides hax and aimbots are not fair either

[Shrimp]

Ok, quick question... :P

WhiteTrash at the top, 1 match, score 61, 13 kills.

Maximus down at 15, 2 matches, score 160, 45 kills. All way above double WT's stats.

Are the deaths/net really having that much of an effect on these rankings, that someone who has obviously performed much better with the actual objective of the game, is being shunted way down the order?


Sorry to whine, but after seeing these rankings, I just don't really think deaths/net have a part to play in ONS rankings.

Either that or there's something funny in the formula :P

[[N]Haja]

WT for teh win :)

Ye, its so hard to rank in ons. The player with the lowest score could playthe biggest role (defending the node that leads to their base) where another player just sits on the far side of the map, fighting with another player,and just building and destroying 1 node all night, not actually contributing much to the game.

It is a hard one to figure out, and will always be subjective.

[<A>BioGizzard]

btw xan can u please fix gizzlo's name
itneed's an <A> in the front

[|sAvAgE|]

the ranking system worked out quite well for the 1st ladder, could this problem not be a case of "number of games played" ? perhaps the rankings will better reflect things once a few more games are played, or perhaps Xan just broke it & doesnt know wtf he's doing this time around :D

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

I dont know about that, because more games played also equals more death's which will make the score more crazy.

[Cataphract]

I agree with Mr Savage. Once everyone has played their 10 matches to qualify, the laws of Murphy and averages will prevail.

[Rommel]

DL gecko here i come

[Wh1tE_Tr4sH]

BBWWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... *Deap Breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.. . *Sniff*

& you say us Naja's Don't play ONS... Ha, I pooned You All.... Take eeeeeeeeeeeetttt!!!!! /Jokes

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

:/

Ok.

[~MA~[peterpan]]

i got p00ned by some white trash with 1 match...


aaarrgghhhhh!!!!!!!

/me runs away

[Shrimp]

In fact, even if you factor WT's stats up to 11 games, PP way out-does him as well, yet WT has a higher net, boosting him above.

/me votes to take deaths/net out of the calculation

On a duel or DM ladder that's cool, but not for ONS, in my ever so humble opinion......

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

agreed!

[<A>BioGizzard]

obviously the guy doing the attacking and building is gonna die alot and not all of us take the sneakin and shoot everyone approach.....i go in guns blazing cause to me the main mission is to get the node down so every shot i fire at it is important to me....

so i couldn't give a crap about net efficiency or deaths ...imo it doesn't mean much in onslaught....

[sneaky]

Well I play mostly defence and as a result im almost always in the middle or lower so I welcome the death/net calculation and think it will help put balanced players in all the teams. Remember the rankings purpose is not to see "who is teh 1337 !!!111!!!oneone" but to create balanced teams for the ladder. Give everybody there 10 matches and then see how it looks. IMHO of course

[Lord_Xan]

Phew, let's take it one step at a time. :)


Are the deaths/net really having that much of an effect on these rankings, that someone who has obviously performed much better with the actual objective of the game, is being shunted way down the order?

The KD-adjustment will never have more than a 10% effect on your ranking for a match. So if you get a pre-KD ranking of 20, the minimum with KD-adjustment is 18 while the maximum is 22. The KD-adjustment was larger at first, but after seeing it's effect I decided to tone it down a bit. Afterall, Onslaught is about capturing and destroying nodes, not running around DM'ing people.

As regards White_Trash, please keep in mind that he has played only 1 match so far. That match was a very good match for him, hence the high ranking. What you shouldn't do is try to project his future ranking based on just a single match. That's simply not enough information to make a reliable estimate of the future.

Maximus, on the other hand, has played 2 matches, so his ranking has "settled down" somewhat more (even if only marginally so).

Finally, remember that a lot can happen in 10 matches. That's why I chose such a high number in the first place - I wanted to weed out as much random fluctuation as possible.


Sorry to whine, but after seeing these rankings, I just don't really think deaths/net have a part to play in ONS rankings.

See above - I kept the effect intentionally low.

Haja"]
The player with the lowest score could playthe biggest role

I'd love to reward that, but unfortunately the only way of doing that is to make the KD-adjustment larger. The problem with that is that some players (who didn't spend lots of time defending) will end up with somewhat ridiculous rankings.


btw xan can u please fix gizzlo's name

Will do.

[<A>BioGizzard]

look i see myself as a pretty clued up player in onslaught...
but when we play these matches not all the ppl that play know what we know and
most of the time we end up in their team so getting a hight score in the match is not so easy

if u look at the screenies u have u'll c lots of those matches have unbalanced teams in them anyways.....

so for ppl normally playing in a team as a defender suddenly ending up on a side full of these sam play style is going to lead to a low score as all they will be doing is defending the primary node

i'm not whining here i'm happy with my score to me i can c from it that i get busy when i play

but where i'm confused is how can the rankings be accurate if we don't play qualifiers with some sort of balanced teams in....i know it's difficult to do that, but i'm still wondering about it, is all

[~MA~[peterpan]]

but where i'm confused is how can the rankings be accurate if we don't play qualifiers with some sort of balanced teams in....i know it's difficult to do that, but i'm still wondering about it, is all

I think thats a super idea.

Lets see these rankings as estimates only, and sorta start the real qualifiying matches with the 2 teams (chosen from these rankings) and sort out the teams according to the scores of those (lets say 2 real qualifying) matches....


....or am i just confokulating everything here.....


:)

[<A>BioGizzard]

sort of like semi qualify?
mmm.....

[Lord_Xan]

but where i'm confused is how can the rankings be accurate if we don't play qualifiers with some sort of balanced teams in....

Balance between teams is irrelevant because your ranking only looks at your performance relative to that of your team.

Balance within a team is pointless because the whole purpose of the exercise is to determine how players stack up against each other.

An example:

Say you play only 10 games and all of them are totally unbalanced (ie the opposing team is always a lot stronger). However, you end up contributing 50% of your team's score each and every time (with 0 net efficiency - let's keep it simple ;)). This will give you a ranking of 0.5, which is quite astronomical. Indeed, you will probably end up at the top of the qualifying rankings.

So you see, playing unbalanced games will not necessarily give you a low ranking. It definately sucks to lose all the time, but the ranking system will always recognise your relative skill (as well it should).

All good?

[Lord_Xan]

"]
Lets see these rankings as estimates only, and sorta start the real qualifiying matches with the 2 teams (chosen from these rankings) and sort out the teams according to the scores of those (lets say 2 real qualifying) matches....

Thanks for this suggestion. By mulling it over I believe I've gotten some better insight into the ranking system. :)

It goes like this:

Technically your qualifyings should have teams of the same size as your ladder matches will have, eg a 4v4 requirement for a match to count towards qualifying if you plan on having a 4v4 ladder. By measuring people's skills in an environment similar to the one the ladder will give one should be able to construct more balanced teams.

There is (as always) a problem with this approach though: You're going to have a hard time getting 10v10 (or more!) matches together on a regular basis. Playing 1 or 2 is also not a good solution because it doesn't give enough information to provide reliable rankings.

The current 4v4 requirement is already more than the previous ladder's 3v3 one, so at least we're moving in the right direction. I'm not very keen on changing it now because it means we'll have to restart qualifying.

At the moment it's something to keep in mind for future ladders.

[<A>BioGizzard]

ok look at it from my perspective here, last night we had a match in frostbite, remeber?...now u and lt.dan were in blue and rommel,cat and i on red on the first round
then on round to we changed and cat went over to ur side and lt.dan came to our side and at the end of the second round our scores were plus minus in the same margin yet ur ranked high and i'm midrange.

hence my confusion

that's how i got to the conclution of getting ranked better when playing more balanced

[Shrimp]

Roger that, ONS leader! :)

NP from my side, I just found the averages didn't seem to work into the rankings properly, but I guess you know what you're doing, being a master of spreadsheets and stuff ;).

[Lord_Xan]

at the end of the second round our scores were plus minus in the same margin yet ur ranked high and i'm midrange

Remember that the Frostbite match doesn't count as a qualifier. ;)

I don't have access to the screenie at the moment, but let's say the scores were as follows at the end of round 2:

Red Team
Rommel - 80
Biogizzard - 50
Lt. Dan - 30

Blue Team
Cataphract - 80
Lord_Xan - 50

Right, so our scores were the same. The important thing to note is that the teams aren't of equal size. So, even though our scores are equal, our portions of total score (50/160 for you, 50/130 for me) aren't.

The rankings are based on these "portions" and not the absolute scores. Also keep in mind that the rankings "predict" your portion of total team score for 4-player teams only. As soon as the team sizes change, the "prediction" made by the rankings becomes invalid.

However, remember that we don't use the rankings themselves - we only use them to divide people into teams. So the fact that qualifying rankings won't give an accurate idea of your portion in a 10v10 game doesn't matter - it still gives an indication of your skill relative to everyone else's, and that's what we're after.

Eish, does my ramblings make sense? If not, just gimme a shout - I don't mind explaining. :)

(Is it sad that I find these discussions very interesting? :o)

[Lord_Xan]

I just found the averages didn't seem to work into the rankings properly

Crap, you just made me realise something I had missed all along - team sizes in the qualifying make a big difference. Setting a minimum size was the right idea, but leaving the maximum size undefined was a mistake. :(

(If you want the reasoning, PM me or come get me on MSN.)

Given that Ladder 1 made the same mistake and the teams turned out pretty balanced, I'm not going to worry about changing it now. It'll be another note for future ladders. :)

[<A>BioGizzard]

never mind i'll just let it be...my brain is to small to get this...eg 50/160 how did u get to that?

i'm cool with it thx for trying

[|sAvAgE|]

this thread is giving me Overkill :confused:

[Bean]

Wow - check the rankings -- Xan's killed almost twice as many peeps as I have, but died less! That's just not fair.

Although it does remind me of my best death in ONS ever:

ONS-Torlan -- enemy has all the nodes and are powering thier way up to our core.
I'm on top of the lightning gun tower in the base and I can see a Manta racing across the lawn from the node.
I'm shooting at it like mad as it goes up that little ramp of ground on the outside of the base (at the Hellbender side).
It jumps up, flys to its left -- straight onto the lightning gun tower and splats me! (all the time I'm thinking how the hell?)

And the thing that really nailed it in the coffin was that the bastard hooted just before... "You were killed by Lord_Xan."

Just not fair I tell you... :)

[sneaky]

*mindlesly follows L_X*

[<A>BioGizzard]

the funniest death i has was on torlan, in the base at the raptor. as i got into the thing and started lifting up to fly out, a deemer fell out the sky and landed on the deck of the raptor level just shy of the core. the blast flung my corpse out of the thing only to explode into pieces when i hit the ground.

[Lord_Xan]

And the thing that really nailed it in the coffin was that the bastard hooted just before... "You were killed by Lord_Xan."

:D

[Cataphract]

Biogizzard, you wreckless hobo, you drove a scorpion into another, heavily damaged, scorpion which (naturally) exploded sending you and your scorpion wildly cartwheeling to the right at a 90 degree angle, OVER ME!!!!! Your scorpion's bull-bar sliced my head clean off.

Sneaky wrote:

*mindlesly follows L_X*


*mindlessly follows sneaky following L_X*

[<A>BioGizzard]

sorry Cat it wasn't personal or anything.....:P

[<A>BioGizzard]

can we leave the dirty tactics for the ladder
and play clean matches for now so we can get more ppl in this community

if i was new online in ons i wouldn't see a reason to learn ons or even play it more to learn more if i was owned all the time...

[Shrimp]

The rape will find you.

[~MA~[peterpan]]

can we leave the dirty tactics for the ladder
and play clean matches for now so we can get more ppl in this community

if i was new online in ons i wouldn't see a reason to learn ons or even play it more to learn more if i was owned all the time...

What dirty tactics.....?

/me gets pen and paper

[gizzlo]

The rape will find you.


lol ya that is so true sea food so true.

[<A>BioGizzard]

killing ppl at locked nodes....when they spawn

rushing to the enemy primary node with a manta to kill them building the first node,or shooting at it with a deemer even though it's locked

things like that,

if u have controll of the map in the first 5 mins ur enemy probly has noobs in their team that needs guidence

i don't mind the tricks in a ladder of comp or sumthin
just not all the time ....were supposed to have fun to
and i don't think i know noobs that wanna play ons cause they get owned every night

[Lord_Xan]

killing ppl at locked nodes....when they spawn

Heh, I think I inspired this one? :o

Truth be told, I don't go out of my way to do this. And defending against it isn't too hard. People seem to forget that there are turrets around.


rushing to the enemy primary node with a manta to kill them building the first node,or shooting at it with a deemer even though it's locked

I agree that those are pretty crapppy tactics. Luckily they don't happen that often!

[~MA~[peterpan]]

lol!

I actually remember someone say (not to me of course, im a little angel):

"Please refrain from camping our core...."

heheheheheh

Honestly, this sorta thing aint my bag baby......

/me quickly drives of in manta to unlocked enemy nodes......

[Lord_Xan]

Hey, I said "camping our core", not "camping our node"! ;)

There's a big difference. Some yahoo in a Goliath blasting everyone that spawns at the core when that team is losing horribly just plain sucks. If it aids tactics I'm all for it. If it borders on (or becomes) griefing, it irks me.

Primeval is a baaad map. :D

[~MA~[peterpan]]

I say we set the timelimit to 10mins on public servers for onslaught. It will prevent this sorta thing and maybe keep more peesp (like myself) interested in playing more ons games.....

What you say? shall we vote on this?

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

10 mins is slightly better :D

[~MA~[peterpan]]

http://unreal.co.za/forums/showthread.php?t=523

[<A>FluX.v2.0]

Xan i have some screenies from sunday (the game just after you left), even teams aswell.

should I post them or Pm them to you?

[Lord_Xan]

should I post them or Pm them to you?

You can PM them to me or send it directly to my Gmail account (see my profile).

If the Frostbite one is in there, exclude it. I specced some of it and the game really fell apart towards the end (people leaving and such). I'd rather not take it into account as a result.

[<A>BioGizzard]

15

[sneaky]

killing ppl at locked nodes....when they spawn

rushing to the enemy primary node with a manta to kill them building the first node,or shooting at it with a deemer even though it's locked

things like that,

if u have controll of the map in the first 5 mins ur enemy probly has noobs in their team that needs guidence

i don't mind the tricks in a ladder of comp or sumthin
just not all the time ....were supposed to have fun to
and i don't think i know noobs that wanna play ons cause they get owned every night

Playing with n00bs can be hell frustrating, period. I actually remember a match like that this weekend, we were in the same team. 5 mins in we had all the nodes cept the primary one and then the golden bubble burst abruptly :(

Usually I camp a locked node when it becomes locked while im attacking it, no use in footing 50Ks back to a team node when respawning is so much faster and you can slow the attack down by killing the enemy before they can even reach a weapons rack MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Rushing a primary nody? I only do that when bored or when feeling evil.

[gizzlo]

this thread is giving me Overkill :confused:
woot i 2nd that :)