User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 6728
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

08 Nov 2017, 18:47

Thanks
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
Mexico sapikles
Crossbow
Posts: 17

08 Nov 2017, 19:25

No one to play with on ESO :hmm:
User avatar
Germany aligator92
Dragoon
Posts: 477
ESO: aligator92

08 Nov 2017, 19:48

EAGLEMUT wrote:
zoom wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Thanks. Are the rules published anywhere?

It doesn't seem too bad, but you should never have ignored TWC completely. Do like 50% of placements there, or something.

The technical implementation currently only allows top16+Elo, or do all seeds manually. And honestly, I'm glad we even got that to work properly :ugeek:
Hopefully we'll find some time to improve the process.


Manual seeding should not be that much work. When I proposed my system a couple of days ago and presented what the outcome would look like it didn't even take me 5 mins. I would volunteer to do it for the next tournament with any system you come up with ;-)
User avatar
United States of America SirCallen
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 3472
ESO: SirCallen
Location: Midwest

08 Nov 2017, 19:59

I vote alligator for tourney rule committee.
Image
User avatar
Germany aligator92
Dragoon
Posts: 477
ESO: aligator92

08 Nov 2017, 21:37

SirCallen wrote:I vote alligator for tourney rule committee.

who is that alligator guy supposed to be? and why did he choose a name so similar to mine? :mad:
No Flag alligator_guy
Crossbow
Posts: 1

08 Nov 2017, 21:46

aligator92 wrote:
SirCallen wrote:I vote alligator for tourney rule committee.

who is that alligator guy supposed to be? and why did he choose a name so similar to mine? :mad:


that would be me
User avatar
Netherlands Mr_Bramboy
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 4308
ESO: mr_bramboy
Location: Amsterdam

08 Nov 2017, 21:55

zoom wrote:
n0el wrote:
zoom wrote:Please link me the seeding system rules.


Top 16 from last tourney. Rest are filled by ELO.

Next event we will improve it.
Thanks. Are the rules published anywhere?

viewtopic.php?f=399&t=12517#p264225

TWC wasn't weighted because it was a minor tournament. We only use results from major seasonal tournaments to determine preseeds. I don't think this will change anytime soon since minor tournaments often have different rules. In this case, I wouldn't say winning the TWC tournament takes the same amount of skill as winning a seasonal tournament, and awarding half seeds will get very messy and obscure.
User avatar
Germany aligator92
Dragoon
Posts: 477
ESO: aligator92

08 Nov 2017, 22:05

alligator_guy wrote:
aligator92 wrote:
SirCallen wrote:I vote alligator for tourney rule committee.

who is that alligator guy supposed to be? and why did he choose a name so similar to mine? :mad:


that would be me

:ohmy:
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 6728
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

08 Nov 2017, 22:14

What a piece of shit!
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 6728
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan

08 Nov 2017, 22:16

Mr_Bramboy wrote:
zoom wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Thanks. Are the rules published anywhere?

viewtopic.php?f=399&t=12517#p264225

TWC wasn't weighted because it was a minor tournament. We only use results from major seasonal tournaments to determine preseeds. I don't think this will change anytime soon since minor tournaments often have different rules. In this case, I wouldn't say winning the TWC tournament takes the same amount of skill as winning a seasonal tournament, and awarding half seeds will get very messy and obscure.
I know it was. That's why I suggested counting it as a lighter weight. What's messy about just counting the winner of TWC as runner-up or semi-finalist?
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12357
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

08 Nov 2017, 23:01

In the end seeds from previous tournament fuck the actual seeding process really.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Germany aligator92
Dragoon
Posts: 477
ESO: aligator92

09 Nov 2017, 09:46

Jerom wrote:In the end seeds from previous tournament fuck the actual seeding process really.

The are the only reasonable measure for seeding. You cannot go purely by ElO because old accounts that still have 2700 ELO would always get the top seeds over active players. And you cannot just go by feeling because everyone will have different opinions and there would be much drama by players who feel underestimated.
We should simply start to incorporate all major ESOC Tournies of the past and just the most recent one.
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12357
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

09 Nov 2017, 11:29

aligator92 wrote:
Jerom wrote:In the end seeds from previous tournament fuck the actual seeding process really.

The are the only reasonable measure for seeding. You cannot go purely by ElO because old accounts that still have 2700 ELO would always get the top seeds over active players. And you cannot just go by feeling because everyone will have different opinions and there would be much drama by players who feel underestimated.
We should simply start to incorporate all major ESOC Tournies of the past and just the most recent one.

The elo system kinda ensures though that the top elo players will be in the region of the top seeds I believe.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Jaeger
Posts: 4263
Location: Paris

09 Nov 2017, 23:23

About the seeding, I think we need to use a formula weighing the last tourney results (for example the 3 last tourney results, with bigger coefficients for the more recent tourneys) as well as the ELO. It's important that the formula is continuous, because as we can see with the current seeding system, there is a problem between seeds 16 and 17, as the first 16 and the last 16 seeds are not determined by the same method (seed 17 was usually a much better played than seed 16, which is not logical). In other words, imo, it needs to be a unique formula to seed everyone. For example:

Rating = (ELO - 2000)/5 + 100/R1 + 50/R2 + 20/R3

Where R1, R2 and R3 are the rank of the player (so 1 if he was first, 2 if he was second, and so on) in the three previous tourneys, R1 being the most recent and R3 the least. I substracted 2000 to ELO because I considered that all players that would deserve a seed would have more than 2000 ELO, and only the part over 2000 is relevant to compare.
Of course the numbers can (and probably should) be tweaked, depending on how important we want the ELO to be for example. There's still a big problem in this formula: what if the player didn't play in the previous tourney(s)? I didn't really find an answer to that, but I think there must be a way to give a fair compensation in the rating to someone who wouldn't play in a past tourney.
kickass_OP wrote:lbs vs cavs no is good

look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.

look wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
No Flag Zutazuta
Dragoon
Donator 10
Posts: 334

10 Nov 2017, 05:59

Kaiserklein wrote:About the seeding, I think we need to use a formula weighing the last tourney results (for example the 3 last tourney results, with bigger coefficients for the more recent tourneys) as well as the ELO. It's important that the formula is continuous, because as we can see with the current seeding system, there is a problem between seeds 16 and 17, as the first 16 and the last 16 seeds are not determined by the same method (seed 17 was usually a much better played than seed 16, which is not logical). In other words, imo, it needs to be a unique formula to seed everyone. For example:

Rating = (ELO - 2000)/5 + 100/R1 + 50/R2 + 20/R3

Where R1, R2 and R3 are the rank of the player (so 1 if he was first, 2 if he was second, and so on) in the three previous tourneys, R1 being the most recent and R3 the least. I substracted 2000 to ELO because I considered that all players that would deserve a seed would have more than 2000 ELO, and only the part over 2000 is relevant to compare.
Of course the numbers can (and probably should) be tweaked, depending on how important we want the ELO to be for example. There's still a big problem in this formula: what if the player didn't play in the previous tourney(s)? I didn't really find an answer to that, but I think there must be a way to give a fair compensation in the rating to someone who wouldn't play in a past tourney.


r u a math wizard? :?:
Great Britain Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 3464

10 Nov 2017, 06:31

surprised anyone had bothered to read it tbh
Venividivici_w: i heard h20 signed up last minute. Prob waited for roby not signing up so he wouldnt get smashed again

Well, Im the best thing that happened to aoe3 - vane stoilov 2k17
User avatar
No Flag samwise12
Dragoon
Posts: 393

10 Nov 2017, 10:04

region #7 easiest region
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Jaeger
Posts: 4263
Location: Paris

10 Nov 2017, 10:05

Hazza54321 wrote:surprised anyone had bothered to read it tbh

Sorry that I'm actually posting some content, maybe I should post only 1 sentence everytime like you
kickass_OP wrote:lbs vs cavs no is good

look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.

look wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Jaeger
Posts: 4263
Location: Paris

10 Nov 2017, 10:11

Zutazuta wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:About the seeding, I think we need to use a formula weighing the last tourney results (for example the 3 last tourney results, with bigger coefficients for the more recent tourneys) as well as the ELO. It's important that the formula is continuous, because as we can see with the current seeding system, there is a problem between seeds 16 and 17, as the first 16 and the last 16 seeds are not determined by the same method (seed 17 was usually a much better played than seed 16, which is not logical). In other words, imo, it needs to be a unique formula to seed everyone. For example:

Rating = (ELO - 2000)/5 + 100/R1 + 50/R2 + 20/R3

Where R1, R2 and R3 are the rank of the player (so 1 if he was first, 2 if he was second, and so on) in the three previous tourneys, R1 being the most recent and R3 the least. I substracted 2000 to ELO because I considered that all players that would deserve a seed would have more than 2000 ELO, and only the part over 2000 is relevant to compare.
Of course the numbers can (and probably should) be tweaked, depending on how important we want the ELO to be for example. There's still a big problem in this formula: what if the player didn't play in the previous tourney(s)? I didn't really find an answer to that, but I think there must be a way to give a fair compensation in the rating to someone who wouldn't play in a past tourney.


r u a math wizard? :?:

no i just big nob sry
kickass_OP wrote:lbs vs cavs no is good

look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.

look wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Jaeger
Posts: 4263
Location: Paris

10 Nov 2017, 12:31

For example with this formula, I calculated the rating of a few players who played in the 3 last tourneys:

- Lordraphael: Rating = (2625 - 2000)/5 + 100/2 + 50/1 + 20/2 = 235
- Kaiserklein: Rating = (2524 - 2000)/5 + 100/3 + 50/12 + 20/24 = 143.13
- Mitoe: Rating = (2466 - 2000)/5 + 100/4 + 50/12 + 20/6 = 125.7
- mongo10: Rating = (2354 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/3 + 20/6 = 99.13
- SomppuKunkku: Rating = (2354 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/6 + 20/48 = 87.88
- GoodSpeed: Rating = (2348 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/24 + 20/16 = 81.27
- dicktator_: Rating = (2351 - 2000)/5 + 100/24 + 50/24 + 20/48 = 76.87

I gave to the coefficient the following values: 6 for RO8, 12 for RO16, 24 for RO32, 48 for RO64, as an average score for being in the said rounds, since there's no way to have an accurate rank except for the first 4 players.
Now in the case of H2O_: he didn't play in last tourney, so I think we can calculate in this way:

H2O_: Rating = (2747 - 2000)/5 + 80/2 + 40/1 + 15/2 = 236.9

I used the 3 most recent tourneys in which he played, and applied the coefficients 80, 40 and 15 instead of 100, 50 and 20, as a penalty because of those tourneys being longer ago. Again, the numbers can of course be tweaked.
In the case of BlackStar_OP: he played in the last tourney and in an old tourney, so we can apply this kind of coefficient:

BlackStar_OP: Rating = (2769 - 2000)/5 + 100/1 + 15/1 = 268.8


I think calculating in this kind of way would be more accurate than blindly taking ELO or last tourney rank (or even worse, a mix of both).
kickass_OP wrote:lbs vs cavs no is good

look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.

look wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Greece tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 2057

10 Nov 2017, 12:39

seems accurate
"Well, now you are playing otto, but tommorow you might become a rapist, or a serial killer" -VaneStoilov

Image
Image
Great Britain Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 3464

10 Nov 2017, 14:47

Kaiserklein wrote:
Hazza54321 wrote:surprised anyone had bothered to read it tbh

Sorry that I'm actually posting some content, maybe I should post only 1 sentence everytime like you

It wasnt a shot at you, i didnt think youd be french about a joke
Venividivici_w: i heard h20 signed up last minute. Prob waited for roby not signing up so he wouldnt get smashed again

Well, Im the best thing that happened to aoe3 - vane stoilov 2k17
European Union Theodore
Crossbow
Posts: 34

10 Nov 2017, 16:42

@Kaiserklein the formula looks good, and the decay for the rating of older tournaments seems fine.
User avatar
Finland princeofkabul
Howdah
Posts: 1327
ESO: Terkkson
Location: Cold ghettos of Malmö

10 Nov 2017, 18:53

Kaiserklein wrote:For example with this formula, I calculated the rating of a few players who played in the 3 last tourneys:

- Lordraphael: Rating = (2625 - 2000)/5 + 100/2 + 50/1 + 20/2 = 235
- Kaiserklein: Rating = (2524 - 2000)/5 + 100/3 + 50/12 + 20/24 = 143.13
- Mitoe: Rating = (2466 - 2000)/5 + 100/4 + 50/12 + 20/6 = 125.7
- mongo10: Rating = (2354 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/3 + 20/6 = 99.13
- SomppuKunkku: Rating = (2354 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/6 + 20/48 = 87.88
- GoodSpeed: Rating = (2348 - 2000)/5 + 100/12 + 50/24 + 20/16 = 81.27
- dicktator_: Rating = (2351 - 2000)/5 + 100/24 + 50/24 + 20/48 = 76.87

I gave to the coefficient the following values: 6 for RO8, 12 for RO16, 24 for RO32, 48 for RO64, as an average score for being in the said rounds, since there's no way to have an accurate rank except for the first 4 players.
Now in the case of H2O_: he didn't play in last tourney, so I think we can calculate in this way:

H2O_: Rating = (2747 - 2000)/5 + 80/2 + 40/1 + 15/2 = 236.9

I used the 3 most recent tourneys in which he played, and applied the coefficients 80, 40 and 15 instead of 100, 50 and 20, as a penalty because of those tourneys being longer ago. Again, the numbers can of course be tweaked.
In the case of BlackStar_OP: he played in the last tourney and in an old tourney, so we can apply this kind of coefficient:

BlackStar_OP: Rating = (2769 - 2000)/5 + 100/1 + 15/1 = 268.8


I think calculating in this kind of way would be more accurate than blindly taking ELO or last tourney rank (or even worse, a mix of both).


Why do you calculate some players according to their max elo and some by current one
LoOk_tOm: U think that can u the lag
Hazza54321: Go fking play mariokart seriously

"I rather suck dick than play treaty" - Gibson 2k17
User avatar
United States of America Hidddy_
Skirmisher
Posts: 129
ESO: Hidalgito
Location: Miami, Florida, USA

10 Nov 2017, 19:59

Zutazuta wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:About the seeding, I think we need to use a formula weighing the last tourney results (for example the 3 last tourney results, with bigger coefficients for the more recent tourneys) as well as the ELO. It's important that the formula is continuous, because as we can see with the current seeding system, there is a problem between seeds 16 and 17, as the first 16 and the last 16 seeds are not determined by the same method (seed 17 was usually a much better played than seed 16, which is not logical). In other words, imo, it needs to be a unique formula to seed everyone. For example:

Rating = (ELO - 2000)/5 + 100/R1 + 50/R2 + 20/R3

Where R1, R2 and R3 are the rank of the player (so 1 if he was first, 2 if he was second, and so on) in the three previous tourneys, R1 being the most recent and R3 the least. I substracted 2000 to ELO because I considered that all players that would deserve a seed would have more than 2000 ELO, and only the part over 2000 is relevant to compare.
Of course the numbers can (and probably should) be tweaked, depending on how important we want the ELO to be for example. There's still a big problem in this formula: what if the player didn't play in the previous tourney(s)? I didn't really find an answer to that, but I think there must be a way to give a fair compensation in the rating to someone who wouldn't play in a past tourney.


r u a math wizard? :?:

No, but I am and I approve of this message. You can tell by Kaiser's use of the word coefficient and his organization that he has some experience with mathematical modeling and/or statistics/data processing.

Forum Info

Return to “Information and Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest