A totally different system for ELO or skill rating

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eggroll9000

Senior Member

10-25-2012

A totally different system for ELO or skill rating

Cuz the current ELO system sucks, here's an alternative based on "Checkmate Solving".

In chess puzzles, you are supposed to force checkmate. If you are able to do it with the least moves and fewest loses, it's good.

In many sports, people do talk about "optimal play". Optimal play is pretty much checkmate solving. You can also have teammates that play more optimally than others even tho they would have the same win/loss since they're on the same team. But we know Lebron James or Micheal Jordan plays more optimally than their teammates whether they win or lose. They can chose the 1992 Olympic Basketball "Dream Team" without all those players having the best win/loss records. But yet there would be little argument they are the best players. You know beyond win/loss alone if a player is good.

You can apply the same concept in LoL.

Let's say for the sake of simplicity you are mid 1 v 1. You farm and you harass your opponent but at a certain point, a "forced checkmate" may become possible. A combo using all of your skills and ignite could get you a kill. The computer can instantly calculate this and account for distance requirements including the need to flash in, counter stun possibilities, and trades.

Let's say you can move in and force 500 hp of damage. If your opponent has exactly 500 hp and you move in and kill him, your rating is "perfect". If your opponent has say 450 hp and you didn't know to move in, your relative skill level should be relatively lower than perfect. If your opponent has 200 hp and you still are unable to kill him, then even lower.

This should also account for trades and damage taken. If you can "force" 500 dmg but your opponent can "force" 300 back to you (Like every trade you see in lane). If you do 500 and take 300, then you're "normal". If you can force 500 and take less than 300, then you're good. If you force 300 and take 500, well then you suck.

This concept should also apply to last hitting. Missing last hits should rate you lower.

The algorithm can get more advanced and like chess should think in sequence of multiple pieces. Example Blitz grab leads to AD attacks leads to kill. But what if Blitz grabs but AD misses? That should be accounted against the AD. I think computers have more than enough horsepower to calculate this.

How would the number in this system work? Right now I'm thinking like baseball. 1000 being perfect and anything less than perfect you are rated less. I'm expecting the highest pro level ratings at maybe 900 or so? The score will be individualized rather than the entire team getting the same + or - result. Kinda like a quarterback rating.

It's just a concept. Support, flame, comment, or add an idea. Thanks.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KirkVanH0uten

Member

10-25-2012

this is extremely complex and not worth the time and effort that would go into it. In all actuality most people dont hate the Elo system they just generally hate how flamers, leavers, and trolls run rampant and nothing has or will be done about it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eggroll9000

Senior Member

10-25-2012

I doubt it's super complex. The computer only needs to know how much damage you can cause and if you're close enough to cause it. That shouldn't be super computer levels of processing power especially when they can come up with bots with intentional human like errors. The calculation would just be for "perfect bots" that don't error.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

hmmmok

Junior Member

10-25-2012

I got a minor in math just because I loved statistics. I understand how the elo system works in detail with simple 1v1 chess but lol is way more complicated. atleast 5 times more variables each having their own system of equations plus it changes based on the amount of wins you have an many other factors other than just giving you the expected value each time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

hmmmok

Junior Member

10-25-2012

The best thing to do is have a ref or a judge monitor each game a reward elo as he see fit.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ninjagear

Senior Member

10-25-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggroll9000 View Post
we know Lebron James or Micheal Jordan plays more optimally than their teammates whether they win or lose... The computer can instantly calculate this.

If you can "force" 500 dmg but your opponent can "force" 300 back to you (Like every trade you see in lane). If you do 500 and take 300, then you're "normal". If you can force 500 and take less than 300, then you're good. If you force 300 and take 500, well then you suck.

Missing last hits should rate you lower.

I think computers have more than enough horsepower to calculate this.

Kinda like a quarterback rating.
since people dont always preform at the same level (even if they are capable of an extremely high level of performance), wouldnt it just be way easier to count how many times they win instead of spending 10 years programming a perfect referee for the game?

if the computer game played LoL better then the players bot games would have an elo attached to them too.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eggroll9000

Senior Member

10-29-2012

I think to program bots, it's harder to program them to make "human like" errors than bot that play perfectly. It's easy to give them perfect aim = aimbot. It's easy to for them to calculate exactly how much damage they can cause you and when. It's easy to program a bot when they see they can kill you to flash to your location and apply the appropriate combo. Perfect bots are easy, just you can't play against them in real life. So Riot has to make "imperfect bots". That's hard. But I'm proposing setting the skillset rating relative to the perfect mark which is easy to program. It's far easier to create an aimbot with perfect aim than one that misses in a convincingly human way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjagear View Post
since people dont always preform at the same level (even if they are capable of an extremely high level of performance), wouldnt it just be way easier to count how many times they win instead of spending 10 years programming a perfect referee for the game?

if the computer game played LoL better then the players bot games would have an elo attached to them too.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Amatzikahni

Senior Member

10-29-2012

So what happens when you have a good pusher and he just sits in lane and keeps the opponent under his tower? What about the same scenario but instead the player goes to gank another lane? What if that lane had no chance to gank or a guaranteed kill on gank—how would those factor in? What about warding locations? CC under turret to increase damage? Auto attacks forcing minions to attack you? Going too early when someone else is coming from the side to gank? What about potions/Red Elixir? Juking? Stalling for time while another lane completes another objective? Pushing vs freezing? Sustain against harass/burst/skirmish? This little, tiny bit of math is less than a percentage point of the decisions that a LoL player has to make, so an algorithm of such nature would barely have any effect whatsoever.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

10-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggroll9000 View Post
A totally different system for ELO or skill rating

Cuz the current ELO system sucks, here's an alternative based on "Checkmate Solving".
It doesnt suck(but generally the people who feel it does, infact suck)

Quote:
In many sports, people do talk about "optimal play". Optimal play is pretty much checkmate solving. You can also have teammates that play more optimally than others even tho they would have the same win/loss since they're on the same team. But we know Lebron James or Micheal Jordan plays more optimally than their teammates whether they win or lose. They can chose the 1992 Olympic Basketball "Dream Team" without all those players having the best win/loss records. But yet there would be little argument they are the best players. You know beyond win/loss alone if a player is good.
Actually if we remember basketball olympics, they tried putting a bunch of superstars together and win games, they didnt, it was only when we scaled back some superstars and focused on good team play did we win our golds again.

Quote:
You can apply the same concept in LoL.
Computers do not apply this concept, you know who does? Scouts, a computer is not capable of analyzing data and rewarding excellence in team games. And yes, you have to factor in the team games aspect of it. In fact a scout will still do better at rewarding performance than a computer, even in 1v1 scenarios.

The one example of computers being able to reward skill better is the sabermetrics in baseball, and that wasnt a computer doing the work, it was simply analyzing different stats than the rest of the field.

Quote:
Let's say for the sake of simplicity you are mid 1 v 1. You farm and you harass your opponent but at a certain point, a "forced checkmate" may become possible. A combo using all of your skills and ignite could get you a kill. The computer can instantly calculate this and account for distance requirements including the need to flash in, counter stun possibilities, and trades.

Let's say you can move in and force 500 hp of damage. If your opponent has exactly 500 hp and you move in and kill him, your rating is "perfect". If your opponent has say 450 hp and you didn't know to move in, your relative skill level should be relatively lower than perfect. If your opponent has 200 hp and you still are unable to kill him, then even lower.

This should also account for trades and damage taken. If you can "force" 500 dmg but your opponent can "force" 300 back to you (Like every trade you see in lane). If you do 500 and take 300, then you're "normal". If you can force 500 and take less than 300, then you're good. If you force 300 and take 500, well then you suck.
This whole idea here is simply a display of a lack of advanced understanding of game theory in league of legends. It also does a disservice, to the complexity of the game, ill give you an easy example.

There might be a time where I know my jungle is going to come to my lane in a short amount of time, in addition to positioning the wave to my advantage, i also might engage in unfavorable exchanges in order to encourage my opponent to be over aggressive.

Even if it doesnt result in a kill, or even any benefit for me, maybe the jungler never comes, its still the correct decision, especially if i can recover after sandbagging a couple of exchanges, this advanced type of action cannot possibly be calculated by a computer, because its so vastly different in every game.

Quote:
This concept should also apply to last hitting. Missing last hits should rate you lower.
Again, you have to properly define missing, which is a different definition every game, what about 1v2 lanes, what about creep baiting, what about 'missing' minions in order to go get neutral camps, was it even correct for you to get that neutral camp at that time. All of these things, depend on the game, depend on your teammates, your enemies, the score, the players, the champions. This isnt something you program into a computer and let go.

Quote:
The algorithm can get more advanced and like chess should think in sequence of multiple pieces. Example Blitz grab leads to AD attacks leads to kill. But what if Blitz grabs but AD misses? That should be accounted against the AD. I think computers have more than enough horsepower to calculate this.
No algorithm can possibly handle the range of things that can happen, what if i miss on purpose because the enemy is very aggressive after a miss, and I need a gank, what if I miss so they're aggressive and I just want to move the lane position. Actions that traditionally might be 'less effective' are sometimes the correct move to make, a computer cannot possibly discern which situation to award a sub optimal action and which to punish.

Quote:
How would the number in this system work? Right now I'm thinking like baseball. 1000 being perfect and anything less than perfect you are rated less. I'm expecting the highest pro level ratings at maybe 900 or so? The score will be individualized rather than the entire team getting the same + or - result. Kinda like a quarterback rating.

It's just a concept. Support, flame, comment, or add an idea. Thanks.
Like I said from the start, the premise is wrong, in order for this to be remotely useful, you have to first prove that the current system 'sucks', and this simply isnt true.

I understand completely where you are trying to come from, you feel that you are superior to players in your elo bracket, because you have a higher level of team play or some other skill that currently you feel is intangible and does not affect your elo, and thats the reason for you being as low as you are.

The thing is that this is simply not true, while its true that teamwork skills are not nearly as recognized and valuable at lower elos than higher elos, they still are factored in, the problem for you would be that other aspects of your game are significantly lacking compared to similar elo players with poor teamplay abilities, what those specific traits are for you, I couldnt tell you.

As I have said in other posts, this is hyper focusing on a small problem and blindly ignoring a much more significant problem, that if the bigger problem was addressed with the same level of focus as the small problem, it would result in much bigger levels of improvement. Does skill levels of teamwork and other things like that get a lesser amount of elo value than other skills? Sure, and would you gain elo if the system was changed to more value those skills, absolutely, it would definitely help out 100 or 200 points. But if you took that same energy, and focused on the fact that you are just absolutely garbage at mechanics, teamfighting, lane matchups, game theory, invasion, counters, finishing, or any of those things. You would move up 500-800 points. So it puts the whole "fix the system" in perspective. Maybe try fixing yourself first?