|
Author Topic:   DDM Ladder - Opinions needed!
The Weatherman
Member
posted June 05, 2001 05:17 PM         
Hey Y'all,

I was thinking about making up some overall DDM rankings. I would like to make it sort of a ladder affair so that it recognizes more than the top 3 players - something that takes into account the other consistently strong players and any up and comers.

First, does anyone have any good ideas on a ladder based on the DDM standings? Matrix - you have some kind of ladder scheme, I think. The current system has 3 slots and goes by who has the highest number of DDM game 1st, 2nds and 3rds. This has been working well but is more suited for small numbers of DDM players.

I was thinking a system where the top 10 players in a DDM get overall DDM points based on that DDMs ranks. The number one player gets 10, #2 gets 9, and so on to where the #10 player gets 1 overall DDM point. Then the overall DDM ladder is ordered by sum of individual player's DDM points. The advantages of this system is an easy computation and it doesn't give a huge bonus to the top 3 spots in any given DDM (especially fair when DDMS are close).

Other schemes might award overall DDM points based on the fraction of frags a given player is responsible for (i.e. this awards really strong play). I kind of like the top 10 distribution method as it compensates for unfair lag advantage (which sometimes gives huge margins).

Please let me know what you think of my proposal and any suggestions for improvement or alternate ladder schemes. I would even like to here "sounds good" or "no, try again" if you feel like making a short reply. I plan on working this up on Thursday, so please respond soon. Thanks,
Weatherman

EDIT: To account for the first 3 DDMs, for which there are probably no screenshots, I was thinking of ordering players much like how coax has assigned overall DDM ranks.
I.E. for DDM 1 9 pts each for Kaeto and Peeto (a tie) , 8 for coax, and 7 each for Superunknown and ILIKEPIE (Karldar?). I think that would fairly synch the first 3 DDMS with the last 5. I am in the process of running up the #'s so that people can see what my system would look like - to see if it is acceptable.

[This message has been edited by The Weatherman (edited June 05, 2001).]

IP:

The Weatherman
Member
posted June 05, 2001 06:18 PM         
Okay after some # crunching I see some problems with the system I outlined. It gives too much emphasis to the number of games played and too little emphasis to how each player in the game did. for example, a player who gets 5th place in each game and played in all 8 games would have enough points to be ranked #1 in the ladder. Of course, it can't be strictly performance based as there is one person who won the only DDM game they played in and so would be impossible to unseat as #1 if they never played another game. Need to balance the weighting of #'s of DDM's played against how well they do in DDMS. A frag based system is no good because the scores for the first 3 DDMs are unavailable. Any suggestions? I am stuck.

IP:

JVortex
Member
posted June 05, 2001 06:21 PM            
im not the best number sruncher in the world, so im not really too sure to be honest. but for one thing the system needs to somehow take into account how many DDm's the player has been in. otherwise newer players wont have any chance at all to get a high rank compared to those who were in DDM #1 for example (and are still racking up points today).

maybe do the point total system devided by number of games participated in? i dunno. i like the overall idea tho.

------------------
Let the rocks roll and the battle commence. BZ The RPG. Check out the site! Loads of Tread Marks support and AddOns. (Under Heavy Construction) The non-TM areas of the site have been resurrected!

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted June 05, 2001 06:57 PM            
Its a good ideas Weather. Thats what i was shooting for with my system, I figured this would be the easiest for newbies to catch up quickly which they do if there good and expert players to take the 1st slots which they do. And plus any other type of system that i could of developed would of taken far to much time out of my life. I hope you can devise something up without someone complaining. I know how that is when i first started doing this stuff too. Poor point density concept got blasted to hell.

------------------
LDA Players, Information, and etc...


IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 05, 2001 08:37 PM            
I'm at work upgrading firmware so this was something to do during the lull moments.

How dumb is this:

What about adding up the 3 major statistics that Weatherman provides? Those would be Overall skill, Relative Agressiveness, Relative Deadliness Factor. Or then use the average to figure out your rank?

To me there are two things about DDM: Bragging rights on how you ranked during a single game and you overall skill ranking. Just because you didn't rank 1-3 doesn't make you a bad overall player. Some people have high frags and low deaths compared to the 1st place person. This is where Weatherman's stats seem to point this out.

One issue is newbies and people like myself who still are "working out the bugs".

Another issue is how many games you've played. It's impossible for some (wives & girlfriends!) to play every one.

So based on adding Weatherman's statistics (sorry, I downloaded your file!) I've come up with the following table. Hopefully it reads good in this post.

I've honestly not spent much time running analysis for "if" scenarios like if I were to place 3rd in the next game (yeah right) and then 5th in the next and how that impacts if Weatherman placed 1st and then 3rd in the next two games. I might do it tonight but someone else might have more free time sooner.

Or I could be WAY OFF on this idea.

name points games avg
Skandra 12.74 4 3.184639966
Weather 10.46 3 3.48735013
Super U 11.83 4 2.957840139
Shadow 2.46 1 2.462529784
Rex_R 7.74 4 1.935693287
JL 13.00 4 3.250763691
Jvortex 5.51 2 2.754926782
Lord B 9.40 5 1.879204194
Kong 5.57 4 1.391498481
Stuart 9.59 3 3.196001169
Sailor 9.63 4 2.408422288
Coax 11.64 4 2.909945686
Nemzad 4.43 2 2.217003544
Robu1 8.04 3 2.680936819
Synack 6.14 3 2.046589603
Kegel 3.73 2 1.864058913
Tread_ 6.77 3 2.256413248
Neo 9.68 3 3.225992803


------------------
- formerly TREAD_THIS (finally changed my name!)

IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 05, 2001 08:44 PM            
OK, the table stinks! How do I post a graphic of the table? Not sure if UBB actually uploads the file or not and my web site is secured with a password.

------------------
- formerly TREAD_THIS (finally changed my name!)

IP:

Neo
Member
posted June 05, 2001 09:00 PM            
First of all Weather, I spotted a little error in your stat's page: coax's/Karldar's skill levels are above yours but neither of them are highlighted red. Small detail, I know, but I figured you may want to know.

Anyways, about the ladder scoring...as you are aware, we have at least 2 major problems: the fact that we don't have screens from the first few DDM's, and perhaps more importantly, the fact that lag can not easily be corrected or otherwise accounted for. As far as the lag goes, there might be nothing we can do other than show avg. pings somewhere. And for the lack of screenshots, we may just have to leave those DDMs out of the future rankings--let their results stand on their own and calculate from the screen shots that we DO have.

My own opinion is that it might be good to consider using an aggregate of measures to determine the ranks. In other words, I think we should have several ladders for different stats and then use the averages of those ladders to determine an overall ranking.

One ladder could be the simple overall avg. frags per DDM match played. This is good because people who have played in only a few DDM matches can still rank high. [But I would say mandating at least a 2-3 match minimum would be good so that some complete newbie doesn't come in to a DDM, grab a shadow and 5 super ammos, win the match, and suddenly have an avg. frag level of 30. lol]

Other ladders could include basically any other stats that you deem worthy; i.e., DDM's won/played, avg. skill levels, avg. deadliness levels, etc.

When all these ladders are in their proper order, the overall ladder could be compiled with simple straight averages (per player) of the rankings of the other ladders.

It sounds complicated , but it's really not...

Oh, and I think it would be cool if later on we had a definite, concrete list of participants; we could have like DDM "season" (a few weeks) tournaments with separate ladders for each little "season". Kinda like Formula 1.

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted June 05, 2001 09:16 PM            
guys guys guys, ya making it appear harder than it really is, a ladder system based on percentage and ratio of kills to deaths is already in place and ready to takeoff.

maybe now is as good a time as any.

ill get something sorted dead quick and start running and active ladder from ddm10 onwards.

i can only count the people who have registered on the DMF and who are members of the dmf - so clanmembers (automatic membership with the clan) and lonewolves get over to the DMF (( www.deathmatch-federation.com )) and sign up today.

I will make a members page listing all names, emails / icq and the all important ladder.

Only SCREENSHOTS of the gamescores will be accepted as score submission.

Lets get it on fellas, its a tried n tested method........... lets get this ball game on the road.

Gimmie a couple of weeks to get the ruleset up on the DMF and we can take it from there.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted June 05, 2001 11:10 PM            
lol, when i started my page there was no ranking system in place at all. It was just crazy coax.

Tread_this: If you want preformated text to work. Enter the ubb tag code.

its "code" with brackets around it and ends in "/code" with brackets around it and without those "s

------------------
LDA Players, Information, and etc...


IP:

SuperUnknown
Administrator
posted June 05, 2001 11:16 PM            
Are you trying to say I'm 3rd in skill level.LOL...thats a suprise I guess that dosen't take into consideration the # or games played sinced I haven't made it to all.

OK.......not to get too much off topic,but I think I.........yeah,I just had a idea How about the top 8 players gather for a DDM on a day other than the Sunday DDM.I would like to see the top(or at least ones who play the DDM)players go at it.You couldn't pick on the newbie types or the guy who accidently stumbles into the DDM wondering whats going on and get basically free kills.It would be all highly skillful players.I've thought about this several times.It wouldn't go towards the ranking at all.Guess you would just get bragging rights.
Top 8,3 games,no teams.It would be pretty interesting to see who comes out on top.What do you guys say.Wouldn't that be the ultimate DDM or what?Fun!Maybe we should make it the top 10 since I know some of you will have excuses,er...I mean prior arrangments
Lets do it!

IP:

SuperUnknown
Administrator
posted June 05, 2001 11:22 PM            
Looks like the top 10 are:

JL
Skandraron
Super
coax
Weatherman
Stuart
Sailor
Neo
Lord
Robu

Get all of you guys to attend and play it out.I don't think Stuart or Lord post here so somebody may have to get in touch with them.We just need to pick a night and a time.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted June 05, 2001 11:25 PM            
Thats a good idea Super. I like the idea that the ladder system shouldn't be apart of a DDM ladder. If the ladder is based on skill it would be better portrayed by the top-dogs dueling it out on a server that doesn't lag anyone and theres no newbies to frag to buff up ones kills.

------------------
LDA Players, Information, and etc...


IP:

The Weatherman
Member
posted June 06, 2001 01:42 AM         
Wow, now this is a hot topic. Whatever system is adopted has to take into account skill, aggressivness, and number of games played while also making it possible for low ranked players and newcomers to be able to move up quickly through brilliant performance. And it must be accetpable to the majority of regulars.
Lemme address replies in order:

Paranor - 1 problem is that the overall deadliness = skill x aggressiveness. So, your sum = skill + agressiveness + skill x aggressiveness (which might not be so bad). I think deadliness is a good estimator of how well you would have played in a given DDM if you had played all the games. But using it kind of takes away from people who actually did play all of the games in a DDM. The other problem is we have no stats for the first 3 games. Feel free to use my spreadsheet - I posted it so that all of my calcs would be out in the open and people can use the score data without having to reenter the numbers. There may be something to your idea, but i think it needs development.

Neo - thanks for catching that. I will try to change it tomorrow I like a lot of your ideas. I am interested in a way of getting around the lack of scores for the 3rd match. I would rather not toss them but they are inconvenient. If coax, peeto, Nemzad, and Stewart are okay with it (they are the actives that had firsts) I will toss the 1-3 and 5 (the lagfest). But that is a whole lot of data to drop.
I like the idea of the frag average ranking system - it would probably match coax's ranks pretty well. I think a 3 DDM minimum is a good qualification. the problem with the multi ladder system is how to weight it.

Matrix - could you elaborate your system a bit. I thing I am wary about is a total F/D based system - that is essentially the same stat as skill. My problem is that my skill is rarely the highest but I do well in DDMS because I can (sometimes) get a lot of kills by being aggressive. I am not totally opposed to a skill only ladder but I don't think that skill alone reflects how people do in a DDM. Also, starting at DDM 10 drops a whole lot of hard fought battles. You are welcome to use my raw data for your ladder in any case.

Aw Supe, you are going to steal my source of frags! Well, I am in anyway - time permitting. I will defend myself in saying that I killed from all skill levels last DDM - the madness of the heat of battle lowers even the most guarded players defenses

I have come up with a variety of schemes to balance individual DDM rank and # of games played while retaining all of the DDMs to date. I will try to post it tomorrow. They are all modifications of the system I first outlined with different weightings for players 1-~4 and a flat weight for ~5-10.

I am working on another scheme that is either a straight sum or average of Relative Deadliness for All DDMS but 1-3 and 5. the straight sum would take into acct # of DDMS participated in and but the average would recognized high frags in the DDMS participated in.

I was thinking of working a few calcs up and then having a vote of all members on which one they think most accurately reflects the playing abilities of our group.

Idea - maybe we can use Deadliness taken from a rolling average of the five most recent DDMS - This may be the best way to include new people and regulars. Maybe make it a 2-3 DDM minimum to place in the top 3.

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted June 06, 2001 03:32 AM            
that idea is the best idea. It'll allow newbies a chance to rank high quickly enough, while keeping my site somewhat useful

------------------
LDA Players, Information, and etc...


IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 06, 2001 07:54 AM            
My, this is a fun topic!

At the expense of whining I don't necessarily agree with the list on this top 10 duke-em out game.

I've missed 2 out of the 5 posted games. I'll compare my stats against Lord Byron simiply because it's the easiest so no offense intended.

In 2 out of the 3 ames I've played I've had a higher DDM rank than him and in all 3 games I've had higher stats overall including DDM 5 which is when he DDM ranked higher than me.

I belive the original intent of this topic was to figure out what the ranks really are and this would be a good example of bumping someone out who shouldn't be?

Hard to explain in posting but basically it would be disappointing on my behalf (even though it's just a game!) to be excluded from this top 10 skill game simply because I missed a few games.

I consider myself pretty active being on at least every other night, etc. and this just doesn't seem to jive very well.

AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT SAYING LORD BYRON SHOULD NOT PLAY!

Boo hoo - I'm done whining.


------------------
- formerly TREAD_THIS (finally changed my name!)

[This message has been edited by Paranor (edited June 06, 2001).]

IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 06, 2001 07:55 AM            
Weatherman, when you post your various calculations does it include some type of handicap or average to use in case games are missed? Similar to golf or "bowling"?

Anyone for multiplayer bowling? HAH

[This message has been edited by Paranor (edited June 06, 2001).]

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted June 06, 2001 01:25 PM            
the tried n tested method for ladders is quite simple.

kills minus deaths gives you game score in points, plus or minus.

will list how many games you play

list your place in the ladder based on a percentage system, the higher the percentage of kills against deaths and ur on top, that allows you to have 1 v 1's - team games or general ddm's - it covers all bases on any server in any game.

To summerside its an indevidual score based on that tourneys/matches score.

ppl who consistantly win out will stay at the top of the ladder. This way theres no bias to any skilled or unskilled player - it simply says if ur good or not, and keeps track of how u got there

IP:

The Weatherman
Member
posted June 06, 2001 02:15 PM         
Okay, I have posted 4 different versions of the ladder on my homepage: http://home.austin.rr.com/treadmarks/

Each has their strengths and weaknesses. All are based on rolling averages of the 4 most recent DDMs (not including DDM 5) Please look em over and let me know what you think. Coax, they all have you ranked lower then on your site because I dropped the first 3 games. I like the rolling averages, though, because they reflect only the most recent performance (i.e. vs the current pool of opponents).

Matrix- I may still be a bit foggy on your system. I ran up the DDMS with total F - total D and then averaged all of the DDMs together. By this method, no one will ever catch up to Skandranon, even if you get more frags than he. The problem with this is that it is really a skill based stat. A higly skilled, moderatly aggressive player can always beat a moderately skilled highly aggressive player in your system. Both would have large Frags , but the higher skilled player would loose fewer points because of having a much smaller number of deaths. DDMs are decided by frags - at least they always have. Deadliest Death Match implies that the deadliest person (which I take to be the person who kills the most enemies) should lead.

But, I may have your method wrong. Please take the numbers from my site and run them up with your system. If they seem fair to you, please post them - I could even keep them on my page.

EDIT - in rereading your earlier post, Matix, I see you indicate your ladder factors in non DDM games, too. That is pretty cool. My systems are pretty much going to only be for DDM and do not accurately reflect gameplay in other situtations.

[This message has been edited by The Weatherman (edited June 06, 2001).]

IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 06, 2001 11:49 PM            
I like the Average Frag Average Ladder over the others.

Not clear on your comments though. What happens if someone new comes along and starts playing DDM's? Any chance they can catch up?

Why not run with this for a few DDM's and see what happens?

------------------
- formerly TREAD_THIS (finally changed my name!)

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted June 07, 2001 12:36 AM            
see the basics of it are easy, its a tested method of running a ladder that most ppl use, without going into the niggles youre right about everything used weatherman, and wrong also - confused... u wil be !

the ladder accounts for all your tables in one big table - so ppl can see at a glance.

Also be aware that ppl have differing ways of running ladders according to who sets em up.

In this case i will be running this system as a DMF Tournament not a DDM although the concept is the same.

Im still unsure how to mark CTF games but the ffa's (free for all's DM's) are a walk in the park. When we do the DMF Tourney we should see 2 v 2 challenges, 1 v 1 challenges etc..... accros diff servers with whatever means they see fit - just for the laff i may include ai's in the ladder - hehhe

The system im using will use overall values per tournament for indevidual and clan - then accumulated percentage to determine overall ladder placement.

In short a tourney result and an overall result ladder.

I will need your help with the averages tables though. Ill send u details of what i need soon if you dont mind helping. I like your system and its easily incorporated into the DMF Ladder system.

Hope that helps cover it a bit.

-=[/2]=-

IP:

coax
Administrator
posted June 07, 2001 01:17 AM            
I don't know why you guys bother, my system is by far the best.

just kidding

------------------
LDA Players, Information, and etc...


IP:

lordbyron
Member
posted June 07, 2001 01:24 AM            
Paranor,

No offense taken. I certainly enjoy playing, but I'm just happy being the cook in the corner who plays for fun and puts out a new mod occasionally. I like the DDM, but am often hampered by the danged lag. Any system which lowers this lag and still allows me to play a human being from time to time is ok with me. I feel no shame in stepping back to help the community grow or improve the level of competition...(or if you prefer a more aristocratic means of deciding who plays, I'm certainly peachy with settling it the old fashioned way--duelling mass drivers at 10 paces. I am after all, Lord Byron.(smile! with a dignified bow!) And despite the obnoxious grumblings of HEWHOMUSTNOTBEENCOURAGED, (for those new members unacquainted with this person, please read the "Mr. Treadmark Manners" post in the Strategy/Styles of play forum.) This, I hope, is a community built on honor and courtesy. I will do/not do what I can to encourage both of these important social virtues.

respectfully,

--lordbyron

IP:

lordbyron
Member
posted June 07, 2001 01:28 AM            
And yes,...I know "kook" is spelled with two "k"s. What the hell is "a cook in a corner?" Sounds like how they punish losers on "The Iron Chef".

--lb

IP:

The Weatherman
Member
posted June 07, 2001 09:23 AM         
Hi Gents,
Thanks for your comments, Paranor. All of the method use a rolling average so that only the last 4 (5?)DDMS count and you need to have played in at least 2 (3?) to be eligible to be ranked (can I short hand this to # DDMS average/min # to be ranked - i.e. the current scheme is 4/2). This means that it is very possible for newcomers to rise through the ranks very fast. ID say that if a totally new person were to take first 2 DDMS in a row with a commanding margin, they would capture the first position. I think this may be a little too fluid and the rolling average should be increased to 5 or 6 games (once we have that many finished) with a 3 game minimum (that is 5/3 or 6/3).

I want to point out some another interesting facet of the rolling average scheme: By the current method, I should go ineligible for ranking after the next DDM for a lack of games (in either 4/2 or 5/3 modes). That is great - means that the systems fairly drops players who haven't participated recently. Note that all of my scores will be displayed in the stat page, only my average is not calculated because I lack enough games.

I guess there is are 3 TM ranking systems in development. - An individual DDM rank based on the scores for only that one DDM, An overall DDM rank based on average DDM performance, and Matrix's tourney ladder (which is neat becuse it sounds like it should cover more than jsut DDM style play).

Matrix, I still don't know how your system works, but if you want help munching numbers, I am glad to assist. Mmmmmm, numbers are cruchy! When are you gong to have the DMF tourney?

C'mon gents, send me more feedback on the various systems! I will go with the decisions of the masses. I kind of like the AVerage Average Frags method myself (need a better name though). Now that my spreadsheets are in place, It is pretty easy for me to update them and spit out results. The thing that takes the longest is the data entry. I can carry along all 4 ladders for the next 1 or 2 games and we can see how they perform.

EDIT : lol, LB! Bad Chef, Bad Chef!!!

[This message has been edited by The Weatherman (edited June 07, 2001).]

IP:

Paranor
Member
posted June 07, 2001 04:09 PM            
LordByron,

I too like how the people who play are "a community built on honor and courtesy".

This is my first on-line game experience and I'm glad it was this one that is making it an enjoyable experience.

It'll be more enjoyable when I rank in the top 3 in a DDM.

IP: