The last selected game type is now saved in a cookie and used across pages.
Appending "#duel" to the player profile link will show the duel stats (overriding the cookie).
Showing the opponent is something I already had on my todo list, but it requires some work on the database to work efficiently
I have had to recreate a STEAM account because my account crashed so I would like to link my previous QLSTATS to my new player. Can this be done through the !alias command?
Done.
Both steam IDs now bring up your old profile. You'll continue with the rating you had on the old account.
The matches you played under the new account can't be merged to the old account.
I see what I can do. It's a bit tricky because that data isn't available from the stats data feed and I'd have to get it separately from a server browser request.
The best thing i want to see for CA matches is a Damage Per Second during first 10 secs of every round, for each player. First moves have dramaticaly influence to the game progression and give the true sight on players perfomance.
Travel distrance per round for each player. Low travel distance - predictable moves, long travel distance - unpredictable moves.
The stats data does not support such fine grained level of detail.
The best thing that could be derived from the data is the time span you were alive in a round. The game server only emits events for match start, death, kill, round over, match over, player connect / disconnect and team switch.
What you want can only be done by analyzing a demo file.
Forgot to login, it was me. Do you have information whether player was kicked? Because stats of the match looks like I played full time, although I was kicked after about two minutes.
In duel, it looks like rail accuracy does not appear on the graph unless we attempt 10 shots minimum. Can you lower it to 4-5 attempts? I am playing full duels, but only attempting 5-10 rails per game, because I am a noob and am afraid of the reload time.
Hi, how about Old Glicko calculating, I just want to say I'm over 2,2k and I lost a lot glicko becouse its calculating just from damage done but no damage taken, I'll do like 1 dmg less than 1.st player in my team but have 3k damage taken less. There is for sure more factors to include to the calculation. Hope to update algorithm. Thanks
When you start adding damage_taken or any sort of net_damage or net_kill, it will reward defensive play, like hiding in save spots while your mates do the dirty work and die.
The current system seems to work quite well for CA matchmaking, which is the main purpose for the ratings, so I am not making any changes to the formulas without statistic "proof" that it will produce better team-ups.
Personally I think it doesn't matter for the match results whether you survive with 1hp or with 200hp. But the damage you deal has an impact on the match result.
To what purpose? 5 rated game types, 6 regions, A and B ratings and now you want that for 200 maps?
Next step would be a ranking per steam-id, so everyone is #1 :)
u can see how good u r in various maps. Also, the one map wonders will be exposed. It is actually a pretty good feature ;). No need per steam-id, per country would do the #1 trick for me :P (did it in the past and I don't care anymore tbh). I am just glad that we have a measure of performance.
Maybe do it in a simple style that the old QuakeLive page used.
They had a list of every map you played and just showed the wins/losses per map.
Having a rating for every map wouldn't make sense as PredatH0r pointed out, the margin of error would be way too big for most people.
It would however be interesting for people to see which maps they have played a lot or not at all. Adding a simple Win/Loss statistic then would be trivial.
IMHO only matches with maximum 6v6 players should be calculated in A-rank/B-rank, all above shouldn't because those are typically fun games without skill aspect.
Rating is the process of assigning a skill estimate. For that I use the Glicko system. But you need to understand how such systems work.
You can't throw in a random set of numbers and except something good coming out of it. The system "learns" each players skills by observing many matches.
For that, all the matches you feed into the system need to be comparable, otherwise you are confusing the system instead of teaching it.
If you have several sub-communites who never mix with eachother, their ratings are not comparable either. They both form their independant rating distribution in the 0-3000 point range. That's not because the system is broken, that's because of the worong expectations about the system. It simply can't tell if A is better than B when they and their friends never play against eachother.
Now when you use these already shady ratings to sort all players and see who comes out top 100, you get rankings that are even more shady.
And if you then start to mix team sizes, pql/vql, vampiric/normal, ... for the system's input, you'll get nothing but garbage as output.
quit, forfeit, crash, loss ... all the same - at least for duel.
In other modes a player with less than 50% match participation gets ignored, 50% and more are counted.
Ratings are there to have an idea about a player's skill for the purpose of shuffling teams and not for ranking (as in: you are #78 in the world). Arbitrary changes of the rating values to punish someone will do more harm than good. You'd award the quitter with better team mates.
why in CA you calculate end game # placement by total score and not by total damage?
If someone is overly aggressive and does a lot of damage, but gets killed off before he actually gets the kill, then someone healthy would just pick them all up. In the end a guy with more damage being outscored by a guy who plays super safe and has 10 more kills. You will end up losing glicko only because you were not playing safe at the early stage of each round.
I'm pretty sure you get 1 point for a kill. So if same damage but other guy has 10 more kills then he has 10 more points. 1 point is 100 damage, so you would need 1000 additional damage to match that. That is at least how I know it, I could be wrong.
You are rated based on the "Perf(ormance)" value, which you can see in the match details.
When you hover your mouse over the column header, you see the formula.
A kill is as much worth as 25 damage in this calculation (in other words: damage/100 + 0.25*kills).
I am NOT using the score on the QL scoreboard for CA ratings.
can u pls make an option for players to opt out from stats? I really want to be removed and not shown anywhere and i guess I am not the only one. would actually donate for such a feature
Not really. Not because I don't want to, but because that doesn't work for several reasons.
When a server owner choses to track his server on qlstats, you'll have to accept it when you want to play on his server. His house, his rules.
The main purpose of qlstats is providing rating data to servers so teams can be balanced. This requires that all players have ratings. Another use of qlstats is to provide data for restricting access to the server, like min/max rating or keeping out cheaters/offenders. And that ofc requires that offenders are tracked and can't opt-out of it (I'm not saying here you are an offender).
Hey, PredatH0r! First of all, thank you for all the efforts :)
I think it would be nice to punish players who quits midgame at least in free for all mode. E.g. this guy . His ffa elo seems to be going up and up and i dont think thats kind of fair. Kid only plays till the end if he finishes in top 3. Pretty much everytime hes at the risk of losing elo he just disconnects and precious elo is saved:). Like here 2 minutes played here 7 min played and here 5 min played. I follow this guy for last month and i can clearly see that he abuses the current system.
You said
player with less than 50% match participation gets ignored, 50% and more are counted.
Maybe lower the percentage down to 25% or even less?
I can't lower that percentage. Scaling up 25% of game time to 100% causes a massive extrapolation error. One could get 2 quads early in the game, then quit and his score would scale up as if he had 8 quads.
The rating is meant to measure a person's skill and a match that's only played for 2 minutes doesn't provide any accurate information to change the rating either up or down.
Unfortunately people don't understand that, look at the rating numbers and try anything possible to inflate them - or punish other people by deflating them. Both things reduce the quality of the ratings.
In team games, if a player is "punished" by lowering his rating, it is actually a "reward" because he will get better team mates the next game.
And then there are some technical issues about the data that's available about a match. I can't distinguish whether a player quit, got kicked, connection interrupted, ...
The only way to avoid this Heisenberg problem (people changing their behavior because you are observing them) is to not make the ratings public.
The only way to avoid this Heisenberg problem (people changing their behavior because you are observing them) is to not make the ratings public.
That is actually a pretty good idea for team modes. People, wanking about numbers only made for balancing games, is not healthy anw. Would be funny to see how whiners like qwih will react to that. For duel it has much more meaning to have the numbers public and is harder to manipulate the system. It also helps ppl find appropriate match ups. But personally, wouldn't mind if the numbers where publicly hidden in duel and you could only see your rating. Wouldn't be good though, since there is no shuffle in duel or bots finding you the best opponents. Also, tourneys like the recent <1700 and <1400, wouldn't be possible. For team modes is a must though!!
Hi,
since it is possible to check the career stats in qlive, wouldnt be great to show it also in the player stat page here in qlStats?
For example, about the accuracy, actually we can only manage to check the average %, maximum in the last 100 matches. What do you think?
Thanks
Also its bad that instagib data is mixed with all-weapon ffa, but I guess its difficult to separate all such things.
And also support url fragments (like "#tab-duel")
Appending "#duel" to the player profile link will show the duel stats (overriding the cookie).
Showing the opponent is something I already had on my todo list, but it requires some work on the database to work efficiently
There is no automated way and won't be due to the potential abuse.
The !alias minqlx script only shows the different names used under the same steamid. It doesn't support multiple steam-ids per player.
OLD STEAM ID: 76561198272178175
NEW (CURRENT) STEAM ID: 76561198276850600
Both steam IDs now bring up your old profile. You'll continue with the rating you had on the old account.
The matches you played under the new account can't be merged to the old account.
Travel distrance per round for each player. Low travel distance - predictable moves, long travel distance - unpredictable moves.
L|EJIECOO6P@3HOCTb!
The best thing that could be derived from the data is the time span you were alive in a round. The game server only emits events for match start, death, kill, round over, match over, player connect / disconnect and team switch.
What you want can only be done by analyzing a demo file.
The current system seems to work quite well for CA matchmaking, which is the main purpose for the ratings, so I am not making any changes to the formulas without statistic "proof" that it will produce better team-ups.
Personally I think it doesn't matter for the match results whether you survive with 1hp or with 200hp. But the damage you deal has an impact on the match result.
There is no option to show them all.
Next step would be a ranking per steam-id, so everyone is #1 :)
thanks
They had a list of every map you played and just showed the wins/losses per map.
Having a rating for every map wouldn't make sense as PredatH0r pointed out, the margin of error would be way too big for most people.
It would however be interesting for people to see which maps they have played a lot or not at all. Adding a simple Win/Loss statistic then would be trivial.
I just would like to see some stats regarding thaws for FT matches like average thaws per game for each player.
Cheers,
niewi
I don't like this, because it makes it hard to determine the skill level of the match. Can you change it so that Old Glicko is always shown?
Also, if that's possible, clan pages that show individual members and their respective Ratings and stuff like total games played.
QLRanks had most of that and I think it's not impossible to implement, so... please?
You can't throw in a random set of numbers and except something good coming out of it. The system "learns" each players skills by observing many matches.
For that, all the matches you feed into the system need to be comparable, otherwise you are confusing the system instead of teaching it.
If you have several sub-communites who never mix with eachother, their ratings are not comparable either. They both form their independant rating distribution in the 0-3000 point range. That's not because the system is broken, that's because of the worong expectations about the system. It simply can't tell if A is better than B when they and their friends never play against eachother.
Now when you use these already shady ratings to sort all players and see who comes out top 100, you get rankings that are even more shady.
And if you then start to mix team sizes, pql/vql, vampiric/normal, ... for the system's input, you'll get nothing but garbage as output.
If I drop out of a match am I prone to lose more elo than if I stayed and finished? Does is punish quitters in other words?
In other modes a player with less than 50% match participation gets ignored, 50% and more are counted.
Ratings are there to have an idea about a player's skill for the purpose of shuffling teams and not for ranking (as in: you are #78 in the world). Arbitrary changes of the rating values to punish someone will do more harm than good. You'd award the quitter with better team mates.
If someone is overly aggressive and does a lot of damage, but gets killed off before he actually gets the kill, then someone healthy would just pick them all up. In the end a guy with more damage being outscored by a guy who plays super safe and has 10 more kills. You will end up losing glicko only because you were not playing safe at the early stage of each round.
When you hover your mouse over the column header, you see the formula.
A kill is as much worth as 25 damage in this calculation (in other words: damage/100 + 0.25*kills).
I am NOT using the score on the QL scoreboard for CA ratings.
When a server owner choses to track his server on qlstats, you'll have to accept it when you want to play on his server. His house, his rules.
The main purpose of qlstats is providing rating data to servers so teams can be balanced. This requires that all players have ratings. Another use of qlstats is to provide data for restricting access to the server, like min/max rating or keeping out cheaters/offenders. And that ofc requires that offenders are tracked and can't opt-out of it (I'm not saying here you are an offender).
This was the old system and it was much easier to
Follow who played well on the losing team for example.
I think it would be nice to punish players who quits midgame at least in free for all mode. E.g. this guy . His ffa elo seems to be going up and up and i dont think thats kind of fair. Kid only plays till the end if he finishes in top 3. Pretty much everytime hes at the risk of losing elo he just disconnects and precious elo is saved:). Like here
2 minutes played here 7 min played and here 5 min played. I follow this guy for last month and i can clearly see that he abuses the current system.
You said Maybe lower the percentage down to 25% or even less?
The rating is meant to measure a person's skill and a match that's only played for 2 minutes doesn't provide any accurate information to change the rating either up or down.
Unfortunately people don't understand that, look at the rating numbers and try anything possible to inflate them - or punish other people by deflating them. Both things reduce the quality of the ratings.
In team games, if a player is "punished" by lowering his rating, it is actually a "reward" because he will get better team mates the next game.
And then there are some technical issues about the data that's available about a match. I can't distinguish whether a player quit, got kicked, connection interrupted, ...
The only way to avoid this Heisenberg problem (people changing their behavior because you are observing them) is to not make the ratings public.
That is actually a pretty good idea for team modes. People, wanking about numbers only made for balancing games, is not healthy anw. Would be funny to see how whiners like qwih will react to that. For duel it has much more meaning to have the numbers public and is harder to manipulate the system. It also helps ppl find appropriate match ups. But personally, wouldn't mind if the numbers where publicly hidden in duel and you could only see your rating. Wouldn't be good though, since there is no shuffle in duel or bots finding you the best opponents. Also, tourneys like the recent <1700 and <1400, wouldn't be possible. For team modes is a must though!!
since it is possible to check the career stats in qlive, wouldnt be great to show it also in the player stat page here in qlStats?
For example, about the accuracy, actually we can only manage to check the average %, maximum in the last 100 matches. What do you think?
Thanks