Comments on: Personal rating proposal

By: brynky

brynky — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:31:23 +0000

Well, on some issues we could debate for a while, and the Internet is most definitely not a place best suited for it… Yes, Herr Carl Von Clausewitz is on my bookshelf, thank you very much, I guess this ad hominem is deserved as I started :)
.
Napoleon did not win by using Sun Tzu-like priciples per se, as most sound generals discovered those on their own, as you correctly pointed out. The novelty was that he created the first semi-autonomous army detachment of corpus size with all parts of a huge army on a smaller scale (infantry, cavalry, artillery ), and control several of those with a headquarters administrative machine, aides-du-camps and his megalomanic energy (Look up Martin van Creveld, Command in War). That won him wars. His megalomania lost them, as with most of the dictators in history.
As for the Romans, I could go on for a while longer on the factors influencing their development and downfall (consul system, winning by attrition etc. etc.), but there is no point, is there, as you probably know most of it…

On the doctrine, and issues of development:
the doctrine advantage works when all sides have similar level of tech, and the tech gets developed as per the needs of the times. China’s isolation from the hotpot of European small kingdoms and principalities (their constant warring supporting rapid war tech development) and the vast areas allowing time to react to Asian invaders meant they were sorely unprepared for the Europeans, true. Yet they are still here and were never a real colony, that must mean something. Some other great nations colonized by the same warmongering Europeans (India anyone?) have managed to spring back only after they left.

There are certain very unique qualities tied to China that make it an exception to rules of downfall of other great nations, and the reasons why it never became a world superpower in history before. Their treasure fleets were on the road to do that once, but as Kellomies points out below, the insanely reactionary leadership stopped what could have become a world dominance practice.

By: Medjed

Medjed — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:52:33 +0000

don’t worry…some day someone will make XVM for retards where red will be good and purple will be bad….then you can brag around how awesome you are…until then practice and only practice

By: SMSBC

SMSBC — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:45:41 +0000

WW有没有用过国服那个XVM？

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:16:55 +0000

You know, it would be a great tool to finally decipher xp formula… And they we would know what and how to do to boost the income ;) . Somebody get at that.
It is not valid to create any rating, who came with that idea?

By: Pirate_with_rum

Pirate_with_rum — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:40:40 +0000

I like planes.

By: Matt Fleming

Matt Fleming — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:25:20 +0000

Hi All,

My name is Matt Fleming and I work for Nutonian.

I just wanted to clear one thing up. Eureqa uses symbolic regression as opposed to neural networks. I’m thrilled to see your feedback on the product!

Best,

-Matt

By: ChielScape

ChielScape — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:23:03 +0000

Actually, i just read your post again and I would like to clarify my original intents with the exponents in the formula.

The desired result here is a logarithmic scale, as opposed to a linear one. On a scale of 0-9, someone with an 8 is not 2x as good as someone with a 4, but rather 2^(8-4) = 2^4 = 16x as good. This needs not be base 2, but it serves as an example. In reality, you might find base 1.2 works better, or base 3, I don’t know. This needs to be evaluated with the top rating of the server being a 9 and the lowest rating a 0.

One more question: will WN8 be based on global ratings, or last n-thousand battles? Because I see great merit in the last. Global ratings are “diluted” with people’s noob-time in the game. It gives a bad representation of what the player is capable of and promotes making new accounts solely for statpadding. It will thereby eliminate the inaccuracy of the influence of statpadders on the win-chance formula, whick makes it vastly more reliable.

By: ChielScape

ChielScape — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:14:27 +0000

Finally, one of the most important points: all stat ratings as they currently exist are subject to padding/twinking. This is often done by focussing on one aspect of the rating. In old efficiency, this was cap points. In WN, this is damage. People will then ignore all other aspects, and wonder why they lost despite doing over 9000 damage. That is, if you dont finish people off because they have too little HP to be “worth” a shell, they’re gonna keep killing your noobteam faster, and you cant win. So despite increasing rating, it doesnt tell you how good a person is.

Component stats avoid this alltogether, because to have high ratings, you’ll have to be good at everything, and stat-padders are easily picked out as a result.

By: ChielScape

ChielScape — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:10:35 +0000

That’s part of it, yes. Sadly, it’s still only one number. The problem with one number is that it doesn’t tell you HOW a certain player contributes to his battles.
For example, on Murovanka, it’s not so much the snipers (although important) but the one who scouts the magic forest who really wins the game for the team. Knowing the enemy has a light tank player with very high WN7/8, you might go and intercept him, to avoid getting steamrolled. With multi-component ratings you might notice he got that high WN7 from doing damage, and he is actually a shit scout, so you would then realise intercepting him is a waste of time and HP.
Smart use of this data allows you to pick your engagements and targets with better care.
For example, if enemy team has a lot of people with high capture-rating, you may decide to go defend the cap. If they have low cap-rating, go right the other way. While not reliable, it will increase your chances of intercepting enemy lemming-trains and breakthroughs.

Not just that, it makes for more reliable calculation of pre-battle win-chance.
With global WN7/8, if a player has high stats, you’ll be forced to assume he’s good in his current tank too. Multi-component rating could tell you he is a good scout…. but in this battle he plays TD, so his contribution to win-chance formula is decreased. However, if he plays a light tank, his factor is increased.

By: Tazilon

Tazilon — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:51:54 +0000

I want to clarify that each parameter should have its own separate meter, don’t combine them into 1 rating.