Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Calibra
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:04 am

Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Calibra » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:42 pm

I am lacking some information about how landexchange is calculated. So I post it here instead of the suggestion forum.

Short description:
At the moment the ELO difference determines a factor that influences landexchange.
I suggest to use the lower ELO of the two players as basis for calculating this factor, instead of the difference.


Expectation:
I expect a landexchange that is balanced better than with the current setting leading to a fairer exchange and a better progression of campaign.


Pros:
At the moment a player with a low ELO can win a good amount of land when winning against a player with a high ELO while having a risk of losing only a little amount.
Players with high ELOs need more than one victory to compensate this loss. When a player needs 2 victories to compensate one loss it can lead to an average of zero landgain even when winning 2/3 of the games.
Changing the factor that influences the amount of land exchanged from ELO difference to the lower ELO of both players can solve this problem and get rid of the current punishment of high ELO players when losing against low ELO players.


Since I don't know how the landexchange is currently calculated I can not come up with an exact formula but I will give some examples.

I thought about two methods for calculating landexchange:

relative

Operation A; basic landexchange 50%; basic ELO 1600

Player A 1585
Player B 1605

influencing factor: 1585<1600 =>landexchange<50%

Player A 1585
Player B 1756

influencing factor: 1585<1600 =>landexchange<50%

Player A 1716
Player B 1778

influencing factor: 1716 >1600=>landexchange>50%


category

Operation A; landexchange by category

ELO............. landexchange
[...]
1575-1600 .....45
1600-1625 .....50
1625-1650 .....55
1650-1675 .....60
1675-1700 .....65
1700-1725 .....70

Player A 1585
Player B 1605

influencing factor: 1585=>landexchange=45%

Player A 1585
Player B 1756

influencing factor: 1585=>landexchange=45%

Player A 1716
Player B 1778

influencing factor: 1716=>landexchange=70%

As you can see in both options the landexchange is only influenced by the ELO of the potentially weaker player.
Weak players would still have the protection of not being able to lose too much land for their faction. On the other side they lose the ability to win huge amounts of land with a lucky strike.

In addition strong players could play for bigger amounts of land when facing equally rated players. But they don't lose huge amounts when playing against weaker players.


Cons:
Beside the common happiness and pride the victory of a player with a very low ELO against a player with a very high ELO is not rewarded with an excessive amount of land anymore.


How much does it matter?
Low ELO players can keep their protection against high ELO players. Matters much.
High ELO players can have a big impact when playing other high ELO players. Matters much.
Frustration of high ELO players due to excessive losses can be reduced. Matters...
It could lead to a better progression of the campaign. Matters much.

I am happy to read your comments.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:30 pm

We can look at our game yesterday. Your ELO about 1720, mine 1670. That calculates out to about a 57-60% chance of winning on your part. (I'm guessing at the exact ELO's that's the variance in the % chance)
Regardless of whether or not I'm a good player or not, you have an advantage, a huge advantage? No, not a big one. Enough that the difference should be recognized. All the comparison does right now is take that into account. Land Exchange for the drop assault was 33 points. Base for the operation is 30 points. The size of the operation increased this a bit, the ELO difference reduced it a bit to get to that number.

It seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Exchanges have been modified down quite a bit. While HELO players do lose quite a bit of land when they lose to MELO and LELO players, they can actually make out. Win three games and lose one and the exchange works out in the favor of the HELO. Not by a whole lot, but it does. a 1720 vs a 1530 is a 75% win rate to the HELO. 3 to 1 is pretty attainable with that kind of difference. It used to be a 6-7 to 1 win rate. Which, I know some players achieve, few, even players as good as you, do that consistently.

I like the idea that the competitiveness of the game (as well as the size of the game played) determines the land exchange. Private Clueless vs Private Peon, big exchange. They have a good impact. General Chaos vs General Godzilla, big exchange. The games should be competitive. Your proposal relegates the newer and developing players to the sideline and drives the campaign even more towards the Aces.

If there were 30-50 people online all the time, I'd think your idea would work Calibra. There would be so many more games, the Aces couldn't drive the game so much. I don't see the need to protect Strong players from weaker players. Your proposal does that. We effectively have a "handicap" for weaker players. Like bowling or golf. (sort of it's not exactly the same thing) Your plan insulates the strong against the weak and the weak against the strong without providing the benefit to the weak for actually managing to win the game. (something that is done rarely)

All that said, I'm not sure your idea is supported by the code in the operation viewer/creator. The ELO multiplier can be adjusted to 0. I don't recall seeing a way where the ELO of the lower player could simply determine the payout.

EDIT: While I don't agree with it, it isn't a totally harebrained idea. It does have some merit. While I'm not Councilman Ogre anymore, I really like to see new ideas come from the player base. Most of the best ideas we had in the Co6 came from players (or were started because of player suggestions and we fleshed them out) so this sort of thing makes me excited for the continued evolution of this game.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Jackal » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:23 pm

Hey Calibra. Thanks for the suggestion!

So we're not really allowed in Council to change the way the ELO code works. We can change the settings a little (reducing or increasing the impact), but we can't remake the system entirely (e.g. we can't make it behave a different way). That said, in the last Council we *massively* reduced the impact of ELO on land exchange. Here's a quick comparison:
  • BEFORE if a 1500 ELO player beat a 1700 ELO player, the lower ELO player could potentially win 5 TIMES as much land as the higher ELO player. We felt that was excessive, so we lowered it significantly.

    NOW if a 1500 ELO player beats a 1700 ELO player, the lower ELO player can only win 2 TIMES as much land as the higher ELO player. That's pretty reasonable considering the 1700 ELO player is statistically 95% likely to win this match.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

- Jackal

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Zerberus » Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:23 pm

It's still a brake shoe for a campaign if is that way. The point is to define what's at stake based on lowest ELO, and this is at stake for *both* players equally. It's a setting that was used before, so it is available without having to change anything. Introducing the asymmetrical land gains as probably one of the worst changes in MMNet, ever. Nothing puts luck over skill more than that. It also removes the last incentives to get better.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:50 pm

Zerb & Calibra

So if we moved to symmetrical land exchange it changes the paradigm here quite a bit. you state that good players are irrelevant now (or not very relevant) wouldn't this just make weaker players irrelevant? There are by far, more weak players than there are strong. So those players are more marginalized. Not only do they lose a often, struggle to maintain hangars they like, their games now do almost nothing in the campaign? At least now when they play another weaker player their games mean something and they have a reasonable chance to gain something. If the weaker player manages the win (through luck or learning) then they get a big reward.

I'm not saying I entirely disagree. I think there has been for too long a move to insulate the new/weak players too much. There was little impetus to learn to play better, except perhaps their own egos to not be a doormat. It's why we changed payouts. So truly weak players couldn't run heavies and assaults all day long and cripple their faction's production losing units hand over fist.
The multiplier was adjusted way down, as Jackal pointed out. It's not a zero sum game anymore. HELOs do have the advantage and the disparity is not so much that luck should give LELO's the advantage. General Chaos should be Private Peon, Corporal Clueless and players of 100 or more points difference in ELO, with such frequency that the odd headshot and TAC crit shouldn't give the weaker players the advantage in land exchange.

You have to look at what it does to the non-HELO player. It makes them less relevant. It's the bulk of the player base you make less relevant? Is it that bad? Really? The best player already drive the campaign. I'm not sure why we want to bias the campaign towards 10 players out of 100. Especially when it's not a zero sum game anymore. It DOES slow down the campaign. It does require that better players look to play better players if they can.

The biggest problem with the current campaign is an imbalance of players within the factions and the timezones they play in. I rarely see a consistent FWL player in evenings in the USA and DC can be thin. I would guess there is a faction or two that has few players during the evenings in Europe and Asia as well.

Reducing the number of factions would do more to speed up the campaign, and it wouldn't bias things further towards the top 10.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Jackal » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:27 am

Yeh, I'm not completely opposed to what Calibra is saying here either, I was just trying to point out that the system is much less severe today then it was in previous cycles.


With the current system if I play a Ground Assault vs. a 1500 ELO player (a game I'm statistically 95% likely to win), if I win I'm going to get 30 cp, and if he wins he'll get 60 cp. That's much less of a big deal to me than it was before when the differential was more like 17 cp vs 83 cp.


Under the old system, one unlucky game could erase several victories. Under the current system losing sucks, but it's really a speed bump in the grand scheme of things.

Calibra
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:04 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Calibra » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:02 pm

@Jackal
I know that it is not as bad as it has been in previous cycles. But I still do not really get the idea of asymmetrical landexchange. I understand cutting possible losses for LELOs, but not raising the amount they can win.

@Nastyogre
There must be some kind of misunderstanding. I don't want the LELOs to become irrelevant.
And I do not understand how the hangar management is influenced by landexchange. I absolutely understand and support giving LELOs really high payouts so they can have the same fun with good meks as people have who win many games and can afford to buy good stuff.

To not make LELOs irrelevant for the campaign think about my example using categories. It was just an example, numbers can be changed. Give players 100% of the basic landexchange, but let them also lose the same amount. Once people reach an ELO of 1675 let them play for 125%,of course only against players who also have 1675+. So weak players stay protected and more relevant.


To my mind rewarding LELOs with land in case of a victory does not help neither the campaign nor the player. They need meks, RP and CBills.


@all
I did not address the council with this suggestion but every player and staff. It is easier to start thinking about a topic when having a first idea. Maybe someone will come up with a better formula or can convince me that my idea would not work.
Thank you for your comments so far. But I still do not favour the current setting.

Maybe players with lower ratings can convince me that playing this game is no fun anymore when having a fair and balanced landexchange.
I have (almost) the same fun when losing 80% to Demir in an assault like I have when winning 1% in an assassination.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:22 pm

Calibra wrote:@Jackal
I know that it is not as bad as it has been in previous cycles. But I still do not really get the idea of asymmetrical landexchange. I understand cutting possible losses for LELOs, but not raising the amount they can win.

@Nastyogre
There must be some kind of misunderstanding. I don't want the LELOs to become irrelevant.
And I do not understand how the hangar management is influenced by landexchange. I absolutely understand and support giving LELOs really high payouts so they can have the same fun with good meks as people have who win many games and can afford to buy good stuff.

To not make LELOs irrelevant for the campaign think about my example using categories. It was just an example, numbers can be changed. Give players 100% of the basic landexchange, but let them also lose the same amount. Once people reach an ELO of 1675 let them play for 125%,of course only against players who also have 1675+. So weak players stay protected and more relevant.


To my mind rewarding LELOs with land in case of a victory does not help neither the campaign nor the player. They need meks, RP and CBills.


@all
I did not address the council with this suggestion but every player and staff. It is easier to start thinking about a topic when having a first idea. Maybe someone will come up with a better formula or can convince me that my idea would not work.
Thank you for your comments so far. But I still do not favour the current setting.

Maybe players with lower ratings can convince me that playing this game is no fun anymore when having a fair and balanced landexchange.
I have (almost) the same fun when losing 80% to Demir in an assault like I have when winning 1% in an assassination.

I'll read it again, perhaps I am not understanding it or it's just a matter of perspective. As a side note, the ELO's have nothing to do with the land exchange in an assassination. It's set to 1% IIRC. It's meant to be a money maker, and an interesting op (since it has different victory conditions) not a land taker.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Jackal » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:46 pm

So I didn't create the asymmetrical land exchange system, so I can't really say much about what the developers were thinking when they created it. What I can do, however, is compare the asymmetrical system to the proposed symmetrical system. Maybe that will help suss-out what the relative merits are.


Land Exchange Patterns
So the first thing I want to point out is that in BOTH the asymmetrical system and symmetrical system some battles are worth more, some are worth less. What's different is the PATTERN. The easiest way to see this is to just throw each of them into a table:
  • Asymmetrical Land Exchange (Current System)
    Image


    Symmetrical Land Exchange (Proposed System)
    Image

Something that stands out to me about the two patterns is that with the asymmetrical system, if you're playing an opponent who's equal to you (HELO vs. HELO, MELO vs. MELO, LELO vs. LELO), then you're land exchange is average (on the diagonal). If you face someone who's ELO is higher than yours (below the diagonal) you're land exchange potential is greater. If you face a weaker opponent (above the diagonal), you're land exchange potential is reduced.

By contrast, in the symmetrical system the best land exchange you will ever see is determined by *your* ELO. If you happen to be a HELO and face another HELO, you can get elevated land exchange (top left corner). But for everyone else, the land exchange will be lower. The best a MELO can ever get is average land exchange. And the best a LELO can ever do is get reduced land exchange. (Note: This is probably why Nastyogre is believes that the symmetrical system would reduce the relevance of lower-ELO players).


Campaign Velocity
So how do games compare in terms of campaign velocity? IMO it's not totally clear which is better. On one hand, when a HELO loses to a LELO in our current system, that's going to set you back a bit. But in the symmetrical system, my instinct is that you'd actually see a lot more reduced-ELO games that you do now.

The big issue is the bottom row and right-most column on the symmetrical system table. There are lots of LELO players out there, and as a result, LOTS of ops are going to have low land exchange.

Winner: TIE (possible advantage to assymetrical system)


Throwing Games (vs. LELOs)
Another potential issue I see with a symmetrical system is it might create an incentive to throw games when playing LELO players. In symmetrical system, if you're playing a LELO it's always going to be worth less land, win or lose. A rational (but undesirable) reaction to that might be to say "hey this game's not worth much land, I'm going to surrender and try and find an opponent who's worth more land."

By contrast, with the asymmetrical system there's a strong counter incentive to throw games. If you're a HELO playing a LELO and you throw it, you're going to get whacked with a big penalty. You're better off playing the game to it's conclusion.

Winner: ASYMMETRICAL SYSTEM



Throwing Games (ELO Management)
One area where I think the symmetrical system would be clearly better is there's not nearly as much incentive to manage ELO as there is now. You can't make you're ops worth more by throwing games on 0% worlds. I don't think that's nearly as much of an issue today as it once was, but I'll give the symmetrical system the edge on this one:

Winner: SYMMETRICAL SYSTEM


Conclusion
While I certainly agree that there are issues with the asymmetrical system, it's not clear to me that the symmetrical system would be any better. It's not clear to me, for example, that it would speed up the campaign. In fact, I'm a little concerned it might do the opposite (hard to know though). I'm also a little concerned that it might make lower-ELO players less relevant and (at worst) might also provide an incentive to dodge LELO players or throw games against them.

Anyway, I'm not completely opposed to the symmetrical system. I want to be clear on that. But I do think it has downsides. It's not clearly better IMO.


Edit: fixed typo
Last edited by Jackal on Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:52 pm

You mean *NOT * dismissing it out of hand I hope. Neither am I. You pretty much hit the nail on the head Jackal, at leather for me. I was going to show how different the land exchange works out to be with specific numbers but this works just as well.

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Jackal » Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:09 pm

Nastyogre wrote:You mean *NOT * dismissing it out of hand I hope. Neither am I. You pretty much hit the nail on the head Jackal, at leather for me. I was going to show how different the land exchange works out to be with specific numbers but this works just as well.
LOL. You caught me in the middle of editing the post. Yes, I did mean to say I am *not* dismissing it. Just saying there are some downsides that need to be factored-in.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:07 pm

So I've read read this. I certainly don't think you are trying to make weaker players irrelevant. Quite the opposite, it makes them MORE relevant, but in a negative way. It would roughly double their planetary losses. (long reply, grab a cup of coffee)

I want to start my saying I respect Calibra and Zerberus quite a bit. Good guys, good sports, knowledgeable and they act in the interest of the server and don’t do things or have attitudes to just screw other players over to their own advantage. So I don’t feel in any way that this idea is something that is made just to benefit themselves to the determent of others.
I do feel this would have a negative impact. It would change the nature and dynamic of the campaign quite a bit.

Example: Private Peon is a nice guy, supportive of his faction but for whatever reason, he's terrible at battletech. High risk attacks with little chance of success, moving badly, doesn't understand the rules for cover, elevation, buildings and overheats himself into vulnerable positions frequently. His Elo is 1475 (about the lowest I've ever seen) His only wins come from random headshots, lucky tac crits, the rare instance he manages a backshot on a high number that kills an enemy unit or when he plays brand new players who know less than he does.This player may be an amalgam of players here now, but there are players like this.

Private Peon’s "bracket" for your idea of land exchange is say 25% The lowest possible. I extrapolated it out. So roughly, 25% of any base op (as modified by army size) is going to be the gain or loss. No matter who he plays.

Private Peon plays 4 games one weekend. Let's assume the 30 point base. 5000 BV battle. Assume Private Clueless never attacks. (as we see some players do because they empty their flu on purchases of units) All of these numbers use Jackal's spreadsheet that reflects land exchange and payouts. (I ignored payouts for this discussion) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1609825891

Vs Corporal Clueless 1550 ELO. Close loss. 2-2 loss for the Pvt. Loss 26 points. (if Cpl won he would earn 39 points)
Vs Sgt. Solid. ELO 1600 Smooshed. 3-1 Loss for the Pvt. Loss 23 points (win is 45 points)
vs Major Pain ELO 1700 Slaughtered 4-0 Loss for the Pvt. Loss 18 points (win is 57 points)
vs General Chaos 1800 (and yes we have had players with this, relatively recently) Win for Pvt. 72 points! (loss would be 14 points) the Pvt gets lucky round 3 and headshots a mech to death and in the proceeding turn double gyro tacs a 2nd unit. General Chaos, raging at his luck, concedes the game.

Each of these games would exchange 8 conquer points under the symmetrical system. Net loss by Private Peon, 16 points. (24 lost, 8 gained= 16)
Under the asymmetrical system. 26+23+18=67. He gained 72 vs General Chaos. 72-67 is a net gain of 5 points. Pvt Peon won a very unlikely game however.
So the symmetrical system does move the needle a bit more, so that’s a plus, but is it really fair? Let’s look at the probabilities of winning those games.
Chance for Pvt. Peon to win.
Vs Cpl. Clueless. 1475 vs 1550. 39%
Vs Sgt. Solid. 1475 vs 1600. 33%
Vs Major Pain. 1475 vs 1700. 21%
Vs General Chaos. 1475 vs 1800. 13%
While this is all possible, what’s the chance that he’s going to beat General Chaos, a mere 13%. Typically our little Pvt is going to lose and lose 14 more points for a total loss of 81 planetary points. Only on the roughly 1 in 8 chance that he beats General Chaos will the Pvt end up positive. Granted, he will win 4 in 10 games vs the Cpl, and 1 in 3 vs Sgt. Solid. Winning those still doesn’t move the needle north. Even if he beats Major Pain but loses the other games he should lose, 26+23+14=63. 63-57 is still a net loss of 5 points when Pvt Clueless has won a game he would only win 1 in 5 times.

Extrapolate this out to 100 games 25 games vs each player.
Pvt Peon wins 39% of the time vs Cpl Clueless. 9.75 games. Will will round up. 10 wins. 10 wins is 390 points. 15 losses is also 390 points. It’s a wash. Hmm. I didn’t expect that. Round down and you have winning 351 points and losing 416. Net Chang= -65 points.
Pvt Peon wins 33% of the time vs Sgt. Solid. 8.25 games. If we round down (the most appropriate as rounding up above was most appropriate) 8*45= 360 points earned. Losses 17*23=391. A 31 point net loss.
Pvt Peon wins 21% of the time vs Major Pain. 5.25 games. We will round down again. 5*57=285 points won. 20*18=360 points lost. Net loss 75 points.
Pvt Peon wins 13% of the time vs General Chaos. 3 wins. 3*72= 216 points earned. 22 losses at 14 points each. 22*14= 308. 92 point net loss.
Over a hundred games. Pvt Peon loses 0+31+75+92=198 planetary points. Two entire planets more or less.
Under the symmetrical system. Pvt Peon wins, 10+8+5+3=26 games 26*8= 208 points won. He loses 74 games. 74*8=592 points lost. 592-208=386 point net loss. Nearly four planets. Symmetrical land loss nearly doubles the effect of the losses. Granted my % for symmetrical loss is arbitrarily chosen but it fits more or less with your brackets.

I was wrong that the weak players would become irrelevant. Far from it, we would be creating a good reason to hunt them. It would statistically be dropping the ELO modifier by half again.
We are not in a zero sum situation, despite what some of the elite players believe. Is it possible for that to be the case for an individual player? I suppose so. What we are in is a situation where everybody matters. High ELO players currently have an incentive to play strong players, because they earn much more in cbills and land. Risk is greater of losing, yes. My game vs Calibra was 1665 vs 1720. I would only win 42% of the time. I would lose 31 points at 6000 (our game was about 6500) and gain 40 if I won. Looks like a net 9 for me when I win, but even over 10 games I am losing a fifth of a planet (I win 4, gain 160. Lose 6, lose 181, net loss 21 points) 1720 to 1665 is pretty close, and so SHOULD be nearly a zero sum. Rather than having a zero sum because Calibra is better than I am and so a true handicap would be it would be fully balanced, the better player still makes progress.

A symmetrical land exchange system brings back a significant advantage to stronger players. They already drive the campaign. People avoid going active when the top 10 are on and not involved in games. While this idea would certainly make the best players more impactful, it magnifies the losses of the weaker players, this doesn’t mention the impact on when strong players beat moderately capable players.

Mekwars.org doesn’t show ELO anymore in the overall player listing. I’d be interested to see the listing of players with 1700+ ELO vs the players with sub 1550. I would guess there are twice as many LELO than HELO. It used to be that way. Comparing experience as well. I would guess the HELO’s have more overall experience gained (thus more games) than the LELO’s combined. Even with some very active LELOs.

Symmetrical land exchange would accelerate the campaign certainly. It would also push it to be determined in large part by simply who had the most, and most active, HELO players. It’s that way right now. This would just make it more dramatic. Indeed, we have players that leave or avoid playing games because they don’t want to inflict losses on their faction. (or they play in the Periphery) Have we had some veterans leave because they think there is no point in them playing? Yes, several. Under the old *7 multiplier, I think they had a point. With the current ELO multiplier of 4? No, I do not think they have a case. The best players and the best teams will eventually win the most planetary points.
I recognize it’s frustrating to lose 60 or 70 points to a fluke loss. Those losses shouldn’t come more than once every 8 or 10 games to the weakest players. I would very much like to see a record of 1700+ ELO player’s planetary wins and losses. I think we would see that unless that player is terribly unlucky and loses games vs the weakest opponents, they are well into the net positive of conquer points. What they aren’t doing is completely dominating the campaign. That was by design of the staff previously and of the Council when I sat upon it. The Council now could change it, of course. I think we would lose more players and at a faster rate if this proposal were implemented.

I do not think that the best players are losing more land than they earn or that it’s a zero sum game vs weaker players. The numbers don’t pan out. While it’s possible for an individual elite player to have that experience, it would require losing exactly the right combination of games to very weak players or not being able to win games they should vs those closer in ability. Either way, they are not playing to their statistical probability of winning. If they have a 1750 ELO and lose a bunch of games they shouldn’t, were they really a 1750 player?

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by McMadMax » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:19 am

Nastyogre wrote:Extrapolate this out to 100 games 25 games vs each player. ........
You are using wrong kind of math that doesn't take into account the current game-system on the server.
Example:Player A wins 3 times out of 4 vs player B, their land exchange have a factor of 2,5. Averageland gain for a drop incursion is 15 so that would translate into 9 and 23 (or 24 depends on the way it rounds numbers), ground assault is 45 which would roughly translate into 28 and 71.
Under your premise over 1 (one) game player A is going to get (on average) (9+28)/2*(3/4)-(23+71)/2*(1/4) or 2.125 points (not much but still something). So over 5 games that would be 10.5 pts.
What actually happens. Player A has to win 3 drop incursions and 2 grounds assaults vs player B,if he failes he can pretty much start anew. Plater B has to win just twice (drop incursion + grounds assault).
Warning!Math incoming.
Over 5 games player B gets: (4^4-3*4^2+2*4-1)*1/4^5 (probability he got exactly one planet) + (3*4-1)*1/4^5 (probability he got an extra planet) or 0,220703125 of a planet on average, player A gets 3^5/4^5*1 (probability he got a planet) or 0,2373046875. Still looks like it goes toward player A (the stronger of the 2). But Player's A planet is worth (9*3+56) or 83 points, while players A planet is worth (23+71)=94 points. So Player A gets 19,6962890625 points while player B gets 20,74609375 points.
Admittedly that's not the best situation for a player B, over 6 games he surrneders JUST 0.8 planet point, someone skilled at coding can probably extrapolate it to 10 games and even further. Point still stands the simplified math most speakers (writers, authors here) use is not at all accurate. And can actually provide quite the opposite results.

Calibra
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:04 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Calibra » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:14 am

Thank you very much for putting so much effort into this. You are pointing out a lot of good aspects.

I hope some other players will comment on this,too.

I only want to emphasize two things:
So I've read read this. I certainly don't think you are trying to make weaker players irrelevant. Quite the opposite, it makes them MORE relevant, but in a negative way. It would roughly double their planetary losses
Yes. If LELOs do not win a lot of land with the current setting and the setting reduces their losses over time, what would you call that? I think it is slowing things down. And beside all math and numbers have a look at the map. I cannot see a highly progressive campaign.
And a wise man once said: "You win, you win. You lose, you lose."
It's a game, it's for free, we are playing for fun.

People avoid going active when the top 10 are on and not involved in games.
This is a thing I have never understood. Why is it like that? LELOs don't want to lose too much? They don't want to do harm to their faction? Are they afraid of something?
If there is only a shadow of fear that my factionmates might be embarrassed about me losing (players have mentioned that, even though it is years ago) it is the problem of the community not the settings. Losing is part of every game.
It's a game, it's for free, we are playing for fun.


I can really not remember when the asymmetrical landexchange has been introduced and why. If it was on the old map with less planets it might have been introduced to slow down the progress towards the capitol planets? Maybe we are discussing a topic that has been here before...

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2820
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Tuco » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:47 am

Calibra wrote:
I can really not remember when the asymmetrical landexchange has been introduced and why. If it was on the old map with less planets it might have been introduced to slow down the progress towards the capitol planets? Maybe we are discussing a topic that has been here before...
It was a time when repeatedly the majority of the better players agreed to join one faction to roll up the Inner Sphere and avoid each other at the same time. Such behavior had potential to kill the server and a tool was needed to stop that.
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:11 am

MMM I understand your math, but I don't get where you get the numbers from. What are the ELO's? What BV? Why did you choose what you did. It seems to me comparing only 4 or 5 games isn't taking into account that the good players will beat the really weak ones more like 80 or 90 percent of the time. Vs players that aren't as weak, the landexchange disparity isn't so great so in the case you only with 60% of the games, the HELO will come out ahead.


Calibra.
Yes, it slows things down. It's supposed to. To make weaker players (LELO and MELO) more relevant. Campaign has slowed down, not because the good players don't earn points but because players aren't distributed across factions and time zones well enough.

As far as people avoiding activity. I can only tell you what I have heard for years. People avoiding the front because X player is on. Or that players arrange because they don't want to lose. I've seen players quit because they don't want to cause losses or switch factions. I don't get it. I started and I was terrible. I got better by having to try and compete against players much better than me. Some players can't take losing 20 games in a row.

To Tuco's response. We've seen something like that relatively recently with the CC having two cycles with almost all veteran players and few new or developing players. The only thing that slowed their progress was asymmetrical exchange.

If you guys want a scratch campaign, or something closer and can convince the Council (or staff since they always could) be my guest. I don't think you would have much of a player base long term though. Learning curve is too steep and this would still make being a weaker player too negative and those players would not stay to become better players.

I'd like to see what some players who haven't been here 5 years have to say too.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Lando » Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:32 am

Calibra wrote:
This is a thing I have never understood. Why is it like that? LELOs don't want to lose too much? They don't want to do harm to their faction? Are they afraid of something?
If there is only a shadow of fear that my factionmates might be embarrassed about me losing (players have mentioned that, even though it is years ago) it is the problem of the community not the settings. Losing is part of every game.
It's a game, it's for free, we are playing for fun.
It is very easy to understand. Our game has two levels. There is the tactical game we play in megamek, and there is the strategical game in mekwars with winnig and loosing planets. If I only focus on the tactical part of the game you are absolutly right. Its a game, nothing more. And as a weaker player I can learn with such fights.

If I take the campaign seriously, I have to build an army, look for the planet that fits my army best, try to get active without getting blinded, and then attack that opponent on the planet, that gives me the best chances to win the tactical game.
Going active and get blinded by a HELO, or attack a HELO is like loosing intentionally. It has nothing to do with being afraid, but with trying the best to win the campaign. If I want to win the campaign, I have to attack the weak spots, and not the rocks.

When the land exchange gets the same(as a LELO), regardless if I play a HELO or a LELO, the incentive to avoid better players will grow.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by McMadMax » Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:48 pm

Nastyogre wrote:MMM I understand your math, but I don't get where you get the numbers from. What are the ELO's? What BV? Why did you choose what you did. It seems to me comparing only 4 or 5 games isn't taking into account that the good players will beat the really weak ones more like 80 or 90 percent of the time. Vs players that aren't as weak, the landexchange disparity isn't so great so in the case you only with 60% of the games, the HELO will come out ahead.
90% (or 95% as Jackal stated) winning rate, are we even playing the same game? You don't get that high of a winning rate unless you are playing lights/bugs, at least not on a regular basis. As for the numbers those are mostly from my own games, i don't get 20 points with a drop assault so i assumed (as stated land gain is half as much as that of an assault, and i simple don't play incursions if i have a choice) incursion gives less than 10. 1 out of 4 is what i assume a real chance for a not so good player to win, especially since all he has to do during an incursion is stand still with his all 4\5 bricks and shot. And 2,5 factor is for the sake of argument.
Nastyogre wrote:Vs players that aren't as weak, the landexchange disparity isn't so great so in the case you only with 60% of the games, the HELO will come out ahead.
You state that based on what exactly? Math,statistics, your feelings?

Anyway the point of my post was to show that the calculations you and other ppl use in their argument produce noticable errors, in some cases extreme to the point of actually providing the opposite outcome. If you don't like those numbers i used i might come with some other or even wirth an article 5 pages long for several sets of numbers. Will that make you feel better?

User avatar
Mock26
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:18 am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Mock26 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 pm

Jackal wrote:
  • Asymmetrical Land Exchange (Current System)
    Image


    Symmetrical Land Exchange (Proposed System)
    Image
These two images are why I prefer the current land exchange system.

Chaser
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Chaser » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:10 pm

I have to say i lean more to Zerbs, Cals and Max's Argument here but for other reasons besides the math. You should never have to risk more than you can gain just because you have a good record. I've always felt that the asymmetrical system treats people differently and fundamentally I'm against that. It would be one thing it you got to CHOOSE who you play but you don't.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:48 pm

Chaser wrote:I have to say i lean more to Zerbs, Cals and Max's Argument here but for other reasons besides the math. You should never have to risk more than you can gain just because you have a good record. I've always felt that the asymmetrical system treats people differently and fundamentally I'm against that. It would be one thing it you got to CHOOSE who you play but you don't.
I think you are looking it on an per game basis only and what the chances are to win. A 1500 ELO player has a roughly 24% chance to beat a 1700 ELO player. (assuming our ELO calcs operate normally)
So you look at just risking 20 or 30 planetary points. The 1700 player isn't risking that. They are risking 20 points but have a very high probability that they are risking nothing. 75% of the time they win. The ELO multiplier balances that somewhat. It's not zero sum. Once upon a time, yes. With it set at 4, there is still a mild advantage to the better player. It's not a scratch league, no.

What I find tremendously interesting is the only group of players interested in this are all among the best players here. Of course you want your impact to mean more. Of course you think its unfair. The point is you risk almost nothing in MOST games. You can only lose to most players by random RNG flukes. The point is, then the 10 of you (or 8 or 12) become the only players that matter. You win so often, how many of you there are in any faction and your ability to defeat the other players in other factions becomes the only thing that really matters in the campaign.

As Tuco pointed out, this came in to prevent "stacking" one team. I still don't see the best players play each other. I can't remember the last time I saw two 1700+ ELO players throw down. There aren't very many? Yes, I know. That's my point. Vs most players, the best risk next to NOTHING with symmetrical land exchange. You don't lose often enough for it to make any difference.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:31 pm

McMadMax wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:Vs players that aren't as weak, the landexchange disparity isn't so great so in the case you only with 60% of the games, the HELO will come out ahead.
You state that based on what exactly? Math,statistics, your feelings?

Anyway the point of my post was to show that the calculations you and other ppl use in their argument produce noticable errors, in some cases extreme to the point of actually providing the opposite outcome. If you don't like those numbers i used i might come with some other or even wirth an article 5 pages long for several sets of numbers. Will that make you feel better?
Wow. Can't make a paragraph without a snide comment can you MMM? Two in a row. I highlighted them for you. So... yeah whatever you said. I don't care about now. Come back when you can drop the attitude and show where your numbers are coming from. They appear to be made up to me and not using the actual ELO predictions or the exchanges as shown by the spreadsheet.

Skinny is. Convince the Council, this can change. Don't, and it won't. From what I can tell, Chaser leans towards, Jackal leans against. That leaves Demir, Mole, Aunodin and Obese Pigeon to convince and you need 3 of the remaining 4. That and you have to probably answer the Staff's concern that you could stack the deck.

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Zerberus » Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:59 pm

Nastyogre wrote:I still don't see the best players play each other. I can't remember the last time I saw two 1700+ ELO players throw down.
That's because there is zero incentive to do so. If those 1700+ play each other, it comes down to luck again. Starting with having pulled the right units ...

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Nastyogre » Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:26 pm

Really Zerb? Fully land exchange with players of close ELO and skill isn't enough? A challenging game? You really think games between two good players is just rock, paper, scissors with their hangars and army builds? C'mon. You aren't that kind of player are you? If you really think that, all you've done is prove my point that the best players risk next to nothing vs weaker players. Their hangars are so much better and skill so much greater that they should earn almost nothing in their games because they risk, nothing over the long term.

Chaser
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Suggestion for new landexchange calculation

Post by Chaser » Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:27 pm

Yet again you don't get to chose who you play.

Post Reply