@headward7: I like your idea for a formula as a summary of winningness and the "Victory-Weight" below it is smart and interesting. But I believe you should work on it a little longer and make it better. I've found 3 main flaws.
1 - Two or three players maps: quality of opponents and quality of diplomacy.
Quality of players is not an issue when we're talking about games with a lot of players, because you can assume that in a 35 or 15 or even only 6 players game you can find any kind of opponents. Things get different when we start talking about smaller maps and become almost paradoxal in 2-players maps. When you agree a 1v1, you usually know your opponent: it's not that random. So if you choose each time an opponent weak enough you can incredibly boost your ratio. I think that 2/3 of my wins are from 1v1 games, so I know what I'm saying.
Also, even if you usually don't choose your opponents and you let anyone join 1v1s you create, well... there's no diplomacy in 1v1s! You know who is your enemy, who will attack you and whom you need to attack: the other one. So, these games are basically worthless: they can prove something about your tactical skills and that's why many people (me included) like them, but they prove absolutely nothing about both your strategic and your diplomatic skills (that's one of the reasons why you can't bet more than 1
on them). And a 3-players game is not much different.
Recap: your formula says that a win in 1v1 is worth 2/7 of a win in a Classic. And a 1v1v1 is 3/7. I'm saying that they're not even comparable. Or, if you ask me and I must answer, I'd say 1/100 for 1v1 and 1/40 for 1v1v1.
2 - Formula's results can be doped.
Let's consoder some examples:
a) (Yours) So if you played 6 classic games and won one 1 of them, you'd have 1 / (1/7+1/7+1/7+1/7+1/7+1/7) = 7/6 = 1.166 that you said being "slightly better than average".
b) Now say you played 6 1v1s and you won 4 of them: you'd have 4 / (.5*6) = 1.333 So who won 4 1v1s would be better than who won a Classic? Really?
c) Again 6 games, but this time it's 3 1v1s you won and 3 Classics you lost. You'd have:
3 / (.5*3 + 3/7) = 1.555 In comparison with "b", you've won 1 game less but you have a much better score because you lost Classics instead of 1v1s. Isn't it weird? +55% better than average?
d) Again 6 games, but this time it's 3 1v1s you won and 3 WWIVs you lost. You'd have:
3 / (.5*3 + 3/35) = 1.891 In comparison with "c", you've won the same games but you have an incredibly high ratio because of the games you lost!
What the conclusions? I don't want to say that anyone could purposely play some 1v1 against someone he's sure to beat and then play only Chaos or WWIV to keep his ratio high, but surely this formula (the way it is now) advantages 1v1 addict-players (like I am). Or it advantages players who like "extreme" maps (2-3 and 34-35 players) over those who usually play average maps (from 6 to 12 players). However, it brings weird results.
3 - Draws. What about the draws? IMO, a draw is a victory because nobody did better than you while some (or many) did worse. You may not agree with my assumption, but I'm sure you'd agree with this:
a) Player A played 6 classic games, won one of them and defeated in the rest;
b) Player B played 6 classic games and take part in a draw in all of them.
Wouldn't you consider player B almost a champion, while A could be whatever? Maybe A is a poor player who once just had the luck of a neighbour CDing at the right time?
So perhaps you should add something about draws into your formula or, at least, make up a summary formula for "drawingness" :-)
Again, headward7, the idea-base is very smart, but the formula needs a good fine tuning, IMHO.
what do you think about my status info? click my name!
)
)
)
)