Elo Calculation

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I dont think it has anything to do with who is playing but more on your wins and losses ! teams with 0 matches start with 1000 ELO it you win you get a small jump in ELo if the lose you drop a little ! . now add it the other team if the are 1100 ELO and your 1000 ELO and you win you get a med jump and the other team take the drop ! the larger the difference in ELO the more those up and down Jumps are. but i also would like to know that formula used !
      "There are only two types of aircraft — fighters and targets."
      — Doyle 'Wahoo' Nicholson, USMC.
    • On the elo calculations, ı found out chess organizers mostly use this table but we are not sure how our beloved CoN uses values

      ELO difference --- Expected score
      0 ---------------------0.50
      20 --------------------0.53
      40 --------------------0.58
      80 --------------------0.66
      100 ------------------ 0.69
      120 ------------------ 0.73
      140 ------------------ 0.76
      160 ------------------ 0.79
      180 ------------------ 0.82
      200 ------------------ 0.84
      300 ------------------ 0.93
      400 ------------------ 0.97

      According to this table, they use elo formula like this: Rn = Ro + C * (S - Se) (1)

      Rn = new rating
      Ro = old rating
      S = score
      Se = expected score
      C = constant

      so when we take two new alliances which have 1000 elo, and one of them got the victory (which ı saw this data personally) one of them get 25.

      Here's the data we know.

      RO: 1000
      S: 1
      SE: 0.5

      When we apply to the equation:

      1025: 1OOO + C * (1-0.5)

      But ı am not sure what this 'constant' means.

      How much of this info correct, ı really dont know :D
    • Elo system not favoring strong or weak players but it favors current strength than historical one. I can tell you from chess that if you new player who never played rated game and started by winning against opponents stronger and stronger each time ( assuming everytime you get equal elo players), you will get on top after a few games). It helps to find your strength level as soon as possible and with less games.
    • From the point of view of a "medium" alliance i can just say that internally there are voices exactly like that.
      "lets only take on weaker allys, we loose to much" (exactly what crang points out).
      as a matter of fact, after 1 win, 6 losses, our ELO Rank is 2064 now. As a result of playing challenges against top allies.
      So it boosts us down into ranking areas , where no one ever went, if you get what i mean.
      I am not complaining, though more moderate results when loosing would give more motivation to play good alliances.
      I personally dont care. i wanna play good opponents. But some people may see it differently.

      I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.

      - Alexander the Great -
    • Yes, it's an long-asked feature that losses are not "punitive". A radical idea would be "losses don't make lose elo" and only the number of victories is shown.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Or instead of giving negative ELO for a loss, just give everyone ELO. The winner gets a lot ELO the loser less. If you win against an alliance with higher ELO you will gain even more, while they gain even less.

      That way everyone would always win and nobody has to fear losses that much.
      ı support this idea and see it theoratically applicable but also feel it would bring about some other indirect results but not sure what :)

      Still, it is clearly unjust that alliance with no match have more elo than the ones who had.