How The "Efficiency" Rating SHOULD be Calculated

[Sliced 819]

From what we know, if you're not a legend, you're not going to be on the leaderboard, which is not fair, by any means, to the rest of us players, who are non-legend. So, I propose a new mathematical equation towards calculating efficiency, more towards kills and experience within a given time, rather than cry/exp.

 

So, I was thinking, for each hour of the day, the game will track the battles a player does, the score, kills and deaths they got in each. The experience would be added, then add that to the kills divided by deaths. finally, this would be multiplied by the amount of battles the player did in that hour. These expressions will add each other for each 24 hours of the day, then divide by 24 to get an average of each hour, rounded to the nearest whole!

 

So, say I do 3 battles in an hour the duration of these battles does not matter. Let's say I get 456 score in the first and 12 kills and 15 deaths. For the second battle, I might have done better, with 1204 score, 27 kills and 4 deaths. Then I do horrible on the next battle, getting a mere 82 score, 4 kills and 23 deaths.

 

It'd be:

 

(( _​w₁ + w_​2 ​+ w₃​ ) + ( _​x₁ + x_​2 ​+ x₃​ ) / ( _​y₁ + y_​2 ​+ y_{3 )}​)) ( z ) 

 

​w = experience

x = kills

y = deaths

z = battles per the hour

 

Insert the values, we have this:

 

(( 456 + 1,204 + 82 ) + ( 12 + 27 + 4 ) / ( 15 + 4 + 23 )) ( 3 )

 

Now let's solve! :D

 

Of course, like every problem we do, we use PEMDAS, so we do what's in the parenthesis, first.

 

( 1,742 + 43 / 42 ) ( 3 )

 

Great! So the majority of the headache has been removed! Next we do 43 / 42 to get:

 

( 1,742 + 1.02380952 ) ( 3 )

 

​Finally, to solve what's in the left parenthesis, we add the two numbers:

 

1,743.02380952 ( 3 )

 

Alright, lastly, we multiply these two numbers:

 

5229.07143

 

This number would be added to the other 23 hours worth.

 

Now, in math, you don't round until the END of the equation and this is only the first hour, which needs to be added to the other 23. When that's done, divide by 24 THEN round to the nearest whole.

 

This way, anybody can get on the leaderboard. Crystals are NOT involved in this since they are a major influence, since they are not a constant rate like score and exp. This would make it plenty fair for everybody, not just legends :)

Edited June 19, 2017 by Sliced

[Truthteller 4,204]

okay

[Tofu 6,773]

Alright

[Maf 32,307]

Too simple. This doesn't even take into account the player's equipment level, the opponents he faces, the amount of supplies he uses, the types of maps he plays, game modes, etc. etc.  This is also way too easy to abuse - one can simply kill a bunch of friends over and over to get a massive D/L and a lot of kills p/h, thus boosting the efficiency.

 

The actual efficiency rating used at the moment takes a lot more factors into account.

[Sliced 819]

Too simple. This doesn't even take into account the player's equipment level, the opponents he faces, the amount of supplies he uses, the types of maps he plays, game modes, etc. etc.  This is also way too easy to abuse - one can simply kill a bunch of friends over and over to get a massive D/L and a lot of kills p/h, thus boosting the efficiency.

 

The actual efficiency rating used at the moment takes a lot more factors into account.

It's better than what we got now. So unfair. Besides, I dont think players will kill friends endlessly to get their name on the leaderboard.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I don't really care if I am not on the leader board. It doesn't affect my performance in any way. I care more about earning enough crystals, stocking up supplies, and getting a good K/D

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

The actual efficiency rating used at the moment takes a lot more factors into account.

Maybe. But the ratio Experience/Crystals earned takes a huge part in the efficiency.

[Sliced 819]

I don't really care if I am not on the leader board. It doesn't affect my performance in any way. I care more about earning enough crystals, stocking up supplies, and getting a good K/D

Same but I just feel this section shouldn't be so towards Legends

[TheBlackChick 319]

I think a rating that comes close to showing how good a player actually is should be influenced by: the average score earned /hour, equipment used (modification and MUs), supplies used, enemies that one has to face (rating, equipment, supplies). Furthermore,  the battle mode and map size should be considered as well as they influence the score earned quite a bit (as my profile suggests).

It's very difficult to create a rating system that can properly assess how good someone is because there are too many things that need to be taken into account.

Edited June 19, 2017 by TheBlackChick

[Lightning78 285]

The rating we have now is not good for many reasons, but I think this one would be far worse. Apart from it being too easy to boost (just hop from battle to battle, killing a few opponents), it rewards heavy supply use (the more drugs, the faster one makes EP). At least the current rating doesn't seem to be directly dependent on amount of supplies used. It should be possible to get good rating playing non-supply battles, which is currently the case.

[Sliced 819]

The rating we have now is not good for many reasons, but I think this one would be far worse. Apart from it being too easy to boost (just hop from battle to battle, killing a few opponents), it rewards heavy supply use (the more drugs, the faster one makes EP). At least the current rating doesn't seem to be directly dependent on amount of supplies used. It should be possible to get good rating playing non-supply battles, which is currently the case.

Not true.

 

Say you do 1 battle, getting 500 score, 50 kills and 10 deaths. That's the same as 10 battles, getting 50 score, 5 kills and 1 death.

[Lightning78 285]

Not true.

 

Say you do 1 battle, getting 500 score, 50 kills and 10 deaths. That's the same as 10 battles, getting 50 score, 5 kills and 1 death.

You hop from battle to battle, just drugging doublepower and not getting killed, So let's say you go to 50 battles killing 1 each => what rating would your formula yield?

 

The point is that your formula doesn't consider crystals earned, so the player can jump from battle to battle without fighting it out. The emphasis in the current rating formula might be too much, but I think the Cry/EP ratio is a key factor to be considered.

[Lightning78 285]

Actually I've misread your formula initially - understanding it better now, I've got more basic problems with it. So your formula is..

 

( sum of EP in all battles within an hour + K/D ) x #Battles

 

which is equivalent to..

 

Total EP earned x #Battles + K/D x #Battles

 

So playing for example 4 15-min-battles in an hour, player ratings gets 4x higher than if they played one big battle lasting 1h..? Doesn't make sense..

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

Same but I just feel this section shouldn't be so towards Legends

Not my problem B)

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

It's better than what we got now. So unfair. Besides, I dont think players will kill friends endlessly to get their name on the leaderboard.

What about those Isidas whose main job is healing which causes having less kills than deaths usually? Less kills = lower rating. Don't say they get more score by healing when they do not.

[Sliced 819]

What about those Isidas whose main job is healing which causes having less kills than deaths usually? Less kills = lower rating. Don't say they get more score by healing when they do not.

But they do. The more you heal the more points you get. Simple as that.

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

But they do. The more you heal the more points you get. Simple as that.

What I mean is:

1. Getting points for healing

2. Getting kills + points for killing

 

A guy kills 100 tanks, gets 2500 score, dies 20 times (how to calculate if it was 0? :ph34r: )  since the Isida was healing him. The Isida gets much less score on the end though it was healing the guy whole time + gets less amount of kills on end. Isida kills 20 tanks, gets 1000 score, dies 30 times. #telling from what I experienced in the last few days.

 

Ok let's say 'healer' gets the equal amount of score as the 'killer'. Both were doing the good job. Now, the 'killer' gets here the advantage since he has better K/D ratio in that battle. The 'healer' will barely even get the enough rating points, even though I think that - Isidas are the most important players in 'non-drug' games.

 

Well just pay attention on the highlighted text, you may understand what I mean...

[Amagi 1,728]

In the end, they all just numbers  :rolleyes:

 

Does it really even matter?

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

In the end, they all just numbers  :rolleyes:

 

Does it really even matter?

I know, right?

[Sliced 819]

What I mean is:

1. Getting points for healing

2. Getting kills + points for killing

 

A guy kills 100 tanks, gets 2500 score, dies 20 times (how to calculate if it was 0? :ph34r: )  since the Isida was healing him. The Isida gets much less score on the end though it was healing the guy whole time + gets less amount of kills on end. Isida kills 20 tanks, gets 1000 score, dies 30 times. #telling from what I experienced in the last few days.

 

Ok let's say 'healer' gets the equal amount of score as the 'killer'. Both were doing the good job. Now, the 'killer' gets here the advantage since he has better K/D ratio in that battle. The 'healer' will barely even get the enough rating points, even though I think that - Isidas are the most important players in 'non-drug' games.

 

Well just pay attention on the highlighted text, you may understand what I mean...

I hardly play but rank up just as fast as I did on Epic_Space_Mango18 with Stinger.

 

Isida is OP in getting exp which is really all that matters to me. Also, with its high damage I get lots of kills

[DeathXHunt 30]

Wait, so how is efficiency currently measured?

[marc.jp_44 20,837]

This is also way too easy to abuse - one can simply kill a bunch of friends over and over to get a massive D/L and a lot of kills p/h, thus boosting the efficiency.

*cough*

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Marc

[Maf 32,307]

*cough* 

What's that supposed to mean?

[PracticeParkourStunt 2,542]

What's that supposed to mean?

You are not effective :ph34r:

[Sliced 819]

I got a better solution to efficiency:

 

 

9 + 10 :ph34r: