2
\$\begingroup\$

I try to find a success list among players for my project. I thought If I find the winning probability of players , it would give me the success list in group.

I would like to give an example to explain in a score table.

  • Player A won Player B 2 times in 3 matches .
  • Player C won Player B 1 time in a match.
  • Player C won Player A 1 time in 4 matches.

My idea to find the winning probabilities:

p(Player X)=Total Winning number of Player X / Total Match Number

Thus we can calculate individual probabilities as above.

p(A)=5/8

p(B)=1/8

p(C)=2/8

The success list shows that p(A)>p(C)>p(B)

If we get new player (Player D) and the new player gets a match with Player C. if Player D wins the match, we will get a new success list according to my formula above.

p(A)=5/9

p(B)=1/9

p(C)=2/9

p(D)=1/9

In last status: p(A)>p(C)>p(B)=p(D)

I do not feel that method is good enough because Player D won Player C but Player D is behind Player C. As a sense, I feel Player D must be more that Player C in the list.

And other disadvantages are

  1. if a player do not make match so often ,it can go down in the list. For example , if Player A do not make match for a while and Other players make matches, Player A will go down in the list even if he has good winning rate among users. I feel my method does not give exact player power
  2. If a player in middle of the success list makes so much match with a weak player, The middle player will get top in the list even the player is not good enough.

    Please let me know your ideas and solutions . Which methods can be used to define for better success list? How did you solve that issues in your game project while preparing a success list for death matches.

Thanks

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$
  • "Success list" is a term you made up, don't use it. What you want to compute is some kind of score or rating of each player as an estimate of "player power".
  • The difference between a score and a rating is that a score is typically expected to increase with more games played (e.g. the number of knockouts in a boxer's career), while a rating is expected to remain constant unless the player becomes stronger or weaker, and unaffected by the number of games played (e.g. batting averages of baseball players).
  • Clearly you want a rating, not a score. The closest formula to what you are doing now is taking the ratio between a player's won games and a player's total games. At the beginning A is rated 5/7, B is rated 1/4, C is rated 2/5; after D beats C, D jumps on top at 1/1 and C slips to 2/6.
  • The problems with this simplistic rating formula are trusting statistically small samples too much (with only 1 game played, D should be still close to a medium "newbie" rating, not at the top or at the bottom of the ladder) and neglecting the opponent's skill: winning against a stronger player should improve the rating more. Both issues are addressed, for example, in ELO scores for chess and similar systems.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you a lot for your answer. ELO rating system seems good for my aim. I may try that system. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathlover Aug 14 '15 at 11:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.