Website Suggestions

Linoone said:
I think that if you take a game you should lose less Elo

goog idea

---

04/10/2016 02:40:17

cAKE said:

Linoone said:
I think that if you take a game you should lose less Elo

goog idea

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice, should the winner also get less Elo for winning? If not, you get spontaneous generation of Elo.

---

04/10/2016 10:24:43

I know it's an idea that has been posted before, but an ability for users to upload directly into the comments for when photos are being used, without going through the QuickDraw images, and potentially some way of making uploading photos from a mobile device easier.

---

04/10/2016 11:33:10

Archaze said:
@Shitashi, how much would a google site search cost? Surely after everything you've created already, the scene could help out with some new feature funding.

I've tried to avoid asking for funding I just would prefer Smash players to spend their money on going to tournaments.

https://www.google.com/work/search/products/gss.html#pricing_content

I don't think the lowest tier is an option based on site traffic, so it'd probably be the second tier option at around $250 a year. It's also an ongoing cost too instead of something that's a one off. It's definitely on my list of things to do but I got a few other things to pay for first before I start investing more in this site on stuff like that.

cAKE said:
Suggestion: Like Leaderboard? Kinda like the badge leaderboard but it would just be something fun and small

When you implement a feature on a website you need to think beyond the design and functionality of the feature and into what kind of human behaviour and dynamics it will evoke from your users.

For example, the primary reason Elo was added wasn't actually to rank players because if it was it would be considered a failure to me. It was actually implemented to give instant objective feedback to players after tournaments about their skill progression, to encourage TOs to submit and thoroughly tag data and to hold higher level players accountable for when they do things like sandbag in pools with low tier characters. Even if the national rankings aren't completely accurate, because these are the goals of the Elo system in my eyes I consider it successful.

I can't really think of any kind of success which would come from a likes leaderboard other than people making spammier post and trying to whore themselves out for likes which already happens to a degree already. Having a leaderboard for this kind of thing would only encourage that behaviour further and benefit a select few people who would be at the top of the leaderboard and who probably already know they're quite popular on the site already.

I do have some loose plans for a popular content section which shows posts and shoutouts what have gotten a high number of likes but I think the leaderboard idea may be a bit too far for the time being. Thanks for the suggestion though, I just wanted to explain my reasoning so you can understand where I'm coming from.

Linoone said:
I think that if you take a game you should lose less Elo

I completely agree with this and honestly this is how the Elo system was first designed. If I went 2-3 with Jaice then I feel like I should lose less Elo than if I went 0-3 with him.

The problem with this is that not every TO submit tourney results with the score data included; some do, but others just record win/loss and there's no way to get this data after the tourney finishes. What I wanted to avoid was a situation where some tourney results are more valuable than others (the ones with scores recorded) because it would be arbitrary from a player's perspective whether their 1-2 loss to a top player would be counted as it would be all down to the luck of if the TO remembered to record this data.

I decided that I had to take the lowest common denominator for both of these situations which was Elo ranking a match as a single unit instead of by a game breakdown. While I agree with you in theory, in practice it's just not practical or fair.

LachlanF said:
I know it's an idea that has been posted before, but an ability for users to upload directly into the comments for when photos are being used, without going through the QuickDraw images, and potentially some way of making uploading photos from a mobile device easier.

This is a nice to have but is kinda tricky because it involves AJAX file uploads. I'll put it onto the wish list.

---

04/10/2016 12:15:46

With all the new people joining and not knowing right away about the wifi thread and posting in shoutouts, an automated message to any new person telling them about the site's different features like the wifi thread, forum, elo ranks, etc.

---

06/22/2016 12:29:59

I know it's much easier said than done, but it could be cool if there were regular updates of good/recent sets between players that could be added to the list of videos on player profiles. A lot of people have matches that were on stream, but haven't been added to their profile. To keep workload to a minimum maybe it could only be matches for Top 8 or so.

It'd be a good way to showcase players' potential and what they have/can achieve(d) in tournaments, as well as to provide up-to-date data on how that player plays so others can study it and improve their matchup.

I'd be happy to help if it can be done.

Another thing, which has been brought up before, is elo for doubles. With people having different partners, it would be virtually impossible to provide an accurate elo for teams based on every event.

However, if, in order to be eligible for the elo, you must 'register' an official team that is/will be used in tournaments, then elo can be calculated if/when two official, registered teams face off.

E.g.

Registered teams:

Karnu + Mr. L
Umbrella + Azurewolf

Matches:

Karnu + Mr. L vs Umbrella + Azurewolf = Elo calculated because both teams in set are registered

Karnu + Mr. L vs Aero + Azurefolf = No elo calculated because latter team is not registered

Karnu + Battledolphin vs Umbrella + Azurewolf = No elo calculated because former team is not registered

Say, at the end of a 3 month season, a doubles PR is made and when the next starts; people can register new teams with a different partner, but all their prior teams' data is erased and that will be the official team for the next 3 month season.

As we have it now, only a few people might be willing to register as an official team and play consistently with each other instead of swapping. However, if there is an official system then that could be enough incentive for people to have consistent teams and work toward being on doubles PR, especially over time.

It could also lead to stronger ties between players, increasing synergy, improving the doubles brackets as a whole (just as our scenes continue to improve over time).

This also won't prevent people from mixing it up every now and then if they prefer to do that, but also rewards consistency and synergy between teams.

Idk just a couple things that is much easier said then done but ya never know could work out

---

07/11/2016 07:27:54

Afaik admins can submit videos but TOs either don't link seperate games or tell them about it. I'm sure most would be fine adding videos to profiles.

Doubles Elo would be horrendous to code but I want it so badly. Instead of having official teams I guess you could have it so that each person gets tagged individually and it calculates a solo Elo (Proper teams should in theory have the same Elo) but thats the lame way to do it.

---

07/11/2016 07:46:01

Microsoft has a proposed solution for the "different teams" conundrum, which would allow speculation for what hypothetical teams would do well, and even figure out which ones would be OP:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/trueskilltm-a-bayesian-skill-rating-system/

tl;dr: With a big enough set of matches, you can introduce 2 new variables (or 3, depending on your starting point) to each *player* that effectively factors in their "synergy" and "skill" in a team setting.

I don't think we should use it, since it's based on a ton of Halo 2 data because 1. we don't have that volume of data, and 2. Smash is a different game. However, it highlights that there may be a more interesting and fun way to come up with a good solution on our own. We could use their suggestion and come up with our own variables to account for variances. One example is character compliment, where two different characters work well together and don't impede each other, which is someone that doesn't exist in Halo 2 at all, and the synergy was all player-based.

---

07/11/2016 10:26:56

Nekminnit you'll be saying Bowser isn't good in dubs...

---

07/11/2016 10:33:33

oh okay, thanks :) Would be cool if the TOs could link separate games for say Top 8, or highlight sets or something :0 but I understand that they would probably not have time for it at all.

With doubles elo, could there be a kind of workaround?

Like say, a competitive profile can be made for each team, with each team acting kind of like an account..? That probably makes no sense, but i'll try explain it a bit more.

With me, I have my account (duh) and then a competitive account that I had to request to be made (again duh).

Could an admin create another competitive account upon request, but just call that e.g. Mr. L + Karnu (as opposed to how they made my singles profile, called Mr. L). and then treat the 'team account' as if it was one person with how the elo already works?

I don't have much understanding on how all the coding works and the ins and outs of the process of recording competitive data, as you could probably tell, so apologies if my enquiry was cringe-worthy to read xD

If what I tried to explain still doesn't make sense, just say and I could try again xD

---

07/11/2016 10:37:13

SpaceJam said:
Nekminnit you'll be saying Bowser isn't good in dubs...

Damn straight. But yeah, for example, very crudely, I'll give a hypothetical, sans data equation:

Team Elo = Total Elo * a^2bc / 2

a = How good a player is in a team (so a1, a2, but just doing a^2 to be obvious) = 0.0 - 2.0 (realistically, 0.8-1.2)
b = How good their characters work together = 0.0 - 2.0 (same as above)
c = Variance in skill between players = (1 - [P1 - P2] / Total Elo)

The 2 is just a correction factor for "teams."

Now let's say it's two people with Elo of 1200 and 1100, and they are Bowser x Mario. One guy has a history of not performing worse when he's with a worse player, and better when he's with a better player, so he gets an "a" value of 1.0. The other guy has a history of performing better with people who are both worse and better than him, so he gets an "a" of 0.9. The Mario x Bowser team is known to suck major butt, so it gets a 0.87 value.

Team Elo = (1200 + 1100) * (0.9)(1.0)(0.87)(1 - 0.04) / 2 = 864

So they are a terrible team. But then they turn into Cloud mains:

Team Elo = (1200 + 1100) * (0.9)(1.0)( 1.5)(1 - 0.04) / 2 = 1490

Again, I'm just making this up, so it's not sound. We do have the data, and could come up with an equation that fits well with past results, and then continue to tweak it with future results and its ability to predict the outcome. It's more work than the straightforward "registered team" approach, which would be an easy and quick solution, but it makes for a more malleable option... O_O

---

07/11/2016 11:35:51

It would be hard to implement a system that would take prior results into account because of the constant change of players making up each team.

If there were to be an accurate system that would calculate the ranks/skills of teams, in accordance to how well they do in tournaments it would have to be as of now, and only calculating set teams in the same/similar way elo is calculated for singles players.

However, the system that you mentioned looks like it could work as a hypothetical algorithm to determine what combination of players might form an optimal team.

---

07/11/2016 12:14:29

The lack of constancy in teams is the reason I recommend a player-based calculation. All the values are based on the player (and characters used), not on a single combination since teams change. This is very much like Microsoft's approach in the sense that their algorithm could predict outcomes really well for people who have never played together before.

---

07/11/2016 12:47:14

Then the calculations won't be based on team performance, but on two individuals' performance in singles who may hypothetically team every now and then.

I think the option would be cool for those who want ranks bases off of consistent teams facing off against eachother, with the option for others to still play with a different person each time but it won't be calculated (unless they choose to team with their 'official' partner [and fought another official team].

It would allow for people to still play doubles with a different person each time, but also provide proper data on how teams face off against eachother. For there to be accurate data there needs to be a constant, I think the constant would work best as the combination of players.

If ranks are based off of the algorithm above each time a person chooses a different partner, the ranking system would become a mess (I assume) and it would be hard to track progression of skill/placing of teams over time.

Your algorithm does seem pretty cool though and would be effective, in say calculating an initial elo for teams that would be more accurate than putting them all at 1,000. Although having all teams at 1,000 will eventually even out to accurately represent each team's skill level over time.

---

07/11/2016 13:17:42

What? The calculation ***is*** based on team performance. I even gave an example of just that.

Of course the Elo would be based on individual performance, but the other variables would not be. And it's a little incredulous to think individual performance does not influence team performance whatsoever. If the extremely large dataset from M$ is any indication, the change in individuals within a team is not an impossible thing to solve.

---

07/11/2016 13:33:22

Prior performance with other people, not the same person.

I think the doubles elo could just as easily and more simply be calculated based on how the teams interact with eachother, with the players remaining the same, rather than individually calculating each team's capability by calculating each player's elo, characters and prior performance with different people as separate factors.

Just how singles elo isn't calculated depending on what character we use and prior tournament placings, but rather who we face each time and whether we win and lose against them each time.

The individual skill of each player plays a role in that yes, if you have better players teaming then yes in all likelihood they will do better, relying on their performance as individuals to figure out team performance won't nevessarily work.

Would it not be better observe how the team performs, as a team; rather than calculate their skill using their individual performances as the key factor.

To me it seems like its overcomplicating it when you can just start on a clean slate and see how people perform from there.

When wii u elo was first calculated, did everyone start at 1,000 again or were Wii U elo's originally calculated based on the limited 3ds elo data?

---

07/11/2016 13:50:02

MrL said:
Prior performance with other people, not the same person.

I don't see how it omits one particular partner. It's not like playing with the same player multiple times will be ignored. If you mean every person including the same person consistently, then yes, of course. That's why it's more malleable than the "registered team" approach.

MrL said:I think the doubles elo could just as easily and more simply be calculated based on how the teams interact with eachother, with the players remaining the same, rather than individually calculating each team's capability by calculating each player's elo, characters and prior performance with different people as separate factors.

Yes, registered teams could suffice. However, it's a quick fix and will be biased as hell as more doubles events occur. You are literally selecting for people who pair up frequently, even though they may be the worst doubles teams. Imagine Jaice cycling through all the top 20 players in 20 tournaments, but Bob the Builder team is the highest ranked because they were the only ones registered. Or the last 15 tournaments, Bob always placed last. Yet, since the Builders didn't play any registered team for the past 15 tournaments, their Elo stays intact with a win rate of 20%. Meanwhile Timmy the Tester's group won the last 10 tournaments but only beat unregistered teams and is calculated as worse than Bob's. As you can see, it's a contrived approach that only works as a short-term solution.

I don't see why we can't start with it and leave it around. But long term, we have to come up with something else, since it will strongly result in selection bias over time. Basically, it begs the question, if it no longer even reflects Elo, why even have it?

MrL said:Just how singles elo isn't calculated depending on what character we use and prior tournament placings, but rather who we face each time and whether we win and lose against them each time.

Just because we do something some way doesn't mean it is correct. Guns are legal in the USA, so Australia must be wrong? I do think character matchups should influence points. If you win in a tougher matchup, you should get more Elo; in an advantaged matchup, less. However, 1v1 matchups are more contentious than "good doubles characters." But that's a tangential conversation, so we'll leave it at that.

MrL said:The individual skill of each player plays a role in that yes, if you have better players teaming then yes in all likelihood they will do better, relying on their performance as individuals to figure out team performance won't nevessarily work.

I don't understand what you're saying. So it does influence or does not influence team performance?

MrL said:Would it not be better observe how the team performs, as a team; rather than calculate their skill using their individual performances as the key factor.

How is individual performances the key factor? Can you show me what you mean? Do you just mean "the biggest number?"

MrL said:To me it seems like its overcomplicating it when you can just start on a clean slate and see how people perform from there.

Skill doesn't "reset," but okay, let's pretend it does since it doesn't matter in this conversation.

MrL said:When wii u elo was first calculated, did everyone start at 1,000 again or were Wii U elo's originally calculated based on the limited 3ds elo data?

Strawman fallacy: the logic here is akin to saying people's Melee data should be used in Smash 4. I don't recall making either of these statements. 3DS is a different system, and wireless connection has input lag because of variable speeds. I guess you're saying that diffusing a bomb with a timer and without a timer requires exactly the same skill sets with no new variables, but I'd disagree. Besides, it doesn't really add to the conversation.

---

07/12/2016 10:46:06

my question wasn't making a point, it was an actual question that I was hoping an answer for to determine how the situation should be approached. You're raising issues that don't really exist.

The hypothetical situations you raise are pointless. In your situation, assuming we use the type of algorithm you propose to determine the skill of teams, there are now 20 teams that Jaice is a part of on the list of teams (just because of one person, let alone the 50 others who may switch between partners; lots of clutter). But there's also no way to determine which time is better, other than a theoretical algorithm. It may say that one team is better than another, but only in theory; the teams would need to face each other to determine that, which can't happen. Then this process would have to happen with every person.

If what you said, were to happen, the list of best teams would be:

1. Jaice + 2nd best
2. Jaice + 3rd best
3. Jaice + 4th best
4. Jaice + 5th best

and so on.

It not only would just look ridiculous to have one person in every (or even multiple) team(s) as 'the best teams' but also impossible to determine which is the best amongst those as they cannot battle eachother.

No data will ever be 100% accurate, players and results are constantly changing, and at any given time someone's elo may not represent their skill.

With set teams, there are constant variables that are pit against each other over a period of time.

Within this set of teams, a ranking order would be able to be established (and one person won't be in multiple teams that will be unable to face each other).

From this, a more accurate PR can be established.

Using that algorithm and making a new team and scoring them based on who is teaming, that will only result in the top 10 being 5 teams with jaice and 5 teams with jezmo.

With mine, yes unfortunately only set teams would be able to be eligible for ranking/PR in one season; which would exclude unofficial teams that may or may not place better than official teams.

However, I'd rather a few one-off teams slip through the cracks than have an entire list of teams be made up of one person holding the top several ranks with [insert random players]. Again, even with that list which would look ridiculous, there's no way of determining which is better among them.

It would also encourage those who do want official doubles rankings, to have an official team; while those who do not care or not want one, continue to have different doubles partners each time.

It's just not viable to have a system that tries to rank every combination of players, as that way the teams that play against each other will be different each time and impossible to accurately show improve because of the number of variables (hence why we don't already have it), let alone one person can't be on two teams at once to determine which of the two (or more) they are a part of is better.

You can do it all hypothetically with the algorithm as said but that's not reflective of actual doubles results between the various teams. I just don't see your way as a viable or accurate way to determine the best teams.

---

07/12/2016 12:36:55

MrL said:You're raising issues that don't really exist. The hypothetical situations you raise are pointless.

You say that, but you didn't address anything I said at all. :-(

MrL said: In your situation... there are now 20 teams that Jaice is a part of on the list of teams (just because of one person, let alone the 50 others who may switch between partners; lots of clutter).

That's not true at all, and even if it was, do you see the irony here? This is fundamentally the problem with your approach, and hurts your "registered teams" method. Your solution is, "well, this is convoluted, so we ignore it." That's not a solution; it's a "la la la I can't hear you I will ignore this" approach.

You know how we don't list players on the Elo list if they haven't played for the past six months? We could easily do the same here, if not just have a set minimum of matches. Hell, the beauty of this player-centric way is that it doesn't need to be listed at all, but all those results would be acknowledged on a player's singular page. Your strawman above is akin to saying "we have many people who never attended a tournament, so why are we listing them at all?!" The answer is, we don't, so why are you saying we do?

MrL said: But there's also no way to determine which time is better, other than a theoretical algorithm.

I've read this a few times, and I don't get it. You say you don't have a solution, so you are complaining about a potential solution that we can continue to tweak and improve. No one is saying we do any sort of overfitting or underfitting, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. An algorithm is indeed the solution, so there is a way. O_o

MrL said: It may say that one team is better than another, but only in theory; the teams would need to face each other to determine that, which can't happen. Then this process would have to happen with every person.

You realize that is what Elo is all about, right? How does the same exact statement not apply to your approach? Elo is LITERALLY a predictive score. It is a guess about, when two entities face each other, who will win. When it's right, it reaffirms the distance between the entities; when it's wrong, it reduces the difference. Elo is "in theory," as is your registered team Elo.

Why else are we using Elo? Why are you using Elo in your registered teams approach if you are arguing that the theory of Elo is not acceptable by your standards? Elo was in fact designed to predict hypotheticals, even if they never ever happen, like two chess masters who were separated by generations.

MrL said:It not only would just look ridiculous to have one person in every (or even multiple) team(s) as 'the best teams' but also impossible to determine which is the best amongst those as they cannot battle eachother.

Yes, there would be n * (n-1) potential teams, but your registered team ignores the vast majority of them. We don't have to list them all (see above), nor do we calculate their scores either (that's the beauty of a player-based approach!).

Your method: I don't see how ignoring these teams represents anything. Do you just want a handful of teams that don't represent anything but a selective group that has no predictive value - or any meaning for that matter? If you're saying one person can only register with one other person, that's a "la la la ignore" solution.

MrL said:No data will ever be 100% accurate, players and results are constantly changing, and at any given time someone's elo may not represent their skill.

That's what Elo is all about. That's why it changes. How does your approach "100% accurate"-ly predict changes?

MrL said:With set teams, there are constant variables that are pit against each other over a period of time.

Great! Can you specify what these are? Bear in mind you just said above that "results are constantly changing" and Elo "may not represent their skill" but somehow your registered team is immune.

MrL said:Within this set of teams, a ranking order would be able to be established (and one person won't be in multiple teams that will be unable to face each other).

From this, a more accurate PR can be established.

How can any PR be established? I've explained this before, and you did not address it. Your Elo approach wouldn't represent anything after more and more results are acquired. You're free to use the example I gave, of Bob the Builder and Timmy the Tester scenario. This is the value of the hypothetical situations you quickly dismissed without explaining why you dismissed them. It explains why your approach will fail over time. How, in those situations - which would eventually happen as the number of doubles matches increases - will your solution continue to be "100% accurate," "not in theory but in practice" best team ranking order?

MrL said: Using that algorithm and making a new team and scoring them based on who is teaming, that will only result in the top 10 being 5 teams with jaice and 5 teams with jezmo.

I think you're making assumptions on Jaice and Jezmo's team variables, as well as other players they would team with. Again, while my equation is just an example and wholly incomplete, it still doesn't suggest this in the slightest. Feel free to punch some numbers in. Talking in the abstract may be the reason for the confusion.

MrL said:However, I'd rather a few one-off teams slip through the cracks than have an entire list of teams be made up of one person holding the top several ranks with [insert random players]. Again, even with that list which would look ridiculous, there's no way of determining which is better among them.

You're not getting this if you're thinking this way. At a certain point, the "registered team" Elo doesn't represent anything but a biased sampling of people. You ignored it the first time, so I'll say it again: the more results you have, the LESS accurate your approach will be (see Bob and Timmy). You haven't demonstrated a solution to this. Instead, you ignored it and just said there's no way to figure out with my method (although there is). What part of Bob and Timmy is not making sense? And how would Jezmo plus random player even be high? Have you actually plugged in Jezmo with a random 1000 Elo player in my equation? Again, my equation may not be perfect, but even it doesn't rank them high.

MrL said:It's just not viable to have a system that tries to rank every combination of players, as that way the teams that play against each other will be different each time and impossible to accurately show improve because of the number of variables (hence why we don't already have it), let alone one person can't be on two teams at once to determine which of the two (or more) they are a part of is better.

You can do it all hypothetically with the algorithm as said but that's not reflective of actual doubles results between the various teams.

I just don't see your way as a viable or accurate way to determine the best teams.

Okay, no more strawmen after this, okay? I never said we rank "every combination of players," and thinking that demonstrates a complete failure in understanding my player-centric approach. You need to explain how you "solve" all the "issues" you've raised. It's really not acceptable to say, "I'm okay with all these problems to the point it becomes meaningless to have team Elo." Why would qldsmash implement it then?

---

07/12/2016 15:28:34

oh my god stop writing such long messasges.

Can it become a rule that everything has to be communicated in emojis?

👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

---

07/12/2016 15:33:31

I never said mine was perfect, that statement was merely saying that whatever is done, it won't be 100% accurate. I don't know why you feel the need to put words in my mouth :/ I don't believe you understand what I have attempted to convey, nor at this point is it worth the effort.

I did not use a strawman argument, you claimed my question was one, yet you have still not answered it.

You cleared up one thing though in that you won't be wanting to put up every team. How you previously explained it sounded like that is what you wanted.

You accuse me of using strawmans, when you are the one doing that. You misquote me and put words in my mouth, all for when I ask and debate as to why a much more seemingly overcomplicated system would be used than what I had suggested.

After your responses to some of my questions, I do now understand what you were trying to explain. No thanks to your jabs though.

It's a tad strange but could still work, might as well try one of if not both suggestions to see what results are made.

---

07/12/2016 15:47:47

due to the poll, why not ANZSmash.com if it's not taken? Shows that not only this is an Australian community, but has a smaller NZ community.
Also if possible try to get a sponsorship from ANZ. would be cool.

---

07/12/2016 23:39:06

SpaceJam said:
oh my god stop writing such long messasges.

Can it become a rule that everything has to be communicated in emojis?

👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I was trying to be thorough, but apparently that's "offensive" lol. But fair enough, point taken. Shouldn't be an essay.

MrL, no one is taking "jabs," but you continue to again not hold yourself to your own standard. You expect me to answer your questions when you ignore mine, and fall back to generalizations (FYI, Elo is not "transferred" or "shared" between games). Even this "put words in your mouth" bit is silly. I quoted you, but you actually do put words in my mouth. This is why examples and hypothetical situations are important to be clear. For example, when did I ever say every permutation of teams would be listed? I can and have quoted you putting these words in MY mouth, but I don't see when I did that to you.

Do unto others. I'm not taking jabs. A disagreement is not an insult; neither is a misunderstanding. I'm not even against your idea of teams, but was saying, "this is great, we should rank teams! Let's do it, and while that's going, find a way to cover all team matches!" If you didn't get this from the get-go, then it's a misunderstanding, not a jab.

---

07/13/2016 01:19:57

✋✋✋✋✋✋

---

07/13/2016 01:25:47

AzureWolf going IN

BYE 👋

---

07/13/2016 02:25:39