I think what you're looking for is a Bayesian average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_average
Basically you give everybody N fake games at 50% for the purposes of ordering the players. Lets say 100 games.
1-0 = 50.5% instead of 100%
10-0 = 54.5% instead of 100%
200-100 = 62.5% instead of 66.7%
So the more games you play, the closer to the actual average your score becomes.
Or the better idea -- ignore win% completely since it's basically meaningless.
We have some great improvements to the player lists coming in the next week or so - stay tuned!
thats actually decent idea but tbh it doesn't reflect shit
cuz playing solo winrate can be much different than playing with 4 other skilled players
Thanks for the feedback guys!
@mattieshoes I'll look into that, thanks mate.
@Jason Looking forward to it. :)
Bitte melde dich an um Kommentare zu posten.
IMHO, win rates of the Top 50 should actively take into account the number of matches played, and not just be based on a lower boundary (200 games at the moment?).
I would like to propose the use of fuzzy weights to take into account the number of games played, thus resulting in an fuzzified win rate (FWR).
Sample:
FWR = W1*AWR + W2*log_k(GP)
where AWR is the actual win rate, GP is the number of games played, and W1 and W2 are fuzzy weights. k here is a multiple of 10, and is used to adjust the fuzzified win rate to correspond to a fixed number of games (say 1000), thus penalizing/rewarding the win rates those with less than/more than k games played.