GAC draw results unfair for lower GP
Defaulting the victory to the higher GP in the result of a draw is completely unfair. If anything, the fact that the lower GP can achieve the same score with less potential resources shows that t...
Forum Discussion
"GegeGerard24;c-2411098" wrote:"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2411095" wrote:
How do you prove someone intentionally lowered their skill rating?
I said..."GegeGerard24;c-2411092" wrote:
You and I can't answer that, because we don't have the datas.
To prove that some1 intentionally lowered his skill rating is another matter.
The point of my posts is to bring up that it is indeed unfair to do so to other player, according to my amateur mathematic.
But the astrophysicist has said that lower GP had above 50% chance of defeating higher GP.
So, i could be wrong and I already said I am sorry.
No data can directly show someone's intention. In theory, a heuristic model could be trained from a large amount of "ground truth" data, but the data set would need to include two categories: 1. a large number of players' in-game behaviors. This CG has. 2. those players' intentions while they demonstrated the in-game behaviors. This CG cannot possibly have. So you can't really sweep this under the "well we can't but CG can" rug.
And the lower GP does have 50% chance of defeating the higher GP. That's what the SR is there for. It is essentially a sum value of a player's history. What it really represents is that either of two players with the same SR has 50% chance of winning, judging from their history data. If one of them has such a high GP that they would certainly win if they play, then the history data must be that they only played 50% of the time.
By the way, that, i.e. 50% math expectation of winning, is actually how "fair chance" is defined in game theory.
