Retrieve it. Abbreviation » Term. Term » Abbreviation. Word in Term. Term » Abbr. Filter by: Select category from list Couldn't find the full form or full meaning of GXE?
Discuss these GXE abbreviations with the community: 0 Comments. Notify me of new comments via email. Cancel Report. Create a new account. Log In. Winning games to try and "sway" a gxe, even if it is in point form, is rather less fluid and more frustrating to ladderers aspiring to use their scores as a means to compete. Even after lots of ladder experience, trying to pump up gxe has still frustrated me more than once. To the human mind even if not to the details of math, gxe is a fickle mistress.
On a larger scale, Elo has the tendency to create convenient "low" "mid" and "high" Elo zones useful for kinds of analyses and expectations gxe comparisons don't allow. Overall there are more points on both sides to be argued, but I don't think doing so would serve enough purpose in this context due to the lack of need for change.
It appears that my solution to parking is definitely somewhat lackluster. Either this or we simply would not implement an auto reset for inactive accounts.
I would like to dive a bit further into this: Say a random player has a GXE of 95 which would likely be high enough to peak or nearly peak the ladder , and they have an RD of 25, which is the lowest obtainable RD on the ladder. This would give them a TELO rating of Now let's say that they stop playing, and never play again, so their RD expands all the way until it reaches Their new GXE would be This is roughly a point decay, which is pretty big, but not nearly as big as the decay that is currently on pokemon showdown's ladders.
Based on how I constructed the rating system, other TELO ratings would also likely have a similar maximum decay. So yes, in this system, players could park themselves, which would be a bit of a problem. I'd say the best solution to this would be automatically resetting any players' rating that has a glicko-RD of , instead of a "temporary reset" as I had initially suggested.
Another option would be to reset a player's rating after a certain amount of time had passed without the player doing any battles say, 50 days or so , although I prefer the "reset when RD reaches " option, as it allows more time before a reset for players who have played a great number of games than for players who have played few games. The only issue with this option is that some players would have a tremendous amount of time before a reset, but in my opinion, it really isn't that big of a deal.
As for the claim that there is a lack of need for change, I am sure that the majority of smogon staff members would agree. However, I must say that I would find it hard to believe that elo doesn't decide "real" things, because yes, though what you said is true, that elo only determines the order in which the players on the ladder are ranked, and that COIL, which is derived from GXE, is what smogon uses for suspect test qualifications, I would have to say that "deciding the numerical order in which players are ranked," is by far the most "real" thing that a rating system can be used for.
The primary purpose of the showdown ladder is to rank players according to skill, not to decide who gets to vote in suspect tests. That's what suspect ladders are used for.
And in many ladders, there are no suspect tests, such as in AG, Ubers I know that ubers suspect tests do occur but they are very rare , and all of the past generation ladders. My issue with the elo system is that its function is to rank players according to skill, as well as display a numerical value that estimates a given player's probability of winning a match because that is what a player's "true" rating actually is , and in the case of pokemon, it fails to do so.
In chess, however, in which there is no such thing as "hax," the elo system is great. But pokemon is not chess, and rather than being solely based on skill, it is also based on luck. Hence, elo is not the best ranking system for showdown. I made a bunch of points about the flaws of the elo sytem in my post which I feel are pretty big flaws. Also, yes, there are flaws with my rating system which kind of isn't mine, since it's based on GXE which was invented by X-Act.
I think getting more people to discuss the issues with my system and how they compare to the flaws of the current system would be beneficial. Austin Schismatic.
I have decided to provide a chart I made of the Gen 3 BL Ladder, which is currently the least populated ladder on the smogon university server. In this chart I provide how the ratings and rankings would look under the TELO rating system, and how it differs from the current elo one.
Last edited: Sep 27, My brain hurts lol mental abuse to humans M. You spent a lot of time on this consider me impressed. Zokuru The Stall Lord.
Wow, I was wondering how ladder can become something really competitive and how fix the quantity over quality problem. And, unless I misunderstood something due to the fact I'm not an english native, your system would work really well on a Pokemon ladder, and a player can see how fast his progress are by laddering, write his score, then reset and try to get a better one.
I'm not really great at maths but that's the best system I ever seen for a relatively high variance game ladder. I hope it will be implemented on PS. First and foremost, the ladder is not and never will be a place to show of skill. It's mainly used for team testing. Secondly, you have to take into account playstyles.
Stall for example has a lot more consistency than HO, meaning that a stall player has a much easier time getting a higher GXE than the latter. Does this mean that the former is "better" than the latter? You need to understand that the "high" ladder is there for players to test out their teams with other players who play the ladder often, which usually means they have more meta experience.
They are in no way better due to this standard. Good math though! Last edited: Nov 3, I love the effort you put into this Reffrey. Glad you did this because it's really annoying to leave the ladder and decay a lot more.
I like your math as well; although who would really want to do math on forums? A for effort You may want to shorten it a a for people without the attention span. Zarel Not a Yuyuko fan. Creator of PS. You PMed me because this thread stagnated and you wanted me to do something, so here's my response. Reffrey said:. As of right now, for instance, the number 1 rated player in Anything Goes has an elo of , and the ranked player has a rating of , while in OU, the number 1 player is at , while the number player is at , as can be seen in these screenshots: View attachment View attachment View attachment View attachment So the big question about these screenshots is, which player is better, the number 1 AG player or the number 1 OU player?
I must say that despite the claim that GXE is not as accurate when glicko-RD is high, the pokemon showdown ladder has a maximum RD of for glicko-1 ratings, and honestly, if you compare a gxe that is based on a glicko rating with an RD of 0 with a glicko rating with an RD of , the resulting GXEs are not tremendously different. These results were calculated using the original GXE formula in microsoft excel. I feel that it would be very nice if a player's GXE were to be converted into a whole number, preferably a 4 digit number that falls between and or so, similarly to the elo rating on pokemon showdown's ladder.
X-Act provided a simple way of doing this, proposing that the GXE simply be multiplied by 20, therefore resulting in a whole number rating with a floor of 0 for a person with a 0 gxe, which is virtually impossible , and a maximum of for a person with a gxe, which is also virtually impossible. The problem with a rating system like this is that as a player gets into the s, winning battles results in extremely small point gains, and reaching or even reaching is nigh impossible would be the equivalent of a 98 gxe, which is extremely hard to obtain, unless you are that sweetlol2 guy on the ubers ladder who apparently has a And so I wondered, "what if I solve the gxe formula for glicko in terms of gxe, using an rd of 0?
Zarel, I really appreciate your lengthily response. Nevertheless, GXE is probably the best Glicko estimate available and has been used as an intermediate variable in the determination of COIL rating, which is used in suspect testing. The Elo and Glicko rating systems are meant to estimate a player's skill level, but they aren't very applicable to suspect testing. As long as a player is able to maintain a high GXE over many games, they will successfully achieve the requirements to vote on the suspect test.
The higher the GXE a player can maintain, the fewer games they need to play, and vice versa—a player with a low GXE such as 50 or below will never be able to achieve these requirements. Now that you have learned about these rating systems, you will probably still be wondering: What does all of this have to do with me, an average player?
Why should I care about understanding these complicated numbers when I could just keep on battling and trying to increase them? First of all, how one goes about laddering trying to increase one's skill rating is greatly affected by the type of rating system in use.
If Showdown uses ACRE, as it used to, having a low deviation caused by battling a lot would stagnate one's rating, as it would not change much after each game.
In fact, this caused players to "abandon" older accounts and create new accounts solely for laddering, hoping for a better "run" during the earlier stages of an account, when the deviation is high and winning has a significant effect on one's rating.
In contrast, under the Elo system, one can expect a steady progression in their skill rating as long as they continue to win games consistently, meaning that there is no need to create a new account—winning ten games has roughly the same effect regardless of whether your account is 0 battles or battles old. Thus, players who want to increase their skill rating as much as possible would do well to understand the rating system they use, lest they waste their efforts.
Other ladder-related achievements, such as suspect tests, are also similarly affected. If suspect voting requirements were purely based on Elo, then one would be able to achieve reqs just by winning enough games.
However, the COIL requirement in use requires a high GXE to even have any chance of qualifying, meaning that one has to play at a consistently high level in order to achieve reqs, ensuring that suspect voters are good enough at the tier in question to be able to make an informed decision. On the other hand, understanding the rationale and workings of rating systems can and should completely change one's mindset towards playing and laddering. Many people continue to view skill ratings as a "score" that symbolises their achievement, a number which they should naturally seek to increase.
However, a skill rating is actually meant to quantify one's skill level—something which should remain relatively static. When players get frustrated at their rating increasing by very little after a win or decreasing by a lot after a loss, it is important to recognize that it is not the player that is being rewarded or punished, but the rating system itself.
The system has to modify one's ranking by a large amount if its estimate was inaccurate one loses a game against someone with lower rating ie. Ultimately, laddering is not an attempt to earn as many points as possible, but rather to discover an estimate of one's own skill level and refine it to be as accurate as possible. One should not seek to reach the top of the ladder just by laddering. Rather, one should first try to find out where they stand in terms of skill rating and then attempt to improve their own inherent skill level by learning, which finally leads to another ladder run to find out their revised skill rating that matches their new skill level, and then the process repeating itself.
Understanding these fundamental concepts of rating systems will change one's mindset towards laddering, as well as just play in general. Instead of being frustrated over losing a game or being unable to raise one's skill rating, one should accept that this is what the ladder has chosen and try to take it as a learning experience, using it to improve oneself. All in all, skill rating systems are more than a simple number representing how long or well one has played, as the different implementations used by various rating systems and rating estimates add a great deal of complexity.
Ultimately, this results in a more accurate, yet nuanced estimate of a player's ability to win games.
0コメント