-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
"rating" score does not work #9
Comments
I don't think i ever implemented "rating". Sixserver just always sends 0 for it, whenever client is expecting to receive it. PES5 didn't have "rating", and in PES6 it was not obvious how it was different from "points". The "points" are adjusted after each match - based on whether you won, lost, or drawn the game. There is also "rank", which is calculated daily - that shows how you are ranked relative to other players (1 - being the best) If you know how "rating" should work, i can probably add that logic to Sixserver, but personally i have no clue on what it is :) |
you can't know what an honor it is for me to have had your direct answer.
each team has its own value ranging from 85 (maximum ex: Barcelona) to 66 (poor)
these will generate a team score scale example: the team values table will assign the range of team points as follows: from value - to value = team points to be assigned in rating team points table based on value:
the bonus table takes into consideration the category assigned to the two challengers, and assigns a percentage bonus (%) to the winner: Winning team category (CV) (CV) - (CL) - (B% W) SCORE CALCULATION DYNAMICS example player valid for bonus calculation as per bonus table PALYER 1 (category 3) if the best team wins, NO TEAM BONUSES example: PLAYER 1 who has CHELSEA (team value 82 [24]) wins against PLAYER 2 MILAN (team value 79 [18]) Game type: 1VS1 -> Single The best team [PLAYER 1 - CHELSEA (team value 82 [24])] won, no team bonus PLAYER 2 loses 0 for a total of 0 points. if the poorest team wins, team bonus is calculated. example: PLAYER 1 who has MILAN (team value 79 [18]) wins against PLAYER 2 CHELSEA (team value 82 [24]) Game type: 1vs1 -> Single AC Milan team points: 18 PLAYER 2 loses 0 for a total of 0 points. |
let's focus on the bonus table and the team score calculation coefficient we said that: Coefficient is 1.07 example: PALYER 1 (category 3) Game type: 1vs1 -> Single AC Milan team points: 18 PLAYER 2 loses 0 for a total of 0 points. as you can see, the base coefficient [1.07] has been applied because the challengers are of the same category PLAYER 2 does not lose rating points as it is the same category and does not suffer any penalty the bonus table is: (CV) - (CL) - (B% W) this will affect the basic calculation coefficient set at 1.07 therefore it will be composed as follows: (CV) - (CL) - (B% W) COEFFICIENT example of a challenge with challengers of different categories PALYER 1 (category 5) 5 - 2 = + 60% - 1.67 Game type: 1vs1 -> Single Austria team points: 18 PLAYER 2 loses 35 for a total of 177 points. the calculation dynamics of the loser is done as follows: the 177 points is calculated in this way 35 game points |
ok, thanks for the details. I will need to study this carefully when i have a bit more time :) |
What an honor, what an honor, what an honor ... Thank you thank you thank you ... What I've shown you is right for most things. I studied it by looking at how things go on the calculations that the rating system does. If I can give you all my study documentation, it would be an honor. How can I give you this? I also have a lot of code made that implement this |
Sorry, I didn't create ... I can't do that. It would be nice. But I have material that I found on the net. And I am willing to test with you. I have your code loaded and running on my vps |
good evening, I'm finding that at the end of the game the "rating" calculation always remains at 0.
can you explain to me the dynamics of this?
what and where should I make the change to enable this?
I am attaching photos
I attach video
[
](url)
https://streamable.com/ojawzd
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: