New noob, new questions

Comments

  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Who is it that humiliates themselves by not understanding how anything works in this game?    

    I would not go that far.
    He is mostly correct, in the " ...that number is calculated using your KPM and SPM...So if you are higher and not performing on your average your skill level lowers, while if your average is low it has more room to grow".
    SPM is 60% of it, KPM is 30% of it, while K/D is 10% of it.
    So, yes, it is harder to raise a high skill and easier to raise a low skill (if you improve your gameplay).
    .
    .

    I do want to comment on something else I noticed in this thread.
    The killed by players of lower skill level lowers your skill, was misinformation that became "true" over the years, just because we didn't know any better.
    It was the rule, before finally someone data-mined the SPM is 60% , KPM is 30%t, K/D is 10%, but not many people read about that.
    Hence why most people still assume today, that killed by players of lower skill level lowers your skill, since that mis-information was everywhere for years.
    If you search up Skill for BF3/4/1, 99 out of 100 topics that show up will have that misinformation(probably not, just seems that way).
    Have to actually dig to find posts containing information about how it really works.

    Who is it that humiliates themselves by not understanding how anything works in this game?    

    I would not go that far.
    He is mostly correct, in the " ...that number is calculated using your KPM and SPM...So if you are higher and not performing on your average your skill level lowers, while if your average is low it has more room to grow".
    SPM is 60% of it, KPM is 30% of it, while K/D is 10% of it.
    So, yes, it is harder to raise a high skill and easier to raise a low skill (if you improve your gameplay).
    .
    .

    I do want to comment on something else I noticed in this thread.
    The killed by players of lower skill level lowers your skill, was misinformation that became "true" over the years, just because we didn't know any better.
    It was the rule, before finally someone data-mined the SPM is 60% , KPM is 30%t, K/D is 10%, but not many people read about that.
    Hence why most people still assume today, that killed by players of lower skill level lowers your skill, since that mis-information was everywhere for years.
    If you search up Skill for BF3/4/1, 99 out of 100 topics that show up will have that misinformation(probably not, just seems that way).
    Have to actually dig to find posts containing information about how it really works.

    Just knowing that KPM and SPM is used in the skill rating is about as insightful as knowing that killing is better than dying. 

    If you attack someone by nastily suggesting that your knowledge is better because you are better at the game, or unpleasantly attack someone's knowledge of how the game works, it is better if you actually know how it works yourself!

    And just to extend his own point.......and your point.........

    Now that we have correctly established that they skill stats is actually based on your last 10 games raw SPM, KD and KPM, then if your own skill is CONSISTENTLY lagging behind (for example because you may be a K/D guy that doesn't know what flags are) then if you are really talented, it only takes a few games to get it back up right? Unless of course your skill has actually plateaued. ;-) 

    Like you said - its easier to raise a lower skill level. I totally agree! It going to be hard for me to maintain high skill, but very easy for an expert player to quickly demonstrate their prowess, It takes a MAXIMUM of 10 games! 

    Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact. They consistently get good raw stats on PTFO, kill a lot and die less. Bad players have lower skill because they don't combine the holy trinity of SPM, KPM and KD. 

    No-one thinks that Fernando Alonso is the best F1 driver because he USED to win lots of races. I'm more interested in knowing who is better now. That's Lewis Hamilton. 
  • The_BERG_366
    2819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Plucky6922 wrote: »
    If I am not misremembering, the skill stats is based on BF3/4 skill stats of a perfect game of 1000 SPM, 3 KPM, 5 KDR.
    For BF1 Tracker it also factors in other stuff...they kept tweaking it over time to encompass a lot of stat factors, which they never did say what exactly was involved, since they didn't want people to know which weighed heavier than others, so people wouldn't be able to farm for their skill stat.


    ~edit
    I might be confusing BFTscore with it.
    If that is the case, the skill is still equal to the 1000 SPM, 3 KPM, 5 KDR  or skill_round = (spm/1000*0.6 + kpm/3*0.3 + kd/5*0.1) *1000

    Pretty sure you're right with your edit so what you talked about in the first paragraph could in deed be the tracker score while the skill level should be determined by the exact formula you gave in your edit. Or actually rather skill_new = 0.9 * skill_old + 0.1 * skill_round where skill_round is determined the way you described it.
    That’s right.   The skill score is essentially a rating of current form, over the last 10 rounds.  Your historical performance really means nothing.   Dice did a good job with this.........

    it’s a bit of a leveller for those players that massage their KD but essentially do so by standing off flags and camping (aka easy mode) as you need to work a combination of PTFO, kills and KD to maintain a high rating.   

    If you have got a high KD and KPM but low skill, it demonstrates something........especially as it strips you of those lovely operations win bonuses and works on raw SPM..........so it levels the playing modes too.......it’s a great system, reflecting the actual skill of players.   
    its not really over the last 10 rounds. The weighting follows a geometric series so in fact EVERY game you ever played has an impact on it, although this impact of course converges to 0 with increasing amounts of rounds played. anyways, last 10 rounds seems a bit arbitrary to me. the last 10 rounds weigh about 65%, the last 50 already about 99.5%.  
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 20

    Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact. They consistently get good raw stats on PTFO, kill a lot and die less. Bad players have lower skill because they don't combine the holy trinity of SPM, KPM and KD. 


    What about players that only Play TDM?
    Are you saying they are not good players, since they don't play a game mode like Conquest(BF1) that force-feeds points to players for zerging around?
    I reference BF1 Conquest, since points in Conquest were changed for that game and handed out for not doing much, while in  BF3/4(games with the skill stat) they were harder earned (but the skill metric was not changed to reflect the scoring changes for BF1).
    Post edited by Plucky6922 on
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact. They consistently get good raw stats on PTFO, kill a lot and die less. Bad players have lower skill because they don't combine the holy trinity of SPM, KPM and KD. 


    What about players that only Play TDM?
    Are you saying they are not good players, since they don't play a game mode like Conquest(BF1) that force-feeds points to players for zerging around?
    I reference BF1 Conquest, since points in Conquest were changed for that game and handed out for not doing much, while in  BF3/4(games with the skill stat) they were harder earned (but the skill metric was not changed to reflect the scoring changes for BF1).
    I don't care about TDM. It's irrelevant. Look at the numbers.

    https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/insights

    Less than 0.1% of players play TDM. According to the stats, there are more players playing War Pigeons this week (0.64%!, its been on rotation), so if it's flawed for TDM, it's literally irrelevant. The skill stats works for 99.9% of players. Why would you care about the skill of players on a dead game mode?

    https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/insights

    Even if that were not the case, TDM players play on small maps and have greater opportunity to boost KPM and K/D than in conquest (not getting wrecked by planes and muroments etc) so its all balanced. 

    Like I said, DICE did a good job. 

  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Plucky6922 wrote: »
    If I am not misremembering, the skill stats is based on BF3/4 skill stats of a perfect game of 1000 SPM, 3 KPM, 5 KDR.
    For BF1 Tracker it also factors in other stuff...they kept tweaking it over time to encompass a lot of stat factors, which they never did say what exactly was involved, since they didn't want people to know which weighed heavier than others, so people wouldn't be able to farm for their skill stat.


    ~edit
    I might be confusing BFTscore with it.
    If that is the case, the skill is still equal to the 1000 SPM, 3 KPM, 5 KDR  or skill_round = (spm/1000*0.6 + kpm/3*0.3 + kd/5*0.1) *1000

    Pretty sure you're right with your edit so what you talked about in the first paragraph could in deed be the tracker score while the skill level should be determined by the exact formula you gave in your edit. Or actually rather skill_new = 0.9 * skill_old + 0.1 * skill_round where skill_round is determined the way you described it.
    That’s right.   The skill score is essentially a rating of current form, over the last 10 rounds.  Your historical performance really means nothing.   Dice did a good job with this.........

    it’s a bit of a leveller for those players that massage their KD but essentially do so by standing off flags and camping (aka easy mode) as you need to work a combination of PTFO, kills and KD to maintain a high rating.   

    If you have got a high KD and KPM but low skill, it demonstrates something........especially as it strips you of those lovely operations win bonuses and works on raw SPM..........so it levels the playing modes too.......it’s a great system, reflecting the actual skill of players.   
    its not really over the last 10 rounds. The weighting follows a geometric series so in fact EVERY game you ever played has an impact on it, although this impact of course converges to 0 with increasing amounts of rounds played. anyways, last 10 rounds seems a bit arbitrary to me. the last 10 rounds weigh about 65%, the last 50 already about 99.5%.  
    Quite a pedantic point for sure Berg......and yes, I agree. However if you wanted to move the needle - you could do so significantly in only 10 rounds. If you had not plateaued. The point being that it is a current view of skill........and a good one. 

    If I had played over 10000 rounds (which I have)I'm more interested in the last 100 and than the first 100, which will contribute circa 99.9% of the score weighting.......Alonso vs Hamilton. 'Has been' vs champion. 
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't care about TDM. It's irrelevant. Look at the numbers.

    https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/insights

    Less than 0.1% of players play TDM. According to the stats, there are more players playing War Pigeons this week (0.64%!, its been on rotation), so if it's flawed for TDM, it's literally irrelevant. The skill stats works for 99.9% of players. Why would you care about the skill of players on a dead game mode?
     

    Not sure if you are English speaking/reading or not, but that does not show that less than 0.1% of players play TDM.
    It says Gamemode by Score.
    TDM awards points for Killing/reviving/resupplying, instead of rewarding easy points via zerging for Conquest(BF1).
    Thank you for reinforcing the point I was making that Conquest is an easy mode to get higher scores in, inflating your Skill stat(in BF1 at least)




  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't care about TDM. It's irrelevant. Look at the numbers.

    https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/insights

    Less than 0.1% of players play TDM. According to the stats, there are more players playing War Pigeons this week (0.64%!, its been on rotation), so if it's flawed for TDM, it's literally irrelevant. The skill stats works for 99.9% of players. Why would you care about the skill of players on a dead game mode?
     

    Not sure if you are English speaking/reading or not, but that does not show that less than 0.1% of players play TDM.
    It says Gamemode by Score.
    TDM awards points for Killing/reviving/resupplying, instead of rewarding easy points via zerging for Conquest(BF1).
    Thank you for reinforcing the point I was making that Conquest is an easy mode to get higher scores in, inflating your Skill stat(in BF1 at least)




    I'm not sure if you know how to read graphs or not, but I'm pretty sure that players in TDM get SOME score. 

    If you are registering 0.0% on a graph, and on average, players get say 1/100th of the score of a typical Conquest or Operations player, I'm pretty sure that 100* Sweet FA is still pretty close to Sweet FA. If it was 100*, it still represents LESS than 1%. So my point still stands. It is an irrelevant mode.  Just like your attempt to patronise me was an irrelevant post. 

    If you like, I'll have a game of TDM tonight to boost the 0.0% stats for you. 

    Thanks for reinforcing my point that TDM is literally irrelevant. 
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 20
    I did not say that TDM did not reward score, it rewards for Killing, Resupplying, Revives, etc.
    A TDM player having a lower skill stats does not mean a player is not good, as you posted earlier, "Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact."
    That is not fact, that is a very subjective opinion.
    Someone that plays TDM as their main Game Mode is going to have a lower Skill stats than someone that only plays Conquest.
    That is my opinion.
    I was not patronizing you, I was thanking you.

    Also, as far as I remember TDM scores have never appeared on that pie-chart since the game was released, much like how there is not a score shown under Game Mode on each players tracker profile for TDM.
    It was bugged and never fixed.


    ~edit to strike out my first sentence...I misread/misunderstood what you typed at first.

  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I did not say that TDM did not reward score, it rewards for Killing, Resupplying, Revives, etc.
    A TDM player having a lower skill stats does not mean a player is not good, as you posted earlier, "Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact."
    That is not fact, that is a very subjective opinion.
    Someone that plays TDM as their main Game Mode is going to have a lower Skill stats than someone that only plays Conquest.
    That is my opinion.
    I was not patronizing you, I was thanking you.

    Also, as far as I remember TDM scores have never appeared on that pie-chart since the game was released, much like how there is not a score shown under Game Mode on each players tracker profile for TDM.
    It was bugged and never fixed.


    ~edit to strike out my first sentence...I misread/misunderstood what you typed at first.

    Like I said. TDM is irrelevant to over 99% of the players base. If you have stats to the contrary, please let me know.  So whilst I am sure you think that this is a very interesting debate, its not. The point you are making is irrelevant. TDM makes up a tiny proportion of the player base. Yo now claim the stats are broken? Funny how the ONLY ones are broken are the ones that suit your argument.

    With permission - I’ll go off the official data.

    When I went to school 0.0% of nothing was very close to nothing. That mathematical construct hasn't changed.  ;-) I don’t know what they teach kids these days. 

    So let me reconstruct my theory just for you:

    Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact. They consistently get good raw stats on PTFO, kill a lot and die less. Bad players have lower skill because they don't combine the holy trinity of SPM, KPM and K/D. EXCEPT for the TDM players that make up 0.0% of the official stats of the total score in BF1 and need to be treated as special cases. Poor downtrodden TDM players. They can have chat amongst themselves in a single Discord chat and agree who is the best amongst themselves.

    Does that work better for you? 

  • The_BERG_366
    2819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Quite a pedantic point for sure Berg......and yes, I agree. However if you wanted to move the needle - you could do so significantly in only 10 rounds. If you had not plateaued. The point being that it is a current view of skill........and a good one. 

    If I had played over 10000 rounds (which I have)I'm more interested in the last 100 and than the first 100, which will contribute circa 99.9% of the score weighting.......Alonso vs Hamilton. 'Has been' vs champion. 

    I don't think it's pedantic. I mean it's not about every game counting. That would in deed be pedantic. Its about the number 10 which is just arbitrary and implies a wrong image of what's actually going on. one could also say that it reflects the past 5, 15 or 30 games instead with the same legitimacy. I would use no number at all in such a case. I'd say it just reflects those three stats in recent games.

  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Quite a pedantic point for sure Berg......and yes, I agree. However if you wanted to move the needle - you could do so significantly in only 10 rounds. If you had not plateaued. The point being that it is a current view of skill........and a good one. 

    If I had played over 10000 rounds (which I have)I'm more interested in the last 100 and than the first 100, which will contribute circa 99.9% of the score weighting.......Alonso vs Hamilton. 'Has been' vs champion. 

    I don't think it's pedantic. I mean it's not about every game counting. That would in deed be pedantic. Its about the number 10 which is just arbitrary and implies a wrong image of what's actually going on. one could also say that it reflects the past 5, 15 or 30 games instead with the same legitimacy. I would use no number at all in such a case. I'd say it just reflects those three stats in recent games.

    Lol. Ok. I agree. Still didn’t delegitimise my point.
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There is no argument.
    I do care about people spreading misinformation, and also people attempting to pass opinion as fact.
    I moved on to BFV when it released and never looked back.

    There is a reason it is 0.0%
    Look at anyone's profile.
    Do you see a score for TDM for anyone profile under game mode?
    No.
    That is the section the pie charts pulls the data from.
    Therefore, it is 0.0% on the Game Mode pie-chart, since it does not read any TDM scores under Game Mode.

    Artillery Defense Kills is a broken stat that was never fixed and I have not said anything about that, no reason do to so, this discussion was about the pie chart that you incorrectly thought showed player count.


    Don't play the kid card with me, I am not a baby goat.
    You never want to give away your debate level that easily.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 20
    Plucky6922 wrote: »
    There is no argument.
    I do care about people spreading misinformation, and also people attempting to pass opinion as fact.
    I moved on to BFV when it released and never looked back.

    There is a reason it is 0.0%
    Look at anyone's profile.
    Do you see a score for TDM for anyone profile under game mode?
    No.
    That is the section the pie charts pulls the data from.
    Therefore, it is 0.0% on the Game Mode pie-chart, since it does not read any TDM scores under Game Mode.

    Artillery Defense Kills is a broken stat that was never fixed and I have not said anything about that, no reason do to so, this discussion was about the pie chart that you incorrectly thought showed player count.


    Don't play the kid card with me, I am not a baby goat.
    You never want to give away your debate level that easily.

    Lol.

    You mean like this:

    Not sure if you are English speaking/reading or not,

    Haha. What a hypocrite.

    PS. Your argument remains irrelevant for the vast majority of players. So I simply don’t care.
  • The_BERG_366
    2819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Like I said. TDM is irrelevant to over 99% of the players base. If you have stats to the contrary, please let me know.  So whilst I am sure you think that this is a very interesting debate, its not. The point you are making is irrelevant. TDM makes up a tiny proportion of the player base. Yo now claim the stats are broken? Funny how the ONLY ones are broken are the ones that suit your argument.

    With permission - I’ll go off the official data.

    When I went to school 0.0% of nothing was very close to nothing. That mathematical construct hasn't changed.  ;-) I don’t know what they teach kids these days. 

    So let me reconstruct my theory just for you:

    Good players have consistently high skill. That's a fact. They consistently get good raw stats on PTFO, kill a lot and die less. Bad players have lower skill because they don't combine the holy trinity of SPM, KPM and K/D. EXCEPT for the TDM players that make up 0.0% of the official stats of the total score in BF1 and need to be treated as special cases. Poor downtrodden TDM players. They can have chat amongst themselves in a single Discord chat and agree who is the best amongst themselves.

    Does that work better for you? 

    Please listen to what he said. It's true that tdm score stats are broken on the tracker, always have been (afaik). Tdm is ways more popular than war pigeons (a mode that died out withing months after the release if I remember correctly). Tdm players are very much relevant for this (or at least used to be) especially when wanting to compare skill stat between players without additional information.
    I don't think the stat is to be taken too seriously. Given the gamemodes played it gives you a rough idea of the pace and overall effectiveness of a player, but not much more...
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 20
    How am I an hypocrite?

    You posted a link and said, "Less than 0.1% of players play TDM. According to the stats, there are more players playing War Pigeons this week (0.64%!, its been on rotation"
    I click on said link and the chart you referenced said Game Mode Score, and from your statement, it implied it showed player count.
    I was unaware, (still unaware) if you were/are non-English and  it was a translation issue from having to use Google Translator or transition the Tracker page from English to some other language format.
    Therefore, I stated that and then pointed out that the pie chart represented game mode scores, not player count.

    Don't take everything someone types to you on an online forum as a personal attack.




  • Forkbeard84
    2046 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Its too bad we cant all debate and discuss without getting personal. A lot of smart people here on the forums. This arguing and personal slurring sucks all the air out of the room. People that might have something to contribute dont say anything because they dont want to be involved.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4813 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    The TDM flag is not worth fighting for. 

    Its a small game mode that is played by a relatively small number of players.

    I'm looking at the US full servers right now at peak evening time and can see:

    14 full conquest servers x 64 players - 896 players
    7 full operations servers x 64 players - 448 players
    0 full frontlines servers - 0 players
    0 full domination servers - 0 players
    3 full TDM severs x 24 players - 72 players in total 

    So that's about 5% of players playing TDM and 95% of player playing big objective game modes.

    If 5% of the players that have and argument that they are hard done by.....fine....the stat still works for the other 95%.


    Let me ask you a genuine question now we have a common understanding of how the skill stats works........

    If you were an elite player, and you only played objective game modes, how would you go about making up the gap to a player that you declared to be a noob. It should not take long....right? How many rounds of your chosen game mode? 10 games? 20 games? 

    How fast could your skill fall to pretty average territory? 5 games? 10 games? 
  • Plucky6922
    563 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    There are many variables involved that need answered before posing a question like that, in my opinion.
    Is the other player playing at the same time?
    Are they squad leader each game?
    Do both players main the same class?
    Are they playing the same map/game mode?
    Are they playing with a squad of mic'd up players?
    Are they playing against squads of mic'd up players?
    It is not just a cut and dry How many games will it take? in comparison of two players.
    Everything should be the same for each, to have a level playing field of data.

    We can do some basic math and not factor in any of that stuff, since that is what you are asking for, looking at the simple picture instead of the more important big picture.
    If someone started with 300 skill and had 500 raw SPM(not the inflated crap you see on the tracker that shows 2000/3000 SPM but the actual stat the skill stat is based off of), with 2 KPM and 4 K/D, and if they maintained that 500 raw SPM, 2KPM, 4K/D it would break down to:
    300 start.
    328 = 1 game 353 = 2 games  375 = 3 games 395 = 4 games 414 = 5 games 430 = 6 games 445 = 7 games 458 = 8 games 470 = 9 games 481 = 10 games
    491 = 11 games  499 = 12 games 507 = 13 games 514 = 14 games 521 = 15 games 526 = 16 games 532 = 17 games 536 = 18 games 540 = 19 games 544 = 20 games
    548 = 21 games 551 = 22 games 553 = 23 games 556 = 24 games 558 = 25 games 560 = 26 games 562 = 27 games 563 = 28 games 565 = 29 games 566 = 30 games
    567 = 31 games 568 = 32 games 569 = 33 games 570 = 34 games 571 = 35 games 572 = 36 games 572 = 37 games 573 = 38 games 573 = 39 games 574 = 40 games
    574 = 41 games 575 = 42 games 575 = 43 games 575 = 44 games 576 = 45 games 576 = 46 games 576 = 47 games 576 = 48 games 577 = 49 games 577 = 50 games

    Continuing that trend, it would take over 100 consecutive games of 500 Raw SPM, 2 KPM, and 4 K/D to go from 300 skill to 600 skill.

    How fast could a score drop from 600?
    Maybe 10 horrible games? ( I don't feel like doing the math right now for that) and you are looking at a 200? skill ranking(if not sub 200).
    Horrible as in something like 100 SPM, .5 KPM and .75 K/D

    TL:DR
    It doesn't take much to go down quickly if one stacks horrible games one after another, but it takes forever to get a score to go way up.
    ~edit for typos
    Post edited by Plucky6922 on
  • The_BERG_366
    2819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Quite a pedantic point for sure Berg......and yes, I agree. However if you wanted to move the needle - you could do so significantly in only 10 rounds. If you had not plateaued. The point being that it is a current view of skill........and a good one. 

    If I had played over 10000 rounds (which I have)I'm more interested in the last 100 and than the first 100, which will contribute circa 99.9% of the score weighting.......Alonso vs Hamilton. 'Has been' vs champion. 

    I don't think it's pedantic. I mean it's not about every game counting. That would in deed be pedantic. Its about the number 10 which is just arbitrary and implies a wrong image of what's actually going on. one could also say that it reflects the past 5, 15 or 30 games instead with the same legitimacy. I would use no number at all in such a case. I'd say it just reflects those three stats in recent games.

    Lol. Ok. I agree. Still didn’t delegitimise my point.
    Wasnt trying to do that in the first place. I pointed out an inaccurate point, nothing more, nothing less. This doesnt mean i disagree or agree with anything else said in the comment. 
  • EA_Rtas
    538 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, EA Community Manager, Battlefield V
    Alright let's keep this on topic and civil. I've removed the unnecessary comments from the previous page and this one.
Sign In or Register to comment.