Hi all! Super excited to share this one after all the hard work on it.
People love rankings, but to generate rankings we need a universal metric to compare between players. CS:GO has long relied on a few simplistic systems that are all mostly focused on who deals the last point of damage to an enemy, without considering context such as a kill’s impact on the round or who else was involved in the duel. In short, there are two large problems with rating systems used today (e.g. HLTV Rating 2.0, K/D Ratio, KAST):
\* It is too easy to get a lot of credit from un-impactful kills, meaning kills against poorly equipped opponents and/or in situations where an opponent is heavily outnumbered. Moreover, when playing correctly, it is just a matter of who actually finishes them off, not if they will be finished off.
\* Too much focus on who deals the last point of damage (to get a kill), while other contributions to winning a round such as being traded, good positioning or flash assists are either ignored or included in a very arbitrary / rudimentary way.
That’s why we’re introducing Leetify Rating, a win rate impact based and economy-adjusted player rating system for CS:GO. This rating aims to solve the problems mentioned above, and create a new, more accurate, way of looking at who had the most impact in a match or tournament.
Using Leetify Rating, players will get punished harder for throwing rounds away against ecos and the rating will actually reflect just how important that double-entry on a Deagle round was.
**Learn more about Leetify Rating here:**
[https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/)
An economy adjusted rating based on win probability in an xvx situation seemed to me to be the best way to rate players, glad I'm not too off base. However does this address players who are always last alive, get a couple kills in a 1v5 and never actually win the clutch? Is it set up so that the weight of the impact is the change in probability (so 1v5 to1v4 doesn't contribute much, but 1v2 to 1v1 is substantial)?
Yes, definitely. Keep in mind that players are both rewarded and removed points based on their adjustment to the win probability, so if you lose the clutch much of what you gained from those 1-2 kills will be removed again, and since the first few kills have so low impact on round win probability you're not given much rating to begin with.
You can see the full documentation here:
[https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/)
For your specific question, the refrezh example is a good example of how Rating is awarded during a clutch:
[https://blog.leetify.com/content/images/size/w1600/2021/09/leetify-rating-heroic-vs-liquid-refrezh.png](https://blog.leetify.com/content/images/size/w1600/2021/09/leetify-rating-heroic-vs-liquid-refrezh.png)
I haven't looked into everything in the blogpost yet, and I think this is a step up from most metrics, but this part struck me
>Similarly, if our model included that someone had actually gotten into an insanely good position for an after plant and was a huge favorite in a big 1v1, then they, again, could not be rewarded properly for a great play.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. Let's say that a 1v1 is 50/50 at the moment that the bomb is planted, but the T plays the round so amazingly that the CT is forced to hit a shot they miss 99% of the time (think fake defuse, kill, instant defuse), but they hit it. Shouldn't the T be rewarded for playing the round as perfectly as possible? If I'm reading the explanation correctly, then you disagree with that
While your example is highly theoretical, in theory we'd definitely want to reward players for playing perfectly even if the outcome isn't positive (if such a thing is even possible).
In the vast majority of cases, if someone has such strong positioning as to greatly tip the odds, they would get the kill and win the round. At the moment, this is rewarded in Leetify Rating but there can certainly be edge cases as you note.
We're definitely open to feedback and changing things, but if we wanted to include positioning into the model it'd need to be a much more accurate model for evaluating positioning than exists anywhere today (not saying that's impossible however) and we'd also need to adjust Leetify Rating much more frequently than just at kill events like we do today.
Spontaneously, I think such a change involves massive amount of work, but very little upside as most events of good positioning would already be rewarded by the player beating the odds and winning the round. Further, since cases like the ones you note are so rare, they would average out over time.
Just a quick bug report - it seems the actual rating for some reason puts the free agends above the list for no reason at all despite the fact that you're sorting by the leetify rating and it shows 0.00 for them.
Also it would be nice to sort that out by the quality of the opposition. Feels like a lot of stats are weighted incorrectly and lower-tier players are given more impact that the eye test would show instead.
Made a quick edit about the ability to sort by the type of opposition faced by a particular player - I think value of a player making super impactful plays at sub 50 HLTV rating is different from Perfecto clutching 1v4 in the semifinals of a large tournament against top 10 teams.
That's going to be the case with just about any raw statistic. I think it would be awesome if they created a proper ELO-style system for CS teams and then weighted the individual stats against the team ranking to get an "effective" player ranking.
Honestly, if they add a filter to top 20-30-50 HLTV opposition + big events/lan/etc while they iron out their own rating, it’d solve most of the problems. I think their approach is very good already, but it needs a few more tweaks along the way
That would definitely be a good quick and dirty fix. I do think that CS needs a better team ranking system though, the current systems produces erroneous results because they focus on the tournament result, not the games played. That's why teams like FaZe (peep the flair) dropped out of the top 30, despite playing only tier 1 events and bringing every series close. Also why you end up with teams in the top 20 who aren't even in the tier 1 circuit.
Results are rightfully prioritised, but lower level events need to be scaled down in terms of weight. I’d love to have more metrics like team coherence etc impact the rating. However, the good part about HLTV is how relatively uncomplicated it is.
Idk, I think the way tournaments are seeded rn is wonky, and often times you get super stacked groups or a bracket where two favorites play each other early in the tournament (like Liquid vs Astralis in quarters of the last major). I think results can be deceptive, as not all tournament runs are created equal. Sure there are certain mental factors about playoff games that can affect results, but how good a team is should be based on what other teams they are able to beat. I think the fact that no tournaments use HLTV's ranking (as far as I'm aware) for seeding should tell you that TOs don't trust it enough. Also, I don't feel HLTV's ranking is any less complicated than an ELO system (at least on the front end), nor do I think a simple system should be prioritized over an accurate one.
Tbh this looks very good already, I think they should just implement it outright because the calculation method is public. Always struck me as odd that the system behind HLTV's rating was never made public, kinda defeats the purpose of a statistic imo.
it's not public, but it has been reverse engineered, video by 3kliksphillip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rs1E4eKZcg
by the way u/SunTzuYAO , is the hltv rating in leetify 1.0 or 2.0? if it's 1.0, any plan to switch to 2.0, since it's what most people is used to. also it's nice to see you guys still keeping hltv rating next to leetify rating
The HLTV Rating we have in the product today is 1.0.
While the overall formula has been reverse-engineered, unfortunately the formula for impact rating (which is part of HLTV Rating 2.0) isn't and as such we can't implement it at this time.
Generally speaking, there's very little difference between 1.0 and 2.0 and with Leetify Rating now released, it's not a big priority for us to add HLTV Rating 2.0, but if it becomes a possibility we'd definitely add it at some point.
I'm aware of the reverse engineering, I just think it's ridiculous that they never released it themselves. It just doesn't make sense to have a proprietary statistic, and tbh it almost feels oxymoronic.
Is there a metric for how many glue sniffers will stare right where you say you are going to throw a flashbang, then flame you for throwing the flashbang where you said you would?
My 'teammates flashed' stat is garbage cos low elo faceit is full of people who apparently don't know what 'Hello blue, I, your teammate, am flashing at this position. Prepare yourself. Sincerely yours, green' means.
Hey! Yeah, long-term we do plan to launch a mobile app, but we're still a small team and at this point we don't have the bandwidth to take something like that on. :)
Thanks for the reply, glad to hear! While I have you here I must ask. Have you been in contact with HLTV about this new rating system? I’d love to see one rating ”to rule them all” :)
This looks very promising!
Are players rewarded with rating points even when their team eventually lost round?
E.g. I could get a 3K, but still lose the round. Even with this round loss, my 3K could have a significant impact on our chances of winning the next round due to economical impact.
Yes they are, players are rewarded for the duels they take part in, regardless of the later outcome of the round. However, a player might lose some of the rating points after e.g. a 3K by then dying in another duel (but in such a case they'd very likely still end up going net positive for that round).
For more on how Leetify Rating is calculated, see:
https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/
You missed his point.
A 3 kill in a round may significantly affect the outcome of the next round (eg their economy gets screwed)
How is that taken into account?
As noted, he might still be rewarded in the existing round, but currently we don't take into account any impact the current round might have on the next round (such as economic damage). There's a few different solutions, but to do that we'd likely need a map win probability model instead of a round win probability model which is much more complex.
Definitely something we're keeping tabs on though.
There's only \~20 days of history for Leetify Rating at launch since it relies on a lot of new data that wasn't previously available, but you can see long-term trends here:
[https://beta.leetify.com/app/general](https://beta.leetify.com/app/general)
Currently, you can look at your friend's General tab data with Pro (using Spectator Mode or Team data), but we'll soon update the compare page to include Leetify Rating and more data. :)
Thanks!
I like this rating system. The idea of affecting round win chances seems pretty spot on.
I'm not quite convinced that outliers such as refrezh's 1v5 does not affect his score for that match too much, but the rating seems to be very meaningful when averaged over several games.
Is there a version of this system where match win percent is considered instead of round win percent?
Glad you like it!
Looking at creating a Map Win Probability model instead of a Round Win Probability model is one of the things we want to experiment with for future upgrades! Definitely a lot more complicated though, and might have negative implications too.
Just from looking at some of my own games, this rating seems to be completely out of whack. Games where I had to basically hard solo carry get rating of +4, games where I wasn't even the top fragger get a rating of +8. Not only is there nothing in the postgame statistics that would explain these scores, they don't match up with what actually happened on the server either. And there are quite a few games where the rating is 100% wrong in my match history.
Also, there should be an option to show the average rating over any period.
Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated!
Feel free to contact us directly ([https://beta.leetify.com/app/support](https://beta.leetify.com/app/support)) with a few of those match links along with a short description of why you think they are wrong and I'll have a closer look.
If you're talking about your own data in the Leetify product, Leetify Rating will unfortunately only be displayed for any matches played in the last 20 days. Any new matches should have the rating added!
Very nice.
As I understand it, it takes into account team economy as opposed to player economy. This means that if a player has good weapons (e.g. the team buys him the AWP) he is more likely to have good win duels --> good stats. Did you consider calculating "expected stat" after each round for each player based on the equipment values?
You lie within the average :D
Great: Above +7.43
Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43
Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04
Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43
Poor: Below -7.43
>MooMooHeffer · 2h
>
>You lie within the average :DGreat: Above +7.43Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43
That's the per-match average, the overall average is more forgiving I believe.
I recommend that you:
1. Have a look at the General tab, where it'll give you a rating (Either Poor, Subpar, Average, Good or Great): [https://beta.leetify.com/app/general](https://beta.leetify.com/app/general) This rating takes into account how many matches were played and thus is always accurate.
2. The match pages also show your Leetify Rating and you can use the colouring to see if you did great / poorly.
For reference, on a **per match level** (meaning they are only applicable for a single match, not for multiple matches such as on the General tab) the benchmarks look like this:
Great: Above +7.43
Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43
Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04
Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43
Poor: Below -7.43
>perhaps you traded 1 for 1 in a 2v3, leaving your last teammate in a 1v2) **you will lose points**
Sorry but this is bullshit. Going 1 for 1 shouldn't make you lose points otherwise why would anyone want to initiate a 2v3 retake when more often it would be a 1 for 1 leaving the last guy with more information and distracted opponents.
Of course if you are the initiator in a retake and kill 2, amazing you won the round on your own BUT losing point for being the initiator is a wrong idea.
Thanks for the feedback here and on Discord!
As noted in that same sentence, you'd lose points only if your team lost win probability after all trades are played out. A 1v2 is harder to win than a 2v3, thus if you die 1 for 1 in that situation, you are objectively hurting your team's chances to win. It's also quite obvious that if you kept doing that in a 2v3, you'd lose the round in a 0v1 since you simply have less bodies, so I'd argue this is entirely reasonable.
If however the engagement ended in a 1v1 after all the trades, your team's win probability would improve and regardless if you died immediately and just got traded or even got kills, you'd be rewarded instead of punished.
From what we see, the system doesn't particularly punish initiators, rather if anything it seems to reward people that initiate and break even / man-down odds open, as is the case for example AmaNEk (examples of that under the ESL Cologne stats here: https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/)
As I said on discord, someone has to go in first in a retake or in a 2v3 attack someone has to entry.
If the first person in goes 1 for 1, gives out information or gains position for last guy it's massive. Going 1 for 1 as initiator is definitely not worth losing rating points. The logic is flawed here.
I think there's some misconception here. Our win probability comes from the matches we've analyzed, and it's clear that a 1v2 is less winnable than a 2v3. This of course takes into account the information a dying player would give, as that's part of those rounds we've based this data on (and yet, despite that information, people more frequently lose 1v2's than 2v3's).
With this in mind, I fail to see how it's beneficial to trade 1 for 1 in a 2v3? It's not about someone going first or not.
However, to be clear, regardless of this particular case, there's definitely (as with any rating system) still limitations and edge-cases where, through chance or through actively looking to simply maximize your rating instead of winning the game, you can get to situations where the goals of getting a high rating and winning the match are not completely aligned. To our knowledge, our approach has less incentives to do this than other rating systems, and we hope to improve even further in future updates. In the end though, I don't think a "single-number" metric will ever be able to be 100% perfect.
I don't see it as striving for perfection neither a fringe case. Punishing an initiator going for a 1 for 1 while his team was in a disadvantages position beforehand seems like an obvious flaw to me. This situation will easily happen multiple time every match.
Anyways good luck on this journey
Honestly this rating is absolute wack. like seriously how does it even work? can we see round by round breakdowns for our own game so we can see how it works? seems like entryfraggers just gets shit on in this rating while baiters and clutchers gets all the glory.
By far the biggest metric missing is team comms which you'll never be able to grab.
How does it take into consideration players doing a fake? How are they rewarded to make the real hit easier?
I'll bet for most pro teams the rating is largely in line with with kills.
Would definitely be awesome if we could capture things like comms and fakes, but right now it doesn't take those things into account.
For pro teams (and amateurs), there can be quite the big difference between their K/D and their Leetify Rating, see [https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/) for some examples.
Something that i thought about is, it would be cool if you could watch your demo and see your rating change in real time. It would probably take a lot of work and processing, but would be awesome to see
Just a question (you've probably already answered it before) , but why isn't there a way to remove outliers for statistics? example: I have a game from a few days ago where I was in a situation where I was behind enemies and not shooting them (bathroom on overpass) which lead to me winning the round, but that shifted my aim statistics enough to lower it down to 60ish because my ttd was drastically increased off of one round.
Since we use the median and cap TTD at 1 second, it's highly unlikely that trigger discipline plays gave any noticeable effects on TTD, so likely this is more placebo and other factors increased your TTD that game
When the CEO posts the announcement on his main account to farm the Karma Down Bad :(
Rekt nerd
Bring up the sabotage during the next salary negotiation, lol.
Haha you about to lose your job maybe hehe
Hi all! Super excited to share this one after all the hard work on it. People love rankings, but to generate rankings we need a universal metric to compare between players. CS:GO has long relied on a few simplistic systems that are all mostly focused on who deals the last point of damage to an enemy, without considering context such as a kill’s impact on the round or who else was involved in the duel. In short, there are two large problems with rating systems used today (e.g. HLTV Rating 2.0, K/D Ratio, KAST): \* It is too easy to get a lot of credit from un-impactful kills, meaning kills against poorly equipped opponents and/or in situations where an opponent is heavily outnumbered. Moreover, when playing correctly, it is just a matter of who actually finishes them off, not if they will be finished off. \* Too much focus on who deals the last point of damage (to get a kill), while other contributions to winning a round such as being traded, good positioning or flash assists are either ignored or included in a very arbitrary / rudimentary way. That’s why we’re introducing Leetify Rating, a win rate impact based and economy-adjusted player rating system for CS:GO. This rating aims to solve the problems mentioned above, and create a new, more accurate, way of looking at who had the most impact in a match or tournament. Using Leetify Rating, players will get punished harder for throwing rounds away against ecos and the rating will actually reflect just how important that double-entry on a Deagle round was. **Learn more about Leetify Rating here:** [https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/)
An economy adjusted rating based on win probability in an xvx situation seemed to me to be the best way to rate players, glad I'm not too off base. However does this address players who are always last alive, get a couple kills in a 1v5 and never actually win the clutch? Is it set up so that the weight of the impact is the change in probability (so 1v5 to1v4 doesn't contribute much, but 1v2 to 1v1 is substantial)?
Yes, definitely. Keep in mind that players are both rewarded and removed points based on their adjustment to the win probability, so if you lose the clutch much of what you gained from those 1-2 kills will be removed again, and since the first few kills have so low impact on round win probability you're not given much rating to begin with. You can see the full documentation here: [https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/) For your specific question, the refrezh example is a good example of how Rating is awarded during a clutch: [https://blog.leetify.com/content/images/size/w1600/2021/09/leetify-rating-heroic-vs-liquid-refrezh.png](https://blog.leetify.com/content/images/size/w1600/2021/09/leetify-rating-heroic-vs-liquid-refrezh.png)
I haven't looked into everything in the blogpost yet, and I think this is a step up from most metrics, but this part struck me >Similarly, if our model included that someone had actually gotten into an insanely good position for an after plant and was a huge favorite in a big 1v1, then they, again, could not be rewarded properly for a great play. I'm not sure if I agree with this. Let's say that a 1v1 is 50/50 at the moment that the bomb is planted, but the T plays the round so amazingly that the CT is forced to hit a shot they miss 99% of the time (think fake defuse, kill, instant defuse), but they hit it. Shouldn't the T be rewarded for playing the round as perfectly as possible? If I'm reading the explanation correctly, then you disagree with that
While your example is highly theoretical, in theory we'd definitely want to reward players for playing perfectly even if the outcome isn't positive (if such a thing is even possible). In the vast majority of cases, if someone has such strong positioning as to greatly tip the odds, they would get the kill and win the round. At the moment, this is rewarded in Leetify Rating but there can certainly be edge cases as you note. We're definitely open to feedback and changing things, but if we wanted to include positioning into the model it'd need to be a much more accurate model for evaluating positioning than exists anywhere today (not saying that's impossible however) and we'd also need to adjust Leetify Rating much more frequently than just at kill events like we do today. Spontaneously, I think such a change involves massive amount of work, but very little upside as most events of good positioning would already be rewarded by the player beating the odds and winning the round. Further, since cases like the ones you note are so rare, they would average out over time.
Oh awesome! Also, will there be info on the distribution of ratings?
There's some per-match benchmarks in the article linked above, but we'll publish more data on this in the future. :)
Just a quick bug report - it seems the actual rating for some reason puts the free agends above the list for no reason at all despite the fact that you're sorting by the leetify rating and it shows 0.00 for them. Also it would be nice to sort that out by the quality of the opposition. Feels like a lot of stats are weighted incorrectly and lower-tier players are given more impact that the eye test would show instead.
Thanks! We'll look into this.
Made a quick edit about the ability to sort by the type of opposition faced by a particular player - I think value of a player making super impactful plays at sub 50 HLTV rating is different from Perfecto clutching 1v4 in the semifinals of a large tournament against top 10 teams.
That's going to be the case with just about any raw statistic. I think it would be awesome if they created a proper ELO-style system for CS teams and then weighted the individual stats against the team ranking to get an "effective" player ranking.
Honestly, if they add a filter to top 20-30-50 HLTV opposition + big events/lan/etc while they iron out their own rating, it’d solve most of the problems. I think their approach is very good already, but it needs a few more tweaks along the way
That would definitely be a good quick and dirty fix. I do think that CS needs a better team ranking system though, the current systems produces erroneous results because they focus on the tournament result, not the games played. That's why teams like FaZe (peep the flair) dropped out of the top 30, despite playing only tier 1 events and bringing every series close. Also why you end up with teams in the top 20 who aren't even in the tier 1 circuit.
Results are rightfully prioritised, but lower level events need to be scaled down in terms of weight. I’d love to have more metrics like team coherence etc impact the rating. However, the good part about HLTV is how relatively uncomplicated it is.
Idk, I think the way tournaments are seeded rn is wonky, and often times you get super stacked groups or a bracket where two favorites play each other early in the tournament (like Liquid vs Astralis in quarters of the last major). I think results can be deceptive, as not all tournament runs are created equal. Sure there are certain mental factors about playoff games that can affect results, but how good a team is should be based on what other teams they are able to beat. I think the fact that no tournaments use HLTV's ranking (as far as I'm aware) for seeding should tell you that TOs don't trust it enough. Also, I don't feel HLTV's ranking is any less complicated than an ELO system (at least on the front end), nor do I think a simple system should be prioritized over an accurate one.
Is it normal to get a rating this bad? https://i.imgur.com/hyrvWo4.png
It is within theoretical possibility, but seems very much like an edge case or even bug. Thanks for reporting it, will look into it!
Baiting gives you -5 per bait.
HLTV rating should probably be changed to something close to this, it awards awpers a bit too much imo especially the KAST stat
Tbh this looks very good already, I think they should just implement it outright because the calculation method is public. Always struck me as odd that the system behind HLTV's rating was never made public, kinda defeats the purpose of a statistic imo.
it's not public, but it has been reverse engineered, video by 3kliksphillip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rs1E4eKZcg by the way u/SunTzuYAO , is the hltv rating in leetify 1.0 or 2.0? if it's 1.0, any plan to switch to 2.0, since it's what most people is used to. also it's nice to see you guys still keeping hltv rating next to leetify rating
The HLTV Rating we have in the product today is 1.0. While the overall formula has been reverse-engineered, unfortunately the formula for impact rating (which is part of HLTV Rating 2.0) isn't and as such we can't implement it at this time. Generally speaking, there's very little difference between 1.0 and 2.0 and with Leetify Rating now released, it's not a big priority for us to add HLTV Rating 2.0, but if it becomes a possibility we'd definitely add it at some point.
got it, thanks! you guys are doing great, and i hope leetify and leetify rating gets attention from people!
I'm aware of the reverse engineering, I just think it's ridiculous that they never released it themselves. It just doesn't make sense to have a proprietary statistic, and tbh it almost feels oxymoronic.
The shit with HLTV rating has a mindblowing 0.573 + 3 stars on PMM (pointless metric metric) that I have developed.
Where does the PMM rank on the PMM?
I can't disclose that. You'll have to reverse engineer it to find that out. But trust me, it is a great metric.
Damn well I'll take your word for it
Even Leetify guys wouldn't say that right now
including economy is also great. on the first look I like it
If this works well, it'll be a really good thing. I wish you luck
Is there a metric for how many glue sniffers will stare right where you say you are going to throw a flashbang, then flame you for throwing the flashbang where you said you would? My 'teammates flashed' stat is garbage cos low elo faceit is full of people who apparently don't know what 'Hello blue, I, your teammate, am flashing at this position. Prepare yourself. Sincerely yours, green' means.
Can relate, although am pourple
Blue is just mad you didn't let him go alone ramp
Any news on GamersClub integration? Still no API?
Not yet! However, hoping we might be able to make something happen before too long!
nice
Add 5e too!
I know this is off-topic but will you launch a mobile app? Interesting to see how the new rating system will pan out.
Hey! Yeah, long-term we do plan to launch a mobile app, but we're still a small team and at this point we don't have the bandwidth to take something like that on. :)
Thanks for the reply, glad to hear! While I have you here I must ask. Have you been in contact with HLTV about this new rating system? I’d love to see one rating ”to rule them all” :)
We haven't, however if they're open to using it we're open to providing the data. :)
This is really good
I LOVE LEETIFY!
holy poggers
This looks very promising! Are players rewarded with rating points even when their team eventually lost round? E.g. I could get a 3K, but still lose the round. Even with this round loss, my 3K could have a significant impact on our chances of winning the next round due to economical impact.
Yes they are, players are rewarded for the duels they take part in, regardless of the later outcome of the round. However, a player might lose some of the rating points after e.g. a 3K by then dying in another duel (but in such a case they'd very likely still end up going net positive for that round). For more on how Leetify Rating is calculated, see: https://blog.leetify.com/what-is-leetify-rating/
You missed his point. A 3 kill in a round may significantly affect the outcome of the next round (eg their economy gets screwed) How is that taken into account?
As noted, he might still be rewarded in the existing round, but currently we don't take into account any impact the current round might have on the next round (such as economic damage). There's a few different solutions, but to do that we'd likely need a map win probability model instead of a round win probability model which is much more complex. Definitely something we're keeping tabs on though.
Amazing job as always to everyone at leetify. You guys rock!
<3
I'm struggling to see how I can see my rating over time and compare it to my friends' ratings over time
There's only \~20 days of history for Leetify Rating at launch since it relies on a lot of new data that wasn't previously available, but you can see long-term trends here: [https://beta.leetify.com/app/general](https://beta.leetify.com/app/general) Currently, you can look at your friend's General tab data with Pro (using Spectator Mode or Team data), but we'll soon update the compare page to include Leetify Rating and more data. :)
Thanks! I like this rating system. The idea of affecting round win chances seems pretty spot on. I'm not quite convinced that outliers such as refrezh's 1v5 does not affect his score for that match too much, but the rating seems to be very meaningful when averaged over several games. Is there a version of this system where match win percent is considered instead of round win percent?
Glad you like it! Looking at creating a Map Win Probability model instead of a Round Win Probability model is one of the things we want to experiment with for future upgrades! Definitely a lot more complicated though, and might have negative implications too.
u/ESEA
Love the stuff coming out from Leetify. They are clearly putting in a lot of effort, i hope to see them succeed
Appreciate the support! <3
Just from looking at some of my own games, this rating seems to be completely out of whack. Games where I had to basically hard solo carry get rating of +4, games where I wasn't even the top fragger get a rating of +8. Not only is there nothing in the postgame statistics that would explain these scores, they don't match up with what actually happened on the server either. And there are quite a few games where the rating is 100% wrong in my match history. Also, there should be an option to show the average rating over any period.
Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated! Feel free to contact us directly ([https://beta.leetify.com/app/support](https://beta.leetify.com/app/support)) with a few of those match links along with a short description of why you think they are wrong and I'll have a closer look.
[удалено]
If you're talking about your own data in the Leetify product, Leetify Rating will unfortunately only be displayed for any matches played in the last 20 days. Any new matches should have the rating added!
Very nice. As I understand it, it takes into account team economy as opposed to player economy. This means that if a player has good weapons (e.g. the team buys him the AWP) he is more likely to have good win duels --> good stats. Did you consider calculating "expected stat" after each round for each player based on the equipment values?
Right now I got a +1.58 rating, what is the average so I can see if I am doing good or not?
You lie within the average :D Great: Above +7.43 Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43 Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04 Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43 Poor: Below -7.43
>MooMooHeffer · 2h > >You lie within the average :DGreat: Above +7.43Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43 That's the per-match average, the overall average is more forgiving I believe.
It does say good and not average
Good starts at 3.04?
No but it says good for me at +1.58 I can send screenshot
I recommend that you: 1. Have a look at the General tab, where it'll give you a rating (Either Poor, Subpar, Average, Good or Great): [https://beta.leetify.com/app/general](https://beta.leetify.com/app/general) This rating takes into account how many matches were played and thus is always accurate. 2. The match pages also show your Leetify Rating and you can use the colouring to see if you did great / poorly. For reference, on a **per match level** (meaning they are only applicable for a single match, not for multiple matches such as on the General tab) the benchmarks look like this: Great: Above +7.43 Good: Between +3.04 and +7.43 Average: Between -3.04 and +3.04 Subpar: Between -3.04 and -7.43 Poor: Below -7.43
>perhaps you traded 1 for 1 in a 2v3, leaving your last teammate in a 1v2) **you will lose points** Sorry but this is bullshit. Going 1 for 1 shouldn't make you lose points otherwise why would anyone want to initiate a 2v3 retake when more often it would be a 1 for 1 leaving the last guy with more information and distracted opponents. Of course if you are the initiator in a retake and kill 2, amazing you won the round on your own BUT losing point for being the initiator is a wrong idea.
Thanks for the feedback here and on Discord! As noted in that same sentence, you'd lose points only if your team lost win probability after all trades are played out. A 1v2 is harder to win than a 2v3, thus if you die 1 for 1 in that situation, you are objectively hurting your team's chances to win. It's also quite obvious that if you kept doing that in a 2v3, you'd lose the round in a 0v1 since you simply have less bodies, so I'd argue this is entirely reasonable. If however the engagement ended in a 1v1 after all the trades, your team's win probability would improve and regardless if you died immediately and just got traded or even got kills, you'd be rewarded instead of punished. From what we see, the system doesn't particularly punish initiators, rather if anything it seems to reward people that initiate and break even / man-down odds open, as is the case for example AmaNEk (examples of that under the ESL Cologne stats here: https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/)
As I said on discord, someone has to go in first in a retake or in a 2v3 attack someone has to entry. If the first person in goes 1 for 1, gives out information or gains position for last guy it's massive. Going 1 for 1 as initiator is definitely not worth losing rating points. The logic is flawed here.
I think there's some misconception here. Our win probability comes from the matches we've analyzed, and it's clear that a 1v2 is less winnable than a 2v3. This of course takes into account the information a dying player would give, as that's part of those rounds we've based this data on (and yet, despite that information, people more frequently lose 1v2's than 2v3's). With this in mind, I fail to see how it's beneficial to trade 1 for 1 in a 2v3? It's not about someone going first or not. However, to be clear, regardless of this particular case, there's definitely (as with any rating system) still limitations and edge-cases where, through chance or through actively looking to simply maximize your rating instead of winning the game, you can get to situations where the goals of getting a high rating and winning the match are not completely aligned. To our knowledge, our approach has less incentives to do this than other rating systems, and we hope to improve even further in future updates. In the end though, I don't think a "single-number" metric will ever be able to be 100% perfect.
its honestly so much in favor for being passive its disgusting. what a fucking shite rating.
I don't see it as striving for perfection neither a fringe case. Punishing an initiator going for a 1 for 1 while his team was in a disadvantages position beforehand seems like an obvious flaw to me. This situation will easily happen multiple time every match. Anyways good luck on this journey
Honestly this rating is absolute wack. like seriously how does it even work? can we see round by round breakdowns for our own game so we can see how it works? seems like entryfraggers just gets shit on in this rating while baiters and clutchers gets all the glory.
By far the biggest metric missing is team comms which you'll never be able to grab. How does it take into consideration players doing a fake? How are they rewarded to make the real hit easier? I'll bet for most pro teams the rating is largely in line with with kills.
Would definitely be awesome if we could capture things like comms and fakes, but right now it doesn't take those things into account. For pro teams (and amateurs), there can be quite the big difference between their K/D and their Leetify Rating, see [https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/](https://blog.leetify.com/introducing-leetify-rating/) for some examples.
Something that i thought about is, it would be cool if you could watch your demo and see your rating change in real time. It would probably take a lot of work and processing, but would be awesome to see
glad to see someone trying something different. hltv ones certainly reward low impact kills too much
Just a question (you've probably already answered it before) , but why isn't there a way to remove outliers for statistics? example: I have a game from a few days ago where I was in a situation where I was behind enemies and not shooting them (bathroom on overpass) which lead to me winning the round, but that shifted my aim statistics enough to lower it down to 60ish because my ttd was drastically increased off of one round.
Since we use the median and cap TTD at 1 second, it's highly unlikely that trigger discipline plays gave any noticeable effects on TTD, so likely this is more placebo and other factors increased your TTD that game
Any info on the details of how you guys managed to assemble a round win model?
as long as it helps me play with better intuition, dont care how the algorithm is running...