Quote:
Originally Posted by forsakenlight
This is an assumption yes and without knowing how many people are engaged in various battles we have no way of knowing if it is true. However it is still a very safe assumption. Also factor in how long you are in that line.
So yes I think it is safe to assume there are roughly 45 times as many federation pvp players than klingon pvp players.
As for overall who knows? I can only go by what I am seeing through the queue line.
At the bottom tier lt6? There were way more klingons and probably still are.
But I don't want to go off about all the tiers, my main concern is what's going on at tier 5.

Well, this assumes that the PVPers at each tier are constrained to their tiers. My proposed system replaces tier constraints with ratings brackets, so tierspecific population imbalances will not be as great a concern.
Regarding overall population imbalances, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowreap
the scheme depends on having a large enough population that you can break the players down into rating brackets and match them up, and still have enough players in each bracket to actually start a game.

These two posts address a fundamental issue with any matchmaking system, which involves population.
According to my proposed system, normalisation to 50% win:loss does require a large population. However, matchmaking in general  and the operation of the ratings system  does not require any particular population (above 10 total, of course, if 5v5 is our most basic unit).
More accurately, we do not need to constrain players to their ratings brackets.
Matchmaking will first select from within a ratings bracket, and then move outward if there are not enough players available within that single bracket.
While it is true that there may be situations where PVPers from one bracket might be matched up with and against PVPers of other brackets, this will happen only if it becomes necessary to create PVP matches (i.e., qualityofservice oriented, instead of besteffort oriented). In this scenario, ratings are still calculated normally and largely unaffected, as long as we also apply weights to the different brackets.
For example, a scenario where a PVPer from Bracket 3 is forced to play with and against PVPers from Bracket 1. Without bracket weightings, the participation calculated would be extremely high for the player from Bracket 3, which would temporarily inflate that player's rating. To compensate, we can then apply weightings in the form of a (fractional) coefficient applied to the participation component, where the coefficient represents a ratio of the brackets' average participation.
===
So the participation formula becomes:
Participation = (AvgParticipationOfHighBracket / AvgParticipationOfMyBracket) * (myParticipation / totalParticipation)
And the ratings (accumulation) formula becomes:
myNewRating += (AverageRatingsOfPlayersInGame / 100) * (Participation)
Note that PVP match rewards, and the score screen, will still be based upon (myParticipation / totalParticipation).
===
By applying the bracket coefficient to the participation component and not the entire ratings formula, players from lower brackets are rewarded slightly for competing against players from higher brackets, while the ratings calculation (in that situation of mixed brackets) would be largely unaffected for the players from higher brackets.
===
How does this sound?
I have edited the original post to reflect this feedback. Take a look and let me know. And thanks again for the excellent feedback.