Thanks for the clarification, I see that I misunderstood your article as "I’m dissatisfied with existing tools so I’ll make my own", while it’s more along the lines "let’s reverse-engineer leetify". And for the latter it’s an excellent one :) Thanks!
Indeed k/d is an overall good proxy when taken with a step back, eg for a whole game. When looking at a single round, it ends up being noisy. Which is not to say it’s useless! In the end this is a shooter game, and to shoot is in the name (and not to die but that’s another matter) :D Now to the matter to evaluating odds of winning a combat.
To develop a bit on smokes: with some domain-specific knowledge you could approximate its usefulness. Smoke in catwalk on D2 allowing T to go through mid while a CT stands on shirt unable to take info nor shoot? Now that’s a good smoke. But this would require very tedious work an be non exhaustive. You could make a rating of "how many people walked in front of an opponent thanks to a smoke". Or how many bullets missed a CT defusing in the smoke. Possibilities are endless but not perfect.
For example scope.gg rates flashbangs by how many people were blinded. And I’d not be surprised if they gave a negative ranking to flashbangs that were heard but did not blind anyone: those give info to the opponent without helping you.
Now if you made a follow up that’d be great but you’ll end up meta-gaming instead of gaming. But that’s fun too!
> For example scope.gg rates flashbangs by how many people were blinded. And I’d not be surprised if they gave a negative ranking to flashbangs that were heard but did not blind anyone: those give info to the opponent without helping you.
Not sure if you'll read this, but I've been trying to figure out how the scope.gg "Rating 2.0" is computed, and all they say is that it's similar to the HLTV 2.0 rating, which in turn basically decomposes into kills and deaths and proxies thereof, i.e. no contribution from e.g. flashbangs. This would be in contrast to Leetify which at least counts flashbang assists.
I haven't used it in over a year so my memory may be failing me.
And to be fair I used their match explainer that focuses on rating in a single round, and to show you your mistakes. They rate pretty much everything, including the flashbangs I described. I must admit, I was not interested in my ranking, only in my mistakes. It is very possible I assumed all ratings in a match analysis counted towards your overall rate, but appears to be wrong.
So yeah, in the end we are not talking about the same thing. Sorry for bothering you with this!
(although it would be pretty interesting to have all those fine details be at least a signal for a player's overall rank)
Indeed k/d is an overall good proxy when taken with a step back, eg for a whole game. When looking at a single round, it ends up being noisy. Which is not to say it’s useless! In the end this is a shooter game, and to shoot is in the name (and not to die but that’s another matter) :D Now to the matter to evaluating odds of winning a combat.
To develop a bit on smokes: with some domain-specific knowledge you could approximate its usefulness. Smoke in catwalk on D2 allowing T to go through mid while a CT stands on shirt unable to take info nor shoot? Now that’s a good smoke. But this would require very tedious work an be non exhaustive. You could make a rating of "how many people walked in front of an opponent thanks to a smoke". Or how many bullets missed a CT defusing in the smoke. Possibilities are endless but not perfect.
For example scope.gg rates flashbangs by how many people were blinded. And I’d not be surprised if they gave a negative ranking to flashbangs that were heard but did not blind anyone: those give info to the opponent without helping you.
Now if you made a follow up that’d be great but you’ll end up meta-gaming instead of gaming. But that’s fun too!