League General Discussion Thread

[gamerman01]

2024 League rules will be rolled out soon, probably 1/15 or earlier.

The biggest change will be the ELO ranking system being ushered in.
That is, the average PPG system will be discontinued after 12/31.

If you’ve been fighting in Siberia or New Guinea lately and cut off from world news, the link is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Larckt6iOuBZtZ-AVzDPv-HEofZJdeN8ptXXotun0Og/edit#gid=0

The 2024 playoffs (that begin 1/1/25, a year from now) will be seeded by ELO as of 12/31/24. You will still need to complete 6 games BM, or 3 OOB, or 3 PtV to participate in the respective playoff.

This means life-time reputation will be a factor, but the more games you play in 2024 the more that your 2024 games will be a factor.

For many years, playoff seeding/start positions have been determined by that year’s performance only.
There are alternatives (to my favored course of action), but my (cough) authoritative decision is to simply go by 12/31 ELOs. I can change course on this if many players have a better idea.

Will remain that everyone who wants to participate in playoffs will be given a seat. Only requirement is to meet minimum # of games.

[gamerman01]

The 2024 league rules have been updated and posted as a sticky thread. The previous one has been kept in case changes want to be analyzed, but unstickied.

Mostly shortening up redundant language that has lingered from a previous moderator,
Eliminated the limitations on playing the same player over and over
And much shorter ranking rules because the system doesn’t need to be explained.

[pacifiersboard]

I may be a bit late, but wanna share these two thoughts:

• Matches in our League take much more time than in other sports. So there occurs a difference, if new ELO ratings base on the values at the time when game started or when it ends. Because most matches are called by surrender before given victory conditions are met I suggest to from tomorrow on compare ELO as it was when game was started. This way deliberations about benefits by delaying resign are avoided.

• Triggered by the issue @oysteilo had brought I wonder if the K-factor serves us well truly. At least in terms of transparency new players who wanna boost their ELO should be advised to play low rated League players first. For my part I prefer to see ELO of new players with even more reservation until they at all got possibility to join playoffs. Without doubt formula is even more simple without K-factor.

[pacifiersboard]

I.e. formula needs a K-factor but it does not have to vary with numbers of games played.

[pacifiersboard]

Might it be viable to implement a fixed game value for matches against new players (like 25) UNTIL his or her first win? With the first win the new player is considered to have started that game with his/her opponent’s ELO

Example (with an overall K-factor of 50)
A new guy looses two games, then wins the third against a 1500 ELO player. His ELO from here would be
1500 +25 (for last win) -25*2 = 1475

It is just an idea I just got. Only if it appears of interest I want to elaborate on it.

[gamerman01]

I also considered the timing of games starting and ending, but thought that it’s OK to just let it come out on average.
If someone delays a resignation because they want to wait for somebody else’s result to come in first, I think it’s just another minor inherent flaw of the ELO system being used for our super long brainy and dicey games.
But I admit I didn’t think about it very long and welcome discussion.
I think the vast majority of players will continue to resign when they feel suffocated, and over all on average that works out.

I remind myself that this is not a science - we are not measuring the temperature of the air, where there is only one correct number. Every system will have weaknesses, we just want one that’s going to do a really good job at reporting to us the information that we want.

I don’t like the idea where a new guy doesn’t get a deduction from his 1500 ELO until after he wins one…

I love the idea of looking harder at the k factors and not having more different ranges than necessary. I confess I should have invested more thought energy into that sooner, but I’ll do that now.
As Mr Roboto said, those factors are definitely not set in stone. He put them out as a starting point, and I tweaked them a couple times and then quit.

[mainah]

@gamerman01

I agree with @pacifiersboard in the request for the ELO to be based on the beginning status of the 2 players, not just for the effect of timing on the gain/loss on purpose. The effect of timing for not on purpose.

Not so hypothetical: A game last 6 months. We judge ELO affect based on when games ends.

Player Axis simultaneously plays and finishes 10 games while player Allies only finishes 4 other games, the ELO affect for both players on the game is largely different than when they started. For those of you trying to improve your ELO, you are probably, just as before, going to choose you opponents and the attention given to games for maximum effect. Or at least give it some weight. Hard to do that when the ELO maybe very different when its scored than the current information would predict.

By only scoring at the end, when the game itself can go for months while ELO scores on both sides are changing, seems a bit like making a bet on a football game when the spread is allowed to change between the time the bet is placed and the end of the game.

I am no mathematician, but I think that the variable K factor would compound this problem for experienced established players going up against an unknown new to league player.

I have no skin in this game. I am unsure if I will ever go for play-offs, where this matters, as my life quite often prevents me from playing consistently, and that’s not fair to my opponents or the league at large at the play off level. But I do have this weird thing for general fairness. Which, to me, also includes knowing as much as is reasonable to predict what you sign up for when you sign for it.

My 2 cents. Well, that’s probably 5 with current inflation.

[gamerman01]

Wait, BombsAway is back in 2023 after last game in league before was November 10, 2015?! That’s newsworthy

I’m doing some tests on BombsAway and Booper who are new to BM this year and played 5 or 6 games to see if the sensitivity is enough to apparently give them a fair shot at a fair seed in the playoffs.

[gamerman01]

I’ll read Mainah’s post in a minute. I’m in the middle of looking at k factors

110 for games 1-3
90 for games 4-6

We currently have 3 game minimum for OOB and PTV, and 6 for BM, is the reason for these ranges.

Looking at Booper and Bombs Away, who had 5 or 6 games of BM completed this year, their ending ELO looks appropriate to me based on who they played.

Interestingly, BOTH played our beloved Dawg, TWICE, FIRST. Getting the rust off, getting the feel of the game, it would seem.

@BombsAway, a veteran of the game but maybe not with BM, rips off 3 more wins and loses to MrRoboto. 2 of the wins were very impressive, Me1945 and Wizmark.
His ELO today is a little lower than Me1945 and Wizmark. Appropriate because he’s only played 6 games, and he did lose to MrRoboto at the end.
He’ll get a seat at the table, the chance to win the 2023 championship game, if 2-3 more players above him don’t participate. Let that sink in. He can enter the top playoff, albeit a low seed, after 2 impressive wins. Seems the ELO k factors are definitely sufficiently sensitive. IMO he shouldn’t be as high as Wizmark and Me1945 even though he beat them. He only played 6 games and he lost one. 2 of the wins were against good ol’ Dawg.

@Booper , After warming up TWICE on good ol’ Dawg (our grizzled, veteran trainer), beat Simon twice and learned a lesson or two from @GeneralDisarray. 5 games is not enough to qualify for the playoffs, so a 6th would give more information. (And this is a good example of why 6 are required) He has an ELO today of 1536, slightly above average. Seems right to me.

I eliminated range 6-10 games and just made 6+ to 50 sensitivity as it was for 11+ before. Little change, just everyone in the top 25 that I looked at dropped a couple points and there were a couple minor position changes for players who were already close, as would be expected. So I’m thinking 50 k factor for games 7+, about the right size that you get a noticeable bump up or down for a win or loss, but not too much.

These factors can be changed in future years. We’re just rolling it out now, I really don’t think we need to fine-tune k factors perfectly right now, it can be done later too, all the data is in there.

[oysteilo]

I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.

However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01

[gamerman01]

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.

However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01

I knew someone could say it better than me, thank you for that.

I am also a little bit concerned with game results that come in on the same day. I don’t know which the system calculates first, and that’s one for programmer MrRoboto

Players ranking counts for all forfeits, same as before, if I understand you correctly. Issue is the order of the calculations, AFAIK

[Booper]

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Wait, BombsAway is back in 2023 after last game in league before was November 10, 2015?! That’s newsworthy

I’m doing some tests on BombsAway and Booper who are new to BM this year and played 5 or 6 games to see if the sensitivity is enough to apparently give them a fair shot at a fair seed in the playoffs.

Unfortunately I’m not going to be able to participate in playoffs this year. Been busier than anticipated, and have not been able to play much this latter part of the year.

[gamerman01]

@mainah a lot of interesting thoughts and points. I’ll just leave one with you, off the top of my head.

Especially if you’re not talking about veteran players, your opponent may actually be improving over the 6 months that you are playing him. He is learning things from his other games, and you may be actually playing an increasingly good player over the months that you are playing him! So there is a weakness to counting ELO’s at game start, as well.

This is not intended as a complete answer, but one thought that I think may be another thought to consider. I like your post.

[oysteilo]

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.

However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01

I knew someone could say it better than me, thank you for that.

I am also a little bit concerned with game results that come in on the same day. I don’t know which the system calculates first, and that’s one for programmer MrRoboto

Players ranking counts for all forfeits, same as before, if I understand you correctly. Issue is the order of the calculations, AFAIK

Yes, its the order of calculation i am refering too when multiple forfeits are posted the same day

[mainah]

@gamerman01
Thank you. I understand the principle may or may not pan out in real life, or even in the formula. One of those basic intuition things that may or may not be true when applied to actual events
But I’d like to point out it would solve the question of how does multiple forfeits in a single day effect the score, as that becomes irrelevant when the score is based on the start, not the finish.

[gamerman01]

Actually would be the same issue, with starting on the same day as ending on the same day, I’m pretty sure.

Would probably solve it if we entered a time, but probably not worth the trouble.
Someone resigning all games at once because their cat died is still an issue, as all those games would all be decided at the exact same time.
Actually, you’d have the same problem if 2 players started 2 games with each other at precisely the same time.

Who woulda thunk? We have a lot of very analytical and precise people around here! Keep it coming!

Keep in mind several of these issues are not set in stone for all time. We’re ushering in an big overhaul of the basic system that’s been used since G40 was invented.

[mainah]

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@mainah a lot of interesting thoughts and points. I’ll just leave one with you, off the top of my head.

Especially if you’re not talking about veteran players, your opponent may actually be improving over the 6 months that you are playing him. He is learning things from his other games, and you may be actually playing an increasingly good player over the months that you are playing him! So there is a weakness to counting ELO’s at game start, as well.

This is not intended as a complete answer, but one thought that I think may be another thought to consider. I like your post.

And another thing - as the player is getting better (and we all want to) I don’t think that it should help up the eli affect on the first game, as the first few rounds are utterly crucial, and would be hard to make up for with your new knowledge.

Player A elo 1300 vs b elo 1500. At start. Player A gets better over the 5 months, when the game ends is at 1400. Player B, having played flawlessly since G1, doesn’t get the full elo bump they earned by playing good from the beginning. Or maybe I have that backwards as I don’t know how the formula really works. Maybe it ends up reverse, player A gets an unfair change.

And all of this, when applied to the “new to league unranked” player is really variable when they start at 1500 . And I understand that that is a sword that cuts both ways, wether we score at the beginning or end of the match.

Again I don’t understand the mathematics behind the formula. I use carpenter in the field math without a calculator, not algorithms. So I don’t know how this plays out on the spreadsheet. I am trying to understand, but probably won’t. I do trust that both you and @MrRoboto will get it right.

[mainah]

@gamerman01
Wrote my latest while you posted yours.

Not sure - but I think 2 games started by the same players on the same game happens less than mass forfeits.
And look at the effect of ghosts. Simon33 has gone mia (I hope he’s doing well, always enjoyed playing against him and learning from his prolific postings), and players have been slowly calling the game by the timing rules. Which means the elo affect of the person calling the game a month a go is different than the one calling it today before the end of the year.

[gamerman01]

These are some of the issues when going from a system that takes averages during the year and adjusts retroactively, to ELO. You do lose some of the benefits we’ve enjoyed, but overall is a significant improvement.

[mainah]

@gamerman01
Agreed.
Pardon the rapid fire posts. Wife and kids are off overnight enjoying a new year celebration while I am stuck at home as it was the only weekend I could tend to the smoke house.

Coldsmoking hams for preservation take 48 hours, and the fire needs tending every hour or so. So I have 57 minutes to fill in an empty house 48 times over.