@fasthard Yes. Needs to block Gibraltar.
The new ELO-based ranking system
-
OK, now I have read MrRoboto’s post, and wow, is that eloquent!
I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything he said.
My favorite option is to use ELO at the end of the year for players who met the minimum games requirement and sign up (want in).
Since only 3 games (rightly) required for OOB and PTV, obviously you’re not going to have very accurate ratings in some instances. This has been true under the past system as well (uses averages, and clean slate each year), but now we have a lot more data.
A new player to OOB or PtV will rapidly get a fairly accurate rating (even in 3 games) playing against others who are known quantities. If starting everyone at 1500 at Jan 1, not as accurate.
I really like MrRoboto’s Oysteilo example. He only played 3 games and those 3 games really don’t give much information. He’s better than our beloved Dawg, but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.
This means he’s like most players. Somewhere between the top and bottom.
But with his lifetime rating of 1669 lowering slightly from these 3 games to 1659, we have a much clearer picture of the mad skillz Oysteilo brings to the table than the little sample of 3 2023 games. -
@gamerman01 said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.
He came dang close to it…
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
@gamerman01 said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.
He came dang close to it…
Thank you!!
And that proves MrRoboto’s point and mine.A loss is a loss and a system based on wins and losses doesn’t care how close a game is.
The lifetime ELO for him does show it.
With only 3 games, and a near miss against AndrewAAGamer, a year that stands alone merely shows a sterile:2 wins at Dawg
1 loss to AndrewPut that on your tombstone
-
Conclusion:
The ELO ranking is the most accurate way we ever had to get the actual strength of every player, especially compared to each other. It is even more accurate the more games you have played (20+ games should be sufficient to give a very accurate assessment).
On the flipside, you should take the ELO rating of player with less than 10 completed games with a grain of salt.
But among us active players, you can very comfortably rely on the rankings to choose your opponents: Do you seek a challenge, take on players with 100 more points than yourself.
Are you looking for equal strength, search within plus / minus 100 points of your own rating. And if you want some low risk, low reward game to just have fun and slowly and slightly climb the rankings, go lower than 100 points below your own ranking. -
Or, if you are @Adam514 , just ignore ELO and farm each and every one of us, enjoying a 90% winrate over 165 games
-
What’s all the argument about anyway? :)
Hope you all are having a great holiday season. I do miss this community.
So this is cool, thanks for putting this together:
According to this, I still have the most wins by a significant margin, even after sitting out for an entire year now lol
BTW I am 2-0 against the 2nd ranked player. Adam, however, has always been better than me I will admit that. I think he has beaten me at least 2 out of every 3 games, maybe more idk I’d have to look back.
-
No argument, just discussion among very analytical people about how to do year by year playoffs
What a pleasant surprise -
Where ya been?!You did see there are sheets for each version?
-
@AndrewAAGamer oysteilo beat me twice, once as Allies and once as Axis, by convincing beatdowns. I gave up in one game when Egypt and my UK forces got so thoroughly crushed on I2 that there was no coming back.
I was so relieved when you knocked him out of the tournament since I wasn’t looking forward to a third beat down.
-
@gamerman01 got busy working for a startup, then when that didn’t go as planned i joined another one… also, i have been playing a lot of Twilight Imperium 4th ed (TI4), and that’s quite a game! here’s a pic yesterday’s game with a group of friends (I was the pink faction):
-
@axis-dominion said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
BTW I am 2-0 against the 2nd ranked player. Adam, however, has always been better than me I will admit that. I think he has beaten me at least 2 out of every 3 games, maybe more idk I’d have to look back.
Well, I made the mistake not playing you earlier when it was easy to beat you because you regularly blundered ;-)
Then, you stopped blundering and became super strong, and this is when I started playing you. I am still traumatized by our play-off match in which a surprise Neutral Crush entirely wrecked my (I believe at this point decent) position within a single turn :-(
So yes, getting your scalp at least once is a reason for me to return to the league^^
I am btw 2:1 vs Adam :D (Probably one win not recorded because it may have taken place in a Tournament and may not have counted for the league)
-
Ummmmm…
It’s just a fact that if @JDOW and @axis-dominion returned, the league would be at full strength on top maybe like never before (according to the life-time ELOs) -
just to get this straight.
are we just continuing on the old results or is everyone starting at 1500 elo on jan 1.2024?
My understaning was to start everyone at 1500 -
My understanding is that the ELO system is a life long rating and should take into account all games ever played. It will continue based no the hundreds of game results that were just input.
-
@Martin said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
My understanding is that the ELO system is a life long rating and should take into account all games ever played. It will continue based no the hundreds of game results that were just input.
This.
The system works best when you have around 15-20 games or more. It would only weaken the accuracy if we started on 1-1-2024 instead of all games ever.
As of today, 4519 games have been counted - a little bit more than “hundreds” ;-)
-
OK
But, honestly this has not been comunicated clearly. you are now making scores based on revised conditions that was not know when games were started. It is a fundamental change and if I played someones “m*m” 10 years ago it should not count now.
I understand the desire to make it accurate but if fundamental changes are made date zero must be clearly communicated. It should be 01.01.2024, not a random date in 2014 or whatever
-
“now making scores based on revised conditions that was not know when games were started.” --> What difference would it make? No-one would have played differently - everyone plays to win.
-
@oysteilo said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
if I played someones “m*m” 10 years ago it should not count now.
That game 10 years ago has zero to none impact on your current rating, unless of course you have only played 3-4 games since then.
I understand your argument and our change to the ELO system wouldn’t hold up in court. If we want to go 100% by “the” rules (we make them ourselves…) it would be cleaner to set a certain start date.
However, we are not a large organisation like FIFA or the IOC where millions and billions of $ are at stake. We can make decisions far more flexible, that serve our community better, without worrying that someone takes us to the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) in Lausanne just because we didn’t close every legal loophole.
On a side note: It doesn’t start at a random date in 2014, it starts with the very first game when this league has been established. As far as I know every (or at least most) big league has some kind of lifetime ranking, for example the premier league:
Our all-time ELO has little to no impact on everyday matches. You can treat it as a funny little statistics page, similar to the all-time tables of other sports.
It only comes into play for playoff seedings. And if you worry about that: It would be a lot less accurate if we started 1-1-2024. It would only lead to 1-2 years of inaccurate rankings before it would be reliable.
I’m interested in what exactly bothers you that all games are counted. What is the downside?
-
- I dont understand how much the game i lost/won 5 years ago count. I dont understand the importsnce of number of gsmes i play every year.
- If I played 10 games last year or 3 or 35 games how does that count?
- Compared to: In the last 3 years i played 4 gsmes a year and won all against a 1500 opponent. How does this compare to 12 wins this year against all 1500 opponent?
-
I feel you fail to explain this clearly, maybe it is obvious to you, its not to me
-
@oysteilo If you are consistently defeating 1500-ELO opponents, you will move up to the 1800s. Impossible to move above that range unless you are consistently beating better players. Doesn’t matter how many games you played or which year, you have to beat good players to get a great ranking. Just beating up mediocre players time after time won’t get you much above where you are now.
To get up to the 1900+ range, you need to be beating players like AndrewAAGamer. Beat him a few times in a row and your ELO will jump up quickly, regardless of year. The bigger the upset, the more your score will jump. Lose to him a few times, and there is very little penalty as he is currently 300 points above you and you are expected to lose.
Suggested Topics
