Find league opponents here

I am aware. What I mean to say is that whether the site is up or down, I could use one more opponent.

Well what I do is, that I just send personal messages to several players whenever I want to make one more game.
At the moment, I play 10 League games.

You can see the G40 ranking here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0

At the start, it’s a good idea to challenge Tier 3 or 4 players, maybe Tier 2. Most Tier1 players dont want to play against Tier4, cause even when they win, their PPG drops (a serious flaw in the system imho).

MrRoboto - thanks for being so helpful to Soulblighter, and thank you for your opinion.

I just want to point out that there have been 22 games between tier 1 and tier 4 players this year.
You are right that PPG average for anyone above 3.00 (including yourself now) would drop even winning against a tier 4.
I’m sure there are some tier 1 players who would avoid playing tier 4 for this reason, but I’m also sure there are tier 1 players who would have no problem with that (I am one of them, and Allweneed is probably another).

One more thing to consider (not only you, but tier 1, tier 2 players), is that if I beat a tier 4 player my average will drop, but my average will also be firmer (more resistant) and will not drop as much when I lose.

My average also drops when beating a tier 3, but I still play them.  I’m here to play A&A and have fun, and I prefer a game with a nice guy who is tier 3 over a jerk who’s tier 1 or 2, any day.

Maybe some day I will add a nice/jerk rating scale for each player……  :wink:
I keed, I keed… (credit this to Seth, one of the very nice players)

More seriously, I can avoid saying anything bad about anyone by giving my (NOT COMPREHENSIVE - SO DON’T BE UPSET IF I LEAVE YOU OUT) list of REALLY NICE players.

In ranking order, this is Gamerman’s “nice” and “good sportsman” list:
Allweneedislove
Gamerman01 (cough  :-))
Zhukov44 (absent lately)
Stalingradski
Wheatbeer
Arathorn
Seththenewbie
SouL
Karl7
Capt. John Miller
Cmdr Jennifer

There are several players I’ve never played.  I’ve played people who were really nice and really great sports, but only a couple or three times, so I’m not confident enough to put them on the list.

Anyway, what I’m saying is I have a lot of confidence that you (and I mean anyone) will have a good experience if you can get a game with any of these players, assuming you are not really unreasonable or a jerk to them…  :-)
Happy gaming

@Gamerman01:

In ranking order, this is Gamerman’s “nice” and “good sportsman” list:

Whoops - to be clear -
My list was in PPG order - I did not rank them by “niceness”  :-P

i will assume that you ranked us in order of niceness

I can vouch for RGP, that’s the one name that springs to mind immediately as missing one your good sports list.

Yeah, never played him

Yeah don’t get me wrong - my first priority is to just play games. But as I am a very competitive person, it gives me just that extra motivation if there is some kind of ranking system involved.

However, I have a couple of issues with the one implemented here. Please don’t misunderstand me - I realize you all do this just as a hobby and you put a lot of time and effort into this. And I cannot emphasize enough how much I appreciate all the work you do here. That being said I think the system could see some improving.

1.) As mentioned earlier - winning should never make you drop in the rankings. Your points are valid, being more resistant against potential future losses is a plus, but the fact remains that, ranking-wise, I shouldn’t play against a Tier3/4 at all, when I am Tier1.
2.) Since the ranking is based on PPG: Having a high PPG after only a small number of games discourages people to take challenges. Of course, the main intention of most people here is to just play, regardless of ranking. However, it leaves a sour taste, when I accept a challenge, knowing it could ruin my stats and drop me instantly a lot. It’s still superior to win% only, but I find there is room for improvement
3.) The system completely ignores the fact that the game skill of players improve over time. Only 6 months ago, I started A&A and was a total noob, of course. Even 1 month ago, I was probably only half as good, as I am now. Now, if someone won against me in the league 1 month ago, when I was Tier4, that didn’t mean much, cause I was a noob. But with your system, at the end that opponent will get additional points when I manage to climb up the tiers because I improve my skills. Getting or losing points retroactively because one of my earlier opponents changed Tier (both ways, up or down) is a very, very strange part of the system.

Now of course only complaining isn’t helping much. There is another possible solution, though.

Most systems that consist of people playing a different amount of games use some kind of ELO system. It originates from chess, but is used widely on games like World of WarCraft (the PvP Arena system), all kinds of RTS games like StarCraft, League of Legends and so on.

Everyone joining the league starts at a certain rating. Say for example 1000. If you win against people, your rating improves. It drops after losses, of course. You’ll get more points by winning games against opponents with higher rating, but you’ll lose more when losing against weaker players as well. Winning against a very, very weak player will still enhance your rating, albeit very little.
I can’t see any disadvantages of implementing such an ELO system for our A&A League. You won’t ever come to a point where you can’t improve your rating (contrary to the use of PPG). Also, your rating gain or lose is dependent on the ACTUAL strength of your opponent, not the future one. And of course it means that experienced and strong players can still play games against newcomers (and this is a very good thing, since they can learn a lot this way), while the newcomer will only lose very, very few rating.

I don’t have the formulas right now, that are needed. But I am absolutely sure these are quite easy to find with a little bit of research.

PS: I hope my text was understandable. Since English is not my mother tongue, I can’t guarantee correctness.
PPS: I just realized, this may be the wrong thread. You can move the post, if you want.

Unfortunately, neither I nor Jenn can move or edit posts, because the founder/website controller is not around or doesn’t have time.

I’ve heard the ELO argument before, and I know what ELO is.  I have played thousands of chess games online on 2 different sites over the past 8 years or so.

ELO isn’t perfect either.  If you play against someone who has very few, if any, games completed before, ELO will not give you an accurate reading either.  When a top player starts with 1,000 rating and a pathetic newbie starts with 1,000 rating, with ELO you would gain very few points for beating either one of them.

ELO, I believe, takes 10-15 games at least to establish a “permanent” rating.  Many players, especially early in the league year, will have 5 or less games played.  I think you need to stick around awhile longer and get familiar with the skills of some of the players and you need to finish a few more games yourself, and then I think it is likely that you will gain appreciation for this system.

If you look over the rankings, you will see that the predictive value of PPG is tremendously accurate.
In other words, if you have a player with 2.5 PPG playing against a player with 3.2 PPG, I would bet on the 3.2 PPG player.  I am very confident the 3.2 PPG player would win 2/3 or 3/5.

I understand the whole learning curve thing.  Especially with a new and complex game, where a player is much better now than they were 6 months ago.  This is partially corrected by the fact that every new league year, everyone starts over and records are cleared.  We are near the end of the league year now.

The fact remains that the PPG ranking is highly accurate.  There are few “upsets”, where a player defeats a higher ranked player, and when they do, I have found that the rankings are quickly self-correcting.

ELO systems are normally handled by computers.  I am not a computer.  I provide much more meaningful data than a computer rating system normally does (who beat who, who had what side).  Also, my system has another advantage.  When there is a new player, especially if I am playing them personally, I often have a very good idea of how good that player actually is, after only a game or two.  I know for a fact that ELO system is slow to adjust the rankings of new players.

You have only completed 2 games, and you are at a 3.50 after defeating 2 of our (cough) weaker players.  I did not see any part of your 2 completed or any of your ongoing games, so I don’t really know how good you are yet.  But there is no rating system I’m aware of that could possibly accurately rank you after only 2 games against weaker players.  If you want to know what you’re made of, play a couple tier 1’s or tier 2’s who have maybe 5+ games completed, and we will pretty quickly find out.

I do appreciate the ideas, don’t get me wrong.  But I think you are pointing out perceived shortcomings of the rankings system a bit prematurely when you haven’t been around here very long.

The rankings system has proven to have tremendous predictive value, especially after a player has played about 5 games against a variety of skill levels.  Therefore I see no need to try to implement an ELO or some such system.

I disagree that you should always gain points with a win.

Again, on one of the chess sites I played thousands of games on, I could get myself, frankly, quite over-rated by feasting on newbies.

Just because I can beat newbies 99.8% of the time, I should not have a 350 rating (flyordie.com), which is MASTER, which is approx. in the top 5% of ratings.

I am a top 20% chess player, not top 5%.  I was able to get a 350-400 rating because I hate to lose and I would just feast on players from 0-150 point ratings and beat them a very high percentage of the time.  Like you said, I would always gain points.  But I was over-rated.  My rating should have actually gone down for defeating the weakest players, in my opinion.

@Gamerman01:

I disagree that you should always gain points with a win.

Actually, you do gain points, but your rating (PPG) lowers, as you observed.

I agree, I have yet to see a really good ranking system.

If you have a good idea for one, feel free to post it in the discussion for next year’s league.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31822.15

There is this supposition that all players should be encouraged to play all other players and the ranking system should treat them kindly.  I disagree with this as well.

Also, you should not state that tier 1 or tier 2 players “should not” play tier 3 or tier 4 players (because their PPG will drop, but as I pointed out, and you acknowledged, their PPG will have more staying power).

After all, if you play a tier 1 player and lose, you will only get 2 points.  Play a tier 4 player and win, and you get 3.  I know the system isn’t flawless (what system is?) and yes it was just developed by a guy doing his hobby because there was no strength of schedule component before, but it has proven very effective.

Should a newbie chess player play a grandmaster?  The grandmaster will play the newbie only if he wants to, and rating has little to do with it.  It’s generally a waste of the grandmaster’s time, but maybe he chooses to play because he wants to teach, wants to meet people and make friends, or just wants to plaster somebody.  That’s his prerogative.

Should the newbie (tier 4) expect to be able to get games with the veterans (tier 1)?  I don’t think so.  G40 takes many many hours of time and effort to play - more than chess, the way most people play chess.  Is a tier 1 more likely to accept a game with a tier 4 because his PPG may rise by .02, or if it will drop .02?  I don’t think it matters.  I think the overwhelming consideration is, does the tier 1 player want to spend many hours wiping the floor with a tier 4 player who provides almost no challenge.

You see, it has little to do with how the rating system works - this issue of tier 1 players playing tier 3 or 4.  It’s all about whether it’s fun, not about the rating.  Even if the tier 1 player would gain .02 by beating a tier 4, his time is better spent playing and beating a tier 1 or 2 if he’s really competitive and wants to rise in the rankings.  So the system really doesn’t matter in this case (to encourage tier 1’s to play tier 4’s).

I think I’m done, but yeah, we should be posting in that thread.  Thanks, Jenn.  I’d like to know what you think about my posts here about ranking system - Jenn

posted in that thread.

Looking for an opponent. I’ll take any comer regardless of rank. Who’s the victim . . . err I mean opponent.  :evil:

Newbie looking for league opponents. PM me if you are available.

Looking for league games?  I am

Anyone looking for a game?  The only two games I have running right now seem to be on hold.

Looking for a game against a tier 1 or 2, PM me if interested!