Alright, I can finally chime in, but before I do:
Happy new year everybody! It’s 10 am in Central Europe so I think most players on this community are in 2024 right, or do we have any Hawaiians here?
There are 3 issues I want to address:
1) How to handle new players.
I’d like to keep it as is. @pacifiersboard said that right now, new players “should be advised to play low rated League players first.”
This is generally a good idea, no matter the system! Think about it, it would be odd to see newcomers challenge the top of top or even reigning champions in other sports too, wouldn’t it?
And even concerning their ELO ranking: While some strategic choosing of opponents might lead to a higher ELO in the short run, long-term ELO can’t be “gamed”. You will end up where you belong, eventually.
2) K-factor (sensitivity)
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
I eliminated range 6-10 games and just made 6+ to 50 sensitivity as it was for 11+ before.
I’m actually not very fond of that change.
Right now, game 6 has a K-factor of 90 while game 7 has a K-factor of 50. Just as an explanation: Against an equal opponent, game 6 would award ± 45 points, while game 7 gives ±25. That’s a HUGE jump. Game 6 is almost double worth as game 7.
It feels horrible to lose game 6 before winning game 7.
One more reason: This gives the impression that ELO has more or less found the accurate place in the ranking after 6 (or 7) games. While I do trust the system to work for most new players after 6-7 games, any upsets or unusual results within these first couple of games would distort the ranking quite a lot. Imagine an upset (in any direction) happening in game 6, it would take longer for the system to “correct” the ranking afterwards.
I’m MUCH more in favour of a gradual K-factor decline. In fact, even the 4 values we had before
were not gradual enough for my liking.
I’d prefer the following table:
The only reason I haven’t implemented it yet is because I have to adapt the formula but I will probably do it later today.
3) Counting at the beginning or the end
Originally I was completely with @gamerman01 on this. Yes, games can go on for quite a while and your opponent might (and probably will) change ELO in that timeframe: But so is their skill. And yes, early rounds have a bigger impact, althought an argument can be made that the decisive battles occur later in the game. In any way, the effect is negligible in my opinion.
@mainah 's example is actually a great argument for that ;-)
Player B with 1500 ELO is expected to win but with Player A at 1400 in the end, player B will be awarded a higher ELO change as opposed to counting at the beginning (A started at 1300). Which is fair, since apparently A got better during the play.
Now player A loses more at 1400 of course, but on the other hand, with start-ELO-counting all of these values would be different anyway. Because those other games that ended during the game between A and B, that resulted in A’s ELO going from 1300 to 1400 - well they must have started some time. Some probably before starting the game against B, so the values wouldn’t be 1300 anyways.
TLDR: The difference is negligible and it doesn’t really make a difference to count at start or beginning.
HOWEVER!
You convinced me with the mass forfeits.
These do happen from time to time and even more often we have ghosts like @simon33 recently. I myself went AWOL in 2019, with multiple games against me being called as wins for my opponents.
Right now the results are entered in order of posting. so first results are being calculated first.
In @simon33 's case: The opponent who called the win first (that was @avner on Nov24) had the biggest advantage. After that call, simons Rating dropped from 1353 to 1330 so subsequents calls awarded less and less points - first @Sovietishcat on Dec 10, than myself on Dec 17 and finally @Adam514 on Dec 29.
The points awarded were
Avner - 23
Sovietishcat - 19
MrRoboto - 13
Adam514 - 1
Simon33 final rating: 1297
Now had we called the game in a different order (adam first, then me, then sovietishcat and avner last), the points awarded would have been:
Adam514 - 1
MrRoboto - 15
Sovietishcat - 20
Avner - 21
Simon33 final rating: 1296
So the order of calling benefitted the first callers over the last callers (except Adam because he is so far from simon, that game is always worthless).
HOWEVER HOWEVER
As you can see, the differences in points are marginal at best! We arrived at a point in the discussion, where we are trying to tweak the absolute nuances. Counting at beginning or end won’t shake up the rankings, nor will it lead to any substantial rating changes.
There are arguments for counting at the end (better reflects the improvements opponents make, especially when not absolute veterans with 100+games under their belt), there are arguments for counting at the beginning (fairer for mass forfeits and ghosts).
My nod goes to counting at the beginning, if that’s also fine with @gamerman01 and some others.
One last note
I enjoy the eagerness of everybody to find loopholes in the system and to close any doors that some might try to exploit.
But remember: You might be able to “game” the system and thus artifically increase your ELO higher than it should be by maybe 30-50 points (if at all!), but that would only be a momentary snapshot! A higher ELO will subsequently decrease the worth of future wins and also INCREASE the worth of future losses.
You WILL end up exactly where your skill level is eventually, there is no way around that. It’s like the algorithms of social media feeds. You can tell yourself you’re not interested in this or that, but the algorithm can’t be tricked and knows the truth ;-)
The ONLY way to climb the rankings sustainable beyond a short-term burst is to actually get better.
