@GovZ said in L24 OOB Myygames (X) vs GovZ (A+42) Game II:
Do the Russians have permission to sail through the Danish Straits? I’m assuming no, but might as well ask.
Sure you may ask… but no. I don’t know why anyone should ever grant that.
The new ELO-based ranking system
-
Well explained @MrRoboto . I support your recommendation here
-
I also support your recommendation of multiyear ELO for playoff spots in the playoff. I am clearly not the strongest player going into the tournament: I needed a fair bit of luck to beat Andrew. I am an average player over my career and did not improve this year. No need to give me the #1 seed.
My main comment is to have everyone who signs up have a spot in the main tier of the playoff instead of having an upper and lower bracket. That won’t be a problem for OOB this year, but give players a chance to get the crown as a medium guy can sometimes pull enough upsets to become #1. Perhaps more of an issue for BM playoffs.
-
Good point, @Arthur-Bomber-Harris , I also support a single tournament tree instead of having different brackets. But maybe I don’t see the merits of having multiple brackets, perhaps @gamerman01 or someone else can enlighten me.
-
@MrRoboto said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
Good point, @Arthur-Bomber-Harris , I also support a single tournament tree instead of having different brackets. But maybe I don’t see the merits of having multiple brackets, perhaps @gamerman01 or someone else can enlighten me.
The main reason to have brackets the way they are is mainly a time issue. The champion should be “crowned” before a new play off season starts. If I am not mistanken the BM champoinship is currently ongoing… Clearly, we wont have multiple playoff season going on side by side.
-
Excellent explanation @MrRoboto. You have convinced me.
-
@oysteilo said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
@MrRoboto said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
Good point, @Arthur-Bomber-Harris , I also support a single tournament tree instead of having different brackets. But maybe I don’t see the merits of having multiple brackets, perhaps @gamerman01 or someone else can enlighten me.
The main reason to have brackets the way they are is mainly a time issue. The champion should be “crowned” before a new play off season starts. If I am not mistaken the BM championship is currently ongoing… Clearly, we wont have multiple playoff season going on side by side.
I too support one bigger playoff per game version however, @oysteilo has hit the nail on the head. With an 8 player playoff format that means 3 games have to be finished to crown the champion. If we went to a 16 player playoff that means 4 games have to be finished. 3 games allows 4 months per game while 4 games only allows 3 months per game. While 3 months sounds like a long time with vacations and busy schedules it is not actually a full 3 months. Plus, assuming a Turn every 2-3 days, it takes at least a week to complete one full Round. 3 months means about 12 Rounds, not nearly enough for a tough game. Time is the factor.
-
What if there was a full tournament every two years, and a special format tournament with varying format and rules in the odd years. Such as partners, or DoW must be called on turn 1, or all bid units must be bombers or whatever is voted popular that year?
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
What if there was a full tournament every two years, and a special format tournament with varying format and rules in the odd years.
I would not be in favor of a full tournament every two years. We want to keep the community active. Having a tournament every year provides more incentive for people to consistently play.
-
I think we should stick to 8 as well given the time issues. Its been pretty common even with 8 for the final (and sometimes more than the final) to not get finished until the following year.
I would just add that while I was concerned too that longer term rankings might not capture what has happened in the year, I’m being won over. And regardless, I think its worth trying this out and seeing how it plays out. As Roboto has explained, there is room to fine tune it if we do run into the issues. And once we see how it plays if over the next year or two, we can still revisit.
-
I saw ABH’s last comment after I posted. I would still stick to the tournament as we have it, but nothing stops us from also doing a larger tournament every couple of years alongside league play if there is interest in setting it up.
-
I am also strongly in favor of an annual tournament with only one bracket. This should not be an issue with OOB and PtV in the near to mid-term future due to the relatively low number of participants.
We can work a lot with byes, with top seeded players only joining in round 2 or 3 and the defending champion only in the semi-finals, for example.
At the same time, we could make the days-per-turn rule stricter in the first one or two rounds of the Playoffs and say two days per turn for round 1.
Of course, you can still ask for a break in case of business trips, sickness or whatever, but this should shorten the first Playoff round(s) by a few weeks.
Thank you all for your work by the way!!
-
Lotta great ideas, this is what I was hoping for!
I read all posts but MrRobotos (will read that next)But I can tell you right now, even with Martin’s cool ideas on speeding it up, that I am firm on a bracket of no more than 8 for a few major reasons.
Even with byes to reduce total number of games, it only takes one game to stop everything. Going to 16, even with some byes (which means less than 16 players) means many more chances for a weak link of the chain to hold everything up.
You can institute timers like the same as regular league games, but I don’t want the #3 player being bounced by the #12 or whatever in round 1 (assuming 1 and 2 get byes) because he took 4 days for a move.
Going with more than 8 also cheapens the regular season.
The thought of a big 16 man tourney is intriguing and interesting, of course, but there’s not much theater in the #3 mopping up the floor with the #14. Or the #1 to the #16 if there are no byes.
Personally I’d rather see a 2 round, 4 man bracket for the championship for the above reasons.
2022 BM playoffs
#1 is fighting #3
2nd bracket
#1 is fighting #22021 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4 for the champ
2nd bracket
#2 beat #42020 BM playoffs
#3 beat #5
2nd bracket
#3 beat #42019 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4
2nd bracket
#2 beat #12018 BM playoffs
#2 beat #1
2nd bracket
#1 beat #22017 BM playoffs
#4 beat #2
2nd bracket
#5 beat #72016 BM playoffs
#8 beat #2
2nd bracket
#7 beat #42015 BM playoffs
#3 beat #4
2nd bracket
#1 beat #2
3rd bracket
#3 beat #4That is a LOT of actual results that show that almost always, #1-4 win it. The additional brackets give players #9 through #16 more competitive games and a chance to win a bracket and go into all-time league history.
In fact, looking at the data, the #5-#8 seeds are just there to take punches, fall to the mat, and make it a little longer and more interesting.
With brackets of 4, you get winners in September instead of February the next year.
I’m not making a decree and I’m not meaning to argue, just putting my position out there for you to think about.
-
Aaaand, there is another reasons for shorter playoffs than longer.
On the one hand, it makes matchups of players who otherwise haven’t played each other and maybe never would.
On the other hand, it forces players to play someone they didn’t choose. A HUGE part of league play is being able to choose your opponents, which, by the way, makes it VERY different than major sports where they have a set schedule to play 1-2 games against a wide variety of opponents.
Just more food for thought.
I need to read Roboto’s post now about sectioning years and whatever else. -
@gamerman01 you left off the OOB results. ;). I am a mediocre player but have had a few big upsets in my career as I bribe the dice lords with lots of presents and saved-up karma.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
@gamerman01 you left off the OOB results.
I did.
Not intentional, just didn’t want to scroll down lol -
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
Suggested Topics
