Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
aaaaaaaaaaaargh stop asking me
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 8:46 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST
okay - to not type this out for the 30th time... here's how the new ranking / top 25 thing works.
Rank - click on the top 25, it is the 0.00 value on the left. Think of it as how much ass someone has kicked in the past. (ie, were they ever #1 in elo, or top 5, etc, or how many times they played in the 1900s+ finishing the games in the top 10 and way up there) Elo - the number by your name and in your profile. Think of it like this, the higher you are, the more in position you are to ADD to your rank. So imagine someone with a rank of 1.52, if their elo is down in the 1700s, they probably wont add much to it. But if they are in the 1900s, 2000s and at the very top they can add significantly to it. Technical mumbojumbo: ____________________ How's this actually work? Rank has do with Elo - just like the previous scoring system did. It is calculated: 1/your place in elo meaning, say player A wins a game and has 1900 elo. That means nothing, what matters is how does it compare to others. If 1900 is the 10th best elo rating, then that person gets 1/10, or .10 added to their rank. if you finish a game with 1750 elo and you have the 1500th best elo rating in the game, you get 1/1500, lets just say thats tiny cuz my calculator just gave me an error HEHE. SUMMARY: Rank is how much ass someone kicked in the past. Having high elo compared to others = putting yourself in position to add significantly to your 'rank' value. Pros: What's really cool is if someone is #1 in elo and kicks ass, then has a few bad games and drops, the game respects them by keeping them in the top 25. So no more slipping from 2nd place to 26th cuz you tried to take over 1st spot. Now, people gradually drop off the top 25 as others pass them, rather than massive jumps. It rewards people for being great players. Ok, youve never had the lucky streak to get to #1 elo, but you play a lot of games in the top 10 of elo, well, that's 1/10 or 1/9 or 1/11 added to your rank, .1, .11 etc, good values. You'll get rewarded, despite never making it to the top. Cons: It's new, people always dislike what's new until they master it. It's weird at the moment cuz how do you know what position you are, how do you know what 1840 elo means compared to others? it doesnt really show you unless youre on the top 25 (at the moment), probably other cons but im tired of typing Note: people say playing often can pad your score. While this is technically true, u have to maintain high elo while you play a lot. And again, 1 game in 2nd or 1st place of elo instantly massacres all the gains someone else makes playing 70 games in 100th. |
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 10:05 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST This is a good post.
However a little difficult to follow. Definitions like "Elo - the number by your name and in your profile" are misleading. Let's just talk about: rating (computed using ELO) -- supposed to measure skill/quality score -- a.k.a the points, additive, incremented by 1/rank_from_rating at the end of each game -- way of rewarding players that achieve and *maintain* high rating rank_of_rating == old ranking system, used now only to compute the increments for the score rank_from_score == new official ranking system |
|
RaccoonTail wrote
at 10:11 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST Thanks Grun! All weekend long it's, "What's wrong with my ranking?? :( Why is (insert color)'s ranking higher than mine?" Now I'll just tell them all to bug you, as it was kind of your idea in the first place.
The way I have been explaining it is, if two players have the same Elo score, the one who is ranked higher has maintained that score over a larger number of games; the one ranked lower attained that score more recently. A limit example is easiest to understand: imagine W!ked has 2001 Elo and n.rd has 1999, the 1st and 2nd most of anyone on kdice.com, respectively, and that their (scores) are both (1.00). However n.rd then goes and plays three games, each [+1pos, -1dom], +0 total, while w!ked only plays 1 game, +0 total. Over this period, their Elo ratings thus remained static, but their ranks changed as follows: n.rd's score = (1.00)+(1/2)+(1/2)+(1/2) = 2.50 w!ked's score = (1.00)+(1/1) = 2.00 Rank(score) n.rd: 1(2.50) w!ked: 2(2.00) |
|
|
RaccoonTail wrote
at 10:21 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST Following XicaDaSilva's clarifications, the second block of words in my post above should read: [changed]
The way I have been explaining it is, if two players have the same [# of Elo points], the one who is ranked higher has maintained that [point total] over a larger number of games; the one ranked lower attained that score more recently. In the third block: W!ked and n.rd are rated 1st and 2nd by Elo, and when I say Rank, I mean Rank_from_score. |
|
Cyron wrote
at 4:47 AM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST Ok, so I see a flaw with this. Take two equally good players. One starts with an ELO of 1900, the other just signed up yesterday and has a 1500.
They both play equally well, and a similar number of games. The player with the higher initial ELO will be getting more points to his ranking than the player with the lower ELO. Eventually, the ELO will settle out somewhere near each other (on a long term at least), but how does the player with the initial lower ELO ever make up for the higher ranking points the other player was making initially? Playing more games than the other guy seems like the only option, but that means it's no longer a reflection of the difference in their abilities, but rather which one can play more often. Am I misunderstanding something? |
|
MadWilly wrote
at 6:10 AM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST Cyron you mistake the initial attempt of fairness to this. The setting you set up there is merely flawed in its basis.
The initial difference between them both is not skill but elo. But elo is designed to reflect the long term skill of a player. so anything based on relative elo scoring will have that flaw. It is absolutely nothing that comes "new" with the new ranking system. thats where you are wrong. To the topic. No its not unfair. Because the guy with his 1900 Elo already proved his skill the new guys skill is still to be measured. Thats why its all fair that the 1900 guy takes a step ahaed. |
|
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 9:13 AM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST Cyron, im gonna use rnd as an example - and this will clarify things.
I was at 2.80 or somewhere in rank and #3 overall. Eventually I passed smitri (fun guy, love playing games vs em) 2.80 is a big lead and had me in the top 5. Rnd at the time was not even on the top 25 at all. ok? He climbs to the #1 overall in Elo rating, he instantly gains 1/1 = 1.0 added to his rank. Since on his way to 1st he had a 2nd place finish and a 3rd he also got .50 and .33 on the way thats 1.83 points see how quickly he chunked into my lead? now he's way ahead of me. it doesn't favor playing a lot of games, it favors being the #1 overall in Elo (just like in the previous system). 7.03 is the current score of Tzisc, the games #1. next to him is rnd with rnd with 4.01. 3 points in rank is a massive lead - but think of it like this. If rnd (currently the 2nd best elo in the game at 1999) can win a game and be #1 in elo and pass Wicked! then rnd gains 1/1st place = 1.0 added to his rank 5.03 the game does not favor playing often, it favors getting way the hell up there in elo. All it really does, is not penalize great players for having bad luck once in a while. |
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 6:50 PM, Monday March 5, 2007 EST why can't it be simpler - the higher the score, the higher the rank?
|
|
|
Cyron wrote
at 3:25 AM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST Ah, yes, I see your point Grun, once some numbers are used in the example. Basically, if you get high up in ELO, the change to your score per game will dwarf the initial slow start from having a lower ELO.
|
|
triplehelix wrote
at 1:18 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST the problem is that unless you are top in elo, you have a ridiculous fight to move up in rank, and those who had it, but then crap out and lose TONS, don't move down at all.
|
|
Star Block! wrote
at 1:21 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST They move down to zero if there's monthly ranking resets? >.>
|
