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. |
|
Tech wrote
at 9:40 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST "Cons: It's new, people always dislike what's new until they master it."
Y'know, we should try not using this as an excuse everytime something changes. Maybe, just maybe, something Ryan does has an actually negative point to it? Possibly? And as said previously, the steep curve "inflates the meaning of what may amount to a negligible difference in skill". There's definitely more specifics that need to be taken into account for something like this, and if Ryan doesn't feel like doing that, can he at least try 1/sqrt(ranking)? |
|
MadWilly wrote
at 10:35 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST now tech thats the first real idea on the matter. count me in...
|
|
triplehelix wrote
at 10:54 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST willy thats just one mathematical approach to what i've been saying.
|
|
rndaxs wrote
at 10:59 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST i suggested 1/sqrt(rank) on the idea forum about a week ago.
i'm a particular fan of that formula, at this point. |
|
Star Block! wrote
at 11:08 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST The top 25 all already have at least 1.5 points, many people are not having trouble working their way up. Are you sure it's a good idea to make it even easier?
|
|
|
no_Wolf wrote
at 12:08 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST STar Block:
It's not all about working up, it's that two people in the top twenty-five can be 10 points apart and the lower needs to do five times as much. Optimally, the ranking system would take your actual number of points into account,and not just the ranking based on points. |
|
Semagon wrote
at 12:25 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Something like 1/(rank^X) where X is between 0.5 and 1, say, 0.75 gives a nice curve in the middle of the two ideas.
Still pretty low at the lower ranks, not quite as steep in the top ten. |
|
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 12:40 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST fine tech, here's a more comprehensive pros & cons list for ya
Pros _____ * if a great player climbs to highest in elo, then drops down eventually, they are rewarded because they keep rank gained until someone gets the rank to pass them * the top 25 players now gradually slide off the top 25, instead of massive jumps (ie, if you are 2nd best in elo and try to go for 1st, fail and drop to 26th best elo then you dont fall off the top 25 instantly, as in the previous system) * there is significantly more activity between the top 25 players, compare the + and -'s of players on the top 25 now to the old system of top 25s and I bet that (by far) there is much more playing now, which is good * there is the beneficial fact that now people will be encouraged to play one account instead of multiple ones * players that have always been great players but never quite can get to #1 in elo are rewarded now becaues their top 10 finishes add up fast and they'll likely be top 25 players * #1 actually has incentive to play, and in general top players in elo have incentive to play - the result is that more points are on the line so more players have the opportunity to climb into the top 25 more easily. etc. Cons _____ *if someone happens to be #1 in elo by 20 points, and 2nd place loses and drops 50 points below first, then first place in elo can play a game and so long as they dont lose 50 points, get 1 whole point added to their rank for a 1st place finish * it currently doesnt tell you what place you are in elo so how do you know how much rank you gained after a game unless you are on the top 25 where it tells you * it's new and simply explaining how the system works will take some time * there is seemingly a steep curve (1st - 3rd) finishes give 1, .5, and .33 rank respectively which is a lot and people are calling for a less steep curve * if someone is in first place elo with 2002 and 2nd has 2000, 2nd place only needs to gain 3 points to gain 1 whole point to rank. Yet if that person gains 1 point and climbs to 2001 they only get .5 (2nd place finish). Thus, a few points in elo can literally make a difference in .5 or .33 points worth of rank, which is seemingly a lot. notes, im cautious about the less steep curve thing because then someone could play nonstop and surpass someone who was #1 in elo several times - and the later is harder to do in my opinion than to finish 30 games in just the top 100 of elo or so - especially since the top 25 players PLAY and risk those points so that point gain in general is more viable |
|
|
Tech wrote
at 1:34 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST Well, think of it now. if your rank 1000, I don't think "powering through" is a viable method of getting anywhere. Nor 100, really. Infact, do you think someone point-rank ten could seriously play and maintain that position for ten games to first's one? I think two, three, maybe, -maybe- 4 could possibly outplay 1 to get ahead, assuming first is rather inactive. This is the system now. So, with 1/sqrt(rank), that range of people squares, i.e., 4th, 9th, and maybe, -maybe- 16th could outplay, assuming of course, first's inactivity. All well within the "top 25 players" we so revere.
|
|
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 1:59 PM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST so if someone comes in 100th place they get
1/sqare root of 100 1/10 = .1 to rank? while first plays one game to add 1 to rank if someone comes in 18th best elo they would get 1/square root of 18 or 1/4.24 = .23 18th place would get .23 while first gets 1 for a game? seems crazy, to maintain first place one would have to play non-stop, that is definitely not the point of this system. I dunno... I know a lot of players that are CONSTANTLY in the top 100 or bouncing up and down - that would just give those who play a lot a huge advantage. Hell, under your system I'd probably be #1 constantly - and it wouldnt be because im crazily skilled, but because im a very good player who plays too damn much? I dunno tech. There does have to be a better system than the current one, but 100th place getting .1 to rank is way too high. Perhaps there is a way to tweak the current system, surely. But a 10th finish granting .3 or thereabouts is crazy, considering 10th place is usually 90+ elo points from first. And those 90 are CRAZY-HARD to get, when a first gives you +29 and a 4th gets you -20. |
