Hello.
Personally I think TUS leagues system needs a few tweaks. But I feel many people need a brand new system to shake things up and get active again.
There are 29 days left for the current classic/TEL leagues to finish and I'm trying to run the new leagues system straight after that. So, I'm putting every idea on the table.
I'll accept league plans till 23th February so that in the next remaining days I have time to code the ideas.
If you're suggesting a new plan make sure to think about what would you do about the current players stats.
The best idea or combination of the ideas will start from new season.
This is HHC's plan (https://www.tus-wa.com/HhcTusConcept.pdf), please read it (long text, but won't bore you)
You may post in this thread for discussion.
(spams will be deleted)
so no TRL Feb 1st? (just curious)
HHC's plan is pretty good, as it reminds me of World of Warcraft's arena rating system -> each new season has an overall rating that carries over while the season rating starts fresh. the season rating increases/decreases a lot until it gets back or close to the overall rating. while the overall rating increases/decreases normally because it doesn't pay attention the season rating.
the season standings will looks fine again because it will show who is doing the best that season to try to reach their high overall rating, or even those trying to surpass their medium overall rating. it also solves that problem of newcomers getting high easily just because they join late.. now they have to work hard because their overall rating starts low.
I read HHC's plan carefuly. +1 for nicely readable form in which it was presented, however, I have issues with the content. :) I'll try to explain it as well as I can, so bear with me, it will be a long post and I'm not much of a writer. Let's start from the beggining and set some facts on which we can base the discussion on.
Points system/rating system - the difference
This will sound like telling the obvious, but despite the numerous times it was explained on these forums, I think there are still folks who don't really understand the difference.
In closed competitions with known number of players results are usualy evaluated with points. Let's take a well known example, football world cup group stages. There are 4 teams in round-robin system, every team plays all other teams. The number of games each team will play is known before the competition starts and is same for all teams. Therefor, assigning a constant 3 points for a win is both practical and fair. When the group stage is over, we get a clear picture of who performed well and deserved the playoffs spots.
Now let's look at our beloved worms. We have a time frame for the duration of the competition (season length) and this is where the similarities with football world cup end. Players can play as many matches as they wan't or can. They can play basically whoever they want. Could points system be fair and practical in worms? Hardly.
First we would need to limit the number of games a player can play per season. I don't think that's what anyone wants - we're not making a living from worms, we play for fun, right? Second, we can't really assign opponents or set times for matches (we do this in cups to a certain extent, but that's another story). But we have an alternative, it's the infamous rating system.
What's the difference then?
The points a player gets for a win is not a fixed amount but rather proportional to the skill of your opponent.
How does the rating formula work?
A match is worth a certain amount of points, in TUS's case 80 points. The rating of opponents is used to calcute the expected score. Let's say you play against a player with the same rating as yours (so both of you are supposed to be equaly skilled) and that winning is a result of 1 and losing is a result of 0. Your expected score in this match is 0.5 (you're expected to win half the time). Then the formula goes like this:
match worth * ( result - expected score) = rating change
So if you win: 80 * ( 1 - 0.5 ) = 40
And if you lose: 80 * ( 0 - 0.5 ) = -40
Bang! This is where the magic number 40 comes from :)
Another example, this time when you are playing against a much higher rated player - this time your expected score might be 0.1 (you are only 10% likely to win):
You win: 80 * (1 - 0.1) = 72
You lose: 80 * (0 - 0.1 = -8
NOTE: This is basically how TUS rating system works. It is not something MI or any other wormer came up with, but is based on a system that was developed by professor Arpad Elo and is used in chess competions since 1970. Those interested can read more about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system).
In the long run, your rating should reflect how skilled you are compared to others. The more games you play, the more accurate your rating is. We can see how a rating based system is more appropriate for a competition like a worms league than a points based system. Even with players playing different number of games with different opponents we can still get somehow fair picture of who is who.
HHC's proposal
One thing that bugs me the most: you match up two players with low, but equal ratings. If they would play 1-1, they'd lose points! This goes against all logic in my opinion. In no way should players lose points when they perform on par with their skill! On the other hand, players with high ratings wouldn't seem to suffer from the same problem. Yes, that would encourage more games between better players, but I think it gives higher ratings an unfair advantage. It would indeed encourage lesser ratings to look for better opponents, but at what price? Finding a tus match isn't always easy and finding a specific opponent would be even more difficult, so that really doesn't solve the problem of avoiding.
HHC mentions that his system isn't a "zero-sum" system. Hm, well that's the trick with rating, it's supposed to be "zero-sum". In other words, if you perform on par with your expected score (see previous chapter) over say 100 games, your rating will be the same as it was before those 100 games. This is how it's supposed to work. It looks like that in HHC's system, players would increase their rating even if they performed worse than expected. This will distort the picture that ratings are supposed to show.
That's my main issue with this idea. I hope I was specific enough, as HHC asked, if not, I'd like to hear it.
The "TUS world ratings" and "TUS challenger" are nice ideas and could easily be a nice addition in the future.
My suggestions
The main complaint we've been hearing, I think, is that players with high ratings don't appear high in seasonal standings table and that they have trouble getting in playoffs. So I suggest the following, based from what was discussed in other threads in the past:
- get rid of seasonal standings table
- make the standings table based on overall rating (like in ladder system)
- have only players who have played in the season appear in standings table (so inactive players are not shown)
- have a separate table with ratings of all players, including the inactive ones
- instead of seasonal standings, have a column with seasonal rating to each player name, called "seasonal
performance" or something like that
- give playoffs spots to top 6 from active standings and the top 2 "seasonal performances" (could also be 5-3, or 12-4
if we ever decide to have 16 players in playoffs. For clans, make it 3-1, perhaps)
- make a nice and obvious chart with playoffs requirements, so it's clear for everybody how they can qualify (the
minimum of games played and winning percentage must still apply, of course)
- a "seasonal performance" table could still come handy though, so people could see how much they need to qualify
for PO that way
- Set strict and fixed deadlines for playoffs!!! (f.e. two weeks for quarterfinals, two weeks for semis, etc.)
- make announcements for playoffs on main page, raise hell and fuss for the winners, make a big deal, etc :)
As you can see in my opinion the system itself doesn't need much change. It's not perfect, but it works fairly well and with minor tweaks we can still improve it. There's more idead in my mind, but it's 3:30 am here and I've been boring you enough, I think. Thanks for reading! ::)
Quote from: Rok on February 01, 2011, 02:24 AM
One thing that bugs me the most: you match up two players with low, but equal ratings. If they would play 1-1, they'd lose points! This goes against all logic in my opinion. In no way should players lose points when they perform on par with their skill!
That's not against all logic.. it's just reality. If their overall rating is below the season start rating of 1000, they deserve to lose points until they get close to their overall rating, and only then will this stop happening. but that's ok, they can now start trying to improve their overall+season rating together as they should.
If you still feel this is too harsh on players with overall rating under 1000, then there's always the alternative of making everyone's season rating start at zero. As long as you make it impossible to have negative season rating (below zero), then everyone gets the advantage of boosting upward to their overall rating. it's a trade-off though: to make it less harsh on those with overall rating below 1000 and losing points down to their overall rating, you make the climb for highly overall rated players much higher.
both ways are fine in my opinion.. but the first one seems easier to do.
I will try to once again collect my thoughts, especially about how the profiles should look like, work. I'll try to make up my mind about that.
That was interesting to read HHC's Plan.
Nice to see my idea actually had a little use.
I like the Global Rank thing he proposed, but HHC, did you just throw a bunch of Random people into that table as an example of different ways to get points, or did you actually research it so it is accurate to that amount of players being in that position?
Oh, you put Random as Green for the BnG, while f4st actually has the most points :P
However, I see a problem with this, in my opinion it's concrete, TuS Classic being added together with TEL and TRL(when it comes), which would mean people who excel at Elite or Roper can basically get 2 sets of very high points for the same thing, which is unfair meaning it's easier for them to appear "Globally superior" to others just because their best schemes are in 2-3 different leagues.
QuoteOne thing that bugs me the most: you match up two players with low, but equal ratings. If they would play 1-1, they'd lose points! This goes against all logic in my opinion. In no way should players lose points when they perform on par with their skill!
Depends on interpretation. This situation occurs when players have a low overall ranking (900 for example) and a greater season ranking (1050 for example).
In your opinion both players should gain/lose 0 points and stay at 1050, because this is the expected result.
In my opinion both players' real skill level is 900. When they play a draw against each other they 'confirm' that they are equally good, namely '900'-good and not the 1050 that happens to be their season rating. Thus, it doesn't seem illogical to me, that both players drop a little in season rating (to resemble more closely their real skill-level of 900).
As I wrote in my essay, this is how NNN works.
QuoteHHC mentions that his system isn't a "zero-sum" system. Hm, well that's the trick with rating, it's supposed to be "zero-sum". In other words, if you perform on par with your expected score (see previous chapter) over say 100 games, your rating will be the same as it was before those 100 games. This is how it's supposed to work. It looks like that in HHC's system, players would increase their rating even if they performed worse than expected.
Hmmm.. this is not true. When players perform as usual, their season rating will soon approach the level of their overall rating and stabilize at that level (and not increase or decrease from there).
The essence of zero-sum is that the sum of points gained by winner and loser is zero. This is not a necessity IMO.
The part that follows on 'in other words' applies to a continuous ELO system (which is merely an example of a zero-sum system) whereby Random starts with 1648 and ends with 1648. In my system he starts with 1000 at the start of the season, and, if he performs like usual.. his season rating will approach 1648 after 100 games. That seems fair? There's no way he will reach 1648 if he doesn't do as well as his overall rating suggests.
With regards to your suggestions Rok.. it is exactly the system that we use right now (but with a slightly tighter control).. it doesn't fix the things people complain about and IMO is not the way forward.
Quote
Franz: they deserve to lose points until they get close to their overall rating, and only then will this stop happening. but that's ok, they can now start trying to improve their overall+season rating together as they should.
..now they have to work hard because their overall rating starts low.
Thanks for the thumbs up Franz. But there's one thing I like to point out. You seem to suggest 'newbies' have to work on their overall rating in order to get into playoffs. This is not the case.
Newbies and veterans start the season alike. The overall rating they have does not influence the amount of points they get for beating someone in this season. They both get an equal amount of points for beating someone with a rank of say 1500.
However, your response made me come across a potential 'bug'.
Let's suppose Random (1300) plays Noob (900) at the start of the season and the match ends 1-1. Normally this would leave both players 1000 in a normal system. But in my system Random will lose points and Noob will have points added to his score, giving the impression that Noob ownz Random when in reality they should be ranked equally for playoffs (as they are 1-1, equally good). (I guess this is what Rok is getting at??).
This is indeed a bit of a fluke. I don't think it will influence people's scores in the long run, but it does indeed sound weird, wrong even.
Quote
Komito:I like the Global Rank thing he proposed, but HHC, did you just throw a bunch of Random people into that table as an example of different ways to get points, or did you actually research it so it is accurate to that amount of players being in that position?
There's just one Random peep in there ;)
I picked the top players in each league and added some random names (Mods, myself, CF members). It's just to give an impression.
About TEL and TRL: I chose to have both of them added to the score. Roper and Elite have their own leagues because they are the most popular and widely viewed as the most important schemes in Worms.
The Freeleague schemes only count for 0.5, I didn't think it was too much of a sin to count Elite and Rope for 2 (as being more important than skill in WxW, shopper, T17 or BnG...).
But it's just an example of how to count such a score. (I'd make Normal scheme count for 1 as well).
Cheers mate, I like your proposal for the main League btw, i'm willing to try anything either way :)
Anyway, now that I actually noticed your post lol.
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
About TEL and TRL: I chose to have both of them added to the score. Roper and Elite have their own leagues because they are the most popular and widely viewed as the most important schemes in Worms.
The Freeleague schemes only count for 0.5, I didn't think it was too much of a sin to count Elite and Rope for 2 (as being more important than skill in WxW, shopper, T17 or BnG...).
But it's just an example of how to count such a score. (I'd make Normal scheme count for 1 as well).
I really don't agree with your methods of calculation here, there cannot be any doubt that this is a biased view, even if the majority do enjoy Elite and Roper more than other schemes, every single scheme played should have the same contribution to such a thing called "Global Rank".
As for saying Elite and Roper being more important than skill than WxW, shopper, T17 or BnG, I really really REALLY disagree here lol.
To me, the 2 most skillful schemes are TTRR and BnG, mainly because of the lack of luck, and I am more impressed with schemes that fully concentrate on reactions and reflex/good timing, wouldn't matter to me if I was the best Elite player and Roper in the world, the fact people DO lose Elites/Ropers quite often due to bad luck with some turns, like weird bounces with animals and placement of mines etc in Elite, and crates in Ropers, is far too frustrating for me to be enjoy it even if I was the most perfect player ever for those schemes.
^^ That is just my opinion, it isn't a statement and I am not trying to put it down as a fact, and neither of us are right or wrong.
But I really don't think YOU can judge what schemes are more important than others, if you want to have a Global Rank, There shouldn't be 2 Ropers 2 Elites, and Free league schemes should all count as 1 each not 0.5.
The reason why I am against this, it's totally unfair for players who don't like to play Ropers and Elites as much as others who do, this gives Ropers and Elite players a VIP status and a clear advantage.
For example, Mablak could just own the hell out of Elite/TEL/Roper/TRL and the TTRR challenges and be dominant, and for example Chelsea could dominate 10-17 schemes in Free League and not even get close to Mablak, and if Chelsea was dominant in 16 different schemes, and Mablak only 3-4, I would obviously have to say Chelsea was a MUCH better all-round player.
In a way it's like saying "If you wanna be the best on the Global Rank, you gotta play Ropers and Elites, the things we think are more important".
In my opinion, If you master all the schemes in Free league, you are better than someone who only mastered 2-3 schemes in Classic, and using the same scheme twice for TRL/TEL.
I hope I didn't offend anyone, I just can't believe you are trying to justify this method for Global Rank.
The idea, without a doubt, is amazing mate, I back you up 100% on that, but the system on how it works, needs a total makeover, in my opinion.
Ok, i'm finished editing now.
Let's agree to disagree then.
To me, owning a scheme like 'Holy war' (which only 10 people or so play more than once a month) is much much easier than being the best in Elite or Roper. When Mab ownz the TTRR challenges, the Rope league ánd the Elite league. Doesn't that mean he's the best around? I could care less if he sucks at Moleshopper, to me, just being the best Roper and Default player overall is waaay enough to be considered the world's #1.
But, as far as I'm concerned, this is a topic for later on, if it does get added at all.
T17 and BnG has been around just as long as Roper/Elite, in fact BnG has been around longer than Ropers if you consider previous games in the francise.
TTRR/WxW and shopper have been around for just as long as the updated Elite scheme that people use now compared to the previous.
Hysteria is actually more popular in leagues than Roper, Elite is only more popular as a League scheme, not as a funner.
And Bungee Race is actually a very hard scheme to get VERY good at.
Battle Race is harder to win than Ropers/Elites, and takes more patience and time.
Big RR/Tower takes skill.
Forts takes skill.
SSR/WfW/Intermediate/Golf all take alot of skill to get really good at.
All these schemes take just as much skill and practise to get good at than Elite/Roper, the only difference is people don't find them as popular, a schemes popularity does not make it more or less important when comparing them with skill, and who knows, the Global Rank would possibly make some players focus more on the Free League and make it more active so they can have their claim to fame...
1 person who can win Elite/Roper and TTRR doesn't make him best all-round, it just makes him the best at those 3 schemes.
With a system like this would be like being back at school, having your different groups of people, your popular kids "Ropers/Eliters" your geeks "Free League players" your inbetweeners who are cool to the geeks but geeky to the popular kids but they have their moments, "Other TuS Classic schemes".
Sorry, but I ain't playing no scheme I don't like enough just to impress the popular kids and get on some biased Global Rank, i'll stay put in the BnGlee club lol.
Talk about splitting up the community, we should support all schemes and make them all look as important as others, not ridicule others because they don't enjoy the "popular" schemes and judge them as less skilled or important because they can't get double/triple points for certain schemes...
It's obvious where I stand on this method for Global Rank, but yeah, we definately agree to disagree lol.
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
Thanks for the thumbs up Franz. But there's one thing I like to point out. You seem to suggest 'newbies' have to work on their overall rating in order to get into playoffs. This is not the case.
Newbies and veterans start the season alike. The overall rating they have does not influence the amount of points they get for beating someone in this season. They both get an equal amount of points for beating someone with a rank of say 1500.
true, a newbie's overall rating doesn't affect how many points they win.. so all they have to do is win every game :P
my point is just that->it's about when they start losing games vs equally skilled newbies: that gap between season rating and low overall rating converges after enough losses (assuming season rating still starts at 1000 instead of zero). so no, I'm not trying to suggest that 'newbies'
have to work on their overall rating in order to get into playoffs -> I'm saying that their low overall rating is the only thing holding them back if they
lose any games, especially vs equally skilled newbies. anyone can reach playoffs if they win all the time :P If they do end up losing a few times, and converge their overall rating, well
then they'll have to start working on their overall rating to get into playoffs.
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
However, your response made me come across a potential 'bug'.
Let's suppose Random (1300) plays Noob (900) at the start of the season and the match ends 1-1. Normally this would leave both players 1000 in a normal system. But in my system Random will lose points and Noob will have points added to his score, giving the impression that Noob ownz Random when in reality they should be ranked equally for playoffs (as they are 1-1, equally good). (I guess this is what Rok is getting at??).
This is indeed a bit of a fluke. I don't think it will influence people's scores in the long run, but it does indeed sound weird, wrong even.
The whole point of a rating system is to prove that 1-1 does
not mean equally good. There's nothing unusual about Noob (900) winning more points than Random (1300) in a 1-1. It also doesn't mean that Noob ownz Random either... are you seriously arguing this? Having a higher rating only means you have a higher% chance of winning vs someone. You can't win every game.. so even if Random loses, it doesn't mean he got 'owned'.. it could have just been an unlucky game or a mistake-filled game. I don't know why I have to even say this. I feel like you already know all this.
"Thanks for the thumbs up Franz. But there's one thing I like to point out. You seem to suggest 'newbies' have to work on their overall rating in order to get into playoffs. This is not the case.
Newbies and veterans start the season alike. The overall rating they have does not influence the amount of points they get for beating someone in this season. They both get an equal amount of points for beating someone with a rank of say 1500."
best system rating.
overall points dont influence in season points.
The standings will be keep?
Quote from: franz on February 01, 2011, 04:41 PM
The whole point of a rating system is to prove that 1-1 does not mean equally good. There's nothing unusual about Noob (900) winning more points than Random (1300) in a 1-1. It also doesn't mean that Noob ownz Random either... are you seriously arguing this? Having a higher rating only means you have a higher% chance of winning vs someone. You can't win every game.. so even if Random loses, it doesn't mean he got 'owned'.. it could have just been an unlucky game or a mistake-filled game. I don't know why I have to even say this. I feel like you already know all this.
I do. And it seems fair that Random gets fewer points (cause he won/lost against a noob) than Noob (who won/lost against an awesome player). But what I'm saying.. suppose Random and Noob don't play any games after this anymore, nor do any other players. Then the season ranking would look something like this:
1.Noob 1015
2.Everybody else 1000
3.Random 980
Based on the 2 games played: Random beating Noob and Noob beating Random, it doesn't seem fair that Noob would get the season win even though he has proven to be no better than Random (their games ended 1-1).
Of course everything changes when Random and Noob play more games, but it may be that players will find the above case weird when this happens on the first day of the season. They may be inclined to think the noobs have a benefit over veteran players, even though this is not the case.. Noob's 1-1 against an elite player is just valued more than Random's 1-1 against a noob.
So yeah, I panicked prematurely :D
@Zippo: the standings will show the seasonal ranking and p/o spots will be handed out according to this rating. Overall ranking isn't important anymore, but may still be shown to give players a better impression of what they are up against.
lol...for me season ranking is more important than season ranking rofl :P
?
Let's make a new rule. For Zippo we don't count season ranking, but reputation level :D
This seems quite a good idea. And I'm always with my hhc.
One question:
Did you take time to read what famous game use for ranking ?
look here for example:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Arena_PvP_system
fada, that page is very outdated as noted in many spots on there. some of the info might still be true/relevant, but they've constantly changed their calculations many times and now no one really knows the exact maths behind their current system.
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
In your opinion both players should gain/lose 0 points and stay at 1050, because this is the expected result.
Yes, IF the actual result of games is the same as expected result, then rating change is exactly 0. If a player played according to his skill/rating, then his actual skill didn't change. Sounds logical?
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
In my opinion both players' real skill level is 900. When they play a draw against each other they 'confirm' that they are equally good, namely '900'-good and not the 1050 that happens to be their season rating. Thus, it doesn't seem illogical to me, that both players drop a little in season rating (to resemble more closely their real skill-level of 900).
It is illogical. Season rating shows us how well a person did IN A GIVEN SEASON. Overall rating is supposed to show player's skill in the long run, over multiple seasons, over his entire league 'career'. These are two different things, don't you think? So why do you want player's seasonal rating to DROP DOWN when he is doing like expected?
I repeat again, if you do better than expected, your rating should rise. If you do worse, your rating should drop down. If you do as expected, it should stay the same. I hope you now understand why I have problems with your proposal.
I think all of your plans for changes come from the idea that seasonal rating should eventually approach overall rating. Did I get you right? But as I said, seasonal rating (why shouldn't even call it rating in the first place, but rather "performance", "score, or smth) should show us how players perform in a given season, not show the skill, that's what we have overall rating for.
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
The essence of zero-sum is that the sum of points gained by winner and loser is zero. This is not a necessity IMO.
Think again what is rating supposed to show you - the skill. So after a series of games, say 10, the result is as expected (according to player's ratings), for example 8-2. The result tells us that both players played ok, according to their skill, so the sum of rating changes is 0. If it wouldn't be, the ratings would change whereas we said players performed as expected. Don't you think this distorts the picture a bit?
Reading your work I didn't catch one detail (or maybe I missed it) - do you want this calculations to affect only seasonal scores or also overall ratings? If only seasonal score would be calculated this way, then what you're proposing is at least somehow acceptable, altough I still think it doesn't show seasonal performances correctly enough. There are still ways to tweak it somehow, I guess.
Quote from: franz on February 01, 2011, 11:59 PM
fada, that page is very outdated as noted in many spots on there. some of the info might still be true/relevant, but they've constantly changed their calculations many times and now no one really knows the exact maths behind their current system.
WoW used ELo system too, now they switched to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill) (according to wikipedia).
Rok, so you seem more interested in just isolating every season separately.. basically just like resetting all points every new season (so overall rating really doesn't mean anything other than something nice to know or see). That's also what SPW seemed to want as well, mentioned in his thread: https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/tus-discussion/tel-system-need-a-change/
It's not the worst alternative :P I could live with it I guess, but you'll still have the issue with 'newbies' just giving points to a few lucky players early since their season rating always starts too high at the beginning of every season. So anyone who starts late will be at a slight disadvantage. I guess you could justify this by saying 'well its your own fault for starting late!'
edit: the other disadvantage is if you beat someone really good at the start of a new season.. it will feel pretty empty if you only win the standard small amount that everyone else is winning at the start. that loss of 'history' can hurt in this way too
SPW has said before in his thread: "I want to have the best players in every season in it and not just those one's, which got a big advantage by starting at zero / low overall points or leaning back because of an huge overall-point score." With HHC's idea, the starting at zero/low overall problem will be solved... but high overall scores will definitely have an advantage which SPW might not like. but they still have to work for it by reaching that high season rating again through many games played, although true they will get some extra help from their high overall rating. many could argue that this is worth it though, because it becomes more accurate to show the true skill level of all players.. as opposed to simply resetting every season and losing all that data to really show where everyone stands.
SPW don't be shy, come speak for yourself ^^
Quote from: franz on February 02, 2011, 02:00 AM
Rok, so you seem more interested in just isolating every season separately.. basically just like resetting all points every new season (so overall rating really doesn't mean anything other than something nice to know or see). That's also what SPW seemed to want as well, mentioned in his thread: https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/tus-discussion/tel-system-need-a-change/
It's not the worst alternative :P I could live with it I guess, but you'll still have the issue with 'newbies' just giving points to a few lucky players early since their season rating always starts too high at the beginning of every season. So anyone who starts late will be at a slight disadvantage. I guess you could justify this by saying 'well its your own fault for starting late!'
We already have it like that! Seasonal points start fresh every new season. The overall ratings don't. That's why top players get low points for beating much lesser ratings, because it's calculated from overall standings. What SPW wanted is to reset everything each season. Now random00 gets 5 points for beating newbie00, if we reseted, he would get 40 until he we reach higher rating again. We don't need overall ratings anymore then. And we're back to the old problems: players who start playing late in the season gain much better points from those who earned points early in the season, people start to avoid good players and choose newbies instead. And we still get the game comments like "pfff -65" or "lol 5 points for win" again and we really haven't solved much, don't you think?
One other thing that really bothers people is that standings are displayed season-wise. Good players who do well are placed f.e. around 100th place in season, yet they still qualify for playoffs, on the other hand people who may be in 10th place in the season are actually nowhere near the playoffs. That's why I proposed standings table should be based on overall rating. Much less people will be bothered be severe rating changes if they still see themselves at the top of the list when they click "standings". There will also be less comments like "lol r3sp3ct in 1st place, who is that"? Yes, this way top players could sit back and get in playoffs easily, but that's why we have set minimun of games played and minimum win percentage.
Quote from: franz on February 02, 2011, 02:00 AM
SPW has said before in his thread: "I want to have the best players in every season in it and not just those one's, which got a big advantage by starting at zero / low overall points or leaning back because of an huge overall-point score."
I think SPW is making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Just look at playoffs tables. Yes there are 1 or 2 newcomers who started low qualified in playoffs every season, but the rest are players who play a lot and have decent ratings and are really quite good. That's why I also said we should change overall/seasonal qualifying ratio to 6/2 rather than 4/4 as it is atm, to make qualifying for high rated players even easier.
Quote from: Rok on February 02, 2011, 03:02 AM
We already have it like that! Seasonal points start fresh every new season. The overall ratings don't. That's why top players get low points for beating much lesser ratings, because it's calculated from overall standings. What SPW wanted is to reset everything each season. Now random00 gets 5 points for beating newbie00, if we reseted, he would get 40 until he we reach higher rating again. We don't need overall ratings anymore then. And we're back to the old problems: players who start playing late in the season gain much better points from those who earned points early in the season, people start to avoid good players and choose newbies instead. And we still get the game comments like "pfff -65" or "lol 5 points for win" again and we really haven't solved much, don't you think?
You misunderstood me, but that's ok :P I was basically describing what SPW wanted, which was fresh new seasonal points every new season (yes I know this already happens) but then point gains are only through that season rating too (overall would have absolutely no affect.. it's only a stat you would look up if it's even kept at all).
Quote from: Rok on February 02, 2011, 03:02 AM
One other thing that really bothers people is that standings are displayed season-wise. Good players who do well are placed f.e. around 100th place in season, yet they still qualify for playoffs, on the other hand people who may be in 10th place in the season are actually nowhere near the playoffs. That's why I proposed standings table should be based on overall rating. Much less people will be bothered be severe rating changes if they still see themselves at the top of the list when they click "standings". There will also be less comments like "lol r3sp3ct in 1st place, who is that"? Yes, this way top players could sit back and get in playoffs easily, but that's why we have set minimun of games played and minimum win percentage.
I'm actually more inclined to support HHC's plan and even SPW's fresh start idea over trying to bandage the current system just by tweaking the standings to show overall. All these 'seasonal/overall' seeding complications don't even come into play with HHC's and SPW's.
I guess I misunderstood you then. Hell, I'm inclined to the other way completely :D I might appear like religiously supporting rating system, but I really like the idea of it.
Ok let's say, we choose to reset everything every season. What about people who like to compete yet don't have time to play enough worms to be able to fight for playoffs? I'll give myself for example - I don't think I'll ever have enough time again to play ~100 leagues games in a season nor I wish to play that much. But I'd still like to have some comparison to other players. A rating table does that for me just fine, while fresh seasonal standings every two months simply don't.
I could even live with overall ratings and seasonal scores completely separated, as long as I have something to fight for. That's my biased view but I'm sure there are others around wormnet who feel the same way.
Quote from: Rok on February 02, 2011, 01:13 AM
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
In your opinion both players should gain/lose 0 points and stay at 1050, because this is the expected result.
Yes, IF the actual result of games is the same as expected result, then rating change is exactly 0. If a player played according to his skill/rating, then his actual skill didn't change. Sounds logical?
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
In my opinion both players' real skill level is 900. When they play a draw against each other they 'confirm' that they are equally good, namely '900'-good and not the 1050 that happens to be their season rating. Thus, it doesn't seem illogical to me, that both players drop a little in season rating (to resemble more closely their real skill-level of 900).
It is illogical. Season rating shows us how well a person did IN A GIVEN SEASON. Overall rating is supposed to show player's skill in the long run, over multiple seasons, over his entire league 'career'. These are two different things, don't you think? So why do you want player's seasonal rating to DROP DOWN when he is doing like expected?
I repeat again, if you do better than expected, your rating should rise. If you do worse, your rating should drop down. If you do as expected, it should stay the same. I hope you now understand why I have problems with your proposal.
I think all of your plans for changes come from the idea that seasonal rating should eventually approach overall rating. Did I get you right? But as I said, seasonal rating (why shouldn't even call it rating in the first place, but rather "performance", "score, or smth) should show us how players perform in a given season, not show the skill, that's what we have overall rating for.
I agree that seasonal ratings should be kept completely, 100% separate from overall ratings. If overall rating is used at all in the calculation of seasonal rating, then seasonal rating loses its importance, and becomes something more like quarterly performance. And this would again impact activity, which is about the highest concern we should have for a league.
If, as franz implies, assigning more importance to seasonal ratings diminishes the importance of overall ratings, then so be it; it's still a boon for activity and competition. Overall ratings will still be useful to look at, for those who want to look at them.
Quote from: Rok on February 02, 2011, 01:13 AM
Quote from: HHC on February 01, 2011, 12:23 PM
The essence of zero-sum is that the sum of points gained by winner and loser is zero. This is not a necessity IMO.
Think again what is rating supposed to show you - the skill. So after a series of games, say 10, the result is as expected (according to player's ratings), for example 8-2. The result tells us that both players played ok, according to their skill, so the sum of rating changes is 0. If it wouldn't be, the ratings would change whereas we said players performed as expected. Don't you think this distorts the picture a bit?
I think a zero-sum system isn't ideal, for worms at least. It seems like your problem is that non-zero-sum systems wouldn't be quite as objective, which is slightly true, right now you can have a good feel for a player's skill if you know they're at 1800, or 1600, or 1400. However, as a counter example, table tennis ratings are wonderfully accurate and employ a non-zero-sum system, as shown here: http://www.ratingscentral.com/HowItWorks.php. And I always understand almost exactly how good a table tennis player is just by their rating there. This system allows young unranked prodigies to gain say, 400 points for beating a high-ranked player, without that player going down too dramatically.
And over at NNNL, although everyone's points inflate as the season goes on, top players end up with roughly the same upper limit on their seasonal rating. You can definitely create non-zero-sum systems that yield ratings that correspond to intuition.
Quote from: Rok on February 02, 2011, 03:54 AM
Ok let's say, we choose to reset everything every season. What about people who like to compete yet don't have time to play enough worms to be able to fight for playoffs? I'll give myself for example - I don't think I'll ever have enough time again to play ~100 leagues games in a season nor I wish to play that much. But I'd still like to have some comparison to other players. A rating table does that for me just fine, while fresh seasonal standings every two months simply don't.
I could even live with overall ratings and seasonal scores completely separated, as long as I have something to fight for. That's my biased view but I'm sure there are others around wormnet who feel the same way.
This is what my system does, it seperates season-scores from the overall-rating.
When you play a match your overall rating might go up 8 points (and opponent losing 8, according to old ELO), while your season rating may go up to say 45 points.
The overall ranks have no significance anymore for P/O's, instead they are used as a tool to see how skilled one's opponent is (and based on that, determine how valuable your win is).
However, since this eliminates the importance of the overall ranking I proposed the idea of the global TUS ranking in which the overall ratings of the different leagues are calculated together.. as to give people something to work on in the long run.
@Franz: can you explain to me why high overall rankings have a benefit in the season rankings in my system? I don't think that's the case to be honest. Random receives the same amount of points for beating Noob than say HHC (I have an overall rank of 1030 or something). Likewise, I lose as much points as Random does if I lose.
Like I said, the overall rating is merely used to determine your opponents strength. It has no influence on one's own stats.
Back to Rok ;D
QuoteI think all of your plans for changes come from the idea that seasonal rating should eventually approach overall rating. Did I get you right? But as I said, seasonal rating (why shouldn't even call it rating in the first place, but rather "performance", "score, or smth) should show us how players perform in a given season, not show the skill, that's what we have overall rating for.
Season ranking should resemble the skill of a player in a given season.
Right now, the season points are way off because they are affected by the overall rankings. They won't be anymore in my system.
When I say that someone's season rating will approach his overall rating I'm merely saying that, based on his historical results, a player is expected to gain a certain amount of points. For example, right now, Uber's TEL overall ranking is 1700. In my system he will start the season with 1000 points as season rank. I expect him to win many games again, up to the point where he approaches his 'old' rank of 1700. At this point he will win/lose the same amount of points as he does now (as his new season ranking of 1700, which is used to calculate the points one gets, equals the 1700 overall ranking that was used to calculate his points in the old system).
This is what Mablak reffers to with his 'upper limit' on Season ranking. Uber will go up in points as the season progress, until he reaches his 'natural limit'.
Sooo, Uber is expected to finish a season with a rating of 1700 if he performs as expected. If he does better this season, he will end up with say 1800... if he does worse, 1600.
In the old system Uber would have 1000 season ranking if he performs as usual, 1100 if he does better, 900 if he does worse.
As you can see, in the old system the season rating is waaay off the overall rating, while in my system the season rating is expected (based on historical results) to be somewhere near his (usual) overall score. This is what I mean when I say that season is likely to approach overall.
The big advantage here is that we now can see who's really doing the best this season. Uber is no longer ranked 156th with 1000 and a brilliant record, but instead ranked where he should be: with 1700 points (prolly in the top10).
Quote from: HHC on February 02, 2011, 10:57 AM
@Franz: can you explain to me why high overall rankings have a benefit in the season rankings in my system? I don't think that's the case to be honest. Random receives the same amount of points for beating Noob than say HHC (I have an overall rank of 1030 or something). Likewise, I lose as much points as Random does if I lose.
Like I said, the overall rating is merely used to determine your opponents strength. It has no influence on one's own stats.
Hmm, yeah you are right.. I had it mixed up in my head just a bit. The only real benefit of having a high overall ranking at the start of a new season.. is that other high rated players will
want to play with you.. so it's kind of an indirect benefit that you attract those other high overall rated players -> giving you a nice boost if winning vs them. anyway, I guess this isn't all that bad actually.. since you should
want to play other high rated players anyway.
ok yea, I think I'm liking HHC's plan more now ;p
though Mablak explained to me the benefits of NNN's system, and it's very nice also. he strictly believes that 'the order in which games are played in a season' should not matter at all. this way, any good players joining a season late would not have to be avoided by higher ranked players -> because as this good player climbs the ranks, all his early games that hurt a high ranked player wouldn't hurt as much anymore. I don't know how the system could be coded though or how easily it could be implemented. someone else should voice all this if they can. if it's not a realistic solution though, I would feel just fine with the HHC way.
Yeah, to elaborate, I think one of the most important changes that needs to be made to TUS is treating all matches between two opponents with equal importance; your total record against someone for the season is all that should be taken into account.
Let me attempt to list all the advantages of such a system:
1. Fairness. As it is, you could end up beating a great player 10 times and losing twice, but still losing points on the whole, if all your wins occurred when you were high-ranked and they were low. But simply put, you should always benefit when you've beaten your opponent more than they've beaten you in a season.
2. Starting late in the season doesn't give you an advantage. Right now, towards the end of the season there are players with tons of points, so if you wanted to climb the ranks with minimal effort, you could just start later in the season, getting a high rank with much less effort than many of the good players who were playing from the beginning. Simply because of the order of reporting, we've rendered games early in the season fairly useless, it's just more strategically sound to start playing later. But not everyone can do this, so the functionality of the league depends on the work of active players who decide to start early, which is quite unfair to them.
3. Avoiding is reduced. If you're not keen on playing a decent player because you know they're much better than their rating shows, you no longer have to be afraid of losing too many points. Standings are adjusted for you as new games are reported, giving you more points if someone you previously beat starts beating tons of players.
4. Less possible noob bashing. Franz pointed out that by simply playing a noob earlier in the season before other people do (before their points go down), you squeeze more points out of them than you deserve. Once again, standings would be adjusted as time goes on, and an early victory against a noob wouldn't give you many points in the end.
One objection to this system would be my claim 'you should always benefit when you've beaten your opponent more than they've beaten you in a season'. This isn't true if players are actually gaining or losing skill throughout a season, but it's fairly impossible to measure changes in skill over an extremely short time period, and I don't think any system is capable of that. The assumption we have to make here is that a player's skill level stays roughly the same over the course of a season. Though this isn't always true, it works very well for seasons of 2 or 3 months, and the benefits I've listed are well worth it.
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 06:56 AM
3. Avoiding is reduced. If you're not keen on playing a decent player because you know they're much better than their rating shows, you no longer have to be afraid of losing too many points. Standings are adjusted for you as new games are reported, giving you more points if someone you previously beat starts beating tons of players.
4. Less possible noob bashing. Franz pointed out that by simply playing a noob earlier in the season before other people do (before their points go down), you squeeze more points out of them than you deserve. Once again, standings would be adjusted as time goes on, and an early victory against a noob wouldn't give you many points in the end.
after thinking about this aspect more... all of it sounds well and good.. but this assumes that the 'good late joiners' and 'noobs' will actually play enough games to accurately reflect their skill level -> thus accurately affecting your own ranking. the problem is that it's very common for players to play just a few games in a season.. so without that historical element (overall rating) to give you proper benefit for beating a 'good late joiner' or 'noob' you still have imbalance in the system.
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on January 31, 2011, 05:27 PM
If you're suggesting a new plan make sure to think about what would you do about the current players stats.
The best idea or combination of the ideas will start from new season.
This is HHC's plan (https://www.tus-wa.com/HhcTusConcept.pdf), please read it (long text, but won't bore you)
regarding what to do about the current players stats -> I see HHC's plan working/transitioning just fine with the same overall ratings that everyone has worked hard to achieve. but if a complete reset is something many people want, I could understand that too. sounds like a good question that might want to be asked/polled depending which system is eventually chosen.
Quote from: franz on February 04, 2011, 08:10 AM
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 06:56 AM
3. Avoiding is reduced. If you're not keen on playing a decent player because you know they're much better than their rating shows, you no longer have to be afraid of losing too many points. Standings are adjusted for you as new games are reported, giving you more points if someone you previously beat starts beating tons of players.
4. Less possible noob bashing. Franz pointed out that by simply playing a noob earlier in the season before other people do (before their points go down), you squeeze more points out of them than you deserve. Once again, standings would be adjusted as time goes on, and an early victory against a noob wouldn't give you many points in the end.
after thinking about this aspect more... all of it sounds well and good.. but this assumes that the 'good late joiners' and 'noobs' will actually play enough games to accurately reflect their skill level -> thus accurately affecting your own ranking. the problem is that it's very common for players to play just a few games in a season.. so without that historical element (overall rating) to give you proper benefit for beating a 'good late joiner' or 'noob' you still have imbalance in the system.
But it's fairly redundant to take steps to make the seasonal ratings approximate the overall ratings, at a certain point they just become the overall ratings again. If you're looking for long-term accuracy, you might as well just look at the overall ratings. And I think incorporating any historical element would be harmful to activity, because certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages, which makes the prospect of a new season seem unappealing, since the whole concept is about getting a fresh start.
And your concern about people just playing a few games is valid, but because it's so few games, I don't think it can compromise the system greatly. The system would still be highly balanced if the majority of active pros play at least say, 15 or so games. In any case, I don't feel like the best players typically go a season with only a few games; when they know they can at least do the bare minimum to make it into playoffs, they often will, at least that's been the case in NNNL.
Or you can do as it is in wow.
Everyone start at 0.
If you win a game you win point. If you loose a game you loose point.
If you're at 0 you do not loose point.
If you win and is at 0 you win a lot of point whereas your opponent does not loose too many point.
In wow it's like +96 and -15.After some time you get to find people your level and the amount of win/lose point is fair.
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 09:12 AM
But it's fairly redundant to take steps to make the seasonal ratings approximate the overall ratings, at a certain point they just become the overall ratings again. If you're looking for long-term accuracy, you might as well just look at the overall ratings. And I think incorporating any historical element would be harmful to activity, because certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages, which makes the prospect of a new season seem unappealing, since the whole concept is about getting a fresh start.
the point of the system isn't to predict how seasons will end with overall ratings.. but to properly distribute points according to skill level -> the rest is up to you. every new season still starts fresh, and there's nothing unappealing about getting rewarded the appropriate amount of points. you say certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages? care to explain what they are?
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 09:12 AM
And your concern about people just playing a few games is valid, but because it's so few games, I don't think it can compromise the system greatly. The system would still be highly balanced if the majority of active pros play at least say, 15 or so games. In any case, I don't feel like the best players typically go a season with only a few games; when they know they can at least do the bare minimum to make it into playoffs, they often will, at least that's been the case in NNNL.
compromising the system greatly or not, I felt it was worth mentioning because it does bring at least some level of imbalance to the system. perhaps even comparable to the imbalance in the other system that comes from when a player's true skill isn't yet reflected in their overall rating. -> though that's a problem that time and more games can fix.
Quote from: franz on February 04, 2011, 10:45 AM
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 09:12 AM
But it's fairly redundant to take steps to make the seasonal ratings approximate the overall ratings, at a certain point they just become the overall ratings again. If you're looking for long-term accuracy, you might as well just look at the overall ratings. And I think incorporating any historical element would be harmful to activity, because certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages, which makes the prospect of a new season seem unappealing, since the whole concept is about getting a fresh start.
the point of the system isn't to predict how seasons will end with overall ratings.. but to properly distribute points according to skill level -> the rest is up to you. every new season still starts fresh, and there's nothing unappealing about getting rewarded the appropriate amount of points. you say certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages? care to explain what they are?
It seems like any form of 'properly distributing points' will keep things very close to the way they currently are on TUS. Which has the noticeable problem of discouraging high level players from playing once they have a high overall rating, because it necessarily gives them the seasonal disadvantage of getting much fewer points from most players. And we just don't have enough high level players for them to stick to playing amongst themselves as MI intended.
The biggest flaw I can think of in properly distributing points based on skill level is the very fact that people start with the same number of points in a season. The idea of properly distributing points is dependent on good players already having points; if they don't, then although we know them and recognize their skill level, their skill is not accurately represented by the system. The main reason the system treats a pro player as it does is because it expects them to have excess points, and if they don't, then the exchange formula is rather... pointless, pun intended.
Even if TUS was tweaked to allow such players to gain a bit more than they do now and not be at such a disadvantage, it would still be too much of a hindrance for people like me, who would prefer to make it as high up as possible. If the most competitive players are being denied the chance to compete to their best potential, it just kills activity.
Quote from: franz on February 04, 2011, 10:45 AM
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 09:12 AM
But it's fairly redundant to take steps to make the seasonal ratings approximate the overall ratings, at a certain point they just become the overall ratings again. If you're looking for long-term accuracy, you might as well just look at the overall ratings. And I think incorporating any historical element would be harmful to activity, because certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages, which makes the prospect of a new season seem unappealing, since the whole concept is about getting a fresh start.
the point of the system isn't to predict how seasons will end with overall ratings.. but to properly distribute points according to skill level -> the rest is up to you. every new season still starts fresh, and there's nothing unappealing about getting rewarded the appropriate amount of points. you say certain people will start with advantages and disadvantages? care to explain what they are?
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 09:12 AM
And your concern about people just playing a few games is valid, but because it's so few games, I don't think it can compromise the system greatly. The system would still be highly balanced if the majority of active pros play at least say, 15 or so games. In any case, I don't feel like the best players typically go a season with only a few games; when they know they can at least do the bare minimum to make it into playoffs, they often will, at least that's been the case in NNNL.
compromising the system greatly or not, I felt it was worth mentioning because it does bring at least some level of imbalance to the system. perhaps even comparable to the imbalance in the other system that comes from when a player's true skill isn't yet reflected in their overall rating. -> though that's a problem that time and more games can fix.
you could kinda achieve that by setting up some sort of elo system mixed with player Value Points,
player gets a higher or lower ValuePoint(good or bad) during the season and according to that u give either less or more points for a win or lose
you could also give a different VP rating for different schemes so its balanced any how,
like if ure good in RR u have high VP coz u won alot and end up getting less points for a win vs a low vp rating
but in BNG u suck and have a low vp coz u lost many, and get more points vs a high vp
and u can have a good view of which squads have more Higher vp's etc etc
*didnt read alot of posts on this topic so if it might been said before ignore this XD
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 12:04 PM
It seems like any form of 'properly distributing points' will keep things very close to the way they currently are on TUS. Which has the noticeable problem of discouraging high level players from playing once they have a high overall rating, because it necessarily gives them the seasonal disadvantage of getting much fewer points from most players. And we just don't have enough high level players for them to stick to playing amongst themselves as MI intended.
you have it wrong -> having a high overall rating doesn't hurt your own seasonal performance. you're confusing this way with how TUS currently is.. and that's the important difference. there is no 'seasonal disadvantage of getting fewer points from most players' -> you start at 1000 season rating like everyone else and gain/lose points according to
other people's overall rating. so no, you don't have to only stick to playing amongst other high level players -> you're even free to play 'noobs' if you want since losing won't hurt your seasonal rating as much compared to overall rating now and winning gets you more points compared to overall rating now.
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 12:04 PM
The biggest flaw I can think of in properly distributing points based on skill level is the very fact that people start with the same number of points in a season. The idea of properly distributing points is dependent on good players already having points; if they don't, then although we know them and recognize their skill level, their skill is not accurately represented by the system. The main reason the system treats a pro player as it does is because it expects them to have excess points, and if they don't, then the exchange formula is rather... pointless, pun intended.
huh? I fail to see the connection between
the inability to properly distribute points based on skill level and the fact that people start with the same number of seasonal points in a season. their skill
is accurately represented by the system with their underlying overall rating -> and their seasonal skill is accurately represented by their seasonal rating. your last sentence about 'excess points' didn't make any sense to me, so you can elaborate on that more if it's important.
Quote from: Mablak on February 04, 2011, 12:04 PM
Even if TUS was tweaked to allow such players to gain a bit more than they do now and not be at such a disadvantage, it would still be too much of a hindrance for people like me, who would prefer to make it as high up as possible. If the most competitive players are being denied the chance to compete to their best potential, it just kills activity.
again I fail to see how you're hindered with a high overall rating.. when it's other people's overall ratings that affect your seasonal rating going up and down.
[offtopic]I had the urge to start reading all this, understand it and form my own opinion, but with that effort I could read a good book. You guys will figure it out allright, I'm sure. :)[/offtopic]
Yeah Ray, what is the point in this, NO ONE will ever agree to some new system, everyone thinks they have the answer and everyone else come out with reasons why it isn't such a good idea.
They all try to hard to make something not work, that we'll never have a chance lol.
ray, I understand if HHC's big text, and then reading this whole thread looks like too much effort, but this isn't just about something unimportant. it's about the most important part of how the league runs. so if you do feel like you would want to have your opinion heard on such an important topic, I encourage you to put however much effort it takes to read this whole conversation. otherwise, if you really do just trust others to make the best decision, then you can just sit back, np :P
komo, this conversation here is actually coming along well, and most everyone has posted really good opinions. you shouldn't just say 'there is no point in even doing this discussion' and that's it is because 'NO ONE will ever agree to some new system.' if that's the case, then what is the point in doing ANYTHING where not everyone agrees? this discussion exists to peacefully exchange ideas so that hopefully the best possible solution for the league gets used. no one here is strictly looking for failures in other people's ideas just to only prove that their idea is the best.. -> what's happening is we are looking for all possible pro's and con's so that the most informed decision can be made. cheers ;p
franz, that's all very well said, but none of you can agree on anything, none of you realise that ALL these ideas are better than the current system, so just f@#!ing pick one and test it, if it fails, we try the next one the next again season, what's the big deal?
komo, at least read MonkeyIsland's first post and understand that this discussion is going exactly how he wanted it to.. so try not to casually throw words around like "just f@#!ing pick one and test it." he wants this to continue until 23th February. no one is in a hurry here except you it seems. relax ;x
here's what he said:
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on January 31, 2011, 05:27 PM
There are 29 days left for the current classic/TEL leagues to finish and I'm trying to run the new leagues system straight after that. So, I'm putting every idea on the table.
I'll accept league plans till 23th February so that in the next remaining days I have time to code the ideas.
Yeah I know mate, I ain't angry or anything, it's just the way I speak lol.
Every single one of your ideas are good, better than what we have, each of them have different flaws, but flaws that are nowhere near as bad as the current, they all seem good to me.
I do not understand but admire you people to take the time to read and post such long posts/texts to contribute to this game and community.
No post here in a week. By the look of it, we have a full detailed of HHC plan and Mablak's suggestion for a system like NNN's.
I have been trying to read this thread for over a week now. Its been hard but i want to give my opinion on the matter. There are still methods to this new system that i am abit confused over.
First of all i agree that the tus system does need a change, but i agree due to different reasons. My opinions are similar to RoK. I agree that there is a massive advantage for players to gain seasonal points and to make PO spots easly and how players with a high overall ratings are discouraged from playing.
But we do have the number of games and winning precentages for a reason and thus RoKs first post of placing more focus on overall and viewing the standings differently was something i would of agreed with. I think its fair for players like zippo and random00 to keep making playoffs every season if they meet the requirements because they deserve these spots based on their great overall performances within the TUS league.
The problem that i see with tus for the players who have ratings which are not low so they cant gain easy seasonal points, but not the highest like random00 and zippo and struggle to make the top 4 overall points. The players who are between the top 25-10 overall ratings, it can be hard for them to make the seasonal points, and harder to get the top 4 overall.
Therefor i would of agreed with roks idea of changing the system to make more po spots for overall, and a couple of places for seasonal, however this would just minimc the FB system and that lost activity because people were tired of seeing the same top overall players making playoffs and noobs/not best allrounders felt they couldnt reach those top end of the overall ranking.
So i read HHCs plan with interested, i like how seasonal points are calculated and it seems like a fair enough way, but what i dont understand is that if no playoff spots are determined from an overall rating (because these are being kept to determine the seasonal points u gain) then how does having a high overall rating not become a disadvantage?
If you seasonal points are calculated with seasonal and overall, surely its a handicap to have a higher overall? It means your going to lose more points regardly because you are ranked higher than a noob, which is fair, but isnt it giving noobs and new players an advantage at the start of every new season when the seasonal points are reset back to 1000? I think i understand you can play enough games and you will catch up sesonally to your overall but im still confused.
I would like that explained.. i tried to find an answer but it still feels that way. I think having this system put in place is a good idea, it creates a solution to the seasonal points problem of the current ELO rating but i still think a couple of playoff spots should be assigned to your overall rank because i feel there is that disadvantage to anyone with an amazing overall they are going to gain less points? prehaps i have the run end of the stick?
Quote from: Chicken23 on February 13, 2011, 12:44 PM
If you seasonal points are calculated with seasonal and overall, surely its a handicap to have a higher overall? It means your going to lose more points regardly because you are ranked higher than a noob, which is fair, but isnt it giving noobs and new players an advantage at the start of every new season when the seasonal points are reset back to 1000? I think i understand you can play enough games and you will catch up sesonally to your overall but im still confused.
In my system it is not your own overall rating that is used to calculate how much points you get in a match, it's only your opponent's.
You gotta see it as a skill indicator, to see how strong one's opponent is (and thus how many points he's worth).
For example:
Random is worth 1456, Rocket is worth 1050, HHC is worth 875. (These are the overall ratings ;)).
At the start of the season everyone is at 1000. Both Chicken (overall rating 1030) and Csongi (rating 1400).
Only the opponent's overall rating is taken into consideration. Which means if you Tom win against Random you win for example 65 points. When Csongi wins against Random he will also win 65.
When you beat Rocket you gain 45, same as Csongi. And for HHC you both get 28 points.
Your overall rating doesn't influence the amount of points you win (or lose), only the skill level of your opponent matters. (And this skill level is determined by his overall ranking).
In my alternative version (which takes the average of the opponents overall and seasonal) the same applies. Your own overall rank isn't used for calculation, it's only your opponents performance both in this season and overall that matters.I hope you understand now Chicken. The overall ranking here is only used to see how strong the opponents you beat are. That's it.
So if you have a high overall it won't effect the amount of points you gain or lose because you are only taking into account the overall of your opponent??
Could you in theory go pro hunting to just gain points off higher ranked overall players?
What are the point differences like if random00 loses games against players with a lower overall/season?
Shouldnt in theory i deserve to win more points off random than csongi because he is of a similar skill level (from his overall being closer to randoms)??
Quote from: Chicken23 on February 13, 2011, 01:59 PM
So if you have a high overall it won't effect the amount of points you gain or lose because you are only taking into account the overall of your opponent??
Yessir.
QuoteCould you in theory go pro hunting to just gain points off higher ranked overall players?
You can, but is that a bad thing? Will be hard enough to win 50% of those games. I think it's pretty balanced, noobs are still worth quite a few points, while at the same time, pro players may not be shy anymore when it comes to playing fellow leets ;)
QuoteWhat are the point differences like if random00 loses games against players with a lower overall/season?
It depends on where random is at in the season. At the very start of the season he won't lose many points (as it would be 1000 vs 750). Later on, when his season rating is at 1400 or so, he may lose a whole bunch :) (as it would be 1400 vs 750 then; the number of points he loses then is fairly similar to the points he loses in the current TUS system).
QuoteShouldnt in theory i deserve to win more points off random than csongi because he is of a similar skill level (from his overall being closer to randoms)??
Depends on how you look at it. Your performance is more special perhaps, as it isn't as expected.
But when you start from scratch each season it is inevitable. For example, it may be more worthy for Australia to beat Brazil at the World cup than it is for Spain, but if you give Australia 6 points for it, and Spain only 2 points you'll get a very weird world cup don't you think :)
The way I see it is that you and Csongi are equally good when you both manage to beat Random. You should not be higher in the standings for achieving the same result as Csongi. It's perhaps a performance that is worthy of more praise, but it doesn't make you a better player than Csongi is. And that's why I feel you both should get the same amount of points.
(this is only at the very start of the season btw, if Csongi has a higher score this season than you, he won't get as much points added anymore).
Yea i agree with the football example. Also because the points u win/loss come from the overall of your oppenent there is no handicap on those players having a greater overall at the start of the season?
You'll see the greater loses of points as your seasonal catches up with our overall but that is fair because thats how your preforming over the season!
May question tho is it hard for a player like zippo, random, dulek to gain points over a period of time compared to average lower allrounders? Is there any form of handicap for anyone with a greater overall? Or is there any kind of reward for someone with a greater overall? I still think that your overall should be worth something?? Players have done alot to deserve that. Shouldnt atleast 2 spots of overall make the playoffs if they have done the necessary games and winning %?
But with the seasonal points calculation you are likely to see them reaching a playoff spot anyway because of the seasonally points they will gain from making the 50 games and winning % anyway?
therefore not making my concern an issue?
Are you one of those people who finish every sentence with a question mark? :D
It is true that the overall ranking has no effect on P/O quali's anymore. This is why I proposed a TUS global ranking in which the overall ratings in the leagues are counted together, as to form a kind of World Ranking. If this does get implemented it will be quite an honour to be on top of those rankings and it gives players something to work on in the long term, over many seasons.
As well as bind all of the seperate leagues and cups together into a global system (and thus prevent the ongoing desintegration).
Chicken:
Quote from: franz on February 04, 2011, 06:19 PM
having a high overall rating doesn't hurt your own seasonal performance. you're confusing this way with how TUS currently is.. and that's the important difference. there is no 'seasonal disadvantage of getting fewer points from most players' -> you start at 1000 season rating like everyone else and gain/lose points according to other people's overall rating. so no, you don't have to only stick to playing amongst other high level players -> you're even free to play 'noobs' if you want since losing won't hurt your seasonal rating as much compared to overall rating now and winning gets you more points compared to overall rating now.
Quote from: franz on February 03, 2011, 05:59 AM
The only real benefit of having a high overall ranking at the start of a new season.. is that other high rated players will want to play with you.. so it's kind of an indirect benefit that you attract those other high overall rated players -> giving you a nice boost if winning vs them. anyway, I guess this isn't all that bad actually.. since you should want to play other high rated players anyway.
And Chick, regarding your comment about "is it hard for a player like zippo, random, dulek to gain points"... the answer is
no because there isn't really a handicap for having high overall rating (this has been said many many times now, but worth repeating). is there any reward for having a greater overall you ask? well, my quote above shows that there is indirect benefit, but it's a healthy benefit because it encourages high level players to play each other. I really don't think it's healthy for the league if someone with huge overall rating easily wins 80 games vs noobs to qualify for something like PO's. they should still have to work for a high seasonal rating, but this should not be hard at all if their true skill level is measured by their overall rating -> because then they should be winning vs great players and getting the appropriate amount of points to reach high in the new standings. so yes, your last line should be accurate -> "with the seasonal points calculation you are likely to see them reaching a playoff spot anyway because of the seasonally points they will gain from making the 50 games and winning % anyway"
I don't understand why comparisons with football keep being made. They're using a completely different competition format where there's a set amount of games. Worms leagues don't have a set amount of games.
We need a system where you don't just get points because you are active regardless of your results; there should be a minimum requirement of games played for playoffs, but whether you're eligible for playoffs or not should depend on the results (this means not only the percentage of wins, but also the opposition against which you reached that result). And perhaps your rating shouldn't depend mostly on the last 10 games you've played, but rather on the entire collection of games you've played through the season; the effect of beating Random in an elite at the start of the season is entirely lost after about 10-20 games, but if your last elite was against Random, you can see a huge boost in your rating.
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on February 12, 2011, 01:22 PM
No post here in a week. By the look of it, we have a full detailed of HHC plan and Mablak's suggestion for a system like NNN's.
I'm not done with this thread yet (if that matters anyhow :-[), I just don't have time for worms at the moment.
Quote from: DarkOne on February 13, 2011, 06:58 PM
I don't understand why comparisons with football keep being made. They're using a completely different competition format where there's a set amount of games. Worms leagues don't have a set amount of games.
We need a system where you don't just get points because you are active regardless of your results; there should be a minimum requirement of games played for playoffs, but whether you're eligible for playoffs or not should depend on the results (this means not only the percentage of wins, but also the opposition against which you reached that result). And perhaps your rating shouldn't depend mostly on the last 10 games you've played, but rather on the entire collection of games you've played through the season; the effect of beating Random in an elite at the start of the season is entirely lost after about 10-20 games, but if your last elite was against Random, you can see a huge boost in your rating.
Yes, indeed. One tweak we can still do is to adjust ratings after a series of games rather than after every single game as it is now. ATM, I'm still not convinced by. The system that Mablak mentioned (table tennis thing) could be promising for this league, though.
One more thing, @HHC, franz et. al.: Either use the overall rating in the seasonal calculations fully (in a way similar like we do it now), or don't use it AT ALL. Fiddling with some magic numbers without any statistical or mathematical background is meh and wrong and all...
Cya again when RL let's me... ;)
Quote from: Rok on February 14, 2011, 08:33 PM
One more thing, @HHC, franz et. al.: Either use the overall rating in the seasonal calculations fully (in a way similar like we do it now), or don't use it AT ALL. Fiddling with some magic numbers without any statistical or mathematical background is meh and wrong and all...
uhh what? why such forceful language? you make a strong statement about using overall rating in seasonal calculations fully or NOT AT ALL and you don't back yourself up with any explanations as to why.
you must not fully understand the idea if you describe it as "fiddling with some magic numbers." then you claim we're trying this idea "without any statistical or mathematical background" as if this has never been tried before... -> except it has. there have already been comparisons to WoW's arena rating system, so no.. this isn't foreign territory.
Will there be no change to overall calculations? So if random00 did lose to a noob he will still lose alot of points in his overall.
I hope this is the case, then you will get a more accurate stats for overalls and how much you would win off random00 if he went on a losing streak.
He loses to a noob. Loses 25 seasonal. But loses 60 overall. So players playing random wont gain as much if he has a some bad results due to his lower overall.
Quote from: Chicken23 on February 15, 2011, 01:18 PM
Will there be no change to overall calculations? So if random00 did lose to a noob he will still lose alot of points in his overall.
I hope this is the case, then you will get a more accurate stats for overalls and how much you would win off random00 if he went on a losing streak.
He loses to a noob. Loses 25 seasonal. But loses 60 overall. So players playing random wont gain as much if he has a some bad results due to his lower overall.
That is the case. The overall and season scores are calculated seperately. The overall ones the old way, the seasonal ones the new way.
Quote from: franz on February 14, 2011, 09:58 PM
Quote from: Rok on February 14, 2011, 08:33 PM
One more thing, @HHC, franz et. al.: Either use the overall rating in the seasonal calculations fully (in a way similar like we do it now), or don't use it AT ALL. Fiddling with some magic numbers without any statistical or mathematical background is meh and wrong and all...
uhh what? why such forceful language? you make a strong statement about using overall rating in seasonal calculations fully or NOT AT ALL and you don't back yourself up with any explanations as to why.
you must not fully understand the idea if you describe it as "fiddling with some magic numbers." then you claim we're trying this idea "without any statistical or mathematical background" as if this has never been tried before... -> except it has. there have already been comparisons to WoW's arena rating system, so no.. this isn't foreign territory.
Sorry if it sounded harsh, it wasn't meant to. I really don't have time to explain myself, because writing a long post takes me several hours (I like to do some research ::)). In short, from what I read about WoW system, It looks
roughly like HHC system, but it really isn't. That 'par' number in HHC equations - where does this come from, what does it represent?, etc... this is what I haven't understood reading this thread. Rating systems were developed by people with PhD's who surveyed databases of hundreds of thousands of games before they came up with things like 'expected score' etc. Without being disrespectful towards HHC's work, but I'm sceptical.
Quote from: Rok on February 15, 2011, 04:03 PMThat 'par' number in HHC equations - where does this come from, what does it represent?, etc... this is what I haven't understood reading this thread.
In a zero-sum system like the old TUS the amount of points won by the winner and lost by the loser of a match is the same. Winner gets +18, loser gets -18. The difference is 0, hence zero-sum. This is what I called the par value.
In my system there's a discrepancy between points won by winner and those lost by loser. Winner may get +29, while loser gets -12. The sum here is no longer zero, but +17. This sum is what I referred to as the par value. Perhaps it's not the appropriate term, but I thought it was pretty clear what it stood for.
QuoteRating systems were developed by people with PhD's who surveyed databases of hundreds of thousands of games before they came up with things like 'expected score' etc. Without being disrespectful towards HHC's work, but I'm sceptical.
Modesty is a virtue. But what these PhD's have come up with is an ELO system meant for continous play. In CPU games this is not always applicable, thus new systems had to be created. I'd go for one of these, were it not that Worms is a totally different game as well. Worms has schemes, gametypes of which the ratings tend to differ A LOT. Someone may be 2000 in BnG, but only 700 in Rope.
So in short, like I said in the article, you can't use a system already thought up by PhD's. You gotta come up with something new, to suit it for TUS.
The WoW arena thing Flow mentioned is a good system because it incorporates seasonal resets into the former ELO-system. But since WoW doesn't have seperate schemes it is not fully suited for Worms either.
I know you're sceptical, so is everybody else I think. But unless you try out these things, there's no way of knowing what works and what does not. We can always tweak it later on if necessary.
I don't know how much work coding the HHC system would be. If it's not too much, why not try it out? It does sound interesting at least.
Quote from: DarkOne on February 13, 2011, 06:58 PM
And perhaps your rating shouldn't depend mostly on the last 10 games you've played, but rather on the entire collection of games you've played through the season; the effect of beating Random in an elite at the start of the season is entirely lost after about 10-20 games, but if your last elite was against Random, you can see a huge boost in your rating.
Are you saying HHC's plan doesn't cover this situation well? Becuase of the potential point difference of beating random during the start of end of a season?
What is the solution for this HHC, franz et al because beating random in elite at the start of the season is going to be just the same as the end. But the points u gain from this may vary due to when you play him, isnt that a little unfair?
uhh what? it's always about the entire collection of games you've played through the season. you can't ignore all your first games and just look at the last 10 games.. because all those first games put you into that position to play those last 10 games.
as for your example (I'm sure Random loves the attention) -> beating Random in elite at the start of the season -> you say the effect of beating him is entirely lost after about 10-20 games... why? you'd get the appropriate reward of points due to wherever his overall rating is (most likely high) and if he were to go on a big losing streak, then appropriately fewer points will be rewarded to anyone who beats him later. the system accounts for your overall skill fluctuating -> and rewards people correctly due to their performance, however good or however bad.
Well, then why does it matter in which order games are reported?
The answer is that if I play 2 games against someone and I score 1-1, then my rating will be higher if I win the second game.
I don't know what exactly is the rating system, so I can't give any objective numbers, but just pick your last 10 elite results, but then throw in a win against Random at the start and calculate your rating. Then have the same results and put the win against Random at the end instead of the start.
Compare ratings. You will see a big difference.
Quote from: DarkOne on February 16, 2011, 09:36 AM
Well, then why does it matter in which order games are reported?
The answer is that if I play 2 games against someone and I score 1-1, then my rating will be higher if I win the second game.
It sounds like you'd prefer Mablak's idea, which is also a nice idea, just in a different way -> "treating all matches between two opponents with equal importance; your total record against someone for the season is all that should be taken into account." (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/write-leagues-system-from-scratch/msg51834/#msg51834)
Quote from: DarkOne on February 16, 2011, 09:36 AM
I don't know what exactly is the rating system, so I can't give any objective numbers, but just pick your last 10 elite results, but then throw in a win against Random at the start and calculate your rating. Then have the same results and put the win against Random at the end instead of the start.
Compare ratings. You will see a big difference.
what was Random's overall at the start? did he go on a huge losing streak? maybe even a huge winning streak? picking one of these.. then what was his overall at the end? these variables affect the points you're awarded/lost. and how was your own performance for those 10 games in between? did you go on a huge losing streak yourself? maybe a huge winning streak? those seasonal variables also affect the points you're awarded/lost.
there's no one answer to your question.. so no, it's not fair to just conclude that "You will see a big difference."
I'd say Random's rating is pretty stabile ;)
(https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/graphs/members/Random00-Elite-all-max/)
at any rate, the amount of points you'd win at his highest or lowest rating lately won't give you much more/less points. I did some fiddling around in excel and I found a nice approximation of the expected score (or at least, I thought so).
TUS.jpg
The further left, the higher your opponent's rating in comparison to yours, the further up, the more points you get for a win against that player
I took a couple of your last results and I used this formula to calculate what your rating would be a) when I add a win against random at the start and b) when I add a win against random at the end.
If you started with a win against Random, you'd have a rating of 1705 (singles classic elite rating), but if you end with a win against Random, you'd have a rating of 1723, which is 18 points difference in favour of beating him later.
Disregarding this fictive result against Random gave me a rating of 1665 btw, so the calculations I've been doing are off :( couldn't get it much better after tweaking, but the difference remained about the same.
That may not seem like much, until you take a closer look.
In situation a (start with a win against Random), you win 61 points by beating him.
In situation b (end with a win against Random), you win 57 points by beating him.
According to the numbers, you had a better result in situation a, yet your rating is higher after situation b. But let's be honest: both game orders should lead to the same end rating :)
So basically, yes, I think all results should have equal value :)
it could just be me, but your example is really confusing. I don't understand anything from it.. what framework/system/variables are you using? maybe it makes perfect sense to you, but the way you explained it wasn't clear.
in any case, it still sounds like you prefer Mablak's idea to treat all games the same, no matter when they are played. maybe you two can work together to make a good proposal that suits both your ideas, and in the end, suits TUS.
Basically, I took your latest 13 results in TUS singles for elite and redid some calculations :)
First situation: you beat Random and then follow the 13 results I picked.
Second situation: first are the 13 results I picked and then you beat Random
To be honest, I didnt read the whole thread but since I know how the system from HHC works, I do support it. Regarding last activity in w:a and over tus, and for generell, there are some things which are very important in my opinion.
Credo: "Protect the Pro's!"
I dont have anything against semiskilled or noobs playing leagues, sure not. But we have to protect every Pro! I really miss some nice replays from very skilled cracks like Mablak, Crash, Random00, Dulek and so on. I dont think its only having no time for playing worms. The truth is laying in the system. It's just no pleasure to see oneself somewhere at position #100. The current ranking table is looking like rigged. So...
- We need standings, which reflecting the right skills!
This is a very important point in my eyes. Good players are feeling like "further it comes...". But skilled players deserves a high position in the rankings to keep them having fun by playing worms / ladders.
At the end. I totally agree to HHC System for a try and remove seasonal ranking at all. I want the best players in each PO and the fairest system we can get for it.
Sorry, if I repeated something from previous pages. Like I said, I didnt get the power yet to read the whole, mega thread. :)
Yea
Overall i do think the HHC system is an improve on the current system. We should put it into place and see how it goes!
Quote from: SPW on February 16, 2011, 10:35 PMI dont think its only having no time for playing worms. The truth is laying in the system. It's just no pleasure to see oneself somewhere at position #100. The current ranking table is looking like rigged. So...
Why is being #1 in Seasonal so important anyway? Is it the fact no one can see how good you are that bothers you, Mablak and Random will get the Playoffs because they own the scheme and will probably always be #1 and #2 Overall, if I was them, I would be happy enough with that.
The best players will always be seen in Overall over long periods of time, Seasonal shouldn't even exist imo, then people would not have these awkward feelings.
Maybe we need to encourage players to start checking the Overall Standings more often, and follow the changes, like, have a little symbol that changes from week to week like:
UP 6
DOWN 7
NO CHANGE
I dunno, just throwing an idea out there, I would like to see something like that, you know, like you see in the Music charts?
It is quite funny to see me at 55-0 in BnG Season 18, and only being 5th place lol.
I think Mablaks system (or whoever invented it) sounds best for me, why should other people differ the rating of my opponent when we have never played/have already played. It makes no sense since the individual is the core key in a singles league. As for now it seems like everyone is playing against the good players since they suffer the most under these circumstances. People should always get the points they deserve vs. the one they played against, no matter what other games were played.
And a way to avoid playing the same people over and over would be to reduce the INDIVIDUAL rating of both after, say 10 games, so they gain less and less points to the point they just get way less point off a win.
Player A and B both win 10 games, so both are more or less around the same rating, now with game 11 the Rating of both get reduced to (1000 is the start) 750, so they will only gain 0,75. next game it gets reduced to 0,50 and so on to the limit of 0,25. Noone has to worry if they have maxed out games and can just enjoy playing eachother without harming the system in my opinion.
tl,dr.:
Mablaks Idea.
A little wish from my side and i guess i speak for many players in this league: Make the new system as simple as it can be. You're doing noone a favour with implementing a new system only studied mathematics can understand. And if i take a look at this thread and HHC's 10 page long PDF file i'm expecting the worst... see players want a system they can understand otherwise many people will feel it is unjusty just because they can't understand it.
In my opinion that only happens when the system isn't transparent. Like when I go into details of a game and can't rely on the information why I/Opponent lost/won his/her points. So as long as you can see WHY you lose/win those points it can be very complex and still easy to understand.
Transparency is good as long as you can understand what shines underneath the glass. :) I just hope this will get as simple as it can, there is no need to think of every possibility in which a player could be treated unjustly or one could cheat or something. That would just lead to an over complexity which makes it too complicated to understand the whole.
but, how can u say the current system is not over complicated? i mean.. how in the hell can u figure out what u will gain or lose?? you cant...
thats what the analyzer is for, no matter what the system turns into.... ya know? :o
That's exactly my point. :) I never said the current system is better than what comes, whatever it will be like...
Well but tbh, with ratings and the like you can't just rely on basic math like 1+2=3 lol. I mean you know, there has to be something working in the background and it's just nothing wrong with it. I mean that's what the analyzer is for, just like avi says. Why should I do the math for the league? xD
The analyzer would still be useful even if you understood the way points get calculated, as you said, easier to calculate it all by yourself. My point is just, if you consider any possiblity in which a player can manipulate the system it will lead to a more complex solution which would lead to less traceability for the people playing the league which will lead to more people being unhappy with the system. That's all i want to say.
Why exactly do most people want the system changed?
The way I see it, the ELO system is very very effective and accurate where points are concerned, but some people are only bothered by the fact it's too hard to make the Playoffs because of losing too many points even though your win % is really good, and some people just don't like losing alot of points regardless of Playoffs.
Can't you just change the requirements for reaching Playoffs? Instead of basing it on points, base it on Games played and % alone:
70 games - 65% of games won.
This way, it will be the players who are in best form that will make it to the Playoffs, you might be thinking, what if 20 players or more qualify how can you decide who makes the cut? Easy, just select in order the players who have played the most games with the highest win percentage.
You also might be thinking, what if someone just noob bashes their way to the Playoffs to get a high % of wins, again the answer is quite simple, just pass a rule they must play a variety of good players within their games played for that Season, I think the ea community is responsible and professional enough to decide how to handle that, perhaps even having respected and responsible Players we can trust decide for us and judge, I would chose from SPW, Franz, Random00, Mir, Free, and Mablak, we should be professional enough to implement some form of moderating noob bashers like this, I think a system like this could really be the answer.
I honestly believe it doesn't matter what point system we use, the problem to make Playoffs will always be part of Leagues on WA due to the vast difference of skill levels and good players stuck in the middle or close to the top, but not close enough to qualify with Overall because they keep losing the odd game to players with bad ratings.
People will still want to try and be in the "Top 10" Overall, so winning points is still an important part for Overall, while making Seasonal (basically only for Playoffs anyway) focus on players who actually deserve to be in the Playoffs.
I've been thinking about this idea for a few days now, and I actually think this could be the solution we have all been waiting for.
ELO wasn't designed for this sort of thing, it was a system devised to get a number that displays someone's skills. But it's designed as a continuous thing, meaning it takes a while to get to the top and it takes a while to get out of it.
And I don't think something arbitrary like that should be added to decide who makes it to the playoffs because there are plenty of options available that don't require this sort of thing.
Quote from: DarkOne on February 18, 2011, 05:23 PM
And I don't think something arbitrary like that should be added to decide who makes it to the playoffs because there are plenty of options available that don't require this sort of thing.
Like what? Every single thing discussed in this thread so far can, and will be abused because some players are just complete backstabbers.
We need referees that can check people are playing correctly, people we can trust, like I have just mentioned.
Quote from: Komito on February 18, 2011, 05:31 PM
We need referees that can check people are playing correctly, people we can trust, like I have just mentioned.
Quote from: Komito on February 18, 2011, 05:18 AM
I would chose from SPW, Franz, Random00, Mir, Free, and Mablak
Oh, but I would chose from: Darkmaul, chakkman, MonkeyIsland, DarkOne, C23, Leroy, Madden, Husk...
Can you see where this is going? :)
Rok, hold a vote obviously...
i think u missed roks point completely
I haven't avi, what's wrong with holding a vote?
It's like, when voting for a new President, or a Mayor/PrimeMinister, or a chairman/comittee/whatever, putting your trust in people to run something.
Quote from: Komito on February 19, 2011, 11:47 PM
I haven't avi
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here
Quote from: Komito on February 19, 2011, 11:47 PM
It's like, when voting for a new President, or a Mayor/PrimeMinister, or a chairman/comittee/whatever, putting your trust in people to run something.
Clearly, you put your trust in the people you'd vote for, but if you're going to put it up to a vote, and the majority votes for people you wouldn't put your trust in, that changes the deal, doesn't it?
And you're putting people in charge that are themselves eligible for the playoffs; therefore, you're letting them judge about themselves whether they qualify for playoffs and I'm not comfortable with that idea. This is also the reason why moderators don't interfere when they themselves or their clan have a complaint (Rok had one a while back for instance and he did not play a role in the decision for obvious reasons). Even though I trust every one of my fellow mods to make an honest decision, we should not allow this kind of possible bias.
And even if you don't acknowledge these problems, then there's the amount of work involved in selecting who qualifies. You'd have to sift through all their games to see who they were playing. You'd have to decide how high a percentage against top players is needed to qualify for the playoffs, You'd have to decide
who is considered a top player in every respective scheme. Perhaps you need a minimum percentage of games won against those top players as well. How high is this number?
And these are just the first problems that come to mind when doing things the way you propose. I'm sure that I can find more problems with it if I really put my head to it.
There's no perfect system for deciding the playoffs. There will always be people abusing the system, though I hope we can minimise the opportunities for that. And even if they manage to abuse the system, there's always the playoffs to weed them out before the finals.
Ok 1st off, yeah we will have to agree to disagree because it's obvious the point he was making is many people would have a different choice, hence why I said take a vote.
And if the people I voted for didn't win the vote, but someone else did, I am sure they would have a respectable amount of votes and I would be happy to have them judge the Playoffs, it's not like it's stopping anyone from playing is it?
Who said I was letting them judge themself? I didn't? But this point you make is easily avoided, hence why I suggested a variety of judges, so they can judge each other and not themselves, there is nothing bias about respectable people we trust making decisions for us(the most successful gaming leagues and sports IRL more than usually have a commitee of "moderators" or chairmen making the decisions, people others can trust, and it works), and if people think they done a poor job, which I doubt would happen, you could re-elect other players, the reason I voted for these players is because they have more knowledge of Elite and "good players" and sportsmanship than a vast amount of wormnet.
The amount of work required isn't actually as much as what you make it seem, it takes a few minutes to flick through 3-7 pages of played games checking who they have played, If 20 players had the Playoff requirements it shouldn't even take an hour, considering how important people are making Playoffs seem, I would expect them to put in a little effort to make sure things go over smoothly and fairly.
What you have mentioned are not exactly problems are they? It's more of a dis-agreement of opinion and putting trust in other people.
Now, instead of people like avi giving me crap and smiting me just because I like to defend my ideas suggestions and opinions, why don't you take the time to realise I am trying my best here to give suggestions and ideas to help everyone out, and if you feel like you find flaws with this, just post them, with a level head, and I will reply with the same tone and try my very best to defend those accusations.
OK, the votes are in. The judges will be ShyGuy, avirex, crash, Mablak and titahemp. Not a lot of people voted, though.
Mablak unfortunately is very busy (needs to arrange his games to get them done already, so kind of cramped for time), so he can't do it.
The people you trust may not necessarily be the people someone else trusts. If the TUS awards have taught us anything, it's that.
Now, as for flicking through the results page taking only a couple of minutes, did you take anything into account about what I mentioned later on in the post? We'd need to judge on how varied the schemes have been they've played, how strong their opposition was, how good their results against these people were.
In fact, why don't you sift through Zippo's results and give me motivation on why he should qualify for the next classic league playoff (if at all). I want to hear criteria and numbers, because as you mentioned, playoffs are important and you should take qualification for it seriously. Then let me know how long it took you. Then take into account that you don't just check 8 people, since there's a general preselection of people who might be eligible, so you'd have to check through all of them individually to see who deserves it more. And you need to set them in order as well, to see who's ranked #1 for the playoffs, who's #2 etcetera.
I'm quite interested to see how you'd see the playoffs for season 17 for instance and why.
Next comes the question: how many playoff judges do you need to have to agree on eligibility? Do they all need to agree? Is 50% enough? What if 2 people seem to have equal credentials?
My bad D1, I was talking about just TEL, that's why I mentioned players with vast knowledge of Elite.
You are completely right about TuS Classic, it would take much more time not to mention because of the different schemes harder to judge.
But talking about TEL alone, my idea is solid if people can have trust for judges, and if those judges even wanted to take the position and put a few hours in every 1-2 months checking results.
The same would work for TRL also but I would probably change my votes for the judges because it's a different scheme, so different knowledge needed.
Bearing in mind we don't really need the exact same system for every different league, this would work for TEL and TRL, it's 1 scheme each, so easy to moderate games played, the elo system of points, in my opinion is still great for overall standings, but like I said in my 1st post with this suggestion, the main thing people are concerned about is trying to make playoffs because the "point system" makes it too difficult for players close to the top, but lose a couple games, and have to win like 10+ to get those points back.
Quote from: Komito on February 19, 2011, 11:47 PM
I haven't avi, what's wrong with holding a vote?
It's like, when voting for a new President, or a Mayor/PrimeMinister, or a chairman/comittee/whatever, putting your trust in people to run something.
The wrong people are voted into power all the time.
Ok I'm starting with HHC's idea. Hold your breaths. If you have still any idea in the way, let me know since we're close to the new seasons.
Good luck with HHC's idea.
Hi D haha, when you coming back to WA?!? Your comment is true in most politics because none of they are all useless anyway, but when it comes to smaller votes like this, I am sure there are people we can trust for this simple task.
Hey Dave, I hope you're well. I don't think I'll be returning, but I'll never say never.
I don't envy you MonkeyIsland, I wouldn't call this a simple task - the amount of coding required is vast, but I applaud your efforts in keeping this game alive and fresh.
D :)
Yeah things are going good I guess, some things I have I need to sort out, but those are things I won't even let bother me, apart from that everything going good, been living with Kelly (I guess you could say new GF, at least that you know of) for just over a year now, we are moving house again this April cuz this place is just costing too much and ain't worth the money, so kinda looking forward to where I will move to and what the new house will be like, but NOT looking forward to lifting it all haha, lucky my Uncle got a big Transit, couple trips in that sort it out, and some ppl owe me a favour so i'll get them to help out.
Apart from that just been playing WA, working and drinking, oh and I took up Golf and Pool :)
Talking about moving house reminds me of when I went down to M3ntals not last year but year before, his Brother and his gf were moving house and I practically lifted at least 70% of everything for them haha.
Wow lol, while posting this, and editing, I noticed 2 people applauded me, and then 2 people smited me lol, cool xD
pm anyone?
Back to the subject.
Mablak said that everyone should be judgedt he same regardless of what point in the season you play them??
What is the varried amount of points in mablaks example compared to HHC's for someone beating random00??
Quote from: Chicken23 on February 23, 2011, 01:02 PM
pm anyone?
Back to the subject.
Mablak said that everyone should be judgedt he same regardless of what point in the season you play them??
What is the varried amount of points in mablaks example compared to HHC's for someone beating random00??
Not much different for the guy who beats random00, I guess. Things is, random00 would lose less.
Ok I'm starting with HHC's idea. Hold your breaths. If you have still any idea in the way, let me know since we're close to the new seasons. (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/write-leagues-system-from-scratch/msg54718/#msg54718)
Sounds good.
"make sure to think about what would you do about the current players stats." everyone's overall rating will carry over to start the new system's season, am I correct?
"Had a bad start? You can reset!" do you like this feature for the new system or does it not matter much? is it worth a discussion? I'm not even sure if it's used much now, so I assume either way is not a big deal. I'm not attached to either decision, was just curious if it might cause any problems anywhere (haven't really thought it out much).
have you thought yet about the best way to show results of games? including changes in season rating/overall rating in some way.. in analyzer/recent games/game page.
HHC's alternate plan of using loser's avg of overall/season for the winner's points isn't being implemented, am I correct? it will just be the original idea?
Quote from: franz on February 23, 2011, 11:32 PM
"Had a bad start? You can reset!" do you like this feature for the new system or does it not matter much? is it worth a discussion? I'm not even sure if it's used much now, so I assume either way is not a big deal. I'm not attached to either decision, was just curious if it might cause any problems anywhere (haven't really thought it out much).
Overall should never be allowed to be reset. It will caculate your games seasonal points. But your seasonal could be reset if you've had a bad start aslong as it does not effect your overall? Those points you lost from your overall won't come back with a reset option?
when will this be ready? I don't fee like tus'ing untill a new season is in place now as late in this season ;)
Will this be a tough project to code MI?
It will be ready as I promised. New season of classic/TEL. in 2 days :)
Bump.
To people still interested in points system - I noticed something, please look at this link:
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-71019/msg68866/?topicseen#new (https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-71019/msg68866/?topicseen#new)