$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Edited 2/7/2016 15:51:07

Ratings are rounded. An increase by 1/3 may appeared as no increase. Also note that the odds ratio has an exponential relationship with rating gap, so it's not unusual to have a situation like "get 1/3 pts if you win, lose 20pts if you lose". For example, my current rating is 1810, if I played against someone rated 1000, assuming that we have the same standard deviation, my predicted odds ratio for losing would be 1:10^[(1810-1000)/400] = 1:106 (assuming a gap of 400 indicates a log odds ratio gap of ln(10), as many standard ELO algorithms does). That means my gain in a win would be 1/107 times as little as my lost in a lose. If a lose costs me 25pts, a win gives me only 25/107=0.23pts. In the long run, I need to control my losing rate against that person below 1/107 in order to maintain my rating.

That being said, I still have issue with the rating algorithm. The first one is not new as many other players have complained about it: one lose points by winning an extremely lowly ranked player. How does winning count against the point estimate of my true skill? I don't get it.

The second is the assumption of transitivity of win ratio built in the ELO model. By the transitivity assumption, if Timinator beats a 1680-point guy by a odds ratio of 10:1, and that the 1680 guy beats a 1280 guy by 10:1, then Timinator needs to beat the 1280-point guy by 100:1 in order to maintain his rating. This may be tricky for Timinator considered that he may have his FTB failed in a 5v3 or Blindly countered on the Oceania map.

@redbloody I admit it, I have lost games on the 1v1 ladder, maybe those were the games you posted? But like I have been saying, nobody has ever came close to beating me in any game on the rt ladder. Silly silly monkey hunter.

"nobody has ever came close to beating me in any game on the rt ladder"

The very example of elitist arrogance, just checked your stats, you lost 3 times not so long ago against Mifran, Turkish and Motoki.

Btw what is again the purpose of this thread? I see only people raging against Mercer being 1st, can you just conceive that Mercer deserve his rank?

@buns it'sam your mom hunter that's what that M really stood for and here I said fucking turtles you lost admit that all all i see buns 157 lost to those players and how is not you and if it was not you ;why then how do we know who are controling your account ? so you are noob for me then you lost cause you are only a humain after you pop you $$$ so shut the fuck up

Calm down before you start typing because this way no one understands what you're saying...

Edited 2/7/2016 11:27:40

@Angry Koala Don't be silly, Its not arrogance. I just can't help being that good that I have never lost.

Also read my first reply to this thread, you like many others on these forums always jump to conclusions. Nobody said that mercer didnt deserve to be first, and ps was just criticising the system about it being easier for new accounts (it is if your old account is ranked low with a small standard deviation).

tldr: Next time read the thread buddy.

Wow aren't you just calling Buns elitist because 1)Angry Koala you are not a good player and feel jealous of him? 2)Because you are a prick from what I see when you post on the forums? 3)Perhaps more personal, but you are prick because you are french? I should know, I'm french, and a prick :).

I did read this thread entirely buddy, but I still do not get what is wrong about the current system? Buns you said exactly that this is helping new accounts, and I actually think this is a good idea, because if we had another system where the older top ranked players could not have their positions reconsidered, this ladder would be very limited, you know change is good , and this very ladder would lose any interest. Hence, what I understand from what I read here, is that some people are complaining about the current system because it threatens their current ranking, even if you do not admit it.

And no Nackickwind, I am not jealous, I once reached the 9th place in the 1vs1 ladder, the top10 was my main goal, and succeeded on this. I know my limits in this game, and I do not consider myself as an elite or top player as some of you do here.

Et je ne vois pas le rapport avec le fait d’être français et être un « con » comme tu dis. Mais bon chacun conçoit les choses comme il le veut.

Nobody complains about the current system because it threatens their ranking, if people were worried about their ranking they would play one game every 3 days against an opponent they know they will beat 99% of the time. People complain because you should not drop on the leader board behind someone else because you win a game against a low rated player (since you can lose a point for winning).

Also it only helps to create a new account if you are alot better than the current rating your account has, so for most people it wouldnt help them.

Also if you read the thread, how couldn't you see that I was just winding monkey hunter up, of course I have lost games. In the original post it states I have played 900 and something games, do you really expect that I would think anyone would believe I have never lost?

Nobody complains about the current system because it threatens their ranking

Of course, they will never admit this publicly buns... But from what I read in some threads and posts, this is getting obvious anyway.

Also it only helps to create a new account if you are alot better than the current rating your account has, so for most people it wouldnt help them.

well you seem to forget that to join a ladder you need to reach a certain level, that's why this requirement has been implemented, you folks always very fastly judge Fizzer's work, but never tend to notice the right things.

Also if you read the thread, how couldn't you see that I was just winding monkey hunter up

I just read again your posts here, nothing explicitly prove you were kidding dude. And if you were, it was awkward. Anyway to go back to the topic, as I told you earlier I already got the point of it, perhaps it is too easy for new people playing this ladder to attain a high rank, nevertheless this is why the RT ladder is awesome, because this way older players that attained some top ranking, cannot farm, you cannot forever collect a bunch of stats in order to power yourself up, and then take it easy once they reached it. Your rank is not granted forever, you have to play and have challenges to justify your ranking.

1vs 1 ladder Rating calculation system is Sucks. And easier to get 1st with fresh account. But fizzer not gonna fix this because New account means New membership. This means more money:)

I just read again your posts here, nothing explicitly prove you were kidding dude.

It was quite obvious imo

Edited 2/7/2016 13:02:53

not the first time i see this, people supposedly kidding and joking awkwardly. The same thing happened some days ago with MoD categorizing what he defines as real players and fake players (just because they play diplomacy games instead of strategic games), and he also said he was joking, this is why frankly these bad "jokes" from some people here should be avoided here.

Don't put words in my mouth.
1. I never said diplo players aren't real players, i only said gaining 2000 points overall in 1 moth makes you basically inactive in my eyes

2. I never made jokes. If i did jokes you wouldn't understand them anyways as this thread shows.

Stop picking on me and argue with someone else.

I just read again your posts here, nothing explicitly prove you were kidding dude

Sorry Angry Koala, but I had to laugh at this. It was kinda obvious ;)

in vainglory they reset the stats every few months (and give you a badge to the highest tier you achieved on previous season), maybe something like that could be applied.

I really like this, it would be a good incentive to have more activity!

MoD, that's because you don't get how diplomacy games work... Did you ever try to play these games at least? You can play 30 diplo games and have no points, because many games are generally speaking with 30 players (that's the point of a diplo game, in many cases the more you are in a game the funnier it would be), and also a diplo game does not end up with a single winner necessarily. That's why defining the activity of one player just by points is irrelevant here.
And if you were not joking at all in the former thread when you insulted SirSalty or Lolicon for no reason, saying (with the exact words): "Boston actually plays." or "I see your points earned the last 30 days. Points for 1 game. Doesn't matter." (I even posted a game where Boston/NZphoenix played a game with Lolicon totally contradicting your statement as you know nothing about these players and were nevertheless judging them) then it is worse than I thought.

I'm really not sure there is any particular flaw in the rt ladder system, in fact I'd argue it is far superior to other ladders in that context. I don't think that there is any disadvantage of playing more, however I'd see why it'd seem that way from a practical point of view. When I was playing rt ladder the amount of focus in basically every single game really takes a toll on you if you play non-stop, I believe those most active on rt ladder are on autopilot most of the time, hence their rating would drop long-term. Also considering there are some dubious templates and a randdom factor in each game the implementation of rating difference cap should help. The fact that none of the best players are active on rt ladder combined with the absence of a rating difference cap basically does not allow for any losses against people rated <1700-1800 if you want to compete for the 1st place. Considering on, for example, turkey ld template it is possible to win against someone rated several hundred points higher and you can also get booted (look up Timinator, if you dismiss some boot losses to weak players he'd gain ~200 points instantly) I'd say from a practical point of view playing 1k games on rt ladder is not preferable. Also 1000 games are not that much more statistically relevant than 100 games in that system, the rating accuracy should still be very high. This being a reply to the original post, not the derailed thread later, I believe the only problem with the ladder is the lack of participation by the community, as long as all kinds of players participatee and you get paired realitically (players rated 2100 should never be playing someone <1700 for example) the system should work fine. How to achieve that is another problem altogether.

@sze So you're saying if timi didn't have any of his recent boot loses he would climb back up to 2300? I doubt it, there just isn't the players to gain that amount of points from (correct me if I missed that in your post). Same with wazz, when he rejoined the rt ladder for a while, his points just went down. He didn't have the opponents available to maintain a 2300 rating.

However like you said if the ladder was more popular then these things wouldnt be an issue.

I never said diplo players aren't real players

I wouldn't even say they are people