Why does it punish those who play continuously with the same account? I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just trying to completely understand the options before voting.

because when you start playing you are usually losing more - and those loses will be included in TS rating (i know that old games weight less than new one, but still are counted)
So, instead of staller there will be more alts in ladders as some people my try to get good result with more than one approach. That's why i don't like TS. Increasing required number of games in bELO should be enough - for example:[20 consecutive (not necessery first) or 30 total finished games].

Edited 9/2/2014 16:01:20

I didn't think old games weight any more or less. I thought timing only mattered in that your win counts based on the opponent rating at the time. So lets say I beat a player that was #1 at the time, then retired. My win doesn't expire (of course), but it also doesn't get diminished by the fact that the retired person's rating tanked from going inactive. A good win remains a good win.

In the same breath, a bad win is a bad win (people who got #1 by beating nobody worthwhile).

I am not sure about your alt comments. Why would TruSkill result in more alts? IMO, there would be less since you cannot make these 'fake' runs anymore.

I would think the only negative would be for a person new to the ladders it would take a long time to get high on the ladder.

Yes as far as I understood, there is NO weighting of games. The Trueskill was affected once, then never again by each game. More like a Chees ELO - more fair in my opinion.

The alts he was talking about would be because when we all started the ladder (most of us), we had a lower rating because we were newer and not as good. Take, for example, myself. Look at the graph on mine and you can clearly see an upward trend.

Now if the ladder flips to TrueSkill, all those months at the bottom end will hurt me. If I were to join with an alt, I could only play at my current skill, getting rid of all those low losses from the beginning.

Hmm, I agree with you there. It does punish people who were considerably worse to start out.

It does seem most fair to just start over in that regard.

about weighting games:

Also, games never expire like they do in the other ladders, but the TrueSkill algorithm weights newer games more highly, so you still have the ability to move your rating over time.

from http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2014/03/website-update-2-5-real-time-ladder/


about alts:
games never expire -> you can't get rid of your old loses -> it's easier to play with new account without loses than recover from lower rating
Gnuff was angry that i mentioned this in another thread and probably will be again, but i can't do anything about that, as he is excellent example why i don't like TS. He already played RT ladder with (at least) 3 accounts. Two of them are already abandoned - no new game for a while(Gnuff and Killua). He play only with Marquis now. And new question of the day - compare a bunch of first games of all those accounts and tell me which has most wins.
There will be a lot of such behaviour if we use TS for 1v1 ladder.

Anyway - i found that:
http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2012/01/trueskill/
there's a link for WLTrueSkill, but this file is not avaialble now. Maybe fizzer could reupload it, as it would be nice to do some simulations. (including end date for games API would be helpful too:P)

Edit: starting over is only temporary solution, there are still new people joining and players improve over time.

Edited 9/2/2014 16:51:28

But the problem remains... for new players. As they have to start from scratch.

Ok you quoted something but it doesn't make it correct. The Trueskill algorithm is much like ELO I thought - can you actually show where it takes old games into account?

No, i can't show anything, but can you show it doesn't take old games? I just assume Fizzer know what he use:P

Also, you can check - http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.aspx
They've created know, so if you don't trust Fizzer, maybe you will trust them :P

Edited 9/2/2014 17:13:09

I would like to hear more about Memele/Hennes comment on the K factor. Is the chess variation of ELO better than TS?

My main concern right now with TS on the RT ladder is it seems to heavily favor volume of games.

Edited 9/2/2014 17:25:08

Hennns*

The Elo used in chess is designed for 1v1 games. The rating you have is used to predict the outcome against your opponent. The K-factor decides how much a rating can change based on a single game. ex) if K=15, you could go max up 15 points (or down), regardless of your opponents rating. the K value can vary based on several things. for example higher rated players could have lower k values, making their rating more stable. (Something like this would be very nice for wl imo).

Trueskill is a modified version of the Elo rating system made by microsoft, it is designed to be used for Xbox. It does not have a K-factor and works slightly different. And that's one of the reasons I think the Elo rating system is better suited for warlight.


You can read more on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill

@ChrisCMU
Almost all rating systems favors volume of games, that's something very difficult to correct. Obviously there is systems that favors it more than others.

In chess elo, your variation is at most K each game (usually the higher the ranking the lower the K). If you play a lot and keep winning, your rating will increase but then some of these options will happen:
1) Your rating grow but your opponents remains the same (i.e, if you are in the top), so each victory gives you less points (and each lose its a bigger elo loss). IF you keep winning for a long time (almost impossible) your wins will be 1 point and losses -14 (K=15). IF someone manages to keep winning ELO despite of this, that means he deserves it.

2) Your rating grow and you start playing better oponents. If you keep winning your rating growing was correct. If you start to lose you will return to your level so nothing wrong.

vote guys! VOTE!!!!!

i wish the Poland template submitted to the realtime ladder wasn't using sze's "strategic" settings, but the normal ones. Poland is a really interesting map, but those settings give no room for error on picks or expansion / countering strategy, you need to be very experienced in the map and in strategic low luck settings in general to win it, slaughterhouse for players below the top 20.

I gave it a generous 1.

I've always wondered, why 351% for the blockade card (in 1v1)?

VOTE!!

I've always wondered, why 351% for the blockade card (in 1v1)?

if you mean why 351% and not 350% because you think both are the same, then you are wrong.
if you make a blockade of 3 and it's 350%, the blockade will be 10 (NOT 11, yes I know that 10.5 should be rounded up but it's not like that. it is rounded down). however, if it's 351% then the blockade will be 11.

if you meant why 351% and not any other number (let's say 300% or 500%), then it's just what fizzer decided when he made the template. it's like asking why 3 starting positions and not 4 in the strategic 1v1.

Edited 9/5/2014 09:58:19

as for your example about starting spots, i think it has a reason:

With even number of starts, person with first picks could get full intel aswell, while person with 2nd pick might be doomed twice (miss most important pick and opponent knows everything)