As far as the QM rating system, I’m not entirely sure how this system works but two key components are (a) players start at 0 rating points and (b) the k-factor equivalent is very very low.

a) Starting players at zero rating points is not unheard of (there are psychological benefits to a player getting to see “progression” as their rating improves and this may encourage a player to play more) but this also means that ratings tend to reflect a combination of skill and activity rather than just skill.

b) Exacerbating the problem is the ultra-low k-factor which puts a over-emphasis on the activity part of the equation and an under-emphasis on the skill part of the equation. It takes literally hundreds of games, even winning 90%+, for a good player to equilibrate on the more active templates like Small Earth 1 Wasteland which makes the ratings highly inaccurate for many (most?) participants.

As a take-home exercise, try to come up with 3-4 ways to cheat the Bayesian Elo rating using tricks like stalling and alt-accounts and try to understand whether these would work on a TrueSkill ladder. Here’s a fun one to get you started: Make an alt-account, defeat a rival, then intentionally tank the rating of the alt-account to take down your rival’s rating.

You can get quite creative manipulating the 3 month window by stalling wins/losses accordingly as well.

If you’re stuck, try asking any current/past #1 rated player because using these tricks is essentially a pre-requisite to achieving #1.

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/451002-bayesian-elo-unfortunate-choice

Just going to drop this post here casually to explain BayesElo

Make an alt-account, defeat a rival, then intentionally tank the rating of the alt-account to take down your rival’s rating.

You can get quite creative manipulating the 3 month window by stalling wins/losses accordingly as well.

If you’re stuck, try asking any current/past #1 rated player because using these tricks is essentially a pre-requisite to achieving #1.

Also, don't actually try this. You will be banned ;)

Edited 5/5/2023 22:29:42

For what it's worth, you can add me to the list of people that do NOT want to see NLC on the ladder.

Totally forgot about the boot timer being dropped to 1 day ... that sucks hard tbh; someone said it well, just because we _can_ be connected to WZ everywhere we go, doesn't mean we _want_ to play it everywhere we go, and being on a ladder with 1 day boot time kind of means that; this perpetuates the idea of playing WZ at the beach (etc) to avoid getting booted; life is bigger than WZ, I foresee a lot of boots

Matching 2x individuals differently than a decisively paired team also feels odd; this seems to based on the preconception that 2x individuals are at a disadvantage compared to a pre-decided paired team but this isn't necessarily true, and even if it were, that's only the case at the time they join the ladder; if they stay in the ladder for a year and keep playing together, they are effectively a normally paired team at that point, but will continue to be matched differently for as long as they remain in the ladder

> this seems to based on the preconception that 2x individuals are at a disadvantage compared to a pre-decided paired team but this isn't necessarily true

No, it's definitely true, and will remain true no matter how long they play.

I've seen people play 2v2's with their alt as their teammate, and win like 99% in open games.

You will never do that in random teammate games, because there will be games where your teammate makes the game unwinnable for you.

There will also be games where you try and advise your teammate on what moves to make and they will rebel against you and surrender, or do stupid shit just to spite you, etc.

It's a massive disadvantage.

I agree it can be, but let's say you join 2v2 ladder as individual and so does Rufus (just picking a random skilled player), you both get matched up, let's say it doesn't work, you have no synergy together, you 2 don't work together, ok, so you give up after a few games, ok so team is gone, and this is the case you're talking about - when 2 people team up and it doesn't work out; and maybe this is 75% of the time, maybe 90% (who knows)

Now let's say you rejoin as an individual again and this time get Rakleader, who you happen to get along with well and synergize well with (no idea if you actually do or not), but still you have a bumpy start but get into the swing and become a great team and continue playing. 1 year later you're still a 2v2 individual joined team yet have climbed to the top rank and some are saying you're the 2v2 FE GOAT team, but you still get preferred matches against non-pre-paired teams. This is the case I'm talking about

And also let's consider the case where 2v2 pre-paired teams enter and still don't synergize well; I bet this is likely the norm, b/c people join, don't realize wth they've gotten themselves into, egos ramp up and disagreements happen; for every successful 2v2 team, there's likely 10 more that agree to part ways

There's no guarantee that pre-paired will be good and that individually paired teams won't be

TLDR, regardless of how you start your 2v2 team, if you persevere and git gud together, you've passed the trials & should just be treated normally, especially if you're vying for top spots on the 2v2 ladder; wouldn't it be frustrating if you as a pre-paired team are knocked off top spot on 2v2 ladder by a 2x individual paired team who just happen to be awesome together, but almost never get matched up with them b/c they're prioritized for matches with other individually paired teams? (it's the CW/CWR rating discussion all again, lol, just instead of CWR preventing #1&#2 (MB,OP) team vs #3 (Prime) team, it's individual vs pre-paired conditions)

That's not how that works. When you join as a single player, you get a different teammate each game. It doesn't pick a random teammate once and then have you stick with them, it's like joining 2v2 in a competitive game as solo queue.

Does it pick a teammate close to your rating or is it random though?

New partner EACH GAME? That's crazy ... and if that's the case, then you're right, individual games are going to be a disaster

Are we sure it works that way?

And if you are in a fixed team, will you be able to still queue as individual if you feel like it today?

These and others remain unanswered questions for now

I like to think about individual 2v2 & 3v3 queues as utter chaos. I like utter chaos.

Seems strange how the initial rating will be 100?, in lichess it’s 1500?. The initial rating should be where about 50% of current players of the ladder currently are, otherwise it’ll take a long time to get to their ‘real rating’

How much time do you need? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? Even if you think longer, thinking more than 30 minutes every turn just to make a move should be a rare case (and possibly unhealthy). We are talking about S1V1 here, not a template you never played before...

I won't need 20 to 30 minutes for every turn in every game, no.
However, you might want time to think about your moves in the most crucial turns, the ones that make the difference. Maybe you want time to reflect on your choices. Or maybe, most simply, you can't put in all your effort or attention that day. This means the quality of the gameplay gets massively reduced. Which, to me, is weird to do in a place that's supposed to be Warzones built-in, go-to place for the highest level of strategic gameplay.
That's assuming one game. It's much more likely I have to take my turn in multiple games a day. These will quickly add up to 20 to 30 minutes a day, especially considering that every single ladder game has to be played every single day.

please lets limit our discussion to 2-3 sentence replies, most people will not read such a long thing anyway.

If people care so little that they don't want to read for more than 5 seconds that's not my issue. I'm here to give my opinion on an update. I'm not here to cater to the TikTok-affected attention span of some people. I don't see the point in limiting the information, and thus usefulness, in a post just so someone who barely cares might actually read it.

Also, please don't talk about the strategic community's opinion without even asking their opinion first.

While the final sentence might've been assuming what the community wants a bit strongly, I think the rest of the arguments still stands. Community events don't run on 1 day boot. Attempts to make community events based on shorter boot times have always fallen flat. It's not that other ideas haven't been suggested or attempted, it's that they didn't work out.

I can't comment on every individual's opinion. But the strat community as a whole does gear towards a preference, and it's not 1 day boot. We can all come across as a bit more unnuanced than what we actually mean, so sometimes it might seem we speak for other people. Like when I say "It's clear people appreciate" or when other people say things like "Looks like your view is negative because you wanna play ladder casually".

+1 Min

Anyone having difficulty joining with an invite? I get a notification that I'm invited to join a team ladder, but then when I accept I get a 404 error.

Wow, my rank shot up from 202nd to 10th ! Has everyone experienced a similar jump ? Or is it because many players were dropped ? It feels it isn't really my level.

If you joined quickly, you'd have a high rank b/c there aren't many in the ladder yet

The first ten people to join = top 10 ranked ladder players

But as more rejoin and start finishing games, you'll be pushed down pretty quickly

Btw please lets limit our discussion to 2-3 sentence replies, most people will not read such a long thing anyway.

Again VERAVARI speaks for others when there's no evidence that is the case. People here seem to read long replies too. It is literally just you who ever says that it's a problem. Don't like long replies? you're entitled to say so. But don't try to pretend you are voicing a majority opinion. You are not.

Also, +1 Min, excellent posts, agree with almost everything you said

Edited 5/10/2023 20:45:23