|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 7, 2008 9:48:57 GMT -5
My title came at the insistance of Yaron and Taliesin, actually; for a long time I was very self-critical. It took a string of kills against Yaron and Spacca for me to finally accept it.
Does Reds still have that "giant-slaying guide" in his profile? That would make a neat historical document about the perception of 'master' status Taliesin was talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 7, 2008 11:28:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 7, 2008 13:13:17 GMT -5
*facepalm*
I meant redhot, not reds. But he doesn't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 7, 2008 16:21:15 GMT -5
Then again, if he were registered he'd easily be past 2000 and possibly 2100 by now and I'm not sure I could dispute it on the same basis so who knows? I doubt it. If he were registered AND played more games he'd likely be over 2000. Just from the rated games his two forays here had, I think he'd be 1900's. Actually he got to nearly 1900 on his first time I believe, which is what I projected this from. ___ Anyway, I wasn't trying to slag off any of the current masters, I just made that point to temper somewhat what I'd said about not thinking anyone on the list worthy of the title. |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 7, 2008 16:39:11 GMT -5
Months of challenging play were had between people who didn't completely dominate each other. There were even periods with no-one over 1900 ELO! December 2006 Wayback Machine snapshot, ranked by ELO: Toyotami - 1881 theLEGION - 1851 Freesoul - 1836 xade - 1826 That's pretty interesting. No wonder it was called the winter. But by the definitions given above (and this is partly me just being a pedant here) couldn't you say that if there was a group of 3-4 1900+ Warlocks and no-one else til the low 1800s then they would be considered Masters? Not all of the current Masters have had a period where they were the only one dominating the chart (for example, Yaron). But if the charts went something like this Toyotami 1930 Xade 1925 Biologin 1919 awall 1840 Freesoul 1835 Vermont 1832 does that make Toyo, xade and Bio Masters? I wouldn't think that it did, but perhaps others think differently. |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 7, 2008 18:26:11 GMT -5
In the beginning of the ELO era, I was a hundred or so ahead of everyone for the first 3-6 months. I'm running on memory here, if people would like to disabuse me of these fool notions feel free to hit the wayback machine  According to the first WB that contains Elo (June 7, 2004), Taliesin and I were at 1930 with Prioli and Yaron at 1900, and you at 1780. That's probably about 4 months after Elo was implemented. To be honest, I don't remember you having a lead at all; When Elo first came out it was based on your past couple months' worth of games, and I began in first place at around 1900 which was 100 points ahead of Taliesin. He eventually caught up, of course; I'm just trying to be accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 7, 2008 19:49:11 GMT -5
Rycchus: No, for several obvious reasons, and here's a less obvious one. The set of Elo scores {1800, 1900, 1950} and the set of Elo scores {1700, 1800, 1850} are identical in their own interrelationships, but NOT in their relationships to other scores.
New players start at 1500 and typically require little skill to beat. Beating new players will continue to give good amounts of Elo for players up to about 1700 or 1750; at that point it drops to 3 for a surrender. So it's very easy to get to 1750 regardless of what the top tier is doing. Obviously it's not this simple since most players play people with higher, as well as lower Elo scores; but 1800+ players tend to spend so much time playing each other, that I find there is less overlap with the lower echelons.
Anyway, the point is that it's pretty easy to get to 1750; you don't really need to understand any of the game's subtleties. As a result, there tends to be a somewhat well-defined group of players between 1800 and 1900 who can easily maintain their Elo scores by feeding off of the 1700s crew. This group has tended to be diverse in skill level.
At higher Elo, it is harder to just play downward, because people will take notice of you and want to play you. They will especially do that if they think your Elo is inflated and therefore easy pickings; so the system has a little bit of natural homeostasis. But to reach the 1800s you just need to be one step ahead of the people who just know the basics. Getting past 1950 requires that you are one step ahead of the people who are one step ahead...
|
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on May 8, 2008 4:33:54 GMT -5
*facepalm* I meant redhot, not reds. But he doesn't either. Hey, I remember that Giantkilling guide- I wrote it. I think RedHot liked it too, so it went on his page and stayed for a while. When I graduated from beginner to intermediate I went through a phase of writing little tutorials on my page to help newbies, probably around summer 2004. I remember you saying at the time they should be collated and made available to everyone. Sadly I think I had a laptop hard drive die on me since then which the 7 or 8 pieces were stored on... but if I find a copy I'll give them to you to put in the Refuge for historical/comedic/pedagogic purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on May 8, 2008 7:49:50 GMT -5
When Elo first came out it was based on your past couple months' worth of games, and I began in first place at around 1900 which was 100 points ahead of Taliesin. He eventually caught up, of course; I'm just trying to be accurate. I'll just be a little pedantic here  Per ravenblackgames: February 18, 2004 games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ravenblackgames/message/319Sheer volume of games mattered for the first 3-5 months; I 'earned' loads of ELO swiftly (I probably played >600 games in those 3-5 months as I raced Ozymandius to 1000 games played), until I hit ~1750, top players cherry-picked ELO from me (*ahem* Taliesin, ExDeath, Qwertyphob(ia), Yaron, and plenty more) until they stormed ahead and stopped seeing me as a valuable ELO source So, okay, the hubris is shining through today |
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 8, 2008 8:36:32 GMT -5
Rycchus: No, for several obvious reasons, and here's a less obvious one. The set of Elo scores {1800, 1900, 1950} and the set of Elo scores {1700, 1800, 1850} are identical in their own interrelationships, but NOT in their relationships to other scores. New players start at 1500 and typically require little skill to beat. Beating new players will continue to give good amounts of Elo for players up to about 1700 or 1750; at that point it drops to 3 for a surrender. So it's very easy to get to 1750 regardless of what the top tier is doing. Obviously it's not this simple since most players play people with higher, as well as lower Elo scores; but 1800+ players tend to spend so much time playing each other, that I find there is less overlap with the lower echelons. Anyway, the point is that it's pretty easy to get to 1750; you don't really need to understand any of the game's subtleties. As a result, there tends to be a somewhat well-defined group of players between 1800 and 1900 who can easily maintain their Elo scores by feeding off of the 1700s crew. This group has tended to be diverse in skill level. At higher Elo, it is harder to just play downward, because people will take notice of you and want to play you. They will especially do that if they think your Elo is inflated and therefore easy pickings; so the system has a little bit of natural homeostasis. But to reach the 1800s you just need to be one step ahead of the people who just know the basics. Getting past 1950 requires that you are one step ahead of the people who are one step ahead... Well, exactly, my point was that it doesn't just require you to be ahead of the rest of the pack by a whatever margin (as seemed the only 'definition' at that point) - there needs to be some kind of a minimum standard as well. You've previously suggested 2000 for this, but in this thread it was implied that you just need to be 50-100 points clear of everyone else... |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 10:18:51 GMT -5
I'm almost 100% positive that I was well in first place when Elo was first displayed on the players page, but maybe I'm thinking of nawglan's Elo feature that he's had on his archive for some time previous. I know at least shortly thereafter, I was definitely in first for a long time. When I hit 1900 there was nobody within 80-100 Elo of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 8, 2008 10:52:53 GMT -5
Did RB initially use a lower K value for his Elo implementation? If so, that could explain why it took loads of games to get to 1750 and then the better warlocks just took all your Elo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on May 8, 2008 14:23:51 GMT -5
ExDeath, as I recall, you've been on top of Nawglan's archive since forever... maybe that's it.  It's a bummer about those gaps from the really early games and then again in the 30Ks to 40Ks when I was actually "good" (as opposed to all the times I thought I was good, but clearly wasn't, like now)  ...maybe I'm thinking of nawglan's Elo feature that he's had on his archive for some time previous. I know at least shortly thereafter, I was definitely in first for a long time. When I hit 1900 there was nobody within 80-100 Elo of me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on May 8, 2008 14:32:18 GMT -5
Some folks suggested ELO computation tweaking on ravenblackgames, but I don't find a note on there saying RB ever changed it. Garfield's old calculation still seems correct from when I posted it at dubber.org/rb/neato.htmDid RB initially use a lower K value for his Elo implementation? If so, that could explain why it took loads of games to get to 1750 and then the better warlocks just took all your Elo. |
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 8, 2008 16:13:00 GMT -5
I was going to goad the bunch of you into fightin' against each other for the title of "Master", especially poking at the already-crowned, but that would just be baiting the lot of you into conflict...
Get it? Master? Baiting?
|
|
