|
Post by ExDeath on May 1, 2008 22:47:51 GMT -5
Honestly, it really hasn't even been that long since I was active. About 4 months. I won the first LoM and then I quit. The last time I went inactive, I was inactive for well over a year (maybe two) and I came back and dominated everybody within a week. Leaving for awhile really doesn't make me any worse of a player, the only thing that I need to be at the top of my game is enough time to analyze my moves.
Yes. I don't see how I sit above him, I judge everything on Elo. If I played one ladder match, vs anyone, but let's say for the sake of argument it's against Slartucker..and I die..I now have 0 ladder points. Does that mean, all of a sudden, I am now a worse player than...MAGE_KILLA? I lost a game to the only other player I would expect to lose a game to, and I am now worse than MAGE_KILLA? No idea who MAGE_KILLA is, but he has 1 ladder point, so he must be better than me, right? Hey, what if I ice storm and kill both of us, that makes me and Slarty both terrible players with 0 ladder points doesn't it?
Ladder is like abbreviated Elo, it only tracks your progress through your last 20 or so games, sometimes only your last 1 game, and it punishes you severely for losing in a stupid fashion or fighting in a tough, close struggle. It's not fair or objective at all in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 1, 2008 23:35:54 GMT -5
I get your point, but then why even have a Ladder? In probably most competitions, the "best" team, or athlete, or boxer, or whatever, normally isn't the one with the highest "stats". No, the "best" is the one that rises to the top of the division regardless of their stats. I never said Elo was meaningless btw -- you twisted my words. I just think that Elo is not the only way to measure a warlock's skill. Of course, if you fall from 20 ladder points to 0, it doesn't mean you suck, but it does mean you're not at the top of the ladder anymore, and dare I say... not the champion anymore either, although you may have the "stats" to be the champion, the whole purpose of the Ladder, as I understand it, is to have some way to rank who's currently dominating, otherwise we'd all just be ranked by Elo, but we're not.
You said the Ladder was meaningless. I say the Ladder and Elo both have their usefulness in measuring a warlock, but neither one by itself is conclusive. For example: A high-ranked warlock in Elo, but not Ladder points, could only fight much worse warlocks than himself, and slowly but surely gain Elo, yet never be able to climb up the Ladder because his Elo was built up on weak players, whereas to climb the Ladder, chances are pretty high that you will have to face (and defeat) higher ranking warlocks consistently.
I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 1, 2008 23:41:50 GMT -5
I still disagree with you. To get to #1 on the ladder I've won 21 of my last 22 games. Even if I die once to the 2nd place person, I'm still 21-2 over my last 23 games, whereas their streak may be much worse. If deaths didn't factor in so heavily when they're really so meaningless, then I would agree with you that the ladder is fair to everyone, but it's not. Maybe if deaths caused you to lose 2 points I would respect the ladder a lot more.
My case is proven by the condition of double deaths. Despite two top warlocks ending their battle in a noble draw, they now both sit at 0, even though if anything the draw proves they are BOTH on top of their game.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 1, 2008 23:42:09 GMT -5
I suppose not, but it sure was fun to watch Taliesin and Tchichi do that. Twice.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 1, 2008 23:45:08 GMT -5
Succat, the answer to "then why even have a ladder" is quite simple: On Warlocks, ladder ranking existed for several years before Elo was implemented.
The other answer to the question is "because it can be fun", the same reason to have a league. Neither one is intended to judge who's better with any accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 1, 2008 23:49:50 GMT -5
Oh, and one other point I left out is strength of opponents. You can climb the ladder facing good players after they fall, or you can climb it facing chumps (to a point). The Elo measures the quality of opponents you have beaten, whereas the ladder score does not. I know you've played everybody by now, but your Elo shows that your results are not so good, and it just so happens you win your ladder matches while losing your friendly matches. Do you take ladder matches more seriously? Do you try crazy things in friendly matches? If so, that can be a case for your low Elo. Otherwise, it really is just luck that you are #2-3 on the ladder with #7 Elo. You are lucky that the matches you win are the ones that happen to count.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 0:14:21 GMT -5
I will agree that the Ladder may seem unfair because it is harsh on the person who dies and has all of their points reset, but I still think it's purpose is to decide who is the reigning warlock, not necessarily the warlock with the most "stats", although you can bet that the warlock who reaches the top of the ladder will have above average stats, which is why the Ladder can be used, in my opinion, as "one" way to measure a warlock, but certainly not the only way.
Of course Elo is the most accurate way to assess a warlock's skill, but again, we are not ranked by Elo. We are ranked by Ladder, regardless. The Boston Celtics, this season, to some people, have looked the best "statistically", but will they rise to the top this year? Will they be the Champs, or will the Spurs be the Champs, or the Lakers, or whoever?
I am in no way implying that a 1900+ warlock with a Ladder of 2 is inferior to a 1650 warlock with a Ladder of 5. That would be preposterous. What I am saying, is that the Ladder serves as one way to measure who is the Champ. If you disagree, Let me have your Ladder points, and I will more than make it up to you in Elo, since you think Elo is better.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 0:19:18 GMT -5
In answer to your question, ExDeath... Yes, I'm extremely careless in friendly games. I often don't even look at what I'm doing -- I just start submitting orders. In ladder games, I take more time to think about the consequences of my moves. With the friendly games... yeah, That is a habit I need to break if I want to improve elo, I just never really thought much about it 'til all of this discussion. I had only 2 goals: To reach the top of the ladder, and to do it with Para.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 2, 2008 0:27:27 GMT -5
Ladder is the default ranking display. It is not the only ranking. So "we are not ranked by Elo. We are ranked by Ladder" is simply not true.
Succat, you're just wrong about this: Elo is a more direct numerical approximation of skill than Ladder is. Period! It's one thing to say you disagree with Elo in an individual case, but to suggest that Ladder is equally significant (let alone more significant) in terms of describing player skill, that's absurd.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 0:36:03 GMT -5
Slartucker, you don't really believe that. If you did, you'd trade me your ladder points for my Elo. Want to work out a deal?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 2, 2008 1:55:32 GMT -5
Succat, I wouldn't trade you any of my points for any of your points because I believe in respecting the integrity of ratings systems. Colluding in that way would be grounds for an account reset, and rightly so. Would I rather earn some additional Elo, or a few extra ladder points, though? The Elo, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 2, 2008 2:31:38 GMT -5
I look at Elo like my best friend who's known me forever, and my ladder score like the girl I happen to be dating at the moment. Ladder score is flashier, and maybe more fun, but I would easily trade the one I can replace for the one that stays with me forever.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on May 2, 2008 5:00:49 GMT -5
Ladder is just having fun in my opinion, seeing how high you can get before crashing - it's transient and doesn't indicate skill very well. Succat, I think you could be good but you have knee-capped yourself with the way you play. Your elo (and skill) are going to stay low if you insist on continuing with silly play. Picking out these 2 games illustrates it; games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=64882&full=1games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=64692&turn=50I mean, seriously, what the hell are you doing? You claim to like winning, and you aren't stupid, so why do you always use paralysis even when it means you will lose? I think you did that against me in our last game - I remember being puzzled at the time why you were throwing away a perfectly decent chance of victory. I am going to make the following tentative assertion - could be right, could be wrong... Succat, you use paralysis because it annoys people and makes them look foolish when they lose.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 10:49:17 GMT -5
For all of this so-called "deep analysis" of the game I keep hearing about, frankly, it's a little boggling that some of you can't even correctly "analyze" what I've just written. Slartucker, if you read carefully what I had said, you will see that I did indeed say that Elo was the most "accurate" way to access a warlock's skill, but again, we are ranked first and foremost BY THE LADDER. You can nit-pick and say that we're ranked also by elo, and maybe games lost, or whatever, true, but it boils down to the Ladder, NOT AS MUCH TO RANK A PLAYER'S SKILL (let me make that clear for you), although it is a GOOD (not perfect) indicator of a warlock's ability, if he's at the top of the Ladder (in other words, he must not be too shabby a warlock). Now, we can disagree on this, but without the Ladder, there is no clear-cut champ. You have a handful of guys with great Elo, but again, we know they're skilled, but which one is "currently" reigning... hence the purpose of the Ladder. Nearly every competition has a "type" of Ladder so that "one" can rise above the rest, even if his Elo, or "stats" or whatever are inferior -- that is besides the point. You don't have a Ladder for nothing -- that's stupid. As for your "protecting the integrity of the game" that's all good and fine, but if you really wanna gain some Elo and you're not too scared to lose a Ladder point, put your money where your mouth is and let's start playin'. I'm ready, my talk isn't cheap. Citanest, again, I'm baffled by your lack of "analysis" as well. What's wrong with you guys?? You must have not read a word I've been saying in this thread. Over and over I've been trying to get across the point that "YES, I STILL MANY TIMES SUCCAT THIS GAME". I've also just said how I don't take friendly games seriously at all because I never cared about Elo before, so most of the time I'm just throwing spells around, and making a ton of mistakes in the process (as in the 2 games of mine, which you posted). Now, Ladder games, I try to take seriously, because again, I"M ALL ABOUT THE LADDER. Just waiting on you to either climb a little higher, or me to drop a little lower, and then you can show me what you got, unless of course, you're all bark and no bite You're right, I claim to like winning... let's play a game then and I might do just that. I have way more fun beating 1900 Elo warlocks than 1600 warlocks exdeath, I hate to say... I really hate to say it, but...... "not a bad analogy, actually"
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 10:54:26 GMT -5
Oh, and by the way, Yes, I know my para annoys people... The same people who annoy me by their lack of para-defense who whine and complain when they get beat, and then make claims that para is not as valid a strategy, or whatever... keep crying... your tears bring me tears of joy ;D
|
|