|
Post by Slartucker on May 2, 2008 11:09:09 GMT -5
Succat, man, stop arguing so much. If you agree with ExDeath's analogy, then I think everyone is more or less on the same page. 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). Usually, but not necessarily. Just like you don't care about Elo, some players don't care about Ladder. However, somebody not caring about Elo doesn't really affect its accuracy much, particularly since Ladder matches also affet Elo rating. But if somebody doesn't care about Ladder, and doesn't make Ladder challenges, their Ladder rating will not go up, nor will they take points from worse players on the Ladder. So usually if someone gets to the top they are pretty good, but I can think of a couple instances of seeing a third-tier player sit at the top for a little while, because they had a good run against their peers. You can get to 5 points force surrendering new accounts, so you can get to 10 points playing the bottom of the heap; getting to 15 doesn't exactly require beating or even playing the top players. In fact if they were more active on the Ladder, the top place would clearly be higher than 15. I'm not saying this is what happened with you necessarily, but it doesn't automatically make you a 'champ'. Ladder rating becomes meaningful WHEN PLAYERS TAKE IT SERIOUSLY and have meaningful competitions over it. When a handful of warlocks at the top of the ladder play over and over to try and get ahead of the others, and try to play everyone they can to nab extra ladder points, then it really means something. It's a real competition. If only one person is really focused on it, it's a cake walk. You are aware that Ladder matches also affect Elo? If you gain a ladder point you can't lose Elo at the same time. So basically you are suggesting (in my case) my throwing a ladder match and you throwing 5 or 6 friendlies. Repeatedly suggesting collusion is really making my respect for you plummet.
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 11:26:13 GMT -5
What I'm suggesting, Slartucker, is that we play a "real" Ladder game. You oughta be able to defeat a shabby warlock anyday, you Master, you. Then you will gain a Ladder point and some Elo, and I'll have to swallow the bitter parahol of defeat, and try to keep climbing with my shabby Elo self
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 2, 2008 11:42:53 GMT -5
What I am suggesting, my parahol mate, is that you stop making noise here trying to lure Masters into ladder game, since it is obviously won't work. Ladder has seen at very least 10 active warlocks sitting atop of it since new year, so if each such 'champ' would have challenged retired players, what would be meaning of their retirement?
Just go and join the league already, we're lacking 1 player. That would make much more sense to everyone )) Or just go make a move in our current game =)
|
|
|
Post by succat on May 2, 2008 11:53:07 GMT -5
Very well then... I tried. What's the rule this time in the League? Let me guess .... no parahol and no FOD
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 2, 2008 16:21:36 GMT -5
I don't know about that. If you play a lot of friendlies and try weird openings, or spend much less time analyzing them, or only play players who are 300-400 Elo below you (whatever the cutoff for +0 is), that kind of apathy certainly makes your Elo lower than it should be.
Actually, Elo gain/loss should be halved for Friendlies. The way the system is, I personally see a Friendly as having the exact same importance as a Ladder.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on May 2, 2008 18:16:55 GMT -5
I could mimic RB's elo system a little better on the archive, and do just that ExDeath. Though, it wouldn't really match RB's website though, as I don't have a way to tell what order the games were played in.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 2, 2008 22:21:41 GMT -5
The archive elo system is applied really bizarrely; I've never understood how it arrives at its numbers and they've never seemed useful to me.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on May 2, 2008 22:37:32 GMT -5
I just process the games in numerical order. using the sonas elo system. *shrug*
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 3, 2008 8:33:58 GMT -5
I think what this thread is really about is not that the ELO or Ladder system are better/worse/more flawed/less flawed than each other, rather that succat is feeling frustrated that he while he can beat lowly hacks like me with his ParaFOD antcis, he'll never get a chance to shoot at one of the "Legends" of the site.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 3, 2008 8:59:55 GMT -5
Well, maybe the numbers just looked odd due to the inclusion of VFs and the exclusion of games the archive didn't register. Is the site down now? I tried to check again...
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on May 6, 2008 12:28:51 GMT -5
I need to play catch-up now. Sorry in advance if this turns out to be a long post. Slarty, your X-Men cover made me laugh for at least a minute. Personally, I feel that two Warlocks not mentioned so far are better than Toyo, me, or anyone else active now - Justix and Zugzwang. When they were playing hard they were absolutely unstoppable. Zugzwang would, had he been around a little longer, be counted a Master. He'd got things largely sorted in his head. Justix was terrifically tactically and strategically savvy, and grew into a brilliant, dangerous warlock. Had he only been less susceptible to burn-out... When he reappeared for the second time he lost just one ELO game out of thirty-something, and that one he surrendered from a decent position on the basis that he didn't know that he would be able to find the time to finish it. I rated him as he was as more dangerous than some of the weaker Masters, and believe he had the potential to become the best. Thirdly, I disagree with anyone who claims there are 'styles' in warlocks. There is only one truth, there is always a best move, and there is always a best guess even in a pure 50/50 situation. Technically, this is correct - it's the move that defeats what your opponent entered. There is not, however, a move determinable in advance that is certainly the best move. Some moves have much worse consequences for failure than others; however, if you never make these moves, people will take advantage of the rigidity of your play. Thus the Prioli era, where people played safely and cautiously and by the book, and were busted by Prioli's combination of 90%-95% sound play and 5%-10% potentially game-losing moves, such as leaving giants unprotected when a charm was inbound. As long as you understand the game exactly as well as your opponent, you can get an edge by psychological gambling. This fails against people who analyse better, understand better. However, if we hypothetically had a number of people who understood the game perfectly, we would not necessarily see identical play; rather, we would see the best psychological player take the lead. I suppose not, but it sure was fun to watch Taliesin and Tchichi do that. Twice. Ladder was fun back in the day, but most of us have no real interest in playing the ladder game unless there's some prospect of improving on our own all-time highs. Why did the two top warlocks on the ladder die? Why wouldn't one surrender to preserve ladder points? The answer is because even ladder points in the low 20s are and were irrelevant. I would rather lose 23 ladder points, or however many I lost, than give away the extra 6 or 7 ELO for a defeat rather than a draw. Ladder's a cute diversion, but ELO is where it's at, and has been for years. Succat, you not so long ago lost to a 1522 player. Your profile also states that you are continuing to be dominated by BioLogin, who also not so very long ago was comfortably overcome himself by ExDeath in games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=64897&turn=24I can understand your frustrations with ExDeath's manner, but, seriously, he would beat you more soundly and frequently than BioLogin does. because the game has evolved in the past 365 days, period. This seems interesting enough to take into its own thread. What weaves and openings would you identify as "newly evolved"? And whose analysis lies behind them?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 7, 2008 7:57:04 GMT -5
Well, since you guys are talking about me, I'll mention that:
- I'm not dominating succat recently. Of last 5 battles I won only 3. I'd say that our few last games were pretty even. I'm not the one to judge if it is thanks to constant para-pressure or to anything else, but the fact remains.
- I have 2-6 lifetime record VS ExDeath. Counting only ladder matches that would be 1-2 (to his favor), even though when we last played ladder I was 1700+ (if not 1600+) and he was active 1900+ (if not 2000+).
No to draw any conclusions, just providing pure facts.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 16, 2008 15:17:51 GMT -5
Well, I guess I have some special talent of sealing threads with my posts )
We're not going to flame anymore this year, are we? ((
XD
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 16, 2008 19:00:03 GMT -5
I never flame anyone who doesn't deserve it.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 31, 2008 10:01:41 GMT -5
Well, looking at succat's ELO now... I would have said he has a case for getting a shot at exdeath now. But generally I gather he's only made it that far playing somewhat weaker opponents. It'd be nice to see if he could actually defeat someone who knew what they were doing... I sort of doubt it.
|
|