|
Post by BioLogIn on Oct 22, 2007 14:09:30 GMT -5
But play against someone who has 10+ ladder points than you and... well... doesn't mean anything! (well ok, its probably someone who is a good player, but not obviously) Ladder is not really a measure of Warlocks skill, its more a measure of your "gameplanning" skills, and your most recent mood. That's the dark of it. Well said. That's why I say ELO is way better (and should stay).
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 22, 2007 14:25:53 GMT -5
If decay were implemened (which it won't be, so really the discussion is moot), players would still keep their personal best Elo in their profile so you know what they've achieved. But really it would only serve to demean their personal achievements by leaving them off the all-time leaderboard.
If a player doesn't have time to compete anymore, you give them a difficult choice of either playing games while not at 100% and losing Elo points embarassingly, or simply retiring and having their record taken from them anyway. Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, having their records wiped away not by having those records BROKEN, but simply because they're out of the game. I think that's sad.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 22, 2007 14:28:02 GMT -5
Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, having their records wiped away not by having those records BROKEN, but simply because they're out of the game. I think that's sad. That example doesn't sit well. How about: Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, still being ranked as number 1 and 2 in the world, even though they haven't played a match in years. If you want to stay at the top, you have to play at the top.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 22, 2007 14:31:19 GMT -5
Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, having their records wiped away not by having those records BROKEN, but simply because they're out of the game. I think that's sad. That example doesn't sit well. How about: Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, still being ranked as number 1 and 2 in the world, even though they haven't played a match in years. If you want to stay at the top, you have to play at the top. That's not really accurate. Your case for decay has some merit for the ladder, which is meant as a short-term means of deciding who's on top (i.e. sports seasons, year-to-date rankings, etc.) but Elo is more like an all-time record (career touchdowns, career grand slam victories, etc.). Those things should never decay.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Oct 22, 2007 15:00:02 GMT -5
If I may delve into this analogy rich discussion...
exDeath, I believe the point derfel is trying to make is a player in any sport should not keep their positional ranking among the current competitors merely for stopping by the game (ie logging in.)
To use an American football reference, Dan Marino keeps all the records and stats he ever earned as a player, but he is not included when comparing quarterbacks playing in the league today. Stopping by the sideline at halftime doesn't make him an active quartback.
The bottom line is that whether or not the stats decay is a separate issue from whether or not a warlock should be considered a current player when they haven't played a match in many a moon.
Although I guess the bottom bottom (bottomer?) line (really, eventually I'll get there) is that at this point we all know what the current ranking system means, and since it is nicely provided for us, we should work within its boundaries and enjoy what we can.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Oct 22, 2007 15:14:13 GMT -5
Vermont
I thought that the "bottomest" line is that nawglan is working on new warlocks server now, and that this is very time to decide what should be left here and what should be re-implemented in new server.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 22, 2007 16:10:23 GMT -5
If you were to argue that a player shouldn't be on the active list if they haven't played a match in the last few days, that's fine and totally reasonable. But if you do implement some form of rating decay, at the very least one's highest Elo should be preserved on an all-time leaderboard of some sort, to preserve their glory.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 22, 2007 16:23:45 GMT -5
If decay were implemened (which it won't be, so really the discussion is moot), players would still keep their personal best Elo in their profile so you know what they've achieved. But really it would only serve to demean their personal achievements by leaving them off the all-time leaderboard. Whilst I'm actually agreeing with your tact in the overall argument (decay is ridiculous) I have to step in and point out that the current "inactive list" is not an all-time leaderboard - if it were, Tchichi would be at #2 and above you and Slarty, but he's not, he's about fourth or fifth.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 22, 2007 16:27:15 GMT -5
If decay were implemened (which it won't be, so really the discussion is moot), players would still keep their personal best Elo in their profile so you know what they've achieved. But really it would only serve to demean their personal achievements by leaving them off the all-time leaderboard. Whilst I'm actually agreeing with your tact in the overall argument (decay is ridiculous) I have to step in and point out that the current "inactive list" is not an all-time leaderboard - if it were, Tchichi would be at #2 and above you and Slarty, but he's not, he's about fourth or fifth. How do you figure Tchichi being number 2? Alts don't count, or else my Elo would be very close to Taliesin's.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 22, 2007 16:36:40 GMT -5
What was/is your highest score? I think his was 2044?
(Got that off Taliesin, I think that was before the days when I paid attention to the top of the lists)
And, uh, of course alts don't count. Otherwise you could start up ten new accounts, get them all to 1600 and easily be the "best" on the list.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Oct 22, 2007 16:46:07 GMT -5
Well, firstly, getting 10 alts to 1600 doesn't mean you've gained 1000 Elo. But if you had used my base Elo for all of Sasuke's matches I think I would be somewhere in the 2100 neighborhood. Tchichi would probably be up there too. But anyway...
Yes, if his highest was 2044, then that's what would be displayed on the all-time leaderboard.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 22, 2007 17:09:21 GMT -5
I know it doesn't. You seemed to be implying that it did. But I understand what you mean now.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Oct 22, 2007 20:05:52 GMT -5
For some reason I thought the 2.5 % decay was measured in terms of current ELO - 1500 ELO - around 12.5 ELO per month for a 2000ish player. 50 ELO would be absolutely freaking insane. And if I remember correctly, it was NOT easy for Taliesin to manage to get to 2100 (correct me if I'm wrong), so loosing 50 pts is pretty bad Yes. At the time I broke 2100, Slarty was something like 70-90 ELO behind me, and the next nearest was on something like 160+ ELO behind. I got Slarty to surrender, I scored about 8 ELO. I surrendered to him, I lost 13. Anyone else, an ELO gain of 4-5 points was as much as I could hope for, and 15-16 points on the line for a loss. Drawing at that time would lose me more ELO than winning would gain me ELO for every warlock save Slarty. The level of dominance that I had to achieve to get to 2100 should be self-evident. Losing 50 ELO points would be wiping out the proceeds of at the minimum six straight wins against Slarty, or over ten against almost anyone else. Can anyone see why this suggestion might get top players riled? From another perspective: it was bad enough that Justix's 1900ish score got wiped. On his return he won 25 from 26 games played, and the loss was a surrender of his last game from a fighting position in homage to Reds who'd bore with him through a period where it was difficult for him to log in regularly. Who paid for Justix's inexorable near 300-ELO rise? Decent players facing a dangerously strong and horribly under-rated opponent. Do you really want to line up against top talent on terms which mean your score will take a battering if you lose?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Oct 22, 2007 22:22:30 GMT -5
Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, having their records wiped away not by having those records BROKEN, but simply because they're out of the game. I think that's sad. That example doesn't sit well. How about: Imagine an aging Brett Favre or Roger Federer, too old to compete, still being ranked as number 1 and 2 in the world, even though they haven't played a match in years. If you want to stay at the top, you have to play at the top. That's the ticket! If you keep "highest score ever", then you *will* be keeping track of all of Federer's achievements. Without impeeding the people that come after him. In my opinion, if Prioli did come back, I *would* want him to be starting from 1500. Sure, he would prolly decimate the ranks in order to get back up to the pointing end, but then, anyone can do that if they want (ie - sasuke style). But yes, after spending such a long time out of the game, I don't think he would deserve to walk back into a top spot without any need to prove himself. And yeah, if you don't play anymore, why care? how hard is it to play 1 game a month if you do care?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 23, 2007 0:10:04 GMT -5
It's worth pointing out that there ARE professional gaming bodies that use Elo systems. Chess would be the obvious one, since that's where Elo began. And they do not use decay. So the tennis analogies are unnecessary. However, "highest score ever" is a poor measure. A reasonable streak of luck -- in practically any ratings system -- will push your highest score ever higher than it deserves to be. In theory this will happen to everyone equally so it doesn't matter, but in practice some people have more variation than others. Thus, Toyo has repeatedly been near or above the 2000 Elo barrier, but he has (thus far) been unable to stay there very long. My own highest score ever was similarly short-lived, though it was only 10 or 15 points above scores I held much longer. What was/is your highest score? I think his was 2044? Yes. My all time ELO high was something like 2047 if I remember correctly, and I'm pretty sure I saw Yaron in the 2040's as well. My all time high was, I think, immediately prior to the three games I lost to Taliesin that finally put him over 2100. Well, firstly, getting 10 alts to 1600 doesn't mean you've gained 1000 Elo. But if you had used my base Elo for all of Sasuke's matches I think I would be somewhere in the 2100 neighborhood. Tchichi would probably be up there too. But anyway... ExDeath, either you really misunderstand the impact of RB's ELO system in practice, or you are being deliberately misleading; and given my respect for your analytical and systemological abilities I am inclined to say the latter. I've already debunked this for you privately, and I think I still have the excel files in which I did out ExDeath's Elo with Sasuke's match results applied. The result was a net gain of about 8-10 Elo. You would most emphatically not be in the 2100 neighborhood. I thought that the "bottomest" line is that nawglan is working on new warlocks server now, and that this is very time to decide what should be left here and what should be re-implemented in new server. Nope. This isn't the first time a new version of the game has been promised. With all due respect to Nawglan, who is the only one since RB to actually complete a major addition to the game -- the archive -- I give his project a projected success chance of about 3%, given what I've heard from it so far.
|
|