yes i know at least one Player who does that. a pity. but it's still much harder and Needs more effort than on the rt ladder.

can anyone write something bad or racist or offensive iw ant to use that report button please

Well Timi joined. Your argument is invalid.

A wild Timinator appears and spoils the fun :P

yey i will report tony for calling timinator, timi and thats not nice at all .
guys just chill and play, mircer is a good player he beat buns more than one, so he is better than him somehow but the rating stuff really suck , when you win you almost get nothing but if you lose you lose a lot ,so the bad thing is that you waste a an hour or so in game for 1 point or so thats suck

Edited 2/7/2016 00:12:23

the Problem is not the Rating calculation. the possibility the get a matchup with a 1500 Points lower rated guy is the Problem. that problem can't be easily solved unless there are constantly like 20+ players on the rt ladder.

i see everyone in about where he belongs ranking wise on the ladder (don't be offended, YOU should be ranked higher).

I read somewhere once that even if you dont gain points or even lose a point due to a low rated player, that in the long run it helps your rating. Though not sure how reliable the guy who said it was.

@redbloody don't be a silly monkey hunter, I have never been beat on the rt ladder.

your "TrueSkill Mean" always rises trough a win, but your "TrueSkill Standard Deviation" falls if you Play low rated opponents. so in the end you can say you never lose even if your Overall Rating decreased about 1 or 2 Points after a win. but if your Opponent was so low, your "TrueSkill Mean" will not go up enough to justify the matchup. there's still a Chance to get booted or you have to leave, or your Opponent Plays the best game of his life.

what did you just call me b$$$$ i dont give a s$$$ who the f$$$ you think you are buns =respect to be respected = f$$$$$ turtle go f$$$y$$$ s$$$$
and here some of your games were you lost and it masters hunter not monkey hunter b$$$$

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10467133 mifran

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10359746 mercer

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10259041 mercer

Edited 2/7/2016 00:37:28

Thats not me, silly monkey hunter. You must be mistaken, I have never lost :)

@mod yeah that seems right, however I don't really mind my rating not increasing after a win. It just means that they are rated that far below you that you should win all the time :P

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Edited 2/7/2016 15:51:07

Ratings are rounded. An increase by 1/3 may appeared as no increase. Also note that the odds ratio has an exponential relationship with rating gap, so it's not unusual to have a situation like "get 1/3 pts if you win, lose 20pts if you lose". For example, my current rating is 1810, if I played against someone rated 1000, assuming that we have the same standard deviation, my predicted odds ratio for losing would be 1:10^[(1810-1000)/400] = 1:106 (assuming a gap of 400 indicates a log odds ratio gap of ln(10), as many standard ELO algorithms does). That means my gain in a win would be 1/107 times as little as my lost in a lose. If a lose costs me 25pts, a win gives me only 25/107=0.23pts. In the long run, I need to control my losing rate against that person below 1/107 in order to maintain my rating.

That being said, I still have issue with the rating algorithm. The first one is not new as many other players have complained about it: one lose points by winning an extremely lowly ranked player. How does winning count against the point estimate of my true skill? I don't get it.

The second is the assumption of transitivity of win ratio built in the ELO model. By the transitivity assumption, if Timinator beats a 1680-point guy by a odds ratio of 10:1, and that the 1680 guy beats a 1280 guy by 10:1, then Timinator needs to beat the 1280-point guy by 100:1 in order to maintain his rating. This may be tricky for Timinator considered that he may have his FTB failed in a 5v3 or Blindly countered on the Oceania map.

@redbloody I admit it, I have lost games on the 1v1 ladder, maybe those were the games you posted? But like I have been saying, nobody has ever came close to beating me in any game on the rt ladder. Silly silly monkey hunter.

"nobody has ever came close to beating me in any game on the rt ladder"

The very example of elitist arrogance, just checked your stats, you lost 3 times not so long ago against Mifran, Turkish and Motoki.

Btw what is again the purpose of this thread? I see only people raging against Mercer being 1st, can you just conceive that Mercer deserve his rank?

@buns it'sam your mom hunter that's what that M really stood for and here I said fucking turtles you lost admit that all all i see buns 157 lost to those players and how is not you and if it was not you ;why then how do we know who are controling your account ? so you are noob for me then you lost cause you are only a humain after you pop you $$$ so shut the fuck up

Calm down before you start typing because this way no one understands what you're saying...

Edited 2/7/2016 11:27:40

@Angry Koala Don't be silly, Its not arrogance. I just can't help being that good that I have never lost.

Also read my first reply to this thread, you like many others on these forums always jump to conclusions. Nobody said that mercer didnt deserve to be first, and ps was just criticising the system about it being easier for new accounts (it is if your old account is ranked low with a small standard deviation).

tldr: Next time read the thread buddy.

Wow aren't you just calling Buns elitist because 1)Angry Koala you are not a good player and feel jealous of him? 2)Because you are a prick from what I see when you post on the forums? 3)Perhaps more personal, but you are prick because you are french? I should know, I'm french, and a prick :).

I did read this thread entirely buddy, but I still do not get what is wrong about the current system? Buns you said exactly that this is helping new accounts, and I actually think this is a good idea, because if we had another system where the older top ranked players could not have their positions reconsidered, this ladder would be very limited, you know change is good , and this very ladder would lose any interest. Hence, what I understand from what I read here, is that some people are complaining about the current system because it threatens their current ranking, even if you do not admit it.

And no Nackickwind, I am not jealous, I once reached the 9th place in the 1vs1 ladder, the top10 was my main goal, and succeeded on this. I know my limits in this game, and I do not consider myself as an elite or top player as some of you do here.

Et je ne vois pas le rapport avec le fait d’être français et être un « con » comme tu dis. Mais bon chacun conçoit les choses comme il le veut.

Nobody complains about the current system because it threatens their ranking, if people were worried about their ranking they would play one game every 3 days against an opponent they know they will beat 99% of the time. People complain because you should not drop on the leader board behind someone else because you win a game against a low rated player (since you can lose a point for winning).

Also it only helps to create a new account if you are alot better than the current rating your account has, so for most people it wouldnt help them.

Also if you read the thread, how couldn't you see that I was just winding monkey hunter up, of course I have lost games. In the original post it states I have played 900 and something games, do you really expect that I would think anyone would believe I have never lost?

Nobody complains about the current system because it threatens their ranking

Of course, they will never admit this publicly buns... But from what I read in some threads and posts, this is getting obvious anyway.

Also it only helps to create a new account if you are alot better than the current rating your account has, so for most people it wouldnt help them.

well you seem to forget that to join a ladder you need to reach a certain level, that's why this requirement has been implemented, you folks always very fastly judge Fizzer's work, but never tend to notice the right things.

Also if you read the thread, how couldn't you see that I was just winding monkey hunter up

I just read again your posts here, nothing explicitly prove you were kidding dude. And if you were, it was awkward. Anyway to go back to the topic, as I told you earlier I already got the point of it, perhaps it is too easy for new people playing this ladder to attain a high rank, nevertheless this is why the RT ladder is awesome, because this way older players that attained some top ranking, cannot farm, you cannot forever collect a bunch of stats in order to power yourself up, and then take it easy once they reached it. Your rank is not granted forever, you have to play and have challenges to justify your ranking.