With less picking choice, it's 100% about skills

The problem with this is??

BTW, here is my comparison on %75 vs %70 defensive kill rates:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1icPKCuIyWCWqDTGs0TQgbVRVlaHDSVfFtRlH51tbnIk/edit#gid=0

Lol Min. Well we need to give a chance to everybody otherwise before even starting the game we know who wins.

Hades thats very interesting. How many games in a row do you need to win to top the ladder do we know ? And has Fizzer realised that ? Because its clearly an issue that plays against the ladder popularity and needs to be fixed.

this discussion is pretty interesting for a newb like me :3

just wanted to say that posts like Verzehrer could hardly be considered lazy, if you are providing a lot of quality information, quite arguably without compensation. :p

*returns to lurking*

^A very good discussion indeed.

Also to all those that claim runs are easy, just get 20 victory and stall your losses well here is a surprise to you. 20 wins don't give you 1st anymore. Yup, the size of the ladder fixes the problem, and it should be more and more corrected as the ladder continues to grows. Oh, right proof. I currently have 16-0 in the ladder, and assuming* I win 4 more, my rating is still going to be below 2000. Now you could argue that I would simply have to make a successful run of 25 wins (presumably not so challenging since you're facing presumably weaker players), but as mentioned in an earlier post, more games will statistically bring you closer to your true skill/rating.
https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=3523

That being said, it is still possible to do a run of 20, if the first opponents have high enough rating, but that would be less unlikely as more players join the ladder.

Finally, I would like to mention that I support TrueSkill more than the current rating system :)

Peace out.


I won't, unless I stall. Which I am not about :(

Edited 4/19/2016 01:23:49

Small Earth 1v1 should obviously be the ladder template.

While there are some games that are won on luck more than on skill, that's just the nature of the ladder. The true question is whether to gamble on luck or not. You can win or lose that way - it's a matter of deciding what to risk and what to ensure you get. Of course, you have to rely on luck in some instances, but that's just the way that WR works.

Plus there are a ton of terrible games on the SR ladder as well that, in some cases, are even more luck based: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10281663

Fizzer says that players like their "randomness". That's pure bullshit, have Fizzer and Mercer play a custom scenario where whoever gets their first pick wins, and they will probably put NLC in the ladder... Lol

For top players competing for first place, i dont see how they can be happy with WR. Because once they reach the 1st place or are close to make it, they can lose 1 game on luck anytime (they didn't make their 3v2 while opponent did and happenned to be fatal in that game). Then I don't know what happens, if the loser has to make a new run of 20 games or a few wins can make it back to the top but either way, you get the point.

For new players discovering ladders, 1v1 is the most accessible as its only one map that they can learn. But if they also have to learn a settings which does take time to understand unless you read about it, they may give up quickly. Clearly not the way to promote ladders like Fizzer aims and I'm afraid that's a deal breaker for him. But since he suggested it in the poll then maybe Fizzer is happy to please top players over a larger number of potential participants in the ladder.

For me, this template should be in seasonal or RT ladder and keep 1v1 ladder as it is to ensure ladders get more popularity (take me for example and I consider representing the average new comer on ladder here. I'm new in ladders, gave up RT quickly, try my chance in 1v1, when I feel comfortable I'll try another ladder ; wouldn't happen with WR).

Edit : also on another subject, I think the interesting part of RT ladder is its number of templates. But as long as it will be RT it will lack popularity. I think in MD there would be more participants. Because right now when you join you have a higher chance to play a top player over a player of your level. In MD it would be matched automatically to your level.

So to conclude, RT ladder should be MD, include WR MME, be called 1v1 exotic ladder (for its unusual templates) and aimed for top players maybe. 1v1 ladder should stay as it is, be renamed 1v1 sample ladder, and aimed for new comers on ladders. That way everybody would be happy and even lower players would have a chance to top the "tier B" ladder and hopefully all would try the "big" and more popular one afterwards.

Edited 4/25/2016 14:39:32

@Mike

In the RT ladder you should be thankful to play high rated players, you lose nothing and have so much to gain. Recently whenever I have played most my matches have been against people rated far below me and its gave me next to nothing.

And keep it real time, there needs to be a real time ladder since some people find it the best way to play warlight.
I'm

One last thing, I think we should all nag verzehrer to play another ladder. Then we can have another good forum thread ;)

Tbest, nobody said that, you said it yourself and then tried to prove it wrong, then you posted your "proof", that after 20 games, you'll not be rated more than 2000... and yet you have a rating of 2117, despite having played 21 games and having beaten not a single player ranked more than 2000... I mean, that has to be the funniest post ever.

What I actually said, was that runs will make your rating more volatile, and hence you have a higher chance of ending up with an inflated rating, so it is easier to get 1st (or a rating higher than you should) on a run. As you have just accidentally proved.

If your accidental proof wasn't enough, I'll prove it mathematically, lets say that your true rating is 2200, and to gain 1st place you need a rating of over 2300. After 1000 games, you should end up very close to 2200, there will be basically a 0% chance of being rated over 2300. After 20 games, you're rating will be less precise, you may be rated higher or lower than 2200 depending on luck, lets say there is a 10% chance of deviating from your rating by over a 100 points. so 5% chance of being rated above 2300, and 5% chance of being rated below 2100. And so a 5% chance of being rated 1st.

Therefore, there is a higher chance of being rated 1st if you played 20 games compared to 1000.

Edited 4/25/2016 17:44:33

LOl @ Mac'n'Cheese, Yes, someone did say "An issue with ladders is that its much easier to get #1 from runs than playing a lot of games over a long time." Guess who?

Anyway, since you didn't check facts here are a few. After 20-0 my rating was barely above 2k (~2015)
My 21 win was against a 2k+ (who lost on boot, and after the loss his rating is 1999)

Now, since you completely missed my point, let me reinstate it.

Currently it is harder to get 20-0 and grab 1st then before. (2-3 y. ago) Because 20 wins don't guarantee you high enough rating. In a theoretical view as the ladder grows (say 1k ranked players) the sample size you need is bigger then 20 to even theoretically have the chance at 1st. Thus theoretically you need a longer win streak, which in turn, theoretically would increase the chances of a loss.

Glad you found my post funny btw. Since it was written to be humorous. Through essentially I am making the same point that you are.

Edited 4/25/2016 19:21:17

Tbest, you only beat one player rated above 1850. You shouldnt be first with those opponents. I dont know why you got relatively weak opponents. I think it is still very much possible to get first because of . Ladserrun.

.

Edited 4/25/2016 19:42:18

It IS easier to get 1st from runs than playing lots of games, thats my point. Runs themselves are not easier than lots of games. If you do 100 runs and 100 lots of games, the average rating will be the same over all the runs compared to the lots of games, i.e. runs are not easier themselves, but the highest/lowest ratings will be runs, i.e. easier to get 1st with a run.

Yes, you're still rated 2117 after about 20 games, 21 and 20 are basically the same. You could have finished that game before one of your lower opponent games which you gained little from, and be rated around 2100 after 20 games. It was a boot win? this is what I mean, luck has given you a massive rating, despite only winning 20 games (and a boot), and you've not beaten anyone ranked above 1828. The luck evens out over a lot of games and so you dont get such an inflated rating.

I understood your point, I dont see how that "fixes the problem", My point is still true, that you are more likely to get 1st from a run than a large amount of games.

I also don't see how your point (runs are harder than 3 years ago) is essentially the same as my point (runs make it easier to get 1st than a large amount of games).

And I do believe it is possible for a 20 game player to take 1st, for example https://www.warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=12388 this person had a 2200 rating after 20 games despite 2 losses, if they had won those 2 games, they'd have easily taken 1st.

@Min, I never claimed that I am #1. And saying I only beat is 1 above 1850 is kinda misleading, since I won on boot xD Really it is more accurate to say that I have only beaten two 1800s. For my take on myself check out

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/148980-buns157-manipulating-1v1-ladder?Offset=0 (close to the bottom)

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/140471-managers-league-season-1-division-b-scores?Offset=120 (around the middle)


@Mac, I am saying you need longer runs, thus it requires more effort, and is harder to achieve ---> Less of a problem. Not saying, it is harder to do runs, then do Buns. Nope, Buns is way harder to do.

Also, https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=9019 has 2100++ after 6 games. SO yeah still possible, I am just saying that as the ladder grows in size it gets harder. In the past 2k+ usually gave 1st. Which is no longer the case. The general problem with runs is finishing 20 games before losing. For me 'accidental' run the problem is getting the rating up, not finishing enough games to get ranked. Reapiting my beloved slogan, Runs is still easier than doing Buns.

Edited 4/25/2016 20:30:52

But saying that you need a higher rating to take first makes runs harder makes no sense, it makes it harder for everyone to take first, including the people who have played a lot of games.

I don't know if that is your main or not, but if you joined in 2015, let me tell you runs used to be super easy. It was something you could just do if you were a top 10 player, and hope to do if you were a top 25, particularly if you had no problem with stalling.

Basically, the rating distribution and range was smaller, and the rating formula was the same. So ratings was relatively even more inflated, in terms of placing a player above an actual stronger player.

Edited 4/25/2016 20:29:02

Statistical discussions, yay.

What TBest states is true. A good run doesn't 100% guarantee taking 1st place on the ladder. But that doesn't mean that a 20-0 run doesn't give you an inflated rating. The standard deviation on a small sample size of games will always be high, as the standard deviation tends to decrease when the sample increases.
As the ladder grows, it is indeed harder to take a high rank with 20-0, though the effect of the ladder having an increase in players is relatively small.
Getting a high rating after 20 games is just as easy/hard as it was though. The general inflation of ratings in the ladder tend to make getting 1st place harder with a run (though the effect is relatively small), but the rating you'd get out of a 20-0 run should be the same as it was before.

So,
the fact that TBest didn't get a very high rating after 20-0 is due to him beating lower rated opponents than people do in their average run. Not due to the ladder having more players.
The fact that TBest's rating of 2110 isn't a top 5 rank, is due to the ladder having more players, and the ratings of the top 10 increasing as consequence.

Yeah, I joined in 2015, I've only really payed attention to the ladder. Even if runs were a bigger problem, they're still a problem, like farah says, the effect is quite small. And the ladder would have been WR then, which reinforces my original point, that WR exaggerates the power of runs.