<< Back to Ladder Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 27 of 27   
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/24/2011 23:07:16

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Fizzer, any way to change the system that determines 1v1 ladder match ups for players rated 1900+, to make the top players play each other more often? For example, maybe allow players rated 1900+ to only play players ranked within 10-15 of their own rank?

Check Zaeban's games as an example:

- 4 of his 5 games lack excitement (in terms of rank): I want a piece of Zaeban! Maybe others in the top 10 do too. But we can't play him bc he's playing guys ranked 30 and below.
- Zaeban (2150+ Rating) vs 4 Guys (1650 Rating). That's a difference of 500! With so many players rated 1600-1700, Zaeban could play 25 games before anyone who really wants to play him has a chance.
- This is a no-win situation for Zaeban: win, and his rating increases 1-3; lose, and he drops 50-100!
- Most importantly, each of these 4 matches could take 1-2 weeks: I'm sure Zaeban is a competitive guy; if he is like me, he'd want to use that time competing against guys closer to him in rank.

Imagine if Zaeban's games were these (and each player listed also had similar match ups against guys ranked nearer to them):

- Zaeban (2150+) vs Unknownsoldier (2150+)
- Zaeban (2150+) vs Monsenhor Chacina (2100)
- Zaeban (2150+) vs NuckLuck (2000+)
- Zaeban (2150+) vs Yuanshuai (2000+)
- Zaeban (2150+) vs [中国阳朔] V (2000+)

That would be exciting. Personally, I have a few losses expiring and could jump to the top spot in 2 weeks. I'd rather earn the #1 spot by beating the best than have it handed to me...
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/24/2011 23:49:59

Qi 
Level 55
Report
to solve this my own way: i decided to quit the ladder. i will pick and choose my games. whenever a guy in the top 10 needs an opponent (and i am around to act), i'll rejoin the ladder just to get a game with him (or her, if bytjie is back in the top 10).
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:00:07


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
Of course by being at the top of the ladder there is no where else to go but down. It is inherent to the concept and designed that way. What you are proposing would mean that no one new has a chance to knock anyone off the ladder above them. Probably playing invitation only games is the best way for you to handle the desire to not play anyone below your level.
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:10:30

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Player Rated 1900+ only plays people within 10-15 ranks of himself.

Key word = within

Thus, if Player Rated 1900+ is ranked 10, he could be matched up with anyone ranked #1 to #25.

My proposition is to make the ladder more dynamic, allowing for more players ranked in the top 25 to have more competitive games. As a consequence, a rating in the top 10 would be more meaningful. And the ladder would become less of a static 'marathon' (Fizzer's word of choice, I'd call it a race of sailboats) and more like a soccer tournament. (Though Jim Rome considers soccer tournaments to be boat races...)
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:22:17


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
I guess the change you want isn't clear to me. You want to not play people lower on the ladder so that you don't risk losing so many points. Or as you put it "just play competitive games only". Then how would anyone climb the ladder? Not that it concerns me because I will probably never be up there, but sounds like maybe you should just start a "Awesome" league to save you the trouble of too many easy games. Which I get. But why mess with the ladder?
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:22:23


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Actually I'm not a member yet, but I have an idea that'd work very well for seasonal ladder and one idea for the ladder. Those idea's are based upon chess rating system.

How it works in chess, people that have 2000+ ranking will never play with 1500+ since there are simply different tournaments for different players(C-tournament, B-tournament, A-tournament, Open tournament). You could easily divide the ladder into <1200, 1200<rating<1500, 1500<rating<1800, 1800+ or similar. New games would be only from the category you are currently in. That is really effective in minimizing the risk of a loss with a low-rated player and does not create many chances to abuse the system. For example player dropping from 1810 to 1790 would not benefit from going from 1 to 5 games at a time since those losses would not improve his rating greatly.

Another idea is for a seasonal ladder in a swiss-system tournament model with 1vs1 ladder as a basic rating. Read more on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:29:38

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Swezen, for our [20] league tournaments I have something like a modified Swiss tournament in mind: each game won in the RRs is worth 1 point. Total points determine who goes on to the double-elimination tournaments.

Thus:

- 1v1s: 2 RRs of 9 players each --> top 4 in each RR play a double-elimination tournament of 8
- 2v2s: 1 RR of 7-10 teams --> top 4 teams play a double-elimination tournament
- 3v3s: 1 RR of 5-7 teams --> either top 2 play a best of 3/5 series or top 4 teams play a double elimination tournament

One reason I'm waiting to start the tournaments is I want to have an equal # of players in each 1v1 division...
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 00:31:40

Qi 
Level 55
Report
and total points in the 1v1s, 2v2s, and 3v3s determines overall rank (which is why i stressed having balanced teams in the team games)...
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 01:17:32

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report
I understand your complaint. It's a delicate balance between starving people of games and giving them games outside of their competitive range.

It currently gives games within 30% of the ladder, so anyone in the top 30% can be matched with the #1 player. This number used to be much lower, in fact, as you are requesting to be. However there was a lot of complaints, that fell under two categories: One, people would complain that they weren't getting enough games, since the ladder would basically wait until someone closer to them opened up. Two, people at the top of the ladder complained that they just played the same people close to them over and over, and they got tired of repeat matches and wanted more variety. Therefore, the range was increased.
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 01:34:23

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Ok. Though now there are more ladder players than before (and more higher ranked players), so maybe the previous balance is now out of balance?
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 01:37:01

Qi 
Level 55
Report
or maybe challenge and/or decline elements could be added?

for example, we can decline 1 game a month and make 1 challenge a month (which can't be declined)?

i'd challenge zaeban if i could...and decline my next game against you fizzer (to remain undefeated against you!).
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 03:07:01


[中国阳朔] V 
Level 12
Report
would it be possible to first check the top 25 and if you have played everyone already, then match to lower players? This way, you'll still get the amount of matches you want, but the chance of playing higher ranked players is bigger.
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 03:12:13


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
challanging elements would be highly helpful in inflating ones own rating..


personally, I think that the seasonal ladder should be split.. considering we each get 16 games, out of 132, it would be easy for each person to never get a valid chance to prove his worth.
I suggest that *next* season, instead of providing a pure seasonal ladder, we take the results of this ladder and anyone on it will be divided into divisions.. a-b-c, roughly equally..
any new players would likely end up being put into ladder b, because the default score is generally under that range..
in subsequent seasons we could take the top 5-10% and bottom 5-10% and move them to the appropriate ladder, with variation being given for people leaving the ladder...
unfortunately, this may end up with alot of people starting in a ladder, and subsequently being pushed to b ladder, when alot of c ladder players quit, if they quit.

for the 1v1 ladder, I think that a % amount should be a secondary objective.. since 30% would be a rather large range if say we ended up getting 500 players active in the ladder.. something closer to Y% or X players.. X being divided by 2, or the top X+1 if they are within said range..
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 03:16:14

Qi 
Level 55
Report
to reply to perrin: i think the equation needed is

(X + Z - T)/他妈的 = more games with guys we actually want to play
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 20:35:10

emgzapper 
Level 3
Report
One thing to keep in mind is that lowering the downward mobility for the top 12 players also lowers the upward mobility of the other 100 players on the ladder.

I don't necessarily disagree with your points but as it is I'm hungry for games with people above me (I remember one rather frustrating run where I went on a 17 game win streak and my rating barely moved because I couldn't get a matchup with a higher rated player than me)

I dig the challenge idea although I'm not sure how you would limit it so that people like fizzer or zaeban don't get challenged by 30 different people at the same time.
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 22:05:10

Qi 
Level 55
Report
top 11 are 1900+ (and about 5-8 of us are 1900+ but not a part of the ladder). so #1 plays only 2-16, #2 1-17, #3 1-18...#11 1-26. top 20 would be able to play pretty much everyone.

challenges: can only challenge someone not already challenged?

if i play an AI 100 times and win, my winning streak would be 100. that doesnt mean i'd beat 100 different people in my next 100...
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 22:14:40


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
As Fizzer said, the current system was put in place in response to complaints by the top folks of having to wait around too long for a game. Any changes have to be overwhelmingly positive to warrant making them, because the new situation will cause alternative issues. There probably isn't any optimal solution, in any situation someone will not like the implementation. Any changes could be put to a referendum of ladder participants, however, to make sure it is a popular change to make to save Fizzer's time/energy.
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 22:18:21


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
problem with challanges..
I have an 1800 ranking worth of skill "roughly"
I make 2 accounts because for some reason I want to pay 60 dollars to look cool \*people do it*
given natural time, my ratings would be somewhat like 1805-1795, because both players would play as good as me, but the one I want with higher rankings would lose intentionally against me to inflate rankings...
now add in challanges of me-me once every 3 days..
now I have rankings 1905-1600 *estimated*.. even though by skill I am still only 1800

I don't remember if this is the same thread that suggested elo for standard games... I can honestly, and without doubt say, if elo is implemented for standard games, I will have likely vacate warlight..
I joined warlight initially primarily due to frustration due to the fact that I would join a casual game, just to have fun for a lil' bit, and instantly would have 3-4 people attacking me because i had *a higher rating*
Personally.. this is not fun.. and neither is being forced to Meta-game every game I play, because I am expected to play at a certain level by everyone I play against
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 12/25/2011 22:49:40

Qi 
Level 55
Report
professional boxing: fighters compete to be the best by beating the best, challengers earn their chances to play the best. champs only take easy fights for money or bc they fear the challenger, but they are forced to fight #1 contenders every now and then to remain the champion.

this ladder: top players fight each other 20-50% of the time and engage in a cold war the rest of the time, fighting proxies.

my suggestion: make the ladder more competitive at the top.

perrin: you want to challenge yourself once every three days? i suggested 1 challenge per month. you don't want a universal rating for all players in all games? i've suggested that all stats have the option of being hid (what you mentioned happens to me in FFAs).
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 1/11/2012 21:36:23


Angelic Arian 
Level 30
Report
So what I'm gleaning from this is that its totally pointless to play people below you in rank? If that's the case is there a penalty for declining to play lower ranked players. We have that option right? So surely you can just use that?? I think I must be missing something here. Anyone know?
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 1/12/2012 06:31:19


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
there is no declining games in the ladder.. and if you could decline people lower then you, no one would have games.. as everyone would either be declined, or declining...
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 05:53:12

Ruthless Bastard 
Level 62
Report
Has anything about the ladder changed since this thread?

Here are some observations about the ladder ive made, please correct me if any are wrong.

1. In chess a 2000 rated player beats a 1600 player a very high % of the time so the huge change in ratings when the 1600 wins is justified. In warlight a 2000 does not beat a 1600 rated player close to the same % as chess. Mainly due to the rock/paper/scissor and luck aspects of warlight that are not present in chess.

This means you want to play players rated higher than you, so how do you do that? If youre at the top of the ladder you want to play as few games as possible. If youre at the bottom you want to play as many games as possible.

So its safe to assume if youre in the top 20 you are punished for being active and rewarded for playing few games very slowly.

Ill use heyheu as an example the average rating of his opponents is 1722. Way lower than all other top 10 players except sheriff another active player. If you take out all of hey's games against players rated lower than 1700 you bring his average up to par with the other top 10 players. hey went 45-4 vs these players take all those games out and his rating goes up 21 pts.

2. Top players rarely get to play each other, partly due to the disadvantages of playing more games. Some players play 20 games some play 140 this huge gap causes a problem with the matching system.

The solution

An adjustment to the rating system so youre not punished for being active.

A bias in the matching system to give you someone ranked closer to you more often, but not over and over. Something like: Players within 10% of your rank receives a minus 1 to their games played, so if they are 1 game over the median they are not eliminated.

from wiki
"Then, we count how many times you've played each remaining opponent, and take the median of this data set. We eliminate any opponents that we've played more than this median, since the ladder wants to simultaneously try and pair you with unplayed (or fewer played) opponents as much as possible"
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 11:49:58

unknownsoldier 
Level 57
Report
Imo, being top of the 1v1 ladder is mainly an exercise in not losing to weaker players - sure I have to beat top 10 players a decent fraction of the time, BUT the main thing is to avoid taking the big rating hits associated with losing to a low-ranked player.

Maybe Fizzer could correct the theoretical probability distribution used in the rating algorithm? - I would guess that it needs much fatter tails compared to chess - can you compare the 'predicted' win fraction for each rating difference, against the actually observed ones? I would guess that they are very different. Then you could take the observed one, smooth it a bit, and use it instead?
A fair bit of work for fizzer I guess.

Btw, I am trying not to play too many games atm, so I would be just playing 2 games at a time, even if it were not the best strategy for me.


Also, maybe Fizzer could give an option button:
(1) [pair me mainly with similar ranked players]
(2) [pair me with first available players]
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 12:31:24


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
I am pretty much sure that the problem would automatically vanish if we had 1000 instead of ~100 players on the ladder... With only ~10 guys at a time that have 2approximately 2000 rating there is no other possibility to improve it without hampering the possibility to go up for other players... Unless we would want separate rules fir #1 (I personally wouldn't).
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 14:19:09

Qi 
Level 55
Report
i thought vendetta was gunff. but now he talks like szewen. who is vendetta?
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 14:21:29

Qi 
Level 55
Report
aside from that, any system that has had unknown and me on top of the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders the last few months is a good system!
Ladder Match Ups: More Stringent for 1900+?: 5/30/2012 21:45:35

Ruthless Bastard 
Level 62
Report
I dont think more data or more players will solve this problem. We have data. Players with a rating of 1950+ beat players rated 1100-1700 90% of the time. HHH beats players rated 1100-1700 91.7% of the time. He is overachieving against these players so if you remove those games his rating should go down, but it actually goes up significantly.

If everyone played the same number of games, every ones opponents average ratings would be similar. So its not really a high rated vs low rated issue. Its an active/fast vs inactive/slow issue.

I dont know how difficult it would be to adjust the elo formula to correct this problem. Here is another approach that may be easier. Every time you play a game you get a .027% bonus to your rating-1000. A 2000 rated player would get a .27 rating bonus for each game played((2000-1000)*.027%=.27). At the end of the day the total bonus handed out is added up then deducted from the players ratings based on their rating compared to the total ratings. If 40 games were played about 14 points would have been handed out that day. if you have a 2000 rating and the total ratings on the ladder is 536,000 you would receive a .0819 rating deduction on that day. You would need to complete 1 game every 3.3 days to break even. ((2000-1000)/(536,000-365*1000)*14=.0819)

This does not give you an advantage if you play a lot of games quickly it just corrects the penalty you currently receive for playing a lot of games quickly, It also corrects the opposite problem for the people at the bottom.
Posts 1 - 27 of 27