i get the felling that this is a language barrier thing.

Edited 2/25/2018 22:27:20

A good player on the 1v1 ladder template perhaps..

Good player in general? I know many players who suck at everything that isn't the 1v1 ladder. Are they considered good players?

Make your own mind up on that one.. Otherwise the whole "good player" thing is just subjective/personal opinion. Being in the top 9k of players out of 18k players is "good" in quickmatch.

If Warlght were the NBA:

LeBron James and Steph Curry would be good.

Kevin Durant would be 'not good' because people don't like him.

And then by definition, every other basketball player in the world is also 'not good'

i get the felling that you dont understand what by definition means

it seems like the english speaking players put good as opposed to not good. i dont and i dont think a german speaker would either

Do we really have the evidence to suggest that players from 2013 "haven't kept up with the times"? It could be the case that Warzone's top players as a whole haven't actually improved all that much (>100 points) between 2013 and now.

In the NBA, most people take it for granted that the 2018 All-Star team would triumph over the 1998 All-Star team- and that's probably true, since American basketball as a sport has evolved significantly since 1998. Ditto for baseball and football.

But is that true for Warzone between 2013 and now? It's hard to measure precisely since you can't easily compare Elo ratings from now vs. Elo ratings from 5 years ago (against completely different player pools for the most part). But if you have a fixed point of reference- a player who hasn't changed much between 2013 and now- then you actually can just compare these players based on how much better they were than this frame of reference. If you believe (like I do) that Blowfly hasn't gotten much better or worse since... forever, then we might actually have that frame of reference.

szeweningen's ladder rating peaked at 2216 (1st rank ofc) on December 10, 2012. Blowfly's rating around that time was 1090. That's a difference of 1126. kicorse's rating today is 2309. Blowfly's at 1188; that's a difference of 1121. If you use Blowfly to adjust for changes in ladder participation and skill levels, then szeweningen and kicorse aren't all that far apart in terms of actual skill- just a 5 point difference between the two.

I'm aware that strategic gameplay has- at least in terms of tactics- evolved significantly between 2012 and today. But maybe that hasn't really amounted to all that much in terms of actual skill separation.

I'm also kind of surprised that such an evolution hasn't led to increased separation from Blowfly- although it could be the case that Blowfly has been getting better. If we assume that, due to the sheer size of the playerbase as a whole relative to the strategic community, the average player on these ladders hasn't gotten much better, then that would still leave kicorse at just 93 points better than sze if you assume that the Elo ratings on the ladder are accurate. If they aren't all that accurate and actually do get inflated/deflated (depending on which side of average you're on) as the playerbase grows, well- the ladder in late 2012 had ~200 players and now there's ~324. Adjust for this size (with the inflation assumption) and you have sze's new rating at 2660 (probably super-inflated) and he's actually significantly better than kicorse.

I just can't find any sort of empirical evidence that the best players of 2013 wouldn't be competitive now on the formats that they were good at back in 2013. Sze is probably still gonna be a beast at Strat ME and I suspect that he'd probably actually reliably beat kicorse.

Edited 2/25/2018 22:43:29

eah i think i know pretty much everything about how to play.

you're much worse than you see yourself

lol

You're playing a game against humans, with a near-infinite number of possible games, and you think you've solved it. Yet you're telling me I'm much worse than I see myself. That's just. wow.

Sorry to break the news to you, but if you're the best player to ever play this game, you know maybe half of what there is to know.

ok, we found out now...... your not super bright

If Warlight blew up and had millions of players -- in 10 years the very best players today would be awful if they did not improve. There is so much advanced strategy that could be developed, advanced tools that could be used.

And this dinosaur thinks he solved it already.

Amazing.

To infinity and beyond!

Do we really have the evidence to suggest that players from 2013 "haven't kept up with the times"?

Well, we have one of them saying he knows everything already and another acting like it by insulting people for trying to learn.

So...ya?

Well maybe Warzone isn't as complex or strategic as we make it out to be. If you look at predicted vs. actual win rates on the 1v1 ladder, you'll find that a rating advantage of 125 when your rating is 1600 is actually about as meaningful as a rating advantage of 200 when your rating is 1800 (I might have the exact numbers off, but in either case the closer your rating is to average the more meaningful a given rating advantage is).

This is the opposite of what you'd see in chess, where players closer to average (1500-1700) tend to underperform their Elo rating predictions while players higher up (2300-2500) tend to be pretty close to matching them. In other words, in chess gaps near the average are exaggerated and gaps close to the edges are underestimated- and this suggests that there's actually higher kurtosis in chess; the distribution of skill is taller/wider than the Normal distribution. E.g., the kurtosis of this blue line distribution (the logistic distribution) is higher than the kurtosis of the big red one (the Normal distribution):



If we see the opposite trend in Warzone, then perhaps that suggests the opposite- the Normal distribution overestimates kurtosis, and the tails are smaller than Elo ratings assume. Maybe players at the edges aren't really all that far from the average player- at least not as far as their rating suggests. Maybe Warzone isn't a skill-driven as we assume and after a certain point of avoiding relatively fundamental flaws + doing some advanced optimizations that exploit the choices given to you by game settings, it becomes more of a rock-paper-scissors-style crapshoot where the biggest advantage is in figuring out your opponent's mind instead of taking advantage of a strategic feature of the game.

It's clear to see Wally Balls has a advanced theology about the fundamentals of the game. Though it's ironic you are calling him a "dinosaur" when he has played MDL , Quickmatch , Seasonal ladders. In all 3 he's sucessfully "crushed" or atleast played to not make him a "dinosaur" like someone Szewenigen.

Even so.. What does your advanced theology have to do with the thread topic? What you are describing sounds to me like the use of an AI which has been explored and it's at a low level at the moment because of the complexity of the game mechanics.

There's just so much misunderstanding going on here...

"Playing qm a lot gives you an advantage to a certain point. Once you exceed that and you lose almost 10 points to anyone if you lose, no matter the rating, it's kinda hard to keep up. You should play again and try it out. Qm is a lot of fun currently. Great competition there unlike ladders."

Yeah, I understand there's a point where people will be unable to raise until the average rating rises and everyone's ceiling goes up.

1 L65 master of desaster 683.9
2 L61 alexclusive 680.7
3 L63 AWESOMEGUY 615.7
4 L61 Wini 569.2
5 L54 Jeff " Not a supreme leader" Erspin 513.2
6 L61 {{NeRo}} 511.4
7 L39 Othello 507.5
8 L55 The Endless Zero 495.1
9 L62 sloppyfatginger 482.7
10 L37 Hallbergs härskare 474.7
11 L55 IHateEverySinglewarlightPlayerOnTheEntirePlanet 466.9
12 L62 Swisster 462.8
13 L58 machine-washed bliss 460.8
14 L62 Nemo 426.0
15 L59 Octane 421.0
16 L60 CONQUISTADORS 411.8
17 L64 Timinator • apex 411.5
18 L63 Vendetta 408.8
19 L63 rakleader 407.0
20 L60 Xenophon 400.3
21 L62 Muli 392.0
22 L57 wrongdoer 389.3
23 L37 TheUberElite 379.4

But as an example, there's a lot of people there who could still raise their template rating a lot if they played more. Some have hit their "cap", others could still rise substantially, and it's not always easy to know which are which.

Sloppy told me he can't rise any higher, I imagine that's true for muli as well as I know he plays a lot, but beyond those two I'm not sure anyone else has hit their cap. I hadn't played WZ in about 3 months, but was rank 33, and after winning 6 games I got up to rank 23, I'm sure I can keep raising, but I'm not sure how high Id be able to raise without it turning into a struggle.

I'm guessing alexclusive as played a lot more than you actually as I beat alexclusive very close to 50% across a decent sample size and I don't think he's anywhere near as good as you are.

Similarly my global rating is like 530 atm, I struggled to pass 500 3 months ago, yet am guessing I can it 800-900 now. QM ratings seem to inflate a lot wit the average players ratings.

Edited 2/25/2018 22:58:03

"Well, we have one of them saying he knows everything already and another acting like it by insulting people for trying to learn."

which are thise 2 players your refering to?

Theology? I think you meant theory...

I don't think we can dismiss Wally Balls' assumptions offhand. Maybe it's actually worth exploring how much of Warzone strategy there is left to discover. It might be the case that Warzone has been essentially figured out (in terms of inherent strategic features, not opponent prediction) by a small subset of players and we're just stuck in an era where there's N players who can beat just about everyone else (e.g., MotD, mod, Timinator, Buns, timon92, and QB) but this group doesn't get substantially better over time and the elite strategic community as a whole stagnates too, 'cause we've already found some sort of local (or global) optimum.

I'm of course nowhere near that level, so I can't really speak with insight about this... but I think the case could be made that maybe this game isn't all that comparable to chess. Maybe if you train a deep RNN to play Warlight it won't find a better optimum, 'cause there isn't one or it's rather elusive, and it'll just hit maybe 2400 on the 1v1 ladder. It could just be the case that most of what we perceive as growth in this game has come from:

1. More players joining

2. Old players retiring to get replaced by a new strategic class

So we have the impression of skill-level growth but it's really just change.

Edited 2/25/2018 23:05:48

Nauz the template ratings are clearly still defined by how much you play cause as long as you're below 400 you win double the points than you lose. So eventually every average player should hit 400 at some point.

Wally i didn't say i have a solution to the game. I just know what there is to know about gameplay. If you want to prove me something else, i dare you to do so.

I'm glad this thread brought Nauz out of retirement, just in time for clan league too.

I started playing QM two days ago, nothing to do with this thread.