Compare the seasonal ladder system to the other two. How are they different? Would the seasonal ladder approach (minus the seasonal ladder inflation) work for the first 20 games on the other ladders?

Well, the seasonal ladder has the advantage of everyone playing the same amount of games in approximately the same period of time... Not sure how is it doable on a continuous ladder. I don't think it is possible to implement sth similar since on seasonal ladder all players start from 0. The more games you play the rating rises. In normal ladder it's not the case since when I join with 0 I can be paired up with people that are rated >2000. That's why i get a ridiculous provisional rating over 2000 after 3 games... In seasonal ladder as far as I see you could try to use it to your advantage and join late getting paired up with better people early on to boost your rating, but more often than not you'll just run out of time... Unless I missed something it's not doable on normal ladder.

A basic rule of thumb: Any 1v1 system that has Zibik or HHH with over 40 games played and doesn't rank them in the top 5 should be questioned.

Actually if Fizzer is reading this, could you provide us with some statistics about the ladder? For example a graph showing relation between top 5 and how many games they have played (a cumulative with options <20 20-30 30+ for the past 6 months counting daily). Also there is one more basic rule of thumb: play more games ---> worse play.

If that cumulative graph shows strong distribution towards left then yeah, Gui is right and getting into top 5 has a lot to do with accepting losses only at the right time postponing them after you get the wins.

Well how does the seasonal ladder determine ratings based on total number of games played (the issue I'm focusing on here)? Could that system work on the other ladders?

Descent with modification might lead to the "fittest" system...Fizzer has learned to make the seasonal ladders' rating systems better. Why not use what he has learned to make similar yet ladder-specifically appropriate adjustments to the dinosaur ladders?

Haha. The math boys and their reliance on graphs and charts based on a subjective determination of what should be graphed and charted. I love it.

Ok, it's like that... Ladder does 2 things, makes games and builds ratings. In order to make games ladder algorithm needs to see a rating of a player, thus we have provisional ratings. In seasonal ladder everyone starts with 0, so there is no way to get up several thousand points in 2-3 games. In normal ladder you already encounter ranked players, so algorithm can pair you up with someone very strong after your first 1-2 games. What you could do is win 1 game with a weak player, stall 4 other, get a game with players ranked ~2000, win it and get a new provisional ranking. Since the algorith still needs to put you on a provisional ranking it tries to approximate it based on 2 games, so basically your first 2 recorded wins might be against players with rating 1000 and then 2000, so your provisional ranking would have to be over 2000. That is not the case in seasonal ladder since there are no already ranked players and if you want to join late you won't be able to complete enough games. That's why average rankings go up in seasonal ladder when time passes. Again I'm asking, what would be the specific changes you'd want to see? I don't know what you exactly mean by descent with modification... About the graph part, you should be able to recognise why exactly that would be the necessary data to evaluate that statement, it it shows no deviation it will show how little impact postponing games early to get higher ranking has on the ladder. If it shows deviation it'll prove you were right, nothing complicated there.

5 Gruils of Thumb:

(1) Each game completed enables the system to more accurately rate a player. Sample size is important for the system to rate and rank most accurately.

(2) Great fluctuation from completed game to completed game means the system previously had a less accurate rating of you (due to a low sample size of completed games). Thus, the following inference: The system rates more accurately the more one plays (less fluctuation) and rates less accurately the less one plays (more fluctuation).

(3) Zibik and HHH are 2 of the best 5 1v1 ME active members of all time. Most of the time their rank is based on their having completed over 40 games. However, they do not consistently[i/] rank in the top 5 when they have completed over 40 games. My conclusion: If 2 of the best 5 1v1 ME active members play over 40 games and are unable to crack the top 5, I say the system does not measure ratings accurately enough.

(4) Best ever rankings for players who reached #1 are almost all based on that players rating after having completed less than 20 games. Counter examples: Chris, Zibik, HHH consistently have or had over 40 games played. Chris and Zibik didn't reach #1 or get their highest rating until their completed games were reduced and the system had to guess more about what their actual ability might be. HHH's highest rating ever is low compared to players who finish only 15-20 games. Is the system accurate if it can't properly rate the best players who play more games?

(5) The map and settings are loaded with luck. (See my comparison of 1v1 ME and 3v3 Europe No Cards at the bottom of the following thread: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=2832.) Thus, the more games you play, the more likely lady luck will catch up with you. Combine this rating/rank factor with (1) and (2) above, and you have a recipe for inflating the rating and ranking of players who play 15-20 games (system is less sure of your skill level AND you can better avoid bad luck) and creates a disincentive for players to go beyond 20-30 games completed (if they want to be a consistent and serious competitor for the top 5).

(6) Play 2-3 games at a time to avoid ladder fatigue and boredom so you can focus more. Though Piggy and Zibik are doing just fine with 5 at a time. So this rule of thumb is relative to your actual ability (some people need more time to think about picks/moves than others) and lifestyle (some have less time to play). I don't think this argument is the end all counter-argument to (3) above, since I think (1), (2) and (5) above better explain the underlying reasons for why Zibik, Chris and HHH don't rate/rank as well when they have 40+ games played compared to when they have 15-20 games played.

(I switched computers. Signed in as real-time account.)

Can be that the system does not give a result so real as it, quite as for me when I had beaten the previous record... But the result is that Oliebol has no defeats and has already beaten my record and risks to place it higher !

For this : Congrats Oliebol ! ;)

Ah, this is why he has been taking a turn every 2 and a half days against me. Stay classy Ollie.

Mr Brightside: You got a ratings boost coming if you are winning that game, piggy.

"Any 1v1 system that has Zibik or HHH with over 40 games played and doesn't rank them in the top 5 should be questioned." HHH hasn't played an impressive ladder game in months, and is where he should be. He loses to people in the top 10 *a lot*, and I don't understand why people think he is especially good. The overall ability level on the ladder is so much higher than it was when he was no.1

I don't suppose a bump will come until he is losing 5/5 games and then I'd suggest he will surrender them all at the same time so that in 3 months when they all expire at the same time he can try this shit again.

Okay I am going to look at his games, if anyone has any games in common with him on ME 1v1 I'd be interested to see them.

That's the spirit! 1v1 is war!

Which active members are better than HHH?

HHH is a warlight junkie and plays with everybody on everything all the time... He makes regular RR's on strat. 1vs1. When you play competetively in those rr's (meaning trying to get to 1st place) you get a natural feeling who you compete against for the 1st place. I played in a few, not always competetively, but I always knew that if I had a chance to win, I'd have to beat 2 people, HHH and Lollipop Guild. I agree that the ladder level is much higher, but I am quite certain HHH is playing below his skill level.

Not to mention when it came to new map and new settings he went 6/7 in 20 league...

Who is better? Take a look at the top 10. HHH plays safe and wins an absolute ton against average players (which is impressive in a way) and doesn't even put in an appearance against anyone with good picking strategies.

I've never been invited to one of HHH's RR ='( all I have really seen are ladder games. Would you like to post some of his games from back when he was on form? Lollipop Guild too if you'd like =)

o gui

Maybe Sze could make a 1v1 RR and invite whomever he thinks are best.