Part of the reason old ladder ratings are shown is because Fizzer said the ratings should eventually even out to how they were before

We are now many months into the ladder change, and it seems ratings are increasing slower now. Is this because there are less players, or games played? Would leaving booted players in the ladder make it more balanced? Is there any plan to change the rating system again in order to get it to reflect past ratings?

Also will there be any fix to team rankings? It is unfair that one member of the team should get a trophy, when teammates contributed. Or make all new teams start at 100?

Guessing it’s because the amount of games needed is too high, someone mentioned something like that when the ladders were updated.

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/697546-new-ladder-rating-system-working

You are looking for this thread.
Yes, ratings will eventually climb to 5000+, but it will take long. Very long. A Decade maybe.

Fizzer already tweaked the settings once to speed things along I am wondering if it will happen again and what other changes may happen

The fundamentals that matter stayed the same. 'Faster' in this context is an illusion.

With the benefit of time and hindsight, were any of the changes to the ladders a positive?

you now get coins, other than that I guess people now try harder on seasonal cause it's the only trophy they can get?

Yeah, funnily enough the trophy is now the most unattainable in the whole game, even harder than MTL. At least considering the same top players are playing.

Coins aside, the old bayes-elo system was solid (but not great) at ranking 98% of players, but pretty terrible at the very very top.

The new system is solid (but not great) at ranking the very very top, but pretty terrible for the 98%.

Whether this is an improvement is up for everyone's own interpretation.

---

Ladder ratings used to mean something. You knew what to expect from a 1700 rated player or a 2000 rated player. Problem was mostly at the very top, where players had very few losses relative to wins, and so every unlucky bad loss tanked your rating a lot, haunted you for half a year and incentivised dirty play like stalling losses while playing winning games fast.

It really wasn't fun, and so the best players of the game were rarely seen playing the ladders at all. Very clear proof of it was when master of desaster joined the 1v1 ladder for a joke run, making only 3 picks per game, and got 1st place.

Nowadays we actually have the best of the best topping the ladders, like it should be. Number 1 matters. Unfortunately, all the other numbers don't matter at all. You can get 400 rating by going 15-0, or by grinding the games mobile-style until your StdDev falls low enough while being just an average player.

Edited 2/23/2024 19:11:36

I think the new system is better and I think it’s better than the QM system as well

Rankings

#1. Elo/Glicko/TrueSkill (the current system): Decades of data from hundreds of sports and games and still the preferred option for most. If it ain’t broke… don’t fix it.

#2. Bayesian Elo (the old ladder system): I understand in theory why someone would think this was an improvement but holy shit this implementation was trash. Stalling was egregious. It was near impossible to have your main account at the top of the ladder. The top of the ladder was reserved for 22-0 accounts where ~15 of the games were against people who don’t know how to play and ~7 were wins interspersed with ~5 losses which hadn’t been completed yet because of stalling.

#3. Warlight QM rating system: I honestly think this is the worst one of all. It takes literally hundreds of games to reach the top. If I wake up as the best chess/tennis/golf player tomorrow it would take me fewer than a hundred games to be world champion if I am smart about which open tournaments I enter. That’s enough to separate a field of millions of players in real life. Now we have a game played by just thousands of players and we can’t figure it out in over a hundred games? Disgusting.

I actually like the new system. I get good games against equivalently skilled players in a short amount of time. And there’s no reason to stall, in fact, it makes more sense to eat losses quickly and get a new game started. Massive improvement by Fizzer.

Edited 2/23/2024 19:36:15

I don't think the Seasonal trophy is now more difficult to get than the MTL trophy. The selection of players attempting it isn't very different from before the ladders update, and surpassing Rufus for ten games on MTL seems like in another league from that. A few lucky wins can win you a seasonal if you're good enough, but not the MTL trophy.

Beep had 1v1 ladder's trophy in mind, due to the huge gap between 1st and 2nd ranks.

Yes, and not only are the gaps huge, it also changes so slow.
It absolutely wouldn't matter if Rufus loses 10 in a row, on MTL that would definitely open the door for someone else.

I'm not against the rating changes, in fact I'm in favor of them, they just should be massively sped up. I still stand by my proposal from the initial thread.

If it was sped up, would it better rank everyone else who isn’t elite?

No, because the framework is the same. Speeding it up might help reflect past ratings but over time ratings should be double what they were in the past based on the current system. If I understand correctly

Seasonal and MTL are two different beasts. Some can argue seasonal is more prestigious since it has many more players. It is also not activity based. MTL takes many more games to prove you’re worthy of 1st. This requires more skill and focus. I think it’s fair to say seasonal is like a sprint and MTL is like long distance.

What’s the short version of what was wrong with the old ladder rating system? As far as I understand, it was favouring winning streaks.

I didnt notice that QM rating and ladder rating is different. Isn't it basically the same?

Main difference is QM is capped so most rating you can get at a time is 10

QM also has a lower bound for rating changes. This means you can farm rating by maintaining a win rate above 90%, regardless of the skill level of your opponents, meaning if you consistently face significantly weaker opponents you can theoretically get an arbitrarily high rating in QM. From my understanding, these capped rating changes aren’t present in the ladder, but more notably, the ladder forces matchups against somewhat similarly ranked players, rather than just whoever happens to be available at the time.

Edited 2/24/2024 19:40:09