Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Laggo
The ladder system as it is makes 0 sense and is not sustainable

What happens when your inserted as a rookie at the default and there are 6 levels of teams, each for the most part being lopsided - the effect only getting worse and unplayable if you try to play past 2 or more tiers

Bad dot midlevel teams never place properly because they inflate off rookie teams, the effect only getting worse the older the team

Maybe ironically, the pyramid we all hated so much worked better as a loose ladder concept over time

Even if you artificially modify elo changes postgame by the level of teams involved, A 2/6th chance that the team you get matched with is competition for you produces an insane amount of pointless games that change rating. Over 1000 games? lol

The ladder system is far from "0 sense" - it's pretty good in a lot of aspects. And TT maintains that, at least on the test server, strong younger teams can compete with and beat weaker older teams, so it's not a complete waste to mix and match the age groups.

Ideally you'd want to have each age group play against each other "a lot" to let the game automatically sort out how much better sophomores are than rookies, but we don't have enough games available to do that, so I agree there's a problem there. We tossed around a few ideas on how to address this in another thread - it appears they went with "have rookies be rated lower than sophomores by enough that this won't be a problem"

I'd really like to see how it works in the long term, but there are certainly some challenges to obtaining an "optimal implementation"

Originally posted by NiborRis
I don't really want the code; the current rating of each team posted to the team page and the rankings page would be plenty. Those who cared about details would be able to figure them out with almost no effort from there.

Based on the results that Thunderoo has, I'm pretty sure the only thing you've gotten really *wrong* is how to introduce new teams to the ratings, but that's pretty important. I would agree with Thunderoo's assessment that Iowa should be ranked in the top 5 instead of near 20th, for example - that's a big difference, and at the end of season matters for team trophies and achievements. Iowa went 21-3 last season and didn't sniff the top 10. But you guys have been pretty secretive about how you did it, and I wasn't willing to put the work in to gather all the game data like Thunderoo did and model up what you actually did, so I could only have theories based on the evidence available.

Eventually, elo works itself out regardless of starting rating, but "eventually" can be 100-200 rated games, which is 3-7 seasons...which is too long.

Would the fact that Iowa played low ranked teams because of their ladder position matter? I haven't checked into their ladder schedule, but starting teams low on the ladder also should mean less movement than playing teams that are higher on the ladder.

Originally posted by NiborRis
The ladder system is far from "0 sense" - it's pretty good in a lot of aspects. And TT maintains that, at least on the test server, strong younger teams can compete with and beat weaker older teams, so it's not a complete waste to mix and match the age groups.

Ideally you'd want to have each age group play against each other "a lot" to let the game automatically sort out how much better sophomores are than rookies, but we don't have enough games available to do that, so I agree there's a problem there. We tossed around a few ideas on how to address this in another thread - it appears they went with "have rookies be rated lower than sophomores by enough that this won't be a problem"

I'd really like to see how it works in the long term, but there are certainly some challenges to obtaining an "optimal implementation"

Then again, how much fun was last season's ladder? Tons. Shouldn't this season's rookies also get the feeling of competing for number one instead of competing for 230th?

Originally posted by Time Trial
Then again, how much fun was last season's ladder? Tons. Shouldn't this season's rookies also get the feeling of competing for number one instead of competing for 230th?

Yeah, it's silly the way it is now, just make different ladders

Originally posted by Time Trial
Then again, how much fun was last season's ladder? Tons. Shouldn't this season's rookies also get the feeling of competing for number one instead of competing for 230th?

There's already code for that, it's just not uploaded yet.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Then again, how much fun was last season's ladder? Tons. Shouldn't this season's rookies also get the feeling of competing for number one instead of competing for 230th?

Could still be the same ranking, just give the opportunity to sort by level.

Originally posted by Corndog
There's already code for that, it's just not uploaded yet.

Oh okay. I know it was discussed, and I was sure you were on board with it. I wasn't sure if Bort was with you on that or it was DD blocked.

I am the owner of the Iowa team...and to be honest we have dominated ladder gamess...however like someone said we were playing lower ranked teams. Ive won only one game against any of the top 10 teams in scrimmages...I dont know alot about this ELO system but I think realistically we're a 12-16 rank team. When we play the top 10 ranked teams they usually win by a large margin. So our record shouldnt be in the equation...more so who we played in the first season.

zorp too low.

not sure what all this means thunderoo,

but can u just tell me why http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/74 isn't up there.......

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
not sure what all this means thunderoo,

but can u just tell me why http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/74 isn't up there.......

Because you are involved.....

Originally posted by Riddler08
I am the owner of the Iowa team...and to be honest we have dominated ladder gamess...however like someone said we were playing lower ranked teams. Ive won only one game against any of the top 10 teams in scrimmages...I dont know alot about this ELO system but I think realistically we're a 12-16 rank team. When we play the top 10 ranked teams they usually win by a large margin. So our record shouldnt be in the equation...more so who we played in the first season.

But that's the point - elo handles record AND strength of opponent. Based on who you played and the results you got, if you had started on a level playing field you'd be ranked 4th (as of when the OP ran his rankings). And then you'd get matched up with top 10 teams (most likely) and we'd find out for sure if Iowa could play with them. Your performance, compared to the performance of other top teams, would put you in the top 10. Maybe you wouldn't stay there when matched up against other top 10 teams, but at least then we'd know.

dryden too high

Originally posted by Corndog
There's already code for that, it's just not uploaded yet.

so is it getting implemented this season or will this seasons rookies be worthless in playing ladder.

Originally posted by Corndog
There's already code for that, it's just not uploaded yet.

Is it going to be an overall ladder rank and an age ladder rank separately?