But we started at 22-24, so we've gone 20-0, against alot of top 10, even 3 top 5 in AR, MMA and Salty and moved a whole 10 spots
love elo
love elo
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > 03/02 Ladder Schedule
I feel like +10 spots isn't all that terrible compared to my team's +8. ELO's a lasting, multi-season ranking vs something that is crazily volatile.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
I am still working on a permanent streaming solution. I am sorry guys for the hold up here... But once I have it up and running I will be building an auto generated schedule so no one has to plug things in 
Mysterio
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I feel like +10 spots isn't all that terrible compared to my team's +8. ELO's a lasting, multi-season ranking vs something that is crazily volatile.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
Why shouldn't it be more volatile, we clearly are a top-5 team, why shouldn't the rankings reflect that and why should inactive teams remain in the top so long. It gives earlier season teams an unncesary advantage, Queen city should have fallen near the bottom after tanking an entire season. You'd have to be pretty dense to think the current ladder rankings are accurate at all. They should represent the current best teams
I feel like +10 spots isn't all that terrible compared to my team's +8. ELO's a lasting, multi-season ranking vs something that is crazily volatile.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
Why shouldn't it be more volatile, we clearly are a top-5 team, why shouldn't the rankings reflect that and why should inactive teams remain in the top so long. It gives earlier season teams an unncesary advantage, Queen city should have fallen near the bottom after tanking an entire season. You'd have to be pretty dense to think the current ladder rankings are accurate at all. They should represent the current best teams
Edited by Mysterio on Mar 2, 2015 13:04:20
Edited by Mysterio on Mar 2, 2015 13:02:19
Queen City fell close to 30 spots. We only climbed up to 18 after a crap ton of the middle sold their teams.
And I'll repeat, ELO is a multi-season ranking. It's not a ranking for who is the 'this second' best. Not advocating for or against there, just pointing out that's the system we have. We have a ladder system that provides a ranking of the best across a hard to define time period.
And I'll repeat, ELO is a multi-season ranking. It's not a ranking for who is the 'this second' best. Not advocating for or against there, just pointing out that's the system we have. We have a ladder system that provides a ranking of the best across a hard to define time period.
Mysterio
offline
offline
yes that's obvious; my point was that it shouldn't weigh previous seasons so heavily. It makes it very hard for new vet teams to crawl up the rankings and allows teams that are inactive or tanking to fall much slower than they should
Edited by Mysterio on Mar 2, 2015 13:08:28
Edited by Mysterio on Mar 2, 2015 13:06:57
. Ninja
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I feel like +10 spots isn't all that terrible compared to my team's +8. ELO's a lasting, multi-season ranking vs something that is crazily volatile.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
I disagree. with +10 jump in 1 season is reasonable.
NY Nightmare hasn't moved from the 8 spot ONCE in 20 games so far. Their wins have have come from teams that should be out of the top 25/50 all together. Because the ladder is in zombie mode, the ELO recognizes those wins as admirable and keeps the Nightmare in a stagnant 8 spot. In turn, effects other teams that are more deserving that are behind them.
I can say the same for MoD, Dookie, Legacy, NJ Generals, etc. They should all be out of the top 25/50 by now to improve the quality of games but also to help teams like Virgins move up faster.
And yes, the Virgins deserve a shot at the top 5 if they go 0 or 1 wins in a season from starting top 25. No reason not to. Why not? They are indeed a top 3 team on paper, they have proven it by their wins against the top 5 and top 10. Why shouldn't the ladder reflect that?
I feel like +10 spots isn't all that terrible compared to my team's +8. ELO's a lasting, multi-season ranking vs something that is crazily volatile.
Sure it could be a little more movement there, but I don't think things are too far off where they should be. I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
I disagree. with +10 jump in 1 season is reasonable.
NY Nightmare hasn't moved from the 8 spot ONCE in 20 games so far. Their wins have have come from teams that should be out of the top 25/50 all together. Because the ladder is in zombie mode, the ELO recognizes those wins as admirable and keeps the Nightmare in a stagnant 8 spot. In turn, effects other teams that are more deserving that are behind them.
I can say the same for MoD, Dookie, Legacy, NJ Generals, etc. They should all be out of the top 25/50 by now to improve the quality of games but also to help teams like Virgins move up faster.
And yes, the Virgins deserve a shot at the top 5 if they go 0 or 1 wins in a season from starting top 25. No reason not to. Why not? They are indeed a top 3 team on paper, they have proven it by their wins against the top 5 and top 10. Why shouldn't the ladder reflect that?
. Ninja
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Queen City fell close to 30 spots. We only climbed up to 18 after a crap ton of the middle sold their teams.
And I'll repeat, ELO is a multi-season ranking. It's not a ranking for who is the 'this second' best. Not advocating for or against there, just pointing out that's the system we have. We have a ladder system that provides a ranking of the best across a hard to define time period.
You should have fell completely off the top 50 to begin with. The ladder is meant to put the best team on top and the worst on the bottom. You were comparable to a top seasoned team last season at best. Adding an accelerated formula like I proposed in the suggestions forum would have done this to allow more deserving teams closer bunched.
Queen City fell close to 30 spots. We only climbed up to 18 after a crap ton of the middle sold their teams.
And I'll repeat, ELO is a multi-season ranking. It's not a ranking for who is the 'this second' best. Not advocating for or against there, just pointing out that's the system we have. We have a ladder system that provides a ranking of the best across a hard to define time period.
You should have fell completely off the top 50 to begin with. The ladder is meant to put the best team on top and the worst on the bottom. You were comparable to a top seasoned team last season at best. Adding an accelerated formula like I proposed in the suggestions forum would have done this to allow more deserving teams closer bunched.
Originally posted by Mysterio
it shouldn't weigh previous seasons so heavily.
ELO doesn't weigh past seasons. It basically functions as something that is self-correcting.
High rated vs low rated team and high rated wins? Small amount of points taken from low-rated team. Low rated vs high rated and low rated wins? Large amount of points taken from high-rated team. Basically, a team that is too low will self-correct itself over time until the rating reflects their actual ability.
What needs to be tweaked, is the k-value. In the mathematical formula for ELO, there's a k-value or k-factor. You can google it to understand better than my explanation. With a k-value that is large, a large number of points are able to be exchanged in each game. With a k-value that is small, the system might not respond quickly enough to actual ability (what we have now)
it shouldn't weigh previous seasons so heavily.
ELO doesn't weigh past seasons. It basically functions as something that is self-correcting.
High rated vs low rated team and high rated wins? Small amount of points taken from low-rated team. Low rated vs high rated and low rated wins? Large amount of points taken from high-rated team. Basically, a team that is too low will self-correct itself over time until the rating reflects their actual ability.
What needs to be tweaked, is the k-value. In the mathematical formula for ELO, there's a k-value or k-factor. You can google it to understand better than my explanation. With a k-value that is large, a large number of points are able to be exchanged in each game. With a k-value that is small, the system might not respond quickly enough to actual ability (what we have now)
Originally posted by . Ninja
The ladder is meant to put the best team on top and the worst on the bottom.
But what you're ignoring is the time frame. The best team on top and the worst on the bottom for what time frame? As I stated above, the current system is not built for the best on top, worst on bottom for a singular season. The k-value doesn't reflect that. The self-correcting activity takes too long. What we have is the best teams across ~2 seasons. That's why a team like Queen City last season went from #3 to ~#30. The backing of a dominant season preserved the team from dropping to a point that one would think a 0 win team would be.
Everyone's opinion will always debate the k-value. If the k-value is altered and it's too high, then we are going to have swings that people consider too large. Someone will for example, pick up a defining win against a top 5 team and then get a cake schedule for a bit, playing teams around #15-#25. All of sudden they are passed by a team who has only had opponents in the #8 to #15 range. Boom, people bitching.
The k-value is super sensitive. Agree that it needs to be increased on what it is, but it's something where it needs to be dialed in with each season that passes. Small, incremental changes. Not something that is closer to overhaul. ELO is a great choice for a ranking system for GLB.
The ladder is meant to put the best team on top and the worst on the bottom.
But what you're ignoring is the time frame. The best team on top and the worst on the bottom for what time frame? As I stated above, the current system is not built for the best on top, worst on bottom for a singular season. The k-value doesn't reflect that. The self-correcting activity takes too long. What we have is the best teams across ~2 seasons. That's why a team like Queen City last season went from #3 to ~#30. The backing of a dominant season preserved the team from dropping to a point that one would think a 0 win team would be.
Everyone's opinion will always debate the k-value. If the k-value is altered and it's too high, then we are going to have swings that people consider too large. Someone will for example, pick up a defining win against a top 5 team and then get a cake schedule for a bit, playing teams around #15-#25. All of sudden they are passed by a team who has only had opponents in the #8 to #15 range. Boom, people bitching.
The k-value is super sensitive. Agree that it needs to be increased on what it is, but it's something where it needs to be dialed in with each season that passes. Small, incremental changes. Not something that is closer to overhaul. ELO is a great choice for a ranking system for GLB.
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 13:23:22
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 13:22:13
. Ninja
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
But what you're ignoring is the time frame. The best team on top and the worst on the bottom for what time frame? As I stated above, the current system is not built for the best on top, worst on bottom for a singular season. The k-value doesn't reflect that. The self-correcting activity takes too long.
Everyone's opinion will always debate the k-value. If the k-value is altered and it's too high, then we are going to have swings that people consider too large. Someone will for example, pick up a defining win against a top 5 team and then get a cake schedule for a bit, playing teams around #15-#25. All of sudden they are passed by a team who has only had opponents in the #8 to #15 range. Boom, people bitching.
The k-value is super sensitive. Agree that it needs to be increased on what it is, but it's something where it needs to be dialed in with each season that passes. Small, incremental changes. Not something that is closer to overhaul.
The only part I am advocating is bad teams need to be moved down faster by adding a formula to the existing ELO. I am okay with the ladder as is except it allows bad teams to hang in the top 50 for way too long.
Is it impossible to add a formula to the the existing ELO like the one I proposed in the suggestions forum? All it does is knock shit teams down quicker but does nothing to the .500+ teams.
But what you're ignoring is the time frame. The best team on top and the worst on the bottom for what time frame? As I stated above, the current system is not built for the best on top, worst on bottom for a singular season. The k-value doesn't reflect that. The self-correcting activity takes too long.
Everyone's opinion will always debate the k-value. If the k-value is altered and it's too high, then we are going to have swings that people consider too large. Someone will for example, pick up a defining win against a top 5 team and then get a cake schedule for a bit, playing teams around #15-#25. All of sudden they are passed by a team who has only had opponents in the #8 to #15 range. Boom, people bitching.
The k-value is super sensitive. Agree that it needs to be increased on what it is, but it's something where it needs to be dialed in with each season that passes. Small, incremental changes. Not something that is closer to overhaul.
The only part I am advocating is bad teams need to be moved down faster by adding a formula to the existing ELO. I am okay with the ladder as is except it allows bad teams to hang in the top 50 for way too long.
Is it impossible to add a formula to the the existing ELO like the one I proposed in the suggestions forum? All it does is knock shit teams down quicker but does nothing to the .500+ teams.
Originally posted by . Ninja
The only part I am advocating is bad teams need to be moved down faster by adding a formula to the existing ELO.Originally posted by . Ninja
I disagree. with +10 jump in 1 season is reasonable.
You're talking two completely separate things here with your suggestion thread item. Besides New Jersey Generals, I'm pretty sure there are no 'zombie' teams that the Virgins have passed this season.
The only part I am advocating is bad teams need to be moved down faster by adding a formula to the existing ELO.Originally posted by . Ninja
I disagree. with +10 jump in 1 season is reasonable.
You're talking two completely separate things here with your suggestion thread item. Besides New Jersey Generals, I'm pretty sure there are no 'zombie' teams that the Virgins have passed this season.
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 13:31:10
Duo
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
Almost as nuts as being a 10 loss team one season, going 0-30 in a season with every loss being a blowout the next and being back in the top 10 half a season later?
I wouldn't expect a team undefeated this point to go from 22-24 to #2 or #3. That ranking system would be nuts.
Almost as nuts as being a 10 loss team one season, going 0-30 in a season with every loss being a blowout the next and being back in the top 10 half a season later?
Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Does GLB not do elo decay after every season?
never heard of ELO decay. Looking it up it seems exclusive to something League of Legends does that decays ELO once it hits a certain value. That doesn't seem good for here.
ETA: Seems like something that integrated to punish players from avoiding ranked activity once they hit a certain tier (I'm guessing there are tiered rewards of sort?). Addressing a flaw that the chess community has with ELO.
Does GLB not do elo decay after every season?
never heard of ELO decay. Looking it up it seems exclusive to something League of Legends does that decays ELO once it hits a certain value. That doesn't seem good for here.
ETA: Seems like something that integrated to punish players from avoiding ranked activity once they hit a certain tier (I'm guessing there are tiered rewards of sort?). Addressing a flaw that the chess community has with ELO.
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 14:03:57
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
