Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Laggo
The logic of who you get scheduled against has nothing to do with whether you lose or win those games.

Well, that's not true.

GG vase sorry for the late anser too

Obviously it has to do with whether you win or lose (regarding the specific opponent / range), but even if you lose every ladder game you play does that mean you should never play a ladder game up and vice-versa?

The logic of whether you play up or down more often shouldn't have anything to do with how well your team is playing. A team that is winning a majority of their ladder games should still have to play teams below them.

Ok, you lost me.

What exactly do you think the goal or point of the ladder is? To me it's a way to play a relatively meaningful game every game week even when your league game isn't good, and I think it's working reasonably well at it. What is it you want it to be?

You can't just dictate that teams should play a specific number of games up vs down because the top team can't play up and the bottom team can't play down and that causes a ripple effect all through the ladder. Schedules are uneven, that's a basic fact and especially true because league play matters here too. So I don't really see an issue here.

I just started trying to analyze the variance in the ladder games, but there simply isn't enough data to do so.

You can't see ladder ranks for the teams at the time they played a game, and the forum writeups for the tiers simply don't include global rankings most of the time (which are necessary to be able to compare playing a tier up or a tier below).

I looked at four or five games in Seasoned and there is a clear trend of teams 1-4~ playing down and teams 5-10~ playing up in general, with some wild variance between 4-6, but the sample size is only 6 or 7 games which is not good enough to make any kind of conclusion.

This game isn't perfect and I'm not saying it needs to be, just random scheduling of your opponent in an Elo based system with no consistency is just going to produce some "lucky" teams that get "more opportunities" to improve their rank than others. I don't know how people can argue against that, maybe you can say "I don't think it matters" but that's a completely different argument from "It's bound to even out which makes it fair". Let's just admit that it's not fair, whether you think that is okay or not is up to you. The fact that it's one big elo range where there are specific thresholds that other players get much better than you are (tiers) is a seperate wrench that only makes this problem worse. I don't know how people can argue this is a fair system.

Originally posted by Laggo
I just started trying to analyze the variance in the ladder games, but there simply isn't enough data to do so.

You can't see ladder ranks for the teams at the time they played a game, and the forum writeups for the tiers simply don't include global rankings most of the time (which are necessary to be able to compare playing a tier up or a tier below).

I looked at four or five games in Seasoned and there is a clear trend of teams 1-4~ playing down and teams 5-10~ playing up in general, with some wild variance between 4-6, but the sample size is only 6 or 7 games which is not good enough to make any kind of conclusion.

This game isn't perfect and I'm not saying it needs to be, just random scheduling of your opponent in an Elo based system with no consistency is just going to produce some "lucky" teams that get "more opportunities" to improve their rank than others. I don't know how people can argue against that, maybe you can say "I don't think it matters" but that's a completely different argument from "It's bound to even out which makes it fair". Let's just admit that it's not fair, whether you think that is okay or not is up to you. The fact that it's one big elo range where there are specific thresholds that other players get much better than you are (tiers) is a seperate wrench that only makes this problem worse. I don't know how people can argue this is a fair system.

Most global ranks are within 5 ranks of their tier ranks for pro.

so how would you make it more fair Laggo?

Originally posted by NiborRis
What exactly do you think the goal or point of the ladder is? To me it's a way to play a relatively meaningful game every game week even when your league game isn't good, and I think it's working reasonably well at it. What is it you want it to be?

This is a totally different argument from:

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, I mean, you can't always play someone that's the same exact rank as you. While "bad" streaks like that can happen, I'd imagine it's pretty unlikely...and that problem only exists for as long as those teams are underrated.

If the goal is to play a meaningful game every week, than sure - it succeeds on that front.

If the goal is to produce an objective ranking of the teams in the game (objective meaning an equal opportunity for success for every team without interference from the system itself) than no, it doesn't work.

Whether you think the second part is important or not is a personal thing. I don't really care either way since I don't pay attention to the ladder regardless, let's just take a moment to separate those two ideas though.

Originally posted by Laggo
If the goal is to produce an objective ranking of the teams in the game (objective meaning an equal opportunity for success for every team without interference from the system itself) than no, it doesn't work.

Whether you think the second part is important or not is a personal thing. I don't really care either way since I don't pay attention to the ladder regardless, let's just take a moment to separate those two ideas though.

Taking longer to get to the finish line doesn't change where the finish line is.

Running hurdles where some racers get more hurdles and other racers get more clear track is not a fair race.

Originally posted by Corndog
Taking longer to get to the finish line doesn't change where the finish line is.

I think what laggo is saying is that not every team has an equal chance of rising in the ranks. Some teams are definitely better than their ranks but they never get a big enough game to give them a chance to move to a rank that's more befitting of how they are playing.

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
I think what laggo is saying is that not every team has an equal chance of rising in the ranks. Some teams are definitely better than their ranks but they never get a big enough game to give them a chance to move to a rank that's more befitting of how they are playing.

So you want more volatility? More ranking based on the very recent results, and less ranking based on more distant results.

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
I think what laggo is saying is that not every team has an equal chance of rising in the ranks.

Every team does have an equal chance. Some might take slightly longer than others because they had some bad luck with matchups. How far you make it is still based on you, not the system.