Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Homage
I want Grizz back.

Eagle fucking blows.

how dare you say this about USA PRO!

Originally posted by foofighter24
how dare you say this about Africa A7!

A little more correct.

Originally posted by foofighter24
how dare you say this about South America A5!

Little better.

Originally posted by Homage
I want Grizz back.

Eagle fucking blows.

You're just scared of the WOokies.

Originally posted by NiborRis
A little more correct.


Better average ranking than any league you are in.

Eagle is up in this biz.

Originally posted by foofighter24
Better average ranking than any league you are in.

I was on two teams in grizz, by far the strongest league. Not my fault we got shuffled into lesser leagues.

Also, rankings are wrong for the midseason leagues, or at least unfair, so you can't even compare leagues like osprey. Every S2 new team will have ranking problems as well.

Not trying to say anything about Romo's team at all, just a perfect example.

#5 team plays #155+ team, #155+ team wins, #5 teams only drops to #7.

Really, that's like a bowl team losing to a JC.

I bet #5 team would have went up to #4 if they won.

They probably should have had to beat them by 21 just to keep #5.



We definitely need the math for the modified ELO rating to be shared, or show the modified ELO rating next to team so at least we know how much it is off by.

Or somebody that has time can create an SRS for GLB2 and we'll go by that instead of the off ladder. (Not it!)

Lol ya if by JC you mean a bunch of 4 and 5 star recruits decided to start up a team...sure.


That team is tied for 155 because they are a newly formed team.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Not trying to say anything about Romo's team at all, just a perfect example.

#5 team plays #155+ team, #155+ team wins, #5 teams only drops to #7.

Really, that's like a bowl team losing to a JC.

I bet #5 team would have went up to #4 if they won.

They probably should have had to beat them by 21 just to keep #5.



We definitely need the math for the modified ELO rating to be shared, or show the modified ELO rating next to team so at least we know how much it is off by.

Or somebody that has time can create an SRS for GLB2 and we'll go by that instead of the off ladder. (Not it!)

Well, first off, how much your ranking drops is completely irrelevant, since that's just a comparison of your rating to the people around you. If you were #5 by the equivalent of 5 wins or so, one bad loss would drop you at most 2 wins worth and you're still in the same rank.

Second, elo cares not for victory margin. It's purely win-loss. So throw out this notion of "have to win by 21" because the rating doesn't care. I get what you're saying - although part of the problem was brand new teams have this unfairly low rating instead of an average rating like elo is supposed to - but let's not confuse things that aren't actually part of what the ratings are supposed to be.

Finally, Corndog said it's not a modified Elo, it uses an existing library Elo function. Which means they want it to be a normal Elo. But it isn't, therefore it's bugged. Bort's said he didn't have time to mess with doing anything special with the midseason teams, but they were released ranked under every team that existed - even teams that had lost most of their games and should have lost a lot of rating points. So that's bugged. And when the new S2 teams were introduced, they were all the same rating and under every single existing team again, instead of somewhere near the middle as you would expect. So that's bugged. And at some point the ratings for the new Sophomore teams jumped up and were no longer equal to the Rookie teams, but were still lower than every existing team. So they did *something* to help segregate the Sophomores and Rookies but we have no idea what or to what degree.

And they don't want us to see the rating, because they think they will get a lot of complaints about the rating not working right because people don't understand it. Which is a shame because then I could see what it is they are really doing, and either have them fix it or at least explain how the ratings actually work.

Originally posted by Corndog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Yeah except you're doing something wrong.

What's the starting rating for a team, what K value, what was done to the ratings in the offseason to push down rookie teams, and what's the #1 ranked team currently rated?

Why did a S1 midseason team that went 15-7 end up rated lower than a S1D1 team that went 15-15? There's no way that's possible, not with the way the teams were matched up. Flat out impossible.

So either the rating system is broken, or you have really screwed every team created since S1D1.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Well, first off, how much your ranking drops is completely irrelevant, since that's just a comparison of your rating to the people around you. If you were #5 by the equivalent of 5 wins or so, one bad loss would drop you at most 2 wins worth and you're still in the same rank.

Second, elo cares not for victory margin. It's purely win-loss. So throw out this notion of "have to win by 21" because the rating doesn't care. I get what you're saying - although part of the problem was brand new teams have this unfairly low rating instead of an average rating like elo is supposed to - but let's not confuse things that aren't actually part of what the ratings are supposed to be.

Finally, Corndog said it's not a modified Elo, it uses an existing library Elo function. Which means they want it to be a normal Elo. But it isn't, therefore it's bugged. Bort's said he didn't have time to mess with doing anything special with the midseason teams, but they were released ranked under every team that existed - even teams that had lost most of their games and should have lost a lot of rating points. So that's bugged. And when the new S2 teams were introduced, they were all the same rating and under every single existing team again, instead of somewhere near the middle as you would expect. So that's bugged. And at some point the ratings for the new Sophomore teams jumped up and were no longer equal to the Rookie teams, but were still lower than every existing team. So they did *something* to help segregate the Sophomores and Rookies but we have no idea what or to what degree.

And they don't want us to see the rating, because they think they will get a lot of complaints about the rating not working right because people don't understand it. Which is a shame because then I could see what it is they are really doing, and either have them fix it or at least explain how the ratings actually work.


Yeah, I never looked into exactly what ELO looks at or how it works and I just assumed it was similar to an SRS. Short-sighted on my part, but I just want it to be logical and consistent one way or the other and many of us can tell it's not.

It's good you've got a deep understanding, experience, and grasp of the situation. I'm sure they're hoping it will just stop getting brought up and forgotten so... keep it on your radar and keep up the good work - hell keep us all informed if you want until it's fixed

6 Grizz teams moved to other leagues. One was Burning Up My Flex, who I'm afraid was in the 4 teams that made up the "lower tier". The other 5:

Sons of Anarchy - 2-0 in Python
Santiago Benitos - 2-0 in Cheetah
Sunday Funday - 2-0 in Eagle
Alpine - 2-0 in Osprey
St. Louis Rams - 1-1 in Wolf

Grizzly, still the best league

Grizz4Life