Just to point it out again...the K value still needs a small change
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > 03/02 Ladder Schedule
well I'm confident that tweaking the K value is likely the simplest and quickest fix (as opposed to new programming) - so that is where my vote would be.
Heck - if it were possible - I'd be all for plugging the new formula in retroactively to go into effect for game 1 of this current season.
Heck - if it were possible - I'd be all for plugging the new formula in retroactively to go into effect for game 1 of this current season.
Duo
offline
offline
My team, the LUELinks LUEshis, through negligence, not changed the offensive scheme since Seasoned until 2 weeks ago and what not, has a losing record, but still puts up a fight against teams because we aren't a "bad" team. But I'm not going to sit here and argue that we should be Top 15 because we "put up a fight" and "we COULD be 8 wins higher since 8 of our losses were by less than a score". It is what it is, we've lost games and not won enough. If you're losing games it doesn't matter, you should be dropping.
These teams still staying in and not dropping are akin to old players like Kobe Bryant still getting voted into the All-Star game.
These teams still staying in and not dropping are akin to old players like Kobe Bryant still getting voted into the All-Star game.
jjet5552007
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
The ELO system we currently have was supposed to reward keeping your team together and continuing on to keep up rivalries. Though with the way chemistry currently is you can't really expect teams to continually produce high quality squads over and over. If we increased the k value I would also expect a quicker chem pick up in the offseason as I really don't find it fair that recruiting and continuing your team would actually be a huge disadvantage to a team.
+1
The ELO system we currently have was supposed to reward keeping your team together and continuing on to keep up rivalries. Though with the way chemistry currently is you can't really expect teams to continually produce high quality squads over and over. If we increased the k value I would also expect a quicker chem pick up in the offseason as I really don't find it fair that recruiting and continuing your team would actually be a huge disadvantage to a team.
+1
Originally posted by TxSteve
Heck - if it were possible - I'd be all for plugging the new formula in retroactively to go into effect for game 1 of this current season.
Props to c-dog if he can figure that one out, LOL
Heck - if it were possible - I'd be all for plugging the new formula in retroactively to go into effect for game 1 of this current season.
Props to c-dog if he can figure that one out, LOL
Absolut Zero
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
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.
Sort of. It does do what you mention. But it also has a seasonal adjustment for every player. At the end of every season, everybodies elo is adjusted down (or up) to the average of 1200. So everybodies elo rank stays the same, but the underlying difference in elo is much closer. This makes it easier for newer players to catch up to older ones that have built up a considerable amount of elo.
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.
Sort of. It does do what you mention. But it also has a seasonal adjustment for every player. At the end of every season, everybodies elo is adjusted down (or up) to the average of 1200. So everybodies elo rank stays the same, but the underlying difference in elo is much closer. This makes it easier for newer players to catch up to older ones that have built up a considerable amount of elo.
Originally posted by . Ninja
Thats 1 win over a team that has a winning record (.526%). You really think they should still be top 15 20 games in? Thats honestly what you think?
Should Legacy be top 10 (since we were there before our offense laid an egg today)? Nope. Top 15? Probably not. Top 20. I'd probably say yes.
Should New York be top 10? Nope. Top 15? Probably not. Top 20? I'd probably say yes.
Its easy to say "no quality wins" but I would also consider the caliber of the teams we've lost to. The teams that have beat us have a combined .745 record. Our only "bad" loss was against New York.
Why aren't teams moving in the ladder? I'll say it again...league disparity (in rankings). In league play we've lost to teams currently ranked at 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9. We aren't losing ELO in league games because we're losing games we "should" lose. In ladder play we've lost three questionable games, based on ranking. The teams we lost are now 23, 17, and 16. Losses to 12 and 10 are marginal. Basically, because our league is "stacked" with highly ranked teams and our ladder schedule has included highly ranked teams we really haven't faced teams we were "supposed" to beat. Therefore our ELO doesn't change much and we hover in the 9-12 range.
Thats 1 win over a team that has a winning record (.526%). You really think they should still be top 15 20 games in? Thats honestly what you think?
Should Legacy be top 10 (since we were there before our offense laid an egg today)? Nope. Top 15? Probably not. Top 20. I'd probably say yes.
Should New York be top 10? Nope. Top 15? Probably not. Top 20? I'd probably say yes.
Its easy to say "no quality wins" but I would also consider the caliber of the teams we've lost to. The teams that have beat us have a combined .745 record. Our only "bad" loss was against New York.
Why aren't teams moving in the ladder? I'll say it again...league disparity (in rankings). In league play we've lost to teams currently ranked at 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9. We aren't losing ELO in league games because we're losing games we "should" lose. In ladder play we've lost three questionable games, based on ranking. The teams we lost are now 23, 17, and 16. Losses to 12 and 10 are marginal. Basically, because our league is "stacked" with highly ranked teams and our ladder schedule has included highly ranked teams we really haven't faced teams we were "supposed" to beat. Therefore our ELO doesn't change much and we hover in the 9-12 range.
peeti
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
The ELO system we currently have was supposed to reward keeping your team together and continuing on to keep up rivalries. Though with the way chemistry currently is you can't really expect teams to continually produce high quality squads over and over. If we increased the k value I would also expect a quicker chem pick up in the offseason as I really don't find it fair that recruiting and continuing your team would actually be a huge disadvantage to a team.
lol...suddenly? When i started a thread and said exactly this you were arguing against it
The ELO system we currently have was supposed to reward keeping your team together and continuing on to keep up rivalries. Though with the way chemistry currently is you can't really expect teams to continually produce high quality squads over and over. If we increased the k value I would also expect a quicker chem pick up in the offseason as I really don't find it fair that recruiting and continuing your team would actually be a huge disadvantage to a team.
lol...suddenly? When i started a thread and said exactly this you were arguing against it
way to come in and complicate this conversation even further AirMcMvp.... (you're right though - that is a large factor)
Parab00n
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
way to come in and complicate this conversation even further AirMcMvp.... (you're right though - that is a large factor)
Which would be sorted out by adjusting the k-value.
way to come in and complicate this conversation even further AirMcMvp.... (you're right though - that is a large factor)
Which would be sorted out by adjusting the k-value.
. Ninja
offline
offline
Keep the formula as is for this season. But right now it is a good time for Bort and Corndog to tweak or completely have a new formula to compare/contrast the rankings side by side.
Originally posted by TxSteve
way to come in and complicate this conversation even further AirMcMvp.... (you're right though - that is a large factor)
I've been complaining about how leagues aren't balanced since season 2. Now that these unbalanced leagues work in my favor, I'll take advantage. lol
way to come in and complicate this conversation even further AirMcMvp.... (you're right though - that is a large factor)
I've been complaining about how leagues aren't balanced since season 2. Now that these unbalanced leagues work in my favor, I'll take advantage. lol
Originally posted by Duo
But in that case, isn't INHS beating teams that we "shouldn't" beat?
BUT you play in Hydrogen.
Meaning your league games have came against teams currently ranked 13, 17, 18, 32, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, and 59. That's a huge difference compared to Legacy's. Basically, ignoring any 'point in time' rankings, you SHOULD HAVE beat all of your league opponents. Meaning you gained a smaller amount of ELO.
A team like mine, Queen City, has beat the currently ranked 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 27, 31, 36. We beat teams we 'shouldn't have' all along the way in league play outside of #27, #31 and #36. And our two league losses came against teams that were ranked above us at the time.
If you were 10-0 in Tiger right now you'd probably be a higher ladder rank than you are right now.
But in that case, isn't INHS beating teams that we "shouldn't" beat?
BUT you play in Hydrogen.
Meaning your league games have came against teams currently ranked 13, 17, 18, 32, 43, 45, 47, 49, 54, and 59. That's a huge difference compared to Legacy's. Basically, ignoring any 'point in time' rankings, you SHOULD HAVE beat all of your league opponents. Meaning you gained a smaller amount of ELO.
A team like mine, Queen City, has beat the currently ranked 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 27, 31, 36. We beat teams we 'shouldn't have' all along the way in league play outside of #27, #31 and #36. And our two league losses came against teams that were ranked above us at the time.
If you were 10-0 in Tiger right now you'd probably be a higher ladder rank than you are right now.
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 14:59:33
Edited by InRomoWeTrust on Mar 2, 2015 14:58:37
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by peeti
lol...suddenly? When i started a thread and said exactly this you were arguing against it
I have always been in favor of doing something different with chemistry. Especially upon learning that the increase is random (wtf no fucking sense whatsoever in that). Quicker movements up and down the ladder however would be a huge kick in the balls to anyone who isn't just saying fuck it ill restart my team from scratch.
lol...suddenly? When i started a thread and said exactly this you were arguing against it
I have always been in favor of doing something different with chemistry. Especially upon learning that the increase is random (wtf no fucking sense whatsoever in that). Quicker movements up and down the ladder however would be a huge kick in the balls to anyone who isn't just saying fuck it ill restart my team from scratch.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
