Warrior General Games

Originally posted by doobas
Surely the ladder is valid? Are the top ten on the ladder not the top ten in the game?

doobas™

Nope, Iowa Rogues should be there imo, 24-3 and they're sitting behind teams that are 24-10...

Originally posted by doobas
Surely the ladder is valid? Are the top ten on the ladder not the top ten in the game?

doobas™

The ladder is valid, we just want it to be... uh... valider. More valid. We want it to do a better job, not just of monitoring the top ten teams, but of integrating new teams smoothly and getting teams where they deserve to be.

Originally posted by Thunderoo
But if people could see the elo's it wouldn't be the "ranked 155 team" it would be the 1200 elo team and the 1400 elo team which are perceptively much closer than 155 and 5.

I guess I should just drop it because it's clear its ngth but there's going to be plenty more of these posts whereas instead you could just have a single FAQ explaining the elo rating system with examples for users to refer to.

Yup, this. It's a lot harder to explain "well the ratings gap that you can't see must be bigger from #7 to #8 than it is from #10 to #15" than it is to just see it.

The short answer is - think of these as Power Ratings, not a top 25 poll like the AP or whatever. These are more like Sagarin's ratings, which are meant to predict who would win a game if two teams played, not an AP poll, where every voter has their own idea of what it means, but certainly includes a component of "how well have you performed this season". So yeah, a team may drop some from a bad loss, but if they're still capable and likely to beat most of the top teams, they should still be rated up with the top teams.

Originally posted by Badhands
The ladder is valid, we just want it to be... uh... valider. More valid. We want it to do a better job, not just of monitoring the top ten teams, but of integrating new teams smoothly and getting teams where they deserve to be.

And this. Yeah, I want the ladder to still be meaningful at Vet without S1 bias.

Originally posted by NiborRis
And this. Yeah, I want the ladder to still be meaningful at Vet without S1 bias.

Why lol, it should be a measure of a teams success over its career, which truly tells you who the best teams are... (imo)

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Why lol, it should be a measure of a teams success over its career, which truly tells you who the best teams are... (imo)

Right, so in S6 when Zorp hits Vet level I'd like them to be top 5, not languishing in the 50s because the ladder didn't handle introducing new teams well.

Or to put it in terms you can understand, if in S3 there's team Another Good Day To Die, you wouldn't want them to have a crappy ranking in S8 just because they didn't exist in S1 and S2, right?

I know what you are saying, but it still doesn't add merit....

There should be a 'reward' for being around longer, and I think the slow introduction of teams into the upper tiers of the ladder (upon winning in) is sort of our reward... When we all hit max level, that should be the end all of where the ladder falls, of course the ladder won't be as volatile since we have had a long time to stack our records in preparation for the younger teams (who should be better built) to come along and challenge us for our ladder spots.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Or to put it in terms you can understand

piss off