Guessing there won't be different ladders for tiers?
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Game Help > Ladder ranks next season
The new teams will start at the bottom of the ladder. You'll end up seeing the lower tier Sophomore teams playing the upper tier Rookie teams.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
The new teams will start at the bottom of the ladder. You'll end up seeing the lower tier Sophomore teams playing the upper tier Rookie teams.
And Upper tier soph will continue to play upper tier soph?
The new teams will start at the bottom of the ladder. You'll end up seeing the lower tier Sophomore teams playing the upper tier Rookie teams.
And Upper tier soph will continue to play upper tier soph?
o The Boss x
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
The new teams will start at the bottom of the ladder. You'll end up seeing the lower tier Sophomore teams playing the upper tier Rookie teams.
Figured that was how it'll be... That'll suck for teams that are created seasons and seasons behind.
thanks.
The new teams will start at the bottom of the ladder. You'll end up seeing the lower tier Sophomore teams playing the upper tier Rookie teams.
Figured that was how it'll be... That'll suck for teams that are created seasons and seasons behind.
thanks.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by o The Boss x
Figured that was how it'll be... That'll suck for teams that are created seasons and seasons behind.
thanks.
Not at all. They will always be playing competitive games whether it be against their own age group or the next group up/down.
Figured that was how it'll be... That'll suck for teams that are created seasons and seasons behind.
thanks.
Not at all. They will always be playing competitive games whether it be against their own age group or the next group up/down.
Originally posted by bhall43
Not at all. They will always be playing competitive games whether it be against their own age group or the next group up/down.
It will actually probably be pretty weird for rookie teams.
All teams start at 1000 elo. Losing games make your ratings go down...so the teams with awful records will be below 1000 when new teams are added, despite being sophomore.
I'm not sure how long it will take to work itself out for sure. We may do some weird thing when teams go from Rookie to Sophomore where we add 200 or something to break them up from the new teams, though that creates other weird issues as well.
Or we could just let it work itself out, though a lot of rookie teams next season would probably lose their first few ladder games at least.
Not at all. They will always be playing competitive games whether it be against their own age group or the next group up/down.
It will actually probably be pretty weird for rookie teams.
All teams start at 1000 elo. Losing games make your ratings go down...so the teams with awful records will be below 1000 when new teams are added, despite being sophomore.
I'm not sure how long it will take to work itself out for sure. We may do some weird thing when teams go from Rookie to Sophomore where we add 200 or something to break them up from the new teams, though that creates other weird issues as well.
Or we could just let it work itself out, though a lot of rookie teams next season would probably lose their first few ladder games at least.
Edited by Corndog on Jan 8, 2014 20:03:13
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
It will actually probably be pretty weird for rookie teams.
All teams start at 1000 elo. Losing games make your ratings go down...so the teams with awful records will be below 1000 when new teams are added, despite being sophomore.
I'm not sure how long it will take to work itself out for sure. We may do some weird thing when teams go from Rookie to Sophomore where we add 200 or something to break them up from the new teams, though that creates other weird issues as well.
Or we could just let it work itself out, though a lot of rookie teams next season would probably lose their first few ladder games at least.
You're doing something other than that under the covers, because when the new teams were rolled out halfway through the season, they were at the bottom of the ladder, instead of at the middle like I expected. Unless you did something specific to the ratings of those teams just to deal with that (which you probably shouldn't have, new teams with "experienced" dots should have been started at 1000 elo and been about middle of the pack, unlike rookie teams next year compared to sophomore teams).
If you do a straight elo, rookie teams are going to be totally boned in ladder games. I think you'd be happier just having a separate ladder for each age group, but there's options. With side effects, of course, but options.
It will actually probably be pretty weird for rookie teams.
All teams start at 1000 elo. Losing games make your ratings go down...so the teams with awful records will be below 1000 when new teams are added, despite being sophomore.
I'm not sure how long it will take to work itself out for sure. We may do some weird thing when teams go from Rookie to Sophomore where we add 200 or something to break them up from the new teams, though that creates other weird issues as well.
Or we could just let it work itself out, though a lot of rookie teams next season would probably lose their first few ladder games at least.
You're doing something other than that under the covers, because when the new teams were rolled out halfway through the season, they were at the bottom of the ladder, instead of at the middle like I expected. Unless you did something specific to the ratings of those teams just to deal with that (which you probably shouldn't have, new teams with "experienced" dots should have been started at 1000 elo and been about middle of the pack, unlike rookie teams next year compared to sophomore teams).
If you do a straight elo, rookie teams are going to be totally boned in ladder games. I think you'd be happier just having a separate ladder for each age group, but there's options. With side effects, of course, but options.
I have no idea what Bort did when he added the midseason leagues.
He might have done something weird like set their elo equal to the current lowest team.
He might have done something weird like set their elo equal to the current lowest team.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Whatever you choose to do, simulate it out a bit. It should be pretty easy to just create a elo simulator and make 250 teams and give them random wins/losses vs each other (or get fancy and give each team a Power Rating when you create them and randomize the power ratings in a bell curve, and weight the win/loss effect on the power rating). Then after a full season, create another batch of teams and sim it again and look at what happens to the rookie teams and how many weeks it takes to sort out. I bet rookie teams would be getting paired up vs sophomores about half their ladder games over the season on average, but that's just gut feel. Then tweak your ratings parameters and sim it again. Takes a few hours maybe and gives you the chance to get close to the result you want.
Maybe Bort can just tweak the ladder matchup to "prefer" your own age group - and have that preference be more important than "prefer" out of your league. That might fix most of it right there.
But also figure out what happened with the mid-season team ratings, because they weren't right if you're really using a normal elo.
Maybe Bort can just tweak the ladder matchup to "prefer" your own age group - and have that preference be more important than "prefer" out of your league. That might fix most of it right there.
But also figure out what happened with the mid-season team ratings, because they weren't right if you're really using a normal elo.
But I mean, we are just using straight ELO. It's a perl module where you just put in values and it spits out their new ELO.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Okay, then, yeah, Bort screwed with it. Or the perl module has a bug or you've made a small error in usage like += instead of = or flipped arguments or blah blah guesswork. I'm guessing only Bort can peek at the current elo ratings to make sure they're sane?
Anyway, assuming the ratings are working right, then I think just having the ladder matchup logic try to prefer own age group would help a lot; you'd still get some cross age group but it would be a lot less, and when we get to 3rd year and 4th year teams where the difference isn't so stark you'll still allow for strong 3rd years to beat up weak 4th years.
Anyway, assuming the ratings are working right, then I think just having the ladder matchup logic try to prefer own age group would help a lot; you'd still get some cross age group but it would be a lot less, and when we get to 3rd year and 4th year teams where the difference isn't so stark you'll still allow for strong 3rd years to beat up weak 4th years.
Making teams not play across age groups just exacerbates the problem though.
Then the bottom tier sophomore's elo will continue to be at or below 1000, even though then they will be the next tier and even better than rookie teams. Then once they get to veteran level it's all thrown out of whack and isn't comparable to the current vets.
Sophomores kind of need to beat up on rookies to get their ELO higher than rookies, or we need to artificially inflate it somehow.
Another option is setting a 1000 base, and teams can't go below that. Then having a higher K value for cross-age play, so the awful sophomore teams would leave behind the rookie teams quicker.
Then the bottom tier sophomore's elo will continue to be at or below 1000, even though then they will be the next tier and even better than rookie teams. Then once they get to veteran level it's all thrown out of whack and isn't comparable to the current vets.
Sophomores kind of need to beat up on rookies to get their ELO higher than rookies, or we need to artificially inflate it somehow.
Another option is setting a 1000 base, and teams can't go below that. Then having a higher K value for cross-age play, so the awful sophomore teams would leave behind the rookie teams quicker.
kjoe51689
offline
offline
Why can't you just split up the ladder into multiple ladders? I love seeing who is the best of the first year guys... But if this was six seasons later I would hate to try to compare my new team to those guys way way up. So sophomores get their own ladder and rookies get one? Seems easier than trying to compare apples to oranges.
Originally posted by kjoe51689
Why can't you just split up the ladder into multiple ladders? I love seeing who is the best of the first year guys... But if this was six seasons later I would hate to try to compare my new team to those guys way way up. So sophomores get their own ladder and rookies get one? Seems easier than trying to compare apples to oranges.
You'll be able to filter the ladder page by age.
Why can't you just split up the ladder into multiple ladders? I love seeing who is the best of the first year guys... But if this was six seasons later I would hate to try to compare my new team to those guys way way up. So sophomores get their own ladder and rookies get one? Seems easier than trying to compare apples to oranges.
You'll be able to filter the ladder page by age.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
