Just wondering what the purpose of this is.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > Can someone explain the Tier ranking
pottsman
offline
offline
Because, while my rookie team can't hold a candle to the current squad on Djubti, we're the best damn rookies out there*
*According to a formula that ignores actual talent and will change when our crappy prior opponents lose games later today.
*According to a formula that ignores actual talent and will change when our crappy prior opponents lose games later today.
Tigerbait0307
offline
offline
Originally posted by ultrajer
to show your rank against equal level teams
Thanks no way my team should be ranked 12th
to show your rank against equal level teams
Thanks no way my team should be ranked 12th
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by pottsman
*According to a formula that ignores actual talent and will change when our crappy prior opponents lose games later today.
What your opponents do after you play them has no bearing in the rankings. Part of the philosophy of the elo rating is that your performance will change over time, which is quite appropriate for an RPG style game like this. 'Twas one of the weaknesses of the Matrix-style rankings I used; it assumes a team's capability remains static over the entire rating period - which is why I only applied it to WL and Pros, who were mostly all at plateau back then.
Your rank will change as other good teams play and win and end up with a higher rating than you, pushing your ranking down.
*According to a formula that ignores actual talent and will change when our crappy prior opponents lose games later today.
What your opponents do after you play them has no bearing in the rankings. Part of the philosophy of the elo rating is that your performance will change over time, which is quite appropriate for an RPG style game like this. 'Twas one of the weaknesses of the Matrix-style rankings I used; it assumes a team's capability remains static over the entire rating period - which is why I only applied it to WL and Pros, who were mostly all at plateau back then.
Your rank will change as other good teams play and win and end up with a higher rating than you, pushing your ranking down.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
Thanks no way my team should be ranked 12th
It's really early in the ratings still for rookies, there's lots of ties and very small differences based on who you've played in the division so far. Basically all that's saying is "you're 3-0, and maybe your 2nd week league opponent won a game before playing you". Give it 5-6 game weeks and you'll see a better representation.
Thanks no way my team should be ranked 12th
It's really early in the ratings still for rookies, there's lots of ties and very small differences based on who you've played in the division so far. Basically all that's saying is "you're 3-0, and maybe your 2nd week league opponent won a game before playing you". Give it 5-6 game weeks and you'll see a better representation.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by NiborRis
What your opponents do after you play them has no bearing in the rankings. Part of the philosophy of the elo rating is that your performance will change over time, which is quite appropriate for an RPG style game like this. 'Twas one of the weaknesses of the Matrix-style rankings I used; it assumes a team's capability remains static over the entire rating period - which is why I only applied it to WL and Pros, who were mostly all at plateau back then.
Your rank will change as other good teams play and win and end up with a higher rating than you, pushing your ranking down.
Yeah, I think what he meant was, the teams that he beat had lower ELOs, so he expects that teams that beat "winning" teams will take first rank as their ELO should in theory increase more by beating a winning team than his has risen beating losing teams.
What your opponents do after you play them has no bearing in the rankings. Part of the philosophy of the elo rating is that your performance will change over time, which is quite appropriate for an RPG style game like this. 'Twas one of the weaknesses of the Matrix-style rankings I used; it assumes a team's capability remains static over the entire rating period - which is why I only applied it to WL and Pros, who were mostly all at plateau back then.
Your rank will change as other good teams play and win and end up with a higher rating than you, pushing your ranking down.
Yeah, I think what he meant was, the teams that he beat had lower ELOs, so he expects that teams that beat "winning" teams will take first rank as their ELO should in theory increase more by beating a winning team than his has risen beating losing teams.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
Yeah, I think what he meant was, the teams that he beat had lower ELOs, so he expects that teams that beat "winning" teams will take first rank as their ELO should in theory increase more by beating a winning team than his has risen beating losing teams.
It isn't a pure SoS calculation, but it is kind of a moving SoS calculation where each game (based on ELO) factors in the ELO of the team that they beat at the time.
Yeah, I think what he meant was, the teams that he beat had lower ELOs, so he expects that teams that beat "winning" teams will take first rank as their ELO should in theory increase more by beating a winning team than his has risen beating losing teams.
It isn't a pure SoS calculation, but it is kind of a moving SoS calculation where each game (based on ELO) factors in the ELO of the team that they beat at the time.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by pottsman
Oh. I thought it worked more like RPI in college basketball and did look at record of opponents long term. Either way, still #1!
Yeah RPI is pretty terrible, honestly
I haven't looked too closely at ESPN's BPI - if it's like the college football indexes ESPN put out then it's not bad, just have to realize what it measures (which isn't always what people want it to measure).
Elo is an estimate of your skill/ability, with the assumption that someone of weaker skill/ability can win sometimes, and the notion that your skill changes over time as well, so your most recent results are the most important in determining your current rating.
Oh. I thought it worked more like RPI in college basketball and did look at record of opponents long term. Either way, still #1!
Yeah RPI is pretty terrible, honestly
I haven't looked too closely at ESPN's BPI - if it's like the college football indexes ESPN put out then it's not bad, just have to realize what it measures (which isn't always what people want it to measure).
Elo is an estimate of your skill/ability, with the assumption that someone of weaker skill/ability can win sometimes, and the notion that your skill changes over time as well, so your most recent results are the most important in determining your current rating.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
