PDA

View Full Version : Rankings and Tournaments



piotras
02-20-2013, 06:51 AM
After the introduction of tournaments (and soon their own tournament-specific ranking) I was wondering about the pros and cons of having the general ranking and a constructive discussion would be welcomed as always!

Isn't it a bit redundant to have both general and tournament-specific ranking?

I definitely agree that rankings are important for maintaining a competitive community in long-term and give some incentive to hardcore players, but these needs should already be satisfied by weekly tournaments and their own rankings.

With general rankings comes also the matchmaking abuse and the headache of trying to prevent it, which unfortunately is a Sisyphean task. By matchmaking abuse I mean not only trashing new players for renown, but also boosting your ego by increasing your win:loss ratios, win and win streaks rankings. If there was no general ranking, there would also be less of a incentive to abuse.

General rankings also promote very safe play, with a solid team, minimising risk (both in and outside of the battlefield), while it should be the ground to experiment, practice and prepare for the competitive matches.

The reason why players are so chickenish in the current system is that experimenting or going for an experienced opponent might make you loose your so so precious elo. We can't ged rid off ego problems, but maintaining only the tournament rankings and removal of the general ones would make players abuse less in normal matchmaking, be less choosy and thus play more games (and get more renown!) and hopefully we would make it much more approchable for newcomers.

Not to mention the fact that it probably puts new players off to get trashed and see yourself on the infamous negative win streak or ridiculous position in the ranking. I see people whining all the time that it's impossible to achieve the same level (i.e. position) because others had a head start... and they are completely correct because newcomers can't compete in things like total games or wins. If it was just a matter of getting yourself an advanced team and starting in the next tournament then it all looks much more promising, doable and only down to your tactics rather than griding. Moreover, for the same reason we would see the top 20 to be much more dynamic and competitive because of that.

I got motivated to write this by the fact that I see stronger / equal strength teams dropping out on me in the versus screen... and I sadly doubt it these sorts of player are looking for newcomers with weaker teams to give them advice and support.

Jorgensager
02-20-2013, 07:07 AM
What do you intend matches to be based on if there isn't a ranking? Or do you just not want the Hall of Valor there to discourage people, but hide ELO and base matches on that?

As a newcomer at this stage of the game I like that I can see where the good players are compared to me, and the getting-matched-up-with-the-top-20 was a temporary thing while their ELO was low (assuming that was the case, anyways). This would mean I'll be matched up with new players as soon as there are enough new players to be matched up with, which means I'll also get the occasional win while figuring out how the game works. Then, if I learn enough of my mistakes I might just climb the tables, but I am currently in no hurry to do that.

piotras
02-20-2013, 07:10 AM
What do you intend matches to be based on if there isn't a ranking? Or do you just not want the Hall of Valor there to discourage people, but hide ELO and base matches on that?
That could be a way of doing that :) Also, your team power is (and should) be detrimental is choosing an opponent.

And you would now who the top players are, from the tournament rankings.

Jorgensager
02-20-2013, 07:19 AM
That could be a way of doing that :) Also, your team power is (and should) be detrimental is choosing an opponent.

And you would now who the top players are, from the tournament rankings.

A problem with too heavy focus on team power is, as outlined in another thread, that a level 1 team at 10/11 has the same value as a basic team (or -1 since the thrasher is part of the first "basic" team players get), but would completely outclass it in performance, so there must be a rather weighted element based on statistics of the player's skill as well.

Sure, I personally have little interest in who ranks the highest! ^_^

franknarf
02-20-2013, 07:43 AM
I never thought about it before, but I agree. I had already decided that my non-tourney games were for renown and fun. If I ever attempted to compete, it would be during a future tournament (when I have more time and a team I really know how to use); but it's hard to resist the temptation to play for win/loss and general ranking. (In contrast, I'd just as well not show up on "wins" or "total games" :). And I think there's no particular harm in keeping current and highest win streaks.)

If some of these four stats were dropped (#wins, #games, W:L and general ranking) the hall might look awfully empty. I guess tournament results could map to some other rankings, and there's always #achievements...

On the other hand, they could obfuscate the underlying Elo system. There's a defunct, Western-themed online game that is in some ways similar to TBSF (tactical; turn-based on a clock; choose your team) that did this:

For each player (http://howdypedia.com/Wanted_poster), they gave Western-themed titles ("scofflaw", "bandit", etc. (http://howdypedia.com/Ranking)) on a weekly and lifetime basis.
For top rankings, (http://howdypedia.com/Top_ranked_list) they just listed names in order, also on a weekly and lifetime basis (but dropping you off the lifetime list if you haven't played in two weeks).


@Jorgensager: My understanding is that they plan to change that. Besides, is this thread really about team-power calculations? I think piotras means that matches should be/are based on Elo and power (while you only mentioned Elo)...

piotras
02-20-2013, 08:06 AM
@Jorgensager: My understanding is that they plan to change that. Besides, is this thread really about team-power calculations? I think piotras means that matches should be/are based on Elo and power (while you only mentioned Elo)...

Yes to both :) I remember reading in the chat that promotion will have a value of its own, so total power of your team will be: base stats + promotion + extra stats from promotion, so without assigning extra stats or even removing some you will stil be ahead of a unpromoted team.


Sure, I personally have little interest in who ranks the highest! ^_^

That's the spirit! :) However, not all share you attitude and the newcomers will be ones affected and abused because of them :(

Jorgensager
02-20-2013, 08:38 AM
@Jorgensager: My understanding is that they plan to change that. Besides, is this thread really about team-power calculations? I think piotras means that matches should be/are based on Elo and power (while you only mentioned Elo)...

I don't know how I gave the impression I didn't want team power to play a role, but that was not my intention if I did. I only mentioned ELO because that's the only element of matchmaking connected to ranking. (Stating that it cannot only be based on team power is not the same as stating it should be based solely on ELO!)

I think we all agree it needs to be a mix of ELO and team strength. However, this thread pointed out a problem but didn't propose an explicit solution, which is why I asked questions to get clarification.


Yes to both :) I remember reading in the chat that promotion will have a value of its own, so total power of your team will be: base stats + promotion + extra stats from promotion, so without assigning extra stats or even removing some you will stil be ahead of a unpromoted team.
Aha, thanks for the info!



That's the spirit! :) However, not all share you attitude and the newcomers will be ones affected and abused because of them :(

I didn't intend to portray my position as the average, so I agree. Although I would like to be able to see my personal ELO score and rank somewhere, so I know where I stand generally (i.e. only seeing my own score and rank). This should not lead to the same ego problems because the information would not be publicly available. It could be useful to get information about the players you are matched up with as well (when you are matched up with them).

balnoisi
02-20-2013, 08:39 AM
very interesting topic.

i may add that for every player looking for casual battles fun and not interested in rankings or stats there is another whose interests lay on slowly crawl through the rankings and for him climbing a single position from 100th to 99th could be the most satisfactory thing. that's the challenge for any new player, i don't know if by having ranks removed you'd have more people happy or let-down.

the team power indicator has been removed from the matchmaking screen, no ? i'd like it to be there, so everyone can consciously choose to fight a guy who has only 1 more point of power, or skip other who is 8 points above. just the line-up with portraits can tell you something but you need to know the pictures and calculate with the countdown ... so a lot of people would just see something different in their rivals team and skip it, and perhaps they were both at the same level.

also 99% of the people who start playing loses their first games. that's the main difference in power, the basics of "howtoplay".
if i know i'm facing a new player i always give advice and try to offer help, if i am going to lose my first 5 games anyway then i'd rather do it with people who can play and learn from them.

Bloodaddict
02-20-2013, 08:46 AM
Sorry if I am a little OT, but has there been a tournament yet?
Yesterday when I played I saw the tournament banner in the great hall, but nothing happened when I clicked on it...

piotras
02-20-2013, 09:49 AM
very interesting topic.

i may add that for every player looking for casual battles fun and not interested in rankings or stats there is another whose interests lay on slowly crawl through the rankings and for him climbing a single position from 100th to 99th could be the most satisfactory thing.

good point... in theory that person would have his/hers kick from taking part in tournaments and the related rankings?


Sorry if I am a little OT, but has there been a tournament yet?
Yesterday when I played I saw the tournament banner in the great hall, but nothing happened when I clicked on it...

Not yet, but weekly tournaments start sometime this week.

EDIT:

Overall, the point I'm trying to make is that ranking is a must, but having a general one and a tournament one is redundant. Moreover, the general one gives incentive to abuse weaker players by non-fair game and elo / power shenanigans, while tournaments are by design free of such things... so, why not change the house of valor into a tournament ranking/stats house and drop the general ranking (ELO could remain, just hidden). Hopefully, that would be beneficial to newcomers and build experimentation in general.

erom
02-20-2013, 11:08 AM
More rankings is always better, in my opinion. In a pure multiplayer game, without the what-comes-next anticipation of a story mode, you need to leverage every possible thing you can to keep giving players a sense of progression. I doubt the majority of the playerbase participates in tournaments. I doubt even 10% of the playerbase will participate in the tournaments. You NEED stats for these players to be shown somewhere, so they can see themselves progressing.

TL;DR - General and Tournament rankings are only redundant for the tiny sliver of playerbase that participates in tournaments.

Arnie
02-20-2013, 11:13 AM
Good thread, no time to answer completely right now, but know that we are already implementing a system to help with the stat power ganking shenanigans that's apparently been happening to some poor souls. Basically we're adding power based on ranks to help our matchmaking system. Stay tuned!

piotras
02-20-2013, 11:31 AM
I doubt even 10% of the playerbase will participate in the tournaments. You NEED stats for these players to be shown somewhere, so they can see themselves progressing.
I guess more than 10% would if that's where rankings would be. Sense of progress is important, like renown and upgrading units, ranking doesn't show progress because you can win BUT you also loose, so you might have less elo at the end of the day then when you started.

But I guess Arnie has a decisive voice on that one. There will be more ranking boards and new methods of shenanigans-prevention will be in place. Hope that helps.

trisenk
02-20-2013, 12:47 PM
Good thread, no time to answer completely right now, but know that we are already implementing a system to help with the stat power ganking shenanigans that's apparently been happening to some poor souls. Basically we're adding power based on ranks to help our matchmaking system. Stay tuned!
That's great. I was going to write a lengthy post about this issue, seeing that team power calculation hasn't changed since the very first days of beta. Good that I don't have to now :)

It's actually not the first time when I think about something for a whole day, and when I get here in the evening there's already a topic with Stoic's answer. So yeah, best contact with the community ever (definitely among Kickstarter project I backed).

raven2134
02-20-2013, 12:58 PM
Hi piotras,

I think erom's point on progression isn't just about the development of the assets you have in the game, your characters and the renown, but also the progression of the player in skill, which is represented by the various stats in the game. I mean sure basic-advanced, 0-100 renown are forms of progression. But also realize starting from scratch and winning 1/10 games, and getting to the point where you can win 5/10 games, is a big step forward for a player and also gives the feeling for progression.

That said, and having read the rest of the thread, I do agree with a number of the points you're making. The general rankings do create a self-consciousness in players, whether they say they explicitly care about the ranking or not. Even for people that say they don't care, the fact that losses permanently make them look like worse players still has an impact on their mindset.

I do also think it discourages experimentation, and it's only in rarer cases, or by relying on friend mode, that people will feel encouraged to experiment and play with different builds on the general ranking/versus.

On other points raised, I'm not sure how you mean when you say tournament will prevent or erase matchmaking abuse. Even if the boards are weekly, the manner in which abuses could be carried out on the general ranking can still be used in tourney to create a skewed result and try to improve tourney standing? Maybe this doesn't translate into the said stats (win #, w/l ratio), but it still translates into something ego related (tourney rank).

Also, there's the issue of being able to grind out the games if you simply turned the whole tourney into a weekly general ranking and reset. I mean sure grinding doesn't have a big effect now, due to the ELO algorithm being fixed. I think having no limit on the tourney games, however, can still provide skewed results. We cannot really quantify what the player performance is...if people play different numbers of games. ex. player A plays 30 games, wins 30 games. player B plays 50 games, wins 30 games. The number of wins is the same, but how do we properly account for the skill level of the 20 more opponents of player B, even if we assume player A and B had similar opponents for games 1-30.

*As a side note, I also agree with bal's points and questions. The team power should be shown, and the sense of progression as explained above. And I agree as well that a redundancy is not necessarily bad.

After having gone through the pros and cons, I came up with this thought.

Tourney I think can stay as is. I think what stoic has come up with can work, is simple, and is a good place to start. It's good, let's discuss it when it's out.

The general rankings, I think are ok to start, but what if we also consider having more of this information available only to the player, instead of visible as a ranking. If a player wants to track his progress, a lot of the stats he can manage just comparing himself before and at the present, instead of to other players.

I think we should keep a general ranking, ELO and w/l ratio. But perhaps, we should do this on semi-permanent basis as well. What if it's weekly/monthly (a period like tournaments), but it doesn't have limited games. At the end of the period the board resets, BUT, you have a history of your ratings. You can therefore also track your progress, and also that of the top players.

I think, the issue is not having systems where one can take over the other, but that we should have rating systems which have different methodologies/approaches, to giving the player a sense of progression and providing a sense of their skill level. While having these, we should find ways to promote experimentation, and a chance for players to wipe the slate clean, creating a name for themselves both based on their total time, and their present condition (not just one or the other).

Grits
02-20-2013, 01:03 PM
We should never reset the rankings. They make the game feel like it has a history. At most, just add a separate monthly leaderboard but don't get rid of the all time one. New players WANT to see who the top players are (and their high win streaks etc.)and it drives them to want to get better and compete!


Personally I love rankings. They add a sense of progression and weight/tension to the games. It's fine to have two ladders IMO. Tournaments are for high level play w/ advanced teams. Think of it as the difference between your local Tennis or MTG club ladder vs a National Tournament, ya?

On the topic of matchmaking:

Why use renown to calculate power level? You should assume that all characters will be max stats, always, so why not calculate the power level like so: base clase = 1, rank 1 =2, rank 2 =3...something like that

You could make it more subtle by fooling with the numbers (like rank1=2.355 and rank 3=3.111), but renown has proven to NOT be a good indicator of power. Why not just remove it from the equation? If you leave renown as a factor, sneaky players can fiddle with it too much. Just keep it simple...rank up, gain power, done.

PS
Friends mode is for experimentation.

piotras
02-20-2013, 04:00 PM
On other points raised, I'm not sure how you mean when you say tournament will prevent or erase matchmaking abuse.

What I meant by tournaments being by design free of all sorts of shenanigans was that (at least that's my understanding) players which will participate in the tournaments will be the ones prepared, i.e. with an upgraded team, possibly tested tactics and generally knowing what they are doing, not new players with units from the proving grounds. So there's no incentive to back out and look for easy target because all of them are meant to be experienced. Now you can printscreen the top 20 of general rank and back out whenever a scary names comes up in tournament :D

That makes me think... should you be able to back out from a tourney match? Isn't that kinda weird?

EDIT:
I'm kinda scared that too much effort is put into overcomplicated ways trying to prevent abuse, while the source of the incentives is still there. Fun-wise, rankings were always a double-edged sword I'm afraid.

tnankie
02-20-2013, 04:08 PM
Firstly if you farm noobs for ranking
1) diminishing returns as your ranking goes up (less elo gain as ranking difference increases)
2) are you still improving your game?
3) Ranking gets too high and MM wont place you in a match.

Secondly ranking will be a way of placing you in a subsection of the population at roughly your skill level once:
a) sufficient players are involved
b) rankings have time to settle down a bit

I strongly believe there should be a team power and player ranking displayed on the match up screen. However I also strongly believe the only way to back out of a match should be surrendering. MM should give underdog status for mismatches in ranking as well, not just team power.

erom
02-20-2013, 04:46 PM
the only way to back out of a match should be surrendering
Agreed, we should attack the problem at the root.

Grits
02-20-2013, 04:49 PM
Agreed, we should attack the problem at the root.

Agreed.

sweetjer
02-20-2013, 05:36 PM
I like that there are two sets of ranking. I think you are arguing what will hopefully be, after some tweaks to matchmaking and the general public is let in, a moot point. Currently I just back out of games that are unfair for my opponent, and I still have the highest win streak in the game. Maybe others are exploiting the matchmaking trick where you can get base units vs rank1's, but I haven't seen it yet. Personally I'm keeping a 62-63 point team, getting a unit to five kills, depositing them and trading out for a new fresh rank0. The thing I'm not accounting for is "newness" of the player. If our teams are equal I'll play the fight. It would be presumptuous of me to assume that if I don't know their name then they must be unskilled. Again, something that should be fixed as more people are let in. In fact, our head start should help new players as we will effectively be in our own tier above them. Then the only effect it has on the general player pool, in an ideal scenario, is that new players have something to shoot for other than team-building. Splitting the community with tourney mode is also a good move, I think, as experienced players with spare renown to ante up will be in tourney matches while the new kids are free to duke it out and learn amongst each other.

franknarf
02-20-2013, 07:43 PM
warning: stream of consciousness ahead

It seems to be the general view here that, while the incentive to match with weak players is there, we can find and plug all the holes in the system that allow such behavior (team power being poorly-defined, too much info being provided during matchmaking, too little punishment being given for backing out of the matchmaker, etc.), while leaving the career rankings alone. I sort of disagree, and think that the "root problem" is the incentive to seek out ways of circumventing the matchmaker, part of which comes from the desire to maintain one's career W:L & Elo.

I always figured the stats that we see in the Hall of Valor were chosen based purely on how easy they were to program, not whether they're really what it's ideal to have at the front of players' minds (didn't we have "losing streak" in some iteration?)...If so, I think Stoic ought to give them a second thought with that in mind.

Anyways, supposing that y'all (in this thread) are right, and you manage to prevent folks from deliberately playing weaker players, how do you address the other issue Piotras brought up: the desire to maintain one's W:L and Elo leads to too little experimentation?

I guess, based on the latest build (whick has "Renown cost removed from unit stat adjustments"), the incentive to stick with what works is much less, so maybe that problem is solved as well...? I don't really know how to think about this new free-respeccing business yet; it's very different. I had asked for free respeccing on promotion, but never thought Stoic'd do this. Won't experienced players get more Renown than they know what to do with far sooner this way?

Finjinimo
02-20-2013, 08:36 PM
I strongly believe there should be a team power and player ranking displayed on the match up screen. However I also strongly believe the only way to back out of a match should be surrendering. MM should give underdog status for mismatches in ranking as well, not just team power.

Absolutely. At the moment you can jump into the auto-matchmaker but still choose who you play. By that I mean that if you are matched against a strong player, you can just exit the matchmaker and start it again. You can do this again and again until you find a match you think you can win. At no consequence. It kind of diminishes the whole reason for having a auto-matchmaker yes?

Whoever the matchmaker throws us up against we should have to fight, the only way out is to win/lose or surrender. As soon as the matchmaker pairs us with someone, we are locked in.

But yes, at the moment due to the way the matchmaker works it is perfectly possible for me to farm new players and never have to fight against a veteran. Diminishing returns on elo rating perhaps, but not on win streaks or win/loss ratios. Those will increase.. There's also the fact that some people take a lot of joy in stomping on weak opposition (which drives new players away).

so, if this loophole in the auto-matchmaker is closed, I think a lot of these issues will rectify themselves.

Sorry if I'm not making sense. I haven't had a coffee yet.

Edit: to clarify, I'm not actually engaging or have seen anyone engaging in this behavior. I have just noticed it is possible.

sweetjer
02-20-2013, 08:59 PM
Yeah but I think a bigger concern right now is allowing low level teams to dodge high level teams without penalty until match-making is fixed. We shouldn't be forcing low level players to fight fully upgraded teams. I agree it should lock you into a match where quitting is a penalty, but not until overall matchmaking is fixed.

Finjinimo
02-20-2013, 09:40 PM
Yeah, I don't want new players being turned off the game by being forced to play higher level squads. I know how much that sucks.

I'm just highlighting a loophole in the current matchmaker that will need to be addressed at some point if leaderboards are to really mean anything.

erom
02-21-2013, 12:42 AM
part of which comes from the desire to maintain one's career W:L & Elo
I watched Starcraft II drive itself into the ground trying to avoid hurting people's feelings when ELO went down. I would hate to have that happen here. At some level, accepting losses is a necessary part of playing competitive games.

franknarf
02-21-2013, 05:37 AM
At some level, accepting losses is a necessary part of playing competitive games.
Yeah, fair point. On the other hand, what was wrong for SC2 may not be wrong here.* I'm not sure if it makes a difference but, y'know: SC2's multiplayer is not F2P; there is no concept of experimenting with builds pre-game (though I suppose you choose what to do until the enemy's been scouted); [insert other possibly relevant differences here].

* Not that I have any idea what SC2 did to wreck itself, mind you. :) I own the game, but my comp was too slow even at the lowest settings to keep up in MP when I got the game; and I never installed it onto my next comp.

erom
02-21-2013, 09:52 AM
Good point re: pre game builds. Not a completely comparable system.

What SC2 did (and I think I was too harsh last night with "drove itself into the ground" - it maybe won't have the decade long legacy of SC1 but SC2 was a pretty decent and successful game) was obfuscate all stats such that anything that could go down with a loss wasn't shown. It basically only tracked wins. Rather than a global ranking, you were put into a cohort of about 100 players, and competed against them. I think the goal was noble - they wanted people to compete against their peers instead of a list of untouchable masters. The only way you could go down in rank was someone else in your "bucket" winning faster than you were winning.

This created massive ELO inflation though, and basically turned the matchmaking system into an MMO like level grind rather an actual representation of skill (rested XP - bonus point you earned every game if you hadn't been logged in in a while - also caused inflation, but in that case because it inflated everyone's scores equally it was less of an issue)

At the highest levels they fixed this with the introduction of Grandmaster League, which used traditional ELO instead of what was sometimes joking called "sunshine ELO" that the rest of the game used, but for the rest of the players the ranking system remained a fluff piece that existed primarily to make people feel good about themselves, but did a poorer job of teaching them to improve their gameplay.

franknarf
02-21-2013, 11:31 AM
Hmm, that does sound bad. If they actually had something like "XP" in their competitive game, I'd say they were doing it wrong, yeah. I agree that ranking ought to represent skill, not time invested (except as much as is needed to find out your skill level) or any silly function of time invested (like number of wins).

By obfuscation I meant keeping the underlying lifetime Elo calculations, but translating your Elo into a title (e.g., 200-1100 = "Villager", 1100-1200 = "Raider", 1200-1300 = "Chieftain", ..., 2500+ = "Fallen God") and reporting that in place of your numerical Elo in the Hall of Valor. It's a small change, but it might lead to less conservatism...dunno.

Grits
02-21-2013, 12:07 PM
I do NOT like the new trend of breaking up the leaderboards. I want to know how good I am overall. Being top 10 in 'Silver League - Teddy Bear Division' doesn't give me any sense of reward or progression ;)

--- on Matchmaking

Personally, the only way I can see MM being fair is to remove renown from the equation. Just put advanced units up against advanced units, done. I must be missing something cause it can't be that easy right? Well, I trust they will figure it out.

franknarf
02-22-2013, 02:27 AM
@Grits: Eh, on the other hand, for those of us who don't always "progress" (that is, who lose to folks like you :) ), it can make the competitive side of things less of a turn-off. Suppose I log on for a day and lose two games. With Elo I make negative progress and have my lack of skill directly in front of me (in the Hall of Valor). Whereas, with an obfuscated Elo, I still make negative progress in numerical Elo (which is still used) but am not reminded of it the next time I log in (unless I crossed a cutoff value in true Elo).

It also dampens the reward of winning, but winners stay with the game anyways, I guess? Overall, it can just lead you to stress about maintaining your stats less, and hopefully to experiment more.

By the way, I'm not talking about leagues & divisions, just cosmetics (which I think is what you were criticizing).

I, too, look forward to seeing how Stoic fix matchmaking, but I think a simple change in the measurement of team power will do the trick.

tnankie
02-22-2013, 02:41 AM
why not have a stoic post about ELO?

As in a big official educational sticky about ranking posted by Stoic making it as Official as possible.

highlighting the fact that you start at an average position and will likely go down from there?
That is as intended by the way. Unless you are above average you will reside below the value you start with (however people who give up playing with a lower than starting ELO change this a bit)

Veringatorix
02-22-2013, 08:50 AM
There is such a post, with the actual calculation of the Elo given in code from John himself. http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?512-Ranking-ELO&highlight=Ranking%2FELO

gripho
02-23-2013, 06:31 AM
I think part of the issue for newcomers is that they just get to play the tutorial, which is good for covering basics but doesn't do more than that, and then join immediately the big pool of competitive play, so people adverse to losing will probably quit in the middle of their starting losing streak before they can actually win games. I think when the AI will be ready and if we are given the possibility to play against bots in friend-mode-like games, if they don't want to start competitive play already it will give them a chance to get some experience with their units before that.

tnankie
02-23-2013, 02:36 PM
There is such a post, with the actual calculation of the Elo given in code from John himself. http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?512-Ranking-ELO&highlight=Ranking%2FELO
That is in the beta forums and not written by Stoic. I know how it works, I was thinking about educating the masses.

sweetjer
02-23-2013, 02:59 PM
tnankie, stoic did post the elo algorithm in that thread; it might be slightly out of date though. It's in the yellow text posted by John. John is technical director.

Grits
02-23-2013, 10:09 PM
Here's an idea. Let's make the tournaments a 25 game, 10 day event with a 4 day break. This gives a more reasonable amount of time to get the games in, and makes the tourney feel bigger, due to the extended time and break in between.

Could also be 30 games with a max of 5 a day.

tnankie
02-24-2013, 12:30 AM
tnankie, stoic did post the elo algorithm in that thread; it might be slightly out of date though. It's in the yellow text posted by John. John is technical director.
I am fully aware of that thread.
Repeating, it is in the beta forums and hence not accessible to the general public.
Which was why I said what I did originally. Secondly that is not a thread started by Stoic with the first post being a clear explanation of the meaning and philosophy of the Elo ranking system. Thirdly that thread has the wrong ranking system in it, that is the thread where John posted the original code that was wrong/buggy. So you have to wade through swaths of incorrect information before you get to the important stuff. Fourthly/finally is it clear that the way the matchmaker treats power and Elo is different to the way that the ranking system treats power and Elo?

sweetjer
02-24-2013, 12:38 AM
Ahhhh, gotcha tnankie, you're right I totally misread you. Good point, and I stand corrected.