Online Player Rankings Thread

[Kinseth]

How well your record is really doesn't have any relation with what your rating is. Not everyones schedules are equal, think of it like NCAA football. LSU could have a record of 9-2, but Miami of Ohio could be 11-0. I think all realize that LSU is the better team, but they usually have a brutal schedule. It is unrealistic for them to have as good of a record as a lesser team playing a lesser schedule.

The rankings system takes the data, and assumes based on the limited knowledge it has(Games you have played) how good you likely are. It can't for sure tell until you really start playing a good number of games. Just because you are 3-0 doesn't mean that you are the best player because you had a win% of 100%.

With most rankings systems it takes time for you to ascend the ranks as there are many more established players. The nice thing is that overtime, the system is able to see that the game you won against johnny when it was his first game ever, and he turns out to be a 15-2 player, you will get more credit for that win.

It eventually works itself out, the only explanation for why some players with worst win % are ranked higher than others is because some players may have played harder schedules.

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

It eventually works itself out, the only explanation for why some players with worst win % are ranked higher than others is because some players may have played harder schedules.

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

If you look at Megasilver history he did not get a Strengh of Schedule especially harder than others players.
Dok said he proved himself as a solid player, to me and I think some people thinks like me, maintain a near 50% ratio is not being a "solid" player it's being a "medium" or "average" player.

I agree that the ranking system should advantage people who manage to maintain a solid win ratio for a long time but seriously 50% is not a solid win ratio 60% is not a solid win ratio. Over 66% yes here you start to be serious player.

When I look at the rankings I've the feeling that the number of games played is way more important than the win ratio.
It's like first you have to play a lot of games (at least 10) and then you can be placed at a decent place.
It's not cool for new players.

[vegietarian18]

I realized that I've been articulating my main concern about the rankings pretty poorly. The rankings will give us an accurate picture of the top players eventually. The problem I have is that they are being used for the playoffs right now, and those players who have advantages, such as me, dok, bengi, kinseth, and filthy have those advantages right now. We performed well in seasons where these rankings and end of year playoffs weren't even conceived, yet this boosts our ranking and chance of making the playoffs.

[awesomeunleashed]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I realized that I've been articulating my main concern about the rankings pretty poorly. The rankings will give us an accurate picture of the top players eventually. The problem I have is that they are being used for the playoffs right now, and those players who have advantages, such as me, dok, bengi, kinseth, and filthy have those advantages right now. We performed well in seasons where these rankings and end of year playoffs weren't even conceived, yet this boosts our ranking and chance of making the playoffs.

If it's any consolation, we're probably going to use a leaderboard that includes only 2014 games to determine the top 16 for the 2014 EOY tournament.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I realized that I've been articulating my main concern about the rankings pretty poorly. The rankings will give us an accurate picture of the top players eventually. The problem I have is that they are being used for the playoffs right now, and those players who have advantages, such as me, dok, bengi, kinseth, and filthy have those advantages right now. We performed well in seasons where these rankings and end of year playoffs weren't even conceived, yet this boosts our ranking and chance of making the playoffs.

There is no perfect system for this EoY right now, as it the entirety of the online seasons to date. Naturally those who have played more, and done well are going to have a better chance. Just like in 2014 if someone only plays two seasons compared to someone who plays five(it appears we are going to have ~5 seasons a year.). People who have excelled in fives seasons compared to others who only played in two seasons and excelled in those are going to have a better chance.

Thus we move forward the best we can with what we have.

[dok]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I realized that I've been articulating my main concern about the rankings pretty poorly. The rankings will give us an accurate picture of the top players eventually. The problem I have is that they are being used for the playoffs right now, and those players who have advantages, such as me, dok, bengi, kinseth, and filthy have those advantages right now. We performed well in seasons where these rankings and end of year playoffs weren't even conceived, yet this boosts our ranking and chance of making the playoffs.

It only boosts us in the sense that the algorithm has more data on us and is therefore more confident in its assertions about our strength. The early seasons were not easier or harder to build rankings on in any way. And they count less, anyway, since there is a small decay built into the rankings.

There have been more than enough seasons since we announced we were tracking records and recording rankings internally for any player to build up a ranking simply by playing well. And this is reflected in the rankings: Wanderer999 has only been playing since season 5, he missed at least one season, and he is #5. If someone didn't play enough to build their ranking, I can't really see this as a flaw: it's just a choice they made. It's the same in every individual sport/game that has invitational events (Tennis, NASCAR racing, chess, whatever).

It's hard to say who the people are who are negatively impacted by this, anyway. I expect we will have at least two and probably three or four people in the top 16 not accept their invite. So really, the top 20 or so will probably get in. There's only a few people below that threshold who are even 3 games above .500. Some of them (like dalu and Slipperyslope) have so few games and haven't played in so long that I don't think anyone can reasonably argue they should be in the top 16.

So what does that leave? I mean, I guess you could make an argument that, say, dhyanam deserves a spot over vegie. But it's really stuff on the margins we're talking about here.

[vegietarian18]

Next year, I think the problem will be lessened because people will know the rules for the end of the year championship. People will know that if they want to maximize their chances of making it, they will have to play in all the seasons.

It's a bigger issue this time, since for the first four seasons, there was no knowledge that there was even going to be an end of the year playoff. The next four seasons (I believe the new end of the year qualifying system was revealed DURING season 8), we were told that it was going to be based on playoff performance. Really, the qualifiers for the EOY playoffs should not be taking data from anything besides Season 9, since that is the only season where the playoff system was set.

[greygnarl]

I think the rankings are fine as is, but the EOY would be better served by something like the tiered points for progressing into the playoffs that you had before.

[vegietarian18]

Not playing enough should not be held against anyone in terms of End of Year playoff qualification since there was no way to know that not playing enough was a negative until Season 9. In seasons before that, players did not know that their records were going towards the end of the year playoffs. It's just unfair to count anything before the exact system was announced.

[dok]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

Not playing enough should not be held against anyone in terms of End of Year playoff qualification since there was no way to know that not playing enough was a negative until Season 9. In seasons before that, players did not know that their records were going towards the end of the year playoffs. It's just unfair to count anything before the exact system was announced against someone.

Really? You think there was no reasonable expectation that you needed to play games in order to qualify?

How did you think it was going to work?

[vegietarian18]

The other system, that was announced as the official system, with playoff wins counting as points? I thought I was in after my performance in Season 5 and 6 and didn't put the same effort into 7 and 8.

(Also, I'll note that system did not count anything before the season it was announced in...)