awesomeunleashed
Can not ignore himself because of typo - Online HS
We may release more rankings at a later date. Currently, the public can't see 26+.
Great guess. He's 28th at the moment.
-
Welcome to the Heroscapers 2.0 site! We've still got some dust to clear and adjustments to make, including launching a new front page, but we hope you enjoy the improvements to the site. Please post your feedback and any issues you encounter in this thread.
Online Player Rankings Thread
- Thread starter Xorlof
- Start date
Great guess. He's 28th at the moment.
Are the rankings not updating? I don't think anything has changed in the Top 25 at all this season, which I guess is possible.
Yeah, it's not updating...
Yeah, at the moment it's still pulling ranking data off of the Season 8 spreadsheet, so obviously nothing is updating.
We're in the process of cleaning up and reorganizing our game data spreadsheet and game reporting approaches. It's hard to say when this will be done, but the over/under would probably be a week from now. Once that's done, I'll plug the top25 reporting here into the latest data.
FWIW, Google has been gagging on some function calls for the last day or so, so our most recent ranking list on the back end does not include your latest game, vegie. If I had to guess, though, I'd guess you're still at #14. The top 7 is unchanged in the latest run we've done.
We're in the process of cleaning up and reorganizing our game data spreadsheet and game reporting approaches. It's hard to say when this will be done, but the over/under would probably be a week from now. Once that's done, I'll plug the top25 reporting here into the latest data.
FWIW, Google has been gagging on some function calls for the last day or so, so our most recent ranking list on the back end does not include your latest game, vegie. If I had to guess, though, I'd guess you're still at #14. The top 7 is unchanged in the latest run we've done.
Simval
New member
Interesting, since I only played in season 4 and 9 and didn't play 2 games due to scheduling problems, my total online record is 1-3... And my total online record against the top 25 is 1-3 ! (W: Deroche, L : Filthy, Megasilver, Vegie)
Does this mean that it's not as bad as someone who lost three games against a player ranked 50th ?
Does this mean that it's not as bad as someone who lost three games against a player ranked 50th ?
awesomeunleashed
Can not ignore himself because of typo - Online HS
You're currently above everyone with 0 wins (and a significant chunk of people with at least 1 win), yes.
infectedsloth
GenCon Main Event Champion - 2019 & The Doom of Ma
For some reason Bengi's, Soundwarp's and Greygnarl's records are not showing up for me.
There are currently 8 Illinoisans in the top 25.
There are currently 8 Illinoisans in the top 25.
For some reason Bengi's, Soundwarp's and Greygnarl's records are not showing up for me.
There are currently 8 Illinoisans in the top 25.
Well it's certainly not because we're an elite 3 man team of CIA operatives, and those records certainly wouldn't be a matter of national security, that's just crazy.
You saw nothing.
superfrog
This is merely a joke.
Same.
Bengi
Online HS League Champion
It's for your own protection. If you saw my record, we'd have to kill you. The other two must just be glitches.
awesomeunleashed
Can not ignore himself because of typo - Online HS
For some reason Bengi's, Soundwarp's and Greygnarl's records are not showing up for me.
There are currently 8 Illinoisans in the top 25.
Huh. It's being caused by a really weird glitch (which I won't be fixing because it's in an outdated spreadsheet anyway). dok will have to switch it over to the S10 sheet, he's the one controlling the Top 25 list.
awesomeunleashed
Can not ignore himself because of typo - Online HS
kevindola
13 Time OHS Champion
My gut says a new player should just be given a matchup with someone who has a middling ranking in their tier for Rounds 1 and 2. So looking how you do the matchups for those rounds, it would make sense to have them seeded as if they were ranked last. That actually produces a fair matchup for them.
A very few can see the actual value differential between two different players in terms of a ‘rating value’. We can only see W/L and rank. Based on that information, your comparison seems like a poor example. Robber has a 60% win and Mega is 48%. I also know that in Season 6 Robber was Runner Up for the tournament beating 4 people in the top 25 (including two people in the top 10) with his only played loss being to the #1 ranked player. That tells me that his ‘strength of schedule’ should be relatively high (obviously I am basing this declaration off that result only, but that is an impressive result). So I would expect him to be significantly higher than MegaSilver if quantity of games were negligible. That they are only 2 ranking spots away from each other tells me that quantity of games has a significant effect on their overall ranking.
I suspect that if Robber’s results were normalized to the same amount of games as Megasilver that he would be significantly higher. Robber or Boromir would probably be the best case sample for normalization. If Boromir’s results of 10-3 were projected to a 40-12 record with the exact same opponents played as he did in his first 13, then I suspect he would be top 5 easily. And if that’s the case then it tells me that the number of games is a significant factor.
I have some questions about the rating system.
1) Does a forfeit loss count in these ratings?
2) Is there a static threshold where number of games played causes the ‘confidence’ value to stabilize, or does that confidence value fluctuate as a percentage of the total number of games played? (or total games played by the player with the highest amount of games played)
Example
Spoiler Alert!
3) How is your rating affected by previous opponent’s future results? I have heard that is definitely a factor, but relatively small or relatively large? If I beat someone when they were 0-0 all time and they later are #1 with a record of 19-1, at the point they became 19-1 would I have the same ranking at 1-0 as if I beat them when they were 19-0?
And I hope I don’t sound like I’m picking on Megasilver or anything here. His case is the best one to discuss because he is under .500 and on the top 25 list.
As I alluded to in the S10 thread, the one change in our systems since the last time I explained them (at your request) was that we no longer boost new player rankings at all. They get thrown in the same pot as everyone else.
That said, because of the way we pair rounds 1 and 2, this naturally leads to them drawing mid-tier opponents for the first two rounds. (This was actually the rationale for getting rid of the artificial boost - we realized that it was redundant given the pairing rules.)
Right, and if that were his only result he would be higher. Note, however, that his record is 9-6. He was 6-2 in that event, but 3-4 in the other two events he's played in.
This is my point, in a roundabout way: very few players actually maintain those sorts of results over an extended period.
That's absolutely true. If we ranked everyone assuming the same variance (i.e. as if they had all played with the same consistency over the same number of games) then robber would be a few spots higher than he is, and Megasilver would be a lot lower than he is.
As I've said before, these are conservative estimates of skill. The algorithm is saying "we are very confident that this player is at least this good". In the case of Megasilver, the algorithm is very confident that he's at least fairly good.
Boromir would not be top 5 based solely on our mean estimate of his skill, but he would be top 10. (The top 5 would actually be unchanged, although the order would be different.) You would also have stuff like gurdil in the top 25 based on his 3-0 record in the team tournament.
Again, though, it's completely reasonable to be suspicious of a good record built on a small number of games. Heroscape is a game with variance built in. Most players who have started out with 3:1 win ratios (or posted 3:1 win ratios for some short period) have not been able to maintain those win ratios. If we assumed that everyone who played that well for a brief stretch was good enough to do that consistently, we would see more retrospective errors in our rankings than we have. In other words, it's better to underestimate Wanderer for a little than overestimate a lot of other people for similar lengths of time.
No, we remove forfeits.
If you want details on how Trueskill and Trueskill through Time work, I suggest the links in the OP of this thread. (FWIW we are now updating using Trueskill through Time during the seasons as well.)
Each player's ranking has a mean and a variance. The variance starts high and falls as a player plays more games. Results that are consistent with your previous results will drive your variance down more quickly. Games against players with low variance will drive your variance down more quickly as well (so, beating me will lower your variance more quickly than beating vegie's dad, because the algorithm has more confidence in the significance of a win against me).
If everyone has 5 games played, then everyone's variances will be fairly similar (not identical - someone who is 5-0 or 0-5 will probably have a lower variance than someone who is 3-2). They will all be relatively high, though.
Your variance probably going to be a little lower just because the people you played will have lower variances. So your "confidence value", to put it in your terms, would actually be (slightly) higher.
Pretty much, yeah. When you beat them doesn't matter, except that if you have two games on your record and one of them is a long time ago, the more recent game will matter more.
This is the big difference between Trueskill through Time and regular Trueskill. And I want to emphasize again what an achievement it is that we have TTT in use here. We really are on the cutting edge of ranking algorithms here. Xorlof deserves a huge amount of credit here.
No, by all means, pick on Megasilver.
As always, thanks for the discussion.
I completely agree with Kevindola here, I think the people with a lot of games are clearly avantaged.
Not so long ago Kinseth was ranked higher than Wanderer whereas there was a quite huge difference between their win ratios.
Wanderer is finally placed at a decent place for him but the fact that he was not in the top 5 for so long proves in my opinion that the systems is biased and advantages a lot players with a lot of games played.
Anyway the rankings does not matters much to me, we all know dok did this in order to comfort himself.
Not so long ago Kinseth was ranked higher than Wanderer whereas there was a quite huge difference between their win ratios.
Wanderer is finally placed at a decent place for him but the fact that he was not in the top 5 for so long proves in my opinion that the systems is biased and advantages a lot players with a lot of games played.
Anyway the rankings does not matters much to me, we all know dok did this in order to comfort himself.
I'm pretty sure that playing more games is a huge advantage too. My dad fell two or three spots when he sat out just one season. Did that many people get better than him or were they just able to get more points in this system from an extra season of games?
I think I'm the perfect example of someone with way too high of a ranking for my record. I do think I'm a good player, but I have some terrible losses and my record of 29-23 really isn't that great. I'm probably one of the most inconsistent players. However, I've played a ton of games, which is what is really keeping me afloat, especially since I played in the early seasons. Playing in the earlier seasons means that I was able to play against the people who are now the Top 25 a ton of times, and those wins are worth a lot now.
I think I'm the perfect example of someone with way too high of a ranking for my record. I do think I'm a good player, but I have some terrible losses and my record of 29-23 really isn't that great. I'm probably one of the most inconsistent players. However, I've played a ton of games, which is what is really keeping me afloat, especially since I played in the early seasons. Playing in the earlier seasons means that I was able to play against the people who are now the Top 25 a ton of times, and those wins are worth a lot now.
At this point, it seems like you guys are not really paying attention to what I'm saying.
Yes, playing games *is* an advantage, assuming you continue to play on the same level, and that level is at least reasonably good. This is because the algorithm gets more confidence in your ranking and the conservative estimate of your skill gets closer to your actual performance.
And again, being conservative in our assessment of players skills actually improves the predictive accuracy of the rankings. If we assumed every 5-1 player was super awesome at Heroscape, we would make more mistakes in our predictions of who wins games than if we guessed they were an above average player on a hot streak.
Neither of those things.
Why would that cause a substantial amount of mistakes?
I think that more often than not, players first seasons are worse than their later seasons, since they learn a lot from online play. How many people have gone 5-1 and then regressed to their mean and had multiple seasons of going 1-3 or 2-2? I'd bet that the number of people who started 5-1 and then continued at a similar winning rate is much greater.
I am curious what happened with my dad's ranking then, if not the latter (the question was intended to be rhetorical).
I think that more often than not, players first seasons are worse than their later seasons, since they learn a lot from online play. How many people have gone 5-1 and then regressed to their mean and had multiple seasons of going 1-3 or 2-2? I'd bet that the number of people who started 5-1 and then continued at a similar winning rate is much greater.
I am curious what happened with my dad's ranking then, if not the latter (the question was intended to be rhetorical).