Jump to content


Photo

Are ELO Rankings Moving Too Quickly?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:02 PM

Today it takes an ELO ranking of 405 to make the 250th place on the Bronze Leader Board.  This upward creep of the lower end of the rankings seems to me like it would be a wave that has to reach the top at some point.  I mean, one day not very distant, I can see a 500 ELO ranking being required for the Top 250 Bronze list.  This surely means there will be more quality ELO fodder for the top players to play and beat, therefore making it easier for Spiff and others of the loftiest levels to stay afloat and even rise.  Yes?

 

Maybe it is going to be some time, but I think more Silvers are a-comin'.  45 are on the list today.  I would wonder when it might be that 100 are on the list?

 

My initial concern in this thread was strictly from my vantage point at the bottom of things.  The scramble to get on the board first, and then remain, seems difficult when the required ELO ranking to get on the board keeps on rising.  Midnightguy tells me that last November the entry point for the list was merely a Bronze Miner (what is that...a 150 ELO ranking?) whereas now it is 405, or Bronze Colonel.  As a low Bronze General I think I will not even be on the list if I do not play for three weeks.  

 

But that all begs the question of what was Spiff's ranking last November?  Have he and the others near him not risen right along with this lower entry level point?  

 

Is not the rise at the bottom, as well as the demonstrably increasing number of Silver players, indicative that things are evolving upward to the gold level?  


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#22 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:25 PM

why letting a bunch of players outside the rankings, when there are 2 leagues empty ?

I think we should be able to enter bronze ranking with maybe 150 points as a bronze scout, then adjust all others ranked players till hielco (SATAN-NL).

I mean today bronze rankings start at general, so bronze colo to scout are not displayed (7 ranks) : make it start at bronze scout, and add hielco 7 ranks, which makes him a gold serg

if someone can put that in English, he is welcome :ph34r:



#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:51 PM

Pd3a, if you're talking of what we call in the States a "bell curve", then I would not be for that.  There, the best is at the top and the worst at the bottom and everyone else is artificially forced into a position on the curve, completely irrespective of their individual merit.  I want the bunching where the bunching naturally is.  We don't need a bell curve to limit who is at the top.  And it would definitely limit the top.  

 

Anyone else, is this what Pd3a is talking about?

 

For the record, are Hielco and Satan-NL the same person?


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#24 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:06 AM

sorry my english is bad and you have misunderstood what I meant.
I mean : rather than not classify 200 players and leave empty two leagues, it would be better to move everyone up

hielco-Satan is the same player

at the moment satan is 945 ranked. just let him those points. but don't make him a silver major, make him a silver gold

by doing that a bunch of players actually bronze scout-miner-serg.... will appear in the bronze league, cause actual bronze league players would drop in the silver one



#25 KingTubby

KingTubby

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:53 PM

perhaps they can create a new league "wooden pigeon" and put all those who don't make it to Bronze in that league...

 

I don't get all the fuss about this ELO rating, it's quite obvious that the best players have the highest ratings, so it's working. We only see those that actually achieved something, who cares about those wooden pigeons?


Posted Image
I man rule the arena

#26 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:09 PM

perhaps they can create a new league "wooden pigeon" and put all those who don't make it to Bronze in that league...

 

I don't get all the fuss about this ELO rating, it's quite obvious that the best players have the highest ratings, so it's working. We only see those that actually achieved something, who cares about those wooden pigeons?

 

 

I agree with this.

All the other ranks should be visible as well.

Whether they call it the wooden pigeon, the tin league, the coper league, doesn't matter....they should be visible.

Maybe it's wise to create two bronze leagues.  The second one will be filled with everything below the lowest rating in the first bronze league.

 

Within a few months the lowest rating in the bronze league will be marshall (505).

It's a good thing that the competition becomes harder and harder.

If you want your name to be seen as high as possible, then you have to play for it.

And otherwise you need to be happy to stay in the wooden pigeon, bronze league 2, tin league, whatever they want to call it.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#27 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:24 PM

The site just won't be big enough to support Platinum ratings.  All it takes is for a bug, ISP goes down, power outage or whatever that causes you to leave your game and you are forced to play a low bronze player.  While you are a near Gold level, that is a huge loss in ratings and we are talking probably 200 points!  I believe it was Silence said somehow he got 100 points vs a silver player couple months ago when his game locked up.  Not sure if that was a bug to game or he was so low rated at that time, for a difference is that wide. 

 

Unless if we have a consistent number of high silver and gold players on this site playing against each other, it will be near impossible to even think Platinum.  Right now we have less than 50-60 silver players, before we can even think Gold rating we need more players to get the the Silver rating.  While the true masters on this site won't lose most games vs a bronze player, it hurts their ratings chances that others who are silver do lose to General and Marshalls and fall back to bronze.  That means less chances for master silver players to get that 10-15 points win vs near equal challengers and be force to play for matches 5 points or less. 



#28 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 06 April 2013 - 01:32 AM

Spiff wants only smart computer matching, but should the spread get as wide as a 200 ELO point drop for a loss, I suggest that there be a block then.  I mean, as I've said elsewhere before, make the computer match people up to where the higher player will still win 2-4 points for a win, and/or make it so the lower player cannot gain anything like 200 ELO points for a win.  Some kind of limitation like that makes sense to me.  I got Spiff as a Bronze Lieutenant once.  Got smeared.  But I'm sure he only gained a point for it...at the most.  I would've gained a bunch, of course, if I had pulled off the miracle.  And that was when he was probably a Silver Scout or Miner and I was Bronze Lieut. What will happen if he is Gold Major and he plays a Bronze Spy?  

 

I say that such matchups should not happen, but that the exact parameters ought to be in terms of how many maximum points win/loss do we want in a single game, as I described above.  

 

Further, I've said this before.  I like a LIMITED Decline button.  Limited to 2-3 times per calendar day.  For whatever reason make it so a player could refuse a computer match two or three times each day. (Or pick whatever limit you like)  THEN HE HAS TO PLAY.  This would not be like allowing complete Decline button privileges, but it would be a compromise with people who point out the situation above, and they don't feel like risking the loss that day to a lesser player, or they just don't want to play player X, or any of a host of reasons. They don't matter.  Allowing for some choice in match acceptance is good, in my opinion.  Just NEVER a FULL AND OPEN ABILITY to DECLINE all matches.  


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#29 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:03 AM

I think if you reach the goldstatus that the chance is very unlikely you will get a bronze spy.

The higher your rank is, the wider your search spread will be.

The first seconds the system scans for a rank near you and the longer it takes, the lower the ranks will be.

The chance that you will get a bronze spy is therefore by far less than the chance of getting a higher bronze player.

Normally it doesn't take so much time to find an opponent so suppose there are 250 people on the site and 85 matches are played, then there are 80 people free and of those 80, the chance is very likely that someone is silver or a bronze marshall or general.

The chance of meeting them is by far more likely because they have priority in the system.

 

But in theory, this can happen indeed.

Practical we don't know because no one is gold yet.

If there's no limit in the system, then there should be one.

It's what Gary says,...you have to be able to GAIN POINTS if you play a ranked match.

As a gold major against a bronze spy, that's impossible.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#30 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:47 AM

Just an update.  It is April 12, 2013 and there are right now 59 Silver players, and it takes ELO 427 to even get on the Bronze Leader Board.  A mere week ago those numbers were 45 and ELO 405.

 

Maybe it's all good, but this thing is exploding.  I'm going to take some time off and when I come back in August I suspect I'll come back to find 150 Silvers and ELO 500 as the entry point for a Bronze Leader.


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#31 Adsum

Adsum

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Sergeant

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:21 AM

Have any details been shared about how the Elo rating is implemented in this game? For instance:

K-factor chosen, whether it is tiered and the values for each tier;

Whether there is a minimum rating one can't fall below;

Whether it follows the logistic or normal distribution...


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#32 Adsum

Adsum

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Sergeant

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:14 AM

In the local chess circuits I am familiar with, it is common to organize tourneys within classes; with some rules to prevent sandbagging (unranked player entering a low tier to steal the prize from legitimately low ranked players...).

 

Typical ELO distribution in my local chess group is:

 

0-1300 * Rarely used

1301-1599  *Rarely used

Class B 1600-1799

Class A 1800-1999

Expert + 2000+

 

Typically our local tournaments are usually Open format, divided into Class A+, and everyone else grouped together in B-. If there are not enough players to have two completely separate tournaments running in parallel, they are matched together with prizes awarded based on best performance in Class. I.e., everyone plays in same swiss pairing system but prizes are awarded in separate classes.

 

In exceptionally big tournaments (by our small local standards :) ) I've seen them divided into three sections: Class C and below, Class B, and Class A+. The reason for this is that most of our tourney population falls into class B and usually never grows beyond it.

 

I am assuming that given enough time, our stratego ratings will conform to this scale. However, I think there is a hidden assumption of base minimum rating at work -- if I recall correctly, my local chess group assumes 1000 as minimum whereas here I forget what the minimum value was (zero?).



#33 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:27 PM

You know, this is not so far-fetched...

 

At one point it will definitely take a Marshal rank to be on the Bronze Leader Board.  That is a 505 ELO ranking.  What will happen as that creeps higher?  

 

You got it!  One day a player will have to be Silver (600 ELO rank) just to make the BRONZE Leader Board!

 

This is an absurdity.

 

Yet, there is another absurdity.  At some point there will be 250 Silvers on the Silver Leader Board.  The poor 251st Silver will not make the Silver Leader Board, because he is too lowly ranked for it.  He will not make the Bronze Leader board because he will be too high for it (unless the Bronze requirement has crept that high!).  This is ridiculous, but it is clearly built into the current system that we have.  We need to have a Unified Ranking List showing everybody, or close to it, on one board, not the separate lists we have now.  It is the only way to avoid these issues.

 

I further say make the list update only 1 time per week, giving the ranking some small measure of permanence.  


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#34 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:50 AM

I just don't see why they just don't have one ranking board, you click on it and it will show you where you are at and what level and you can scroll down to show where your friends(or enemies) are at.  Once you pass X rating, to be a certain new level, it will tell you what they are.  It doesn't take any time or much time at all to show 250 players, why not just have the leader board show everyone from Satan to the newest Bronze level player?

 

I also like the more simipler chess ratings names.  Adsum, you local chess club is somewhat similar to real chess ratings for their names and rankings, but I just know 2300 is Master and 2500 is Grandmaster.  Just not sure how this site could or would want to suddenly change all the names and rankings for a player.



#35 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:18 AM

 

I also like the more simipler chess ratings names.  Adsum, you local chess club is somewhat similar to real chess ratings for their names and rankings, but I just know 2300 is Master and 2500 is Grandmaster.  Just not sure how this site could or would want to suddenly change all the names and rankings for a player.

 

Hi Midnightguy, I am not sure how I would feel finally going from bronze MARSHAL to silver SPY, as that does seem ironic, but whatever we call the ranks, the ELO numbers are the straightforward thing.  I think that changing the name system around is a separate issue than simply having the one ELO ranking board.  Yeah it might be something for later.  But you know what they say:  one thing at a...!


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#36 xa1337

xa1337

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:21 PM

It is simple.
 
The larger the population stratego.com increases, and the more players will be in the game at all rankings.
 
If it is possible to play against many different opponents, and only in this case, very good players can expect up the ladder more quickly and achieve gold or platinum league.

 

And I think that this system has been set up voluntarily by the staff of stratego.com. At first to bring excitement and a challenge in the long term, and secondly to allow time to time. The site is relatively new, it was not long ago that it is out of beta. It's a pity that some very good players arrive as quickly atop the league (platinum), right?
 
Now this is just my opinion.


#37 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:39 PM

I had to bumb this thread up..

 

3 weeks ago it took an ELO of 400-410 to appear on the leaderboards..

Today it takes a stunning 440 to appear..

 

I can tell you it will take 500 elo to appear the next 2 months.

But in 2 months there won't be no 250 silver players..

 

 

 

I remember me being happy to achieve an ELO of 400 and 2 weeks ago to get 500, as its hard to stay on that level, how hard will it be at 600-800? (especially with games as +2 ELO or -16 ELO)..

 

New players arrive everyday on this great site, which means everything increases in the end (elo, ranking, players, skills, difficulty) except the leaderboards.

 

If you ask me atleast 1000 players play this game on occasion, but only 320 appear on the leaderboards..

It's time to extend the leaderboards..

 

As said before, I was happy to achieve 400 elo, and i know several players were thinking/thinks the same whether it be 400, 500 or 600..

 

Within a month it will look foolish to see 5 gold players , 100 silver players and atleast 700 players who don't appear on the leaderboards


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#38 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:41 PM

For one time I agree.

It's ridiculous that only the top 250 is being shown.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#39 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,617 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:15 PM

I think that one solution to see more players in the ranks could be to delete all these accounts e.g.simply the best , boot1 ,SS, SSyo, to the top  etc,  which are the last months no active. Every player must have at least few games played every month (5  or 10) if he wants to be ranked.



#40 Hardstyle

Hardstyle

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Captain

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:39 PM

Maybe it could be cool to make a global board, will all the player that have more than 100 elo point.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users