Jump to content


Photo

Issues with ELO ranking levels


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:07 AM

Most of the folks that have played a lot of games here and have gotten into the top 10 have now realized how extremely difficult it is to advance up the levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold) once you get into the top 10. My winning percentage is 93% and I have plateaued at Silver Sergeant with no realistic chance to advance much further as I only get 2 points on average for wins and lose 20+ points for each loss. At 93% - and I only play ranked games - that's almost like winning 19 out of every 20 games played... yet I cannot advance. I would need to win every game for 30 or 40 games just to advance to Silver Lieutenant so you can see that Gold and Platinum levels are totally, realistically out of the question.

It seems to me that you are calculating ELO in a different way then other places. As you may know, ELO was originally developed for Chess - a game where luck has nothing to do with the result - and ELO scores for the best players are 2000+ - that simply won't fly here when a 93% winning percentage doesn't even get you to 700. I have played Stratego at another site that uses ELO and my score is 1800 with a 77% winning percentage - something is not jiving with the way you guys are calculating ELO.

If you are to continue with your unique ELO calculation methodology, I propose that you adjust the ranking levels to accommodate ELO scores that are a better fit for this site. I think the levels should be adjusted to something like this:

Level - ELO Score

Bronze - 100-300
Silver - 300-500
Gold - 500-700
Platinum - 700+


Spiff

#2 M-D

M-D

    Game Developer

  • Administrators
  • 124 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:07 AM

Hi Spiff,

We checked the system and the way the ELO ranking is calculated seems to be correct. With ELO you get points depending on the ELO ranking of yourself vs the ELO ranking of your opponent (so the bigger the difference, the more points you get). The main problem right now is that the top players are close to each other, so you only get a few points for each win.

This problem will (hopefully) be solved when we go out of beta and allow everyone to register (and thus slowly having more people in the higher rankings, which will also allow us to change the way matchmaking is done), so we're not gonna change the ratings at this point. We might change it later on if it seems that the ranking is still very slow, but right now we just don't have enough data to make such a change.

If we do make the change, the way we calculate ELO ratings will stay the same, the only thing we'll change is at which rating you achieve which rank. So you don't have to be afraid that your rating might lose it's value at some point.

#3 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:39 PM

This time I fully agree with Spiff.
I also think that the elo rating seems to be different on other sites.

And it's not only at the absolute top that gaining points is hard as hell but if I lose for instance to a major i also lose 18 points as a bronze general.
I've been crossing the border from colonel to general and back already 7 times and I think it will happen a lot more like this haha :)

Just hoping for more players I guess.
And as for Spiff,.............it's lonely at the top, you gotta be flawless man haha :P
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#4 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:28 PM

M-D,

ELO calculation doesn't seem to be affected by amount of players on other sites. At this one site - where they have KRACH, ELO and RPI rankings - there are only 100 people ranked yet my ELO is 1800. Your explanation just doesn't explain how a 93% win percentage gets <700 score here and a 77% win percentage among 100 players gets 1800 over there - it just doesn't jive regardless of the amount of players. It almost has to be that you are doing something different with ELO than the others.

#5 Sadern

Sadern

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Scout

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

Maybe it's the base rating. in this site, you start at 100 points, in others it could start at 1200 or 1000. Also, it depends on the gap, on your opponent's rating, if you win against people rated much lower than you, then you won't gain much, only 1 or 2 points.

#6 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:53 AM

Sadern -

The base rating theory would explain the low numbers here but it would still mean that nobody will ever get Gold or Platinum level. It's still broken.

Spiff

#7 M-D

M-D

    Game Developer

  • Administrators
  • 124 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:58 AM

M-D,

ELO calculation doesn't seem to be affected by amount of players on other sites. At this one site - where they have KRACH, ELO and RPI rankings - there are only 100 people ranked yet my ELO is 1800. Your explanation just doesn't explain how a 93% win percentage gets <700 score here and a 77% win percentage among 100 players gets 1800 over there - it just doesn't jive regardless of the amount of players. It almost has to be that you are doing something different with ELO than the others.


What I meant is if there are a lot of players, there are more players in a higher ranking. Because Stratego.com is only just starting it means that it will take a while for players to increase in rank. Over time we will have more players in higher ranks, which means you'll have more players in higher ranks to win from (and thus get more ELO points). Right now there just are a lot of players in the lower ranks which don't award you a lot of points.

I don't know about the other sites, but as Sadern says there is a chance they start at a higher number. I'm also sure that the way we calculate ELO ratings is the 'official' way.

Again, this is something we're investigating, but it just takes times. If at the end of the beta we still see that most players are in the lower ranks, we'll probably change them around a bit so you switch ranks faster.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users