Changes to League Leaderboard Explained
Inactive individuals (no games in the last two months) no longer display on the leaderboard. Their accounts have not been impacted, and they can still challenge and be challenged to League games. After they play a single game, they will regain active status and their rating will again display on the leaderboard. At least that is the way its supposed to work, let me know if you find problems.
The matchmaking profile should still work, displaying their current rating. Moreover, I believe that the players should still be able to log in and see their own rating. So this shouldnt cause any problems.
After 3 months, people get toggled to inactive, and cant access the database at all without a password reset. This has been the case for at least the last 4 months. It was originally implemented as an anti-cheating thing. I happen to think its probably useless, but its not causing much trouble either -- if folks want to reactivate, they just PM an admin.
Obviously, the ideas here are: (1) to make it easier to find active players you might want to challenge; and (2) to stimulate renewed competition for the top spots on the leaderboard.
Sorry Trip, your going to have to play a League game to regain number 1.
Nah, it's all good -- it's a tweak that makes a lot of sense. I actually just switched myself to "unavailable" in the matchmaking profile last week, since I'm going to be pretty slammed at work this Spring and don't really have time for anything beyond wrapping up the tourneys I'm in. (Not that I'd gotten many challenges lately regardless...)
I'll have to schedule my league comeback run for the summer. :)
Is no one going to say it?
<whisper>Trip and MonkeyWarlock in a game of the century. Post move-by-move updates with the hands cropped out.</whisper>
Edit: Posted before seeing Trip's.
Trip, should I alert the press they have a replacement for their July Tour de France programming vacuum?
I was all ready to defend my spot against MW, but he went off the grid for real world demands just as he got to the upper echelon... Now I've got to do the same, so who knows -- maybe come June we will both be active at the same time.
I don't know Art, I really don't like this. It makes me feel like my current rating isn't real, because most of the higher rated competition has been removed.
I mean, is MonkeyWarlock really the best in the league? Obviously no, not until he has a higher ranking than Trip.
If the main reason for this, as you stated in the thread I started, is due to cheating concerns, why not implement a system where the loser has to accept the loss before it's posted on the website?
That way we don't have to worry about people posting wins against inactive players.
BTW, Adaza, I'd also love to see a match between Trip and MW. Perhaps even on Tabby's blog.
I WILL DOOO EEEETTT
(Trip DE DE DE DE DE)
I like it, this isn't the hall of fame board, it's much more useful, an active leader board. Vic, I hear u, but you're asking for a list of the best ever, not the best that are playing.
Like I said, I'm fine with the change in principle, but I do think it's an awkward system for the player at the top. Why should the top-ranked player be forced to challenge lower-ranked players just to keep their spot? The lower players should be the ones challenging to take it away! I never turned down matches from comparably ranked players, I just received shockingly few ever since I got into the top 5 or so (and none, obviously, for the past few months).
Edit: Of course, if a player goes unavailable for matchmaking (as I just did) it makes more sense to take them off the list, regardless of their rank or recent activity. It will lead to odd jumps, though, when players start reappearing out of nowhere! :)
I like it, this isn't the hall of fame board, it's much more useful, an active leader board. Vic, I hear u, but you're asking for a list of the best ever, not the best that are playing.
This is key. Is it a club ladder or a hall of fame?
If it is a club ladder, everyone should be prepared to defend their position. Typically in club ladders there are rules that encourage or require everyone to accept a certain number of challenges within a certain timeframe. It is clear that this league resists enforcing a minimum level of activity, recognising that different people have different real-life commitments, and I am happy about that. This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, though there may be other good ideas...
... I just received shockingly few ever since I got into the top 5 or so (and none, obviously, for the past few months)...
Talk about Prom Queen Syndrome.
I would'a if I'd known.
Edit: I mean the phenomenon of no one asking the Prom Queen out. Not this one: greatexpectations-pip.blogspot.com/2007/05/prom-queen-syndrome.html which I had never heard of.
Trip, do/did you get challenges from neophytes (like me)? Did you accept any?
Where I am going with this is whether high-rank players are annoyed with low ranked players challenging them.
... I just received shockingly few ever since I got into the top 5 or so (and none, obviously, for the past few months)...
Talk about Prom Queen Syndrome.
I would'a if I'd known.
Edit: I mean the phenomenon of no one asking the Prom Queen out. Not this one: greatexpectations-pip.blogspot.com/2007/05/prom-queen-syndrome.html which I had never heard of.
Trip, do/did you get challenges from neophytes (like me)? Did you accept any?
Where I am going with this is whether high-rank players are annoyed with low ranked players challenging them.
I did get two match requests from brand new players, and I asked both to challenge me again after they'd worked their way up the ladder a bit... I'm never annoyed by challenges, but I do think there should be some limits regarding how far above or below one's rank is reasonable for a league match. For a 1600+ player, it's just a bad risk/reward to play new 1200s... I haven't had a challenge from a 1400+ player (which was my requested lower limit) for quite awhile (I can't tell for sure, since I've disappeared from the leaderboard, but I think it was Warbaker in September?)
Trip, do/did you get challenges from neophytes (like me)? Did you accept any?
Where I am going with this is whether high-rank players are annoyed with low ranked players challenging them.
Just to clarify, though, I do receive plenty of requests for practice matches, and have always accepted as long as the challenger introduced themselves with a chat message first. :) I've only started turning down even practice invites just recently.
I did get two match requests from brand new players, and I asked both to challenge me again after they'd worked their way up the ladder a bit... I'm never annoyed by challenges, but I do think there should be some limits regarding how far above or below one's rank is reasonable for a league match. For a 1600+ player, it's just a bad risk/reward to play new 1200s... I haven't had a challenge from a 1400+ player (which was my requested lower limit) for quite awhile (I can't tell for sure, since I've disappeared from the leaderboard, but I think it was Warbaker in September?)
Thanks. Very interesting from a systems standpoint.
Any of you 1400+'ers want to comment? Did you not challenge Trip because you assumed somebody else should? Or some other reason?
I love to play top players, not because I believe I can beat them, but because I feel so in the dark about how top level players play, which admittedly, provides little potential payoff to you.
Vic, I hear u, but you're asking for a list of the best ever, not the best that are playing.
No, I'm not asking for the best or the worst ever, just an actual list of league rankings.
I just feel this penalizes players for inactivity, but this isn't World of Warcraft or Halo. This is an asynchronous game that's supposed to be casual. Inactivity is part of this game; you pick it up and play as you please.
I also dislike that it removes some of the history of the game. I mean, who's going to remember greatgonzales, Aratribal, etc. anymore unless they become active again? But they shouldn't have to. They put in the time on the league and rose to the top echelon of it.
The rest of the active players should eventually knock them off their spot by playing the game and rising in the standings. But they shouldn't be removed simply due to inactivity.
Here's a better suggestion: Why not create another tab on the site ranking active players for the last 2 months. That way we get 2 lists, the standard all time ranking and an active players ranking?
Any of you 1400+'ers want to comment? Did you not challenge Trip because you assumed somebody else should? Or some other reason?
Personally, I was waiting to crack the top 20 before challenging Trip. I just recently did and then this change happened. But it looks like Trip is going to be busy anyway.
If I'm still active when he returns I hope I still have a high enough ranking; I've been wanting to challenge Trip for a while.
In light of this:
Just to clarify, though, I do receive plenty of requests for practice matches, and have always accepted...
I now better understand this:
...I do think it's an awkward system for the player at the top...
Unlike in a standard club ladder system, where beating the top player would mean taking the top place, there also isn't much up-side for lower ranked players to challenge the top player officially. Losing to the top player still means losing ELO. Much better to practice against the top player and play official games against people you are more certain you'll beat.
Why should the top-ranked player be forced to challenge lower-ranked players just to keep their spot? The lower players should be the ones challenging to take it away!
True. In an abstract moral sense. But this system makes it possible to rise above you without playing you. And the only way to increase your ELO, if I am not mistaken, is to win. So it makes sense to go for a surer win, which validates your point that this system puts the top player in an awkward position.
I have no idea if some extra rules would encourage the top players to play eachother more often... Maybe a leader board that was separate from ELO rank? More of a typical challenge ladder?
Holy crap, you're clearing 1500, Vic? =O
Man... Maybe I should play more league games. >.> Adreneline gets me after a while though..
Vic's concerns can likely be addressed by adding a filter, so the leaderboard displays either way. I would still want the default display to be the active leaderboard, but the all time leaderboard will be a click away. I'll ask Z3phyr, our database wizard about it.
I dont think one game every two months should be any great problem for those that want to stay on the current leaderboard.
Adaza is 100% right that many clubs actually penalize players for inactivity. That has always been contrary to our philosophy and will never happen. This is just about encouraging competition among active players.
What were discussing here then is the algorithm - and I tend to agree. I have a hard time believing I'm the 8th best active player, since I've beaten mostly 1200 and low 1300s, but I do so quite consistently. That being said, it's a gauge,ARtNJ has done a great job, I do t think the intention was ever to be philosophically perfect.
I should be challenging people above me, and now that the inactive ones are gone I will, this is my main reason for agreeing w the change, it makes PLAYING (which is the point) more fruitful. I can challenge someone above me and know that they are actively logging in. Tremendous.
why haven't I challenged trip? Because my game isn't perfect yet. From what I know, he plays a near perfect game. I will eventually, but not yet.
Is no one going to say it? <whisper>Trip and MonkeyWarlock in a game of the century. Post move-by-move updates with the hands cropped out.</whisper>
Edit: Posted before seeing Trip's.
Trip, should I alert the press they have a replacement for their July Tour de France programming vacuum?
Yes, Thanks ArtNJ for a great league. It is an amazing thing when you think about it--An iPhone game with a thousand member league. The only thing that could make it better is to come up with some way to encourage the top players to play eachother more often. To be a tad more specific, how do we encourage Trip and MW to play eachother on Tabby_Nat's blog?
Is no one going to say it? <whisper>Trip and MonkeyWarlock in a game of the century. Post move-by-move updates with the hands cropped out.</whisper>
Edit: Posted before seeing Trip's.
Trip, should I alert the press they have a replacement for their July Tour de France programming vacuum?
Yes, Thanks ArtNJ for a great league. It is an amazing thing when you think about it--An iPhone game with a thousand member league. The only thing that could make it better is to come up with some way to encourage the top players to play eachother more often. To be a tad more specific, how do we encourage Trip and MW to play eachother on Tabby_Nat's blog?
Your welcome. Not just me of course -- Dean pays the hosting fees and designed the website. Z3phyr designed the database. H_ngm_n still helps out with admin stuff, and over the history of the league others (now gone) helped out as well, such as Drvumad, AaroninDayton and GreatGonzalez.
League seems very stable, if not as active as it once was. New members are still coming from somewhere, presumably mostly from Steam at this point.
In chess this would be solved by the top players being present in a tournament I was under the impresion that most tournaments here were League games as well but it seems I was mistaken there.
League seems very stable, if not as active as it once was. New members are still coming from somewhere, presumably mostly from Steam at this point.
I think it would be helpful if the matchmaking section did not include inactives, for two reasons.
- Make it easier to find matches. (I sent out my first two match invitations over the weekend and have not heard anything from either of them.)
- Give users a greater impression of a current active leage. (As you read through the lists you have the impression that so many are gone, you wonder whether you should be too. A list of a few hundred actives is better, I think, than a list of a thousand with only X% active.)
Maybe another list, a permanent directory, could have everyone in it.
Just my $0.02.
Kinda OT, but are the rating adjustments after a match weighted to account for the disparate team ratings? If I play DE, do I get more points for beating TF2 than I do TR?
Kinda OT, but are the rating adjustments after a match weighted to account for the disparate team ratings? If I play DE, do I get more points for beating TF2 than I do TR?
No. Some of the admins wanted it, but it was controversial and we (including admins that are long gone) agreed to wait. I'm against it for various reasons, including the length of time it takes for team ratings to be meaningful after an update.
A good example of how it can go wrong is the adjustment for player 1 and player 2. It was originally useful to be sure. However, we continued to let it go after mandating 3ap, figuring that the tiny edge for player 1 was stable. It now looks like adding map health and new teams has changed things, and player 2 actually has a small edge at 3ap, except maybe as to council. But the correction formula has been running since we mandated 3ap, and still shows (incorrectly) a tiny edge for p1, whereas if we reset it to run after the latest update it would show an edge for p2. So, every now and then, p2 may win an extra rating point due to the "corection" that no longer makes any sense. Its not something I had gotten around to focusing on until just now -- it wasnt clear for a while that things were different and the edge to p2 was real.
Any of you 1400+'ers want to comment? Did you not challenge Trip because you assumed somebody else should? Or some other reason?
Personally, I was waiting to crack the top 20 before challenging Trip. I just recently did and then this change happened. But it looks like Trip is going to be busy anyway.
If I'm still active when he returns I hope I still have a high enough ranking; I've been wanting to challenge Trip for a while.
I'm in the same position as TheycallmeVic. I wasn't able to challenge Trip before, because I wasn't within his 200 pt limit, and now he's no longer active. Trip's ELO was something like 1635, and there are only 10 active players within 200 points of that, so it's not surprising that he wasn't getting many challenges.
Welp, now I'm just one for the history books. As it should be, this was a good change.
I would also like to see a commentated replay of Trip vs Monkeywarlock. But it seems like Monkeywarlock has only poached low tier players? He's never faced someone of top tier like aratribal or Trip. So he's the underdog as far as I'm concerned.
I would also like to see a commentated replay of Trip vs Monkeywarlock. But it seems like Monkeywarlock has only poached low tier players? He's never faced someone of top tier like aratribal or Trip. So he's the underdog as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not top tier, but I'm working what I hope will be MonkeyWarlock's first loss, in a game we started last October. (Knocks furiously on wood.) He has played a lot of lower-ranked players, but is really quite good! (Probably better than me, at least.)
I'm in the same position as TheycallmeVic. I wasn't able to challenge Trip before, because I wasn't within his 200 pt limit, and now he's no longer active. Trip's ELO was something like 1635, and there are only 10 active players within 200 points of that, so it's not surprising that he wasn't getting many challenges.
In my defense, there have been many more than 10 active players in the 1400+ range over the course of the past few months -- it just so happens that many at the top apparently went inactive at around the same time... Ladder-climbing fatigue? ;)
Regardless, it's a good point that there are few active players in the upper ranges right now. If there are similar numbers when I do go active again, I'll likely lower my requested challenge threshold to 1300+ or so.
But it seems like Monkeywarlock has only poached low tier players?
I don't think "poached" is a fair description, since the vast majority of MW's games have been challenges from other players. He's accepted a lot of games from lower tier members, it's true, but he also has quality wins against players in the 1300-1400 range. I do look forward to playing him before too long -- perhaps we can set up a three game series sometime? If he takes at least two out of three against me, he'll have truly earned that top spot of his.
Obviously, the ideas here are: (1) to make it easier to find active players you might want to challenge; and (2) to stimulate renewed competition for the top spots on the leaderboard.
Sorry Trip, your going to have to play a League game to regain number 1.