What do you want in a Ladder?

[00owl]

Doesn't the ELO account for losing games by removing skill points already? Unless I'm mis-understanding AMP I think that the ELO (as implemented in say, chess for example) causes people to lose ranking when they lose. They lose more ranking when they lose against someone who had smaller rank and lose less ranking when losing against someone of higher skill level. The ELO includes that sort of handicapping element already, however, that isn't to say it can't be abused, as is evidenced in other online games which utilize this scoring system where people will create games only play against noobs in order to get a high ranking.

If anything what I would like to see in a competitive atmosphere is the guarantee of sportsman-like conduct. I have found that when people get competitive it ruins the 'fun' atmosphere of the game because they end up resorting to verbal abuse and other non-game related means to win.

[TinCow]

That sounds right, but I've never actually used an ELO system so I can't say for sure. I'll run a test with it on monday or tuesday to get some solid answers.

Sportsman-like conduct would be an integral part of any official Org ladder/league.

[AMP]

You might be right about losing skill rating, just I couldn't understand how someone with so many losses and not that many more wins than me could be on top on the ladder, something isn't adding up. Just looked broken to me...

[Swoosh So]

The best league format is a football league (no amp not some oval ball u throw around) with relegation and promotion.

[AMP]

Just need to make sure we have the numbers or it really won't be worthwhile. That's why things like this work best built into the game so your going up against everyone that is playing the game, some day CA will understand.

[TinCow]

Just need to make sure we have the numbers or it really won't be worthwhile. That's why things like this work best built into the game so your going up against everyone that is playing the game, some day CA will understand.

What kind of numbers do you think we need at a minimum? 20+? 50+?

If it's successful, I'm sure it will draw more later, but establishing a good starting level would be mandatory.

[TinCow]

Ok, I've just run a test of the ELO ranking ladder system, and here are the results:

It was a 5 person test ladder, with the players: Tester A, Tester B, Tester C, Tester D, Tester E

All players started with an ELO rating of 1000.

Game 1, Tester A (1000) defeats Tester B (1000).
Result, Tester A gains 25 ELO points, Tester B loses 25 ELO points.

Game 2, Tester C (1000) defeats Tester D (1000).
Result, Tester C gains 25 ELO points, Tester D loses 25 ELO points.

Game 3, Tester A (1025) defeats Tester C (1025).
Result, Tester A gains 25 ELO points, Tester C loses 25 ELO points.

Game 4, Tester A (1050) defeats Tester D (975).
Result, Tester A gains 18 ELO points, Tester B loses 18 ELO points.

Game 5, Tester D (957) defeats Tester A (1068).
Result, Tester A loses 35 ELO points, Tester D gains 35 ELO points.

Game 6, Tester E (1000) defeats Tester C (1000).
Result, Tester E gains 25 ELO points, Tester C loses 25 ELO points.

Game 7, Tester A (1033) defeats Tester E (1025).
Result, Tester A gains 24 ELO points, Tester E loses 23 ELO points.

So, every result adds points to the winner and subtracts them from the loser. The point change varies depending on the relative ranks of the people who are fighting. If both players have the same ELO rating, the point change is exactly 25. However, when the players do not have the same ELO rating, the points are different. If the winner is the player with the higher rating, they gain fewer than 25 points. If the winner is the player with the lower rating, they gain more than 25 points. The point changes are not always even, as represented by Game 7, and they appear to scale relative to the ranks of the players.

You can see the current state of this test game here.

Overall, I think this looks like a good ranking system, as it takes into account each person's rank when determining their scores. It is far more important about who you beat than how many wins you have. Does this look like a ranking system that would be fair?

[00owl]

You might be right about losing skill rating, just I couldn't understand how someone with so many losses and not that many more wins than me could be on top on the ladder, something isn't adding up. Just looked broken to me...

Yeah I think the current ladder version that is live in-game, is a mixture of the ELO and some messed up half-baked system.

Though it is technically possible in the ELO system that someone with more losses could be higher than someone with more wins if the wins of the first person, though few and far between, were all against the highest ranking people, and the wins of the second person were against the lowest ranking people.

200 wins at 1 point each is less than 50 wins at 10 points each.

EDIT: *Historical Note*
I believe that the ELO was designed specifically for, and is still used by, professional chess leagues.

[Swoosh So]

why not just do 3 points for a win?

[AMP]

What kind of numbers do you think we need at a minimum? 20+? 50+?

If it's successful, I'm sure it will draw more later, but establishing a good starting level would be mandatory.

That would be a good start as long as we can draw more.

Our own working ELO system would be nice, but it's also nice to have replays of matches, know ones wins/losses, know if they are on a win streak and know who they played and when and how many times. I don't wanna look at someone and just see a rating on them and that's it... because if there can be so much more then there should be. When you look someone up it should have their ELO rating and stats... some or all the ones I listed.

The thing that makes it a grind is where someone who plays a ton more has a better chance to be on top of course, that's why you need stats as well to keep it more real and interesting. You also can't have someone milking out someone else playing them a tons, so there should be a cap on games vs the same person and after a certain time has passed you can play them again. Maybe a cap of 5 games vs the same person in a couple months and only can start playing that same person again as the last game vs him/her has passed that date and then not play again until the next game has passed that date etc.

Maybe have a cap where each player has to like 10 different people best of 3 and no more after that. Then you can put people in different tiers and continue the cycle having top players move up and bottom players move down in tiers. Something like the clan meta just ALOT better. :p

Maybe later down the road once it is establisted and running smooth to start offering prizes to help draw more people in and make it more rewarding to play.

Yeah I think the current ladder version that is live in-game, is a mixture of the ELO and some messed up half-baked system.

Though it is technically possible in the ELO system that someone with more losses could be higher than someone with more wins if the wins of the first person, though few and far between, were all against the highest ranking people, and the wins of the second person were against the lowest ranking people.

200 wins at 1 point each is less than 50 wins at 10 points each.

EDIT: *Historical Note*
I believe that the ELO was designed specifically for, and is still used by, professional chess leagues.

Whatever they have now isn't that great and of course the exploiting isn't helping and they lack so much info. I wanna be able to look up people and see stats like who they played , when they played them, how many times, results of the matches, and replays.

p2p = fail

[TinCow]

That would be a good start as long as we can draw more.

Our own working ELO system would be nice, but it's also nice to have replays of matches, know ones wins/losses, know if they are on a win streak and know who they played and when and how many times. I don't wanna look at someone and just see a rating on them and that's it... because if there can be so much more then there should be. When you look someone up it should have their ELO rating and stats... some or all the ones I listed.

If you look at the current system, the displayed stats are: ELO rating, Total Matches, Wins, Losses, Streaks, and Last Activity. There are also stats for Draws, Points Scored, Points Conceded, and Experience, but I have turned them off since they don't seem very relevant to what we need. You can also see a list of the recent matches, showing who fought who and what the score was. There's even a comment ability for each match for discussions about specific results. That would be a good place to link replays and videos of the matches. I'll see if I can add an ability to see a list of ALL match results, not just recent ones.

What other stats do you want?

The thing that makes it a grind is where someone who plays a ton more has a better chance to be on top of course, that's why you need stats as well to keep it more real and interesting. You also can't have someone milking out someone else playing them a tons, so there should be a cap on games vs the same person and after a certain time has passed you can play them again. Maybe a cap of 5 games vs the same person in a couple months and only can start playing that same person again as the last game vs him/her has passed that date and then not play again until the next game has passed that date etc.

In the current setup, players cannot challenge each other more than once every 24 hours. However, we can change that to any time period. Maybe no more than once per week against the same player?

Maybe have a cap where each player has to like 10 different people best of 3 and no more after that. Then you can put people in different tiers and continue the cycle having top players move up and bottom players move down in tiers. Something like the clan meta just ALOT better. :p

I've looked at the system more closely, and there actually is a built-in promotion/demotion function for leagues, so we don't even have to do that by hand. If we turn it on, at the end of every 'season' of the league, the system will automatically promote and demote the top and bottom players in each 'group' within the league. The current options allow for promotion/demotion of the top/bottom 1, 2, 3, or 4 players in each group, with the new groups starting in the next 'season.' In order to make that meaningful, I think we'd have to make seasons about a month long. If people are sufficiently active, that would be enough time for them to get a large number of games in, but not so long that promotion/demotion never happens.

As I said before though, leagues and ladders behave differently on who plays who. In leagues, all matches are automatically assigned to ensure everyone plays everyone. In a ladder, players are free to pick who they play. If you really want a completely fair setup, a league is probably the way to go.

Maybe later down the road once it is establisted and running smooth to start offering prizes to help draw more people in and make it more rewarding to play.

That's quite easy to do, and the Org would happily supply prizes if there was serious competition going. In fact, we can actually link small tournaments directly into the League/ladder itself. We can do even do small 'championship' tournaments of about 4 to 8 people at the end of each season or something, and award bonus ELO points to the winner, along with an official prize.

[00owl]

This sounds like a really decent league/ladder system they got going on here.