Weekly Top 100 - 8/01/12

GreatGonzales · 08-02-2012, 07:18 AM

(08-02-2012 07:02 AM)aaronINdayton Wrote: These guys should be in a league of their own! I made a post about it, it's around the forums somewhere I'm sure...

I am guessing that eventually they will add an extra league for the tippy top of the player base...but probably not for a long while so that the player base can grow, and ratings are no longer in flux.

swimj · 08-02-2012, 07:24 AM

(08-02-2012 06:40 AM)onealexleft Wrote:
(08-02-2012 06:26 AM)Harti Wrote: I wonder, though, why Josuecuervo is so far to the bottom (52nd). Something can't be right about that list but it's probably also based on how many games you played. Which is quite a bunch in my case (130 pre-reset and 140 post-reset). This, again, would encourage grinding a bit. Should be tweaked maybe.

You're rating only changes when you actively play. He was moving up, but stopped due to inactivity. He hasn't played a 1v1 in a couple weeks due to the 2v2's he's playing.

Not to delve too deeply into the secrecy...but are ratings on an absolute or relative scale? In real terms, if someone at the top were to just stop playing/take a break, would they stay put (rating more dependent on w/l pct) or take a slide (rating more dependent on # of wins)? It's probably more complex than that but could you give any estimate?

ArtNJ · 08-02-2012, 07:36 AM

They have said before that there is an ELO "component". The other component would seem to take activity into account in some fashion, but it could easily be tracking aggregate activity and/or recent activity. For example, if its ELO + Your Aggregate "Points" and you gain more points when you win than you lose against an equal opponent, than its ELO + Aggregate Activity. Reading the tea leaves a bit, I think its something like that. However, there could easily be a measure of recent activity in there as well -- i.e., with small point loss occuring daily.

***onealexleft*** · 08-02-2012, 07:59 AM

(08-02-2012 07:24 AM)swimj Wrote:
(08-02-2012 06:40 AM)onealexleft Wrote:
(08-02-2012 06:26 AM)Harti Wrote: I wonder, though, why Josuecuervo is so far to the bottom (52nd). Something can't be right about that list but it's probably also based on how many games you played. Which is quite a bunch in my case (130 pre-reset and 140 post-reset). This, again, would encourage grinding a bit. Should be tweaked maybe.

You're rating only changes when you actively play. He was moving up, but stopped due to inactivity. He hasn't played a 1v1 in a couple weeks due to the 2v2's he's playing.

Not to delve too deeply into the secrecy...but are ratings on an absolute or relative scale? In real terms, if someone at the top were to just stop playing/take a break, would they stay put (rating more dependent on w/l pct) or take a slide (rating more dependent on # of wins)? It's probably more complex than that but could you give any estimate?

ratings are relative to the player base. So if you go inactive, no you're raw rating won't change, but that 'meaning' of that rating may change over time as the player base matures and players get better. What was once considered a great rating may become 'average'.

GreatGonzales · 08-02-2012, 08:58 AM

(08-02-2012 08:25 AM)mkaen Wrote: It sounds like activity is a major part of the hidden rating, much like it is for the points rankings. Contrast this with ELO, where a 2000 rating is a 2000 rating, now and a year from now.

Actually I think you are mistaken. All Alex is saying that your score will no longer increase when you cease playing. So, of course other people who are still working to increase their rank could pass you. Since the game is still new, rankings are probably still in a state of high flux. So, the highest ranking is probably increasing at a pretty quick pace. That will slow as people complete more games, and the rate of new players drops. However, even then it's true that the number 1 player could drop to, say, number 10 if they stop playing for a month, depending of course how hot the competition is.

This is an unfortunate but (I think) necessary aspect of any ranking system that they could have used for this game.

Kamikaze28 · 08-02-2012, 09:10 AM

(08-02-2012 08:25 AM)mkaen Wrote:
(08-02-2012 07:59 AM)onealexleft Wrote: ratings are relative to the player base. So if you go inactive, no you're raw rating won't change, but that 'meaning' of that rating may change over time as the player base matures and players get better. What was once considered a great rating may become 'average'.

It sounds like activity is a major part of the hidden rating, much like it is for the points rankings. Contrast this with ELO, where a 2000 rating is a 2000 rating, now and a year from now.

True, but even ELO suffers from rating inflation. A 2000 rating today may be on grandmaster level - but 2 months from now it could be *only* master level.
Over time, the average and top ratings will increase unless the system compensates in some fashion.

worldfamous · 08-02-2012, 09:20 AM

Must be a typo. I think number 98 is supposed to be WorldFamous, instead of WorldShadow. Tongue

P1noyboypj · 08-02-2012, 10:33 AM

Hi.

I'm Allout on hero academy...

Wtb invite to a Good player based tourney, not a "most active on forums based" tourney.

GreatGonzales · 08-02-2012, 11:17 AM

Wow Allout, way to be number 1! congrats

Ezras · 08-02-2012, 11:27 AM

Awsome, yet another example of draconian information hoarding and control by the programers. Release all rankings and all leagues and all records for of all players and let the egos be hurt. Why release the top rankings when I can't even see my record?!?!?! Or see howard gifted leagues there are or how manyasters divisions there are. Get over the secrecy.