Win/Loss ratio required for promotion

[phineas94]

That all sounds a bit screwy. The whole 2v2 ranking system since the change is a bit wonky. To get demoted straight away like that shouldn't happen. I believe the consensus of opinion is that the hidden ranking point spread for each division overlap one another in order to stop any such yoyo-ing.
e.g. Fluffy goes from 0-400, Clever from 300-800, Gifted 700-1100 etc..
At least your there now. It took me and Zaepian 4 wins and 0 losses to get posted in the top 200. Let me know how it goes

[.Memories.]

Well we are #197 in Top 200 and haven't finished any games as Masters yet. Is that normal? Heh..

[OutwittersFan422]

(07-30-2013 06:06 AM)phineas94 Wrote:  That all sounds a bit screwy. The whole 2v2 ranking system since the change is a bit wonky. To get demoted straight away like that shouldn't happen. I believe the consensus of opinion is that the hidden ranking point spread for each division overlap one another in order to stop any such yoyo-ing.
e.g. Fluffy goes from 0-400, Clever from 300-800, Gifted 700-1100 etc..
At least your there now. It took me and Zaepian 4 wins and 0 losses to get posted in the top 200. Let me know how it goes

Im thinking its more likely three separate systems.

1. Hidden Ranking - overall performance. wins go up losses go down. how far up and how many determine the magnitude of the rises or falls for losses
2. Points - number rises or falls based on the league rank and nothing else
3. Promotion/Demotion - has ONLY to do with recent win loss ratio and NOTHING to do with who you beat or lost to.

So to specifically address your post I think what actually is happening is that hidden ranking points are increasing to a level that bumps say a master above an ST but the required win ration in recent games hasnt yet been met.

2v2 does seem to have a lot more to do with the fact that there are so many fewer teams, which means that 1 loss would penalize you more relative to one loss in 1v1. Especially if you consider taht there are plenty of teams that win All 5. 5-0 vs 4-1 is 25% higher meaning that in almost any system that is a huge swing

For me thus far in 2v2. I have two teams

In the first:

We've played 23 games. First 5 all wins, placed in Master. 12 more games to be placed into ST. Those 12 games were 9-3. Since ST have gone 5-1. In order all 23 were
W,W,W,W,W(M),W,W,W,W,W,W,L,L,W,W,L,W(ST),W,W,W,W,L,W

In the second:

We've played 14 games. First 5 all wins, placed in Master. Since then 9 games. In those 9 have gone 8-1. Still in Master but i expect promotion within the next three games assuming they are wins but i will let you know. In order they went
W,W,W,W,W(M),W,W,W,L,W,W,W,W,W

[phineas94]

(07-30-2013 08:05 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  1. Hidden Ranking - overall performance. wins go up losses go down. how far up and how many determine the magnitude of the rises or falls for losses

Definitely

(07-30-2013 08:05 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  2. Points - number rises or falls based on the league rank and nothing else

Absolutely

(07-30-2013 08:05 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  3. Promotion/Demotion - has ONLY to do with recent win loss ratio and NOTHING to do with who you beat or lost to.

I agree. Looking at my own promotion to ST and others (notably Scrambler Baby) there is no evidence to suggest that you must beat a certain number of higher division opponents in order to get promoted. Those matches are, of course, a good indicator that you're nearing the top of your divisions hidden ranking spread. The only thing I'd add to this is that I think you have to have attained a certain level of hidden rank before the system starts logging your win/loss record. I haven't got a massive amount of data so pure supposition on this one but I think it goes something like this (for 1v1).

Promotion from bottom of needs 5 or so wins to get to the required hidden rank then the system logs the next 5 or so games for win/loss ratio

Promotion from bottom of needs about 15 wins to get to the required hidden rank then the system logs the next 10 or so games for win/loss ratio

Promotion from bottom of needs about 15 wins to get to the required hidden rank then the system logs the next 15 or so games for win/loss ratio

Promotion from bottom of needs about 15 wins to get to the required hidden rank then the system logs the next 20 or so games for win/loss ratio

I've been a little creative with these numbers and this is all pure guess work

(07-30-2013 08:05 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  2v2 does seem to have a lot more to do with the fact that there are so many fewer teams, which means that 1 loss would penalize you more relative to one loss in 1v1. Especially if you consider taht there are plenty of teams that win All 5. 5-0 vs 4-1 is 25% higher meaning that in almost any system that is a huge swing

While the small pool of teams may exacerbate the ranking problem in 2v2 I still think it's broken.

If I read .Memories. results correctly they;

1) won all 5 placement games and got placed as high gifted - this falls in line with 1v1 stats
2) won their first league game and were promoted to Masters - again, in line with 1v1
3) lost their second league game and were demoted to low gifted!!!!
4) Then went 45 wins out of 50 (or roundabouts) in order to get promoted back to Masters again

Couple this extreme promotion/demotion with another aspect of 2v2 ranking which is several teams getting placed into Masters after only completing 2 or 3 of their placement games and again I come to the conclusion that something's not right.

If this a knock on from low numbers then a fix is required.

[[PETA] Cor13:4]

So I've found the "placement" games must have a special value attributed to them that causes them to have a much greater effect on hidden ranking. And I found any game you've started while "unranked" counts as a "placement" game.

For example, if you started 7 games "unranked", even when you won the 6th game and got placed to masters, the 7th game is still a "placement" game and greatly effects your hidden ranking if you lose.

[phineas94]

(07-30-2013 07:38 AM).Memories. Wrote:  Well we are #197 in Top 200 and haven't finished any games as Masters yet. Is that normal? Heh..

Yep, that looks normal. After being promoted to masters with Zaepian it took 4 wins and 0 losses to be placed at #184

---

(07-30-2013 10:57 PM)Cor13:4 Wrote:  So I've found the "placement" games must have a special value attributed to them that causes them to have a much greater effect on hidden ranking. And I found any game you've started while "unranked" counts as a "placement" game.

For example, if you started 7 games "unranked", even when you won the 6th game and got placed to masters, the 7th game is still a "placement" game and greatly effects your hidden ranking if you lose.

Don't know if this is true or not. I recently started a second account to see how 1 win out of 5 placement games would affect your placement. 3 games I started whilst I was unranked timed out and finished at 10 or so games into my career as a fluffy and didnt seem to be different from any other game finished.

[.Memories.]

(07-30-2013 10:57 PM)Cor13:4 Wrote:  For example, if you started 7 games "unranked", even when you won the 6th game and got placed to masters, the 7th game is still a "placement" game and greatly effects your hidden ranking if you lose.

That's an interesting thought. Unfortunately, in our case, we finished 5 placement games before starting new ones.

[phineas94]

(07-30-2013 10:52 PM)phineas94 Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 08:05 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  2. Points - number rises or falls based on the league rank and nothing else

Absolutely

More haste, less speed - I'm going to have to disagree with both of us here. Haven't been playing much recently but when I was I had a particular interest in the new point system, and apart from ST vs ST (which A&A said was still a bit wonky), I did see points reflecting more than just rank e.g. playing the same opponent several times in quick succession, with results not altering our league positions but the points gained/lost changing with each subsequent game. So number of points accumulated and hidden ranking still in there somewhere I think

[OutwittersFan422]

(07-31-2013 06:33 AM)phineas94 Wrote:  More haste, less speed - I'm going to have to disagree with both of us here. Haven't been playing much recently but when I was I had a particular interest in the new point system, and apart from ST vs ST (which A&A said was still a bit wonky), I did see points reflecting more than just rank e.g. playing the same opponent several times in quick succession, with results not altering our league positions but the points gained/lost changing with each subsequent game. So number of points accumulated and hidden ranking still in there somewhere I think

Yes this occurs for me too. I play the same opponent 3 times and if i win all three the second and third games the winner gains fewer and the loser loses fewer points in each finished game.

When i was trying to break the HR code I ran correlations on more numbers than I really needed to. And again just to clarify it became quite difficult for me to get the real situation based solely on my stats.
But nonetheless when I was doing it the points seemed only to correlate to ranking within the league (which basically means only your points).

What got me to thinking that that this was a separate formula than the hidden ranking system was that the correlations made no sense until you separate the two systems entirely. At that point, it becomes rather straight forward. I was for a long time #1 in ST and playing players who had both higher and lower hidden rankings than I did (at least at the most recently published HRs). Being as I was #1 for both the league rank was controlled for and there were many cases of players who were lower in HR than I was who lost more points than those who were higher despite beating both.

If i start with 500 league points and you start with 400 then I believe that OML has a formula for point awarded/taken for win/loss. So if we play 5 games and I beat you all five. Lets say the first was I get 20 points and you lose 10. the second would then move 21/9, 3rd 22/8, 4th 23/7 and so on.

I could be 100% wrong who knows but that is my guess.

[phineas94]

This probably belongs somewhere like this but according to A & A points accrued in league games factored in both total points and hidden ranking

(07-31-2013 07:00 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  What got me to thinking that that this was a separate formula than the hidden ranking system was that the correlations made no sense until you separate the two systems entirely. At that point, it becomes rather straight forward. I was for a long time #1 in ST and playing players who had both higher and lower hidden rankings than I did (at least at the most recently published HRs). Being as I was #1 for both the league rank was controlled for and there were many cases of players who were lower in HR than I was who lost more points than those who were higher despite beating both.

without knowing all the numbers this could still make sense e.g.

You 1000 league points & 1000 HR
Player A 400 league points &1100 HR
Player B 900 league points & 900 HR

So, through whatever equation, the combination of player B's points and HR means they would lose more after a defeat to you. Numbers, numbers

Have the points for ST vs ST started varying significantly from the +24/-1 bracket ( I haven't played in a while). I emailed A&A and was told that ST vs ST point allocation "was a bit wonky" a couple of months back.

(07-31-2013 07:00 AM)OutwittersFan422 Wrote:  If i start with 500 league points and you start with 400 then I believe that OML has a formula for point awarded/taken for win/loss. So if we play 5 games and I beat you all five. Lets say the first was I get 20 points and you lose 10. the second would then move 21/9, 3rd 22/8, 4th 23/7 and so on.

It should be more of a gradual decrease of points gained and lost I thought so more like +21/9, +20/-9, +19/-8 etc. Your capacity to gain points is decreased because my total points and HR decrease with each defeat and conversely my capacity to lose points is decreased. Likewise, I could be wrong.

Fantastic thread on your 1200 (and counting) games by the way. Haven't had the time yet but look forward to sinking my teeth into it. One question though, When you deliberately dropped down in rank before starting a new race did you lose on purpose, try mad strategies or just play blitz?