Post League Game Results Here

@akreider2 And thus an ELO gain by a favored player in a match where they are expected to crush their opponent should be very small.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

Don’t ELO systems always add to your rating if you win, no matter how weak the opponent? Encourages bottom feeders who get inflated ratings, no thanks.

Not really.

Elo is a statistical model and rating change is based on the probability of win and loss.

In chess there is no such problem anyway. Sure, some guy wins 20 games against crappy opponents gaining 20 points, but then for some reason loses one game for -20 and it all gets square.

Usually even opposition is the best for game quality. The beauty of Elo is that it’s fully possible to play someone of clear lesser playing strength without automatically getting a ranking shift downwards like our system does now.

Main point being that if an excelling player takes it to heart to invest time to hone someone else’s skill by play, that’s possible with Elo, but not really with our present system.

Like my games with axis-dominion. They must be all a joke to him, but I appreciate that he takes the time to teach me some valuable lessons. If I were tier 2 or 3, I’m pretty confident it wouldn’t happen.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

Yeah, that’s not how it works here. Unlike chess, we have a very small number of games played because this game takes a lot longer than chess. Not really comparable. This system really works well for our purposes, and if I get much more criticism, someone else is going to have to take over because I’m not even playing the game any more.

Actually :) there’s correspondence chess, which takes a lot longer than A&A. And that carries an Elo as well.

The trick I believe is rather to incorporate the element of luck, which is a lot less in chess, reflected in the ratings. But that’s no biggie. Just tweak the algorithm. Like I said before, I think @DizzKneeLand33 has done it already.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

Yeah, that’s not how it works here. Unlike chess, we have a very small number of games played because this game takes a lot longer than chess. Not really comparable. This system really works well for our purposes, and if I get much more criticism, someone else is going to have to take over because I’m not even playing the game any more.

Okay, this is a slight fallacy. Back in the 1980’s when I started playing correspondence chess, there was an ELO system in place for both the USCF and the ICCF (international organization). My longest correspondence game (in time) ended in 2 years, 8 months (67 move draw). So, our games indeed do not take as long as that. ;)

For an ELO system to work for us, however, it has to take in account dice. So, a master beating a Class C should be minimal in gains, but yet it should be worth something, because the “master” is taking a dice chance of losing.

So, for those who want an ELO system, remember that this isn’t chess, it’s a strategy dice game.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I hear you, and I’ve listened to these arguments for years. This is my philosophy, however. League ranked play is not the place to learn from a much stronger player - play outside of league ranked play if that’s what you want. As many hours as this game takes to play, a tier M really doesn’t need to be messing around with 2’s and 3’s, frankly there’s such a huge difference in ability they’re not even competitive games. League ranked play is intended for competitive play

I’ve never had ANYONE else pipe up and volunteer to handle all these calculations, updates, and rankings, so until that happens, my system stands.

Again, in chess tournaments grand-masters meet patzers. No problem.

I respect that you are not so keen on change. Hopefully there’s no hurt by discussing these matters though.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game

Gamerman, your system is SOOO annoying because I am not No. 1!!!

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

No hurt, I’m just kind of tired of defending my system for so many years.
It’s not chess, it’s not starcraft, there’s weaknesses in every system, but frankly I think this system is dynamite.

Length of game, I meant in hours of effort, not in how many years of correspondence - again, apples and oranges, you guys! lol

Again, this system is really good. The problem is that it discourages play between the ranks. Gamer, honestly, I think this only happened (as an issue) when the M was introduced, and then there were games where beating someone wasn’t as good as losing to someone. Maybe the losing to M equals beating a 3. I’ll have to look, but this change (5 years ago or so???) was the bad part. Otherwise, it’s really cool.

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game

Okay, you don’t understand old correspondence chess at all. I mean, there could be 200 hours in a game lol.

Of course now since the late 90’s there are computers. Sad days.

@DizzKneeLand33 said in Post League Game Results Here:

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game

Okay, you don’t understand old correspondence chess at all. I mean, there could be 200 hours in a game lol.

Of course now since the late 90’s there are computers. Sad days.

There could be 200 hours on a move. LOL

But none of this is as complicated as trying to figure out how to put your own fishing line on a reel, when you’re a tax accountant lmao. bb soon. :D