The new ELO-based ranking system

I have a very similar concern as ABH after entering a couple thousand games.
I really appreciate the analysis (that MrRoboto quickly did) on players with 1-3 games complete (we currently have it set so the sensitivity of the first 3 games is higher). That they significantly underperform.
Correct, the solution using this system is not to change the starting ELO number, and thanks for verifying that 100%, MrRoboto

I tend to think maybe it’s not too big a deal for us who keep playing, because you play a few more people who aren’t unknown and your rating starts to correct. I’ve been busy entering games (and I’m deep into 2012 when things were just starting up, so I’m super close), so I haven’t looked hard at how fast a player would correct after bottom feeding a little.

I wouldn’t be surprised if MrRoboto thinks of some adjustment, though one is not necessarily needed IMO

We do have a sensitivity scale in place that we haven’t yet really played with or discussed yet. That’s another discussion. Currently we’re most interested in getting a new player up to an appropriate ELO quickly (like within about 6 games) so that a good player would not be significantly under-rated when entering the playoffs in year 1. I suppose this relatively higher sensitivity in the first 3 games would also make a significantly below average player drop faster. So it’s hard to feast on the new guys given we don’t have too many new ones come in, in a given year, and if their rating quickly drops from game 1, 2, 3

Not my clearest writing, there, my apologies. I’m tired, but I wanted to respond

@MrRoboto I had a cutoff date for looking at noobs, grandfathering in people who started the earlier years with a higher elo rating at start since most of the talent had been here for such a long time.

Newer players who began more recently had a lower assigned starting ELO since we appear to be attracting less talented people now instead of hardcore G40 whizkids. It isn’t the fairest of systems but does match the reality of the situation.

I still struggle here.

These are the numbers at the bottom of the “data” spreadsheet and show how much rating has changed depending on prior rating and who actually won the game. For the five first entries the increase in rating and decrease in rating is the same. To me this makes sense and the relative change is given by difference in original rating and who won the game.

Some of the other entries seem more random (I am sure there is a reason though). In one of the games the winner gained 58 points whereas the loser lost 37 points. How does this relate to the first 5 entries? I think this is important to understand. It is not obvious to me. Please explain.

I am making different posts. Here is another one… It is mostly just an observation and not any criticism. Using myself as an example I am currently rated no 3 in the elo system for the OOB playoffs starting 01.01.2024 as I have finished the required 3 game cap.

In gamerman01*s spreadsheet I am currently tied for 8 th place and it is give or take if I will qualify for the top bracket or not

This tells me that my results in 2022 (and maybe in 2021) stil count considerably towards my current elo rating.

This might not be a problem, but it also may indicate a higher barrier for new players to qualify for the top bracket. I know there has been som discussions around how to place new players rapidly.

Maybe, it is appropiate that the designing crew give a highlight of how the elo system works both with new players vs old players and how this relate to the 3 game cap and prior years influence. Also see my post above about about the sum of gain/loss not always equals zero

Finally, again this is not negative thoughts. I just dont fully understand how everything comes together and would like to understand better before the change becomes active on 01.01.2024

I thought we agreed, in earlier discussions, that we would have one historic rating for fun and interest and one current rating for each new year? That way this year’s playoffs are only based on games played this year.

Using data from before the current playoff year makes the system more like golf or tennis were Players are rated and seeded accordingly based on a rolling average that dates back 2 years (Golf) or one year (Tennis). Except our rolling average would date back to whenever the player started to play. So good play over time is going to result in higher playoff seedings versus someone who had medium or bad play over time even though both players had the exact same playing experience in the current year.

I would prefer a system more like football, basketball, baseball and hockey that starts everyone off at zero for the new year. The worst team in the league and the best team in the league from the previous year all start over even in the new current year.

My two cents…

Very well said, happy to have 2 respected players weigh in.
I’m going to wait until MrRoboto can answer some of these (I don’t know why ELO changes are the same for victory and defeated after game 1)

Part of the answer is that at this point the sensitivity ratings were somewhat arbitrarily put out there by MrRoboto, and I somewhat arbitrarily changed them to see what would happen.
That is, on the data sheet to the right, we currently have 110, 90, 70, 50 at threshholds 3 games, 6 games, 10 games (3 and 6 of course have become accepted league threshholds, 3 for getting a firm tier, 6 for qualifying for BM)

The matter of a new player getting a reasonable seat at the playoff table after finishing minimum # of games for his very first year is fairly easy to address, I think.

You (plural) raised other points and every sentence is appreciated. I do not consider this post here a complete answer, but some thoughts in response to some of your thoughts that I think will help advance the discussion.

Well explained @MrRoboto . I support your recommendation here

I also support your recommendation of multiyear ELO for playoff spots in the playoff. I am clearly not the strongest player going into the tournament: I needed a fair bit of luck to beat Andrew. I am an average player over my career and did not improve this year. No need to give me the #1 seed.

My main comment is to have everyone who signs up have a spot in the main tier of the playoff instead of having an upper and lower bracket. That won’t be a problem for OOB this year, but give players a chance to get the crown as a medium guy can sometimes pull enough upsets to become #1. Perhaps more of an issue for BM playoffs.

@MrRoboto said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

Good point, @Arthur-Bomber-Harris , I also support a single tournament tree instead of having different brackets. But maybe I don’t see the merits of having multiple brackets, perhaps @gamerman01 or someone else can enlighten me.

The main reason to have brackets the way they are is mainly a time issue. The champion should be “crowned” before a new play off season starts. If I am not mistanken the BM champoinship is currently ongoing… Clearly, we wont have multiple playoff season going on side by side.

Excellent explanation @MrRoboto. You have convinced me.

@oysteilo said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

@MrRoboto said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

Good point, @Arthur-Bomber-Harris , I also support a single tournament tree instead of having different brackets. But maybe I don’t see the merits of having multiple brackets, perhaps @gamerman01 or someone else can enlighten me.

The main reason to have brackets the way they are is mainly a time issue. The champion should be “crowned” before a new play off season starts. If I am not mistaken the BM championship is currently ongoing… Clearly, we wont have multiple playoff season going on side by side.

I too support one bigger playoff per game version however, @oysteilo has hit the nail on the head. With an 8 player playoff format that means 3 games have to be finished to crown the champion. If we went to a 16 player playoff that means 4 games have to be finished. 3 games allows 4 months per game while 4 games only allows 3 months per game. While 3 months sounds like a long time with vacations and busy schedules it is not actually a full 3 months. Plus, assuming a Turn every 2-3 days, it takes at least a week to complete one full Round. 3 months means about 12 Rounds, not nearly enough for a tough game. Time is the factor.

What if there was a full tournament every two years, and a special format tournament with varying format and rules in the odd years. Such as partners, or DoW must be called on turn 1, or all bid units must be bombers or whatever is voted popular that year?

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

What if there was a full tournament every two years, and a special format tournament with varying format and rules in the odd years.

I would not be in favor of a full tournament every two years. We want to keep the community active. Having a tournament every year provides more incentive for people to consistently play.

I think we should stick to 8 as well given the time issues. Its been pretty common even with 8 for the final (and sometimes more than the final) to not get finished until the following year.

I would just add that while I was concerned too that longer term rankings might not capture what has happened in the year, I’m being won over. And regardless, I think its worth trying this out and seeing how it plays out. As Roboto has explained, there is room to fine tune it if we do run into the issues. And once we see how it plays if over the next year or two, we can still revisit.

I saw ABH’s last comment after I posted. I would still stick to the tournament as we have it, but nothing stops us from also doing a larger tournament every couple of years alongside league play if there is interest in setting it up.

I am also strongly in favor of an annual tournament with only one bracket. This should not be an issue with OOB and PtV in the near to mid-term future due to the relatively low number of participants.

We can work a lot with byes, with top seeded players only joining in round 2 or 3 and the defending champion only in the semi-finals, for example.

At the same time, we could make the days-per-turn rule stricter in the first one or two rounds of the Playoffs and say two days per turn for round 1.

Of course, you can still ask for a break in case of business trips, sickness or whatever, but this should shorten the first Playoff round(s) by a few weeks.

Thank you all for your work by the way!!

Lotta great ideas, this is what I was hoping for!
I read all posts but MrRobotos (will read that next)

But I can tell you right now, even with Martin’s cool ideas on speeding it up, that I am firm on a bracket of no more than 8 for a few major reasons.

Even with byes to reduce total number of games, it only takes one game to stop everything. Going to 16, even with some byes (which means less than 16 players) means many more chances for a weak link of the chain to hold everything up.

You can institute timers like the same as regular league games, but I don’t want the #3 player being bounced by the #12 or whatever in round 1 (assuming 1 and 2 get byes) because he took 4 days for a move.

Going with more than 8 also cheapens the regular season.

The thought of a big 16 man tourney is intriguing and interesting, of course, but there’s not much theater in the #3 mopping up the floor with the #14. Or the #1 to the #16 if there are no byes.

Personally I’d rather see a 2 round, 4 man bracket for the championship for the above reasons.

2022 BM playoffs
#1 is fighting #3
2nd bracket
#1 is fighting #2

2021 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4 for the champ
2nd bracket
#2 beat #4

2020 BM playoffs
#3 beat #5
2nd bracket
#3 beat #4

2019 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4
2nd bracket
#2 beat #1

2018 BM playoffs
#2 beat #1
2nd bracket
#1 beat #2

2017 BM playoffs
#4 beat #2
2nd bracket
#5 beat #7

2016 BM playoffs
#8 beat #2
2nd bracket
#7 beat #4

2015 BM playoffs
#3 beat #4
2nd bracket
#1 beat #2
3rd bracket
#3 beat #4

That is a LOT of actual results that show that almost always, #1-4 win it. The additional brackets give players #9 through #16 more competitive games and a chance to win a bracket and go into all-time league history.

In fact, looking at the data, the #5-#8 seeds are just there to take punches, fall to the mat, and make it a little longer and more interesting.

With brackets of 4, you get winners in September instead of February the next year.

I’m not making a decree and I’m not meaning to argue, just putting my position out there for you to think about.