Best posts made by MrRoboto

Ooooh, that’s interesting.
I now have this:

I have never seen this before haha. Maybe because it took me a while to post the picture here and I let TripleA open for a while.

Yeah I remember you talking about fire and 60% and so on.

I wondered the whole time how you ended up with 60%… Now I know.

Yeah I thought so. Those 3 transports were the nail in the coffin.

Thanks for the cool game!

@oysteilo said in oysteilo (X) vs. MrRoboto (A+20) BM:

with +7 for Japan

I assume you mean USA ;-)

UK10.tsvg

One thing of note:

A result is only considered when the specific player is M or E in the type that’s actually played.

So if a player is M in PtV, E in BM4 but only Tier 3 in OOB, the result is only counted in the above graph when the game type is actually BM4 or PtV

No… how high?

Yes it is

Congratulations, @Gorshak

This is your 3rd win and you are now officially ranked and will qualify for the playoffs.

However, unfortunately your PPG dropped despite winning…

@mr_stucifer
That’s an interesting concept.

Upside:
Results would reflect the feat of overcoming an unusually high bid and still win or losing despite having big bids.

Contra:
It complicates the system.
It introduces math and more tactics into the bidding process and might lead to games with fewer bids, despite higher bids being necessary (giving the statistics).

The concerns regarding the low amount of games played are all valid. I do agree with them actually!
That’s why I included the “K”-Factor in the first place. And I toyed around with the numbers, had them a lot higher for the first couple of games too. But this has negative effects too… If you are unlucky in one of your earlierst games, it feels frustrating to need 3 wins to offset an unlucky early loss.

All the more reason for lifetime rating ;-)
I will try to add in more results from before 2023 asap. You will see that the ratings are a lot more stable then and I’m confident that this will satisfy the concerns.

I would keep the K factor. It will help new players joining the community finding their correct spot in the ranking faster.

If someone really weak comes, we need that player to fall quickly otherwise the first couple of wins are overrated.
And if the next I don’t know, Napoleon or Sun Tzu, suddenly joins, we need that player to climb super fast otherwise the losses will hurt the respective players more than they should.

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

No need to have Elon ratings decay, but perhaps put an asterisk after the number if fewer than 3 games were played in the last 12 months or similar concept

This is already implemented. Grey background indicates “inactive” status, which is currently set at 1 year since last result.

White background (and italic) means less than 2 completed games.

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

You already can see the best OOB players are also top in BM.

The top 3 OOB players have literally played ZERO BM4 games.
And #4 OOB Booper is only #18 in BM4
#5 is you and you have a single reported BM4 game, would be ranked #15 with that.

#6 OOB Farmboy is the first who really is also top in BM4

We now have the data for all games since Februar 2021, more than 650 games.

Included are 140 PtV games played.
Interestingly the Axis have an even higher win% in PtV than in the other types.
I guess statistically we should stop giving Axis bids and play PtV with no bids or even Allies bids.

And balanced mod is properly named, having almost a 50:50 split with the current average bid of +18.7!

Yes, I actually did miss it!

Might not be able to actually play before the weekend though, sorry.

New feature just added:

You can filter the Results tab for a specific player! Just type in the name of the player at the top, in the highlighted cell.

You can also filter for:

Type (BM4, OOB or PtV)
Wins
Losses
Axis
Allies

GL HF!

This time I’m gonna get you!

@mr_stucifer has summarized it perfectly. You clearly understand some math!

I agree, the incentive is not very high to play a lower-skilled player. However, you WILL gain points, if you win. You just need to be ready to take that risk.

Remember, I can always change how huge the impact of an upset is, by lowering or increasing the F-Factor. Right now it is at 500, which means that the system expects a player with 500 more rating than another player to win in 90% of the cases.

A lower F-Factor would squeeze everyone closer together so the difference between #1 and the last player is lower. The number of points lost when the worst player wins against the #1 still remains the same however. So the gained/lost points relative to the total amount is a higher%
So upsets hurt the better player more and will help the worse player more.

On the contrary, a higher F-Factor would increase the extreme ELO-Ratings at the top and bottom so the points lost/gained have not as big of an impact.

With the current F-Factor of 500, the difference between first and last player in BM4-rankings is 966 points. So the system expects then #1 player to win in 98,8% of games against the last one. Which sounds about right if you ask me.
Play this matchup 100 times and #1 will gain exactly 1 point 99 times and lose 79 points once.
The expected outcome is still positive for the better player…

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

I am not sure how, but think it would be awesome if we could implement a possible Bid allowance into drastically different ELO games. Say a 500+ rating difference could get double the usual bid but have the game be worth half the points. This might promote playing between the extremes in skill levels, if useful.

I support this idea. And I think together we can find the sweet spot.

My idea would be to take the average bid up until that game.

And then for every bid above that average, the ELO change could be multiplied by 2%.

Right now in BM, the Allied bid is 18.3 on average.

If I play Axis and give my opponent +30, thats 12 more than average.
If we are at the same ELO level, I would usually gain 40 for a win or -40 for a loss.

Factoring in the bid, I would gain 401.12 = 49.6 (so 50) points, I would only lose -400.76 = 30.4 (so 30) points for a loss too.

An example for players with different ELO rating:

A 1800 wins against 1500.
Ratings change +16 and -16.

With a bid that 12 higher than average, that changes to:

+20 and -12

Or a 1800 loses against a 1500
Usually that is +64 and -64.

But with a bid 12 higher than average, that changes to
+80 and -49

Do you think that 2% per bid is too high or too low? Quite right?

Don’t feel pressured by me. I just wanted to check if you still have this turn on your radar.

Take all the time you need.