Best posts made by MrRoboto

Some concerns about the ELO system, particularly for playoff ranking, are absolutely understandable.

And I absolutely have to admit: that particular case that farmboy created (a new, unknown player going 4-4 against the top players) would be slightly better represented by the old/current PPG system!
He would collect 4x4 + 4x8 = 48 points = 6.0 PPG and would put him in Tier M, on rank 7

And unfortunately, in ELO he would probably be rated a bit too low for achieving 4-4 against the best players:!

However, as someone (I think it was even farmboy itself) already pointed out:

• There is ALWAYS a case where a system doesn’t work perfectly, you can always create special circumstances.
• For example in the PPG system, Karl7 is #2, which is certainly questionable since all of his wins are against mediocre or low-skilled players (myself included!)
• I do think that this particular case is very theoretical and not very likely to happen (but you can correct me if I’m wrong and it happened before!).
• That player would still be #4 (of the active players) and rightly make the playoff. Even if Gamerman, Pejon and Bombsaway all manage to complete 6 games, that player would still be included
• I admit that the system works best for players who complete around 15 games or more so with more games coming in for that newcomer, the system won’t fail him over time

Concerning bids impacting the rating or not:
You convinced me! Enthusiastic and energetic me thought this was a cool idea and I wanted the system as sophisticated as can be. But I agree: it’s overcomplicating things and bids are (at least so far) not used to balance things, but to agree on sides.
Scratch that idea!

One more thing:

I designed the specific math and factors (K-factor and F-Factor) with the results I have seen and the experience I had here.
What I’m saying: This particular ELO system is not a simple 1:1 copy of chess, in fact I got inspired by the old League-of-Legends system (LoL is the most popular esport-game).

So it is designed on real, past results. But if we notice that it doesn’t serve our particular purposes or if we see some players ranked unfairly, we can always tweak the math behind it to better represent our community!

@gamerman01 said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

If 6 remains the minimum for qualifying (BM), then conceivably someone could inflate their score by playing several or all of their games against the unknowns (newcomers).

True, but those players would also take a risk: After all, the newcomer could be a secret god in disguise and then they would lose a lot of points against a 1500.

It’s far from a sure way to game the system and I also doubt that we have players who choose their opponents this strategically to maximize their ranking

no worries, take your time.

One more thing for the statistic nerds:

In BM4, bids are going up for the allies and we see the axis-win% coming closer to 50%… but we’re not there yet.

Players, accept higher bids! ;-)

Strange that you cannot open the file. Here is a summary of what happened so far.

At the start of the combat:

Attacker:

19 subs
7 destroyer
1 cruiser
6 carrier
7 fighter
4 tacs

Defender:

12 subs (11 italy + 1 german)
2 destroyer (1 italy + 1 german)
2 cruiser (italy)
6 carrier (2 italy, 4 german)
1 battleship (italy)
18 fighter (7 italy + 11 german)

Round1:
I score 20 hits
You chose to tip 7 carriers and the battleship, you also lost 12 subs and the German destroyer

You score 18 hits, I choose 6 carrier, 6 subs.

Round2:

Attack:

13 subs
7 destroyer
1 cruiser
6 carrier
7 fighter
4 tacs

Defender:
1 destroyer (Italy)
2 cruiser (Italy)
6 damaged carriers (2 Italy + 4 German)
1 damaged battleship (Italy)
18 Fighter (7 Italy + 11 German)

I only score 9 hits
You choose 6 carriers, 2 cruiser and 1 fighter

You score exactly average again with 16 hits.+
My casualties are 10 subs and 6 destroyers.

I’m now deciding if I want to keep on fighting (I will lose eventually though)

Shin-Ji (Axis+5) over MrRoboto (Allies) in a BM game.

Generally I can’t complain about dice. I might profit from them overall in all of my games. But in this game they came back to hurt me in almost every single battle. And since Shin-Ji is on a similar skill level to me, that sealed the win for him.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42441.0

Wow, a perfect G1. What a start!

Yep. Taking risks is part of the game.

okay, no problem

@MrRoboto said in L23 - BM4 - Ghostglider vs. MrRoboto (+15) - Game 3:

Battle in Sumatra
ANZAC attack with 1 artillery and 1 infantry
Japanese defend with 1 artillery
ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in Sumatra, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0,67 expected hits
Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery in Sumatra, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits
1 infantry owned by the ANZAC lost in Sumatra
ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery in Sumatra, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits
Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery in Sumatra, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits
1 artillery owned by the ANZAC lost in Sumatra
Japanese win, taking Borneo from Japanese with 1 artillery remaining. Battle score for attacker is -7
Casualties for ANZAC: 1 artillery and 1 infantry

ugh.

Some battles are just annoying

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40311/wiz-x-vs-mr-rob-l-18-bm4-g2/141

Wizmark (axis) defeats me (allies+18) in BM4

A sealion, after which the Allies were economically ahead and would have won in the long run. But the Axis did a great effort to capture and hold the necessary VC for exactly one turn. 2 fighters held off the last attack on stalingrad at the end.

Thanks a lot gamer.

I was under the Impression, that you already knew we agreed to it.

I appreciate all your work and can only imagine how much time this Forum consumes. Especially in the next few days with the start of the new season and the Playoffs.

You are correct of course.

I meant someone who joins the league is 1500, before finishing a game and therefore on paper better than average.
But most people seem to start with losses. I could get the correct data for that (and might find out that I am wrong with that hypothesis) but frankly am too lazy so a rough estimate is looking at people who currently have exactly very few games finished.

Out of 37 players who have completed a single game, only 8 have won that single game while 29 have lost it.

Out of 16 players who have completed exactly two games, NONE has won both and only 6 of them went 1-1 while 10 have 0-2.

Out of 20 players who have completed exactly three games, two have won all 3, 6 players have won 2 out of 3, 4 went 1-2 and 8 out of 15 went 0-3

So we have 71 players with 1-3 completed games and only 14 out of 71 have a rating of 1500 or higher.

I suppose it’s safe to say that new players tend to be worse than average - which shouldn’t be surprising.

This wouldn’t have any effect besides everyones rating going down.
In fact, it took me merely 5 seconds to change the starting ELO to 1300 and the result is:

Average rating is 1286
Median rating is 1259.

As you can see, the average / median is exactly 200 lower than before…

Conclusion:

The ELO ranking is the most accurate way we ever had to get the actual strength of every player, especially compared to each other. It is even more accurate the more games you have played (20+ games should be sufficient to give a very accurate assessment).

On the flipside, you should take the ELO rating of player with less than 10 completed games with a grain of salt.

But among us active players, you can very comfortably rely on the rankings to choose your opponents: Do you seek a challenge, take on players with 100 more points than yourself.
Are you looking for equal strength, search within plus / minus 100 points of your own rating. And if you want some low risk, low reward game to just have fun and slowly and slightly climb the rankings, go lower than 100 points below your own ranking.

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

My understanding is that the ELO system is a life long rating and should take into account all games ever played. It will continue based no the hundreds of game results that were just input.

This.

The system works best when you have around 15-20 games or more. It would only weaken the accuracy if we started on 1-1-2024 instead of all games ever.

As of today, 4519 games have been counted - a little bit more than “hundreds” ;-)

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

if I played someones “m*m” 10 years ago it should not count now.

That game 10 years ago has zero to none impact on your current rating, unless of course you have only played 3-4 games since then.

I understand your argument and our change to the ELO system wouldn’t hold up in court. If we want to go 100% by “the” rules (we make them ourselves…) it would be cleaner to set a certain start date.

However, we are not a large organisation like FIFA or the IOC where millions and billions of $ are at stake. We can make decisions far more flexible, that serve our community better, without worrying that someone takes us to the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) in Lausanne just because we didn’t close every legal loophole.

On a side note: It doesn’t start at a random date in 2014, it starts with the very first game when this league has been established. As far as I know every (or at least most) big league has some kind of lifetime ranking, for example the premier league:

Our all-time ELO has little to no impact on everyday matches. You can treat it as a funny little statistics page, similar to the all-time tables of other sports.

It only comes into play for playoff seedings. And if you worry about that: It would be a lot less accurate if we started 1-1-2024. It would only lead to 1-2 years of inaccurate rankings before it would be reliable.

I’m interested in what exactly bothers you that all games are counted. What is the downside?

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40345/l23-avner-mrroboto-l-18/102?page=5

Avner (Axis) defeats MrRoboto (Allies+18) in BM4.

Axis snatched Cairo for a single turn with a sneaky move, despite being behind more than 80 IPC.

Throws like this, where I have a 90% winning position, are the reason I am not ranked higher…

I feel empty.

Man this sucks so hard. I have been throwing games lately and this is even worse than losing by dice. It feels horrible.

I wish I could say it’s the first time, but I have to admit it happened before.

Wow am I angry right now.

Would you grant me a rematch?