It's already in there:

Ranked 14 members in HAWKS
   
1. AlexB: 16708 points
2. Mek Blaze: 4808 points
3. Scotty: 3264 points
4. Gazpacho: 257 points
5. Cicero XXII: 157 points
6. Crown King: 83 points
7. buddyboyb1: 79 points
8. Mitko: 66 points
9. Awsome911: 49 points
10. AlexRS: 45 points
11. Rear Admiral John: 44 points
12. Tristan: 31 points
13. kolosser: 17 points
14. A Talking Fan: 16 points
============

OK I may be 14thbut I am not 84th!


Why only 14?

That makes sense now, thanks knyte/vitriol. Just another Q for you: When people's win rates are displayed after these stats are on there, does the player in question (in this case, myself) get their score added to there or not?

Edited 12/21/2015 07:26:22

@Fan: because only 14 people had enough data on their profile for this to work

@Ryzys: I see you've made your Ranked Games public again. :P I can't really retroactively edit the paste, but your score is 5356, which would get you ranked 11th.

Cool, thanks vitriol!

Nice attempt, but agree with Norman and knyte that it doesn't make much sense:

* number of games skews towards older and more active players (overall, me or Heyheuhei would get the top position)

* Win % doesn't make much sense either as everyone except the top 25 and bottom 25 should have a win rate close to 50% anyway.

What would be a better (but more extensive) attempt:

* Use TrueSkill since the start of the ladders to get everyone's rating. BayesElo resets to 0 after you left the ladder for 5 months, but TrueSkill does not and still gives a decent accurate ranking.

* Use both the best rating reached and the current rating.

* Use the seasonal ladders (for seasonal only end rating makes sense, peak rating does not) and RT ladder as well.

* A formula could be
(2*best rating 1v1 + current rating 1v1 + best rating 2v2 + best current rating 2v2 + 2nd best rating 2v2 (other team) + best rating 3v3 + best current rating 3v3 + 2nd best rating 3v3 (other team) + 2*best rating RT + current rating RT + best seasonal rating + 2nd best seasonal rating + 3rd best seasonal rating)/15

Someone without a rating in something should have a reasonable baseline value imputed (the 25% quantile for example) and someone who scores lower than this baseline, can have the baseline imputed as well. This would reduce the influence of one bad or inactive ladder.

Additionally, it may be worthwhile not to input the absolute numbers, but rather standardized scores. After all, some ratings are higher than others. Seasonals for example, are a lot higher and the absolute numbers cannot be compared over seasons. Another, simpler solution, would be to recompute Seasonal ratings with TrueSkill as well so everything is on the same scale. This would be the best solution as far as I know.

Doing this wouldn't be all that difficult, after all, there is a TS program for WL available on the blog. The difficult part is exporting and combining the results in an automatic way. Without that step, I would have done this a long time ago already.

Edited 12/21/2015 10:59:02

also,apparently hiding my ladder stats gave me a rank very low in the list

A formula could be
(2*best rating 1v1 + current rating 1v1 + best rating 2v2 + best current rating 2v2 + 2nd best rating 2v2 (other team) + best rating 3v3 + best current rating 3v3 + 2nd best rating 2v2 (other team) + 2*best rating RT + current rating RT + best seasonal rating + 2nd best seasonal rating + 3rd best seasonal rating)/15

I think you have a typo Math Wolf. The bold text should be : 2nd best rating 3v3 (other team)?


I don't think many people would have a 2nd 3v3 team yet though, due to it being so new. A statistical method is probably the only feasible way to rank a huge group of players. However, I think it does not provide a complete picture. I know of some great players who've never paid much attention to the ladder.

Edited 12/21/2015 11:00:34

I think you have a typo Math Wolf. The bold text should be : 2nd best rating 3v3 (other team)

Changed, thanks.

I don't think many people would have a 2nd 3v3 team yet though, due to it being so new. A statistical method is probably the only feasible way to rank a huge group of players. However, I think it does not provide a complete picture. I know of some great players who've never paid much attention to the ladder.

Agree on the 2nd 3v3 team. But the idea is to have a basic formula that is valid as long as the current ladders exists and can easily be extended whenever a new ladder is added. If nobody has it, the baseline can be imputed for everyone and it doesn't make a difference anyway.

Also agree that it doesn't provide a complete picture. That is after all simply not possible. Ladders are one of the only ways in which players play against each other in an "objective" framework with somewhat objective pairings (note the quotation marks, I'm well aware it's not all that objective, but the closest thing to it we have at the moment). It can still be gambled as we all know, but it's as close to a system we have. Other systems like clan league, clot and some tournaments could play a role as well, but from a data standpoint, their information is more difficult to be processed and it would be subjective what to include and what not.

Ranked 37 members in The Lost Wolves
   
1. Mitochondria: 6285 points
2. McMuller: 4284 points
3. Onoma94: 4077 points
4. [WOLF] Navigator: 2002 points
5. World Dominator: 1599 points
6. [WOLF]SuperSiezure: 1297 points
7. Semicedevine: 1062 points
8. [WOLF] Marconios: 1029 points
9. [WOLF] White Fang: 647 points
10. [WOLF] AMERICAN EMPIRE: 619 points
11. japan77: 334 points
12. [WOLF] Keyes: 331 points
13. [WOLF] Zephyrum: 253 points
14. [HOLY]WARLORD t(-_-t)[WOLF]: 168 points
15. ♤Prince Riku Lyonheart♤: 155 points
16. [Wolf] Karkat: 110 points
17. Try Again: 88 points
18. Darth player: 84 points
19. The Third Reich: 67 points
20. Hermit: 67 points
21. RICK: 60 points
22. Mister_Wolfy: 59 points
23. Kakarot: 51 points
24. You:: 44 points
25. [WOLF] Executor: 36 points
26. Major General Whiskers (aka) TEG: 34 points
27. [Wolf] Relm: 34 points
28. Femaelstrom: 33 points
29. General Gynther: 28 points
30. [WOLF]Sean Mckenna: 27 points
 
32. [WOLF]HoustonLeHammer: 26 points
33. justin: 25 points
34. Villarrealfan: 22 points
35. Snowy: 21 points
36. [Wolf] Eon Kid: 17 points
37. General Rubino: 14 points

1. {101st}Blowfly: 57508 points

3. Andersault: 46738 points
4. Falker: 40279 points
5. Tenshi: 33621 points
6. marc2013: 29281 points
7. Ineffable: 21073 points
8. Mirror: 17582 points

Blowfly is better than most of WG. Legit rating scale.

Well, that seems broken

I can't possibly be the 11th best player in the clan, and who on earth is this Mitochondria person.

Blowfly is better than most of WG. Legit rating scale.

indeed quite broken. Blowfly should be rated above ALL WG members. They don`t even come close to the great and almighty Blowfly.

Mitochondria = Steven Luo, he changed nickname. Still has biggest lvl in TLW, so that's possible.

Why total wins? That just rewards volume. What if one person is like 30-2 and the other is 35-100 on the same ladder?

I think your formula needs a tweak. Personally, I would go by rating, not wins-losses as you don't know who those wins are against.

Also, why am I not on our list of WG people anyway?

Edited 12/21/2015 15:58:55

Also, why am I not on our list of WG people anyway?

Because of stats not being publicly visible.

Edited 12/21/2015 16:07:20

My bootrate completely killed my score. I need to work on that.

Because of stats not being publicly visible.

Wait, so this is not even ladder stats, but just stats in general? Wow, this is even more screwed up (sorry Ben). Win rate is easily abused in non ladder games.

^It's true, stats are pretty meaningless

Edit: Fleecemaster: 1888 points

Haha! :D

Edited 12/21/2015 17:02:15

@TLW: I have no idea where #31 went. I thought it was an issue with my ranking function but nope. Literally no idea what happened.