Okay, so as a consequence, I leave the ladder and I will probably come back in a couple of weeks/months with only one account.

Of course that didn't come to mind when you were not yet ranked..

Yes, I wanted to have a rank for at least one day.

Which is exactly the problem. If you left the ladder before getting ranked and getting your gamed rating, it would only be half as annoying.

Can someone explain why there s a rule forbidding multiple accounts in the ladder ? Apparently ranking is about the longest winning series which is easier to make starting from fresh account (lower ranked opponents) so Alts are created. There lies the problem for me. As soon as we agree on playing in ladder with an Alt, I cant see why we should forbid to keep playing with the original account. And in case of self 1v1, one surrenders, so what ? Its only 1 game. Knyte if you can develop how an Alt can interact with ladder competitors more than the original account ? If by that you mean say Buns has 3 accounts and he is the best in ladders so its 3 times more difficult for opponents to get top rank because they have to face him 3 times, I would answer that Buns deserves his rank by being able to beat you 3 times.

For me the real issue is allowing Alts in ladders, and even allowing Alts in WL.

Edited 5/18/2016 23:00:05

If by that you mean say Buns has 3 accounts and he is the best in ladders so its 3 times more difficult for opponents to get top rank because they have to face him 3 times, I would answer that Buns deserves his rank by being able to beat you 3 times.

Buns can also beat you 3 times, and then have 2 of those accounts surrender their next 50 games. You now have 2 losses to players rated <1000, possibly even falling losing your shot at the top 50 as a consequence.

Are you saying the rank adapts not only to your very last game (and direct opponents' very last game) but to the whole past 20 games (re taking the rank of every opponent met during those) ? Well if that's the case the ranking system is biased.

And Ok that would be cheating and easy to prove and a ban would be relevant. But nothing comparable with genuinely trying to compete in ladder with different Alt (ideally coupled with a ranking system fixed as mentioned above).

+1 Jaymer

Are you saying the rank adapts not only to your very last game (and direct opponents' very last game) but to the whole past 20 games (re taking the rank of every opponent met during those) ? Well if that's the case the ranking system is biased.

Yes, Bayeselo factors in the future performance of your non-expired opponents. If the 2000-rated player you just beat dips down to 1750, you lose points too.

Is there a reason Warlight uses this crazy system rather than just Elo or Glicko or something normal?

Also, +1 to the start date suggestion.

Presumably because Bayeselo has some advantages over Elo- https://www.remi-coulom.fr/Bayesian-Elo/

Edited 5/19/2016 15:52:31

Beating someone and then if their rating drops yours does also is so stupid.

1. You played a 2000 rated and he drops to 1750, You beat him at a peak of his skill, and you still beat a 2000 rated player.

2. Abuse potential. Season 14 was the shakiest example of this. Gnuffone played MoD like 5 times total (or maybe red did, and then dropped out to help Gnuffone). MoD also used two accounts.

3. It adds complexity for no reason, I'm sure someone can argue for it, but it's complex for no reason.

1. You played a 2000 rated and he drops to 1750, You beat him at a peak of his skill, and you still beat a 2000 rated player.

Bayeselo assumes that people won't intentionally tank their ratings. And it's a Bayesian approach, which means that it has a "guess" distribution for your actual skill and updates it after every result. So it first thought that your opponent was at a 2000-rating level of skill, but after more games Bayeselo realized it had initially overrated them and looks like they really play at a 1750-level. And then it realized you'd actually played someone who's more like a 1750 than a 2000, so it updates its model for you as well.

According to Bayeselo, your opponent didn't really decline in skill- the model's estimate just got better.

3. It adds complexity for no reason, I'm sure someone can argue for it, but it's complex for no reason.

It's not very complicated- just a simple Bayesian approach to Elo...

Edited 5/21/2016 17:48:38

There's two major issues with Bayeselo:

a) It is complicated. People are confused when, for example, they win a game and lose rating because a past opponent simultaneously lost. I completely understand the system and I think it could have its uses and advantages in other places (pro tennis, pro golf, pro chess, basically anything where people aren't anonymous). However, that's only because I have an interest in various rating systems and because I took the effort to learn it.

b) It is easily exploitable. We've seen examples in this thread of 'team play' where one player on a 'team' tanks their own rating after achieving a victory against a shared enemy and just blatant 'multiplaying' where the two players on the team are really one player.

Both of these problems are eliminating by switching to a simple Elo or Glicko system. They systems are less complicated, and more to the point people are much more familiar with how these work from other places (NCAA football, chess, most online video games). They are also much more difficult to exploit since the 1200 rated player won't be able to get a match against the 2200 player.