I know ben, I know you love the MDL and want it to continue :)

Styxy and Mod. We have promoted every new ladder since the start of our clan to our players. What GrEx tries to say is that we don't push our players to say. We let them know it exist but do not repeat it every month.

Also: we are not trying to promote our own ladder in this chat nor to "steal" players to let them play on our ladder. We will have an internal ladder (so clan only). Knyte is building a framework to make it easier to host a ladder.

@Styxie damn love is a strong word! :P. I cannot even say I love you Styxie :D. (I can only say I like MDL or you ;)).

I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

The way it was said was making it easy to jump to conclusions...

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/255217-elitist-call-action

You two didn't pay your taxes yet. You can do it at the elitist of your choice.

As it has been said, level is high and happens to be quite a barrier for newcomers of average level. To me it seems like MDL gathers mostly players who are or could be ranked top 50 in 1v1 ladder. Thus as other players, since I'm not at that level, MDL seems like a future series a losses to me, just like when I tried the real time Ladder.

That's why rather than, or on top of, offering limited number of templates (via packs), I have suggested to add divisions with promotion/relegation. Pack of templates could be assigned to different divisions : bottom one has only a few and easiest template ; next division has same + few others ; and so on, until the top who may have all (no veto, as the point of the ladder would be to be the best WL player on overall settings and maps). The goal would be to offer division of players of equivalent level.

I second the idea to ask Fizzer to put that on WL pages though for a better promotion but on condition that format may appeal to the mass and not the elite only.

Edited 4/11/2017 23:03:07

How about having unlimited vetoes? More vetoes used would grant less points per game.

@Ekstone

Can be constantly updated ranking lists for every templates for example! :O
So perhaps will be a good feeling for somebody who is, for example 15th in the main Rankings, but first in one of the 51 template rankings, and this can be a cause that not quit the ladder and continued to play. I don't know.
But again, MotD's possibilies is infinite because he owned the database and "only" need write some queries :P

Nice idea. I will consider it.

@Njord

To ask a totally unrelated question. does the win rate per template graph shows all games played or only the non expired ones?

It shows all games played.

@Dogberry

Think about it from a psychological perspective. If someone enters a ladder competition at a baseline of 0 and their rating goes up from that point to 1200, it is generally viewed in a positive light. If their rating starts at 1500 and eventually drops to 1200, they will view their performance far more negatively, even if they had the same number of wins and losses in both scenarios. I believe the entry rating of 1500 discourages many players, and yes, this includes myself.

Fair point. The current system works really well to accurately represent a player's level in my opinion. But I will see what I can do to introduce some inflation in the ratings over time.

@Aura,

My criticism to packs is I find it harder to see how "fair" the ratings are. For example, say Player A is in 1st place, with a rating of 1800. This player only plays on the base packs, and does not bother to even play on the others. now player B is 1780. Player B plays on every single pack. Is player A really considered the "best player"? I am not so sure.

"Bonus points" from enrolling to a template pack can provide incentive. There will be a point where it is impossible to climb higher unless you sign up for new packs. I haven't thought through the implementation details yet, but I think this can work. Wouldn't you agree?

@ps/Turtle

i dont really like the packs idea, think it would just fragment the player base further.

Why would it fragment the player base? You may not play as often on the some templates, but every player can still play against any opponent since matchmaking happens before template selection.

@Mike,

That's why rather than, or on top of, offering limited number of templates (via packs), I have suggested to add divisions with promotion/relegation. Pack of templates could be assigned to different divisions : bottom one has only a few and easiest template ; next division has same + few others ; and so on, until the top who may have all (no veto, as the point of the ladder would be to be the best WL player on overall settings and maps). The goal would be to offer division of players of equivalent level.

The current matchmaking system already creates such "divisions" by matching players close to each other. In fact, it is even more dynamic that what you are suggesting as it adapts after the result of every game. With regards to pack of templates assigned to each division, I'd argue that my original proposal gives players more control on the templates they wish to play on (which is the goal).

How about having unlimited vetoes? More vetoes used would grant less points per game.

At the top end of the ladder you gain 3-4 points per game and lose 28!( 1850 rating vs 1550 rating). If you impose point penalties based on number of vetoes, you will end up with 0 points on a win which is not ideal. I think it is a bit too extreme. The template pack idea is similar, but at the same time it requires you to play on a minimum number of templates.

Edited 4/12/2017 02:25:38

MoD, when I look at your player page Ladder statistics, I see that you was first on 4 ladders, but not a single word about MDL ladder records. This could be good promotion. I would also like to have my record on MDL mentioned on my page, even though I have no idea how I got that high

Has the Multiday Ladder been growing consistently? Or was there a spike at some point? I'm fairly sure there were way less than 71 active players when I last played a game on there. More like there were less than 71 players there, period. :P

Edited 4/12/2017 17:19:21

MoD, when I look at your player page Ladder statistics, I see that you was first on 4 ladders, but not a single word about MDL ladder records. This could be good promotion. I would also like to have my record on MDL mentioned on my page, even though I have no idea how I got that high

This is something I cannot control. It'll have to be done by Fizzer. The last time I spoke to him, he said he would add achievements if MDL is running for a longer period of time. I'll sync with him after MDL completes 6 months(in 13 days). I can add more stats on the MDL player profile page, which I am currently looking into.

Has the Multiday Ladder been growing consistently? Or was there a spike at some point? I'm fairly sure there were way less than 71 active players when I last played a game on there. More like there were less than 71 players there, period. :P

It has always had 65+ players after the first month or so. It peaked to about 85 active players around a month ago, but is down to 72 at the moment.

I'm currently considering if I should switch to Bayesian Elo(which is what Fizzer uses on the 1v1/2v2/3v3 ladders). If such a switch is made, the ratings may change a bit, but hopefully the impact is minimal as there are very few finished games.

If you go through with the switch to Bayeselo, how are you planning on implementing it? Coulom* has a Windows executable on his site, iirc, and the source code (in C++ or C#?) is there as well. Are you planning on just using the executable, creating a pipeline that uses the bayeselo source, rewriting Bayeselo as a Python library, or something else?

* Also, as a sidenote for anyone reading, it turns out that the guy behind Bayeselo has done some other pretty interesting things- like a pretty solid Go engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Stone_(software))

Edited 4/13/2017 23:32:55

If you go through with the switch to Bayeselo, how are you planning on implementing it? Coulom* has a Windows executable on his site, iirc, and the source code (in C++ or C#?) is there as well. Are you planning on just using the executable, creating a pipeline that uses the bayeselo source, rewriting Bayeselo as a Python library, or something else?

I was considering BayesElo almost 4 months ago and explored all the options you talked about. I believe there is only a C++ implementation.

However, the current rating algorithm really grew on me and I'm quite content with the way it's performed over the last 5 months. We had a good conversation on rating algorithms around that time as well if I recall(krunx, memele, Math Wolf etc). I don't plan on switching to BayesElo unless someone gives me good reasons to do so at this point.

:P Forgive me for getting spammy with technical questions, but then are you using some expiry mechanism with Elo?

I think Bayeselo's biggest advantage (ignoring all the technical measures of statistical rating systems) is that it makes it easy to expire games without storing any extra information. I don't know whether expiring games in a TrueSkill/Glicko/Elo system would be statistically sound, so that's about the biggest advantage of Bayeselo I can think of from a player or ladder-creator standpoint.

Expiring games isn't inherently valuable, though, but that's about the first reason I would think of for wanting to use Bayeselo in particular over Elo, Glicko, and TrueSkill.

On the technical end, there's the advantage that your rating will improve if a player you beat (or lost to) turns out to be much better than the system thought they were when they played you. But I wouldn't put it past you to have figured out some way to pull that off with the Elo system you currently have.

---

Also the loading animation you have (not sure if it's intentional) for the rating/rank graphs on player pages is really mesmerizing. Even if it's just standard for jqPlot, I really like it and man the crisp UI on there is miles ahead of what I thought CLOTs would look like when the framework first came out. Used to be kind of judgmental about it because it's got tables and doesn't look like every other Bootstrap site (my views about good UI were really skewed thanks to all those startup sites that look the same), but you did an awesome job with information displays on that ladder across-the-board. Not that I'm the arbiter of UI quality, but yours has grown on me so fast and I figured I should tell you it's great just in case no one else did.


EDIT: Also, is the Weekly Report broken or does it just restart on Fridays? http://md-ladder.cloudapp.net/report

Edited 4/14/2017 00:11:04

As someone who recently joined the MDL, I say that only half the issue of why low-mid tier guys were addressed here. You guys talked about the need to reach and educate the low-mid tier players, which is inherently the first hurdle that needs to be jumped if you want to have them join the MDL.
"
The issue that I didn't see mentioned is retaining low-mid tier players, which I guess is going to be MUCH trickier. IMO the MDL as is right now isn't designed for mid-tier players. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, those guys have a tendency to teach themselves gameplay on a single map. Why do you think ROR is so popular? I know when I was starting out it took me a while to branch out to more than 3 maps. I didn't really branch out until I was confident in my understanding of how to play the basics. I didn't like feeling lost on a new map. Honestly, even now I'm sometimes just not in the mood to start with 0 knowledge and just want a game I know. To many newer players, that feeling is amplified for reasons stated above.

If you want the MDL to succeed with mid-tier players, I think a restriction on what maps are played is going to be necessary. New players should start with the lowest rating possible, and as their rating improves, new maps are unlocked. If they are drop in ratings, their map availability drops also. As a side note, I also think the total number of maps needs to be reduced. I think even experienced players don't want to learn so many new maps. Variety is nice, but sometimes it feels like a chore when every game you need to analyze the map in full.

Edit: Don't eat dinner mid-forum post...you'll come back and realize this is NOT the forum to post this idea. "

Post by Zack Fair

I thought it was a well presented point and wanted to ensure it got noticed in the thread it should be in. So I copied and Pasted.

I think Bayeselo's biggest advantage (ignoring all the technical measures of statistical rating systems) is that it makes it easy to expire games without storing any extra information. I don't know whether expiring games in a TrueSkill/Glicko/Elo system would be statistically sound, so that's about the biggest advantage of Bayeselo I can think of from a player or ladder-creator standpoint.

Expiring games isn't inherently valuable, though, but that's about the first reason I would think of for wanting to use Bayeselo in particular over Elo, Glicko, and TrueSkill.

On the technical end, there's the advantage that your rating will improve if a player you beat (or lost to) turns out to be much better than the system thought they were when they played you. But I wouldn't put it past you to have figured out some way to pull that off with the Elo system you currently have.

I think it is really important to have games expire, or you end up with something like the RT ladder, where people have ancient ratings which were acquired in a different time frame. Another advantage of expiring games is that it "gives" points back to the system. It's like a soft reset. There are a lot of 1500+ rated players who have left the ladder. If their games don't expire, the points which they have won off of someone else will never be returned to the system.

Recently MDL crossed the 5 month mark(which is when games expire). The CLOT has stopped considering the expired games when calculating ratings and I've been monitoring changes over the past 2 weeks. Surprisingly, the ratings don't change all that much even when you have a lot of games expire(ex - MoD). I'm quite pleased with this as it means players are close to their "true" Elo ratings even if a few games are taken out of the equation.

Traditionally, Elo scores are computed off of the previous Elo scores. However, to be able to handle expiring games, I made the decision to compute Elo ratings from scratch on every update. Everyone starts with the base rating and the games are considered in chronological order as long as they are within the 5 month window. This is not the best running time for this algorithm, but since the scale of this operation is quite small, it has negligible impact.

but you did an awesome job with information displays on that ladder across-the-board. Not that I'm the arbiter of UI quality, but yours has grown on me so fast and I figured I should tell you that just in case no one else did.

Although I made the initial design choices, lately Muli drives most of the charts and general look and feel of the site. So credit to him. He has some cool new features planned as well, which I'm quite looking forward to.

EDIT: Also, is the Weekly Report broken or does it just restart on Fridays? http://md-ladder.cloudapp.net/report

That's a bug. The page lists the report from the database for the given day. Updates occur daily on the first "run"(which is between 00:00 and 02:00 UTC). So there is a brief time period when there is no recorded update yet and the page displays nothing. I'll fix it soon.

Edited 4/14/2017 00:38:54

Thanks for explaining that. I think I'd agree that running time takes a backseat to rating system usability.

I think the point loss you mentioned in the context of players leaving might actually work the opposite way; taking a rough look at the player list for MDL, it looks like players that joined and left are disproportionately below-average- so your system is actually gaining points when they join and leave, because their losses caused points from their initial rating to go to other players- increasing the system-wide total. Perhaps a hackier but less expensive approach to achieve the same effect would be checking the sum of remaining teams' ratings, comparing it to the default rating * # of teams, and multiplying each remaining team's rating to make the total equal the default rating * # of teams- every time a team leaves the ladder and does not return for some amount of time. Or you could just run that at the start of every iteration.

I ran a query to check the average rating of players who have left and it is 1476. So you're correct in that this causes inflation of the active players' rating. I'll have a rethink about this, even though I strongly believe ancient ratings(akin to RTL) is a bad thing.

Perhaps a hackier but less expensive approach to achieve the same effect would be checking the sum of remaining teams' ratings, comparing it to the default rating * # of teams, and multiplying each remaining team's rating to make the total equal the default rating * # of teams- every time a team leaves the ladder and does not return for some amount of time. Or you could just run that at the start of every iteration.

This will achieve equilibrium in the system. I'll consider it as well. I was thinking of introducing small inflation in the system over time(to combat complaints that players feel like they have to win too many games just to maintain 1500 rating). I'll have to run it by Math Wolf who is my rating consultant :p

p.s - These changes will probably take some time since I'm working on some other features for MDL at the moment.

I think your current system works fine; was just throwing out ideas because, well, this is just interesting. :)

The multiplier approach I suggested wouldn't actually work because Elo and some other systems encode the win/loss/draw probability in the absolute difference between two teams' ratings, so you'd just be throwing off your system. I think subtracting/adding an adjustment might work, though. But like you I don't trust anything about rating statistics until Math Wolf confirms it so I'm not that sure either. :P I was just looking into how other games do it, and noticed that League of Legends has Elo decay for inactive teams so it does seem like absolute adjustments are at least used.

No rush at all to make these changes; I'm more than satisfied with what exists and I'm not even sure whether implementing them would be worth your while or beneficial on the whole.

(EDIT: I was asking those questions because this stuff is pretty interesting to me, not because I want to critique your methods or suggest changes; you're probably much better at figuring out these types of problems than I am, so I'm not in a position to judge your solutions. :P)

Edited 4/14/2017 03:02:12