Piggy mentioned this months ago, I would love to hear Fizzer chime in on this.

The ladder needs to start new teams at some other rating (he suggested around 1400). We started at 0, like everyone else...played 2 games at a time (bumped to 5 at one point) and never got a good matchup.

Now we are 7-0, and even if we go 10-0 we won't be placed in the top 10 on the ladder because the ladder system gave us all low rated teams:

http://warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=5810

Huh? Haven't the big complain from everyone (I think including you aswell but not sure) recently been that the system shouldn't allow people to be able to do quick runs on the ladders and grab #1? what you are suggesting would make that much easier on the 2v2 ladder... And especially for stallers who would break new rating records over and over again.



Though I don't think it's a bad idea if what I mentioned above wasn't a issue, just surprised that you would bring it up.

Edited 7/28/2014 16:47:52

I'm not sure I follow. It only shows 0. You don't actually start at 0. "0" is higher than 1400. You start at about 1550 in actuality.

Your rating after one game is singularly dependent upon your first opponents rating.

You also essentially DID start at 1400.

ChrisCMU and The Swimming Potato defeated gluten free and Gespacio
6636064 7/19/2014 04:34:14 gluten free and Gespacio: 1329

After that game you had 1396 rating.

The problem is not the rating system, it's the matchmaking system.

The ladder pairs you with anyone within 30% of all rated people. That's way too big of a range. maybe it was necessary back when the ladders had very few people, but now it isn't. It'd be much better if it was 10%.

That equates to:

You can currently be matched against anyone between 1857 and 1358 rating. My proposed change would make that range shrink significantly to 1512 to 1677. It's result in you always getting opponents much closer to your current rating, and a more gradual rise through the ratings rather than only needing a 1673 rating to play the top team, and still being able to play the bottom team till you're over 1353.

10% would work for the 1v1 ladder, but the 2v2 has to few teams for it. I've been joined for nearly 2 days now with playing 5 games at a time and have only gotten 1 game so far..

I'm not sure shrinking that would help. In fact it hinders progress even more.

Here are our games:

started	rating	opp     ended
16-Jul	0	0	19-Jul
16-Jul	0	0	22-Jul
16-Jul	0	0	24-Jul
17-Jul	0	1175	25-Jul
19-Jul	1608	1487	24-Jul
22-Jul	1012	1057	23-Jul
22-Jul	935	1324	27-Jul
23-Jul	1156	1397	
24-Jul	1484	1408	
24-Jul	1484	1336	

So we start with 4 games obviously. Win game 1 on 19th, we are rated at 1608 when next game starts. We win game 2 on 22nd, our rating drops to 1012. How can you drop 600 points with a win? Because their rating dropped to 1284. Our rating dropped again to 935 before starting the 2nd game. So we are 2-0 with a 935 rating and a team we beat are 1284 rated at 0-2. This makes NO SENSE to me. I'm not sure the matchup system is broke here. Our rating is broke IMO. After our 3rd win, we creep up to 1156. So now we are 3-0 and currently rated in the bottom 4 teams that have a ranking...BELOW a team that is 4-16. How is that possible? We win 4 more games and yet we still have a sub-1600 rating. Again, how is that possible?

Should have started with 2 games and raised to 5 when you got your 1600+ rating after the initial win.
Hindsight is 20/20.

Basically we could go 0-7 against teams at the top of the ladder (assuming you could get those matchups) and be better off that going 7-0 against bad teams.


I mean look at this:
http://warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=1&LadderTeamID=4941

They started 0-7 and were rated 1136 when their 8th game started.

We were 6-0 and rated 1156. WTF is that?!? Because they lost to a team rated 1726 and 1855? Apparently that overrides a 13 game differential in W-L?

Edited 7/28/2014 20:30:33

Silver, yes you are correct and I wish we had. But even still, would that have mattered? How did our rating drop from 1608 to 1012? I don't get that at all

Edited 7/28/2014 20:33:30

Ratings are based on average rating of opponents, you beat a low rated opponent (or you beat someone and then their rating dropped).

I know it is based on average rating of opponent, but how does the win factor in (what is the formula)? It doesn't seem like your rating should drop 600 points after a win.

Whenever I have played on 1v1 ladder, even a win over a bad player bumps you some (20 rating points maybe).

And I still don't understand how a rating system that puts a team that is 0-7 on par with a team that is 6-0 is any good. Just because 2 of those 7 losses were against better opponents?

Edited 7/29/2014 14:26:07

Win % has almost no bearing on rating (compared to rating of opponents anyway). If you win 100% it rates you about the same as your best opponent, if you lose every game it puts you about on par with worst opponent. Losing 7 games to 1900 rated people proves you are under 1900, but it doesn't prove you are worse than 1700, so it rates you below 1900, but still gives you a relatively high rating since you haven't yet proven you don't deserve one.

So again, losing to good teams counts more than winning against bad ones. Why is this system used?

Basically it punishes people that don't game the system.