Dawn of War Codex

At the moment players on the leaderboard are ranked according to the 67% credible rating (raw Glicko rating minus 1 × ratings deviation), which is a "reasonable" filter, as it gives us a number the player is probably (67% probably) worth. However, this still makes it possible for some players with a high RD (i.e. few games and low rating reliability) to rise high on the leaderboard. In fact, to the #1 position at the moment.

Should we tighten the RD screw and use the 95% credible rating (raw Glicko minus 2 × ratings deviation) instead? This would reward more games and penalise less games more steeply, although it might be a bit unforgiving at first (you would start with a -700 modifier).

Besides adjusting the RD modifier, other options for affecting the leaderboard ranking would include setting a lower RD limit (currently players must have RD < 250 for appearing on the leaderboard) and setting a # of games limit (although that's basically what the RD limit does).

To give some perspective, I'd say you can get RD < 250 with 1–3 games and RD < 200 with 3–5 games, depending on who you play against (low RD opponents drop it a lot, high RD opponents little).

At the moment, the top 5 looks like this:
1. Mannoroth (5 games), 2036 ± 177 = 1859
2. BbBoS (14 games), 1895 ± 157 = 1738
3. Ser Topi (11 games), 1860 ± 139 = 1721
4. Ace of Swords (3 games), 1914 ± 215 = 1699
5. Tex (33 games), 1780 ± 83 = 1697

Using the 95% credible rating, it would look like:
1. Mannoroth (5 games), 2036 ± 177 = 1682
2. Tex (33 games), 1780 ± 83 = 1614
3. Forestradio (37 games), 1740 ± 77 = 1586
4. Ser Topi (11 games), 1860 ± 139 = 1582
5. BbBoS (14 games), 1895 ± 157 = 1581
6. BestN00b (13 games), 1765 ± 118 = 1529
7. Ace of Swords (3 games), 1914 ± 215 = 1484

I chose option 3, though I agree with option 2 more.

Option 2 seems more legitimate, in my opinion, if the ladder system was only based off the 'Find a Game' option, and that said option pitted players based on those points. Reason being that anyone can make "1v1 low" games and get free wins that way. Hell, there's a guy going around with over 400 games still making 1v1 newbie games... I played him a few times, definitely not a newbie. -.-
In essence, my opinion is that anyone can abuse the ladder, as it stands. And, either option (preferably option 2,) would work, given that the "Find a Game" function was the only way to be put on the ladder in the first place.

tldr; Abusable ladder. I prefer option 2, provided the "Find a Game" function is fixed!

These are not choices I feel confident on making yet. My instinct is still to just have a ladder where RD over a threshold are not shown at all. It hurts me to see people with under 5 games ranked near people with 30+! Maybe this is a side produce of low match count? I don't wanna put rules in that will cause problems as the match count increases...

Tranca wrote:anyone can make "1v1 low" games and get free wins that way.
In essence, my opinion is that anyone can abuse the ladder, as it stands.

The Glicko formula isn't fooled that easy. You can win a hundred games against 1500±350 opponents but as beating them soon gives no new information of your skill (±350 is pretty vague), the system won't change your rating. If you beat people who are reliably rated low, there is no new information either (it already knows you are higher) and no need to change your rating. Go ahead and try.

Cyris wrote:These are not choices I feel confident on making yet. My instinct is still to just have a ladder where RD over a threshold are not shown at all. It hurts me to see people with under 5 games ranked near people with 30+! Maybe this is a side produce of low match count? I don't wanna put rules in that will cause problems as the match count increases...

No need to stress about future problems… The leaderboard is fluid, it's not written down anywhere. We have a list of people with their calculated rating + RD, and the leaderboard is created for you when you load the page. We can tweak the parameters every 15 minutes if we want.

Lulgrim wrote:

Tranca wrote:anyone can make "1v1 low" games and get free wins that way.
In essence, my opinion is that anyone can abuse the ladder, as it stands.

The Glicko formula isn't fooled that easy. You can win a hundred games against 1500±350 opponents but as beating them soon gives no new information of your skill (±350 is pretty vague), the system won't change your rating. If you beat people who are reliably rated low, there is no new information either (it already knows you are higher) and no need to change your rating. Go ahead and try.

Ohhhhh! Thank you so much for clearing that up! That explains why I float around a certain rank, and why whenever I lose to a higher ranked player, I don't drop as much! Sick!

Voted for the 95% one, looks more accurate I guess

Yeah looks like the hardcore option (95%CI) is getting all the votes so far… If it looks like this, I will change the parameter say tomorrow or so.

Since the score so far is 10 votes for 2 × RD and 1 vote for 1 × RD, I changed the ladder order according to the 95 % credible limit.