It's cool but I think u should consider only last year. We want to see top players at this moment
Currently, if a player plays again after being inactive, the decay is removed. It is basically only for retired players. Do you think this decay is ok as it is now, or should it be modified?
What would you like to see on the site otherwise?
He's only using tournament games to seed the players and he combines all the different nicks that they use, so this is already fixed :Dwell to start you need a ladder that has 1 nick per player to avoid smurfing to save your own rating or smurfing to steal enemy rating. Maybe a separate "tournament 1v1 or tg seeding ladder" that pros are expected to be seeded off of
Good point, also the things you wrote earlier. This decay is only a first version: We fill introduce a non-decayed ranking soon I think. To compare the "legacy", I think I will make a "compare players" function, where the elo graphs are plotted next to each other. This could be pretty :=)you could even have a separate non-decayed rankings. It doesn't make a difference now since all these players are pretty active, but maybe in 2-3 years, if some of these players play less often or whatnot, we can still compare their records.
I'm curious why you chose to adjust ratings based on "matches" rather than individual games. It probably comes out to be essentially the same, but I bet you'd lose a fair amount of the complaints about players losing elo when winning matches when you show their gains/losses for each game.
I love the idea of this! The main change I feel is needed is some kind of weighted difference between different tournaments. It seems wrong that daut got almost 50 points from winning King of the realm while losing only 12 points from losing in first round of kotd2. A possible solution could be to multiply any elo change with a number between 0 and 1 for any tournament based on f.eks. the number of players, format of the tournament (single elimination vs doubble elimination vs round robin) and the length of sets (bo3 vs bo7) so f.eks. tournaments with few players, long formats and longer sets wont lead to potentially much larger elo changes than short format high level tournaments like kotd2 and ecl.
Hey, so I am still hesitating on introducing a subjective tournament weight, but the length of sets is already taken into account: Actually, every game within a series is evaluated separately.
I added a small description underneath the Elo change under the matches: https://aoe-elo.com/player/31/TaToH
JoshuaR explained it quite well, and I will make a better description on the website soon.
Make sure to press F5 to refresh the full page and clear the cache (otherwise the browser sometimes only reloads some things).
Im not sure i understand how length of sets are taken into account. It seems like a bo7 with each game played would be weigthed more than twice as much as a bo3 with each game played but maybe i am missing something?
You could divide the elo change pr game with the number of games played in the set. (And possibly add a fixed multiplier independent of the format to keep the avarage elo change per set the same.)Oh I think I misunderstood what you mean. You think that is is not good that lets say a 4:0 win in a BO9 is weighted double as a 2:0 in a BO5? That may be true, as the games within a series are statistically speaking correlated. However I dont see a consistent and transparent method to weight them softer, as this gets complicated and incomprehensive quite fast...