Question about Ratings/Ladder

[Rocksteady]

Hey could someone explain why there's such a huge gap between games played on the ladder even if the win % and rating is very similar.

For instance

TAG_Rock: Rating 1849
357 games played
57% win ratio

vs

Funkoff : Rating also 1849
422 games played
71% win ratio

More games played and a higher win ration, how can they be the same rating?

Another example is Voodoo vs Lu_XuN_17. Voodoo has almost 500 more games played and a very similar win % ratio but only +42 rating ahead.

[Ze_PilOt]

Depend against who you lose/win.

[ColonelSheppard]

Example:

if you win 3 games vs voodoo you get much rating
if you win 3 games vs -400 rating dude you get no rating (or at least not much)

So obviously FunkOff won many games against "noobs"^^

[Rocksteady]

Ok thanks that makes sense but doesn't the ladder give you opponents of equal skill after so many games, someone like Voodoo will only get matches with people rated 1800-2200 rating right?

If that's true then how does Funkoff play many games against newbs like Sheppard assumes, If it's not true and players aren't matched with equal players then isn't ladder broken and pointless? anyone could just get a 1800+ rating if they played enough games against newbs couldn't they?

[Ze_PilOt]

Once the games are balanced, and your estimated rating is "secure", your rating won't move much (lose or win). So with 200 or 100000+ balanced games, FunkOff will still have the same rating, same for TAG_Rock.

Your hypothesis assume that you always win or lose points from a game, that is not true.

I suggest that you read the wiki.

[Rocksteady]

Well then what exactly is the point of ladder and ranked games if nobody can compete for #1 spot?

Correct me if i'm wrong but you basically just said FunkOff and TAG_Rock can never reach 2.2k rating no matter how much they play or how much they improve so what motivation do they or anyone else have to play ladder 1v1 ever again?

[Ze_PilOt]

I think that's your problem : You think it's a ladder. It's not.

It's a system that rate you to give you balanced games. There is no other purpose.

You can get #1 by playing better. If you are stagnating, your rating won't move.

But you are wrong : Their rating will increase if they start playing better.

They both can reach 2.2k if they constantly beat slightly or way better players than them. So yes, their rating will go higher if they improve. But they have to improve more than the player average.
If everybody evolve at the same rate, nothing will move. The numbers will stays the same but "1500" will be a relative higher level than "1500" a year ago.

The real competiting system is the league and divisions boards.

Again, you should read the wiki, it's all explained. You will find this link that explain how it works in great details : http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/comput ... skill.html

[Ze_PilOt]

And in FAF, Beta is 250.

Meaning that having 250 points more than an enemy means that you have 80% chances of winning against him.

ie. Luxun is 2100. That's exactly 250 points more than ROCK.

And given the past tournaments, it's about right : ROCK never won a game against Luxun.

If he starts beating him 50% of the time, Luxun rating probably won't move much, but ROCK rating will increase toward 2000.

If ROCK stats winning 80% of the time against Luxun, these things can happen :
- ROCK starts winning way more against everyone else, while luxun stay the same except for ROCK. Then luxun will stays around 2100, ROCK will reach 2250.
- ROCK doesn't win more than usual, but Luxun starts losing way more against everyone else. Then Rock will stay around 1850, but Luxun will deviate toward 1600.

These are the two extreme situations that can happen.

But you will never start losing a lot just because you've lost ONCE against a lower ranked players. That doesn't necessarily mean you play worse, it can mean that the player you are against play better.
The second is more likely.

[Eukanuba]

Lu Xun's rating is significantly higher than the next best player though (I don't have FAF installed on this computer so I can't check exactly by how much). How is it possible that the best player could be say 200 points clear of the second best player? Is there a point where the system expects him to win every game with high probability, and so he will never get more rating regardless of how many wins he gets?

[Ze_PilOt]

How many times Luxun won a phoenix cup or any other tourney where he was in ?

How many times he did NOT win ?

Yes, the ratings are reliable. And yes there is a point where the system will estimate that he must win almost every game.

That's why trueskill has no inflation problems like Elo (Elo is the exact same thing as trueskill, but more easier with crude approximations because it was meant to be computed by hands