Decay ranking?

[dweiler]

Since we can't play because of the bots now anyway, I might as well start a new discussion.

I have noticed that since roughly two weeks our number 1 ranked (beepboopbeep) stopped playing LIHL. Therefore, he is securely number 1 and this is probably not going to change since it is hard to get an ELO like that. This means he can just idle until the end of the league and grab the nr. 1 position (which he might actually be doing?)

I am not gonna speculate on the actual motives of Beepboopbeep, but in general, I find this a bad thing for the league. Shouldn't such a player get an ELO-decay or something so that other players have a chance to overtake him? Note that he is not on holiday or something, because he still plays.

This is not personal, but I just look at this as a flaw in a system (that he maybe smartly uses to his advantage).

I have heard more people complaining in the channels about this, so I think more people agree with me. I hope to hear your thoughts about this.

(Also note I have asked this question before, which iightfyre kindly answered, but I think it is justified to ask this question again: the entire topic is here, although some of what I wrote there is off-topic viewtopic.php?f=43&t=8233)

[Diablo_]

While I agree that this is a bit "lame" I don't see a reason to do something against it, as he reached #1 in a fair way and shouldn't be punished just cause he wants to stay there and goes the "save" way of not playing anymore - tho his position probably wouldn't change if he would keep playing as the difference to #2 is quite huge.
Another reason not to implement any sort of decreasing ELO over time is cause there are seasons anyway. Soon (idk when exactly this season ends actually) all ELOs will be reset and a new competition will start at which time he has to play again if he wants to get #1 again.

[iightfyre]

I do think that an ELO decay is a wonderful idea. Not sure how it would work on the programming end. This would be a question for uakf.b but let's not bug him yet about it. Maybe need to run a poll for the community as well.

Thinking something like maybe "after 1 week of idle, -5 ELO per day" ? I'm not sure what numbers make the most sense... that's just something that came to the top of my head right now. Let's see how other people feel on this topic.

PS - I feel this will be fair to all players. The counter argument will be that some players would like to play casually and not have their ELO affected by inactivity. Maybe a debate here

[BeepBoopBeep]

If i got to where i am with ELO in LIHL why can't everybody else :O

[dweiler]

Thanks for the positive replies!

I think there is indeed need for thought about what the decay should look like. Duckie suggested a decay based on the amount of ELO. He compared this with the current Battle.net ladder, where a lvl 50 would decay relatively fast, but a lvl 5 player gets barely any decay.

As iightfyre stated, perhaps someone with experience in this matter can give us some insights

@Beepboopbeep, for me the point is not so much that your ELO is too high, but more the fact that you can just wait it out now. I would like to see you keeping up your high-skilled playstyle throughout the season, not a half season to just idle after that (again, not saying that you will, but the current system invites any top player to do that), leaving other players who are better the 2nd half of the season unable to battle you and therefore having less chance to reach the top.

(On a side note, to be top in the 2nd half is arguably harder, because people got used to LIHL now and some rules changed. In the first half, Beep played the most games by far and vouched as one of the first players, which means he had a lead over the others because he got used to the LIHL quicker than the others, now he needs to prove he still is top when the others are used to LIHL too, imo. And I think he will if he tries )

I think it's a bad thing that players who think their ELO is enough to become rank 1 at the end of the season can just stop halfway the season and claim the price at the end.


PS what a bad topic name I chose!

[HateLose]

Interesting topic. I'm not sure I will agree with the decay of elo. The reason I say this, is because the current season of this league will not end until August (I might be wrong, but that's what I heard). I actually started LIHL when BBB, iight, murk, etc started. I was top 5 for a few weeks, then got to page 2 . Sure enough, I got back up (where I belong ) and now am currently #2. Honestly, I only played about 7-8 games in LIHL, since the tourney ended. I was ranked #4 or #5, but after my 7-8 games (90% wins), I am rank #2. Tbh, as I said to other LIHL players, if BBB stops playing in LIHL and I continue to play (more frequently, like before) I believe I can surpass him . Is this true?!?! Ionno, 200 elo is pretty hard to catch, but time will tell

Although it might seem BBB is "securing" his spot as #1, if you seriously think about it, it is a smart strategic move. Just like in sports, they will rest their "star" players if they know they will advance. I know people might argue saying he had more time than other players, but technically him not playing is giving other players time to catch up (in game count).

P.S. 200 elo is about 14 games. If I can win 14 games (before the season is over, and if BBB doesn't play) I can pass BBB and be #1. If you think about it, it's not that impossible as other people might think.

Edit:

4. I did also think about a top player not playing the last week of a season in order to solidify a victory. There is room for debate here. I feel maybe one fix is to make a "playoffs" at the end of a season where all of the top 10 players are required to play a set # of games within the last 2 weeks of competition. This will ensure that no1 "sandbags" their ELO and just waits for $50.

If anything, I think this would be the best idea/implementation rather than reduction of elo for not playing.

[eldryan]

I'm pretty confident I could pass beep. I went up 400 ELO at one point already, and if I do that on repeat, which isn't as hard as it seems because ELO is always still +15, then inc 1600 rofl. I"m also sure feor isn't completely out with only a 150 ELO gap. Decay is a bit unreasonable for immediatley, but maybe if someone hasn't played for like 2-3 weeks.

[BeepBoopBeep]

I'm a champion nothing left to prove :3

There are plenty of inactive people in LIHL, there can be many reasons why they aren't playing why should we punish them for that? To play LIHL is an option.

[dweiler]

I understand all of your points, but the way I look at this is not from a player's perspective who is close to rank 1, but from a good way to organize the ladder. Sure, if you are a player who is rank 1 or close to rank 1 you will look at this from the point if you can beat or not beat the nr 1. But here is the way I look at it from a different angle:

I always take similar situations into account. For example, the wc3 ladder has been perfectioned over the last years. Once they worked with 'seasons' too, but decay has always been a part of it. From the organiser's point of view this is easy to see:
1. the top of the game will be more exciting, (for example, because there is always action and because the nr 1 cannot idle)
2. playing games is stimulated (instead of discouraged if ur rank 1 now) so there is more activity in your league.
3. you get active players to be in the top of the league. I think most people wouldn't want inactive players to be on top of their league.

I think from this (league organizer's) point of view there are only advantages to having a sort of decay in it. This is also proven by the fact that a lot of ladder games have a form of decay in it.

As for the argument that you do not play much (for whatever reason): if you want to go rank 1 you should invest time, just like if you wanna become a rank 1 golfer or footballer. If you are good but you don't play much you are not going to be rank 1, just as someone who is bad but does play a lot.

[BeepBoopBeep]

I've invested plenty. Am i not allowed to take a change of scenery

[dweiler]

You are a moderator, try to look at it the way I described it, from making the best, most active and most attractive league possible. Don't you agree that decay would be good for all of that?

(Btw I am not suggesting that you should play all the time, just when someone is becoming inactive he should be encouraged to play again. I am not saying that you should lose 50 ELO if you don't play for a couple of days or something... It's just a reasonable proposal to make activity attractive in the league)

[BeepBoopBeep]

It' just ironic that you can question my activity yet I've played around 250 games and yourself 100 games.

Anyway we need more opinions.

[BA_Fail]

Decay ranking would be useful if what you actually want to determine is "current skill". If this is the case decay ranking is very useful, as not playing for a long period of time will actually lower your place in the ranking. Things change, and people get better while those that take a break aren't. Decay ranking is used in competitive games, and for good reasons.

Implementing decay ranking into legion, although nice, should not happen this season. Actually, since elo gets reset every four or so months (not actually sure how often), it is not necessary.

Another point that should be brought up is that if you are constantly playing around the same period of time, your elo will be easier to get then if you go on and off throughout the season. You can say that people develop a kind of "rhythm", which makes you comfortable with the current style of gameplay while others may not be as comfortable.

[eldryan]

not sure what "rhythm" is, but I think it's good not because of beep, or that issue, but rather because it seems like a great evaluator compared to current system, where people can win like 10 games total and have super inflated ELO (bit, cough cough) or have a brief streak then not play much. I also would like it to work other way a bit, where if you don't play you slowly get pushed to 1k (not necessarily complete decay)

[dweiler]

@Beep, I mean activity in a different way than you I think. And btw, I think I play too few games to be rank 1, thats true.

@BA_Fail, Good point about the seasons. I thought of this myself too, but then I started to spell out the use of a league, and I was convinced that decay is needed:

So in LIHL we play a season-based league. This means that the winner of the league should be the best player of the season. A player who plays half a season and is the best there and then idles half a season is not the best player of the season, just the best player of half the season and should normally not win (unless he played exceptionally well that he can withstand the disadvantages of idling half a season). The point of a league is to show consistency, not a peak.

This means that if you want to play only casually, as Beep wants to, you should play tournaments. They involve much action in a short period of time and no action outside of that. If you want to play a league you should understand the essence of it, and that is consistency and skill over a period of time, not a short time to idle the rest.

@Eldryan, of course I agree with you I was gonna bring in such an example to the discussion as well. What if you get a super startin the first 2 days of the league, getting 46-13 stats with huge towerluck, good allies, fail heals on the other side. You will have about 1485 ELO (Maybe a bit lower ofc), which Beep has now. You can spend the rest of the time idling in the league now. So 2 days of playing can win you the league. Compared to what I say about the essence of the league I think everyone would agree with us that this is not something we should want.