Welcome to Birdie's Accurate iCCup Ladder Rankings! After seeing how inaccurate the iCCup ladder ranking system is, I decided to try my hand at copying all the information off the iCCup website and re-ranking it using the Glicko 2 ranking system, which is far more accurate. You can consider it an ELO-style ranking system, if you prefer. Players are given a points ranking based on the system's guess at where their skill is, and an accuracy rating (currently hidden) which represents how confident the system is in the player's points being accurate. In the future I may add more cool stuff like ranking history, and so on. But for now I think this is adequate.
Please note that there may be bugs, such as matches not being added to the database or ranked. In addition, it doesn't update immediately so you will have to be patient in waiting for your ranking to update. Finally, note that the system is NOT the same as Fish server's ranking system, and the points bear no relation to Fish.
Oh and one more thing, the Temple Siege site is unrelated to the iCCup ranking system. I may move the ranking elsewhere but for now we're piggy backing off the site, as I'm also one of the developers of that map (A SCII MOBA).
Added plus/minus sign after the points, displaying the deviation (accuracy) of the points. Lower points is more accurate, higher points is less accurate.
Was watching this come up to speed last night and I already use it to spy on people and see how scared I should be of my opponents. Truly a great effort, thank you!!
Interesting idea for later: Having a column that compares players' ICCup ranking vs. their Elo ranking (like +100, -32, etc.) Use it to say definitively who is good for what league, cut out the drama ^^
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I believe I heard someone say that one of the advantages of the ICCUP system is that you can include MOTWs - which is harder to do in an elo rating. However, I don't really know anything more about it.
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
please fix the font or the background image.. but it's unreadable if you scroll down ;/ edit: this occures around rank 960 or so, the main frame just stops there as if it has a max-height
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
Other than this, I like this topic quite a lot.
Ah, that's a shame (that people attack you either way). I've never actually heard the reasoning though, but from what you say it sounds like ICCup has it reasons.
Makes me wonder if their could ever be a system like Birdie's used for match-making, and then the main ICCup ranking for determing ladder ranks and champions?
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
Other than this, I like this topic quite a lot.
Ah, that's a shame (that people attack you either way). I've never actually heard the reasoning though, but from what you say it sounds like ICCup has it reasons.
Makes me wonder if their could ever be a system like Birdie's used for match-making, and then the main ICCup ranking for determing ladder ranks and champions?
The MOTW System is a copy of the PGTour system, a lot of the senior admins worked on both portals. It was the in-thing the new thing really, compared to what WGTour and Neo Game-i used. One was more or less similar to ICCup, the other was ELO. Why they changed it, dunno. The advantage is that you can easily assign MOTWs, which in theory should people get to play different maps. That the majority plays Python and Fighting Spirit regardless of what we set up is a different topic. It would, theoretically, be possible to add MOTWs for an ELO based system (or Glicko), using different weights - however, that'd be a delicate issue in my eyes. Or you could remove and add maps to the pool per week, but that'd erase the option to play on non-MOTWs for casuals, which again is quite bad.
Then there's the issue - even if the super admins and the head admins would agree on an ELO or Glicko based system - we have no access to the source code or the server. The devs are busy to fix their shit on DotA and WoW, we're glad to get the most important fixes in a short time frame. Note, only very few tech people are left over and these are already old and thus have limited time. Also, for some reason, YelloAnt turns down many non-dev people. Up to some point I get that, other times I don't. You have to earn his trust first, apparently. This slows down a lot of things and we're basically always in the middle between the users and the higher ups.
I mean, I don't want to blame the guys that still keep up the server, despite it being very, very small compared to all the other games on the portal. We are only about 2% of the entire user basis. So I have a hard time to blame the devs too much. I can't force the new people to care for our game, even though I often tried to talk to them. The only upside is that Ant, Unk and x64 really won't shut down the portal until everyone leaves. "weeeee"
On March 06 2013 05:56 dRaW wrote: Cool but this is still really inaccurate. It's a ladder system so you can really use elo systems with so many unknowns.
Well, there are known knowns and there are known unknowns and then there are unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.
On March 06 2013 05:56 dRaW wrote: Cool but this is still really inaccurate. It's a ladder system so you can really use elo systems with so many unknowns.
Well, there are known knowns and there are known unknowns and then there are unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
Other than this, I like this topic quite a lot.
Ah, that's a shame (that people attack you either way). I've never actually heard the reasoning though, but from what you say it sounds like ICCup has it reasons.
Makes me wonder if their could ever be a system like Birdie's used for match-making, and then the main ICCup ranking for determing ladder ranks and champions?
The MOTW System is a copy of the PGTour system, a lot of the senior admins worked on both portals. It was the in-thing the new thing really, compared to what WGTour and Neo Game-i used. One was more or less similar to ICCup, the other was ELO. Why they changed it, dunno. The advantage is that you can easily assign MOTWs, which in theory should people get to play different maps. That the majority plays Python and Fighting Spirit regardless of what we set up is a different topic. It would, theoretically, be possible to add MOTWs for an ELO based system (or Glicko), using different weights - however, that'd be a delicate issue in my eyes. Or you could remove and add maps to the pool per week, but that'd erase the option to play on non-MOTWs for casuals, which again is quite bad.
Then there's the issue - even if the super admins and the head admins would agree on an ELO or Glicko based system - we have no access to the source code or the server. The devs are busy to fix their shit on DotA and WoW, we're glad to get the most important fixes in a short time frame. Note, only very few tech people are left over and these are already old and thus have limited time. Also, for some reason, YelloAnt turns down many non-dev people. Up to some point I get that, other times I don't. You have to earn his trust first, apparently. This slows down a lot of things and we're basically always in the middle between the users and the higher ups.
I mean, I don't want to blame the guys that still keep up the server, despite it being very, very small compared to all the other games on the portal. We are only about 2% of the entire user basis. So I have a hard time to blame the devs too much. I can't force the new people to care for our game, even though I often tried to talk to them. The only upside is that Ant, Unk and x64 really won't shut down the portal until everyone leaves. "weeeee"
MOTW wasn't some "new in-thing" at all developed by PGT. Cloud/Cloria Ladder, which existed around the time WGTour did (while WGT was still French), used MOTW as well. The only difference is that those only used 1 or 2 (to ensure that there was a map for both 1v1 and 2v2).
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
Other than this, I like this topic quite a lot.
Ah, that's a shame (that people attack you either way). I've never actually heard the reasoning though, but from what you say it sounds like ICCup has it reasons.
Makes me wonder if their could ever be a system like Birdie's used for match-making, and then the main ICCup ranking for determing ladder ranks and champions?
The MOTW System is a copy of the PGTour system, a lot of the senior admins worked on both portals. It was the in-thing the new thing really, compared to what WGTour and Neo Game-i used. One was more or less similar to ICCup, the other was ELO. Why they changed it, dunno. The advantage is that you can easily assign MOTWs, which in theory should people get to play different maps. That the majority plays Python and Fighting Spirit regardless of what we set up is a different topic. It would, theoretically, be possible to add MOTWs for an ELO based system (or Glicko), using different weights - however, that'd be a delicate issue in my eyes. Or you could remove and add maps to the pool per week, but that'd erase the option to play on non-MOTWs for casuals, which again is quite bad.
Then there's the issue - even if the super admins and the head admins would agree on an ELO or Glicko based system - we have no access to the source code or the server. The devs are busy to fix their shit on DotA and WoW, we're glad to get the most important fixes in a short time frame. Note, only very few tech people are left over and these are already old and thus have limited time. Also, for some reason, YelloAnt turns down many non-dev people. Up to some point I get that, other times I don't. You have to earn his trust first, apparently. This slows down a lot of things and we're basically always in the middle between the users and the higher ups.
I mean, I don't want to blame the guys that still keep up the server, despite it being very, very small compared to all the other games on the portal. We are only about 2% of the entire user basis. So I have a hard time to blame the devs too much. I can't force the new people to care for our game, even though I often tried to talk to them. The only upside is that Ant, Unk and x64 really won't shut down the portal until everyone leaves. "weeeee"
MOTW wasn't some "new in-thing" at all developed by PGT. Cloud/Cloria Ladder, which existed around the time WGTour did (while WGT was still French), used MOTW as well. The only difference is that those only used 1 or 2 (to ensure that there was a map for both 1v1 and 2v2).
I think we should go back to one MOTW map, you can only play on it, get ELO system and get TheShimmy to choose MOTW.
While this is interesting, I still believe ICCup's ranking system works better for BW.
ICCup ranks are quite stable and when someone reaches their max rank, they'll be stuck on it as long as they don't actually improve their game. For example, when someone tells me their rank max rank is B- I can quite accurately asses their BW skill and what to expect from their game. And when you take into consideration that there is big difference even between B- and B+, you'd notice that there are many levels of BW skill and they need to be represented accordingly.
For example, I think Fish's ELO ranking is horrible for BW as it's too dynamic. Ask any top foreigner what is their average ranking on Fish. I doubt they'll be able to say accurately as it sometimes spikes to 1400-1500 and sometimes they're stuck on 1100. It's because even few win/loss streaks change your ranking considerably. This doesn't happen with ICCup's ranking. On ICCup you're almost guaranteed to ladder up to your max rank and then play against opponents of the same level (too bad this is not accurate anymore due to so few people playing above C+ rank ).
Now I'm not sure how much Glicko's ranking system is different from ELO ranking, but I seriously don't see what's so inaccurate about ICCup's ranking system. Especially since it has proven itself to work for BW over many years.
Cool stuff. You might be interested in isotropic Dominion's leaderboard (http://dominion.isotropic.org/faq/#leaderboard), which uses an implementation of TrueSkill that has been open sourced on GitHub.
To answer 2Pacalypse's questions above, iCCup's rating system arguably takes too long to converge to be effective for match-making, especially since ratings are reset every season. I guess it may work well enough for players that play a ton of games per season, but it's not great for playing occasionally.
Systems like Glicko and TrueSkill are better for stability than ELO, because if you play a lot, then your rating uncertainty becomes low. Then your rating won't move much with each game. There are also some tweakable parameters involved, so Fish may simply have misconfigured their rating system.
On March 06 2013 04:53 ninini wrote: This ranking will keep all data and rankings across new iccup seasons? If yes, awesome!
It can do; I can also reset it independently. I haven't actually set up the code to automatically handle new iCCup seasons; it's pretty simple to do though.
On March 06 2013 05:07 LML wrote: please fix the font or the background image.. but it's unreadable if you scroll down ;/ edit: this occures around rank 960 or so, the main frame just stops there as if it has a max-height
What browser are you using? It works fine for me on Google Chrome.
On March 06 2013 05:18 fabiano wrote: Is the ranking calculated per season? Or does it take into consideration previous seasons?
That's up to me At the moment it only has data from the new season.
On March 06 2013 05:56 dRaW wrote: Cool but this is still really inaccurate. It's a ladder system so you can really use elo systems with so many unknowns.
It's very accurate after players have played enough games; it reaches a high level of certainty much quicker than ELO, for example. It's not a ladder system, it's a points ranking with the points representing skill.
On March 06 2013 08:21 2Pacalypse- wrote: While this is interesting, I still believe ICCup's ranking system works better for BW.
ICCup ranks are quite stable and when someone reaches their max rank, they'll be stuck on it as long as they don't actually improve their game. For example, when someone tells me their rank max rank is B- I can quite accurately asses their BW skill and what to expect from their game. And when you take into consideration that there is big difference even between B- and B+, you'd notice that there are many levels of BW skill and they need to be represented accordingly.
For example, I think Fish's ELO ranking is horrible for BW as it's too dynamic. Ask any top foreigner what is their average ranking on Fish. I doubt they'll be able to say accurately as it sometimes spikes to 1400-1500 and sometimes they're stuck on 1100. It's because even few win/loss streaks change your ranking considerably. This doesn't happen with ICCup's ranking. On ICCup you're almost guaranteed to ladder up to your max rank and then play against opponents of the same level (too bad this is not accurate anymore due to so few people playing above C+ rank ).
Now I'm not sure how much Glicko's ranking system is different from ELO ranking, but I seriously don't see what's so inaccurate about ICCup's ranking system. Especially since it has proven itself to work for BW over many years.
Glicko2 is also quite stable. Fish's system is, as you said, unstable/dynamic, because it doesn't have a confidence rating. With Glicko2, the more games played, the more confident the system is in the player's skill, and the slower the points change. When the system is 99% confident that your skill is 1980, then if you lose 10 games to a 1500 player you might only drop 80 points or so. If the system is 50% confident your skill is 1980 and you lose the same 10 games you might drop 400 points (EXAMPLES ONLY, I didn't use actual values). So the first few games you play, your ranking will jump all over the place until the system has enough games stored that it can be more confident about your skill.
blueblimp explained this somewhat too. Blueblimp, thanks for your link, I may consider it but I already have a PHP implementation of the Glicko2 system and am too lazy to learn Python just yet/convert the TrueSkill one to PHP. The +/- display of the deviation is good, I'll try implement that so people can see how confident the system is.
On March 06 2013 05:56 dRaW wrote: Cool but this is still really inaccurate. It's a ladder system so you can really use elo systems with so many unknowns.
Well, there are known knowns and there are known unknowns and then there are unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.
On March 06 2013 13:53 Savant wrote: This great thanks. It would also be great if you could make the rankings sortable by category. Shouldn't be too hard right?
What do you mean, by category? You mean by matches played, matches won, and so on?
On March 06 2013 14:38 quirinus wrote: Seems nice, how often does it update?
Hourly, starts the update at about 50 minutes past the hour and takes a couple minutes to update. So it should be completely updated every hour on the hour.
On March 06 2013 04:39 krzych113 wrote: why isn't iccup ranking a ranking of elo ?
I'd think that would be a good question for ICCup staff, no? Not sure they have ever explained why they use the methods they do.
I don't answer on that stuff anymore, it's pointless. No matter what you write, people will start to argue against you. It's like being the messenger and being nuked.
Other than this, I like this topic quite a lot.
Ah, that's a shame (that people attack you either way). I've never actually heard the reasoning though, but from what you say it sounds like ICCup has it reasons.
Makes me wonder if their could ever be a system like Birdie's used for match-making, and then the main ICCup ranking for determing ladder ranks and champions?
The MOTW System is a copy of the PGTour system, a lot of the senior admins worked on both portals. It was the in-thing the new thing really, compared to what WGTour and Neo Game-i used. One was more or less similar to ICCup, the other was ELO. Why they changed it, dunno. The advantage is that you can easily assign MOTWs, which in theory should people get to play different maps. That the majority plays Python and Fighting Spirit regardless of what we set up is a different topic. It would, theoretically, be possible to add MOTWs for an ELO based system (or Glicko), using different weights - however, that'd be a delicate issue in my eyes. Or you could remove and add maps to the pool per week, but that'd erase the option to play on non-MOTWs for casuals, which again is quite bad.
Then there's the issue - even if the super admins and the head admins would agree on an ELO or Glicko based system - we have no access to the source code or the server. The devs are busy to fix their shit on DotA and WoW, we're glad to get the most important fixes in a short time frame. Note, only very few tech people are left over and these are already old and thus have limited time. Also, for some reason, YelloAnt turns down many non-dev people. Up to some point I get that, other times I don't. You have to earn his trust first, apparently. This slows down a lot of things and we're basically always in the middle between the users and the higher ups.
I mean, I don't want to blame the guys that still keep up the server, despite it being very, very small compared to all the other games on the portal. We are only about 2% of the entire user basis. So I have a hard time to blame the devs too much. I can't force the new people to care for our game, even though I often tried to talk to them. The only upside is that Ant, Unk and x64 really won't shut down the portal until everyone leaves. "weeeee"
MOTW wasn't some "new in-thing" at all developed by PGT. Cloud/Cloria Ladder, which existed around the time WGTour did (while WGT was still French), used MOTW as well. The only difference is that those only used 1 or 2 (to ensure that there was a map for both 1v1 and 2v2).
I meant more like popular not in terms of revolutionary. There's nothing new under the sun.
On March 06 2013 08:21 2Pacalypse- wrote: ...
The point with ICCup system and Elo system is that it goes up and down with your user base. Both have big problems, whenever you look at casual players, new accounts naturally cause a bias, etc. Especially Elo isn't used like it was originally inteded, the real Elo Number, from what I read at least, judges a number of games, not a single one. E.g. Fish calculates "in real time" - you lose immediately points after a game, while the Wiki page of Elo reads (I might be wrong) that in Chess the entire series is calculated and you hence lose fewer points or win fewer points if you play more than one game against the same opponent, depending on the outcome. Glicko is really "better", because it wasn't made for a game that is played in real life, has no ties (again not sure) and has more or less the thoughts of ladders implemented.
On March 06 2013 09:50 blueblimp wrote: To answer 2Pacalypse's questions above, iCCup's rating system arguably takes too long to converge to be effective for match-making, especially since ratings are reset every season. I guess it may work well enough for players that play a ton of games per season, but it's not great for playing occasionally.
Systems like Glicko and TrueSkill are better for stability than ELO, because if you play a lot, then your rating uncertainty becomes low. Then your rating won't move much with each game. There are also some tweakable parameters involved, so Fish may simply have misconfigured their rating system.
Yes, I agree that it might take too long for ICCup's ranking to converge in the beginning, but that's what they should implement the system they use on their Dota ladder. If you were at 6000-9000 (B- to B+) points last season, you start new season with 2000 points and if you were 9000+ (A- and above) you start new season with 3000 points.
But alas, I'll agree that ICCup's system might not be ideal anymore since there are so few people playing it.
On March 06 2013 08:21 2Pacalypse- wrote: While this is interesting, I still believe ICCup's ranking system works better for BW.
ICCup ranks are quite stable and when someone reaches their max rank, they'll be stuck on it as long as they don't actually improve their game. For example, when someone tells me their rank max rank is B- I can quite accurately asses their BW skill and what to expect from their game. And when you take into consideration that there is big difference even between B- and B+, you'd notice that there are many levels of BW skill and they need to be represented accordingly.
For example, I think Fish's ELO ranking is horrible for BW as it's too dynamic. Ask any top foreigner what is their average ranking on Fish. I doubt they'll be able to say accurately as it sometimes spikes to 1400-1500 and sometimes they're stuck on 1100. It's because even few win/loss streaks change your ranking considerably. This doesn't happen with ICCup's ranking. On ICCup you're almost guaranteed to ladder up to your max rank and then play against opponents of the same level (too bad this is not accurate anymore due to so few people playing above C+ rank ).
Now I'm not sure how much Glicko's ranking system is different from ELO ranking, but I seriously don't see what's so inaccurate about ICCup's ranking system. Especially since it has proven itself to work for BW over many years.
Glicko2 is also quite stable. Fish's system is, as you said, unstable/dynamic, because it doesn't have a confidence rating. With Glicko2, the more games played, the more confident the system is in the player's skill, and the slower the points change. When the system is 99% confident that your skill is 1980, then if you lose 10 games to a 1500 player you might only drop 80 points or so. If the system is 50% confident your skill is 1980 and you lose the same 10 games you might drop 400 points (EXAMPLES ONLY, I didn't use actual values). So the first few games you play, your ranking will jump all over the place until the system has enough games stored that it can be more confident about your skill.
Ah, I see. Then indeed, I'll agree that Glicko2 system is pretty good. Though I still prefer seeing those colored grade icons instead of numbers, so you could maybe make your own representation of rating in Glicko2 system by using letters as well
edit: also, you should make some pagination on the site
On March 06 2013 16:55 Sayle wrote: Could you make the player names into links to their ICCup profiles?
Done.
On March 06 2013 17:23 2Pacalypse- wrote: edit: also, you should make some pagination on the site
Will do, if and when I add in search capability. I'll add in iCCup-style letter rankings once there are more matches ranked so that it will seem roughly similar to the actual iCCup rankings.
I'm pretty confident there is a somewhat major bug in there somewhere, which I'm looking for. Basically there are matches being added which are NOT 1v1s on official maps, so I'll have to find out where those matches are coming from and why my scraper is adding them when it shouldn't be.
On March 06 2013 17:23 2Pacalypse- wrote: edit: also, you should make some pagination on the site
Will do, if and when I add in search capability. I'll add in iCCup-style letter rankings once there are more matches ranked so that it will seem roughly similar to the actual iCCup rankings.
I'm pretty confident there is a somewhat major bug in there somewhere, which I'm looking for. Basically there are matches being added which are NOT 1v1s on official maps, so I'll have to find out where those matches are coming from and why my scraper is adding them when it shouldn't be.
On March 06 2013 17:23 2Pacalypse- wrote: edit: also, you should make some pagination on the site
Will do, if and when I add in search capability. I'll add in iCCup-style letter rankings once there are more matches ranked so that it will seem roughly similar to the actual iCCup rankings.
I'm pretty confident there is a somewhat major bug in there somewhere, which I'm looking for. Basically there are matches being added which are NOT 1v1s on official maps, so I'll have to find out where those matches are coming from and why my scraper is adding them when it shouldn't be.
Those are 1v1s on non-ladder maps. I am 3-0 on ladder maps, and 3-0 on FMP, and I appear in the ranking with a 6-0 record. I assume that the current filter is taking all 1v1 games.
On March 06 2013 22:35 iFU.pauline wrote: "Finally, note that the system is NOT the same as Fish server's ranking system, and the points bear no relation to Fish."
On March 06 2013 22:35 iFU.pauline wrote: "Finally, note that the system is NOT the same as Fish server's ranking system, and the points bear no relation to Fish."
WHY NOT?
I dare say, even if he used the Elo Number (Fish system), the ranks couldn't be compared.
You're using PHP with curl and cronjob every hour, going trough the match pages of each player?
This is probably a pretty high load on iccup's server at each hour, unless you have direct access to their DB or some API, which I highly doubt. (that would also take a pretty high load, but less) I suggest not updating everything every hour, but having it evenly distributed trough an hour so it lightens the load to the iccup server at the hour mark. Like, make a for loop that runs trough the accounts and make it update each after $one_hour_in_ms/$total_account_number. Or making it update everything in more than an hour.
If I had a page like iccup and limited server power, if it caused problems for my server, I'd probably block the ip of your server. XD
I really like this though. Dunno how good you are at this, but if you need help with anything let me know, I used to dabble in that stuff a while back.
On March 07 2013 01:30 art_of_turtle wrote: after around 950 or so players the red background is gone, and only the website background is there, and you can see much inside the brackets.
What browser are you using ? I am using Opera and I have the red background until the end.
On March 07 2013 01:02 quirinus wrote: Hmm seems it's not updating. At least my ranking.
You're using PHP with curl and cronjob every hour, going trough the match pages of each player?
This is probably a pretty high load on iccup's server at each hour, unless you have direct access to their DB or some API, which I highly doubt. (that would also take a pretty high load, but less) I suggest not updating everything every hour, but having it evenly distributed trough an hour so it lightens the load to the iccup server at the hour mark. Like, make a for loop that runs trough the accounts and make it update each after $one_hour_in_ms/$total_account_number. Or making it update everything in more than an hour.
If I had a page like iccup and limited server power, if it caused problems for my server, I'd probably block the ip of your server. XD
I really like this though. Dunno how good you are at this, but if you need help with anything let me know, I used to dabble in that stuff a while back.
On March 07 2013 01:02 quirinus wrote: Hmm seems it's not updating. At least my ranking.
You're using PHP with curl and cronjob every hour, going trough the match pages of each player?
This is probably a pretty high load on iccup's server at each hour, unless you have direct access to their DB or some API, which I highly doubt. (that would also take a pretty high load, but less) I suggest not updating everything every hour, but having it evenly distributed trough an hour so it lightens the load to the iccup server at the hour mark. Like, make a for loop that runs trough the accounts and make it update each after $one_hour_in_ms/$total_account_number. Or making it update everything in more than an hour.
If I had a page like iccup and limited server power, if it caused problems for my server, I'd probably block the ip of your server. XD
I really like this though. Dunno how good you are at this, but if you need help with anything let me know, I used to dabble in that stuff a while back.
It's not updating because I bugged something while trying to fix another bug and I don't have time to put things back the way they were before. The cron job/php script that scrapes the info from iCCup runs every half an hour, and takes about quarter of an hour to complete, so splitting the load wouldn't do much.
On March 07 2013 01:30 art_of_turtle wrote: after around 950 or so players the red background is gone, and only the website background is there, and you can see much inside the brackets.
What browser are you using ? I am using Opera and I have the red background until the end.
I fixed the problem. I had stopscript on so it was only showing it up to half, so i just allowed the scripts to run.
I have reset the ranking and started scanning again, after hopefully fixing the bug where matches would show up with games that are not on official iCCup maps. It should be up to date in a few hours.
On March 08 2013 00:02 Darksoldierr wrote: After line 954 on the site, the table loses its red background color
What browser are you using?
On March 07 2013 22:04 Reason wrote: Stupid question : Where am I on this list ?
Use Ctrl-F to find your iCCup ID. If it isn't there yet, then the script hasn't caught up to the matches you've played in. It's up to about match 3000 out of more than 14000 matches so it might take another day or so to catch up, I'm not sure.
On March 07 2013 22:04 Reason wrote: Stupid question : Where am I on this list ?
Use Ctrl-F to find your iCCup ID. If it isn't there yet, then the script hasn't caught up to the matches you've played in. It's up to about match 3000 out of more than 14000 matches so it might take another day or so to catch up, I'm not sure.
I had a few accounts on the list which are now missing. o.o
On March 07 2013 22:04 Reason wrote: Stupid question : Where am I on this list ?
Use Ctrl-F to find your iCCup ID. If it isn't there yet, then the script hasn't caught up to the matches you've played in. It's up to about match 3000 out of more than 14000 matches so it might take another day or so to catch up, I'm not sure.
I had a few accounts on the list which are now missing. o.o
As I said before, I reset the ranking because I had wrong matches being ranked, so it is going through all the matches again and re-ranking them. They should be all up to date in a few hours.
On March 08 2013 11:37 bulbasaur) wrote: There are 1 game accounts on this list, that is silly. I think you can guess real ELO after 5 games. I won just a one game and im 427...
Your uncertainty (the number after the +/-) will be very high after one game. So the ranking is clearly not accurate after one game, because of the uncertainty.
Still buggy, because I can see dM-Spartacus has only played 21 games on iCCup but my rankings say he's played 26, I'll have a look for the bug and see if I can find it.
TrueSkill handles uncertainty by subtracting 3 times the uncertainty from the player's mean skill in order to get a "level" representing a lower confidence bound on how good the player is. It works pretty well to avoid over-ranking players who don't play much, and as a side effect works decently for ladders that want to reward players for playing often.
I think the same approach could work with the ratings you're using.
This is a really refreshing way to look at ICCup. The ranking has been so off for so long. This will actually make me play even more, thaaaaanks Birdie!!
I'll look into the Firefox bug and see what I can do. Till then, use Chrome ;o
I've fixed the matches being double-counted bug, and it's up to something like 12000 games out of the current 17000 so it's not too far off being caught up, sometime tomorrow it should catch up.
Kiante, I can do that but my code is terrible terrible awful looking code, I'll clean it up to the best of my lowly ability before I put it on github.
It's fine dude. I'm used to awful code. i could do refactoring if you want. just throw it up even on a private repository if you're feeling self concious or whatever and I can do some work and submit it as a patch for you to review. got some time on monday as its a public holiday here
There's a 23 point difference between two accounts of the same player, at a fairly large difference in games. That pretty much proves that the ranking is working, as one player should end up with very similiar points as any of his alternate accounts as long as he plays enough games to give the system a reasonable amount of accuracy. It will be interesting to see how many other dual accounts end up close on the points chart.
Kiante is adding in a very nice pagination/sorting system, and I'll be adding in stats pages during this next week. I'm pretty busy with university so we'll see how it goes. We may also switch everything into an MVC framework, as Kiante thinks it's a good idea and I should learn how to use MVC anyway, but the external effect should be unnoticed so don't worry about that.
I'll start working on this again. It's currently ranked about 31k matches out of nearly 50k so I think iCCup is playing games faster than it can add them to the database, which is annoying.
On March 08 2013 20:27 Birdie wrote: I'll look into the Firefox bug and see what I can do. Till then, use Chrome ;o
I've fixed the matches being double-counted bug, and it's up to something like 12000 games out of the current 17000 so it's not too far off being caught up, sometime tomorrow it should catch up.
Kiante, I can do that but my code is terrible terrible awful looking code, I'll clean it up to the best of my lowly ability before I put it on github.
Hey, can I volunteer for this too? I'm looking for a side project that's hopefully interesting and involves machine learning or statistics. I don't know how much 'interesting work' you have left though.
On March 08 2013 20:27 Birdie wrote: I'll look into the Firefox bug and see what I can do. Till then, use Chrome ;o
I've fixed the matches being double-counted bug, and it's up to something like 12000 games out of the current 17000 so it's not too far off being caught up, sometime tomorrow it should catch up.
Kiante, I can do that but my code is terrible terrible awful looking code, I'll clean it up to the best of my lowly ability before I put it on github.
Hey, can I volunteer for this too? I'm looking for a side project that's hopefully interesting and involves machine learning or statistics. I don't know how much 'interesting work' you have left though.
You can put in any features you want into the github page and I'll look at them and consider adding them to the main source, if you like, but it's not a big enough project for me to be handing out any more jobs than what myself and Kiante already have. Thanks for the offer though!
On March 13 2013 09:23 zimp wrote: can you also make it count map statistics?
On March 14 2013 00:10 traceurling wrote: Will clear stats affect this at all? Also I agree, it'd be cool to have racial balance stats for each map :D
Clear stats is ignored by the ranking as long as it managed to pick up the match before you cleared your stats.
Does that mean if someone is trying to go for a flawless record, and clearstats ASAP after every loss, they will get to the top of your ladder because your scraper will only scrape their wins?
Clearstats doesn't erase matches from your match list so it shouldn't affect this ranking. Even if it did, you can only clearstats once every two weeks, so maximum 12 times in a season which isn't much.
You should have some awards if possible/not too time insuring to implement like "highest win rate/number of wins against each race, highest win rate/number of wins, most number of games played, most games lost etc xD
On March 14 2013 05:15 sabas123 wrote: i wish there was a search function when you want to find players lol
CTRL+F, type in player name
@Birdie, there still seem to be some glitches, the 1st and 3rd player have more games on your thing than iCCup says...small amount like only a couple matches dunno if it makes a big difference..maybe they cleared stats? Also my game list says I have 25 games according to you, but iCCup says I only have 22...small difference but just letting you know might be a bug somewhere...
Would it be possible to (easily) display average APM also? Just as random trivia...
I'm giving this a shot with TrueSkill. Boy is scraping iCCup frustrating. I'm getting the information from players' match lists, since that way I can get as many as 25 games per request. Even doing that, it's brutally slow. I've been running it for nearly a day now and it's nowhere near done.
Keeping the game database up-to-date will be even nastier. I don't see any better way to do it than to request the individual details pages for games (for example http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/123435.html). Given that thousands of games are played per day, that'd barely even process games as fast as they are generated!
So yeah, if you have some trick for scraping the site, I'd love to hear it.
On March 28 2013 17:51 blueblimp wrote: I'm giving this a shot with TrueSkill. Boy is scraping iCCup frustrating. I'm getting the information from players' match lists, since that way I can get as many as 25 games per request. Even doing that, it's brutally slow. I've been running it for nearly a day now and it's nowhere near done.
Keeping the game database up-to-date will be even nastier. I don't see any better way to do it than to request the individual details pages for games (for example http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/123435.html). Given that thousands of games are played per day, that'd barely even process games as fast as they are generated!
So yeah, if you have some trick for scraping the site, I'd love to hear it.
Huh, I just realized the matchlist file actually displays the map played on, which is one thing I didn't think it did. Perhaps I should switch to scraping that way.
Anyway what I do is just brute force go through every match (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/1.html all the way until it 404's). When it 404's I stop, and the script starts again after half an hour. It's set up as a cron job that runs every half hour. Without direct access to the iCCup database (not going to happen I think) I don't know of a better way to do it.
In case no one noticed, I broke iCCup reranked and haven't had a chance to fix it, might have time tomorrow though as it's Easter Friday.
On March 28 2013 17:51 blueblimp wrote: I'm giving this a shot with TrueSkill. Boy is scraping iCCup frustrating. I'm getting the information from players' match lists, since that way I can get as many as 25 games per request. Even doing that, it's brutally slow. I've been running it for nearly a day now and it's nowhere near done.
Keeping the game database up-to-date will be even nastier. I don't see any better way to do it than to request the individual details pages for games (for example http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/123435.html). Given that thousands of games are played per day, that'd barely even process games as fast as they are generated!
So yeah, if you have some trick for scraping the site, I'd love to hear it.
Huh, I just realized the matchlist file actually displays the map played on, which is one thing I didn't think it did. Perhaps I should switch to scraping that way.
Anyway what I do is just brute force go through every match (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/1.html all the way until it 404's). When it 404's I stop, and the script starts again after half an hour. It's set up as a cron job that runs every half hour. Without direct access to the iCCup database (not going to happen I think) I don't know of a better way to do it.
In case no one noticed, I broke iCCup reranked and haven't had a chance to fix it, might have time tomorrow though as it's Easter Friday.
Thanks. The breakage was partly what motivated me to give it a try.
Using match lists is pretty good for initially populating the database. But not too good--to request the match list page, you need the player's ID, so a request per player is still necessary to find that out. Plus it only shows 25 games per page, you see every game twice (once for each player), and the last page of games has fewer than 25. So although it's better than requesting the individual game details, it's not THAT much better.
I'm uncertain how to keep up with games using match lists. Maybe scrape players at an interval determined by their activity?
Excellent job, I think you've implemented yours better than mine (other than the formatting xD could look a little nicer). Which means I just lost 100 points of motivation to continue with mine T_T
You're welcome to run your own rankings & site based on the games database I've scraped. I've published it at http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/games.json. (Should be clear what most fields are, except the last one, which is a timestamp.) It's still a few days behind because I haven't updated the database after the initial pass through all players, because it will take some cleverness to get that working.
On March 29 2013 16:37 Jemah wrote: Woah dang, good job on this man! don't know why ICCup won't do their rankings like this.
I don't know all of the reasons, but one reason is that with these type of rankings, a Map of the Week system would be impossible
Yeah, as I see it, the iCCup rankings are better thought of as a ladder than a ranking system. The points are rewards given to the player for things like playing MOTW and playing a lot of games in the current season. That's not a bad thing, but it has trade-offs, namely that it's weak for match-making.
I prefer systems that are focused on producing good match-making. After all, the main point is to play the game, and that's more fun when the matches are even. Viewed from this perspective, it makes no sense to offer more winning points based on map, or to reset rankings each season. You also want good players to get high rankings quickly so that they play other good players, which is the opposite of iCCup, which deliberately makes it take a long time to get a high ranking even for a high-skill player.
Edit: That all said, some creativity could create a map-of-the-week system within any ranking system. For example, have an additional leaderboard that only counts games that were played on MOTWs.
I agree that I like to have solid statistics of who's good and who's not, but at the same time I don't want it to end up like Fish where we only see Fighting Spirit D: guess there's no effective way to combine the benefits of both systems Edit: damn you edited while I was posting lol...so then it's kinda like why you guys are doing then, have iCCup ladder to motivate people to try new maps, and then have ELO/Glicko/true skill ratings available also...only thing lacking is when you enter a game you don't see their alternate rankings...
On March 31 2013 05:06 traceurling wrote: only thing lacking is when you enter a game you don't see their alternate rankings...
Yeah, I see a couple possible ways around this. One way would be to write a Chaoslauncher plug-in that would display ranking info. (Much easier said than done.) Something easier would be to have a chatbot that can be queried for ranking info, although that's not much more convenient than just alt-tabbing to the leaderboard.
I think the iCCup store only applies to DOTA (hopefully) I really don't want iCCup to become one of those games where people who are willing to spend money get an advantage...to be fair, they probably do need the money as it can't be easy running a big server etc just off volunteer work, hopefully this'll get the devs to make iCCup prettier and nicer On a side note, Do you remember me jemah? We ZvZd a couple times but then I had to stop laddering for like a year D: went by asiantraceur back then :D
On April 01 2013 05:16 traceurling wrote: I think the iCCup store only applies to DOTA (hopefully) I really don't want iCCup to become one of those games where people who are willing to spend money get an advantage...to be fair, they probably do need the money as it can't be easy running a big server etc just off volunteer work, hopefully this'll get the devs to make iCCup prettier and nicer On a side note, Do you remember me jemah? We ZvZd a couple times but then I had to stop laddering for like a year D: went by asiantraceur back then :D
Ohhh didn't know. well hopefully it's only a DOTA thing then lol but yeah agree they probably do need a little more support financially. ooo asiantraceur yeah i remember you. i still got you on my friends list. you still play?
Okay apparently for DOTA they opened a store(at least it looks like it doesn't affect Starcraft)... There's small stuff like with money you can get icons, clear stats, transfer stats, etc. Bigger stuff is less latency, quicker matchfinding, if you lose a game you only lose 50% of the points you should have, if you win a game you gain 30% more points... But pretty sure it's only for DOTA, note Starcraft.
Unfortunately neither of our rankings can use data from past seasons, because that's not available. I think iCCup might actually delete that data (since the game IDs get re-used) and just keep the win/loss record, which isn't enough to generate a ranking.
Pro Account is the first thing they added to their store (although they added some new features to it). This Ladder Armor and Ladder Bonus are definitely new though. Pretty ridiculous that they're selling points on ladder...
Yah, I'm glad they haven't implemented it in Starcraft; that would be horrible D: a store for stuff like icons and cool stuff is fine, but when it starts affecting in game and rankings and stuff then it starts turning into a pay to be awesome thing and less of skill
The store has been there for a very very long time now, only on the russian side of the website. They've simply translated everything and released it in english. If you visit the russian store though, you'll see some stuff for starcraft such as buying points and clearing stats
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website. Actually it's just transfer stats, thanks Sum41.
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website.
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website.
hmm u play bw ? u use iccup often ?.down the knife.not need blame iccup for everything.also iCCUP its amazing !!!!!!
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website.
no, he may have transfered stats
I see, thanks. I've never used transfer stats so I didn't know it would show up like this. Is there any way to see which account the stats came from? It would be nice to include the older in the ranking too. Although thankfully trueskill converges pretty quickly, so SuperkOr[PaiN] still gets a good ranking despite the algorithm not having seen most of his games.
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website.
hmm u play bw ? u use iccup often ?.down the knife.not need blame iccup for everything.also iCCUP its amazing !!!!!!
Maybe my post came off more complaining than I intended it? I agree that iCCup is great. It's nice to have a foreign BW server, and the anti-hack launcher is good. There are probably some other good things going on with iCCup that I don't even know about.
That doesn't take away from iCCup in general. But man, when trying to get information from the website, then you notice the little quirks like this.
Edit: Also I recognize that it's only by the grace of iCCup that running these rankings is even possible. If iCCup didn't publish game histories on their website, there'd be no way to do this at all. (It seems like fish doesn't, so it's not possible to do something similar for fish.) And of course iCCup could always choose to block my IP address and then I'd be hosed. I'm really hoping they don't choose to do that; I'm respecting their robots.txt (http://iccup.com/robots.txt) request to only make one request per 15 seconds, so the load on the server shouldn't be too extreme. Plus my goal is to do a fun thing that may enhance the play experience for some players, not to cause any problem for iCCup.
On April 01 2013 07:28 traceurling wrote: Blueblimp, are you able to include Win|Loss stats?
This is possible. In general, I'm not a big fan of Win-Loss records. They encourage damaging behaviour like clearing stats and noob-stomping. But since it's only a handful of people that will look at this leaderboard anyway, might as well.
Okay, it now shows win-loss records: http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. Sometimes these are inconsistent with what iCCup shows. For example, superkor[pain] has a 106 - 41 record according to iCCup, but if you look at his matchlist, there are only 23 games there. I assume this is some kind of bug in the iCCup website.
no, he may have transfered stats
I see, thanks. I've never used transfer stats so I didn't know it would show up like this. Is there any way to see which account the stats came from? It would be nice to include the older in the ranking too. Although thankfully trueskill converges pretty quickly, so SuperkOr[PaiN] still gets a good ranking despite the algorithm not having seen most of his games.
To update, I guess it's fairly likely that superkor[pain] got his stats from superkorean2 and superkorean, given the similarity of their names and that those two accounts have more games on their matchlist than in their stats. It seems like it would be a real mess to figure out what happened with the stats transfer, though, especially since superkorean2 has some games from after the transfer.
Have a banner...took me somewhere less than an hour to make this In case you wanted to make your own thread I couldn't find a TrueSkill logo/insignia or anything...also didn't want to put the iCCup logo on cuz it's not exactly iCCup endorsed but I did steal their font
Whoa awesome. I dunno whether I should make a new thread since maybe one thread for iCCup re-ranking is enough for now.
Since I'm posting here anyway, lemme mention the new "race" column, which tries to guess each player's main race via a bunch of heuristics (which still need tweaking--for example, das_boot's picking scheme of all-but-mirrors is not detected well). What's interesting is some of the weird race-picking you see even at relatively high levels of iCCup. One fun example: Auksaviriai plays PvT, PvP... and ZvZ. (Leaderboard at http://malcolmsharpe.github.com/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html as before.)
Looks very nice only potential problem would be the few people like Nemu who random :O but that'll be a very small number...actually giving me motiviation to want to ladder
On April 02 2013 12:38 traceurling wrote: Looks very nice only potential problem would be the few people like Nemu who random :O but that'll be a very small number...actually giving me motiviation to want to ladder
For random players I think they put them under "?" so for instance if you choose random all the time, then it would say (?vZ, ?vP, ?vT) next to your name. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: nevermind, it only records what race was played, not what race was chosen, so if you chose random and got zerg all the time, your race would be shown as Z. but in theory, if you did random all the time, you should get a mixed results of matchups. and still show the "?vZ, ?vP, ?vT," but at the same time if you only chose random against a certain race, then there would be no way of detecting that..
On April 02 2013 12:38 traceurling wrote: Looks very nice only potential problem would be the few people like Nemu who random :O but that'll be a very small number...actually giving me motiviation to want to ladder
For random players I think they put them under "?" so for instance if you choose random all the time, then it would say (?vZ, ?vP, ?vT) next to your name. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: nevermind, it only records what race was played, not what race was chosen, so if you chose random and got zerg all the time, your race would be shown as Z. but in theory, if you did random all the time, you should get a mixed results of matchups. and still show the "?vZ, ?vP, ?vT," but at the same time if you only chose random against a certain race, then there would be no way of detecting that..
Yeah, "?" just means "I don't know what race this person prefers", which could be random, or just picking a lot of different races. It's not possible to tell from the game info.
@ blueblimp the ranking doesnt catch games which afterwards have been nullified (or i just happen to run into a bug) my iccup stats are 63-8 and B-, your ranking says im 64-8 and C+ my game vs The_WendiGo] has been nullified. (disc in a replay, i got win awarded, we made complaint, points refund)
On April 09 2013 09:20 Bakuryu wrote: @ blueblimp the ranking doesnt catch games which afterwards have been nullified (or i just happen to run into a bug) my iccup stats are 63-8 and B-, your ranking says im 64-8 and C+ my game vs The_WendiGo] has been nullified. (disc in a replay, i got win awarded, we made complaint, points refund)
Thanks for the bug report!
It's true that the crawler will only add games and never delete them. This is because it can't tell for sure if a game has disappeared from the list, because if a player has multiple pages of games, it will only look far enough to find all the new games of that player. That said, if a game has been nullified recently enough (or if I force the crawler to look farther back into a player's history), then it ought to be able to fix it.
Is this the game you're referring to? http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/details/45909.html. Is there something on the iCCup website that indicates the game is nullified? I could just ignore games where the races are both "x", but maybe that happens sometimes in non-nullified games. Alternatively, if there is a list of nullified games somewhere, the crawler could use that. (I've never requested a game nullification so I don't know where it appears.)
The wrong iCCup ranking is a bug too but a different one. The way the iCCup ranking is displayed is by looking at the most recent game on your match list. In your case, you were C+ before your most recent game, so it shows C+. So the ranking can be 1 game out of date (even if the crawler knows all the games). This should be fixable--I just need to adjust the ranking to account for the change after the game, which is visible in the match list.
what does the level system mean on the left side? how's it calculated?
The level is a conservative estimate of how good a player is. It vaguely means "the ranking algorithm thinks this player is at least this good". To get the number, it uses the skill range to the right. For example, for TopStar, the skill range is "48.717 ± 7.648". 48.717 - 7.648 = 41.069, which rounding down gives a level of 41.
Mathematically, what's going on is that trueskill has an estimate of each player's skill (for TopStar, 48.717) and the uncertainty about that skill (for TopStar, 7.648). Ranking players by the skill estimate would be a bit misleading, because players who haven't played much might have high skill estimates even though the algorithm isn't very sure about their skill. So the uncertainty is subtracted to say that the player is probably at least that good.
Newest upload of the leaderboard has a fix to make the iCCup ranks more up-to-date: http://malcolmsharpe.github.io/iccup-ratings/html/leaderboard.html. The fix only takes effect when a player is re-crawled, so it'll take a while to propagate (but players who play a lot are crawled frequently).
By the way, to add to what I said in the previous post about "level", don't take the ranking here too seriously. It can give some idea of how good a player is, but there's no such thing as a perfect ranking system.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X2o8xVi.png)
Hope it starts getting more accurate as team goes on...
At the moment it only has data from the new season. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BMEogjz.jpg)
