|
On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today.
Yay finally!
Anyway, Kespa rankings are way more forgiving than ELO. If a player like Bisu edges a 2-1 against a really low-ranked progamer, he'd still get some points for the Kespa rankings, while the ELO might decrease of not modify at all.
|
On March 04 2009 14:26 Eatme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 14:22 huameng wrote:On March 04 2009 14:18 Eatme wrote:
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000? To highlight how much better the progamers are than the standard scrubs that populate all the other ladders. Actually I have no clue, but that sounds reasonable to me! Well top progamers would have about 2000 on a normal ladder I guess.
Their ELO is also a lot more scaled then others.
Iccup a win gets you anywhere from like, 50 to 130 points. I think the max people really jump in one game is like 12-15 points.
|
On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today.
I think the top one right now is....
+ Show Spoiler +
|
ELO is not an accurate reflectin of skill. It is, however, a comparison of player's strength against another opponent.
The problems encountered with using ELO for SC are as follows:
1. Not enough games at k value of 16.
2. "Skill" and/or "dominance" fluctuates fairly wildly within short periods of time
The fact of these two things combined means large fluctuation in ELO values in a short period of time. Whereas in a game like chess where skill improvement is fairly static (like most turn based games as well such as go), in RTS games there are more things that can "go wrong" for the superior as much as they can "go right." Inevitably, there tends to be more "freak losses" just like reducing the amounts of time in a chess game from 2 hours + 1 hrs at move 40 down to blitz where you have 5 minutes per game tends to increase the amount of mistakes players make.
The k value for a game like chess changes as you move up levels to ensure fairly "static" display of skill at the top. Since the k value for SC is fairly high and constant, more skilled players tend to lose more points with a loss than they otherwise would with a lower k-value. Of course, the opposite is true where hot players will move up quite fast through the ranks. Increasing or decreasing the k-value from where it is is problematic because the winrates of the players vs. each other can fluctuate wildly if they get hot even though mechanics and a lot of other "skill" factors remain the same.
Basically, since ELO compares playing strengths of others it doesn't necessarily mean an opponent will/can beat another. If two players are playing "standard" one opponents style (Jaedong) may tend to counter another players (Bisu) even though Bisu's ELO may be higher than Jaedong's. This is the same in all cases where ELO is used whether in chess, go, etc.
What we can say with ELO values is how strong a person is compared to the rest of the players. So, for example, if we picked a random opponent below the Leta's ELO such as Iris, then Iris would probably be the underdog. If we picked a random opponent with an ELO above Leta's such as Jaedong then that player (Leta) would probably be the underdog. This is what ELO can be used for.
Of course, since the k value of TLPD is high a "hot" player may have a higher ELO than his actual skill level. This is one of the difficulties just straight up comparing ELO points to determine favorites and underdogs.
The one thing I like about RTS games is that there's a massive amount of unpredictability especially given the map, different races AND build orders you can select to play. This makes it all the more amazing when a player can consistently win 60.. even 70.. or 80% of the time against other players. This is also why ELO can often be wrong in prediction of when a player should and shouldn't win.
Anyway, hoped that helped someone understand ELO a bit better.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On March 04 2009 13:36 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Someone confirm that KeSPA is only 3 months, please. It's definitely not a year, that's ancient history.
It was changed several times.
First it was an all-time ranking (Boxer's prime), then a 12 months ranking and then it was changed again, but I can't fully recall to what end.
Winning a major league is what? 500 pts I think? So it can't be 3 months, I'm pretty sure it's still a 12 months ranking, but that the months are weighted differently (decreasingly from most recent to least recent obviously).
|
On March 04 2009 14:07 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 13:49 gravity wrote:On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today. Considering the top 5 in the current power rank are the same as the current top 5 elo (albeit in a somewhat different order), I'm not sure there's a huge difference, although the comments/analysis on power rank are nice. The focus is entirely different. The order is too. There's correlation but no causation.
My point wasn't that you copied the elo ratings, but rather that the elo ratings are good enough at showing who's doing well that an intelligent human-chosen list isn't going to be wildly different most of the time.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 04 2009 15:04 Carnac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 13:36 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Someone confirm that KeSPA is only 3 months, please. It's definitely not a year, that's ancient history. It was changed several times. First it was an all-time ranking (Boxer's prime), then a 12 months ranking and then it was changed again, but I can't fully recall to what end. Winning a major league is what? 500 pts I think? So it can't be 3 months, I'm pretty sure it's still a 12 months ranking, but that the months are weighted differently (decreasingly from most recent to least recent obviously).
The general consensus I found was that it was changed to a 12 month system, with the last 3 months being heavily weighted. I don't have a source, other than how low it takes for a player to drop off (Stork should have fallen more sharply if it was 3 yes?) so take that how you want.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
elo tells you more about strength than kespa, but kespa gives more information about presence on the scene. winning matters to one's 'prominence' of course, but the stage of the win also matters a great deal. elo does not take that into consideration
|
On March 04 2009 16:00 heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 15:04 Carnac wrote:On March 04 2009 13:36 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Someone confirm that KeSPA is only 3 months, please. It's definitely not a year, that's ancient history. It was changed several times. First it was an all-time ranking (Boxer's prime), then a 12 months ranking and then it was changed again, but I can't fully recall to what end. Winning a major league is what? 500 pts I think? So it can't be 3 months, I'm pretty sure it's still a 12 months ranking, but that the months are weighted differently (decreasingly from most recent to least recent obviously). The general consensus I found was that it was changed to a 12 month system, with the last 3 months being heavily weighted. I don't have a source, other than how low it takes for a player to drop off (Stork should have fallen more sharply if it was 3 yes?) so take that how you want.
First 3 months are at 100%, then 10% less for each month after that, so even if a win was half a year ago it will grant 70% of the points, which is still pretty significant.
|
United States20661 Posts
On March 04 2009 16:28 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 16:00 heyoka wrote:On March 04 2009 15:04 Carnac wrote:On March 04 2009 13:36 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Someone confirm that KeSPA is only 3 months, please. It's definitely not a year, that's ancient history. It was changed several times. First it was an all-time ranking (Boxer's prime), then a 12 months ranking and then it was changed again, but I can't fully recall to what end. Winning a major league is what? 500 pts I think? So it can't be 3 months, I'm pretty sure it's still a 12 months ranking, but that the months are weighted differently (decreasingly from most recent to least recent obviously). The general consensus I found was that it was changed to a 12 month system, with the last 3 months being heavily weighted. I don't have a source, other than how low it takes for a player to drop off (Stork should have fallen more sharply if it was 3 yes?) so take that how you want. First 3 months are at 100%, then 10% less for each month after that, so even if a win was half a year ago it will grant 70% of the points, which is still pretty significant.
This.
|
On March 04 2009 15:04 eshlow wrote:
ELO is not an accurate reflectin of skill. It is, however, a comparison of player's strength against another opponent.
The problems encountered with using ELO for SC are as follows:
1. Not enough games at k value of 16.
2. "Skill" and/or "dominance" fluctuates fairly wildly within short periods of time
3. Three different match ups for each player.
You could look at match up specific ELO, but that would make problem #1 even worse.
|
ELO is really quite good, I think. It almost always conforms fairly well to what I think the Power Rankings should be.
KESPA has it's own value as it's less volatile. It has Stork at #3 which I think more accurately describes his place in the top-ten over a longer period. Yeah, he might not be playing like a #3 lately, but he deserves it based on play over more than just the last starleague season.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Depends on what equation set up they are trying to use. Mostly weather or not the k will float because a k that isn't constant for everyone = inflation.
I find KeSPA current set up make people who are a real slump hold on to the top for too long.
ELO vs KeSPA
main difference is that ELO will change faster KeSPA is slower to change only way to have a fast change in from a very inactive player become very active.
|
On March 04 2009 16:28 lololol wrote:
First 3 months are at 100%, then 10% less for each month after that, so even if a win was half a year ago it will grant 70% of the points, which is still pretty significant.
ok - this is the first time I see a good explanation of Kespa rankings - but still it would be nice to have a complete knowledge of the rating system they use. How many points are the matches wieghted for each competion / stage and opponent. Also, is there a bonus for winning a SL or reaching higher phases of tournament...
|
On March 04 2009 14:39 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 14:26 Eatme wrote:On March 04 2009 14:22 huameng wrote:On March 04 2009 14:18 Eatme wrote:
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000? To highlight how much better the progamers are than the standard scrubs that populate all the other ladders. Actually I have no clue, but that sounds reasonable to me! Well top progamers would have about 2000 on a normal ladder I guess. Their ELO is also a lot more scaled then others. Iccup a win gets you anywhere from like, 50 to 130 points. I think the max people really jump in one game is like 12-15 points.
I was talking from experience with ladders such as gamei and neogamei ect. You cant really compare with iccup.
|
Russian Federation1208 Posts
ELO and KeSPA rankings are just two models of player skill.
What is a model? Model is a simplifyed description of the real object, i.e ANY MODEL IS NOT adequate to the real object. Thus, KeSPA and ELO are both inadequate. And Power Rank is not adequate by the same reason.
However, different models simplify different properties of the modeled object, and you can judge a model as more adequate than another model, if you think that "those" properties of the object are more important than "these" properties of the object.
If you think that winning leagues is more important, than KeSPA is more adequate for you. If you think that winning of better players is more important, than ELO is more adequate for you. If you think that ideal performance during games is more important, than PowerRank is more adequate for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
