Update: so I made a rating system (and a website) - Page 6

On December 13 2012 08:03 BluePanther wrote:
Neat tool, but I'm not sure I can take any rating system seriously that has Stephano so low... He's obviously a top 40 player. Is there something I'm missing?

On December 13 2012 12:19 Gihi wrote:
I discovered a bug.
Mvp is not on #1

On December 13 2012 06:23 Apolo wrote:
Really nice work :O added to favorites ! I just don't understand how come Mvp doesn't even make it to top 10, and someone like INnoVation who i've never heard of is ranked no. 4 O_o

On December 13 2012 23:02 TheBB wrote:
Whoa, just realised there have been more posts here.

Thanks for all the feedback and nice words . What I think I will prioritise next is:

– Overview over games. (So that it's transparent how a player has gotten the rating he or she has.)
– Prediction tool for best-of-N matches (nothing more fancy than that to begin with.)

I hear what you're all saying about the volatility, and I guess maybe I went a bit overboard. This system is optimised for predictiability, and one that is less volatile will tend to suffer more upsets than it should, but it seems what people really want is a system that is a little more in line with how we judge performances over time. Which is fair. So here is what I could do:

(a) Lower the volatility in the future. This will stabilise things a bit, but will negatively impact predictive power.
(b) Lower the volatility and recompute all ratings from the start. It's difficult to say what the latest rating list will look like in this case.
(c) Publish two concurrent ratings, one volatile for predictions and one less volatile for rankings. I'm afraid this might confuse people.
(d) ... any other ideas?

On December 13 2012 23:02 TheBB wrote:
Whoa, just realised there have been more posts here.

Thanks for all the feedback and nice words . What I think I will prioritise next is:

– Overview over games. (So that it's transparent how a player has gotten the rating he or she has.)
– Prediction tool for best-of-N matches (nothing more fancy than that to begin with.)

I hear what you're all saying about the volatility, and I guess maybe I went a bit overboard. This system is optimised for predictiability, and one that is less volatile will tend to suffer more upsets than it should, but it seems what people really want is a system that is a little more in line with how we judge performances over time. Which is fair. So here is what I could do:

(a) Lower the volatility in the future. This will stabilise things a bit, but will negatively impact predictive power.
(b) Lower the volatility and recompute all ratings from the start. It's difficult to say what the latest rating list will look like in this case.
(c) Publish two concurrent ratings, one volatile for predictions and one less volatile for rankings. I'm afraid this might confuse people.
(d) ... any other ideas?

On December 13 2012 23:02 TheBB wrote:
Whoa, just realised there have been more posts here.

Thanks for all the feedback and nice words . What I think I will prioritise next is:

– Overview over games. (So that it's transparent how a player has gotten the rating he or she has.)
– Prediction tool for best-of-N matches (nothing more fancy than that to begin with.)

I hear what you're all saying about the volatility, and I guess maybe I went a bit overboard. This system is optimised for predictiability, and one that is less volatile will tend to suffer more upsets than it should, but it seems what people really want is a system that is a little more in line with how we judge performances over time. Which is fair. So here is what I could do:

(a) Lower the volatility in the future. This will stabilise things a bit, but will negatively impact predictive power.
(b) Lower the volatility and recompute all ratings from the start. It's difficult to say what the latest rating list will look like in this case.
(c) Publish two concurrent ratings, one volatile for predictions and one less volatile for rankings. I'm afraid this might confuse people.
(d) ... any other ideas?

On December 15 2012 00:54 MarcoBrei wrote:
nice work, but sc2proranks.com is better.

If you now open a player page you will see, immediately below the graph, a list of games that have been added and which are scheduled for inclusion in the next period.

In the table for historical data, you will also see a "details" link. If you click it, you can see some information about the rating calculation for that player for that period. It shows which games were included, the average rating of the opposition, and the expected score for the player given the opposition. You should see that the rating adjustments correlate with how much the player over- or underperformed. Note that the correlation isn't necessarily exact, since there are a few other factors that come into play (see the FAQ for more details on those.)

I also want to thank Conti, Grovbolle and KristofferAG for aiding me with populating the database with results.

On December 15 2012 00:54 MarcoBrei wrote:
nice work, but sc2proranks.com is better.

On December 15 2012 00:54 MarcoBrei wrote:
nice work, but sc2proranks.com is better.

On December 15 2012 05:44 TheBB wrote:
I added some results lists, so that people can see where the numbers come from, more or less.




sc2proranks.com appear to be using a totally different idea. Of course while you are free to enjoy whatever system you desire, I don't particularly care for their method. Aligulac is more "results-oriented" (a player is rated above another if they can be expected to win vs. them right now) versus theirs which I would call "impact-oriented" (a player is rated above another if they were recently more in the spotlight), and like frogrubdown said, it's not at all clear how they come up with the values they use.

Oh, and aligulac.com is totally better looking. </shameless plug>