Aligulac.com is an ongoing statistical project and website in development started in December 2012. It offers a comprehensive database of games from the pro and semipro SC2 scenes, as well as a unique rating system aimed at rating players and teams, and predicting games.
The FAQ might be able to answer your questions. If not, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread so you can ask away here. This thread is also for suggestions and feedback.
Stories: yellow dots on players' rating charts to show important career events. Also red dots for team switches.
Added comparison feature to help compare players directly against each other.
Improved error/success/warning/info messages for every page.
Player match history filtering significantly improved.
Condensed the small events lists.
Predictions are now default best of 1.
When searching for events, you can now use quotes to improve results (code S used to match code A because the S matches the S in GSL, now you can write "code s" to get what you want).
URL shortener function for every page. (Button on the bottom.)
Rating algorithm updated. Koreans now start with 1200 points, offline games are weighted a factor 1.5 and we got rid of the need for fake games to avoid infinite performances.
Single elimination brackets now support BYEs. This can be used to simulate more exotic types of brackets.
The rating charts now indicate the time of the major balance patches. They are: supply depot before barracks (1.1.2), removal of Khaydarin Amulet (1.3.0), Infestor nerf (1.4.0), Queen range buff (1.4.3) and of course the HotS release.
Matchup statistics now shown for every rating list.
We now have a rank of player earnings. Prize pools are tied to events, so you can see the history of a player, as well. Most of the major prizes should be entered, but the weekly cups are still missing.
Changed rating system to allow players who play rarely to adjust quicker, and player who play more often to adjust slower. Overall uncertainties increased to compensate for the overall decreased speed of adjustments.
Match listings now have icons indicating whether a match was played on- or offline, and whether it was WoL or HotS.
More information on player, team and event pages. Events now have matchup statistics, homepages and Liquipedia links. Players have earnings and a ratio of offline matches to their total. One interseting thing is the MC number, inspired by the Erdos and Bacon numbers. To get an MC number of one, you have to play an offline match against MC. To get an MC number of two you have to play an offline match against someone with an MC number of one, and so on. MC was chosen because he is the player with the most offline games.
There is a new balance reports page. This will be expanded as we think of more statistics to produce.
Player match histories are now also filterable by game version and type (offline/online). Lifetime head-to-head records are best checked using the results search tool.
Ditched the server-rendered charts for an interactive javascript library.
Ratings are now updated every six hours instead of every two weeks. The periods are still two weeks long, you are just seeing a preview of the next rating list that is kept updated.
The "most specialised" statistics on the rating lists are now weighted towards the top, to provide more relevant results.
The rating system now uses the logistic distribution instead of the normal. This helps accuracy in cases where the skill disparity is large.
Match search function now available. Search by player and event.
Rating adjustment pages now show more information about the rating calculation.
Player search has been heavily improved and applies to the top-right search box, as well as the search functions for predictions and match search. These functions will now search by player tags, team names, player and team aliases, country codes with two or three letters, as well as the commong English names for countries (in cases where these are one word), races (P, T, Z, R=Random and S=Switcher). It's still possible to use player ID lookup if necessary.
Rating lists are filterable by race and nationality.
Menus reorganized.
Created a database statistics page, where you can also download a SQL dump of the whole database (sans ratings and sensitive information).
Rating deviations are now displayed on the player pages.
Improved the player rating chart, showing changes in rating deviation over time.
Modified rating parameters and decreased the volatility somewhat.
Milestones
2013-04-20: Links to Aligulac player profiles on Liquipedia. 2013-03-07: Fewer than 10,000 uncatalogued matches. More than 120,000 games in the database. 2013-03-05: Opening of the official Aligulac twitter @Sc2Aligulac. 2013-02-22: Started using the GitHub issue tracker. 2013-02-14: Interview on ESFIWorld. 2013-01-31: Added a huge number of missing results (thanks, TLPD). 2013-01-21: Source code available on GitHub. 2013-01-23: Two thirds of the database catalogued. 2012-12-26: Added a large number of missing teamleague games. 2012-12-11: Site available to the public for the first time (thanks, SC2Charts).
I decided to make a fixed thread for the feature updates and feedback instead of making a new one every two weeks.
If there's still interest, I will keep making the rating updates, but all the other news will go here instead.
Changes from the last two weeks:
Single elimination brackets now support BYEs. This can be used to simulate more exotic types of brackets.
The rating charts now indicate the time of the major balance patches. They are: supply depot before barracks (1.1.2), removal of Khaydarin Amulet (1.3.0), Infestor nerf (1.4.0), Queen range buff (1.4.3) and of course the HotS release.
Matchup statistics now shown for every rating list.
We now have a rank of player earnings. Prize pools are tied to events, so you can see the history of a player, as well. Most of the major prizes should be entered, but the weekly cups are still missing. Thanks to Conti for this feature!
I want to encourage people to snoop around the site and report bugs, missing matches, wrong results and just general feedback. I try to interact with people and answer questions on the twitter account, but 140 characters isn't much when you want to answer question regarding statistics.
While searching for Polish players (on a side note, is there a better way than searching for "pl"?) I've noticed that there's Zylcu and a misspelled version of him: Zyclu.
On April 09 2013 05:34 delHospital wrote: While searching for Polish players (on a side note, is there a better way than searching for "pl"?) I've noticed that there's Zylcu and a misspelled version of him: Zyclu.
With the recent WCS changes, we are working on implementing the GSL/OSL as part of the WCS hierarchy and we are currently discussing whether or not to change the names to something like this: WCS -> (year) -> (season) -> (region) -> (premier/challenger or Code S/A) -> (qualifiers/main tournament)
Instead of keeping our old GSL 2013 Season X hierarchy. However we are not sure which name to give to GSL since most people still associate WCS KR with GSL Code S/A.
On April 17 2013 02:50 monk wrote: But my favorite player isn't favored! Your system sucks.
jk, Aligulac is awesome.
I know right? We should base ranking on popular opinion (1$ per rating point)
Some fighting-game communities actually do that for qualitative character tier lists (minus the $1), they get community (or trusted players) to discuss and vote and they take the averages. Obviously it doesn't work for SC2 players because they change in 'skill' constantly and there is thousands of them, but just saying =P
Anyway...
I think you should keep every past GSL event as the old names, Code S and Code A, but start using the Premiere/Challenger name tags from this season onwards. Wherever possible, try to use the official name of a league at the time in the database. It's the fairest way to do it.
On April 17 2013 02:50 monk wrote: But my favorite player isn't favored! Your system sucks.
jk, Aligulac is awesome.
I know right? We should base ranking on popular opinion (1$ per rating point)
Some fighting-game communities actually do that for qualitative character tier lists (minus the $1), they get community (or trusted players) to discuss and vote and they take the averages. Obviously it doesn't work for SC2 players because they change in 'skill' constantly and there is thousands of them, but just saying =P
Anyway...
I think you should keep every past GSL event as the old names, Code S and Code A, but start using the Premiere/Challenger name tags from this season onwards. Wherever possible, try to use the official name of a league at the time in the database. It's the fairest way to do it.
Obviously we wouldn't change the old GSL seasons. This change is in regards to the current GSL and the coming GSL/OSLs
I noticed some errors in your results and tried submitting a correction but it hasn't been updated, I was wondering what the process for correcting errors is?
On April 18 2013 11:08 Wodger wrote: I noticed some errors in your results and tried submitting a correction but it hasn't been updated, I was wondering what the process for correcting errors is?
Posting in this thread or tweeting @sc2aligulac
Are you the guy who submitted the zotac results? We have to look into submissions manually to avoid people making various syntax mistakes etc.
Edit: We are mostly on EU time, so don't expect a fast correction when you post during unfriendly EU times :D
WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
On April 18 2013 19:44 Wodger wrote: WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
Fixed the Harstem/Nomatch match, thanks!
As for Monty, I noticed that, too, but I couldn't find any info on his apparent race switch (He's listed as Terran in TLPD, too. ). He played all the WCS Europe qualifiers. Did he play Protoss in all of them? And did he switch races for HotS? I'm currently not sure how many of his matches I need to switch his race.
On April 18 2013 19:44 Wodger wrote: WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
Fixed the Harstem/Nomatch match, thanks!
As for Monty, I noticed that, too, but I couldn't find any info on his apparent race switch (He's listed as Terran in TLPD, too. ). He played all the WCS Europe qualifiers. Did he play Protoss in all of them? And did he switch races for HotS? I'm currently not sure how many of his matches I need to switch his race.
I can assure you the Monti from the WCS EU qualifiers plays Protoss. He played that in 2012 too, so I don't think he recently switched.
On April 18 2013 19:44 Wodger wrote: WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
Fixed the Harstem/Nomatch match, thanks!
As for Monty, I noticed that, too, but I couldn't find any info on his apparent race switch (He's listed as Terran in TLPD, too. ). He played all the WCS Europe qualifiers. Did he play Protoss in all of them? And did he switch races for HotS? I'm currently not sure how many of his matches I need to switch his race.
I can assure you the Monti from the WCS EU qualifiers plays Protoss. He played that in 2012 too, so I don't think he recently switched.
I've changed his race for those matches now. Not sure about the other two HotS matches he played, though. I can't find any race information on the cup's homepages.
With the recent WCS changes, we are working on implementing the GSL/OSL as part of the WCS hierarchy and we are currently discussing whether or not to change the names to something like this: WCS -> (year) -> (season) -> (region) -> (premier/challenger or Code S/A) -> (qualifiers/main tournament)
Instead of keeping our old GSL 2013 Season X hierarchy. However we are not sure which name to give to GSL since most people still associate WCS KR with GSL Code S/A.
Also voted for Code S / A. I don't really like the sound of "Challenger league".
But as long as you guys keep doing the awesome work you have been doing, I'm fine either way. Who know, maybe we will even see some tournament's seeding system based on Aligulac sooner or later! :D
On April 18 2013 20:11 JustPassingBy wrote: Also voted for Code S / A. I don't really like the sound of "Challenger league".
But as long as you guys keep doing the awesome work you have been doing, I'm fine either way. Who know, maybe we will even see some tournament's seeding system based on Aligulac sooner or later! :D
I wouldn't hold my breath for that
Follow up question, what about when it is OSL and not GSL being played?
On April 18 2013 19:44 Wodger wrote: WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
Fixed the Harstem/Nomatch match, thanks!
As for Monty, I noticed that, too, but I couldn't find any info on his apparent race switch (He's listed as Terran in TLPD, too. ). He played all the WCS Europe qualifiers. Did he play Protoss in all of them? And did he switch races for HotS? I'm currently not sure how many of his matches I need to switch his race.
I can assure you the Monti from the WCS EU qualifiers plays Protoss. He played that in 2012 too, so I don't think he recently switched.
I've changed his race for those matches now. Not sure about the other two HotS matches he played, though. I can't find any race information on the cup's homepages.
Did he switch his race, or is he a race picker?
There might be 2 montys, all his replays here are protoss and all the replays here are terran. If it is the same guy he switched to protoss in 2011
On April 18 2013 19:44 Wodger wrote: WCS 2013 Season 1 Europe Premier Qualifier Day 1 Ro64 Harstem Nomatch 2-0 instead of Harstem Noname 2-0 Monty plays protoss you have him as terran in all the wcs qualifiers
Fixed the Harstem/Nomatch match, thanks!
As for Monty, I noticed that, too, but I couldn't find any info on his apparent race switch (He's listed as Terran in TLPD, too. ). He played all the WCS Europe qualifiers. Did he play Protoss in all of them? And did he switch races for HotS? I'm currently not sure how many of his matches I need to switch his race.
I can assure you the Monti from the WCS EU qualifiers plays Protoss. He played that in 2012 too, so I don't think he recently switched.
I've changed his race for those matches now. Not sure about the other two HotS matches he played, though. I can't find any race information on the cup's homepages.
Did he switch his race, or is he a race picker?
There might be 2 montys, all his replays here are protoss and all the replays here are terran. If it is the same guy he switched to protoss in 2011
Hmm, you might be up to something there. It's either two guys or the same guy who made two accounts at esl.eu. Nicknak's Battle.net page lists his last game played as 21/7/2012, so for it to be the same guy he'd have to have bought another SC2 copy, too. Sounds unlikely.
First, a more serious one... do you think there is any chance of there being a way to view the ranking of a period not as an absolute value, but as a difference from the previous period? So when you turn this setting on or go to this page or whatever, #1 ranked for the current period is the one with the greatest improvement since the last period. In a sense, rather than it being a measure of the ranking, it would be a measure of the slope/derivative of the ranking for players at particular periods. I think it would be a fun/interesting way to see which players made the biggest splash at particular times, or players who are on the way up.
Because there would be an awful lot of 0s potentially, it could perhaps only include players who played a game during the last period, or simply be restricted to a top 10/20 list rather than a full thing.
Secondly, a crazy and probably not terribly useful feature... but would it be possible to generate a heat map of a single elimination bracket, with respect to the average (or some other measure) rating of the players in the bracket as predicted throughout the tourney? To identify things like quadrants of death or brackets etc.
Maybe you need a table of event aliases in the database to go along with the player aliases? The real events at GOMTV right now should be WCS > 2013 Season 1 > KR > Premier League, but "KR" should have an alias of "GSL" and "Premier League" should have an alias of "Code S".
By the way, thank you so much for making the underlying database available. I'm doing some playing around with the data, and I love that you've made so much of this work available in such a convenient form.
On April 24 2013 01:07 Serimek wrote: I was wondering : what's the MC number ?
You are doing a wonderful job with Aligulac, gg !
The MC number works like the Erdős number or the Kevin Bacon number: MC gets assigned an MC number of 0. Everyone who played an offline match against him gets a 1. Everyone who played an offline match against someone who played an offline match against MC gets an MC number of 2, etc.
MC was chosen because he had the largest number of different opponents in offline tournaments at the time.
On April 24 2013 01:13 Tobon wrote: Maybe you need a table of event aliases in the database to go along with the player aliases? The real events at GOMTV right now should be WCS > 2013 Season 1 > KR > Premier League, but "KR" should have an alias of "GSL" and "Premier League" should have an alias of "Code S".
By the way, thank you so much for making the underlying database available. I'm doing some playing around with the data, and I love that you've made so much of this work available in such a convenient form.
We choose KR because it won't be GSL next season, and it gives more consistency. We are still using code S/A due to popular vote.
The biggest feature I'd like to see is to be able to look up head-to-head history for players. I'm not sure if there's a way to do this that I'm missing but currently it's only possible to filter match history by race etc and not against a specific player, right?
On April 25 2013 01:06 sitromit wrote: The biggest feature I'd like to see is to be able to look up head-to-head history for players. I'm not sure if there's a way to do this that I'm missing but currently it's only possible to filter match history by race etc and not against a specific player, right?
You can do that, actually, though it's a bit hidden. Just go to the search results page and enter two player names: Here's the results for Lucifron vs. Vortix.
You can use the search to filter out by other things such as events, dates or more than two players, of course.
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 03:25 Targe wrote: To be honest as long as the tables themselves are sans-serif everything's fine.
On April 25 2013 03:17 Grovbolle wrote:
On April 25 2013 01:38 Targe wrote:
On April 25 2013 01:33 TheBB wrote:
On April 25 2013 01:25 Tuczniak wrote: I find font on main page quite hard to read. For plaing text use some sans-serif and for headers there must be some better serif font.
We had a poll about this like three or four months ago. The vast majority liked it.
On April 25 2013 05:56 KalWarkov wrote: using your ranking to make my own ranking (which is not based on pure results) better. thanks a lot for aligulac!
Great dude, always enjoyed reading your rankings. :-) (Put some danes in top 10) :-D
On May 07 2013 17:19 Too_MuchZerg wrote: List 84 Start May 2nd, 2013 End May 15th, 2013 Active players 290 (10 new) Leading race Terran Terran (8%) Lagging race Protoss Protoss (10%) Games 803 PvT 95–65 (59%) PvZ 112–91 (55%) TvZ 112–84 (57%)
More like zerg lagging and badly :D
The leading/lagging is an indicator of the 5 highest ranked of each race. It's in the faq :-)
On the period list you can see OP/UP fields, and in the infobox for each period, the same data is given as "leading" and "lagging" race. This is an indicator showing which races are most and least prominent near the top of the list. Specifically, for each race imagine a hypothetical player with a rating equal to the mean of the ratings of the top five players of that race, and imagine these three players playing very many games against each other. If the players were of equal strength, each of them would score about 50%, however, in reality, one of them may score, say, 10% more than that. The race that scores the most in this scenario is the "OP", or "leading" race, and the race that scores the least is the "UP", or "lagging" race.
This is provided as a way to analyse the metagame shifts near the top of the skill ladder, and should not be taken as actual evidence for real game imbalance.
I just want to say that I absolutely love what the team has done on Aligulac. I discovered it yesterday and have been playing around a ton with all of the prediction features, and just really love the whole site design.
Idea: would you be able to rate team decision-making in Team Leagues with the all-kill format? Theoretically, since your model is fairly accurate, a teams best decision would be to choose the player on their team with the largest difference in the vX rating for the challenger and the vY rating for the player that just won. Do some teams follow this guideline more closely? Do those teams win more often due to these decisions?
Question: Would adding in certain datasets like, for instance, every round of every Playhem daily, skew the ratings? I've read some concerns that a lack of cross-region play or an oversampled region can cause certain populations to have higher ratings than they should. What would a mountain of games like that do to the ratings, and how would it change that really cool visualization of different "communities"?
Props to you (and everyone who works on Aligulac) again for already answering more questions than I could hope to pose :D
On May 08 2013 11:32 justdmg wrote: Idea: would you be able to rate team decision-making in Team Leagues with the all-kill format? Theoretically, since your model is fairly accurate, a teams best decision would be to choose the player on their team with the largest difference in the vX rating for the challenger and the vY rating for the player that just won. Do some teams follow this guideline more closely? Do those teams win more often due to these decisions?
I don't want to promise to implement something like this, but I've actually looked at it before. Monk and Waxangel contacted me and wanted to do some evaluation of the coaches in proleague. I think this was after two rounds, when EG-TL sucked hard, and they wanted to know whether the EG-TL coach was to blame or not. (I don't think this was ever published, and it was two months ago, so I feel I can do it here instead.)
The idea we had was calculating rating discrepancies for each game played. That is, if a player has a mean rating of 1500, with 1400 vZ, 1500 vP and 1600 vT, that player has a discrepancy of -100 vZ, 0 vP and +100 vT. Clearly it is advisable to match him up against Terrans, and one of the jobs of a coach is to ensure that his players end up in good matchups.
In a sense, the mean discrepancy of a team is a measure of how much extra skill the coach is able to squeeze out of his team by manipulating the lineup.
So how did they do? I found these mean discrepancies for each team:
Woongjin Stars 4.2 STX SouL 0.5 CJ Entus -3.6 Team 8 -3.8 Samsung KHAN -8.4 EG-TL -8.5 KT Rolster -8.7 SK Telecom T1 -10.4
It is interesting to note that Woongjin is the only team with a significantly positive discrepancy, and for some reason SK is easily worst. EG-TL seems bad, but by no stretch of the imagination out of the league.
It is also curious that the overall mean discrepancy is negative, but one should note that this isn't necessarily a zero sum game. It's okay to choose a player with -50 discrepancy if that causes the opponent to get -100 (since you can control the race he gets to face, right). So actually what I should have been looking at is net discrepancy. It'd be interesting to redo these calculations using that rule instead.
If you're interested, in the spoiler is a list of mean discrepancies for each player. Poor Thorzain faced too many Zergs....
On May 08 2013 11:32 justdmg wrote: Question: Would adding in certain datasets like, for instance, every round of every Playhem daily, skew the ratings? I've read some concerns that a lack of cross-region play or an oversampled region can cause certain populations to have higher ratings than they should. What would a mountain of games like that do to the ratings, and how would it change that really cool visualization of different "communities"?
Kinda, you can think of it like this:
More games within a community will cause the ratings in that community to spread out, so the gap between the top and the bottom is larger. Since the international scene usually plays more often, you get something like this:
|----------------------------------------------------| International
|-------------------------| Korean
More games across communities will cause the communities themselves to adjust relative to each other. So if we take the above ratings and then get some cross-region games, we might get something like this:
|----------------------------------------------------| International
|-------------------------| Korean
So the reason you see international players mixed up in the top is two-fold. First, there aren't enough cross-region games (yet), or in other words, Koreans are still consistently gaining points from foreigners whenever they meet. Second, there international rating pool is more spread out.
There will be an update coming up which will cause offline games to be weighted about twice as much as online games. Since the Korean scene is mostly offline compared to the international scene, this will widen the Korean pool a fair bit, but the other problem is still present.
Btw, those charts are purely qualitative. In reality the difference isn't as extreme as I made it seem.
I'd like to take a look at the databse but I'm not into programming at all. Is there some easy way to transform the data into a simple matrix, that I can use in Matlab, that shows chronologically the games and who won against who? That would be enough information for me.
Okay so I tried punching through this with a bit of handwork. At the moment I am only using the ELOsystem and no racespecific MUs. I have applied the 'function' 1000 times to increase the pointflow between the regions/kespa/esfplayers for players with more then 20 games and I think my result isn't that bad. My top 10:
Though I have to say Kespa seems a little too strong here. Maybe a few less Iterations would be better. Also I only use ~45k matches. Don't know where the rest have gone. All in all this just means, that if the Kespapros and Esfpros are playing at the same strength that they played with up until now - Kespa will at some point smash ESF.
On May 08 2013 18:24 TheBB wrote: I don't want to promise to implement something like this, but I've actually looked at it before. Monk and Waxangel contacted me and wanted to do some evaluation of the coaches in proleague. I think this was after two rounds, when EG-TL sucked hard, and they wanted to know whether the EG-TL coach was to blame or not. (I don't think this was ever published, and it was two months ago, so I feel I can do it here instead.)
The idea we had was calculating rating discrepancies for each game played. That is, if a player has a mean rating of 1500, with 1400 vZ, 1500 vP and 1600 vT, that player has a discrepancy of -100 vZ, 0 vP and +100 vT. Clearly it is advisable to match him up against Terrans, and one of the jobs of a coach is to ensure that his players end up in good matchups.
In a sense, the mean discrepancy of a team is a measure of how much extra skill the coach is able to squeeze out of his team by manipulating the lineup.
So how did they do? I found these mean discrepancies for each team:
Woongjin Stars 4.2 STX SouL 0.5 CJ Entus -3.6 Team 8 -3.8 Samsung KHAN -8.4 EG-TL -8.5 KT Rolster -8.7 SK Telecom T1 -10.4
It is interesting to note that Woongjin is the only team with a significantly positive discrepancy, and for some reason SK is easily worst. EG-TL seems bad, but by no stretch of the imagination out of the league.
It is also curious that the overall mean discrepancy is negative, but one should note that this isn't necessarily a zero sum game. It's okay to choose a player with -50 discrepancy if that causes the opponent to get -100 (since you can control the race he gets to face, right). So actually what I should have been looking at is net discrepancy. It'd be interesting to redo these calculations using that rule instead.
Haha of course you've already done it! And I totally agree, I think that the net discrepancy is what I was getting at (in a roundabout way) with my description. I was thinking today about how game # and match score effects a coaches decisions as well: Up 4-1 with a couple of Aces in your bag, playing a negative net discrepancy player isn't bad coaching: it's giving the "new guy" a chance in as close an analog to "garbage time" in basketball that you are really going to see.
Thanks for the explanation of the scoring as well, I'll be interested to see how the changes effect everything!
Hey, could you do me a favor and calculate something for me please?
I am trying to figure out a good "StartEloMatrix" and I use d=sum((won games of Player1- expected won games of Player1)^2) as a rough measurement as to how good my StartEloMatrix is. Could you calculate this d-value with your method of calculating Elo? I want to know how good my model is compared to yours. It's enough to do it just for the mainelo value.
For example if in one match the predicted outcome is 1.8-1.2 and the result is 2-1, then d= (2-1.8)^2=0.04. And then do it for all the matches and sum it up.
On May 09 2013 08:07 Greenei wrote: Okay so I tried punching through this with a bit of handwork. At the moment I am only using the ELOsystem and no racespecific MUs. I have applied the 'function' 1000 times to increase the pointflow between the regions/kespa/esfplayers for players with more then 20 games and I think my result isn't that bad. My top 10:
Though I have to say Kespa seems a little too strong here. Maybe a few less Iterations would be better. Also I only use ~45k matches. Don't know where the rest have gone. All in all this just means, that if the Kespapros and Esfpros are playing at the same strength that they played with up until now - Kespa will at some point smash ESF.
This is a list I could agree with. Been saying forever ELO is 100x better system than what is being used here (which is based off glicko, but isn't even close tbh due to adjustments to race match ups and fake games and not actually taking proper RD into account).
On May 09 2013 08:07 Greenei wrote: Okay so I tried punching through this with a bit of handwork. At the moment I am only using the ELOsystem and no racespecific MUs. I have applied the 'function' 1000 times to increase the pointflow between the regions/kespa/esfplayers for players with more then 20 games and I think my result isn't that bad. My top 10:
Though I have to say Kespa seems a little too strong here. Maybe a few less Iterations would be better. Also I only use ~45k matches. Don't know where the rest have gone. All in all this just means, that if the Kespapros and Esfpros are playing at the same strength that they played with up until now - Kespa will at some point smash ESF.
This is a list I could agree with. Been saying forever ELO is 100x better system than what is being used here (which is based off glicko, but isn't even close tbh due to adjustments to race match ups and fake games).
Using the actual Glicko system would be great too
Question: Is it as predictive as ours? Not being defensive, I am genuinely interested/curious :-)
On May 13 2013 04:17 Grovbolle wrote: TheBB is on vacation right now. Also we use glicko not ELO as far as I know (not sure if that was what you asked though)
Oh ok. Maybe he'll see it when he comes back.
I want to compare my specific ELO approach to his Glicko approach and see if we get similar results. Glicko is btw. pretty much a development of ELO.
This is a list I could agree with. Been saying forever ELO is 100x better system than what is being used here (which is based off glicko, but isn't even close tbh due to adjustments to race match ups and fake games and not actually taking proper RD into account).
Using the actual Glicko system would be great too
Using just ELO is not improving the list by much. The list that I posted looked like this, because I had a different startelo distribution. I have dropped it since, because it fucks with the predictability too much. I am now working on an alternative list that has good predictability AND makes sense to the knowlagable Starcraftplayer (read: adjusts the ELO in the foreigner and koreapool).
This is the List I am working with right now but is still subject to change:
Life Innovation Flash Symbol Parting SoS Leenock Soulkey Polt RoRo Bomber Rain Yoda Violet Yonghwa Squirtle (with data from 7.5.2013 or something)
Hello BB, is it possible to make a little statistic that shows how many times aligulac predicted the right winner out of all matches? Would be interesting to see its guessing statistics.
On May 16 2013 22:31 graNite wrote: Hello BB, is it possible to make a little statistic that shows how many times aligulac predicted the right winner out of all matches? Would be interesting to see its guessing statistics.
It gets the right winner in 59.9% of games and 62.4% of matches. Doesn't sound terribly impressive, but with that hitrate it would make #2 on Liquibet, with 315 points.
I have a question about rating changes and how they relate to the intervals.
When new ratings are determined at each interval, are they taken game by game, or are they, as the layout on a period adjustment page (e.g. http://aligulac.com/players/48-INnoVation/period/85/) taken as a whole? In other words, is the rating determined by the fact that (at the time of linking) Innovation's TvZ for the period is 9-2 with an average opposition of 1772, or is this simply a summary and ratings are calculated game per game?
I ask this because if it's done as a whole per period, then Bo1s would have a much larger impact on the result because the likelihood function works on expected ratios, but individual games are binary. If a player has a 75% chance to win in a Bo1, and does win that, then this isn't balanced against a median outcome, but instead gives the player a much higher performance rating than what should actually be derived from such a scenario.
In other words, if a player with a rating of 1900 goes 1-0 against 4 players whose average rating is 1700, is it the same as going 4-0 against a single player in a single series? The former's median outcome from prediction, on a game per game basis would be the sum of the expected median outcomes of each individual one: 4-0. Whereas the expected median outcome of the latter is 4-3. If both scenarios are are weighted equally (where a person won 4 out of 4 games versus winning 4 out of 7 and losing 0 out of 7, even though the last 3 didn't have to be played) then chaining Bo1s would give a higher rating return than fewer long series.
On May 24 2013 06:36 Grayson Carlyle wrote: In other words, if a player with a rating of 1900 goes 1-0 against 4 players whose average rating is 1700, is it the same as going 4-0 against a single player in a single series?
Yes, this is the same.
On May 24 2013 06:36 Grayson Carlyle wrote: The former's median outcome from prediction, on a game per game basis would be the sum of the expected median outcomes of each individual one: 4-0. Whereas the expected median outcome of the latter is 4-3.
Ah, the median predicted outcome (MPO) you see on the prediction pages are not the same as the expected outcome (EO) you see on the adjustment overview. The differences are:
MPO is always integral, while EO are real numbers.
When calculating MPO, we don't know how long the match will go. It's a measure of the closeness of the players, not a good estimate of the length of the match (in fact, it will overestimate match lengths consistently). The EO is expected score given the total number of games in the match.
So in your example, if the 1900 guy 4-0's the 1700 guy, that is four games. The EO can then be something like 2.8-1.2, or some other numbers who sum up to four. Of course these are impossible scores to actually get in a Bo7, even if we were to round them off, but the match format is inconsequential to the rating calculator.
So the EO is actual expected score given the games that were actually played (and is comparable to the same concept in Elo ratings), while the MPO is just "our best guess" at the actually possible outcome that would be least surprising.
That does clarify it a bit, but it doesn't address the issue that the expected outcome of a Bo1 is always on average 50% away from actual possible outcomes, so playing Bo1s still has a larger impact on a player's rating (both up and down) than longer series, whereas longer series are actually a better indication of a player's true rating, but they will inevitably have a lesser effect on the accuracy.
On May 24 2013 23:13 Grayson Carlyle wrote: playing Bo1s still has a larger impact on a player's rating (both up and down) than longer series
I don't know why you say that, I told you that the distribution of the games into matches has no effect.
Playing four Bo1s against the same person and winning them all 1-0 has exactly the same effect as playing one Bo7 and winning it 4-0.
Playing one Bo1 and winning it 1-0 will gain you about one quarter of the points as playing one Bo7 and winning it 4-0. (Because in the first scenario there are only a quarter of the games).
In a longer match you can get closer to the expected outcome overall, but of course a longer match means more games, so your rating will change that much more.
Grayson: If you take several individual BO1s together, the average of the *absolute value* of the difference between the expected and actual outcome is 0.5. But you should not be ignoring the sign of the difference. Some will be wins and some losses.
On May 24 2013 23:47 TheBB wrote: Playing four Bo1s against the same person and winning them all 1-0 has exactly the same effect as playing one Bo7 and winning it 4-0.
In a longer match you can get closer to the expected outcome overall, but of course a longer match means more games, so your rating will change that much more.
That's my point though, is that playing 4 Bo1s should not have the same effect since it is impossible for them to be anywhere close to the expected outcome except in a situation where a player is highly favoured over the other. The possible outcomes of 4 Bo1s against different people is far more limited and doesn't give nearly as much useful, predictive power as someone winning a Bo7 4-0. The latter is very significant for determining skill, whereas the Bo1s are not significant. However, they both have the same effect on rating.
Sorry, but I really can't understand why it's less significant for someone to win four Bo1s in a row than to win a Bo7 4-0, since they are the exact same thing.
If the expected outcome of a single game is 0.5-0.5, then after four Bo1s it's possible to be off by 2, 1, or 0, and after a Bo7 it's possible to be off by 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 or 0. It provides finer resolution but the extremes are identical.
If you 4-0 someone, why should it matter if it was part of a BO7 (cut short because you already won) or 4 individual BO1s? Don't they both show exactly the same information? They played 4 times, and one player won all 4. Why should it matter if it was part of a match or not? If they played 3 more games, the previous 4-0 result should have no impact on the results of the next games.
If you are talking about psychological effects, yes those are ignored by pretty much all rating systems. There are all kinds of things outside of the game that are ignored -- like how much sleep the player got before the match etc.
============== ETA an example conversation: KD: Hey aligulac, TerranOP beat ZergSux 4-0. What are their new ratings? Aligulac: KD, first you need to tell me, was the 4-0 part of a BO7? Or Two BO3s? Or 4 BO1s? Or maybe it's a BO101, but they had to stop early? KD: I don't know, I just know they played 4 games and TerranOP won them all. Aligulac: Sorry I can't update their ratings without knowing what the match format was.
This simply isn't the way rating systems work. They always assume each game is an independent event.
Different subject: I saw the graph of points transfer from foreigners to Koreans. You could go back to the beginning and increase the initial seeded ratings of Koreans until the points transfer is near zero.
On May 25 2013 02:15 KillerDucky wrote: Different subject: I saw the graph of points transfer from foreigners to Koreans. You could go back to the beginning and increase the initial seeded ratings of Koreans until the points transfer is near zero.
Yeah, I've thought about doing exactly this. I'm sure it would help a lot with these perceived problems.
The most significant improvements made over the last month:
Stories: yellow dots on players' rating charts to show important career events. Also red dots for team switches.
Added comparison feature to help compare players directly against each other.
Improved error/success/warning/info messages for every page.
Player match history filtering significantly improved.
Condensed the small events lists.
Predictions are now default best of 1.
When searching for events, you can now use quotes to improve results (code S used to match code A because the S matches the S in GSL, now you can write "code s" to get what you want).
URL shortener function on every page (button on the bottom.)
I've been promising a change in the rating algorithm for a while now, and finally it's here. The changes are numerous, but the most significant are:
Koreans now start with 1200 points, not 1000. This might be a bit controversial, but it goes a long way to fixing the rating discrepancy between the Korean and foreign scenes, and it is justified by the numbers. Offline games are now weighted heavier than online games by a factor of 1.5. This has sped up the point transfer from ESF to KeSPA. There are no longer any "fake games" in added to avoid infinities. I won't promise that this is the final version, however!
The recent model of basing the calculations seems to be the move in the right direction. I'm pleased with the increase to Korean numbers, and changing online tournaments to weigh less than offline is just perfect. Now when I look at the rankings, it seems reasonable and accurate because the inflation from online games is gone and KeSPA is better represented.
Love the new update. I think the offline factor is absolutely the right thing to do. People remember champions for offline tournaments, not online ones!
The Hall of Fame now much more resembles my memory of who I thought were dominant. Thanks for the hard work!
On June 02 2013 06:40 edwahn wrote: Love the new update. I think the offline factor is absolutely the right thing to do. People remember champions for offline tournaments, not online ones!
The Hall of Fame now much more resembles my memory of who I thought were dominant. Thanks for the hard work!
The HoF wasn't really taken that much into consideration, we all agreed that it needed som rework. I guess this update had a good side effect on that as well
On June 02 2013 06:40 edwahn wrote: Love the new update. I think the offline factor is absolutely the right thing to do. People remember champions for offline tournaments, not online ones!
The Hall of Fame now much more resembles my memory of who I thought were dominant. Thanks for the hard work!
The HoF wasn't really taken that much into consideration, we all agreed that it needed som rework. I guess this update had a good side effect on that as well
Yeah, I've almost totally forgotten about the HoF, but nice to see that it also got a facelift.
How was the number 1200 derived? Was it mostly an arbitrary number? Or something that you got through trial and error? Or is there a mathematical significance?
On June 02 2013 07:45 monk wrote: How was the number 1200 derived? Was it mostly an arbitrary number? Or something that you got through trial and error? Or is there a mathematical significance?
Well, I tried tracking the point transfer to the Korean scene. 1200 is definitely on the low end. If you want the most accurate ratings today it should probably be at least 1400. But if I do that, many of the earlier lists start looking really weird. So I landed on 1200 as a compromise.
I conjecture that the best choice is a time-dependent function that starts near 1000 in February 2010 and increases slowly since then, but I haven't really bothered looking into that yet. For example, something like
1000 + L * (1 - exp(-time*rate))
where the question is how to choose the rate, and the limit L.
I'm amazed by how much this has been improving, definitely deserves more attention (integration with TLPD maybe?)
I can't say I agree with the "1200 points for Koreans" thing. It seems arbitrary and diminishes Aligulac's value as a totally impartial ranking. I think you've correctly identified the cause of the issue, but I'd like to see something a bit less arbitrary. how about: 1) When a new player enters the system, their starting rating is (some function of) the average rating of their region. Where "region" means country or BNet server. 2) Is it necessary to make any assumption at all about a player's rating before they play any games? Maybe their initial rating could be a function of their first 10 games or something (like placement matches). Maybe there's a way to play with the way ratings deviation changes over time to emulate this effect to some extent. Can points ever be created from nothing, or do people just exchange points with each other? If the latter, maybe make an exception for the first 10 matches to correct inaccuracies with the 1000 assumption.
I think it would help a great deal to have tooltips or little "[?]" links everywhere to explain what everything means. When I see "Leading race: Terran", I'd like to be able to read a summary of what level of play is considered/how it's calculated/etc.
Also, maybe I'm dumb but I can't see a way to go to the page for an event from a player's list of games. This would be useful, I think?
Finally, I'm sceptical that "Most specialised vX" is a sufficiently interesting/important statistic to feature so prominently on the rankings page. Especially since you presumably have to weight it by rating so you dont get random players nobody's heard of.
On June 02 2013 14:19 mkwn wrote: When a new player enters the system, their starting rating is (some function of) the average rating of their region. Where "region" means country or BNet server.
I think that could prove unfair for certain countries.
I mean, inflating Koreans makes sense from an empirical standpoint, since their region is by far the most cut-throat and competitive, even down to the ladder.
On the other hand, while your suggestion might seem fairer in theory, it could also underrate players in regions where there's a big discrepancy between average rating and top player(s). I took a look at Norway, just as an example (I'm sure there are better ones still): We have 69 Norwegian players in our database, of which only 10 find themselves at 1000 rating or higher, with an average rating of 860. Do you think it would be fair towards players such as Snute and TargA, simply because their fellow countrymen haven't achieved the same success?
I'm sure BB will try it out at some point, even if just for the sake of it, but IMHO your solution will only create numerous smaller problems for the rating in scenes where there's only a few relatively strong players.
As for BNet servers, we don't have that information because it would be irrelevant since many of the players outside Korea practice on more than one server.
On June 02 2013 14:19 mkwn wrote: Especially since you presumably have to weight it by rating so you dont get random players nobody's heard of.
I don't think he does this actually. It has shown some pretty bizarre results at times before the Feb ratings change. The newest ratings adjustments make it even more useful, imo.
On June 02 2013 14:19 mkwn wrote: I think it would help a great deal to have tooltips or little "[?]" links everywhere to explain what everything means. When I see "Leading race: Terran", I'd like to be able to read a summary of what level of play is considered/how it's calculated/etc.
Also, maybe I'm dumb but I can't see a way to go to the page for an event from a player's list of games. This would be useful, I think?
If all the Norwegian players have a low ranking, and two new unknown Norwegian players named Snute and Targa enter the scene, what do you think is the fairest initial ranking to give them? I think a low ranking is pretty appropriate, without prior knowledge that they'll be good.
Any good player who enters the scene will be initially valued too low. The rating system is designed to quickly push their rating up to match their true skill. The issue at hand is that the pool of points for whole regions is incorrect, and this takes a long time to fix because there is much less interaction between regions than within them.
By BNet server, I meant do it by country but group together countries that have the same server (europe, america, korea, china, sea?) The idea being, try to find some natural classification so that each group is very connected. You could even do some mathsy stuff and decide which countries to group together dynamically, based on the connectedness of the data. Might make an interesting "reports" page too, to see how countries interact.
just a suggestion, anyway.
@Grovbolle:
I mean, on soulkey's page i can see the match history ("Most recent results"), i'd like to be able to click on each match to go to the relevant event. Not a big deal.
On June 02 2013 14:19 mkwn wrote: Especially since you presumably have to weight it by rating so you dont get random players nobody's heard of.
I don't think he does this actually. It has shown some pretty bizarre results at times before the Feb ratings change. The newest ratings adjustments make it even more useful, imo.
We've done that for a while now.
On June 02 2013 17:13 dcemuser wrote: Strange... http://www.aligulac.com/players/45-Soulkey/period/86/ shows that he lost to Jangbi, why does it say he gained 2 points from that? Also, isn't a gain from 1771 to 1774 3 points anyway?
They're not independent. Think of it like this: part of Soulkey's win against Innovation must have been due to his general skill level, and not just his ZvT skill level. You can get funny-looking results like these if someone plays overwhelmingly against one or two races (like here, 7/8 of Soulkey's games are ZvT).
The numbers are actually 1771.2348961374 (rounded down to 1711) and 1773.7245113775 (rounded up to 1774), so the increase is 2.4896152400999654 (rounded down to 2).
On June 02 2013 17:35 mkwn wrote: @MasterOfPuppets:
If all the Norwegian players have a low ranking, and two new unknown Norwegian players named Snute and Targa enter the scene, what do you think is the fairest initial ranking to give them? I think a low ranking is pretty appropriate, without prior knowledge that they'll be good.
Any good player who enters the scene will be initially valued too low. The rating system is designed to quickly push their rating up to match their true skill. The issue at hand is that the pool of points for whole regions is incorrect, and this takes a long time to fix because there is much less interaction between regions than within them.
By BNet server, I meant do it by country but group together countries that have the same server (europe, america, korea, china, sea?) The idea being, try to find some natural classification so that each group is very connected. You could even do some mathsy stuff and decide which countries to group together dynamically, based on the connectedness of the data. Might make an interesting "reports" page too, to see how countries interact.
just a suggestion, anyway.
@Grovbolle:
I mean, on soulkey's page i can see the match history ("Most recent results"), i'd like to be able to click on each match to go to the relevant event. Not a big deal.
The "most recent results" currently doesn't link to events. I think it is a matter of not cluttering the page too much, but it should be doable.
Ahh, this "point pool" problem is very difficult to work out. Even the very act of assigning players to pools like "foreigner" and "Korean" seems to taint the purity of the system. But, the fact that foreigners play foreigners often and Koreans play Koreans often means (before the recent change) an average Korean would be rated the same as an average foreigner, which is obviously not ideal for rankings. I think theBB is right in that these player pools themselves could be considered to have their own ratings (like right now the Korean pool are rated 1200 and the foreigner pool is rated 1000) but this ratio shouldn't be fixed, rather it should be movable...somehow...
As MasterOfPuppets pointed out, someone like Stephano who is far better than his fellow countrymen might suffer from such a system. I feel that it wouldn't be as bad of an issue as it seems. A foreigner who is truly at the skill level of Koreans would dominate his player pool even harder than in an even system, which helps to make up for his player pool nerf.
Another idea: when a player plays someone from a different pool, increase the significance of the match. I dunno.
E: mkwn hit on much of what I was thinking as well.
On June 02 2013 18:14 slowbacontron wrote: Ahh, this "point pool" problem is very difficult to work out. Even the very act of assigning players to pools like "foreigner" and "Korean" seems to taint the purity of the system. But, the fact that foreigners play foreigners often and Koreans play Koreans often means (before the recent change) an average Korean would be rated the same as an average foreigner, which is obviously not ideal for rankings. I think theBB is right in that these player pools themselves could be considered to have their own ratings (like right now the Korean pool are rated 1200 and the foreigner pool is rated 1000) but this ratio shouldn't be fixed, rather it should be movable...somehow...
As MasterOfPuppets pointed out, someone like Stephano who is far better than his fellow countrymen might suffer from such a system. I feel that it wouldn't be as bad of an issue as it seems. A foreigner who is truly at the skill level of Koreans would dominate his player pool even harder than in an even system, which helps to make up for his player pool nerf.
Another idea: when a player plays someone from a different pool, increase the significance of the match. I dunno.
E: mkwn hit on much of what I was thinking as well.
The "Koreans start with 1200" solution has helped bridge the "kespa gap" so that the list has caught up now, although it is a bit subjective, the evidence does support this kind of solution.
Hmm, are the 1200-rating-Koreans everyone with a Korean nationality in the database? Since then the system would favor players like SeoHyeon and KingKong, too, which is probably not the intention. An additional requirement could be that a player also had to have been in any of the Kespa/ESF teams at some point to slightly narrow down the list of naturally gifted players.
(Hey, I might be a dev too, but I have nothing to do with the rating system, so I can ask stupid questions just like everyone else! )
On June 03 2013 06:00 Conti wrote: Hmm, are the 1200-rating-Koreans everyone with a Korean nationality in the database? Since then the system would favor players like SeoHyeon and KingKong, too, which is probably not the intention. An additional requirement could be that a player also had to have been in any of the Kespa/ESF teams at some point to slightly narrow down the list of naturally gifted players.
(Hey, I might be a dev too, but I have nothing to do with the rating system, so I can ask stupid questions just like everyone else! )
KingKong was part of Startale for a while. I think it'd be found that a high amount of low-profile Koreans have been part of an eSF team at some point in their career.
On June 03 2013 06:00 Conti wrote: Hmm, are the 1200-rating-Koreans everyone with a Korean nationality in the database? Since then the system would favor players like SeoHyeon and KingKong, too, which is probably not the intention. An additional requirement could be that a player also had to have been in any of the Kespa/ESF teams at some point to slightly narrow down the list of naturally gifted players.
(Hey, I might be a dev too, but I have nothing to do with the rating system, so I can ask stupid questions just like everyone else! )
KingKong was part of Startale for a while. I think it'd be found that a high amount of low-profile Koreans have been part of an eSF team at some point in their career.
Hah, true, I missed that. I was trying not to exclude all the high profile Koreans that left the Korean teams at some point. Eh, it'd still be slightly better. Not sure if it'd be worth the effort, though.
On June 03 2013 08:24 FrodaN wrote: Have you guys done any cross referencing your winrates by map as well? Always curious to see likelihood/probability based off of the map pool.
Our system completely abstracts maps out of the equation so to speak, and while I can't make a promise either way (and neither can others on the team, I would assume), there are no plans as of now to introduce them into the system. I will note however that we did not discuss this matter exhaustively.
My personal take on the idea of introducing maps into the mix, which is not representative of the team's opinion or anyone else's is as follows: it's simply not worth it. From a realistic, match submission standpoint, it would require far more effort to add maps to matches, even more so considering we already have almost 60k of them in the database already. Not only that, but some events we have extremely limited information on, which unfortunately doesn't include maps. So that's the practicality aspect. Assuming we had two dozen more dedicated volunteers than we already do, willing to scour the interwebs for details, wouldn't the payoff theoretically make this worth it? Well no. Ratings and predictions also being based off of maps might be more precise for people like Mvp, Stephano and MC who have played massive amounts of games, but for others it would only increase the uncertainty and volatility, simply because there aren't enough games played. This matter is exacerbated by the fact that map pools change, and most maps are neither Antiga nor Daybreak, in that they have much shorter a lifespan. In a world where there's 2 or 3 times as many tournament games played consistently, sure, it might well be worth it, but as it is I personally believe it would only add more uncertainty into the system.
Anyway I hope I didn't ramble too much and my response touched on what you were asking. If not, I at least hope it preemptively answered other questions that people might have raised.
On June 03 2013 08:24 FrodaN wrote: Have you guys done any cross referencing your winrates by map as well? Always curious to see likelihood/probability based off of the map pool.
Our system completely abstracts maps out of the equation so to speak, and while I can't make a promise either way (and neither can others on the team, I would assume), there are no plans as of now to introduce them into the system. I will note however that we did not discuss this matter exhaustively.
My personal take on the idea of introducing maps into the mix, which is not representative of the team's opinion or anyone else's is as follows: it's simply not worth it. From a realistic, match submission standpoint, it would require far more effort to add maps to matches, even more so considering we already have almost 60k of them in the database already. Not only that, but some events we have extremely limited information on, which unfortunately doesn't include maps. So that's the practicality aspect. Assuming we had two dozen more dedicated volunteers than we already do, willing to scour the interwebs for details, wouldn't the payoff theoretically make this worth it? Well no. Ratings and predictions also being based off of maps might be more precise for people like Mvp, Stephano and MC who have played massive amounts of games, but for others it would only increase the uncertainty and volatility, simply because there aren't enough games played. This matter is exacerbated by the fact that map pools change, and most maps are neither Antiga nor Daybreak, in that they have much shorter a lifespan. In a world where there's 2 or 3 times as many tournament games played consistently, sure, it might well be worth it, but as it is I personally believe it would only add more uncertainty into the system.
Anyway I hope I didn't ramble too much and my response touched on what you were asking. If not, I at least hope it preemptively answered other questions that people might have raised.
^_^
We have almost 60k matches, but more than twice the amount of games. So yeah, 130.000 games need to be classified if maps are to be included
On June 03 2013 06:00 Conti wrote: Hmm, are the 1200-rating-Koreans everyone with a Korean nationality in the database?
Yeah. We could use some traction on #46 before we get more advanced than that.
I still think it's "good enough". Players who are wildly over- or underrated compared to the pool they meet regularly (such as "foreigner" Koreans in this case) will readjust very quickly.
Suggestion for ranking pages (e.g. http://aligulac.com/periods/85): If it doesn't slow page generation down too much, adding in coloured +/- values for rank and ratings instead of the arrows would remove the necessity of browsing through a lot of pages to find those numbers.
On June 13 2013 04:09 Grayson Carlyle wrote: Suggestion for ranking pages (e.g. http://aligulac.com/periods/85): If it doesn't slow page generation down too much, adding in coloured +/- values for rank and ratings instead of the arrows would remove the necessity of browsing through a lot of pages to find those numbers.
On June 13 2013 06:29 Waxangel wrote: time. based. decay.
#darkside
I don't think ratings decay can be incorporated into the glicko system. There is a linear time decay of deviation though it is currently unknown if it is significant by any measure. I'll will investigate that soon (this weekend probably) but since the linear coefficient is strongly linked to the predicting power I cannot guarantee that even if I find a way to improve it, we could implement it.
Still I do agree with you, we need to have a way to differentiate players who play consistently and thus deserve their ratings and those who don't.
On February 28 2013 00:16 Arzar wrote: Is there a way with Aligulac to plot the rating of say the 50 best players over the last two years all at once ?
For a while it was possible with the site mengsk.com (unfortunately the site is now dead). You would have all the graph of all the players superimposed and selecting a particular player would highlight his curve. It was quite fascinating to see the progression of a player ELO along the years.
For an illustration, the graphs from mengsk.com have been used in this TL article (comparing broodwar and chess)
I still think this could be one of the coolest feature to add to aligulac.
I really wanted to see what a graph like this could be for sc2, so I fiddled with aligulac ranking database and some script and excel sheet today.
Here is one example with Mvp :
I did the same thing for the 30 players who have achieved the highest ranking according to aligulac during the past 3 years.
On February 28 2013 00:16 Arzar wrote: Is there a way with Aligulac to plot the rating of say the 50 best players over the last two years all at once ?
For a while it was possible with the site mengsk.com (unfortunately the site is now dead). You would have all the graph of all the players superimposed and selecting a particular player would highlight his curve. It was quite fascinating to see the progression of a player ELO along the years.
For an illustration, the graphs from mengsk.com have been used in this TL article (comparing broodwar and chess)
I still think this could be one of the coolest feature to add to aligulac.
I really wanted to see what a graph like this could be for sc2, so I fiddled with aligulac ranking database and some script and excel sheet today.
Here is one example with Mvp :
I did the same thing for the 30 players who have achieved the highest ranking according to aligulac during the past 3 years.
On June 15 2013 20:57 Arzar wrote: I used the full database. It's easy to download it from the site.
Technically it shouldn't be available to the public but the access isn't protected. I suppose you didn't compute anything then, just a simple extraction of the ratings.
It would be really cool if you could filter the match history depending on the opponents rating. like the date option which is really awesome btw: (opponents rating between___ and____) An other interesting stats besides the displayed winrate would be the average opponents rating. Those two things would help to analyse the matchhistory tremendously.
I was browsing Remark's page, and I noticed that even though he is supposedly american, when I try to filter the USA players, he doesn't appear (not even under a different name, his rating is 935 and no one has 935)
The new all time chart looks super cool!
However, players need to have slightly different colors to differentiate them.
Also, it is not perfect, when looking at the top 5 protoss, trust appears as the last protoss bonjwa. Clearly, something is wrong
I was browsing Remark's page, and I noticed that even though he is supposedly american, when I try to filter the USA players, he doesn't appear (not even under a different name, his rating is 935 and no one has 935)
The new all time chart looks super cool!
However, players need to have slightly different colors to differentiate them.
Also, it is not perfect, when looking at the top 5 protoss, trust appears as the last protoss bonjwa. Clearly, something is wrong
The reason Remark doesnt show up on the America page is that inactive players are removed from the rankings until the play again. He hasn't played a match in a while (about 3 months I believe) so he has been marked as inactive. If you look at FXO NA : http://aligulac.com/teams/6-FXOpen-e-Sports-North-America/ you can see him listed on the inactive roster since it's been so long since he's played a game.
I'd like to thank Aligulac for offering evidence for a suspicion I've had since I started watching MSL with Lost Saga and Avalon:
The dual tournament format is unfair to players and offers advantages and disadvantages based on initial pairings. Here are 3 simulated Flash/Jaedong/Bisu/Stork groups, the first with Flash vs Jaedong first, the second with Flash vs Bisu first, the third with Flash vs Stork first.
The chances to advance differ by 10% OR MORE depending on initial pairings. While this format is more entertaining than round robin to me and many others, it's definitely a completely unfair format and no better than flipping a coin to break ties.
On June 22 2013 13:16 jalstar wrote: I'd like to thank Aligulac for offering evidence for a suspicion I've had since I started watching MSL with Lost Saga and Avalon:
The dual tournament format is unfair to players and offers advantages and disadvantages based on initial pairings. Here are 3 simulated Flash/Jaedong/Bisu/Stork groups, the first with Flash vs Jaedong first, the second with Flash vs Bisu first, the third with Flash vs Stork first.
The chances to advance differ by 10% OR MORE depending on initial pairings. While this format is more entertaining than round robin to me and many others, it's definitely a completely unfair format and no better than flipping a coin to break ties.
You are not serious. We could also say that instead of having 8 groups we should just let every player of 32 play each other to guarantee maximum fairness. Because the group seedings aint no better compared to flipping coins to break ties duh huh.
On June 22 2013 13:16 jalstar wrote: The chances to advance differ by 10% OR MORE depending on initial pairings. While this format is more entertaining than round robin to me and many others, it's definitely a completely unfair format and no better than flipping a coin to break ties.
Yeah, you have a point. I'm also strongly in favour of round robin over this dual tournament format. It's not completely correct to say it's not fair because those initial matchups may depend on seeding from previous rounds, but it's definitely much more variable than round robins, that's without question.
A fairly minor suggestion - on your reports page, when mousing over a data point it'd be nice if the total number of games was shown as well as the month and win %. I guess you could add a standard deviation from this as well.
On June 23 2013 07:26 rift wrote: Records>History: Offline, Online, Both (the overall graph)
This is not likely to happen unless we start computing rating numbers for each of these. I don't see the point behind that really. It's a lot of extra computation and complexity for what I don't imagine will be a very insightful (set of) features.
What about doing some crossover between 'balance report' and 'op/up. You would make two hypothetical players for each matchup, each of them would have skill rating equal to average of his race for that matchup in entered skill range (for example average pvt rating in top 100 protoss vs average tvp rating in top 100 terran). Compute their chances in bo1 and do that for each matchup. The skill range could differ, you could enter 1-100 or try lower levels, let's say 100-300.
I think it's interesting, but I'm not sure if it would tell us something better than monthly winrates, since the ratings changes rather slowly and on top of that you would pick even smaller set of players. Problems are similar to 'op/up' stat, which I find not that useful. So it's just idea.
Stats appears to be on a 10 game/series winning streak against players like JYP, Rain, TY and Trap, yet only has a 1344 rating. Going to the most recent 25 games, he's won 19 of them, and his wins then include Soulkey, sOs and Parting.
Its like the Aligulac rating system is relying on Soulkey, Innovation and Flash to go out across the earth and steal nerds Aligulac points, and then graciously lose a bunch of times in proleague so that the rest of the Kespa players can have some too- ie, get the reasonable ratings they should have.
I wonder if you shouldn't give the Kespa players a bit of the benefit of the doubt and start all Kespa players with a score of 1400. I think its reasonable to suggest that, over time, most Kespa players will prove that they belong above the 1400 line anyways- in this way they can have accurate ratings sooner, their earning of points will upset the code A/code S players scores less, and they won't steal as many points from the point pool in the rest of the world as they climb up to where they're supposed to be at.
This roughly equates them to the Aligulac level of Thorzain, who did play in proleague and generally got stomped with at 20% winrate until he left, or Zenio who has a 30% proleague win rate.
The thing is, over time if the 1400 was too much it'll just go to stronger players elsewhere as the points gradually spread out over time. I don't think 1400 is too much though.
On June 27 2013 08:34 Inimic wrote: First recommendation: When browsing rankings, its really annoying to get to page 4+. You can have numbers by the arrows to make it more user friendly.
Second, if you look at the graphs of all the Kespa players, you find situations like this one a lot:
Stats appears to be on a 10 game/series winning streak against players like JYP, Rain, TY and Trap, yet only has a 1344 rating. Going to the most recent 25 games, he's won 19 of them, and his wins then include Soulkey, sOs and Parting.
Its like the Aligulac rating system is relying on Soulkey, Innovation and Flash to go out across the earth and steal nerds Aligulac points, and then graciously lose a bunch of times in proleague so that the rest of the Kespa players can have some too- ie, get the reasonable ratings they should have.
I wonder if you shouldn't give the Kespa players a bit of the benefit of the doubt and start all Kespa players with a score of 1400. I think its reasonable to suggest that, over time, most Kespa players will prove that they belong above the 1400 line anyways- in this way they can have accurate ratings sooner, their earning of points will upset the code A/code S players scores less, and they won't steal as many points from the point pool in the rest of the world as they climb up to where they're supposed to be at.
This roughly equates them to the Aligulac level of Thorzain, who did play in proleague and generally got stomped with at 20% winrate until he left, or Zenio who has a 30% proleague win rate.
The thing is, over time if the 1400 was too much it'll just go to stronger players elsewhere as the points gradually spread out over time. I don't think 1400 is too much though.
Korean already get a headstart of 1200. You may believe that KeSPA players are godlike and deserve better rankings but there is nothing we can do if they only play a few games per month. The more games played, the better. Also they get offline bonuses other players don't always get.
That being said, you can try to give them a bigger headstart and recalculate everything. The ressources are out there.
Stats has my back He even took down TY, who Flash named as one of the top 3 terrans in the entire world on LO3 a day or two ago.
Again, I think players like him are currently extremely underrated in Aligulac because of the isolation of the Kespa progamers relative to the rest of the world. I think a larger adjustment would help to correct it, with no adverse effects in the long run <3
I can say one last thing though: the 1400 initial number for Kespa progamers could be used for the next year, then a new version revert all koreans to start with the same 1000 as everyone else. Thus, it would be a temporary fix while the ratings wait for the number of games to stack up enough to be accurate.
The problem is that if they are completely isolated, then how can you say higher ratings are justified?
For example, if Stats (or any other KeSPA pro-gamer) is truly underrated, then he will easily breeze through Code A qualifiers and steal points from eSF players. (He did in fact make it through the Code A qualifiers I believe).
On the other hand, look at Zest. Zest performs finely against other KeSPA players in ProLeague. If Zest is truly underrated, why hasn't he qualified for Code A?
On June 22 2013 13:16 jalstar wrote: I'd like to thank Aligulac for offering evidence for a suspicion I've had since I started watching MSL with Lost Saga and Avalon:
The dual tournament format is unfair to players and offers advantages and disadvantages based on initial pairings. (...)
The chances to advance differ by 10% OR MORE depending on initial pairings. While this format is more entertaining than round robin to me and many others, it's definitely a completely unfair format and no better than flipping a coin to break ties.
There will also be unfairness in the round-robin format based on what order games are played. In the last rounds of play, some players will already have advanced or have been knocked out. These players will most likely not play as well as they otherwise would.
If placement affects how later brackets are arranged, it motivates players to throw games under given circumstances. This is something we saw a lot in WCG during Brood War times. Nothing is worse than watching a game where you know both players are better off losing while still pretending they are playing at their standard level.
My post might have got lost (the last one on the last page). What do you guys thing about that? I think to have "cleaned" winrates and average opponents rating would be really cool for analysing.
On June 19 2013 08:30 StarGalaxy wrote: It would be really cool if you could filter the match history depending on the opponents rating. like the date option which is really awesome btw: (opponents rating between___ and____) An other interesting stats besides the displayed winrate would be the average opponents rating. Those two things would help to analyse the matchhistory tremendously.
On July 01 2013 00:52 StarGalaxy wrote: My post might have got lost (the last one on the last page). What do you guys thing about that? I think to have "cleaned" winrates and average opponents rating would be really cool for analysing.
On June 19 2013 08:30 StarGalaxy wrote: It would be really cool if you could filter the match history depending on the opponents rating. like the date option which is really awesome btw: (opponents rating between___ and____) An other interesting stats besides the displayed winrate would be the average opponents rating. Those two things would help to analyse the matchhistory tremendously.
Noted . I agree it would be cool, but I'd have to introduce some extra DB fields to do this in a clean and efficient manner, so it's not something I can just slap in there and get working in half an hour.
Hey. First congratz to you guys you're doing not only a pretty neat job but whats nice is that you listen to feedback too and it is really nice.
All right, I apologize in advance because I have a non-aligulac related question. But since you guys are into statistics and coding I propose a little problem to solve in case you have some free time during summer :D
Given the already announced non WCS events that gives point, the current WCS rankings, and the upcoming WCS seasons,, considering only the best 144 players to compete (or whatever model suits you), what is the minimal amount of points required to be in the top 16 players in 96 percent of the possible configurations ?
On July 11 2013 05:06 Milkis wrote: Am I missing something, or does Aligulac does not contain map data?
Correct. It probably never will, for various reasons (incomplete data, not worth the incredible time/effort at this point, contributes nothing to the overall ranking directly, etc), I figure.
On July 11 2013 05:06 Milkis wrote: Am I missing something, or does Aligulac does not contain map data?
Correct. It probably never will, for various reasons (incomplete data, not worth the incredible time/effort at this point, contributes nothing to the overall ranking directly, etc), I figure.
Even if it's incomplete, it's probably worth putting in the data, as it will be the next step in predicting results. That, and we can see how maps affect balance. It's difficult, but probably will be required at one point or another.
On July 11 2013 05:06 Milkis wrote: Am I missing something, or does Aligulac does not contain map data?
Correct. It probably never will, for various reasons (incomplete data, not worth the incredible time/effort at this point, contributes nothing to the overall ranking directly, etc), I figure.
Even if it's incomplete, it's probably worth putting in the data, as it will be the next step in predicting results. That, and we can see how maps affect balance. It's difficult, but probably will be required at one point or another.
It would be a great to have, absolutely. But it would also require updating 150.000 matches, which is a ton of work. We have awesome volunteers, but we don't have that many awesome volunteers. Yet.
On July 11 2013 05:06 Milkis wrote: Am I missing something, or does Aligulac does not contain map data?
Correct. It probably never will, for various reasons (incomplete data, not worth the incredible time/effort at this point, contributes nothing to the overall ranking directly, etc), I figure.
Even if it's incomplete, it's probably worth putting in the data, as it will be the next step in predicting results. That, and we can see how maps affect balance. It's difficult, but probably will be required at one point or another.
I've spoken on this matter before, to the best of my understanding (based upon internal discussions with BB and everyone else) and the conclusion we've come to is that:
1) there simply aren't enough games played per map per player that this would increase the accuracy of predictions and/or player skill ratings, on the contrary a much smaller and more fragmented sample size would lead to more uncertainty etc.
2) it's really REALLY hard (and in many cases impossible) to find map information for many of the online tournaments/qualifiers and small LANs that we add to the database
I'm not sure what to say to your claim that "it will be required at one point or another", but if we're going to see the scene go for a Proleague approach to maps, with more frequent map pool changes, then implementing such a thing would be even less accurate or meaningful (refer to #1 above).
Not to mention that we would need a proper definition of the term "map", as silly as it sounds. Would different versions of a map count towards the same map, or be separate? What about different spawn positions, missing watch towers, etc.? The more accurate we'd be, the less useful the data would be for any kind of prediction or statistics.
On July 11 2013 05:06 Milkis wrote: Am I missing something, or does Aligulac does not contain map data?
Correct. It probably never will, for various reasons (incomplete data, not worth the incredible time/effort at this point, contributes nothing to the overall ranking directly, etc), I figure.
Even if it's incomplete, it's probably worth putting in the data, as it will be the next step in predicting results. That, and we can see how maps affect balance. It's difficult, but probably will be required at one point or another.
It would be a great to have, absolutely. But it would also require updating 150.000 matches, which is a ton of work. We have awesome volunteers, but we don't have that many awesome volunteers. Yet.
Technically you can just rip a lot of them off TLPD, which does have map data, which should aid with the process. Maybe even request a rip of it so you don't have to farm it.
1) there simply aren't enough games played per map per player that this would increase the accuracy of predictions and/or player skill ratings, on the contrary a much smaller and more fragmented sample size would lead to more uncertainty etc.
Even if it is something as simple as map balance (ie, races sent out in proleague, race matchups in tournaments), it'd help quite considerably and that statistic should have enough sample points. Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
2) it's really REALLY hard (and in many cases impossible) to find map information for many of the online tournaments/qualifiers and small LANs that we add to the database
That's probably true, but you can just dummy for that and still have some sort of an idea. If we're going to go with the sample size argument, most of the players you add from the small LANs and qualifiers also have a small sample size so it's hard to get a "true rating" of a player, but we believe in LLN so we go through with it anyway.
I'm not sure what to say to your claim that "it will be required at one point or another", but if we're going to see the scene go for a Proleague approach to maps, with more frequent map pool changes, then implementing such a thing would be even less accurate or meaningful (refer to #1 above).
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at, and easier to predict the outcome (a Protoss comes out on battle royale? you bet it's going to get slaughtered. Terran on Central Plains? Nom nom nom)
I mean, it comes down to "we don't have it, and it requires work" and that's fine because getting volunteers and working on something like this is hard, but I don't really agree with the reasoning being put out, and don't see why there shouldn't be at least an option to add maps to it rather than taking it out completely.
On July 11 2013 05:58 Conti wrote: Not to mention that we would need a proper definition of the term "map", as silly as it sounds. Would different versions of a map count towards the same map, or be separate? What about different spawn positions, missing watch towers, etc.? The more accurate we'd be, the less useful the data would be for any kind of prediction or statistics.
Is your argument really "the more accurate our data, the less useful it is for statistics?" Maybe that's the case for Aligulac's rating system but please think about what you just said... If it's useless data, you don't need to use it, but having more data can't really hurt. It would be useful for map makers to refer to also in the future.
Sorry if I sound like i'm attacking it, I'm really not attacking you guys in anyway -- but perhaps I think it'll be more useful and perhaps worth at least allowing people to submit map data.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Is your argument really "the more accurate our data, the less useful it is for statistics?" Maybe that's the case for Aligulac's rating system but please think about what you just said...
Please don't be condescending when you didn't even understand my point...
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Is your argument really "the more accurate our data, the less useful it is for statistics?" Maybe that's the case for Aligulac's rating system but please think about what you just said...
Please don't be condescending when you didn't even understand my point...
That wasn't aimed at you -- please read what I said.
On July 11 2013 06:27 Conti wrote: Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have maps in aligulac. But you can see that it would be a lot of work, both in implementation and in maintenance.
I understand that's what it comes down to, it's just very odd when you guys appeal to statistics to say "it's useless" when it's not, when the issue comes from cost. I agree that it is a lot of work on inputting the data, however, but at the same time, I don't see why it shouldn't have at least an option to allow people to add it in.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way.
In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems.
While I won't discuss the statistical/predictional value on the matter of maps or no maps, I can discuss some of the more simple issues: 1: Getting the info on maps played can be tough unless you are talking about the big leagues, let's not get into the problems with different versions of a map and some with forced spawns etc. 2: Backtracking the existing DB would take months since we can't do it in bulks like we did with the event NSM. 3: Number of capable volunteers = 5-10 4: The entire entry system/parsing system would need an overhaul. 5: As far as I recall, we store the rows of matches as sets, not games, meaning that they would needed to be split with an extra attribute to keep track of which games belongs to which set.
I really wish we could have maps, but if you check aligulac.com/db you see that outside kiekaboe, conti, BB, MoP and shellshock, we really doesn't have nearly enough manpower to consistently keep it all updated, nor do we have the prestige of being affilliated with TL to attract them.
On July 11 2013 06:27 Conti wrote: Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have maps in aligulac. But you can see that it would be a lot of work, both in implementation and in maintenance.
I understand that's what it comes down to, it's just very odd when you guys appeal to statistics to say "it's useless" when it's not, when the issue comes from cost. I agree that it is a lot of work on inputting the data, however, but at the same time, I don't see why it shouldn't have at least an option to allow people to add it in.
Mostly because that requires a lot of programming work to implement. We'd need to change our database structure, as Grovbolle says. We'd need to update the parser to accept map syntax. We'd need to create new interfaces for adding maps. We'd need to figure out how much information on maps we want to have (as I mentioned above, map version, spawns, etc.). We'd need to make sure that we don't break anything that's already working. And I'm sure that we'll find tons of other stuff that needs to be done first as soon as we start working on all that.
Oh, yeah. And reworking our database structure of course means that we would need to change practically everything else so it would still work with the new database structure.
On July 11 2013 06:42 Grovbolle wrote: Ps: map stats probably would be useful, although it wouldn't be compared to the massive workload behind implementing it and maintaining it.
That's the thing.
Yeah, it's an improvement, but it's like having an upgrade on the Fusion Core for 1000 minerals / 1000 gas / 300 seconds that gives Marauders an added 0.5 damage. If you catch my drift with this terrible analogy. :/
I believe that map stats would make aligulac strictly better. In fact, no one can argue the contrary.
However, by how much? Well, I guess "not very much". As mentioned, small sample sizes make the variance jump. Also, the community has the good taste to eliminate any map with a W/L ratio bigger than 60/40. So maps already have only a very small variance.
The cost of updating the DB is on the other hand monstrously large.
I believe that there are better ways to improve aligulac than implementing map stats. Perhaps not better predictive power, but just a better website, for far much less work.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way.
In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems.
Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough".
On July 11 2013 06:42 Grovbolle wrote: Ps: map stats probably would be useful, although it wouldn't be compared to the massive workload behind implementing it and maintaining it.
That's what it would come down to, yeah. It's unfortunate I suppose, but what I'm trying to point out is that it's very limiting in the future not being able to add in maps. The problems you point out is only going to get worse, but at that point you've already completely ruled out the possibility of adding something important in.
Sorry, I think i went a bit overboard because I don't agree with the statistical reasoning being thrown out. Sorry about wasting your time D:
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way.
In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems.
Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough".
On July 11 2013 06:42 Grovbolle wrote: Ps: map stats probably would be useful, although it wouldn't be compared to the massive workload behind implementing it and maintaining it.
That's what it would come down to, yeah. It's unfortunate I suppose, but what I'm trying to point out is that it's very limiting in the future not being able to add in maps. The problems you point out is only going to get worse, but at that point you've already completely ruled out the possibility of adding something important in.
Sorry, I think i went a bit overboard because I don't agree with the statistical reasoning being thrown out. Sorry about wasting your time D:
Well formulated feedback and discussion is never a waste of time. :-) It havde been discussed to death internally though, which makes it a bit funny when people point it out, since we are already horribly aware of our lack of this feature. Ultimately, the speed and ease of which we can add matches was/is our main afvantage over TLPD
On July 11 2013 06:54 Milkis wrote: That's what it would come down to, yeah. It's unfortunate I suppose, but what I'm trying to point out is that it's very limiting in the future not being able to add in maps. The problems you point out is only going to get worse, but at that point you've already completely ruled out the possibility of adding something important in.
On the DB side, it'll take only a few minutes to write all the models needed to implement maps. You are right that if we don't do it now, it will only gets worse but we hadn't had a new regular uploader in the last three months whereas we commits from 2 new dev. Unless there is a massive decision on their side to have this feature, I don't think we will integrate that in the near future.
I'll jump in to the map discussion and say adding maps kinda sucks. Most tournaments don't track their own maps played. Dreamhack don't track any maps and they don't even track walkovers. ESL have brackets that display replays but 90% don't get uploaded. MLG made all their maps not show up in match histories There are also tournaments that like to make their own versions of maps just to be different. On top of tournaments sucking, more and more players hide their match histories.
Having said all that, I think map data is a good thing to try and have.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way.
In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems.
Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough". :
Just a quick note, with 150 samples (for a real hidden percentage value close to 50%) you get a confidence interval of roughly +/- 9% at 95% confidence level.
In other words, if Bel'Shir Vestige has 150 pro games of PvZ played on it, and exactly 75 are wins and 75 are false, the only thing I can say is that "With 95% confidence, the win ratio is between 41% and 59%". ("And in 5% of the cases, I am so wrong that in fact, the percentage is lower than 41% or higher than 59%. Lol.") Seeing how we scream bloody murder if the win ratio is at 55/45 I don't see this being really useful.
Basically, I believe we would require at least 1000 samples of a single matchup on a single map, which shows empirical win ratio of 58% at least to have any significant conclusion.
Edit : OK, I reread that and perhaps what I wrote may be perceived as rude. Every discussion is valuable. I do data mining and machine learning, and I simply love to have more data. The more I have, the more magic I can do. But I also need to moderate my excitement, because a lot of information is in fact irrelevant (fun fact : one big big big part of data mining is getting rid of data. I just love how in DNA analysis, getting rid of 99.9% of the information is not unheard of. In I-don't-remember-what-study, the final predictor for a cancer used only 19 genes out of 40.000).
On July 11 2013 22:29 Leviance wrote: Every SC2 tournament on earth should be forced to post all match results in a standard form that's then sucked into the Aligulac database
If we continue our development as we do right now. It's quite possible we would able to provide an advanced API for that.
Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league? So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup. And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only. Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote: Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league? So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup. And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only. Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
That's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote: Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league? So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup. And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only. Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
That's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote: Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty.
If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD).
Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way.
In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems.
Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough". :
Just a quick note, with 150 samples (for a real hidden percentage value close to 50%) you get a confidence interval of roughly +/- 9% at 95% confidence level.
In other words, if Bel'Shir Vestige has 150 pro games of PvZ played on it, and exactly 75 are wins and 75 are false, the only thing I can say is that "With 95% confidence, the win ratio is between 41% and 59%". ("And in 5% of the cases, I am so wrong that in fact, the percentage is lower than 41% or higher than 59%. Lol.") Seeing how we scream bloody murder if the win ratio is at 55/45 I don't see this being really useful.
Basically, I believe we would require at least 1000 samples of a single matchup on a single map, which shows empirical win ratio of 58% at least to have any significant conclusion.
Edit : OK, I reread that and perhaps what I wrote may be perceived as rude. Every discussion is valuable. I do data mining and machine learning, and I simply love to have more data. The more I have, the more magic I can do. But I also need to moderate my excitement, because a lot of information is in fact irrelevant (fun fact : one big big big part of data mining is getting rid of data. I just love how in DNA analysis, getting rid of 99.9% of the information is not unheard of. In I-don't-remember-what-study, the final predictor for a cancer used only 19 genes out of 40.000).
In a straight forward t.test, you're right -- because you're interested in an estimation of the the property of the map itself. If map is some of the many covariates you're using to estimate something else (such as probability of victory, or player skill), the standard errors shouldn't be too bad. But you're also right in that, you need a certain amount of "imbalance" in the map before you get a noticeable difference in prediction.
As far as the map discussion is concerned, I'm of the same opinion that has been expressed. It'd be cool to have, but it seems to be a pretty high effort to usefulness ratio. Let TLPD have their one advantage (they need it! lawl).
On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote: Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league? So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup. And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only. Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
That's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
Since a month or so ago you can also use quotation marks, so for example "Group E" will just find anything called Group E instead of everything with E in the name.
When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote: When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
Something's not right there.
I'm confused, are you talking about Rankings here or Records (aka History)?
On July 12 2013 00:54 justdmg wrote: Edit: Disregard, I just read the notes right in front of my face <_<
Is there functionality to indicate different "best of's" during a Single Elimination bracket?
Ex: 16 players in Single Elim. R1 = Bo3, R2 = Bo5, R3 = Bo5, Finals = Bo7. Could I type 3,5,5,7 into the "Best of" field?
Yes.
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote: When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
Something's not right there.
Yeah, I can't reproduce this. Where do you see this, exactly?
Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions? For example, in today's STX vs SKT match, have the option to enter in Rain and Innovation as the aces. Then the output would be something like: 33% STX wins in first 6 sets 33% SKT wins in first 6 sets 33% Goes to ace match
On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote: Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions? For example, in today's STX vs SKT match, have the option to enter in Rain and Innovation as the aces. Then the output would be something like: 33% STX wins in first 6 sets 33% SKT wins in first 6 sets 33% Goes to ace match
On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote: Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions?
You can do this already, in fact. It's just not very well advertised. Just add the ace match players as if you entered a match with seven players. There's nothing to keep you from repeating players.
On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote: Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions?
You can do this already, in fact. It's just not very well advertised. Just add the ace match players as if you entered a match with seven players. There's nothing to keep you from repeating players.
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote: When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
Something's not right there.
Yeah, I can't reproduce this. Where do you see this, exactly?
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote: When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
Something's not right there.
Yeah, I can't reproduce this. Where do you see this, exactly?
On July 14 2013 17:12 rift wrote: Any further consideration/testing of decay?
My laptop died as I was in the process of testing the decay. I'll do further tests when I can retrieve my HDD. But if improvments there is, it won't come before a long time.
Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
To what purpose? Aligulac would always choose Player A 2-1 in the above scenario.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
To what purpose? Aligulac would always choose Player A 2-1 in the above scenario.
No, I mean if there is a 40% chance that Player A 2-1, then there is only a 40% chance that Aligulac chooses that result.
The purpose would be to predict an entire tournament. The thing is, at the moment, the player with the best bracket luck or the player with the highest vT/vZ/vP ratings will have the highest percentage to win the tournament. However, in real life, even if someone has a 60% chance to win against everyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the tournament.
It's sort of like simulating an entire tournament - that way, Aligulac does not simply choose the most favored player to win the tournament. Instead, it incorporates luck and allows for upsets to happen, making it more like a real tournament.
Sure, it's probably not the most useful feature, but it would definitely be cool.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
To what purpose? Aligulac would always choose Player A 2-1 in the above scenario.
No, I mean if there is a 40% chance that Player A 2-1, then there is only a 40% chance that Aligulac chooses that result.
The purpose would be to predict an entire tournament. The thing is, at the moment, the player with the best bracket luck or the player with the highest vT/vZ/vP ratings will have the highest percentage to win the tournament. However, in real life, even if someone has a 60% chance to win against everyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the tournament.
It's sort of like simulating an entire tournament - that way, Aligulac does not simply choose the most favored player to win the tournament. Instead, it incorporates luck and allows for upsets to happen, making it more like a real tournament.
Sure, it's probably not the most useful feature, but it would definitely be cool.
That is not actually how the predict function works. It also takes into consideration "what-if" scenarios.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
To what purpose? Aligulac would always choose Player A 2-1 in the above scenario.
No, I mean if there is a 40% chance that Player A 2-1, then there is only a 40% chance that Aligulac chooses that result.
The purpose would be to predict an entire tournament. The thing is, at the moment, the player with the best bracket luck or the player with the highest vT/vZ/vP ratings will have the highest percentage to win the tournament. However, in real life, even if someone has a 60% chance to win against everyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the tournament.
It's sort of like simulating an entire tournament - that way, Aligulac does not simply choose the most favored player to win the tournament. Instead, it incorporates luck and allows for upsets to happen, making it more like a real tournament.
Sure, it's probably not the most useful feature, but it would definitely be cool.
That is not actually how the predict function works. It also takes into consideration "what-if" scenarios.
Hmm... I think the issue is that I'm not clarifying enough. Let's take a quick example - a 4-man tournament.
INnoVation vs. Shine, Mvp vs. Symbol
Currently, this is basically what Aligulac does:
INnoVation has a 95% chance against Shine Mvp has a 60% chance against Symbol
INnoVation has a 60% chance of taking the tournament Mvp has a 20% chance of taking the tournament Symbol has a 18% chance of taking the tournament Shine has a 2% chance of taking the tournament
This is my suggestion:
Implement a simulation option which simulates the entire tournament. So when we get to INnoVation vs. Shine, INnoVation has a 95% chance to win. Well, use a random number generator between 1-100. If the number is 95 or less, then Aligulac chooses INnoVation. Same thing with Mvp vs. Symbol, except anything under 60 goes to Mvp (because Mvp has a 60% chance to win). The consequence is that every simulation will be different - some simulations will have INnoVation winning, other simulations will have Mvp winning. You would be able to use the Retry button to rerun the simulation.
Hopefully that makes sense? I just think it would be a cool feature, not essential or useful, but awesome nonetheless.
On July 18 2013 17:21 graNite wrote: How do you measure the deadliness of a group? By the chance difference between every player?
I guess there is a lot of different answers to that, but in my opinion the group of death is the group where it is most likely that a top player (a player expected to go to Ro2/Ro4) will get eliminated.
But there can be only one group of death, and I need to know which one it is. Can you guys help me?
We actually had an internal discussion about this a couple of months ago, so it's most definitely a possibility, but probably not the highest priority.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
To what purpose? Aligulac would always choose Player A 2-1 in the above scenario.
No, I mean if there is a 40% chance that Player A 2-1, then there is only a 40% chance that Aligulac chooses that result.
The purpose would be to predict an entire tournament. The thing is, at the moment, the player with the best bracket luck or the player with the highest vT/vZ/vP ratings will have the highest percentage to win the tournament. However, in real life, even if someone has a 60% chance to win against everyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the tournament.
It's sort of like simulating an entire tournament - that way, Aligulac does not simply choose the most favored player to win the tournament. Instead, it incorporates luck and allows for upsets to happen, making it more like a real tournament.
Sure, it's probably not the most useful feature, but it would definitely be cool.
That is not actually how the predict function works. It also takes into consideration "what-if" scenarios.
Hmm... I think the issue is that I'm not clarifying enough. Let's take a quick example - a 4-man tournament.
INnoVation vs. Shine, Mvp vs. Symbol
Currently, this is basically what Aligulac does:
INnoVation has a 95% chance against Shine Mvp has a 60% chance against Symbol
INnoVation has a 60% chance of taking the tournament Mvp has a 20% chance of taking the tournament Symbol has a 18% chance of taking the tournament Shine has a 2% chance of taking the tournament
This is my suggestion:
Implement a simulation option which simulates the entire tournament. So when we get to INnoVation vs. Shine, INnoVation has a 95% chance to win. Well, use a random number generator between 1-100. If the number is 95 or less, then Aligulac chooses INnoVation. Same thing with Mvp vs. Symbol, except anything under 60 goes to Mvp (because Mvp has a 60% chance to win). The consequence is that every simulation will be different - some simulations will have INnoVation winning, other simulations will have Mvp winning. You would be able to use the Retry button to rerun the simulation.
Hopefully that makes sense? I just think it would be a cool feature, not essential or useful, but awesome nonetheless.
I get what you are saying, it's basically a simple simulation, I am sure it is doable, however not currently a priority.
On July 18 2013 17:19 Da_Baeverforce wrote: Can you make a Group of Death Calculation?
But there can be only one group of death, and I need to know which one it is. Can you guys help me?
We have discussed a lot what defines a group of death, since we still doesn't have a clear definition (highest average rating of players, highest discrepancy between top and bottom, best 3/4 players etc.), we haven't yet defined a GoD metric.
On July 18 2013 17:27 graNite wrote: Is there a way to see the race distribution over the top 100 pro players?
No but this is a great idea, I'll make it a priority.
On July 17 2013 09:59 Entirety wrote: Can you make a feature where Aligulac actually picks a result?
Say, for example, that there is a match. Player A vs. Player B
Player A 2-0 30% Player A 2-1 40% Player B 2-1 20% Player B 2-0 10%
Then Aligulac actually picks one of those results, so that there is a 30% chance that it chooses Player A 2-0, 40% chance that it chooses Player A 2-1, etc. Then, if you try again, then Aligulac might pick a different result.
I wrote a script for this using Python and BeautifulSoup, it needs a bit of cleaning up but it wasn't very difficult to get the results. Will probably post it in the next few days.
First of all, thank you for all the hard work you've done on this amazing website. It's the best predication tool I've seen.
I was browsing through the website when I noticed some of the adjustments didn't seem to make sense. I noticed this explanation in the FAQ:
"The upshot of this is that if a player overperforms versus Terran (say 2–0 when 1–1 was expected), but significantly underperforms in the other matchups (say 0–10 in each when 5–5 was expected), the rating versus Terran may still decrease."
Will this still happen for low uncertainty?
If we have a hypothetical player with 100% winrate versus Terran but has 0% winrate in the other two (and perhaps is matched up against Terran less) will their vT rating just continually decrease?
Edit: Will there a periodic report on the website on accuracy of predictions?
First off great website with great simple design and stacked full of stats :D I have a suggestion for another column ranking in the teams section. The Proleague and All-kill scores are a good historical reference but I am always wanting to know who the best teams are right now. So I suggest a third column where the teams can be ranked by the average rating points of their top 5 players (5 players with currently highest rating points). I see there is already room for another column, could be called 'Top 5 Players' or something.
On August 26 2013 14:21 ThunderGod wrote: First off great website with great simple design and stacked full of stats :D I have a suggestion for another column ranking in the teams section. The Proleague and All-kill scores are a good historical reference but I am always wanting to know who the best teams are right now. So I suggest a third column where the teams can be ranked by the average rating points of their top 5 players (5 players with currently highest rating points). I see there is already room for another column, could be called 'Top 5 Players' or something.
Scores are not historical measurement but projection (albeit very bad ones) of a team ability to win in these formats.
About the match entries,since sometimes the aligulac staff forget some (well its normal they're human after all) i sometime enter some. I would like to know if there is an easier way to make the ro32/16/8/4/2 thing.
Now to enter the Ro16 results i have to send a whole new request again ? I mean its ok but it takes more time,my suggestion would be adding some kind of system that allows us to type multiple rounds at once.
Feel free to type in all the rounds in a single request, so long as you write in the notes explicitly which matches belong to which rounds. (First 16, then next 8, then next 4, etc.) That's the best I can do with the current system, I'm afraid.
Explaining this in notes should be fine, as the matches/events can always be changed later. If you link to Liquipedia, it's usually obvious what round a match was played in anyhow.
KeSPA released their ten-year log of player records. If we were prone to wasting a good amount of time, it would be fun to walk these logs to recreate a timeline for players' skills in Broodwar.
On September 07 2013 04:15 WigglingSquid wrote: KeSPA released their ten-year log of player records. If we were prone to wasting a good amount of time, it would be fun to walk these logs to recreate a timeline for players' skills in Broodwar.
On August 26 2013 14:21 ThunderGod wrote: First off great website with great simple design and stacked full of stats :D I have a suggestion for another column ranking in the teams section. The Proleague and All-kill scores are a good historical reference but I am always wanting to know who the best teams are right now. So I suggest a third column where the teams can be ranked by the average rating points of their top 5 players (5 players with currently highest rating points). I see there is already room for another column, could be called 'Top 5 Players' or something.
Scores are not historical measurement but projection (albeit very bad ones) of a team ability to win in these formats.
Thanks, to clarify I meant average rating of top 5 players, not the whole team. I would like to see this for countries too so we can see the relative strength of different countries with a number attached to it. We could see the depth of a country and it's likelihood to win a match against any other country, same as for team battles. For example average rating of top 5 players in Korea: 1926 Canada: 1460 Sweden: 1452 Ukraine: 1388 USA: 1321
On September 07 2013 04:15 WigglingSquid wrote: KeSPA released their ten-year log of player records. If we were prone to wasting a good amount of time, it would be fun to walk these logs to recreate a timeline for players' skills in Broodwar.
I believe it were only proleague matches released.
Hey, Does the prediction tool use the "preview" ratings (i.e does it take into account games that were played a day or two before the match by each of the players), or does it use the previous list's rating?
On September 15 2013 21:20 CtrlAltDefeat wrote: Hey, Does the prediction tool use the "preview" ratings (i.e does it take into account games that were played a day or two before the match by each of the players), or does it use the previous list's rating?
Pretty almost sure that it uses the preview matches. Edit: It uses the preview rating. Currently that means all matches except DH Ro16 (excluding Stardust-Elfi). The preview is updated every 6 hours. Currently that means it will be updated in 2½ hours.
Big update today. I'm tired of writing changelogs, so I'll just copy the brief one:
Player, event and rating list pages now have some more info shown on top in a tabbed box.
Player rating charts now show the number of games played per period.
Predictions (now under the inference menu) for single matches (shows more data) and proleague matches (you can now simulate ace matches as they should be) have been improved.
The team transfer page looks better than ever before.
You can now navigate directly to any submenu item by hovering over the relevant entry. (This is a bit tricky though… they're a bit small.)
The team list now shows the average rating of the top five players, as well as the number of players.
Many small things…
Mostly, the exciting improvements are under the hood:
Now using Python 3.3, Django 1.6 and PostgreSQL.
The event hierarchy table has been very much improved and should now be much more stable and fast. However, this has introduced a bit of difficulty with regards to sorting. For this reason you might notice that matches are sorted in a funny order sometimes. I will fix this, don't worry.
Tons of bugfixes.
I have decided to remove the compare feature, since it was pretty dull and mostly superseded by the match prediction page. I can add the p-value there instead, if anyone's interested.
In the beginning, there will likely be some problems and bugs owing to the rewrite. Please feel free to report issues here.
For those of you who want SSL support, yeah I've been looking at it and I think I can manage.
On September 27 2013 01:31 StarGalaxy wrote: looks really great. one small thing i noticed. The lettering is not centered in the box on the left side: e.g. http://aligulac.com/players/48-INnoVation/
Can you make a screenshot of what you mean? I'm not sure I see it.
Be sure to forcibly refresh your CSS and JS files before trying. Probably Ctrl+F5 depending on your browser.
When you're checking a player profile what use does the column ''form'' has ? I assume it shows the stats according to the latest results of the player but how far does it go ? 2 weeks ? 1 month ?
The tabs at the top of player ages (e.g. http://aligulac.com/players/48-INnoVation/) have the tab switching function (onclick="switch_tab...") tied to an anchor tag, making them fairly difficult to click. Putting the function on the encompassing td tag would make switching easier and from looking at the function itself, wouldn't require any JS changes.
On September 27 2013 02:27 shid0x wrote: When you're checking a player profile what use does the column ''form'' has ? I assume it shows the stats according to the latest results of the player but how far does it go ? 2 weeks ? 1 month ?
Two months. I think that's a bit on the long end, I might change it.
On September 27 2013 02:39 Grayson Carlyle wrote: The tabs at the top of player ages (e.g. http://aligulac.com/players/48-INnoVation/) have the tab switching function (onclick="switch_tab...") tied to an anchor tag, making them fairly difficult to click. Putting the function on the encompassing td tag would make switching easier and from looking at the function itself, wouldn't require any JS changes.
Good point, I did it like this because I learned earlier that tds can't be links. I assume there won't be a hand-finger cursor on the td to indicate a clickable point?
You can make them have the hand cursor by adding the css
.tabsel, .tabunsel { cursor: pointer; }
Things don't need to be links to be able to activate javascript
Other thing I noticed: When mousing over the first row of menu options (Ranking Teams Records Results Reports Inference About Submit) it shows the relevant 2nd level menu options, but if you attempt to click them the menu options revert to the page default. This is confusing behaviour.
Removing this function (generated per-page, here's the ranking page version):
document.onmouseover = function (e) { if (!is_descendant(document.getElementById('menu_container'), e.target)) hover('Ranking'); }
would cause the sub-menus not to revert, but then doesn't give you access to the default ones unless you mouse back over this page's menu option. It's a tradeoff, but I think keeping them visible after mousing over them is the more intuitive behaviour.
On September 27 2013 01:31 StarGalaxy wrote: looks really great. one small thing i noticed. The lettering is not centered in the box on the left side: e.g. http://aligulac.com/players/48-INnoVation/
Can you make a screenshot of what you mean? I'm not sure I see it.
Be sure to forcibly refresh your CSS and JS files before trying. Probably Ctrl+F5 depending on your browser.
On September 27 2013 07:20 TheBB wrote: Thanks Grayson, we ended up pulling a similar fix for the menu using jQuery. Hopefully it's a bit easier to use now.
Nice! I wasn't about to go telling you how to write clean JS, so I just went with what was already there, but I'm glad you found a very elegant solution.
Something that has bugged me about the ratings, quantization of the values: 1) When a player is expected to do, say, 5.2:4.8, but actually achieves 5:5, the rating goes down, but there's no way he could have performed according to the decimal parts 2) How much of this accumulates over time? Probably it goes both ways (ie 4.8:3.2 and 5:3) on average but this feels weird
On September 28 2013 17:53 kurosu_ wrote: Something that has bugged me about the ratings, quantization of the values: 1) When a player is expected to do, say, 5.2:4.8, but actually achieves 5:5, the rating goes down, but there's no way he could have performed according to the decimal parts 2) How much of this accumulates over time? Probably it goes both ways (ie 4.8:3.2 and 5:3) on average but this feels weird
I think it might make more sense to you if you think about comparing different players. If there are two players and one is better (according to the rating system), but both would be predicted at 5:5 due to rounding down/up (5.5:4.5 vs 4.5:5.5), it would practically make the two players even in skill.
You can also look at other "stochastic objects" like dice. A 6-sided die's expected value is 3.5. If you want to "test" a die whether it's actually balanced (=test whether a player is actually rated correctly), you let your statistic model expect a value of 3.5, even though it can't actually happen on an individual roll and adjust the result accordingly with each roll you do (give the player +/- rating).
On September 28 2013 18:12 slowbacontron wrote: Quick question, when you predict a best of n match between two players, why are their race icons white?
I just didn't feel the normal icons looked very good on the dark background, that's all.
On September 28 2013 18:12 slowbacontron wrote: Quick question, when you predict a best of n match between two players, why are their race icons white?
I just didn't feel the normal icons looked very good on the dark background, that's all.
Hmm, ok. Personally I see the colors as an additional way to distinguish between the races, but since the prediction is just between two players it doesn't make a big difference.
Considering Korea isn't an actual country it makes sense to keep it under South Korea. I am also fairly certain we are using an imported library of countries which has been modified to include "Non-Koreans", which is why it is called South Korea and not just Korea
On October 01 2013 03:08 Hier wrote: Sorry if the following is answered somewhere; I didn't find the answer. Where did the Swiss group prediction option go?
In a group of 4 players, it's the same thing as a double elimination tournament.
On October 01 2013 03:08 Hier wrote: Sorry if the following is answered somewhere; I didn't find the answer. Where did the Swiss group prediction option go?
I renamed it «dual tournament» since that's what most people seem to be calling it now.
On October 02 2013 02:40 Greenei wrote: any chance, that we can get the DBdump in the old format? Or at least the matches ranked by matchnumber?
After the hell I went through to convert it to PG format, I don't want to go the other way. The best I can give you as far as generic dumps go is probably CSV. Would that be ok?
There's also an API in the works, but I can't promise any date.
On October 02 2013 02:40 Greenei wrote: any chance, that we can get the DBdump in the old format? Or at least the matches ranked by matchnumber?
After the hell I went through to convert it to PG format, I don't want to go the other way. The best I can give you as far as generic dumps go is probably CSV. Would that be ok?
There's also an API in the works, but I can't promise any date.
No idea if it will be more helpful but if it's not too much work I'd love to see it ^^
http://aligulac.com/players/4565-RobbyG/period/95/ , and this happened to me not only once, but this time it happened yesterday, so i thought it was a bug before thats why i didnt ask about similar occurences in the past
It's possible for bad results in another matchup to drag you down everywhere, so to speak. It still looks a bit extreme, but that could just be because you don't play very often.
That's not good and obviously a bug. Something goes wrong while calculating the performance. I'm trying to find out what right now. TheBB has been notified.
First: Big thanks for the site. Very interesting to browse through players and see their performances over time.
I have a question / idea though: It seems to me that most players ratings always rises. This inflation makes surely sense: The more games in the database, the better the system can spread the players apart.
Or am i wrong and the average rating stays always the same?
But would it be possible / difficult to implement a graph or history for each player which accounts for this inflation effect? (Sort of players ratings at the time divide by average rating at the time or whatever mathematically makes most sense). It would be interesting to see, how good a player was relative to his time (for example: who were better, MMA of 2011 or innovation of 2013?).
In the same spirit, I think it also might be interesting to see a players global rank over time
But anyway, thanks for the page. I would hope if tournaments would use this data to display statistics, chances etc. before a match starts.
On October 29 2013 08:09 G-Dy wrote: First: Big thanks for the site. Very interesting to browse through players and see their performances over time.
I have a question / idea though: It seems to me that most players ratings always rises. This inflation makes surely sense: The more games in the database, the better the system can spread the players apart.
Or am i wrong and the average rating stays always the same?
But would it be possible / difficult to implement a graph or history for each player which accounts for this inflation effect? (Sort of players ratings at the time divide by average rating at the time or whatever mathematically makes most sense). It would be interesting to see, how good a player was relative to his time (for example: who were better, MMA of 2011 or innovation of 2013?).
In the same spirit, I think it also might be interesting to see a players global rank over time
But anyway, thanks for the page. I would hope if tournaments would use this data to display statistics, chances etc. before a match starts.
The average changes. Whenever a player enters the database, the sum of all ratings rises (with 1000 or 1200 depending on if he is foreigner or Korean), and when a player retires with a rating above the average, the effective pool decreases and vice versa.
On October 29 2013 17:04 Seeker wrote: Why is the name of the website Aligulac.com? What does Aligulac mean?
"The name Aligulac is derived from that of the Roman emperor Caligula, so if you can pronounce that, all you have to do is shift the C to the end and you're good to go." http://aligulac.com/faq
"Aligulac, as a word, was initially formed when Eivind and a fellow classmate were doing programming exercises for school. As a fake company, Aligulac bought and sold however many units of product that Eivind needed for his classwork. Imaginary, yes, but as all faux-companies tend to be, highly successful. Later, Aligulac doubled as an excellent name for a soccer team." http://www.esfiworld.com/interview-with-eivind-fonn-founder-of-starcraft-2-statistics-and-ranking-site-aligulac/
On October 29 2013 17:04 Seeker wrote: Why is the name of the website Aligulac.com? What does Aligulac mean?
"The name Aligulac is derived from that of the Roman emperor Caligula, so if you can pronounce that, all you have to do is shift the C to the end and you're good to go." http://aligulac.com/faq
"Aligulac, as a word, was initially formed when Eivind and a fellow classmate were doing programming exercises for school. As a fake company, Aligulac bought and sold however many units of product that Eivind needed for his classwork. Imaginary, yes, but as all faux-companies tend to be, highly successful. Later, Aligulac doubled as an excellent name for a soccer team." http://www.esfiworld.com/interview-with-eivind-fonn-founder-of-starcraft-2-statistics-and-ranking-site-aligulac/
Wait, surely the last syllable isn't pronounced, "luck", right? That's what it would be if all you did was shift the "c" phoneme to the end. I've always pronounced it "lack".
That's good to hear! Except that, um, I don't think it's updated as far as I can tell? + Show Spoiler +
Also, if you click on the results tab, for some reason a ton of results are unrated even though they were entered many many hours ago. Is there something up with the updating?
On October 31 2013 02:32 slowbacontron wrote: That's good to hear! Except that, um, I don't think it's updated as far as I can tell? + Show Spoiler +
Also, if you click on the results tab, for some reason a ton of results are unrated even though they were entered many many hours ago. Is there something up with the updating?
Yes, we know. It's an unrelated bug that causes a division by zero while trying to maximize a function. TheBB is on it.
In the "Highest ratings ever achieved by X" sections, the ratings shown seem to be mirror matchup ratings, not overall ratings. The actual ranking seems to be right, though.
In the "Highest ratings ever achieved by X" sections, the ratings shown seem to be mirror matchup ratings, not overall ratings. The actual ranking seems to be right, though.
On November 03 2013 23:30 slowbacontron wrote: Ok, I'll admit it. By "a bit", I meant "a lot. a loooooooooot". Maybe someday I'll understand it. somedayyyyyyy~~~
The charts are plotted using data from not only the past, but also the future. The ratings in the lists use only past data (so that they never change). It makes the charts smoother, prettier and nicer to look at. Sparkles and ribbons and such.
On November 03 2013 23:30 slowbacontron wrote: Ok, I'll admit it. By "a bit", I meant "a lot. a loooooooooot". Maybe someday I'll understand it. somedayyyyyyy~~~
The charts are plotted using data from not only the past, but also the future. The ratings in the lists use only past data (so that they never change). It makes the charts smoother, prettier and nicer to look at. Sparkles and ribbons and such.
Cool, that makes sense! It seems to me that it makes the ratings inconsistent with the graphs, though.
I was wondering something : if we take the MC number as a probability distribution, then what does the probability distribution look like?
I am pretty sure that 90% of the players have a MC number of 2 or less, some poor guys stand at 3, and you have at most a couple of progamers at 4. (My guess would be SEA players that have never gone abroad and have never faced moonglade)
Or do you have an incredibly isolated community (African/South American competitors?)
I assume that you guys can use this for multiple purposes, especially in write-ups and during LR-threads
Looks nice When you guys have time left you could also add the ability to filter on an ongoing tournament (e.g., WCS), so they can use this for example when writing the preview of the final and show the performance of both players in that tournament alone. Road to the final basically.
I assume that you guys can use this for multiple purposes, especially in write-ups and during LR-threads
Looks nice When you guys have time left you could also add the ability to filter on an ongoing tournament (e.g., WCS), so they can use this for example when writing the preview of the final and show the performance of both players in that tournament alone. Road to the final basically.
On November 07 2013 16:29 dani` wrote: Looks nice When you guys have time left you could also add the ability to filter on an ongoing tournament (e.g., WCS), so they can use this for example when writing the preview of the final and show the performance of both players in that tournament alone. Road to the final basically.
This would be nice, I agree.
Note that I also fixed two bugs:
The problem above reported by slowbacontron. (Records wrongly showing mirror match-up ratings)
The ability to access the short urls generated by the button at the bottom of the page.
I assume that you guys can use this for multiple purposes, especially in write-ups and during LR-threads
Looks nice When you guys have time left you could also add the ability to filter on an ongoing tournament (e.g., WCS), so they can use this for example when writing the preview of the final and show the performance of both players in that tournament alone. Road to the final basically.
This is an interesting web site. I will certainly follow it avidely as a good prediction system is worth money.
Having been invovled in offshore wagering outfits for more than 10 years, I know that prediction is always a tricky and difficult thing to do. Those who find a good system end up making a lot of money (millions). They are rare.
The current market prices for the matchups of BlizzCon don't all agree with the predictions of aligulac.
Dear/Taeja, aligulac predicts that Dear will win with a probability of 46.98% (Dear an underdog!!). Bookmakers have set the price of Dear winning to be around 65%.
Bomber/MMA, aligulac predicts that Bomber will win with a probabiliy of 43.73% Bookmakers have set the price of Bomber winning to be around 59%.
Innovation/DuckDoek aligulac and bookmakers are about the same.
Jaedong/MVP, aligulac predicts 65.75% Bookmakers Jaedong wins at 65%
I do wager on these, started recently, and so far so good (against the bookmaker). It's a short run so far, so I could be luckyier than I should have been. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would have won using this prediction system.
Keep in mind that some characteristics of the SC2 scene make it extremely difficult to portray some players' skills both accurately and objectively. If a player almost always plays among a very limited set of players, for example GSL or Proleague, there isn't a very good way to standardize his skill against players outside that pool. Additionally, some players' skill levels are just so close that it's impossible to really predict a match between them.
I think you need to add some labels to the table on the player summary page in the box with All-Time, Form, Highest. A header with something like Matchup, Win Rate, Rating (Rank). As it is it's confusing because I look at the Rating (Rank) column, and it's directly under Highest, so I naturally think those are all time Ratings. Then I spend a long time trying to find the current ratings.
On November 18 2013 13:36 KillerDucky wrote: I think you need to add some labels to the table on the player summary page in the box with All-Time, Form, Highest. A header with something like Matchup, Win Rate, Rating (Rank). As it is it's confusing because I look at the Rating (Rank) column, and it's directly under Highest, so I naturally think those are all time Ratings. Then I spend a long time trying to find the current ratings.
I've never heard of this before. If someone else has this problem can they please tell us as I don't think that a change is necessary.
On November 27 2013 00:39 Greenei wrote: Hey, would it be possible, to have the matches in the database ordered by number or date of entry? It would help me save some time.
On November 27 2013 10:13 StarGalaxy wrote: when i try to open the matchhistory of some players i get an 500: Internal Server Error. for example suppy, cpu
On November 27 2013 10:13 StarGalaxy wrote: when i try to open the matchhistory of some players i get an 500: Internal Server Error. for example suppy, cpu
It's probably because races are listed in alphabetical order, but if possible, TvZ ZvP PvT order like TLPD would be much easier to read than current PvT PvZ TvZ , where races are assymetrically placed. Aligulac has been very helpful, but this has always bugged me.
On November 27 2013 00:39 Greenei wrote: Hey, would it be possible, to have the matches in the database ordered by number or date of entry? It would help me save some time.
What do you mean?
Well right now if you download the DB and open it in an editor it's like this:
15646 38 2011-07-31 3166 82 2 1 P P t 1772 \N WoL t 4637867 4636078
8768 53 2012-02-27 26 78 2 1 Z P t GameCreds Cup #51 - Semi Final (SC2C) 14583 \N WoL f 4675822 4675868
It would help me if it was ordered by gamenumber (1,2,3,4...) instead of (15646, 8768,...).
OR ordered by the time that the entry was added. So if someone adds a new entry that it is in the first /last row. I need to download the DB pretty often, so it would help me save some time, because I need to always do it 'semi manually'.
On November 27 2013 00:39 Greenei wrote: Hey, would it be possible, to have the matches in the database ordered by number or date of entry? It would help me save some time.
What do you mean?
Well right now if you download the DB and open it in an editor it's like this:
15646 38 2011-07-31 3166 82 2 1 P P t 1772 \N WoL t 4637867 4636078
8768 53 2012-02-27 26 78 2 1 Z P t GameCreds Cup #51 - Semi Final (SC2C) 14583 \N WoL f 4675822 4675868
It would help me if it was ordered by gamenumber (1,2,3,4...) instead of (15646, 8768,...).
OR ordered by the time that the entry was added. So if someone adds a new entry that it is in the first /last row. I need to download the DB pretty often, so it would help me save some time, because I need to always do it 'semi manually'.
Note that the file is a database dump. It's supposed to be loaded into a PostgreSQL database. However, if you provide more information about what you're trying to do I might be able to help.
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) Server at aligulac.com Port 8080
Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
I still try to spam it whenever possible.
But the "two world" problem seems to have gotten more prominent recently. And with two worlds I mean the Koreans who regularly compete against foreigners and Koreans who do not.
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
Depends on what you consider "neglected". We get a lot more twitter interactions etc. And the occasional "Hey TaeJa is at the highest Aligulac rating ever" on Reddit. But that's it. I stopped doing the BI-weekly write-ups since they took me a great deal of my limited spare time, and we usually only got 5-10 responses so it seemed futile.
Very few seems to have noticed the new awesome postable you can get from the match results of a player. Like: Results for TaeJa after 2013-06-01.
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
Depends on what you consider "neglected". We get a lot more twitter interactions etc. And the occasional "Hey TaeJa is at the highest Aligulac rating ever" on Reddit. But that's it. I stopped doing the BI-weekly write-ups since they took me a great deal of my limited spare time, and we usually only got 5-10 responses so it seemed futile.
Very few seems to have noticed the new awesome postable you can get from the match results of a player. Like: Results for TaeJa after 2013-06-01.
Well, I mean through the WCS season 1, you'd hardly see a page of the entire 100 page LR thread without an Aligulac prediction. People would predict groups/brackets with updated results etcetera...
Now, even the original posts of LR threads barely contain Aligulac predictions...
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
Depends on what you consider "neglected". We get a lot more twitter interactions etc. And the occasional "Hey TaeJa is at the highest Aligulac rating ever" on Reddit. But that's it. I stopped doing the BI-weekly write-ups since they took me a great deal of my limited spare time, and we usually only got 5-10 responses so it seemed futile.
Very few seems to have noticed the new awesome postable you can get from the match results of a player. Like: Results for TaeJa after 2013-06-01.
Well, I mean through the WCS season 1, you'd hardly see a page of the entire 100 page LR thread without an Aligulac prediction. People would predict groups/brackets with updated results etcetera...
Now, even the original posts of LR threads barely contain Aligulac predictions...
I know what you mean. We can't force people to use our predictions, even though we try to provide as smooth an experience as we can, and making posting predictions to TL as easy as possible Ultimately we do this for the community, and we hope that they will use it, but it is the individual posters/LR OP's choice.
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
Depends on what you consider "neglected". We get a lot more twitter interactions etc. And the occasional "Hey TaeJa is at the highest Aligulac rating ever" on Reddit. But that's it. I stopped doing the BI-weekly write-ups since they took me a great deal of my limited spare time, and we usually only got 5-10 responses so it seemed futile.
Very few seems to have noticed the new awesome postable you can get from the match results of a player. Like: Results for TaeJa after 2013-06-01.
Well, I mean through the WCS season 1, you'd hardly see a page of the entire 100 page LR thread without an Aligulac prediction. People would predict groups/brackets with updated results etcetera...
Now, even the original posts of LR threads barely contain Aligulac predictions...
I know what you mean. We can't force people to use our predictions, even though we try to provide as smooth an experience as we can, and making posting predictions to TL as easy as possible Ultimately we do this for the community, and we hope that they will use it, but it is the individual posters/LR OP's choice.
Yeah well, I'm just questioning the demise of that trend in hope one might provide me an answer, however it seems there is no apparent reason as to why it's happening.
On November 30 2013 23:03 Abominous wrote: Who else feels Aligulac has been neglected lately? During WCS S1 I've seen Aligulac being spammed all over LR threads for all kinds of scenarios, WCS using it as an official metric etcetera...Now, we just don't see that kind of stuff anymore...
Why? Did I miss something or?
Depends on what you consider "neglected". We get a lot more twitter interactions etc. And the occasional "Hey TaeJa is at the highest Aligulac rating ever" on Reddit. But that's it. I stopped doing the BI-weekly write-ups since they took me a great deal of my limited spare time, and we usually only got 5-10 responses so it seemed futile.
Very few seems to have noticed the new awesome postable you can get from the match results of a player. Like: Results for TaeJa after 2013-06-01.
Well, I mean through the WCS season 1, you'd hardly see a page of the entire 100 page LR thread without an Aligulac prediction. People would predict groups/brackets with updated results etcetera...
Now, even the original posts of LR threads barely contain Aligulac predictions...
I know what you mean. We can't force people to use our predictions, even though we try to provide as smooth an experience as we can, and making posting predictions to TL as easy as possible Ultimately we do this for the community, and we hope that they will use it, but it is the individual posters/LR OP's choice.
Yeah well, I'm just questioning the demise of that trend in hope one might provide me an answer, however it seems there is no apparent reason as to why it's happening.
Anyways, keep up the good work guys!
I suggested incorporating predictions in LR OPs at the time, but most people dismissed the idea because the post structure is already quite busy. As for the fall in number of appearances, I think that it might be just a matter of two things: - Aligulac losing the novelty effect and being primarily recognized as a more reliable and complete TLPD - the absence of liquidbets/fantasy leagues. I think people are more prone to check out the inference service and talk about its predictions when they are themselves trying to think about outcomes.
I was eager to see the ELO performance of TaeJa and was disappointed. But I was also very impressed the instantaneous overall performance rating of 2440, e.g. to see the best performance (eg given at least some minimal count in matches). Is there a way to retrieve data based on this?
Anyway, I looked at INnoVation's performance. Lots of +∞ that make it impossible to compare. I can't help myself thinking that those ratings comparing to expected performance in rational numbers are bogus.
On December 02 2013 19:14 kurosu_ wrote: I was eager to see the ELO performance of TaeJa and was disappointed. But I was also very impressed the instantaneous overall performance rating of 2440, e.g. to see the best performance (eg given at least some minimal count in matches). Is there a way to retrieve data based on this?
Anyway, I looked at INnoVation's performance. Lots of +∞ that make it impossible to compare. I can't help myself thinking that those ratings comparing to expected performance in rational numbers are bogus.
On December 02 2013 19:14 kurosu_ wrote: I was eager to see the ELO performance of TaeJa and was disappointed. But I was also very impressed the instantaneous overall performance rating of 2440, e.g. to see the best performance (eg given at least some minimal count in matches). Is there a way to retrieve data based on this?
Anyway, I looked at INnoVation's performance. Lots of +∞ that make it impossible to compare. I can't help myself thinking that those ratings comparing to expected performance in rational numbers are bogus.
It's not available from the site but you can download the database dump here (click the link). The performance value are stored in the rating table in columns comp_rat, comp_rat_vp, comp_rat_vt and comp_rat_vz. A value of -1000 indicates undefined. To get the integer values as displayed on the site you have to add the value by 1 and multiply by 1000.
On December 02 2013 19:27 Grovbolle wrote: 2 things: 1: Elo, not ELO. 2: We do not use Elo
Well OK, but can we not focus on what I feel is a red herring ? :-)
I'd be more interested in knowing how to retrieve information related to the Whatever performance as seen in each period/list report.
That should be possible with the API which is coming up (and it really is coming up this time, no joke). There's no built-in function for this because I thought the two-week period is rather arbitrary and it sometimes splits in the middle of tournaments.
On December 02 2013 20:21 GreenMash wrote: Are you going to add the newest patch to the Balance report ?
If it seems significant enough. I don't know, I haven't paid attention.
So I looked up Aligulac on my desktop computer and it said jjakji is currently #16, then I looked it up on my phone and it had jjakji at #10 which got me all excited. I had to physically F5 the site on my desktop to get it to show the updated ratings, any insight on why this is?
On December 09 2013 11:35 slowbacontron wrote: So I looked up Aligulac on my desktop computer and it said jjakji is currently #16, then I looked it up on my phone and it had jjakji at #10 which got me all excited. I had to physically F5 the site on my desktop to get it to show the updated ratings, any insight on why this is?
Is there a way to search how many mirror match-ups are played per month for each race? The number of non-mirror match-ups can be calculated from balance report winrates and sample size, but not mirror ones. It would be really helpful to have a similar graph for mirror MUs. Otherwise, I have to go through all 100 lists to count them all, and that's not ideal as lists are not made monthly... Alternatively, search function like "all ZvZ between Nov.1st and Nov30" would do unless such thing already exists and I'm just dumb.
On December 19 2013 23:10 Orek wrote: Alternatively, search function like "all ZvZ between Nov.1st and Nov30" would do unless such thing already exists and I'm just dumb.
This will only search for current zerg players though. So you might pick up an old ZvP if the P has changed race later, or was offracing or whatever...
I'm trying to get these numbers because , frustrated to see nonsense in balance discussion, I am writing an article on current&historical SC2 balance based on Aligulac data among other things. It seems that the number of mirror games is correlated with the balance. (more PvP when P looks OP from other indicators.) So I thought it would be great to include mirror numbers if possible.
There's a bug in the inference BBCode output for dual-tournament groups: the entries in the name column are in inverted order, so that the probabilities for the most likely to advance are in the same row as the name of the least likely to advance.
I'm trying to get these numbers because , frustrated to see nonsense in balance discussion, I am writing an article on current&historical SC2 balance based on Aligulac data among other things. It seems that the number of mirror games is correlated with the balance. (more PvP when P looks OP from other indicators.) So I thought it would be great to include mirror numbers if possible.
Yes, they won't match. The numbers on /periods/ are the number of games, not matches. Sorry for the confusion!
On December 21 2013 22:18 WigglingSquid wrote: There's a bug in the inference BBCode output for dual-tournament groups: the entries in the name column are in inverted order, so that the probabilities for the most likely to advance are in the same row as the name of the least likely to advance.
I'm trying to get these numbers because , frustrated to see nonsense in balance discussion, I am writing an article on current&historical SC2 balance based on Aligulac data among other things. It seems that the number of mirror games is correlated with the balance. (more PvP when P looks OP from other indicators.) So I thought it would be great to include mirror numbers if possible.
Yes, they won't match. The numbers on /periods/ are the number of games, not matches. Sorry for the confusion!
Does it mean that a single best of 3 series counts as 1 match yet 2 or 3 games? So, if I understand it correctly, the numbers on /periods/ and balance reports are both games, and then the numbers on that API "total count" are matches?
So Aligulac considers them to have happened 1 season before Liquipedia does. D: Should this be changed?
Also, it'd be nice to add the rest of the matches from the first tournament, which isn't complete on Aligulac yet, but the preceding image only has half of those matches. I don't know where to get the other half D:
E: I just realized the image doesn't have scores either Maybe they won't be added then.
On December 30 2013 04:36 Faust852 wrote: Do you count forfeit as a lose ? Didn't know that :o.
A forfeit shouldn't count as a loss, generally it's not included in the database at all. If you see a match in here that wasn't actually played, please point it out so we can correct it!
http://aligulac.com/results/events/23438-Punchline-Winter-Trophy/ I did submit the result without counting Hwangsin vs Hqrdest and Hyun vs GenjiTakiya in. I did specify it in the commentary section, saying they got defwin since Hyun and Hwangsin didn't show up.
Interesting. I don't want to delete them too presumptuously since I'm not the one who approved the matches, but if there's no good explanation for including them they'll probably get deleted soon enough.
On December 30 2013 08:17 Faust852 wrote: http://aligulac.com/results/events/23438-Punchline-Winter-Trophy/ I did submit the result without counting Hwangsin vs Hqrdest and Hyun vs GenjiTakiya in. I did specify it in the commentary section, saying they got defwin since Hyun and Hwangsin didn't show up.
Some filtering options would be really nice. Specifically, options to filter ratings such that only proleague games are counted, or only foreign vs foreign games, or only Korean vs Korean, but really mostly just interested in ratings in a proleague-only filter
Also, is it possible to get aligulac to auto-update based on ladder results and provide an aligulac rating for ladder players, say, in gm and masters? It's an interesting idea, but I assume it would be either challenging or impossible depending on what data's available.
On January 13 2014 03:13 CutTheEnemy wrote: Some filtering options would be really nice. Specifically, options to filter ratings such that only proleague games are counted, or only foreign vs foreign games, or only Korean vs Korean, but really mostly just interested in ratings in a proleague-only filter
Also, is it possible to get aligulac to auto-update based on ladder results and provide an aligulac rating for ladder players, say, in gm and masters? It's an interesting idea, but I assume it would be either challenging or impossible depending on what data's available.
You want a rating that ONLY counts proleague games? That would not really be that interesting due to the relative small sample size, anything other than simple win%'s would be more or less useless.
With regards to ladderratings, I'm not sure how interesting this would be:
Personally I think the GM ladder shows what you want to see already. Not sure on what types of data can be pulled from battle.net though.
On January 13 2014 03:13 CutTheEnemy wrote: Some filtering options would be really nice. Specifically, options to filter ratings such that only proleague games are counted, or only foreign vs foreign games, or only Korean vs Korean, but really mostly just interested in ratings in a proleague-only filter
Recomputing ratings is a nontrivial problem and takes a fair amount of time. If we want to provide such filters we have to account for all the options and have the numbers ready ahead of time. Right now the ratings are refreshed every six hours and it takes about 20-30 minutes each time (maybe about 10-20 of that is in actual rating updates). In addition to that I feel the idea kind of cheapens the idea of the rating system in the first place. The main rating loses some value if people can cherrypick parameters to make it show what they want it to show.
In short, it's doable with some work, but not on a large scale and frankly I'm not so keen on the idea.
We don't know yet. The error was "Too many open files" but we don't know why. We need to wait for it to (almost) happen again to see which process is leaking file descriptors.
Hey guys, I'm wondering about another thing now. When a player has a "performance" rating for a period, his/her overall performance rating is a straight average of the vP, vT, and vZ ratings but in my opinion it should be a weighted average based on the number of games they played in vP, vT, and vZ each.
For example: see Dear's page http://aligulac.com/players/1659-Dear/period/104/ As of now, 10:36 February 15 (the page will change soon), Dear's overall performance rating is 1881, which is an average of 1869 vP, 1688 vT, and 2086 vZ. However, I think it would be more accurate if his overall performance rating was 1852, which is (1869*5 games vP+1688*12 games vT+2086*8 games vZ)/(5+12+8).
Now that I think about it, the practice of taking a straight average between vP, vT, and vZ ratings to form the overall rating has been a staple of Aligulac for a long time. I've generally thought this to be okay since SC2 is made to have 3 races equally represented, but now I'm wrestling with trying to figure out which way is a better representation of a player's overall skill. I mean, overall rating doesn't affect predictions which is a large part of Aligulac's appeal, but it does affect the ranking lists, which is another large part of Aligulac's appeal. Again, I don't even know if weighing the overall average is better or not, but I think it's worth discussion.
Side note, jjakji's current overall rating would be 2090 either way :D
On February 15 2014 20:09 slowbacontron wrote: Hey guys, I'm wondering about another thing now. When a player has a "performance" rating for a period, his/her overall performance rating is a straight average of the vP, vT, and vZ ratings but in my opinion it should be a weighted average based on the number of games they played in vP, vT, and vZ each.
For example: see Dear's page http://aligulac.com/players/1659-Dear/period/104/ As of now, 10:36 February 15 (the page will change soon), Dear's overall performance rating is 1881, which is an average of 1869 vP, 1688 vT, and 2086 vZ. However, I think it would be more accurate if his overall performance rating was 1852, which is (1869*5 games vP+1688*12 games vT+2086*8 games vZ)/(5+12+8).
Now that I think about it, the practice of taking a straight average between vP, vT, and vZ ratings to form the overall rating has been a staple of Aligulac for a long time. I've generally thought this to be okay since SC2 is made to have 3 races equally represented, but now I'm wrestling with trying to figure out which way is a better representation of a player's overall skill. I mean, overall rating doesn't affect predictions which is a large part of Aligulac's appeal, but it does affect the ranking lists, which is another large part of Aligulac's appeal. Again, I don't even know if weighing the overall average is better or not, but I think it's worth discussion.
Side note, jjakji's current overall rating would be 2090 either way :D
You have a point. Basically only the race-specific ratings matter from a methodical point of view, and taking the average to give the “real” rating rests on the assumption that over a reasonable period of time most people will face a uniform distribution of opponents. For performance ratings, again, the overall one doesn't really matter, but the uniformity assumption can fail.
Great, thanks! I was talking with MoP recently about how even Aligulac earnings is becoming a force to be reckoned with, almost definitely the best earnings database for SC2. These developments are really cool to see!
Thanks for the earnings page fix! That's super great. One tiny thing I'd like, if possible, on that page is a page counter and turner on the bottom like there is in the ratings rankings.
As for this next topic I will mention, I apologize because I know it's been discussed many times and I might have even brought it up myself but forgotten the answer. What is going on in cases like this where Soulkey had a vastly higher performance rating (overall performance, not matchup specific) than his original rating but still ended up losing points? Does it have anything to do with online vs. offline games?
On February 25 2014 16:56 slowbacontron wrote: Thanks for the earnings page fix! That's super great. One tiny thing I'd like, if possible, on that page is a page counter and turner on the bottom like there is in the ratings rankings.
As for this next topic I will mention, I apologize because I know it's been discussed many times and I might have even brought it up myself but forgotten the answer. What is going on in cases like this where Soulkey had a vastly higher performance rating (overall performance, not matchup specific) than his original rating but still ended up losing points? Does it have anything to do with online vs. offline games?
You can't really sum the performance like we do, you have to look at each specific case. Just looking at it, you see his ZvZ was so bad that even though his ZvP and ZvT were positive, he still lost points overall. Personally I think you could remove the Expected score vs. Actual score on the last line, since it leads to misunderstandings like this.
Cool, thanks. Looking at the results and contrasting with the expected scores, as well as the performance rating, I'm led to expect that he would have gained more points from his vT record than lost from his vZ record. So I think there's confusion one could have.
There's a tiny mistake in the Proleague Match predictions. When you scroll down to the TL/Reddit postable predictions, for example in this or this, the probability of the first team winning is pasted in both its own spot and in the spot where the probability of the other team winning should be.
On March 01 2014 14:23 slowbacontron wrote: There's a tiny mistake in the Proleague Match predictions. When you scroll down to the TL/Reddit postable predictions, for example in this or this, the probability of the first team winning is pasted in both its own spot and in the spot where the probability of the other team winning should be.
I'm having difficulty placing more than one bye in my predicitons with the new system of adding players to a prediction. the byes just stop being placed in that grey box or refuse to stay where they are
On April 02 2014 18:16 xYc wrote: I'm having difficulty placing more than one bye in my predicitons with the new system of adding players to a prediction. the byes just stop being placed in that grey box or refuse to stay where they are
I don't understand the team ranking columns so I'd appreciate some sort of hover for explanation. It's specifically all-kill score and proleague score I have no idea what it means.
I'm really sorry about all the slowness and sporadic errors we've had lately. None of us are typical admin types and it's kind of touch and go over here.
If I need to change a match (some dates in this case) is there a way to do it without wading through a few pages at a time in the admin matches interface (the search function is very limited)?
On May 03 2014 13:17 RPR_Tempest wrote: If I need to change a match (some dates in this case) is there a way to do it without wading through a few pages at a time in the admin matches interface (the search function is very limited)?
I've been to the aligulac site so many times, I find it interesting to see how it portrays players before matches.
Stork is 63% or so to beat Ruin in bo3, as I type this
Anyway, So aligulac's been around a long time. Overall, how accurate has it been for predicting matches? Is there a metric or a breakdown you could give us for whether results have mostly fallen within range or not? Do you feel that aligulac more or less accurately presents the top 40ish players so far?
I'm curious about whether the non-korean region players hanging out in the top 40 is a sign of region equality or whether its an anomaly of the rating system
On May 07 2014 21:13 CutTheEnemy wrote:Overall, how accurate has it been for predicting matches?
This question has been answered a number of times and the short answer is : almost perfect (Feb 2013)
Series where a player has 51% of winning the series see the winner being said player 51% of the time. This rule applies up until around a prediction of 80%. After that, predictions and outcomes greatly differ and the model isn't as precise. My interpretation is that players have their skill accurately measured one compared the others as long as their ratings are in a similar bracket (thus not a very high winrate for one or the other participant in a series)
So, I was searching for this guy and his page appears to have been deleted? Missing from the cached page is also a 2-1 win over me and as of yet not in the database tourny that happened today.
So, I was searching for this guy and his page appears to have been deleted? Missing from the cached page is also a 2-1 win over me and as of yet not in the database tourny that happened today.
This is being fixed as I write this. Thanks for reporting it.
I look at your lists from time to time and noticed lately that the number of TvTs drops quite hard compared to the other mirrors. Terran representation seems to drop of in rated games.
Would it be possible to add a few more balance related stats to your page? The race distribution in recorded games can be calculated quite easily with the stats provided in your Lists (Sum of the games with the race against another race + mirror counted twice devided by the total number of games *2).
For List 111 for example terran is at 24.2%, toss at 32.8% and zerg 43.0%. (The total number for games is off BTW!!; its 2086 not 2053)
It would be quite interesting to have a plot similar to the winrates over time with race distribution instead.
It would also be nice to see how many players from each race are active in each "list period". A value for "recorded games per active player" for each race might also indicate how far certain races make it on average in tournaments.
On June 18 2014 01:03 TheBB wrote: Sure you can. It doesn't (necessarily) have to be so hard either. Helps if you know your way around Python and Linux terminal, though.
I'll PM you my Skype.
Yeah i added you. Talk to you soon Never done Python but i'm PHP programmer so i know my way around that kind of stuff and i have a colleague that do Python Thanks. Talk to you soon.
So I look at Aligulac from time to time and I think it's a great tool nonetheless there's something that still bugs me and I don't seem to find an answer anywhere: why maps are not added in the database? is it planned to be added? or not compatible with the structure of Aligulac? Sometimes I find myself wanted to know how a player has been doing a certain map and unfortunately Aligulac doesn't provide this information.
On June 19 2014 21:52 McCane wrote: So I look at Aligulac from time to time and I think it's a great tool nonetheless there's something that still bugs me and I don't seem to find an answer anywhere: why maps are not added in the database? is it planned to be added? or not compatible with the structure of Aligulac? Sometimes I find myself wanted to know how a player has been doing a certain map and unfortunately Aligulac doesn't provide this information.
It is not planned to be added as it will up the amount of work required by a factor of 3-7. It will also require a massive effort to go through the backlog of matches to add maps, something which we have neither the resources nor the database structure to support. Finally, a lot of organizers aren't making this information easily available, while Liquipedia have been pretty good at this with some of the larger tourneys, a lot of the medium and smaller tourneys simply aren't making this information easily available.
On June 19 2014 21:52 McCane wrote: So I look at Aligulac from time to time and I think it's a great tool nonetheless there's something that still bugs me and I don't seem to find an answer anywhere: why maps are not added in the database? is it planned to be added? or not compatible with the structure of Aligulac? Sometimes I find myself wanted to know how a player has been doing a certain map and unfortunately Aligulac doesn't provide this information.
It is not planned to be added as it will up the amount of work required by a factor of 3-7. It will also require a massive effort to go through the backlog of matches to add maps, something which we have neither the resources nor the database structure to support. Finally, a lot of organizers aren't making this information easily available, while Liquipedia have been pretty good at this with some of the larger tourneys, a lot of the medium and smaller tourneys simply aren't making this information easily available.
On June 01 2014 09:20 submarine wrote: I look at your lists from time to time and noticed lately that the number of TvTs drops quite hard compared to the other mirrors. Terran representation seems to drop of in rated games.
Would it be possible to add a few more balance related stats to your page? The race distribution in recorded games can be calculated quite easily with the stats provided in your Lists (Sum of the games with the race against another race + mirror counted twice devided by the total number of games *2).
For List 111 for example terran is at 24.2%, toss at 32.8% and zerg 43.0%. (The total number for games is off BTW!!; its 2086 not 2053)
It would be quite interesting to have a plot similar to the winrates over time with race distribution instead.
It would also be nice to see how many players from each race are active in each "list period". A value for "recorded games per active player" for each race might also indicate how far certain races make it on average in tournaments.
On June 01 2014 09:20 submarine wrote: I look at your lists from time to time and noticed lately that the number of TvTs drops quite hard compared to the other mirrors. Terran representation seems to drop of in rated games.
Would it be possible to add a few more balance related stats to your page? The race distribution in recorded games can be calculated quite easily with the stats provided in your Lists (Sum of the games with the race against another race + mirror counted twice devided by the total number of games *2).
For List 111 for example terran is at 24.2%, toss at 32.8% and zerg 43.0%. (The total number for games is off BTW!!; its 2086 not 2053)
It would be quite interesting to have a plot similar to the winrates over time with race distribution instead.
It would also be nice to see how many players from each race are active in each "list period". A value for "recorded games per active player" for each race might also indicate how far certain races make it on average in tournaments.
Just some food for thought :D
So?
I think we all missed your post for some reason. I have brought it to the attention of our developers and once the new design is fully stabilized we will consider your input for sure
Honestly, I used to be a big fan of the predictions made by Aligulac. And I guess that it works mostly very well.
But I don't think that the rankings currently make much sense. The cross-region gap is simple still too strong for the algorithms to handle currently. Yes, ForGG crushes the european scene again and again. But in no way is he ranked 6th in the world. Same thing applies for all the strong Koreans in non-KR regions.
The good thing is that 95% of the matches are correctly predicted, because 95% of the matches are between players of a same region. And I have 100% confidence in the fact that Innovation trounces EU. But I am highly unsure that Innovation currently deserves his spot as #1 player in the world while soo languishes at #28
This new look is going to be hard to get used to. Not saying I don't like it, its just different.
On July 01 2014 05:11 fezvez wrote:
But I don't think that the rankings currently make much sense. The cross-region gap is simple still too strong for the algorithms to handle currently. Yes, ForGG crushes the european scene again and again. But in no way is he ranked 6th in the world. Same thing applies for all the strong Koreans in non-KR regions.
The good thing is that 95% of the matches are correctly predicted, because 95% of the matches are between players of a same region. And I have 100% confidence in the fact that Innovation trounces EU. But I am highly unsure that Innovation currently deserves his spot as #1 player in the world while soo languishes at #28
I cant think of an easy way to fix this, because players like soO rarely play outside of GSL and Proleague, so they are always facing the top of the top competition. So soO isnt going to win all his matchs, so he wont gain points quickly, even if you weighted those matchs higher. When Inno goes 28-4 in ATC, he gains a ton of points because hes not losing, regardless of how much those matchs are worth. Same thing with KingKong in the SEA scene, or jjakji and ForGG in EU. Unless there was a limit on if you can gain points off people dramatically lower rated than you. That would make it so KingKong cant get a 1950 rating by smashing people rated 1100 all day.
We are aware of these issues and we are in fact working on a method of fixing them. However we run internal tests on the entire DB to see the results and so far we haven't found a solution we are happy with.
We are not gonna change the entire method of calculation before we are certain the new method is an improvement, but trust me we are working on it.
On June 01 2014 09:20 submarine wrote: I look at your lists from time to time and noticed lately that the number of TvTs drops quite hard compared to the other mirrors. Terran representation seems to drop of in rated games.
Would it be possible to add a few more balance related stats to your page? The race distribution in recorded games can be calculated quite easily with the stats provided in your Lists (Sum of the games with the race against another race + mirror counted twice devided by the total number of games *2).
For List 111 for example terran is at 24.2%, toss at 32.8% and zerg 43.0%. (The total number for games is off BTW!!; its 2086 not 2053)
It would be quite interesting to have a plot similar to the winrates over time with race distribution instead.
It would also be nice to see how many players from each race are active in each "list period". A value for "recorded games per active player" for each race might also indicate how far certain races make it on average in tournaments.
Just some food for thought :D
Hey, sorry.
Yeah, this is a good idea. I've made an issue for it. We've been busy with a few other things lately though.
On July 01 2014 05:11 fezvez wrote: Nice new formatting
Honestly, I used to be a big fan of the predictions made by Aligulac. And I guess that it works mostly very well.
But I don't think that the rankings currently make much sense. The cross-region gap is simple still too strong for the algorithms to handle currently. Yes, ForGG crushes the european scene again and again. But in no way is he ranked 6th in the world. Same thing applies for all the strong Koreans in non-KR regions.
The good thing is that 95% of the matches are correctly predicted, because 95% of the matches are between players of a same region. And I have 100% confidence in the fact that Innovation trounces EU. But I am highly unsure that Innovation currently deserves his spot as #1 player in the world while soo languishes at #28
Like the other two are saying, there's not really an obvious way to solve this problem, and most of the non-obvious ones turns out to be less effective than you might think. We have a number of prototype systems but they're not near production quality, really.
Like you say, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
This might be too much computation, but I think it would be cool if you simulated a player playing every other player in long series, and then ranking the players on the estimated number of wins, or a weighted score based on how likely they are to win.
Hey, can we have the option of choosing between the old look and the new one? I don't know anything about web design, but that wouldn't be too much of an issue I don't think
On July 03 2014 14:07 CrazyPieGuy wrote: This might be too much computation, but I think it would be cool if you simulated a player playing every other player in long series, and then ranking the players on the estimated number of wins, or a weighted score based on how likely they are to win.
This seems a bit redundant, because the predictions are based on the ratings, which already are ranked.
On July 04 2014 07:11 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Hey, can we have the option of choosing between the old look and the new one? I don't know anything about web design, but that wouldn't be too much of an issue I don't think
I'm afraid not, we made a lot of changes to make it easier for us to develop new features. It would be better if you could post any suggestions you have of possible improvements.
Hello . . . I have noticed that after you select the rankings, and then select current if you select the 2nd page, it has another 1-40 ranking instead of 41-80 :D and Holy Sh*t TaeJa ^^
with the previous version i was able to navigate on my work this web page, but now i cant see the menu at all...
can you fix that please? i mean in my work many page are blocked, this one with the previous version was fine but now i cant see any thing just the main page.
On July 05 2014 05:35 Greenei wrote: When I'm on the prediction page and I take for example ruin and there is a possible confusion, I can no longer just click on the suggested players.
Noted.
On July 05 2014 05:58 SC2BF3Love wrote: with the previous version i was able to navigate on my work this web page, but now i cant see the menu at all...
can you fix that please? i mean in my work many page are blocked, this one with the previous version was fine but now i cant see any thing just the main page.
Can you elaborate? The menu isn't visible at all? Can you take a screen shot and upload?
On July 05 2014 05:58 SC2BF3Love wrote: with the previous version i was able to navigate on my work this web page, but now i cant see the menu at all...
can you fix that please? i mean in my work many page are blocked, this one with the previous version was fine but now i cant see any thing just the main page.
Are you sure you completely refreshed the page? You might have an issue with cached files.
I pushed a bunch of fixes now. Please file an issue report if I missed something. Things piled up over the weekend and I'm not sure if I caught all reports because they're all here, on Skype in 50 million different conversations or on Github, where they're supposed to be .
Hey guys, Ourk just made a jump from 1400 to 1800 by beating a bunch of players with a rating less than 1000. I think something might have gone wrong there.
On July 22 2014 19:32 Xoronius wrote: Hey guys, Ourk just made a jump from 1400 to 1800 by beating a bunch of players with a rating less than 1000. I think something might have gone wrong there.
Not anything more wrong than all the other times this happens, unfortunately.
The new design has a bit too much light for me. This white and light and flashy thing jumps into my eyes and wants to burn them. Okay, not really, but as beautiful and cool the new page is (even though i need serious long-term acceptance work), i would like a SLIGHTLY darker background, something like light grey or milky white or sth like that, but not full white.
Thanks for reading and wishing you a beautiful day.
On July 28 2014 17:15 Taari wrote: The new design has a bit too much light for me. This white and light and flashy thing jumps into my eyes and wants to burn them. Okay, not really, but as beautiful and cool the new page is (even though i need serious long-term acceptance work), i would like a SLIGHTLY darker background, something like light grey or milky white or sth like that, but not full white.
Thanks for reading and wishing you a beautiful day.
It is indeed a bit bright (and the links used to be even brighter). Your comment has been noted but we might not change anything. We'll see
On August 05 2014 00:41 Team .SCA wrote: Is there anyway I (or general public) can help contribute to Aligulac? I know I could definitely help keep semipro team rosters updated.
Yes, by doing what you did now. Send me a PM and I'll invite you to our chat.
Well, in case any Danes care, I finished the first iteration of the Danish translation which will be improved over the next couple of weeks until I feel it's perfect. Feel free to suggest changes and better translations.
On August 13 2014 04:29 KalWarkov wrote: can anyone enlighten me as to why ourk is rank 7 amongst foreigners? this has to be a mistake
"And for those of you who are giving up on our rating system, we are working on it. There's a reasonably promising modification in the pipeline which I hope will not be too long off." - From the frontpage.
He basically destroyed some completely unknown players at a LAN and gained a shitton of points. Sacsri is also pretty overrated right now.
How does aliguliac work? Is it some sort of Bayesian inference about player's skill distribution based on observed wins and loses? I would like to see the underlying graphical model.
On August 27 2014 13:42 Loccstana wrote: How does aliguliac work? Is it some sort of Bayesian inference about player's skill distribution based on observed wins and loses? I would like to see the underlying graphical model.
On March 06 2014 06:34 slowbacontron wrote: Thanks for notifying! Is the other Cereal also a Canadian Zerg, or else do you know his race+ nationality?
They should both be Canadian, I believe.
All right, cool. We can definitely split you guys up into different player pages, but we gotta know the other Cereal's SC2 race.
Should both be Zerg too.
Before Cereal played vs Revolution, it was just San vs CeReal in the database, where CeReal was a Canadian Zerg.
I (Cereal) also happen to be a Canadian Zerg.
All right, I've split up the matches into different players. We'll make do with what we have for now.
I'm going to win an award for slowest response, but the usernames are switched on the site.
Unrelated, there was a local LAN here recently, not many known players, only maximusblack. Is that a valid tournament to submit to the site?
We are kinda split in our views about this over at Aligulac. To some extent, we all agree that the DB should be as complete as possible. Th eonly problem right now is that the rating ystem is not perfect, and er are afraid of taht adding a bunch of low rated players some players might get artificially high ratings. Until the system manages this in a better way, I think we'll be a bit reluctant adding every single small tournament out there.
But hey, submit the results and you might see it on Aligulac. Higher chance than if you dont submit anyway ;D
In the section "Jours depuis que", you translated CIS by "Etats indépendants du Commonwealth". In french, we'd rather use "Communauté des États indépendants" or "Confédération des États indépendants" to talk about these former soviet republics. Same section, you're translating "Mvp won a premier event" by "Mvp a gagné son premier tournoi principal" instead of "Mvp a gagné son dernier tournoi principal"
On August 13 2014 04:29 KalWarkov wrote: can anyone enlighten me as to why ourk is rank 7 amongst foreigners? this has to be a mistake
"And for those of you who are giving up on our rating system, we are working on it. There's a reasonably promising modification in the pipeline which I hope will not be too long off." - From the frontpage.
He basically destroyed some completely unknown players at a LAN and gained a shitton of points. Sacsri is also pretty overrated right now.
YoDa is also farming a lot of players in online cups. Maybe the players are still gaining too many points from beating people of much lower rating. In some cases it's players that's about 1000 points lower rating being farmed in these online cups.
I was just wondering if you had noticed that literally every single "top 5 highest ratings ever" was achieved since April 2014 under the all race section. Do you think it's really likely that the most dominating players have been seen since April 2014 this year, or is this just an uncontrolled inflation of ratings? I know that there's no point decay system here so does this contribute to this problem?
Personally I would have loved to see the most statistically dominating players across time, but the highest ratings of all time basically turns out to be who's the hottest player in recent memory. I know the HoF basically performs this function, but it's less easy to compare between players/specific periods in time this way!
Things I expected to see in highest ratings of all time 1. MVP's dominating TvT in the early days 2. MVP in general 3. Stephano's ZvP at his peak 4. MMA's TvZ during Slayers era
On November 18 2014 10:04 edwahn wrote: Hi guys, long time fan of this site.
I was just wondering if you had noticed that literally every single "top 5 highest ratings ever" was achieved since April 2014 under the all race section. Do you think it's really likely that the most dominating players have been seen since April 2014 this year, or is this just an uncontrolled inflation of ratings? I know that there's no point decay system here so does this contribute to this problem?
Personally I would have loved to see the most statistically dominating players across time, but the highest ratings of all time basically turns out to be who's the hottest player in recent memory. I know the HoF basically performs this function, but it's less easy to compare between players/specific periods in time this way!
Things I expected to see in highest ratings of all time 1. MVP's dominating TvT in the early days 2. MVP in general 3. Stephano's ZvP at his peak 4. MMA's TvZ during Slayers era
etc
Thanks guys and keep up the good work!
This is indeed a problem with rating inflation and it's kind of sad. It is caused by a combination of things like good players playing more games than bad players and so on. The fix we are working (slowly) on will hopefully fix some of this but I don't expect us to be able to solve this problem completely.
We do have a kind of decay, deviation decay. Each period we increase the uncertainty of the rating.
Can we allow an "event" (I mean the type "event") to be a sub-branch of another "event"?
Currently "category" can be put under another "category" and "round" can also be a sub-branch of anther "round", while "event" is the only type that is impossible to be organized in this way.
The problem is: many tournaments have qualifiers, where each qualifier can be considered an "event".
For example: It is an intuitive feeling that "IEM Season IX Toronto" is an "event", but then "IEM Season IX Toronto Qualifier" and "IEM Season IX Toronto Main Tournament" can only be of type "round". I do not think it is a good idea.
There are 2 sections showing "IEM Season IX Toronto", which is really confusing.
If we change the type of the entire event of IEM Season IX Toronto to "category", then the first "IEM Season IX Toronto" will be changed to "IEM Season IX Toronto Qualifier", which is much easier to understand and navigate. But I do not think IEM Season IX Toronto can be considered a "category", while is reasonable that IEM and IEM Season IX are both of type "category".
So I am wondering if we could also allow an "event" contains another "event".
On March 04 2015 20:09 freeamount wrote: I have to raise this question:
Can we allow an "event" (I mean the type "event") to be a sub-branch of another "event"?
Currently "category" can be put under another "category" and "round" can also be a sub-branch of anther "round", while "event" is the only type that is impossible to be organized in this way.
The problem is: many tournaments have qualifiers, where each qualifier can be considered an "event".
For example: It is an intuitive feeling that "IEM Season IX Toronto" is an "event", but then "IEM Season IX Toronto Qualifier" and "IEM Season IX Toronto Main Tournament" can only be of type "round". I do not think it is a good idea.
There are 2 sections showing "IEM Season IX Toronto", which is really confusing.
If we change the type of the entire event of IEM Season IX Toronto to "category", then the first "IEM Season IX Toronto" will be changed to "IEM Season IX Toronto Qualifier", which is much easier to understand and navigate. But I do not think IEM Season IX Toronto can be considered a "category", while is reasonable that IEM and IEM Season IX are both of type "category".
So I am wondering if we could also allow an "event" contains another "event".
I get what you're saying. The problem here is that we make some assumptions regarding events that might break if we were to change it. I've been thinking about it before and I don't feel satisfied with the way it works right now. Unfortunately we are all very busy at the moment so not a lot is being worked on. Thanks for bringing this to our attention though.
On March 04 2015 21:06 Dumbledore wrote: Nay I ask how you got the database of games? o.o
In a players "Match History" tab you can now sort results based on WCS tiers and 1st/3rd party organizers! http://aligulac.com/players/5-PartinG/results/ Check out the "WCS Tier" dropdown menu at the bottom of the search fields.
A new story has been added when a player attends their first event as a caster (credit to Snute).
On April 04 2015 18:05 hewo wrote: changes 04.04.15
In a players "Match History" tab you can now sort results based on WCS tiers and 1st/3rd party organizers! http://aligulac.com/players/5-PartinG/results/ Check out the "WCS Tier" dropdown menu at the bottom of the search fields.
A new story has been added when a player attends their first event as a caster (credit to Snute).
I am wondering why some balance updates are NOT indicated in the Rating History Diagram?
I understand there could be some balance updates are more important, but it would not be the reason that we ignore other ones.
List of balance updates NOT shown in Aligulac:
Patch 2.0.11 BU 20 August 2013 Patch 2.0.9 20 June 2013 Patch 2.0.8 BU 13 May 2013 Patch 1.5.4 15 January 2013 Patch 1.5.3 BU 4 December 2012 Patch 1.4.3 BU 10 May 2012 Patch 1.4.2 8 November 2011 Patch 1.3.3 10 May 2011 Patch 1.2.0 10 January 2011 Patch 1.1.3 9 November 2010 Patch 1.1.2 14 October 2010 Patch 1.1.0 21 September 2010
On April 15 2015 23:11 freeamount wrote: I am wondering why some balance updates are NOT indicated in the Rating History Diagram?
I understand there could be some balance updates are more important, but it would not be the reason that we ignore other ones.
List of balance updates NOT shown in Aligulac:
Patch 2.0.11 BU 20 August 2013 Patch 2.0.9 20 June 2013 Patch 2.0.8 BU 13 May 2013 Patch 1.5.4 15 January 2013 Patch 1.5.3 BU 4 December 2012 Patch 1.4.3 BU 10 May 2012 Patch 1.4.2 8 November 2011 Patch 1.3.3 10 May 2011 Patch 1.2.0 10 January 2011 Patch 1.1.3 9 November 2010 Patch 1.1.2 14 October 2010 Patch 1.1.0 21 September 2010
Thanks, but we are already aware of this. We were only planning on including "big" changes. Obviously, this feels a bit to arbitrary for a site that works with statistics and we will try to figure out a way of including all of the patches without making the graphs look too cluttered.
No longer crashes on some player pages when not using English
The ordinals will now display correctly in French
After changing language you will be redirected to the page you where on when you clicked the button.
If you find any issues or have suggestions, please post them here or on the project's issue tracker on GitHub. I've finally finished my exams so I can start working on this again.
On May 27 2015 22:56 daddykoopa wrote: In the balance report, can you show winrate plots for regions as well? For example, the europe and korea plots separately?
This is very hard to do because there is no clear definition of a region. You can see the winrates for individual events, like SSL or GSL by checking their respective event pages.
I would be glad to have an option to submit general changes/proposes, not just matches.
For example, Team changes (atm Showtime, Kane) are very slowly put into the rankings. It would be nice, if we can have a possibility to change that. I hope my english is not too bad to understand, what i mean.
On July 09 2015 22:52 Prillan wrote: Just finished some updates:
No longer crashes on some player pages when not using English
The ordinals will now display correctly in French
After changing language you will be redirected to the page you where on when you clicked the button.
If you find any issues or have suggestions, please post them here or on the project's issue tracker on GitHub. I've finally finished my exams so I can start working on this again.
On July 10 2015 00:38 Taari wrote: I would be glad to have an option to submit general changes/proposes, not just matches.
For example, Team changes (atm Showtime, Kane) are very slowly put into the rankings. It would be nice, if we can have a possibility to change that. I hope my english is not too bad to understand, what i mean.
We have been thinking about some kind of report functionality. If we implement it I'll make sure to include team changes in it.
Hey man, I was just wondering how Byun got number 10 in Aligulac? I thought that there would be a system which would take into consideration the opponents skill level when determining the increase to the ELO. At least the tier in which the players are playing, i.e., low tier = .3; mid tier =.6; top tier = 1. This could work as a function of WCS points administered. It would be helpful as given the recent region blocks, or at least attempts at region blocking, it would not be so skewed towards Koreans.
I've noticed your post
Do you weigh games differently? No, I don't. Korean tournaments and players receive no special treatment. The GSL is difficult because good players play there; the players aren't good because they play in the GSL. (Huh?)...
When fitting the model (deciding which parameters to use) I also don't weigh games differently, but this is something we're looking into. Since the database contains an overwhelming majority of non-Korean games, the system will tend to adapt to the non-Korean scene. We've noticed, however, that most people using the service are interested in the Koreans. We are still working on a useful solution to this problem.
Couldn't you control for non-Korean versus Korean in your statistical model? Just create binary variable and use in ANOVA or Regression. Not weighting the system is far from ideal, nevertheless, super job! You guys are heros!
You know it's funny, I used to lament the death of ESV, EWM and KSL, but it seems that Korean pros simply don't give a shit anymore about online tournaments. You can see that in the turnout for Olimoleague... Can't really fault ByuN for his choices, he sees the easy money. Beat, at most, one B-tier has-been Zerg like BboongBboong for $75? Sounds like a good deal.
@PickyProtoss:
As the quote you've pasted says, we're still looking into it and trying to come up with a good solution. It's been brought up many times and ByuN is only the latest in a surprisingly long list of players who got into the top 10 by farming relatively low level opponents.
But rest assured we are still discussing it, and it's not a lack of ideas that's the problem.
As a tangent, and this is only my personal opinion, not that of the team, WCS points are fucking worthless for measuring skill. We already have our own rating, we'd probably use that for any kind of "tier" system or indeed any other means of preventing this kind of farming.
On July 16 2015 04:59 PickyProtoss wrote: Hey man, I was just wondering how Byun got number 10 in Aligulac? I thought that there would be a system which would take into consideration the opponents skill level when determining the increase to the ELO. At least the tier in which the players are playing, i.e., low tier = .3; mid tier =.6; top tier = 1. This could work as a function of WCS points administered. It would be helpful as given the recent region blocks, or at least attempts at region blocking, it would not be so skewed towards Koreans.
I've noticed your post
Do you weigh games differently? No, I don't. Korean tournaments and players receive no special treatment. The GSL is difficult because good players play there; the players aren't good because they play in the GSL. (Huh?)...
When fitting the model (deciding which parameters to use) I also don't weigh games differently, but this is something we're looking into. Since the database contains an overwhelming majority of non-Korean games, the system will tend to adapt to the non-Korean scene. We've noticed, however, that most people using the service are interested in the Koreans. We are still working on a useful solution to this problem.
Couldn't you control for non-Korean versus Korean in your statistical model? Just create binary variable and use in ANOVA or Regression. Not weighting the system is far from ideal, nevertheless, super job! You guys are heros!
You make it sound so simple, yet it isn't.
Keep in mind the system does consider the difference in skill level when distributing points. It is a tradeoff between having the ranking adapt faster to monster performances and not allowing people to farm too many lower tier players.
You know it's funny, I used to lament the death of ESV, EWM and KSL, but it seems that Korean pros simply don't give a shit anymore about online tournaments. You can see that in the turnout for Olimoleague... Can't really fault ByuN for his choices, he sees the easy money. Beat, at most, one B-tier has-been Zerg like BboongBboong for $75? Sounds like a good deal.
@PickyProtoss:
As the quote you've pasted says, we're still looking into it and trying to come up with a good solution. It's been brought up many times and ByuN is only the latest in a surprisingly long list of players who got into the top 10 by farming relatively low level opponents.
But rest assured we are still discussing it, and it's not a lack of ideas that's the problem.
As a tangent, and this is only my personal opinion, not that of the team, WCS points are fucking worthless for measuring skill. We already have our own rating, we'd probably use that for any kind of "tier" system or indeed any other means of preventing this kind of farming.
For sure, I appreciate your efforts, in particular the inference system. Super work!
On July 16 2015 04:59 PickyProtoss wrote: Hey man, I was just wondering how Byun got number 10 in Aligulac? I thought that there would be a system which would take into consideration the opponents skill level when determining the increase to the ELO. At least the tier in which the players are playing, i.e., low tier = .3; mid tier =.6; top tier = 1. This could work as a function of WCS points administered. It would be helpful as given the recent region blocks, or at least attempts at region blocking, it would not be so skewed towards Koreans.
I've noticed your post
Do you weigh games differently? No, I don't. Korean tournaments and players receive no special treatment. The GSL is difficult because good players play there; the players aren't good because they play in the GSL. (Huh?)...
When fitting the model (deciding which parameters to use) I also don't weigh games differently, but this is something we're looking into. Since the database contains an overwhelming majority of non-Korean games, the system will tend to adapt to the non-Korean scene. We've noticed, however, that most people using the service are interested in the Koreans. We are still working on a useful solution to this problem.
Couldn't you control for non-Korean versus Korean in your statistical model? Just create binary variable and use in ANOVA or Regression. Not weighting the system is far from ideal, nevertheless, super job! You guys are heros!
You make it sound so simple, yet it isn't.
Keep in mind the system does consider the difference in skill level when distributing points. It is a tradeoff between having the ranking adapt faster to monster performances and not allowing people to farm too many lower tier players.
I see your point, however taking the skill level between players can be problematic, because is it the same if Life beats Dream versus Jaedong beating Stardust? Clearly life winning should be given more weight, thus, unless the relative value as compared to the peek score is computed, the absolute difference between the players does not really offer much insight. That being said, I'm sure you guys are super capable and the whole group does a great service to the community. Making sure we don't end-up with a dead game!
When aligulac is broken, I feel like my Starcraft 2 player google is broken. I just sit at my computer with a blank look realizing I will probably never find the answer to my question until aligulac comes back up. =[
On November 18 2014 10:04 edwahn wrote: Hi guys, long time fan of this site.
I was just wondering if you had noticed that literally every single "top 5 highest ratings ever" was achieved since April 2014 under the all race section. Do you think it's really likely that the most dominating players have been seen since April 2014 this year, or is this just an uncontrolled inflation of ratings? I know that there's no point decay system here so does this contribute to this problem?
Personally I would have loved to see the most statistically dominating players across time, but the highest ratings of all time basically turns out to be who's the hottest player in recent memory. I know the HoF basically performs this function, but it's less easy to compare between players/specific periods in time this way!
Things I expected to see in highest ratings of all time 1. MVP's dominating TvT in the early days 2. MVP in general 3. Stephano's ZvP at his peak 4. MMA's TvZ during Slayers era
etc
Thanks guys and keep up the good work!
This is indeed a problem with rating inflation and it's kind of sad. It is caused by a combination of things like good players playing more games than bad players and so on. The fix we are working (slowly) on will hopefully fix some of this but I don't expect us to be able to solve this problem completely.
We do have a kind of decay, deviation decay. Each period we increase the uncertainty of the rating.
The inflation is still going on. I am wondering if there is any approach to fix this, like any normalize solution.
On November 18 2014 10:04 edwahn wrote: Hi guys, long time fan of this site.
I was just wondering if you had noticed that literally every single "top 5 highest ratings ever" was achieved since April 2014 under the all race section. Do you think it's really likely that the most dominating players have been seen since April 2014 this year, or is this just an uncontrolled inflation of ratings? I know that there's no point decay system here so does this contribute to this problem?
Personally I would have loved to see the most statistically dominating players across time, but the highest ratings of all time basically turns out to be who's the hottest player in recent memory. I know the HoF basically performs this function, but it's less easy to compare between players/specific periods in time this way!
Things I expected to see in highest ratings of all time 1. MVP's dominating TvT in the early days 2. MVP in general 3. Stephano's ZvP at his peak 4. MMA's TvZ during Slayers era
etc
Thanks guys and keep up the good work!
This is indeed a problem with rating inflation and it's kind of sad. It is caused by a combination of things like good players playing more games than bad players and so on. The fix we are working (slowly) on will hopefully fix some of this but I don't expect us to be able to solve this problem completely.
We do have a kind of decay, deviation decay. Each period we increase the uncertainty of the rating.
The inflation is still going on. I am wondering if there is any approach to fix this, like any normalize solution.
We are aware. I haven't had any time to work on it. Hopefully that will change as soon as I get back to Sweden.
On August 09 2015 01:07 CtrlAltDefeat wrote: Why does the site have so many issues with downtime?
Because we are only two main developers with very little time to work on the site. One thing we have to do is upgrade the server, which hasn't happened yet. I'm very sorry about all the downtime.
As of yesterday evening, we actually did upgrade the server. Hopefully the downtime problem will be fixed now. At least to some degree until we work out the remaining kinks. So far there haven't really been any, which is wonderful. It went a lot more smoothly than I had expected.
On November 18 2014 10:04 edwahn wrote: Hi guys, long time fan of this site.
I was just wondering if you had noticed that literally every single "top 5 highest ratings ever" was achieved since April 2014 under the all race section. Do you think it's really likely that the most dominating players have been seen since April 2014 this year, or is this just an uncontrolled inflation of ratings? I know that there's no point decay system here so does this contribute to this problem?
Personally I would have loved to see the most statistically dominating players across time, but the highest ratings of all time basically turns out to be who's the hottest player in recent memory. I know the HoF basically performs this function, but it's less easy to compare between players/specific periods in time this way!
Things I expected to see in highest ratings of all time 1. MVP's dominating TvT in the early days 2. MVP in general 3. Stephano's ZvP at his peak 4. MMA's TvZ during Slayers era
etc
Thanks guys and keep up the good work!
The PP system effectively shows MVP overall domination imo.
Yes, we've changed servers, but the DNS still points to the old location. The old server then gateways dynamic content to the new server, but serves static content on its own. This is harmless except for the periodically updated static content, such as the DB dump. We haven't been updating the DNS entries because we've been waiting for a domain transfer, and we underestimated somewhat how long that would take. But it's happened now so the DNS entries should update soon.
On November 06 2015 09:16 fezvez wrote: Consequence of rating inflation : the "Record" pages has a default upper bound of 2500, so INnoVation's rating goes above it
I think you should add error bars to the plots, to make it easier to see what part of the changes are fluctuations, and what isn't. You use a lot of data, so it should be pretty impressive. thanks for your work otherwise, I enjoy it!
We've thought about it before but settled with that the graph would be to cluttered if we tried to include those. But I do want to show the deviation in more places.
On January 20 2016 03:30 saltis wrote: Why Aligulac is not being updated for so long ? It's Balance report is based on old December's stats.
I am 99 % certain that the balance report requires the month to be over before it is added. (i.e since the numbers for January are not yet done since January is still going on)
On September 10 2016 01:57 scoo2r wrote: What is byunnagedon and how did aligulac predict it? It sounds pretty awesome.
For a while in 2015 when ByuN was on a crazy online tournament rampage, he shot up in Aligulac rating and got 1st. Then ByuN starts showing up in LotV, and now we find ourselves with a ByuN v sOs Code S finals
And I call it Byunnageddon to pay homage to ForGGeddon
On September 30 2016 22:34 PlOko00on wrote: I don't know if you guys are still working on it. I was wondering if there is a way or if you could add a way to filter balance stats.
I would like to be able to check the winrate of a specific MU from a specific period in time (from the last balance patch to now for ex).
I would also like to filter it to offline events that happened in korea for example.
Not sure if this is somewhere, but search bar didn't get me any results. Is there a process to remove results that have been submitted? There are some tournaments associated with Rival Gaming In House tournaments that were not supposed to be submitted, as they are treated more like practice than actual competition and is only internal within Rival Gaming teammates.
On October 31 2016 14:19 hawkeye59 wrote: Not sure if this is somewhere, but search bar didn't get me any results. Is there a process to remove results that have been submitted? There are some tournaments associated with Rival Gaming In House tournaments that were not supposed to be submitted, as they are treated more like practice than actual competition and is only internal within Rival Gaming teammates.
I mean, it's hosted like a proper tournament with a prize pool attached, I don't see why it should be any different to other tournaments (plus it was your players that asked for it to added)
On November 16 2016 22:15 Edpayasugo wrote: Hi, I want to find all TvZ matches played on Apothoesis, is there a way to filter submissions to show this please?
Nope, we do not have any kind of map-specific functionality or even map-related stat-tracking. It has come up in the past but our conclusion has always been that the drawbacks greatly outweigh the benefits, and as such it's not something that we plan on or have ever planned on implementing. Sorry.
On November 16 2016 22:15 Edpayasugo wrote: Hi, I want to find all TvZ matches played on Apothoesis, is there a way to filter submissions to show this please?
Nope, we do not have any kind of map-specific functionality or even map-related stat-tracking. It has come up in the past but our conclusion has always been that the drawbacks greatly outweigh the benefits, and as such it's not something that we plan on or have ever planned on implementing. Sorry.
Ok, cool, thanks.
I thought I'd done it before on aligulac or TL, but maybe I didn't.
On November 16 2016 22:15 Edpayasugo wrote: Hi, I want to find all TvZ matches played on Apothoesis, is there a way to filter submissions to show this please?
Nope, we do not have any kind of map-specific functionality or even map-related stat-tracking. It has come up in the past but our conclusion has always been that the drawbacks greatly outweigh the benefits, and as such it's not something that we plan on or have ever planned on implementing. Sorry.
Ok, cool, thanks.
I thought I'd done it before on aligulac or TL, but maybe I didn't.
I found this ranking system totally doesn't make any sense... how come Hydra is higher ranked than someone like Zest, and many other top koreans??? And also, TRUE, when he was in Korea he was ranked really low, and right after he went to foreign scene and won WCS very easily, he became so high ranked......
Just because of moving to foreign scene and winning there a lot doesn't mean you are better than most of other Korean players... There is definitely much gap of difficulty to win a premier tournament between in foreign scene and korea. (not saying skill gap is huge)
Kelazhur is a good terran but he is higher ranked than someone like Ryung, aLive, Polt, and Cure in that website.... and MarineLorD went 0-4 in kespa cup and couldn't even fight back against koreans like Solar and Trap and still MlorD is higher ranked than Trap...
Nerchio is a best foreign zerg player and really close to top korean zergs, but he shouldn't be higher than Dark and other top korean zergs...... I don't understand at all how come he is ranked 4, even tho he is top 10, I would still say it's bit high for him. Simply, what did he won?? He didn't even beat any top players in Korea and even in foreign scene, he wasn't that dominant among foreigners. He won only single title (dreamhack) during whole 2016 even only in foreign scene.
I am 100% sure this website made by a foreigner, but sorry, I just can see too many... even among foreign players ranking.... I was laughing instantly when I saw Nerchio is ranked 4.. I understand about Neeb's high rank, he deserves cuz he defeated top Koreans in kespa cup which is offline, but Nerchio... only beated Korean through online bo1 matches.... what makes you make him ranked 4? Did he ever beated any korean in bo3 or 5 in offline recently?? No. He may beated most of other foreigners, but that doesn't make him rank 4 in the whole rating.... Is this can be 'the foreign bias is real as always'? 4Head
On November 18 2016 07:17 TheHumanLife wrote: I found this ranking system totally doesn't make any sense... how come Hydra is higher ranked than someone like Zest, and many other top koreans??? And also, TRUE, when he was in Korea he was ranked really low, and right after he went to foreign scene and won WCS very easily, he became so high ranked......
Just because of moving to foreign scene and winning there a lot doesn't mean you are better than most of other Korean players... There is definitely much gap of difficulty to win a premier tournament between in foreign scene and korea. (not saying skill gap is huge)
Kelazhur is a good foreigner terran but he is higher ranked than someone like Ryung, aLive, Polt, and Cure in that website.... and MarineLorD went 0-4 in kespa cup and couldn't even fight back against koreans like Solar and Trap and still MlorD is higher ranked than Trap...
Nerchio is a best foreign zerg player and really close to top korean zergs, but he shouldn't be higher than Dark and other top korean zergs...... I don't understand at all how come he is ranked 4, even tho he is top 10, I would still say it's bit high for him. Simply, what did he won?? He didn't even beat any top players in Korea
I am 100% sure this website made by a foreigner, but sorry, I just can see too many... even among foreign players ranking.... I was laughing instantly when I saw Nerchio is ranked 4.. I understand about Neeb's high rank, he deserves cuz he defeated top Koreans in kespa cup which is offline, but Nerchio... only beated Korean through online bo1 matches.... what makes you make him ranked 4? Did he ever beated any korean in bo3 or 5 in offline recently?? No. He may beated most of other foreigners, but that doesn't make him rank 4 in the whole rating.... Is this can be 'the foreign bias is real as always'? 4Head
First of all, keep your memes to /r/the_donald or to twitch. Nobody has time for these.
Second, all of your remarks have been covered in the past and they are inherent flaws of the system that cannot be adressed unless you want to split the scene calculations which won't ever happen, especially not now that Korea has abandonned the ship.
Tl;DR : Blah Blah Blah ... tell me something I don't know.
First of all, keep your memes to /r/the_donald or to twitch. Nobody has time for these.
Second, all of your remarks have been covered in the past and they are inherent flaws of the system that cannot be adressed unless you want to split the scene calculations which won't ever happen, especially not now that Korea has abandonned the ship.
Tl;DR : Blah Blah Blah ... tell me something I don't know.
I am pretty sure, even among foreigners, nobody care much about this system. And, through HSC today, I noticed there is a rating website such as that Aligulac. When I saw the ratings... I instantly noticed, this is somthing cannot be trusted. They don't care about online tournament, offline tournament, and minor offline tournament, and GSL code S.
Kelazhur is more rated than Ryung, Polt, and Cure... (let's be honest. he is a great terran, but he's not better than them.)
Only low league players who is unfamilar with sc2 will believe and trust this website. "Oh well, then I might bet on this player today." And get RIPPED
First of all, keep your memes to /r/the_donald or to twitch. Nobody has time for these.
Second, all of your remarks have been covered in the past and they are inherent flaws of the system that cannot be adressed unless you want to split the scene calculations which won't ever happen, especially not now that Korea has abandonned the ship.
Tl;DR : Blah Blah Blah ... tell me something I don't know.
I am pretty sure, even among foreigners, nobody care much about this system. And, through HSC today, I noticed there is a rating website such as that Aligulac. When I saw the ratings... I instantly noticed, this is somthing cannot be trusted. They don't care about online tournament, offline tournament, and minor offline tournament, and GSL code S.
Kelazhur is more rated than Ryung, Polt, and Cure... (let's be honest. he is a great terran, but he's not better than them.)
Only low league players who is unfamilar with sc2 will believe and trust this website. "Oh well, then I might bet on this player today." And get RIPPED
The system is designed by using fairly simple mathematical principles to be as accurate as possible when predicting outcomes. The ranking is a side effect of that. It's in no way constructed to agree with the current "people's choice", or hyped player of the month, but rather as something that is not affected at all by opinion. By having that you can be sure that the system can be trusted, based on the parameters which define it. Trying to read more into the output of the computation than the definition provides could be considered an error on the user's side.
Example: Glicko 2*, which Aligulac uses, has the problem that it won't properly rank people that play in different clusters (e.g EU vs KR). The algorithm is not built to handle that. However, since it's nice to have a world ranking, we still provide it. The consequence of these two points is that the ranking only matters as long as the players you're comparing play in the same cluster. When they do, it's fairly accurate.
Trying to solve the clustering problem is something both TheBB and I wanted to do, but we never found the time to actually do it. I'm a bit sad about that.
* Actually, CSGO matchmaking suffers from the same problem where some players rank up to Global Elite (highest rank) by just playing the less popular maps.
The system is designed by using fairly simple mathematical principles to be as accurate as possible when predicting outcomes. The ranking is a side effect of that. It's in no way constructed to agree with the current "people's choice", or hyped player of the month, but rather as something that is not affected at all by opinion. By having that you can be sure that the system can be trusted, based on the parameters which define it. Trying to read more into the output of the computation than the definition provides could be considered an error on the user's side.
Example: Glicko 2*, which Aligulac uses, has the problem that it won't properly rank people that play in different clusters (e.g EU vs KR). The algorithm is not built to handle that. However, since it's nice to have a world ranking, we still provide it. The consequence of these two points is that the ranking only matters as long as the players you're comparing play in the same cluster. When they do, it's fairly accurate.
Trying to solve the clustering problem is something both TheBB and I wanted to do, but we never found the time to actually do it. I'm a bit sad about that.
* Actually, CSGO matchmaking suffers from the same problem where some players rank up to Global Elite (highest rank) by just playing the less popular maps.
yea exactly as I thought. Just pure results and trying to rate by opponents, but threat all tournaments as same(because it is hard to rate with calculation) It's still really tough to make skill ratio by rank, and calculation system will make error of skill ratings. KR vs World still seems not even close. (foreigners were still able to beat top koreans back in WOL and HOTS)
It should be made with KR ratio and Foreign ratio separately. I can see that from someone like Hydra and TRUE who were hyped by joining foreign scene... (TRUE had only 300 WCS points in Korea right before joining WCS Circuit) and he's ranked 17th now just because he moved to foreign scene and winning WCS with great win ratio there... And, some other Korean zergs, who is usually better than TRUE and had better results and win ratio than TRUE when he was in Korea, is lower ranked just because they are playing in much harder tournaments with lower win ratio than TRUE has in foreign scene... I really think it is unfair way to rank it. (by seeing Hydra is ranked 12 there... I know it is calculation by a system, so it has nothing to do with you guys decisions)
However, still there are information ppl can refer to, such as players' general win ratio, and other results.
I submitted some Wardi TL games the other week, and they never got added. I'm 99% sure it's because the liquipedia link I used as a source didn't have the edits approved yet.
They're approved now, I'm pretty sure it's week 9, match 5 (440 vs TeS) and week 8, match 3 (440 vs isImba acad).
On March 05 2017 01:36 InfCereal wrote: I submitted some Wardi TL games the other week, and they never got added. I'm 99% sure it's because the liquipedia link I used as a source didn't have the edits approved yet.
They're approved now, I'm pretty sure it's week 9, match 5 (440 vs TeS) and week 8, match 3 (440 vs isImba acad).
Just added them for you . Havent been able to pay attention to WTL since the scheduling have been so messy
He also miss the 425$ he earned in OG 6 start, it may not have been regular mod (it was the 6 workers start mod) but it's still sc2 and it was real monney... so I think it belongs in his earnings
4 He also miss the 425$ he earned in OG 6 start, it may not have been regular mod (it was the 6 workers start mod) but it's still sc2 and it was real monney... so I think it belongs in his earnings
4 He also miss the 425$ he earned in OG 6 start, it may not have been regular mod (it was the 6 workers start mod) but it's still sc2 and it was real monney... so I think it belongs in his earnings
http://aligulac.com/players/13451-Grimbergen/ The last 4 results of this profile don't belong to this player (hinO, spacemarine, mperorm, spacemarine games), but to this one : http://aligulac.com/players/1287-Poopi/ (me) I had to create another ESL account to participate in go4sc2 because I didn't have access to my old ESL account email, I think the new one has Grimbergen in it and my ingame name is Grimbergen as well, so it might be why my LotV go4sc2 games were added to the wrong aligulac profile, but is it possible to fix this?
On September 21 2017 20:24 Poopi wrote: http://aligulac.com/players/13451-Grimbergen/ The last 4 results of this profile don't belong to this player (hinO, spacemarine, mperorm, spacemarine games), but to this one : http://aligulac.com/players/1287-Poopi/ (me) I had to create another ESL account to participate in go4sc2 because I didn't have access to my old ESL account email, I think the new one has Grimbergen in it and my ingame name is Grimbergen as well, so it might be why my LotV go4sc2 games were added to the wrong aligulac profile, but is it possible to fix this?
Yes it's fairly easy to fix.
In the same go4sc2 #665 there is also a match against Justix. I assume that one needs to be changed as well yeah?
On September 21 2017 20:24 Poopi wrote: http://aligulac.com/players/13451-Grimbergen/ The last 4 results of this profile don't belong to this player (hinO, spacemarine, mperorm, spacemarine games), but to this one : http://aligulac.com/players/1287-Poopi/ (me) I had to create another ESL account to participate in go4sc2 because I didn't have access to my old ESL account email, I think the new one has Grimbergen in it and my ingame name is Grimbergen as well, so it might be why my LotV go4sc2 games were added to the wrong aligulac profile, but is it possible to fix this?
Yes it's fairly easy to fix.
In the same go4sc2 #665 there is also a match against Justix. I assume that one needs to be changed as well yeah?
I guess yes, but I remember battling a zerg not a terran before hinO so idk if that's the same guy? edit: his alternate aligulac id is Mechanics and this nickname I remember so yes.
On September 21 2017 20:24 Poopi wrote: http://aligulac.com/players/13451-Grimbergen/ The last 4 results of this profile don't belong to this player (hinO, spacemarine, mperorm, spacemarine games), but to this one : http://aligulac.com/players/1287-Poopi/ (me) I had to create another ESL account to participate in go4sc2 because I didn't have access to my old ESL account email, I think the new one has Grimbergen in it and my ingame name is Grimbergen as well, so it might be why my LotV go4sc2 games were added to the wrong aligulac profile, but is it possible to fix this?
Yes it's fairly easy to fix.
In the same go4sc2 #665 there is also a match against Justix. I assume that one needs to be changed as well yeah?
I guess yes, but I remember battling a zerg not a terran before hinO so idk if that's the same guy? edit: his alternate aligulac id is Mechanics and this nickname I remember so yes.
Welp... I've been trying to change it but the match pages in the admin panel keep throwing Gateway errors. I'll try again later.
4 He also miss the 425$ he earned in OG 6 start, it may not have been regular mod (it was the 6 workers start mod) but it's still sc2 and it was real monney... so I think it belongs in his earnings
I don't think those should be added, Aligulac's primary purpose is to track performance in standard SC2 matches, it's not Esportsearnings.
I don't know if this particular event was discussed internally, because I don't have the time to be that active anymore sadly. But in general, we do not add results for events played on any kind of gameplay mod since, well, it's not the same game. It's unofficial stuff and if pros play in that it's very likely the results would not be perfectly indicative of their skill level in the normal, official game (which is what we are tracking). For similar reasons I believe we don't add off-racing tournaments either.
That said, it might be possible to add a dummy event with no matches just to fill in the earnings (the way earnings work requires there to be an event) although I'm not fully sure because we've never had to do this. If any other Aligulac contributors is reading this, feel free to try that.
I have noticed that while many matches have been added to the database over the past few days, the North American Qualifier for BTTV's Ting Open 4 with Neeb, MaSa, puCK, and GAMETIME has not yet been added to Aligulac. I submitted it yesterday and would imagine someone else has probably submitted it as well. Just thought this was strange and wanted to bring it to your attention, if you were not already aware. Thank you!
Guys, can u tell me, if i create a new account with same nickname and play on some tournaments, will my new account appear on Aligulac, or only my very old account with this nick will be "alive" ? So i created an account Overmind in 2013th year, but since 2016th play as AllHailLulu and still on Aligulac i'm Overmind -( Can i delete or change my page someway ?
Hello, the most recent game for Neeb indicates a 4-1 victory over Scarlett. I just wanted to point out that is was a 3-1 victory in reality, Neeb was given a 1-0 advantage for coming from the winners' bracket. So he didn't actually win the game, it was a handicap. Therefore, I don't think it should be counted as a victory on Aligulac, just my 2 cents. Thanks!
Hi, can someone help integrate Aligulac (http://aligulac.com/about/api/) results into a Discord? We want to support the Common Aligulac use cases mention on the link. Any hints or links to tutorials/how-to's are appreciated as well. Thanks.
Is it possible for you to make predictions with Aligulac for old games, given the data that was available at that point? For example, if I gave you a list of games to make predictions for, could you do it relatively easily?
Would it be possible to create an Aligulac filter by WVS region, so instead of simply Korea/not-Korea we could have filters for Korea/Europe/NA/Latin America/China/Taiwan & Company/Oceania
Hey! who can edit non-playing capacity on exeed? Shatsy has beeen kicked for like 1.5 years ago, but are stil listed there as a non-playing capacity. can anyone fix? http://aligulac.com/teams/359-Exeed-Esports/
I know this is a minor thing, but Tileä's name has a diaresis on top of the 'a', so it's 'ä', not 'a' ^^ She also left Sloth Esports around the end of january
On December 02 2018 18:44 Kashim wrote: ^ yep, done :D
Thank you for that, but there seems to be some confusion. To my knowledge, Tileä has not joined DuST Gaming, and neither her nor DuST have made any announcement about that.
EDIT Seems like there's a pending, but not yet official thing going on.
On December 02 2018 18:44 Kashim wrote: ^ yep, done :D
Thank you for that, but there seems to be some confusion. To my knowledge, Tileä has not joined DuST Gaming, and neither her nor DuST have made any announcement about that.
EDIT Seems like there's a pending, but not yet official thing going on.
I got msg from dust manager about her rejoiningto the team.
Dear team of Aligulac. Here's my account. http://aligulac.com/players/15425-Nicoract/ And we can see here, (my last 2 matches) that I lost in Regenerate Open Weekly Cup #58 in Ro16, and then lost 1 more time in Ro8 :D. Please fix it, I won vs Matvey in Ro16. Here is the bracket to prove it. https://goodgame.ru/cup/7464/grid/ (motik700 = <HTT>Matvey). I really need it, I've beaten the 6k MMR player) Thx a lot!
On December 23 2018 03:26 Nicoract wrote: Dear team of Aligulac. Here's my account. http://aligulac.com/players/15425-Nicoract/ And we can see here, (my last 2 matches) that I lost in Regenerate Open Weekly Cup #58 in Ro16, and then lost 1 more time in Ro8 :D. Please fix it, I won vs Matvey in Ro16. Here is the bracket to prove it. https://goodgame.ru/cup/7464/grid/ (motik700 = <HTT>Matvey). I really need it, I've beaten the 6k MMR player) Thx a lot!
sorry, I accidentally submitted the wrong score, it's good now
Heads up, I noticed Aligulac ratings haven't updated in a few days, though new games are still being added. Previously it updated multiple times daily, so it seems like there's some sort of issue?
On December 02 2018 21:44 KalWarkov wrote: Lower the Korean MMR advantage.
Actually, foreigners are the one that have MMR advantage. They can simply beat bunch of inferior other foreigners and get higher MMR than Koreans, which is the clear advantage to get higher rank in Aligulac.
On December 02 2018 21:44 KalWarkov wrote: Lower the Korean MMR advantage.
Actually, foreigners are the one that have MMR advantage. They can simply beat bunch of inferior other foreigners and get higher MMR than Koreans, which is the clear advantage to get higher rank in Aligulac.
No way, the MMR advantage stays with koreans as they earn more when they win and lose less when they don't; you could argue the field they are playing in is more difficult.
On December 02 2018 21:44 KalWarkov wrote: Lower the Korean MMR advantage.
Actually, foreigners are the one that have MMR advantage. They can simply beat bunch of inferior other foreigners and get higher MMR than Koreans, which is the clear advantage to get higher rank in Aligulac.
No way, the MMR advantage stays with koreans as they earn more when they win and lose less when they don't; you could argue the field they are playing in is more difficult.
What makes you believe that this is how it is currently implemented? Do you have a single fact to back that up?
On December 02 2018 21:44 KalWarkov wrote: Lower the Korean MMR advantage.
Actually, foreigners are the one that have MMR advantage. They can simply beat bunch of inferior other foreigners and get higher MMR than Koreans, which is the clear advantage to get higher rank in Aligulac.
No way, the MMR advantage stays with koreans as they earn more when they win and lose less when they don't; you could argue the field they are playing in is more difficult.
What makes you believe that this is how it is currently implemented? Do you have a single fact to back that up?
It's not something that's pre-determined of course; it's just that korean's mmr is higher on average; look at Serral losing 22 points while winning WCS Montreal and Maru gaining points with his 4-3 run during Blizzcon.
On December 02 2018 21:44 KalWarkov wrote: Lower the Korean MMR advantage.
Actually, foreigners are the one that have MMR advantage. They can simply beat bunch of inferior other foreigners and get higher MMR than Koreans, which is the clear advantage to get higher rank in Aligulac.
No way, the MMR advantage stays with koreans as they earn more when they win and lose less when they don't; you could argue the field they are playing in is more difficult.
What makes you believe that this is how it is currently implemented? Do you have a single fact to back that up?
It's not something that's pre-determined of course; it's just that korean's mmr is higher on average; look at Serral losing 22 points while winning WCS Montreal and Maru gaining points with his 4-3 run during Blizzcon.
I'm not sure if anything has changed recently but back when I was a part of the project the only difference between Korean players and other nationalities was starting with higher Elo. Beyond that, the logic of determining rating changes was exactly the same across the board.
Unless something has changed in the mean time without my knowing (which is unlikely considering people would definitely have kicked up a fuss and complained about it), I would suggest that you are simply jumping to conclusions.
Hm, I think you are implying that I am seeing some kind of anti-foreigner scheme in this.
Instead, I am just depicting reality the way it is: at the moment, in Korea high mmr players are more likely to play against opponents of similar mmr making their victory supposedly harder thus gaining more from victories and less from defeats.
Koreans earned it in a fair way with years of domination, but it would be simply not correct saying the mmr advantage doesn't belong to them.
On January 29 2019 22:46 Xain0n wrote: Hm, I think you are implying that I am seeing some kind of anti-foreigner scheme in this.
No, you are making some strange claims about the Aligulac system that are born out of your own assumptions, and I am telling you that unless something has changed insidiously on the down low behind the scenes your assumptions are objectively wrong and that's simply not how it works.
However the way you started being defensive about something only tangentially related to the original object of discussion speaks volumes about you. I am no longer interested in pursuing this conversation.
To clarify I engaged with you not because I have any interest in your opinions on foreigners vs Koreans (or anyone else's for that matter), but in order to clarify a false claim regarding the way the Aligulac system works. Have a good day.
On January 29 2019 22:46 Xain0n wrote: Hm, I think you are implying that I am seeing some kind of anti-foreigner scheme in this.
No, you are making some strange claims about the Aligulac system that are born out of your own assumptions, and I am telling you that unless something has changed insidiously on the down low behind the scenes your assumptions are objectively wrong and that's simply not how it works.
However the way you started being defensive about something only tangentially related to the original object of discussion speaks volumes about you. I am no longer interested in pursuing this conversation.
To clarify I engaged with you not because I have any interest in your opinions on foreigners vs Koreans (or anyone else's for that matter), but in order to clarify a false claim regarding the way the Aligulac system works. Have a good day.
My claims are not strange and it should be easy not to misunderstand it after I explained them; a defensive approach was needed as you were polite but overly aggressive. Goodbye.
Koreans have an artificial 100 mmr advantage from the get go on aligulac, at least i thought i've read that a long time ago. should be lowered to 50 imo
On February 01 2019 09:31 Xain0n wrote: At the moment Serral has disappeared, he is not in the list.
Not a mistake, he just hasn't played a tournament in so long he's been marked as inactive.
That aside, what's up with aligulac's constant issues this year? Feels like it's not stable at all.
Less than two months and already inactive? That's quick.
Inactive doesn't mean retired, it just means not currently competing. It has to do with uncertainty and such.
I get it but I still think at least two months should pass.
He hasn't played a tournament game with his main race in over 2 months. Laughable enough to begin with that Serral's Zerg ELO is affected by him playing Terran in some Finnish tournament.
On February 01 2019 09:31 Xain0n wrote: At the moment Serral has disappeared, he is not in the list.
Not a mistake, he just hasn't played a tournament in so long he's been marked as inactive.
That aside, what's up with aligulac's constant issues this year? Feels like it's not stable at all.
Less than two months and already inactive? That's quick.
Inactive doesn't mean retired, it just means not currently competing. It has to do with uncertainty and such.
I get it but I still think at least two months should pass.
He hasn't played a tournament game with his main race in over 2 months. Laughable enough to begin with that Serral's Zerg ELO is affected by him playing Terran in some Finnish tournament.
I would ideally agree but those games were registered on Aligulac and the final was less than two months ago.
The last match on the page of this guy http://aligulac.com/players/9053-Shoon/ is ShooN - Vanya 0-2 but actually that was me, German Terran ShooN (same name).
Im not really sure if this is the right threat to post this? If not im sorry!
Thanks for the great work on aligulac, much appreciated
The last match on the page of this guy http://aligulac.com/players/9053-Shoon/ is ShooN - Vanya 0-2 but actually that was me, German Terran ShooN (same name).
Im not really sure if this is the right threat to post this? If not im sorry!
Thanks for the great work on aligulac, much appreciated
On March 25 2019 18:30 MockHamill wrote: Only the first page is loading. When you click on a players name the page loads forever but nothing happens. Have been like this for over a week now.
First of all: thank you sooooo much for your great work!
I really like the carreer graphs which are shown when clicking on a player. Is it possible to somehow compare graphs of multiple players as in having multiple players in one graph? This could be really cool in order to check times of dominance of certain players.
I really love Aligulac and I use and need it a lot. But Im having big-time lags and sometimes errors, so I cannot access the page... is that gonna be fixed somehow?
Please just freaking fix the ridiculous lag on this website. It's so slow... and sometimes you can't even reach it because of a gateway error. Just fix it! It has been like this way too long...
Hi, Aligulac is great! Thanks to the creators for making that website!
But please fix the lag and the constant timeouts and 502 errors, especially on the the latest period page: http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/.
The latest period is a gold mine for the community - the statistics on the current balance is priceless for the SC2 community to keep track of the balance performance in SC2. I hope the creators of the website can fix the issues. You have a great website, please keep it up!
Would be up for helping out as well, I use it regularly for some player info (many aren't notable enough to have LP pages). But with recent problems, it's been slowing down my work by a lot.
So I posted this on the other thread but I figured I should repost it here.
Aligulac code is on Github, and had an update as recently as 3 months ago. The creator is still active on Github so you could contact him through there as well and see if you could contribute/take over. It looks like is email is evfonn @ gmail . I only have rudimentary programming skills otherwise I might try to help. It's possible that the system wasn't designed to scale to the current database size, and that's causing some of the performance issues. It looks like most of the code hasn't been updated in 4 years. It also may simply be that the site has outgrown whatever resources it's allocated.
Even if the original product won't be updated, having access to the source and a dump of the database (gzip) means someone could duplicate and create an updated version of the site without having to redo the entire thing.
On May 20 2019 05:56 Kimb3r wrote: So Aligulac dead forever now???
Nope, but it crashes a lot, gotta try loggin in for a while.
Also on a related note could someone tel my why this is happening if it's an issue that could be resolve with a (reasonable) amont of money I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to contribute. Personally I'm not in any patreon but I would give to Aligulac without a second thought, it such an amazing tools.
Hey! I was looking at certain rating adjustments and I wanted to ask if ideally the racial ratings should be independant since, at the moment, if not all the matchups are played in a given period, the one(s) that has been played influences the other(s).
On February 27 2020 16:29 L0adstaR wrote: Hello, devs of aligulac. I'm curious about how does the hof page actually work. How could ByuN's rating be 0 point?
Byuns rating isn t 0, its 2700 ish: http://aligulac.com/players/47-ByuN/ It s just not shown in the ranking due to inactivity. Players that don t play in a tournament for a given period of time will be removed from the standing. As soon as he plays in a tournament he going to appear in the rankings again. Same witch Classic, Gumiho or hero, who are also in the Militarry right now: http://aligulac.com/players/186-Classic/ http://aligulac.com/players/44-GuMiho/ http://aligulac.com/players/233-herO/ Edit: only today, on 27th of February Serral has also been removed from the rankings as his last tournament match has been so long away, that he s been marked inactive as well. That will change tomorrow, when he plays a match again. So right now Cure is #1 according to Alligulac:
On February 27 2020 16:29 L0adstaR wrote: Hello, devs of aligulac. I'm curious about how does the hof page actually work. How could ByuN's rating be 0 point?
Byuns rating isn t 0, its 2700 ish: http://aligulac.com/players/47-ByuN/ It s just not shown in the ranking due to inactivity. Players that don t play in a tournament for a given period of time will be removed from the standing. As soon as he plays in a tournament he going to appear in the rankings again. Same witch Classic, Gumiho or hero, who are also in the Militarry right now: http://aligulac.com/players/186-Classic/ http://aligulac.com/players/44-GuMiho/ http://aligulac.com/players/233-herO/ Edit: only today, on 27th of February Serral has also been removed from the rankings as his last tournament match has been so long away, that he s been marked inactive as well. That will change tomorrow, when he plays a match again. So right now Cure is #1 according to Alligulac:
I meant the score on HOF page (http://aligulac.com/records/hof/) rather than those figures on his profile.
On February 27 2020 16:29 L0adstaR wrote: Hello, devs of aligulac. I'm curious about how does the hof page actually work. How could ByuN's rating be 0 point?
Byuns rating isn t 0, its 2700 ish: http://aligulac.com/players/47-ByuN/ It s just not shown in the ranking due to inactivity. Players that don t play in a tournament for a given period of time will be removed from the standing. As soon as he plays in a tournament he going to appear in the rankings again. Same witch Classic, Gumiho or hero, who are also in the Militarry right now: http://aligulac.com/players/186-Classic/ http://aligulac.com/players/44-GuMiho/ http://aligulac.com/players/233-herO/ Edit: only today, on 27th of February Serral has also been removed from the rankings as his last tournament match has been so long away, that he s been marked inactive as well. That will change tomorrow, when he plays a match again. So right now Cure is #1 according to Alligulac:
I meant the score on HOF page (http://aligulac.com/records/hof/) rather than those figures on his profile.
Ah sorry, I m dumb. The Hof page seems pretty brocken to me. The time stamps aren t accurate as well and it looks like a hot mess at best I have no idear how it s suposed to work unfortunatly
I believe someone may have mistakenly attributed a result to Maru when it might not have been them who played. The most recent adjustment for Maru claims that he played a match vs Nedi in PassionCraft Sunday Showdown #6 and lost to them 1-2 in Ro32. The bracket for the tournament lists the player who lost to Nedi as "TerBHDMaru1" with a profile image which looks nothing like Maru.
I believe that the attribution of the score to Maru is in error, so I am reporting it here.
On March 09 2020 13:57 samsim wrote: I believe someone may have mistakenly attributed a result to Maru when it might not have been them who played. The most recent adjustment for Maru claims that he played a match vs Nedi in PassionCraft Sunday Showdown #6 and lost to them 1-2 in Ro32. The bracket for the tournament lists the player who lost to Nedi as "TerBHDMaru1" with a profile image which looks nothing like Maru.
I believe that the attribution of the score to Maru is in error, so I am reporting it here.
I had noticed that you uploaded Reynor's of offrace games , which obviously detrimentally impacted his main rating, just wondering the reasoning behind that.
Can someone add the Harstem Elazer Showmatch from yesterday to alligulac? The Score was 35-24 for Elazer and the Prizemoney was 311.01$:https://matcherino.com/tournaments/27682/payouts The Split was 60-40
On April 21 2020 04:11 Reaper314 wrote: Hey, there was an error in this tournament. http://aligulac.com/results/events/108033-Red-Bull-Xel'Naga-Finest-/#2 Someone with the same ID (Reaper) played and it was marked as me playing instead. Would like the error fixed whenever a chance is had. Thanks!
Aligulac says Innovation won the final game on the Netease Esports X tournament. Its wrong, it was Dark who won. Give him his rightful points, so Maru wont overtake him :D
Results from the semis of ESL Open Cup EU/19 were recorded as bo3 when the were bo5. Clem 3-0 HeRoMaRinE(not 2-0) and ShoWTimE 3-1 souL(not 2-1). The other regions are correct.
Can the ranking number be shown in the player's Summary page as a figure like "Rating history" figure, or shown in the player's Rating history page? Since when we want to know a player's history, the ranking number is more accurate than the rating number, which expands higher and higher with the development of time.
On June 08 2020 19:16 championiasonu wrote: Can the ranking number be shown in the player's Summary page as a figure like "Rating history" figure, or shown in the player's Rating history page? Since when we want to know a player's history, the ranking number is more accurate than the rating number, which expands higher and higher with the development of time.
Something's weird, or maybe it's just my understanding of the math: between June 3 and June 17, Serral won every series, but somehow lost 24 points. How does this compute?
On June 19 2020 19:54 tigon_ridge wrote: Something's weird, or maybe it's just my understanding of the math: between June 3 and June 17, Serral won every series, but somehow lost 24 points. How does this compute?
He lost more maps than Aligulac's system predicted, thus the system deems that he underperformed and should lose points. It's bound to happen since Serral's Elo is so high.
On June 19 2020 19:54 tigon_ridge wrote: Something's weird, or maybe it's just my understanding of the math: between June 3 and June 17, Serral won every series, but somehow lost 24 points. How does this compute?
He lost more maps than Aligulac's system predicted, thus the system deems that he underperformed and should lose points. It's bound to happen since Serral's Elo is so high.
That was my guess, but it seems a bit too drastic still, because he was 2:1 in ratio to Solar, 3:1 to Inno and Stats, and Reynor's rating is already so high that dropping 2 maps to him should not be punished that hard. I guess the biggest hits were from the 3 maps lost to drogo and hellraiser.
On July 06 2020 05:12 UnLarva wrote: ESL Pro Tour 2020/21 DH SC2 Masters 2020: Summer Europe
Missing match: Group A, Serral vs Skillous (2-0). July 1, 2020 - 20:15 EEST
done
Respect @Kashim !
Aligulac needs more active volunteers. So do Liquipedia.
Statistical sites are meaningless if they are not continuously updated and logged properly even in "Premier" tournament category of the top players of the world, for all participating players.
A relevant match (by Aligulac's own, self-declared standards) that is missing, between players X and Y, will always impact and mess everything else too, both directly within a list but also indirectly in a long run.
Every player introduced to the system deserves the same treatment using same criteria of game/match inclusion. If there are a tournament worthy for the inclusion, then every player participating are automatically entitled for same, rigorous, careful handling of their stats within the system. If there are player who participates to such tournament without having notified by Aligulac yet, then he/she must be included as an account immediately. Otherwise the system doesn't make much sense. Rating inflation within the system comes from that necessity. More points will be included to the system with every new players, but every time there are a tournament valuable enough for inclusion, every single participating player's stats must be included. That is mandatory, unavoidable thing for maintaining the rating system's integrity, the purpose, the aim, and the meaning.
Now, if relevant Serral's matches are missing over already updated lists, how people can defend the integrity of the rates? For anyone? As everyone can ask that same question about ratings using any player as example.
After a few lists, a single systemic input error in a single data point has spread all over the set, and it will impact to everyone's ratings, with variable delays depending on do they match up directly or indirectly, now or after a while...
But people still accuse Aligulac's logic and math, when it's faults are on the community who doesn't update the Aligulac rigorously enough.
This is IMBA whine!
But you, dear friend @Kashim know that multilemma.already well enough.
On July 06 2020 05:12 UnLarva wrote: ESL Pro Tour 2020/21 DH SC2 Masters 2020: Summer Europe
Missing match: Group A, Serral vs Skillous (2-0). July 1, 2020 - 20:15 EEST
done
Respect @Kashim !
Aligulac needs more active volunteers. So do Liquipedia.
Statistical sites are meaningless if they are not continuously updated and logged properly even in "Premier" tournament category of the top players of the world, for all participating players.
A relevant match (by Aligulac's own, self-declared standards) that is missing, between players X and Y, will always impact and mess everything else too, both directly within a list but also indirectly in a long run.
Every player introduced to the system deserves the same treatment using same criteria of game/match inclusion. If there are a tournament worthy for the inclusion, then every player participating are automatically entitled for same, rigorous, careful handling of their stats within the system. If there are player who participates to such tournament without having notified by Aligulac yet, then he/she must be included as an account immediately. Otherwise the system doesn't make much sense. Rating inflation within the system comes from that necessity. More points will be included to the system with every new players, but every time there are a tournament valuable enough for inclusion, every single participating player's stats must be included. That is mandatory, unavoidable thing for maintaining the rating system's integrity, the purpose, the aim, and the meaning.
Now, if relevant Serral's matches are missing over already updated lists, how people can defend the integrity of the rates? For anyone? As everyone can ask that same question about ratings using any player as example.
After a few lists, a single systemic input error in a single data point has spread all over the set, and it will impact to everyone's ratings, with variable delays depending on do they match up directly or indirectly, now or after a while...
But people still accuse Aligulac's logic and math, when it's faults are on the community who doesn't update the Aligulac rigorously enough.
This is IMBA whine!
But you, dear friend @Kashim know that multilemma.already well enough.
I agree, as good as aligulac is you are never getting 100% accuracy with these databases which need to be manually updated. Like they didnt post the results from the finals of the €2000,- WardiTV Team League S9 in their database yet are on top of showmatches in which pro's sometimes even offrace.
But again, both liquipedia and aligulac is being run by volenteers, so its already fantastic we have people working on these things 10 years after the game released. Both tools offer so much insight to not only casters and players but us viewers as well and as a avid sc2 followwer I use these websites nearly every day. Keep up the good work Kashim and crew long may it continue!
I realise this is going to be incredibly low on the priority list, but I've reached out privately to those I thought could help and gotten nothing in response, so I'm going to post here instead. The team history on my Aligulac page is incorrect. The correct team history can be found on my Liquipedia userpage.
Hello, I recently used your API to scrape the matches table to do some modeling, love it by the way. Super easy to use and an awesome data source.
However I did find two instances of something weird where it has a match where it says a player plays themselves. Not just same username, same id as well.
Here's links to player match histories filtered to the date of these occurrences.
On January 20 2021 19:20 Luepert wrote: Hello, I recently used your API to scrape the matches table to do some modeling, love it by the way. Super easy to use and an awesome data source.
However I did find two instances of something weird where it has a match where it says a player plays themselves. Not just same username, same id as well.
Here's links to player match histories filtered to the date of these occurrences.
Hey guys, I would like to know the process on how players' stats from Liquipedia get directed to Aligulac? If there's someone who can teach me how to do it, here's my Discord: DLSMIZEL#1213. Thank you!
I just saw Maru's overall rating in every vs race suddenly dropped after vs Clem in team league
First of all, before he goes vs Rogue in GSL final, Maru's rating was 3071 vP, 3043 vT, 3213 vZ on LIST 292: May 5th
And now, Maru's overall rating dropped significantly by 3023 vP, 3023 vT, 3136 vZ on LIST 293: May 19th for some reason
The thing I cannot understand about this is that Maru only played two games between May 5th and May 17th which are vs Rogue in GSL and vs Clem in Team league.
Here are my 2 questions
1. Why Maru's rating vs protoss suddenly dropped when he didn't even play a single game vs protoss between May 5th and May 17th?
2. Clem had the highest rating even vT (3087) on May 5th according to aligulac, and even when Clem and Maru tied 1-1 Clem's rating in vT even went higher to 3113, and meanwhile Maru's vT rating when lower to 3023 from 3043. This looks very weird since a player rated with 3087 and another player rated with 3043 played each other and tied as 1-1, but 3087 -> 3113, 3043 -> 3023? I also compared with both Maru and Clem's every TvT match ups between May 5th and May 17th. And it looks like Maru only played one TvT, which is vs Clem yesterday between May 5th and today. But his TvT rate was dropped even when he tied vs higher rated TvT player.
And meanwhile, Clem's result in TvT between May 5th and May 19th seems much worse as 1-3 Cure, 2-3 Cure, 0-1 souL, 3-0 ByuN (ByuN only has 2800s rating in TvT according to aligulac), and several wins vs much lower rated foreigners. And despite all of this result, Clem vT rating actually went higher to 3113(May 19th) from 3087(May 5th). And Maru's vT rating fell from 3043 to 3023 after he tied 1-1 with 3100's rated vT player.
I love both Clem and Maru they are my favorite players, but I must point out about this rating system that is not understandable.
I felt strange about aligulac a lot even before today. But even though we know Aligulac is with the 'Automatic rating system', we should also not forget it can be manipulated by 'A person' or 'People' who want to overhype their top players by changing the ratings without noticing others. I believe this is possible.
On May 17 2021 16:26 chickenandbeer1234 wrote: ...
Following you post I looked a bit into the FAQ, and this stood out to me as to why Maru's TvP might've decreased even though he didn't play the matchup (emphasis mine):
Rating adjustments
The rating adjustments can seem a bit off. Why is that?
Common complaints include players gaining or losing points when they score exactly as expected, or gaining points when they underperform, and losing points when they overperform.
Several things can impact this. First of all, the expected scores are rounded to one decimal place, so you're not seeing the whole story. (An expected score of 1.0–0.0 could in reality be 0.96–0.04 for example.)
Also, you should keep in mind that the rating adjustments for each of the four categories (general rating, and each matchup rating) are not done independently of each other. The system will try to update each rating according to the certainty bias (mentioned earlier), but it's also restricted by the fact that the matchup ratings must have mean equal to the general rating.
The upshot of this is that if a player overperforms versus Terran (say 2–0 when 1–1 was expected), but significantly underperforms in the other matchups (say 0–10 in each when 5–5 was expected), the rating versus Terran may still decrease.
His match vs Rogue was predicted to be in his favor (3.1 to 1.9) and he ended up loosing 1-4, so this loss is probably the reason for the overall decline. Now you could argue that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in which case I'd urge you to look through the FAQ and familiarize yourself with the methodology.
Can we update the functionality "cumulative income for every player group by year" to year of 2021? Currently we only have it up to year of 2020, no 2021 info. Wish Aligulac.com a better future. Thank you.
My apologies if I missed it being documented somewhere, but is there a recommended query timeout when using the API? I am currently using 1 second between queries but I would like to go faster if possible and will certainly go slower if you would prefer a longer timeout between requests. Thanks
Is there a way to revoke the API key? I managed to generate a new key, but I'd like to revoke the old, possibly leaked key. I assume that this is not a big deal, because aligulac serves the pages via plain http, but I'd like to follow the usual procedure for this case if possible.
On May 17 2021 16:26 chickenandbeer1234 wrote: I felt strange about aligulac a lot even before today. But even though we know Aligulac is with the 'Automatic rating system', we should also not forget it can be manipulated by 'A person' or 'People' who want to overhype their top players by changing the ratings without noticing others. I believe this is possible.
Maru played vs rogue and lost badly, his overall rating dropped (-48)
He had no matches vs protoss, so his vP rating dropped the same as his overall rating (-48)
He played vs clem and did better, so he lost less rating vT (-20)
Also, see the FAQ:
Several things can impact this. First of all, the expected scores are rounded to one decimal place, so you're not seeing the whole story. (An expected score of 1.0–0.0 could in reality be 0.96–0.04 for example.)
Also, you should keep in mind that the rating adjustments for each of the four categories (general rating, and each matchup rating) are not done independently of each other. The system will try to update each rating according to the certainty bias (mentioned earlier), but it's also restricted by the fact that the matchup ratings must have mean equal to the general rating.
The upshot of this is that if a player overperforms versus Terran (say 2–0 when 1–1 was expected), but significantly underperforms in the other matchups (say 0–10 in each when 5–5 was expected), the rating versus Terran may still decrease.
My apologies if I missed it being documented somewhere, but is there a recommended query timeout when using the API?
There's no hard limit. I haven't seen any undue load on the server, so I assume whatever you're currently doing is fine. It also depends a bit on whether the query you're running is something expensive.
If possible, for high load API usage I recommend downloading the database dump whenever it is updated, loading it in a local database and then making queries there instead. The data is the same anyway. And you can probably do more exotic things.
On May 17 2021 16:26 chickenandbeer1234 wrote: Can someone explain to me about this?
I just saw Maru's overall rating in every vs race suddenly dropped after vs Clem in team league
First of all, before he goes vs Rogue in GSL final, Maru's rating was 3071 vP, 3043 vT, 3213 vZ on LIST 292: May 5th
And now, Maru's overall rating dropped significantly by 3023 vP, 3023 vT, 3136 vZ on LIST 293: May 19th for some reason
The thing I cannot understand about this is that Maru only played two games between May 5th and May 17th which are vs Rogue in GSL and vs Clem in Team league.
Here are my 2 questions
1. Why Maru's rating vs protoss suddenly dropped when he didn't even play a single game vs protoss between May 5th and May 17th?
2. Clem had the highest rating even vT (3087) on May 5th according to aligulac, and even when Clem and Maru tied 1-1 Clem's rating in vT even went higher to 3113, and meanwhile Maru's vT rating when lower to 3023 from 3043. This looks very weird since a player rated with 3087 and another player rated with 3043 played each other and tied as 1-1, but 3087 -> 3113, 3043 -> 3023? I also compared with both Maru and Clem's every TvT match ups between May 5th and May 17th. And it looks like Maru only played one TvT, which is vs Clem yesterday between May 5th and today. But his TvT rate was dropped even when he tied vs higher rated TvT player.
And meanwhile, Clem's result in TvT between May 5th and May 19th seems much worse as 1-3 Cure, 2-3 Cure, 0-1 souL, 3-0 ByuN (ByuN only has 2800s rating in TvT according to aligulac), and several wins vs much lower rated foreigners. And despite all of this result, Clem vT rating actually went higher to 3113(May 19th) from 3087(May 5th). And Maru's vT rating fell from 3043 to 3023 after he tied 1-1 with 3100's rated vT player.
I love both Clem and Maru they are my favorite players, but I must point out about this rating system that is not understandable.
I felt strange about aligulac a lot even before today. But even though we know Aligulac is with the 'Automatic rating system', we should also not forget it can be manipulated by 'A person' or 'People' who want to overhype their top players by changing the ratings without noticing others. I believe this is possible.
I like how this Person is completly delusional about how the Alligulac System works. Look into how it actually works, it s all in the page in the FAQ, as pointed out before. Ratings are allways also affected by the other matchups as well. And as you pointed out, it s an automated Rating, so it isn t possible to manipulative the Rating alone, without putting Fake matches in
Maybe this is a bit unreasonable, but Aligulac hasn't been updated and we're two days into the new cycle. The last one was the 300th one, so maybe it's being discontinued? Either way, it's been the second best thing Starcraft II has had
My deepest respect and appreciation for everyone who has ever worked on or contributed to the project. I know I might be overreacting, but it's been almost too influential
On August 28 2021 11:27 uselless wrote: Maybe this is a bit unreasonable, but Aligulac hasn't been updated and we're two days into the new cycle. The last one was the 300th one, so maybe it's being discontinued? Either way, it's been the second best thing Starcraft II has had
My deepest respect and appreciation for everyone who has ever worked on or contributed to the project. I know I might be overreacting, but it's been almost too influential
On August 28 2021 11:27 uselless wrote: Maybe this is a bit unreasonable, but Aligulac hasn't been updated and we're two days into the new cycle. The last one was the 300th one, so maybe it's being discontinued? Either way, it's been the second best thing Starcraft II has had
My deepest respect and appreciation for everyone who has ever worked on or contributed to the project. I know I might be overreacting, but it's been almost too influential
Anyone know if there is a way to sort on multiple fields via the API? I essentially want to get matches but if I only sort by date, then I sometimes get different orders different times when I run it. I'd like to sort on date and id so it's consistent.
I've tried order_by=date,id, which gives an error and order_by=date&order_by=id but this doesn't actually give results which are ordered by id.
Let me know if there is some way to do this, thanks!
edit: ahh! after an hour debugging, I figured it out right after I finally posted to ask a question. I had a typo in my query with orderby instead of order_by so that's why it wasn't working as I expected.
Hey guys, can some of you help me understand the Hall of Fame? If I understand correctly, it measures the gap of rating points you have if you are in the top 7 to the the rating of the player who is ranked 7. So it doesn't include rank, it "only" measures the distance to rank 7 in rating points, correct?
And length is the sum of weeks where someone resides in the top 7?
Another thing I wanted to ask: What does "Start" on the HoF page mean? Because it isn't the list on which the given player reached rank 7 for the first time and I couldn't deduct a pattern from looking at various player's links in the start category.
EPT
). He played 
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MpZcXGd.png?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iUh31by.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IDDSoPp.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/XL1ppj8.png)
![[image loading]](http://gyazo.com/94f7eb8b5aaf7e27fa2984794dcef16e.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7LioC9z.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Mdy4gOQ.png)
Netease Esports X Tournaments/2020/Spring
