ForGGeddon is a special situation with no precedence. Basically legend has it that once ForGG reaches rank 1, aligulac, TL, reddit and Twitter will implode from pure whine and hate towards any statistics rating system, thus ending the world as we know it.
Hello TL
Since Eivind (TheBB) is busy writing his PhD, and me myself having just handled in my BSc, and thus having nothing but time, I will be the one doing our BI-weekly write up for you guys.
First, before you start reading, and especially before you start posting, please read http://aligulac.com/faq/ to make sure your question hasn't already been answered.
Two weeks ago the Zerg rule finally toppled thread sparked a lot of discussion, and since we love a healthy discussion, I have chosen a less sensationalistic title for this thread.
Life celebrates his eight period in the number 1 spot, although he is losing ground and doesn't look as dominant as he has been previously. BW favorite flash makes his 2nd top 10 entry while ForGG is back on 2nd, having played a huge amount of games and improving his TvT score beyond what seems realistic at this point. In general Terran (6%) still seems to be the OP race , and Protoss (9%) are still UP according to the games
Players not in top 10 most likely to enter it soon: INnoVation and sOs who currently seems to be some of the best the Kespa teams have to offer.
LucifroN is still by far the highest ranked foreigner, gathering lots of points from the ATC and losing mainly to YugiOh, Strelok and coinflips.
Biggest over-performing foreigner this period was Thorzain, racking in 135 points, followed closely by the Swedish mouz recruit hOpe who pulled in an impressive 133 points
With the conclusion of April, the newest balance report is also out, the entire graph can be found here. The TvZ match-up still seems to be going in the wrong direction, being 55.3% in favor of T. PvZ is as close to balance as seems possible, going up to 49.1% leaving the Zerg with only a slight advantage. Finally the PvT match-up have improved a lot going from 42.9% to 47.6%.
Finally we have a few cool new features. My personal favorite (because it was my idea) is the addition of stories to the player graphs. MC is the first player to have a few stories added to his graph, the idea is that, once we get time for it, we will show important events on players' graphs to create a way for people to identify how the rating performance and tournament performance correlates. These stories include major tournament wins, all-kills etc. We would love suggestions for good matches useful as "stories", however before you begin suggesting, the following will of course be added when we have time: GSL, MLG, IEM, DH, WCG, WCS, IPL, TSL etc.
The other great new feature is actually from Liquipedia. It is now possible to link a players aligulac profile from LP using |aligulac=xx , where xx is the players aligulac number, which can be found in the URL of each players profies. This works exactly like linking TLPD pages to a LP page. So if your favorite players doesn't already have his aligulac page linked on LP, get cracking
As always, if you want to contribute, we are always looking for more volunteers. If you have anything to contribute you can get in touch with us using:
Shoutouts to the new guys nzcempin, Shellshock and netbattler. More bots and more programmers is always great. Also a shoutout to TLO who reached his highest aligulac rating last period.
Thanks for reading and we'll be back with more debate inflicting statistics in 2 weeks.
Since there are SO many wrong interpretations in this thread already, I will try to explain some things about the site. First off, the rating is based SOLELY on results, not playstyle, not total domination, not tournament results, and not on stuff like streams/replays as some guy thought. ONLY WINS MATTER. Meaning that a win in an online qualifier Bo3 is the same as beating someone in Ro4 GSL. However, the likelihood of facing a highly rated opponent in GSL is bigger than in WCS EU Qualifier Ro64.
Here are my POV on some claims made: ForGG is not 4th best in world: Agreed Kespa players are underrated: Agreed
Picture the entire pool of points as one big circle
The circle only grows in one way, when new players enter the pool, this creates a bit of inflation (similar to chess ELO and amount of chess GMs).
How does a player gain points? Simply by overperforming, meaning that if you are set to lose 2-1 against someone, and beat him 0-2, you gain points in the given matchup (vT, vZ or vP).
Why are the Kespa players so underrated? The Kespa players have very few games compared to the rest, and they mostly play each other, meaning that the total "pool of points" that most Kespa players are playing for grows very slowly. Players like Flash, Rain, Innovation (Bogus), PartinG etc. are bringing points from the other "pools" into the Kespa pool, thus raising the amount of points being fought over.
Why is ForGG so highly rated? It is true that ForGG recently plowed a hell of a lot of mediocre terrans, boosting his TvT to a somewhat suspicious high, the amount of games ForGG plays, plus the fact that he owned A LOT of 900-1200 rated players in the specific match up gave him a lot of points, which he is losing to higher skilled but still lower rated players.
The system had a huge shock with the entry of 100+ Kespa pros, who all started at 1000 rating, but who are arguably a lot stronger. It will take a significant period of time, and amount of games from these pros, to give the system time to "transfer" points to the Kespa players, and thus accurately reflect the skill level of the Kespa players in the ranking.
Basically, the best way for this system to be 100% accurate is when everybody plays everybody, so points transfer freely, however there is still a huge disconnection between local and global scenes, as shown by TheBB in this thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=396566
Even though it's mentioned in the OP, people will still say something, so I want to point out that INnoVation's performance today has already put him into the top 10 if you look at the actual website. sOs is at 14
Is there any special reason known for so few toss in the top 10? If you look at GM statistics toss has normal representation. So has toss some problems with a too low skill ceiling? Or is it just random that there are few toss in absolute top?
On May 03 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Is there any special reason known for so few toss in the top 10? If you look at GM statistics toss has normal representation. So has toss some problems with a too low skill ceiling? Or is it just random that there are few toss in absolute top?
Great question.
Tosses doesn't seem to win consistently enough to enter our top 10. A player like sOs has been really good and consistent, and is currently working his way up the ranks and will most likely join PartinG in the top 10 in a few periods time. I haven't got nearly enough game knowledge to answer your question though. Tosses are good, only a few are top 10 good. (Currently)
On May 03 2013 06:48 a_flayer wrote: Where is Naniwa in the foreigner top 10?
Silly "statistics". Completely meaningless.
He's 12th because he hadnt been performing as well the last few months but made a big resurgence with dreamhack
nani will be #1... or at least higher than Thorzaine, either way.
He's already pretty far ahead of Thorzain. The last few months were even more unkind to him, but like the op says, he did have the largest gain in the last period.
On May 03 2013 06:48 a_flayer wrote: Where is Naniwa in the foreigner top 10?
Silly "statistics". Completely meaningless.
He's 12th because he hadnt been performing as well the last few months but made a big resurgence with dreamhack
nani will be #1... or at least higher than Thorzaine, either way.
He's already pretty far ahead of Thorzain. The last few months were even more unkind to him, but like the op says, he did have the largest gain in the last period.
Oh wow, Nani is really far ahead O.o, by 31 positions. Nani is one of my favorite foreigners, partially because his twitter is hilarious :3, so this is awesome! Thanks SS .
Lucifron > Innovation! ^_~ Does playing more tournaments and getting top 8 bring the rank up more than placing first in one tournament? I suppose Aligulac uses a more long-term ranking system.
On May 03 2013 13:19 Blargh wrote: Lucifron > Innovation! ^_~ Does playing more tournaments and getting top 8 bring the rank up more than placing first in one tournament? I suppose Aligulac uses a more long-term ranking system.
In general yeah. Playing a lot and winning a lot is usually better than just playing a few matches and never losing.
So Forgg loses 5 Bo3's to foreigners (Snute, TLO, Nerchio, Sase twice) and improves to 2nd best in the world? -.- Massing games in Europe shouldn't garner so many points. Lucifron top 10 is also laughable.
On May 04 2013 19:57 Scarecrow wrote: So Forgg loses 5 Bo3's to foreigners (Snute, TLO, Nerchio, Sase twice) and improves to 2nd best in the world? -.- Massing games in Europe shouldn't garner so many points. Lucifron top 10 is also laughable.
You forgot the 7 Bo3's he won and 7 Bo1's also won
On May 04 2013 19:57 Scarecrow wrote: So Forgg loses 5 Bo3's to foreigners (Snute, TLO, Nerchio, Sase twice) and improves to 2nd best in the world? -.- Massing games in Europe shouldn't garner so many points. Lucifron top 10 is also laughable.
You forgot the 7 Bo3's he won and 7 Bo1's also won
Send Code S to Europe and see how many Bo3's they lose to Sase and co.
On May 04 2013 19:57 Scarecrow wrote: So Forgg loses 5 Bo3's to foreigners (Snute, TLO, Nerchio, Sase twice) and improves to 2nd best in the world? -.- Massing games in Europe shouldn't garner so many points. Lucifron top 10 is also laughable.
You forgot the 7 Bo3's he won and 7 Bo1's also won
Send Code S to Europe and see how many Bo3's they lose to Sase and co.
I wish they would. More games between scenes improves the ranking
On May 04 2013 20:04 Xoronius wrote: Congratz on your Bsc and thanks for the write-up.
I love the general rating history. I spent the last 15 minutes looking for the most inconsistent players - IdrA dropped 500 points in two years. There is something iId like to adress: If i put my mouse over one of the "story dots" I can't see which amount of points the player had at this particular event (I hope you can understand, what I am tying to say). Or am I just overlooking something?
Edit: Oh, I can zoom in and then the story points and the general rating don't overlap anymore. Nice!
On May 04 2013 21:21 Firlefanz wrote: I love the general rating history. I spent the last 15 minutes looking for the most inconsistent players - IdrA dropped 500 points in two years. There is something iId like to adress: If i put my mouse over one of the "story dots" I can't see which amount of points the player had at this particular event (I hope you can understand, what I am tying to say). Or am I just overlooking something?
Edit: Oh, I can zoom in and then the story points and the general rating don't overlap anymore. Nice!
Actually, you can just disable the story dots (and anything else) by clicking on "stories" in the legend below the graph.
how does one volunteer to help out a bit? also I submitted the LVP Season 4 Playoffs for Aligulac (another LucifroN landslide victory over LoLvsxD and VortiX today in Barcelona)
I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
On May 05 2013 05:56 pZu wrote: Gz to the bachelor mate! :D
Still haven't defended it But thx.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
I am not going to report every single person who doesn't read the OP. I want to, but I feel like I would lose my report button pretty fast, and I like it for when people spew crap in LR-threads about "X being IMBA".
To the rest: While I do love the discussion of the ForGG matter, rest assured that we are still considering what to do. Obviously we can't have that a Korean, who plays a lot of tournaments, both winning and losing, but mostly winning, is gaining more points than a player we get to see once or twice every month. Obviously
We are well aware that ForGG is overrated (see OP for proof). Anyone who plays mostly outside of Korea is overrated, as would be the case with any unbiased rating system. Still, we're a bit puzzled (and amused, I'll admit) at the reaction he gets. The guy has maintained a 70% winrate since he moved to France, 9 months ago. That's equal to, or even slightly better than Stephano had during similar time periods in 2012. There was no end to the hype then.
I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating, that I think people put too much weight on titles and prizes, and too little weight on steady positive winrates.
As for scouting, well if a player wins 70% of his games without even scouting, maybe he deserves a high rating.
On May 05 2013 05:44 BisuEver wrote: If ForGG hit rank 1 would it do anything? Like what could actually happen?
It's just a joke about how ForGG's stats are heavily inflated by beating up Frenchies all the time therefore he's always high in the lists which prompts endless bitching all the time.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
well since he didn't play zerg after the queen buff something is wrong idneed.
It seems to me that your ranking is biased against Koreans who don't play outside of Korea as it follows a quantity over quality approach. Player A who travels to international events and beats a number of inferior opponents will get more points than Player B who plays a smaller number of games against the top tier of players and wins.
I imagine this problem is exacerbated by the top tier players Player B is beating likely also being low in the rankings due to not playing a bulk of games outside of KR. It's understandable but it does mean that you're going to have players widely recognised as top tier by the community not recognised in your rankings.
On May 05 2013 06:56 Balfazar wrote: It seems to me that your ranking is biased against Koreans who don't play outside of Korea as it follows a quantity over quality approach. Player A who travels to international events and beats a number of inferior opponents will get more points than Player B who plays a smaller number of games against the top tier of players and wins.
I imagine this problem is exacerbated by the top tier players Player B is beating likely also being low in the rankings due to not playing a bulk of games outside of KR. It's understandable but it does mean that you're going to have players widely recognised as top tier by the community not recognised in your rankings.
It seems to me that while you probably didn't read the spoiler I put in the OP, you are 100% correct. We all know that and are still thinking of a way to fix this.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
While some of the rankings are a bit distorted (as many have mentioned), it's all based on a set formula, with very little subjective bias. For example, most people would agree that a player like Innovation is better than a player like ForGG, to adjust the rankings to reflect this would result in some subjectivity, which would weaken the objectivity of this ranking system.
Overall, it's a good system because it's quite objective, even if it results in certain distortions.
On May 05 2013 06:29 TheBB wrote: I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating, that I think people put too much weight on titles and prizes, and too little weight on steady positive winrates.
Well if Bear moved to SEA he'd have a steady positive winrate too, it's all about the caliber of opponents.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
They are way higher than they are because unlike Chess ELO, beating up on 1500 scrubs can get you up to 3k if you dodge every decent player in existance.
It's like if we get a Chess GM and throw him in a random Chess Club in the middle of nowhere where the top player is 2k rated.
He will never even come close to getting above 2400 even if he has a 100% win record until he faces other Grandmasters, but in this system ForGG will be 3000 and best on the planet despite never facing a decent player in his whole life.
I'm still curious why you don't just switch over to Chess ELO completely but adjust the amount of games for a stable rating and adjust for point decay. Wouldn't that just solve every single one of these ridiculous problems?
It would also make it so Kespa players don't have to play 30 games against other top Koreans just to get ahead of ForGG <_<
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
They are way higher than they are because unlike Chess ELO, beating up on 1500 scrubs can get you up to 3k if you dodge every decent player in existance.
It's like if we get a Chess GM and throw him in a random Chess Club in the middle of nowhere where the top player is 2k rated.
He will never even come close to getting above 2400 even if he has a 100% win record until he faces other Grandmasters, but in this system ForGG will be 3000 and best on the planet despite never facing a decent player in his whole life.
While I do understand you are just trying to make a point. No player has reached 2k under the current rating system.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
They are way higher than they are because unlike Chess ELO, beating up on 1500 scrubs can get you up to 3k if you dodge every decent player in existance.
It's like if we get a Chess GM and throw him in a random Chess Club in the middle of nowhere where the top player is 2k rated.
He will never even come close to getting above 2400 even if he has a 100% win record until he faces other Grandmasters, but in this system ForGG will be 3000 and best on the planet despite never facing a decent player in his whole life.
While I do understand you are just trying to make a point. No player has reached 2k under the current rating system.
No one has reached 2k under the current system because there are massively more games played under Chess ELO and 100 years worth of Inflation, it was an example.
Typical Chess GM is 2400+ ELO atm and due to inflation there are many more today than there were 60 years ago.
One thing that is possibly bugging people is the fact that Aligulac ratings fluctuate pretty wildly compared to what one might be used to. Reading Figgy's post gave me this idea: Check a chess player's ELO over time and a SC2 player's Aligulac over time.
As just an example, here's how Anand (first player to pop into my head) has been doing http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5000017 Since February, Anand has played 29 games that count toward his ELO. What is the net change over that time? Three points (I think, I'm not sure how I should interpret the graph). Now see ForGG's rating history http://aligulac.com/players/34-ForGG/period/83/. Over a mere 13 days and 19 games, his rating has changed fifty-five points! That is a huge difference.
Now, I am NOT trying to solve any problems here. I know that Kespa's ratings are changing with the same parameters as ForGG's, and I also am aware that ForGG has been playing SC2 for months whereas Anand has been playing chess for literally decades. But I am just saying that this high ratings change might be one source of shock to people who see Aligulac.
On May 05 2013 18:26 slowbacontron wrote: One thing that is possibly bugging people is the fact that Aligulac ratings fluctuate pretty wildly compared to what one might be used to. Reading Figgy's post gave me this idea: Check a chess player's ELO over time and a SC2 player's Aligulac over time.
As just an example, here's how Anand (first player to pop into my head) has been doing http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5000017 Since February, Anand has played 29 games that count toward his ELO. What is the net change over that time? Three points (I think, I'm not sure how I should interpret the graph). Now see ForGG's rating history http://aligulac.com/players/34-ForGG/period/83/. Over a mere 13 days and 19 games, his rating has changed fifty-five points! That is a huge difference.
Now, I am NOT trying to solve any problems here. I know that Kespa's ratings are changing with the same parameters as ForGG's, and I also am aware that ForGG has been playing SC2 for months whereas Anand has been playing chess for literally decades. But I am just saying that this high ratings change might be one source of shock to people who see Aligulac.
While I do agree. People also seem to want every "flavor of the month" player to be in top 3. How does one do both?
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
I know you're angry at ForGG cause he kicks your ass all the time, but that's not a reason to come here and bitch about it.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
I know you're angry at ForGG cause he kicks your ass all the time, but that's not a reason to come here and bitch about it.
3:2 over the last period is hardly an ass-kicking.
On May 05 2013 18:26 slowbacontron wrote: One thing that is possibly bugging people is the fact that Aligulac ratings fluctuate pretty wildly compared to what one might be used to. Reading Figgy's post gave me this idea: Check a chess player's ELO over time and a SC2 player's Aligulac over time.
As just an example, here's how Anand (first player to pop into my head) has been doing http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5000017 Since February, Anand has played 29 games that count toward his ELO. What is the net change over that time? Three points (I think, I'm not sure how I should interpret the graph). Now see ForGG's rating history http://aligulac.com/players/34-ForGG/period/83/. Over a mere 13 days and 19 games, his rating has changed fifty-five points! That is a huge difference.
Now, I am NOT trying to solve any problems here. I know that Kespa's ratings are changing with the same parameters as ForGG's, and I also am aware that ForGG has been playing SC2 for months whereas Anand has been playing chess for literally decades. But I am just saying that this high ratings change might be one source of shock to people who see Aligulac.
While I do agree. People also seem to want every "flavor of the month" player to be in top 3. How does one do both?
Well, it seems to me that ForGG is not most people's flavor of the month I don't know.
On May 05 2013 18:26 slowbacontron wrote: One thing that is possibly bugging people is the fact that Aligulac ratings fluctuate pretty wildly compared to what one might be used to. Reading Figgy's post gave me this idea: Check a chess player's ELO over time and a SC2 player's Aligulac over time.
As just an example, here's how Anand (first player to pop into my head) has been doing http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5000017 Since February, Anand has played 29 games that count toward his ELO. What is the net change over that time? Three points (I think, I'm not sure how I should interpret the graph). Now see ForGG's rating history http://aligulac.com/players/34-ForGG/period/83/. Over a mere 13 days and 19 games, his rating has changed fifty-five points! That is a huge difference.
Now, I am NOT trying to solve any problems here. I know that Kespa's ratings are changing with the same parameters as ForGG's, and I also am aware that ForGG has been playing SC2 for months whereas Anand has been playing chess for literally decades. But I am just saying that this high ratings change might be one source of shock to people who see Aligulac.
While I do agree. People also seem to want every "flavor of the month" player to be in top 3. How does one do both?
Well, it seems to me that ForGG is not most people's flavor of the month I don't know.
Personally, I believe that INnoVation is probably the best player in the world right now. People need to realize that no rating system, which isn't being tampered with, can put him #1 so fast without giving up on the prediction power. Then factor in all the Kespa players we know close to nothing about and we have the issue.
Honestly, as soon as a few players beat ForGG in TvT, it should stabilize.
On May 05 2013 18:26 slowbacontron wrote: One thing that is possibly bugging people is the fact that Aligulac ratings fluctuate pretty wildly compared to what one might be used to. Reading Figgy's post gave me this idea: Check a chess player's ELO over time and a SC2 player's Aligulac over time.
As just an example, here's how Anand (first player to pop into my head) has been doing http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=5000017 Since February, Anand has played 29 games that count toward his ELO. What is the net change over that time? Three points (I think, I'm not sure how I should interpret the graph). Now see ForGG's rating history http://aligulac.com/players/34-ForGG/period/83/. Over a mere 13 days and 19 games, his rating has changed fifty-five points! That is a huge difference.
Now, I am NOT trying to solve any problems here. I know that Kespa's ratings are changing with the same parameters as ForGG's, and I also am aware that ForGG has been playing SC2 for months whereas Anand has been playing chess for literally decades. But I am just saying that this high ratings change might be one source of shock to people who see Aligulac.
While I do agree. People also seem to want every "flavor of the month" player to be in top 3. How does one do both?
Well, it seems to me that ForGG is not most people's flavor of the month I don't know.
Personally, I believe that INnoVation is probably the best player in the world right now. People need to realize that no rating system, which isn't being tampered with, can put him #1 so fast without giving up on the prediction power. Then factor in all the Kespa players we know close to nothing about and we have the issue.
Honestly, as soon as a few players beat ForGG in TvT, it should stabilize.
Definitely true, but what if, as Figgy pointed out, ForGG simply stays in his region and beats up on Europeans that aren't as good as he is? Aligulac continues to predict 2-1s for many of his matches, and as long as he can 2-0 them, his rating will rise to impossible heights. We should start a campaign to fund ForGG's travels to more Korean tournaments
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
I know you're angry at ForGG cause he kicks your ass all the time, but that's not a reason to come here and bitch about it.
I still remember Stim to the Win finals where Nerchio roach rushed a blind cc-gas-rax build by ForGG in 3/4 wins! :D
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
I read and understood it. The list is a waste of effort honestly.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
I read and understood it. The list is a waste of effort honestly.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
I read and understood it. The list is a waste of effort honestly.
What it really means is: Don't compare cross regions, and you should be mostly fine.
On May 05 2013 05:50 WindCalibur wrote: I feel like people should get banned or warned for saying the same thing about people rating too high etc again and again without reading more in the OP on how and why some of players are higher or lower than they should be.
I read and understood it. The list is a waste of effort honestly.
What it really means is: Don't compare cross regions, and you should be mostly fine.
Which is why there used to be a TLPD for Korea and a TLPD for, well, not Korea. These days, however, it's not so simple to neatly separate the regions, since most everyone (apart from the low tier Kespa players) plays in a region that's not his own pretty often, compared to how it used to be in BW.
And now with WCS, separating the regions is even worse, since the only option would be to count various Koreans as North American, or European. It'd be just weird.
but seriously, here's something more interesting than the aligulac ranking: Offline vs Koreans
sOs is 85–40 (68%) O_O Life is 146–79 (65%) INnoVation is 101–58 (64%) Flash is 104–61 (63%) PartinG is 192–147 (57%) ForGG is 62–51 (55%) Bisu is 26–32 (45%) ;_;
white pplz LucifroN is 11–23 (32%) Snute is 26–44 (37%) Scarlett is 15–24 (38%) Sen is 39–56 (41%) VortiX is 24–32 (43%) NaNiwa is 73–105 (41%) Nerchio is 44–40 (52%) positive IdrA is 81–112 (42%) HuK is 101–137 (42%) steady Stephano is 141–111 (56%) impressive
you can also start from HotS, but the number of games is quite low. INnoVation is 34–13 (72%) monstrous sOs is 24–10 (71%) still beast Flash is 30–18 (63%) Soulkey is 19–10 (66%) Jaedong is 13–7 (65%)^^ JangBi is 15–9 (63%) Rain is 17–15 (53%) Stephano is 4–13 (24%) -_-
On May 07 2013 05:15 rift wrote: he's milking the europeans for all their points!
but seriously, here's something more interesting than the aligulac ranking: Offline vs Koreans
sOs is 85–40 (68%) O_O Life is 146–79 (65%) INnoVation is 101–58 (64%) Flash is 104–61 (63%) PartinG is 192–147 (57%) ForGG is 62–51 (55%) Bisu is 26–32 (45%) ;_;
white pplz LucifroN is 11–23 (32%) Snute is 26–44 (37%) Scarlett is 15–24 (38%) Sen is 39–56 (41%) VortiX is 24–32 (43%) NaNiwa is 73–105 (41%) Nerchio is 44–40 (52%) positive IdrA is 81–112 (42%) HuK is 101–137 (42%) steady Stephano is 141–111 (56%) impressive
you can also start from HotS, but the number of games is quite low. INnoVation is 34–13 (72%) monstrous sOs is 24–10 (71%) still beast Flash is 30–18 (63%) Soulkey is 19–10 (66%) Jaedong is 13–7 (65%)^^ JangBi is 15–9 (63%) Rain is 17–15 (53%) Stephano is 4–13 (24%) -_-
Yup We support all those functions and people are very welcome to do these kinds of lists using our site. We just post a simple one but I might consider doing weekly write-ups on some of these kind of statistics as well if people want it
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Just because you are a pro does not mean you should reply to a thread without bothering to read the OP.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
they show something, but the method to calculate the points is not perfect (not technically, it's probably very well written, but the idea itself), hence we have a flawed list where forgg is on top. there is no proper use of this webpage to produce a better list.
and btw MKP never dominated as much, and it was inevitable that he falls with such an obvious flaw
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
they show something, but the method to calculate the points is not perfect (not technically, it's probably very well written, but the idea itself), hence we have a flawed list where forgg is on top. there is no proper use of this webpage to produce a better list.
and btw MKP never dominated as much, and it was inevitable that he falls with such an obvious flaw
comparing regions/match up/players head to head... all things aligulac does well. And btw if you think that MKP's fall has anything to do with its scouting, you're just blatlantly showing your ignorance of the game.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
Aligulac gives predictions as well, just like ELO (even if you don't know about that). Those predictions are surprisingly accurate, as long as you do not compare cross regions. There's probably no easy answer to the ForGG problem, other than "subjective" analysis.
Edit: In fact, ELO suffers from a similar, but different, problem. Comparing across time period is useless due to grading inflation.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
Aligulac gives predictions as well, just like ELO (even if you don't know about that). Those predictions are surprisingly accurate, as long as you do not compare cross regions. There's probably no easy answer to the ForGG problem, other than "subjective" analysis.
Edit: In fact, ELO suffers from a similar, but different, problem. Comparing across time period is useless due to grading inflation.
The formula behind the rating is optimized with regard to predictions, to predict as many results correctly as possible
Forgg being that high actually shows how bad the alligulac rating system is for sc2. also they need higher K-factor since sc2 is a game that evolves quickly. It shouldnt take 200 games and 1 year for a good player to reach the top
On May 12 2013 07:24 Boucot wrote: Suddenly, Polt.
The funny thing is, Polt has exactly the same problem that ForGG has: Both are beating up lots of foreign scrubs in smaller, non-Korean tournaments, and thus inflating their ranking. Of course, nobody's going to complain about Polt being ranked too highly.
On May 12 2013 02:01 bilivaxyto wrote: Forgg being that high actually shows how bad the alligulac rating system is for sc2. also they need higher K-factor since sc2 is a game that evolves quickly. It shouldnt take 200 games and 1 year for a good player to reach the top
They used to have a higher K-factor
and then people complained about the ratings being too volatile
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
Aligulac gives predictions as well, just like ELO (even if you don't know about that). Those predictions are surprisingly accurate, as long as you do not compare cross regions. There's probably no easy answer to the ForGG problem, other than "subjective" analysis.
Edit: In fact, ELO suffers from a similar, but different, problem. Comparing across time period is useless due to grading inflation.
The formula behind the rating is optimized with regard to predictions, to predict as many results correctly as possible
Hey, really cool project you have going there, although I can only imagine how much these "your stats are worthless cause my favourite player isn't #1" posts must annoy you.
About the ForGG (and Polt) situation, pardon me if I'm repeating something suggested earlier, but have you considered trying to formalize the intuition we all share - that regions aren't created equal? Blizzard used to have something like that for Masters League, where divisions had different elo modifiers, although in their case they just decided on them arbitrarily.
So, maybe you could cluster your players (should result in geographical regions with some outliers), calculate the average rating for each region, and modify that for cross-region matches? So, for instance, if a Code B Korean play in an EU tournament and beats ForGG, this would not only affect their ratings, but also the average ratings of EU and KR, so the rating of every EU player would decrease slighly, and the rating of every KR player would increase slightly (I assume ratings aren't actually integers). I believe this could capture the intuition that we all have: That Koreans beating Europeans should devalue rating gained by playing in EU only, which would solve the ForGG problem.
While the crowds were crying in fear for the ForGGeddeon, they failed to realize the impending apocalypse happening right in front of their eyes. Yet they refused to acknowledge it, they were blind to see the other cataclysm. Behold, Poltgeddeon has arrived.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
Aligulac gives predictions as well, just like ELO (even if you don't know about that). Those predictions are surprisingly accurate, as long as you do not compare cross regions. There's probably no easy answer to the ForGG problem, other than "subjective" analysis.
Edit: In fact, ELO suffers from a similar, but different, problem. Comparing across time period is useless due to grading inflation.
The formula behind the rating is optimized with regard to predictions, to predict as many results correctly as possible
Hey, really cool project you have going there, although I can only imagine how much these "your stats are worthless cause my favourite player isn't #1" posts must annoy you.
About the ForGG (and Polt) situation, pardon me if I'm repeating something suggested earlier, but have you considered trying to formalize the intuition we all share - that regions aren't created equal? Blizzard used to have something like that for Masters League, where divisions had different elo modifiers, although in their case they just decided on them arbitrarily.
So, maybe you could cluster your players (should result in geographical regions with some outliers), calculate the average rating for each region, and modify that for cross-region matches? So, for instance, if a Code B Korean play in an EU tournament and beats ForGG, this would not only affect their ratings, but also the average ratings of EU and KR, so the rating of every EU player would decrease slighly, and the rating of every KR player would increase slightly (I assume ratings aren't actually integers). I believe this could capture the intuition that we all have: That Koreans beating Europeans should devalue rating gained by playing in EU only, which would solve the ForGG problem.
That's a lot of fancy words.
I am not the "brain" behind the site, that would be TheBB, he is currently on vacation, but I'll make sure he sees this and gives you an answer
Clustering players would be really hard though, Right now the biggest problem is that we are still waiting for Kespa players to have enough points transferred to their "region" to make their rating more accurate compared to their actual skill level. The Kespa players made a huge splash because a lot of great players entered with a 1000 rating, and they are obviously a lot better than their rating currently shows, because some players almost never play, so we never know how good they are.
All in all, you can never take statistics at face value, do I believe ForGG is top 3 player in the world? No, I do not. Currently TheBB is actually working on a new underlying model trying to improve the overall rating system.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
they show something, but the method to calculate the points is not perfect (not technically, it's probably very well written, but the idea itself), hence we have a flawed list where forgg is on top. there is no proper use of this webpage to produce a better list.
and btw MKP never dominated as much, and it was inevitable that he falls with such an obvious flaw
And btw if you think that MKP's fall has anything to do with its scouting, you're just blatlantly showing your ignorance of the game.
ohh hyea you're so unignorant you just proved MKP's stubborn no scout into greedy builds didn't get punished by 124213432 zerg players after his "dominance" mainly causing his fall. you're like the king of arguments.
On May 05 2013 05:46 Nerchio wrote: If a guy that doesn't scout in more than 50% of the games gets even close to rank1 it means something is wrong with your ranking.
Or maybe you should read the fucking OP...
or maybe one could think even if there is an explanation for it, that the rating is worthless if such a thing happens
funny how dorks jump on the opportunity to be an ass with a progamer just because they can
No it's not worthless. It's the appliciants fault if he does not understand how to properly use a tool. Also obviously scouting has not much to do with a rating. See MKPs dominance.
Or maybe I don't give a shit if someone is a progamer.
lol what "proper use"? proper use is to produce useless numbers?
Aligulac gives predictions as well, just like ELO (even if you don't know about that). Those predictions are surprisingly accurate, as long as you do not compare cross regions. There's probably no easy answer to the ForGG problem, other than "subjective" analysis.
Edit: In fact, ELO suffers from a similar, but different, problem. Comparing across time period is useless due to grading inflation.
The formula behind the rating is optimized with regard to predictions, to predict as many results correctly as possible
Hey, really cool project you have going there, although I can only imagine how much these "your stats are worthless cause my favourite player isn't #1" posts must annoy you.
About the ForGG (and Polt) situation, pardon me if I'm repeating something suggested earlier, but have you considered trying to formalize the intuition we all share - that regions aren't created equal? Blizzard used to have something like that for Masters League, where divisions had different elo modifiers, although in their case they just decided on them arbitrarily.
So, maybe you could cluster your players (should result in geographical regions with some outliers), calculate the average rating for each region, and modify that for cross-region matches? So, for instance, if a Code B Korean play in an EU tournament and beats ForGG, this would not only affect their ratings, but also the average ratings of EU and KR, so the rating of every EU player would decrease slighly, and the rating of every KR player would increase slightly (I assume ratings aren't actually integers). I believe this could capture the intuition that we all have: That Koreans beating Europeans should devalue rating gained by playing in EU only, which would solve the ForGG problem.
Hey,
You're right, there are some problems related to heterogeneity in the scene. I could potentially solve it by introducing some region-specific parameters. There is just one problem. I basically can't decide what the ratings are for . Are they for predictions only? In which case I should go ahead. Or is it also a "competition" where I need to be concerned with fairness? In which case I can't.
For example, chess Elo is used for seeding in the World Championships. That would never be possible if Russians, say, were given bonus points, no matter how mathematically justified.
Of course, Aligulac isn't being used for any such thing, but I have some respect for the integrity of the system. Right now, Koreans have exactly as many points as they deserve to have, mathematically, based on the games they've won. At least that's something.
I realize this doesn't have a right answer. Just pondering...
How about a point system that resets every quarter and a full-length one that spans from the beginning of HoTS? That would make for some good perspective.
There is a more accurate ranking for this ForGG's TvP HPM : Over 9000 Other's : less than 9000 That is a mathematical proof that forGG > others, even if he looked a bit weaker in his last game againt SOS. I mean, ghosts, really?
On June 08 2013 00:03 Epamynondas wrote: It physically pains me to wish Mvp and Innovation to lose, but this is what I hope actually happens in the WCS finals.
ForGG 3-2 Mvp ForGG 3-2 Innovation (actually alive would be better??) ForGG 4-3 whoever
This way we'd have ForGG as the Official World Champion BUT he wouldn't top the aligulac list (probably??)
We could thus experience the rare and extremely dangerous Reverse ForGGeddon.
3-2 3-2 versus T would make him lose points I am 99% certain.
On June 07 2013 23:56 Nimix wrote: There is a more accurate ranking for this ForGG's TvP HPM : Over 9000 Other's : less than 9000 That is a mathematical proof that forGG > others, even if he looked a bit weaker in his last game againt SOS. I mean, ghosts, really?
ForGG's style specifically doesn't make Hellbats, but as for his Hellions per minute...
How dare you utter such blasphemy. Jürgen maybe saved us but he is no god, there can be only one, and Lee Young Ho's time for mercy will soon be over. So watch your tongue§ Poor forGG though, but I didn't see him win it all anyway unless his TvZ super dramatically improved
How dare you utter such blasphemy. Jürgen maybe saved us but he is no god, there can be only one, and Lee Young Ho's time for mercy will soon be over. So watch your tongue§ Poor forGG though, but I didn't see him win it all anyway unless his TvZ super dramatically improved
Nah me neither, hoping for Mvp vs SK or GSL finals rematch
I wonder what happened to Dayshi rating. Last time i checked Non-Korean ranking he was about to make it to the top 10. Though, i just checked and saw he was barely top 25. He lost about 100 points in about 2 weeks but the charts doesn't show the fall.
On June 08 2013 18:27 Sedall wrote: I wonder what happened to Dayshi rating. Last time i checked Non-Korean ranking he was about to make it to the top 10. Though, i just checked and saw he was barely top 25. He lost about 100 points in about 2 weeks but the charts doesn't show the fall.
There was a recent change in the rating system, which probably also affected Dayshi
On June 08 2013 18:27 Sedall wrote: I wonder what happened to Dayshi rating. Last time i checked Non-Korean ranking he was about to make it to the top 10. Though, i just checked and saw he was barely top 25. He lost about 100 points in about 2 weeks but the charts doesn't show the fall.
There was a recent change in the rating system, which probably also affected Dayshi
Oh, well it severely affected him compared to other Non-Korean :'( He should come back quite quickly to his place since prediction should put him as looser or winner with a close score. Thank you though ^^
I can't wait to read the TL recap, just watching the finals and ForGG break down at the end gave me chills. And TL never disappoints in putting hype on top of hype!
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/clTPuZp.jpg)
Life 1912
ForGG 1873
PartinG 1804
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1hcSTvA.png)
.
I don't know.![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/2TwUQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/2Tx1p.jpg)
