blln4lyf

04-24-2011, 07:26 PM

Right now it assigns teams 1 then 2/3 then 4 etc, while it used to attempt to balance the ratings between the 2 teams.

This new method causes a lot of games to have a team that has a 75% win percentage and a team that has a 25% win percentage. Also, I tracked the % of points that goes to the 75% win team if they win and if they lose(along with the 25% team ofc) and if they 75% win team wins, they get around 40% of the points pool, while if they lose they lose about 60%. A team that has a 75% chance of win shouldn't get 40% of the points pool for a win and only lose 60% when they lose. This makes it harder for people to obtain their real ranking because these games are lop-sided and not properly balanced through the point scale as well.

I am of the belief that ladder should never have games that are more than 60/40% chance of winning/losing anyway because when there is a team with a 75% of winning, there could be a player decently underrated on the 25% team and a player decently overrated on the 75% team, and both can play to their true ratings, holding all else constant, the 75% team will still win the majority of those games. It doesn't allow people to make as much as a factor to overcome the odds stacked against/with them to get to their true ratings, imo.

If your not going to go back to the old system or at least a modified system of this one that does not allow a 75/25% game and caps out around 60/40%, at least change the point scale so that the 75% win team only wins around 25-35% of the point pool for a win, and loses around 65-75% of the point pool for a loss. I like the new ladder system a lot, but the team assigner system has been downgraded since last season which is causing people to have a large delay in reaching their true ratings, imo.

This new method causes a lot of games to have a team that has a 75% win percentage and a team that has a 25% win percentage. Also, I tracked the % of points that goes to the 75% win team if they win and if they lose(along with the 25% team ofc) and if they 75% win team wins, they get around 40% of the points pool, while if they lose they lose about 60%. A team that has a 75% chance of win shouldn't get 40% of the points pool for a win and only lose 60% when they lose. This makes it harder for people to obtain their real ranking because these games are lop-sided and not properly balanced through the point scale as well.

I am of the belief that ladder should never have games that are more than 60/40% chance of winning/losing anyway because when there is a team with a 75% of winning, there could be a player decently underrated on the 25% team and a player decently overrated on the 75% team, and both can play to their true ratings, holding all else constant, the 75% team will still win the majority of those games. It doesn't allow people to make as much as a factor to overcome the odds stacked against/with them to get to their true ratings, imo.

If your not going to go back to the old system or at least a modified system of this one that does not allow a 75/25% game and caps out around 60/40%, at least change the point scale so that the 75% win team only wins around 25-35% of the point pool for a win, and loses around 65-75% of the point pool for a loss. I like the new ladder system a lot, but the team assigner system has been downgraded since last season which is causing people to have a large delay in reaching their true ratings, imo.