Suggestion for Ladder Stats

[fainaent]

I would like to suggest implementing a Net +/- Rating per Match statistic to go with the current stats. For example, if shmOP played 100 games and went from 1500 to 2500, his RPM?(rating per match) would be 10.

You could compare that to shmPlaysALot, who played 1000 games and went from 1500 to 2500, his RPM would be 1.

I think this would be an interesting statistic to better look at the quality of a given player. Obviously with any part of the formula that boosts rating due to being new, etc... would skew this initially, but it shouldn't take too many matches for it to be very informative.

[sunshineduck]

huh? that stat wouldn't show how good someone is at all :|

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

huh? that stat wouldn't show how good someone is at all :|

Actually it gives more insight than just a player's ranking. If one player gets to 2500 twice as fast as another player, you know they are better. For example, a player ranked #12 who took 1800 games to get there... not naming names, would have a very low RPM, like 0.8.

[sunshineduck]

yes, that is a number that works, but it doesn't explain what you say it says - it just means that the person in question who took fewer games was underrated. the rating is the number that matters when accounting for skill, you don't get more points for playing more games.

[fainaent]

You do get more points for playing more games. The formula has this built in.

For example, AH|DN, in his last 90 games, has won 45 games and lost 45 games. In the last 90 games, he has gained 166 in his rating.

[fainaent]

Just to clarify that last post, AH|DN has a lifetime RPM of 1.19, and over the last 90 games his RPM is 1.97. It would be possible to include both numbers to show a change in play style as well. No matter, some people expressed interest in this idea but it seems most don't like it. I'll just continue to extract the figure myself.

[sunshineduck]

the season 2 formula isn't zero-sum, so his extra points despite his 50% winrate are coming from the points gained from the uncertainty multiplier. http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6397

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

the season 2 formula isn't zero-sum, so his extra points despite his 50% winrate are coming from the points gained from the uncertainty multiplier. http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6397

Finally, you are given a few extra bonus points for each game you win. This serves as an inflationary factor to ladder making ratings trend upward over time, so that new players start near the bottom of the ladder rather than near the middle as previously, which more accurately reflects reality.

Or from this. The point is, looking at a combination of rating and RPM gives a clearer picture than looking at a combination of rating and total matches, because most of us just aren't good enough with math to know exactly what that means right off the bat. This would also show, indirectly, how close a player is to leveling off, especially if lifetime RPM and 100 games RPM were shown together.

here's what I mean by this. Looking at MJdaBest, you can see his RPM for the last 100 games is much lower than his lifetime, and his chart resembles an exponential curve. Unless something changes, huge changes in his rating shouldn't be expected. Looking at Nikon, he has a high RPM, and a higher RPM for the last 100 games...

MJdabest

RPM = 2.67
RPM100 = 0.27

Nikon

RPM = 5.07
RPM100 = 7.18

you could think of this as an 'Underrated factor' or something similar. It's just a way to look at ratings more relative to a player's skill than the number of matches a player has played. Some players might never actually reach a plateau in their rating, there are definitely many top players who don't appear to be close to doing so.

The rating system takes time to get players to their true rank. Most players will probably never reach their true rank, as they simply don't have the time to play that many games. This helps see into their skill a little more.

The information is already in the stats, it just needs to be divided and shown to be implemented.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

yes, that is a number that works, but it doesn't explain what you say it says - it just means that the person in question who took fewer games was underrated. the rating is the number that matters when accounting for skill, you don't get more points for playing more games.

The biggest problem is, how many players' ratings do you think are actually reflective of their skill level. It doesn't make sense. Look at the players' charts. Almost everyone is sitting at or near the top of a steadily increasing line. The rating formula works in principle, but not everyone has a chance to get near the end result.

[sunshineduck]

i think i'm starting to understand what you mean, but it's still essentially worthless information that doesn't tell you what you are implying it tells you. if player A reaches 2500 in 100 games but player B reached 2500 in 1000 games, it doesn't mean at all that player A is a superior player.

the individual rating trends relative to the skill level the player is presently at, so assuming that player A and player B both plateaued at 2500 i'd presume they're equally talented, not that player A is superior to player B. if, however, player A went on to continue to win and plateau at 2800, he'd obviously be the superior player. however, we cannot assume player A will continue to win at his current rate and attempt to quantify his skill as such. the inflationary points doesn't substitute for actual talent, as if you became overrated due to inflation you will lose more games until you are properly rated. it's a measure to increase the points injected into the total points pool, not a way for people to play en masse until they're rank #1

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

i think i'm starting to understand what you mean, but it's still essentially worthless information that doesn't tell you what you are implying it tells you. if player A reaches 2500 in 100 games but player B reached 2500 in 1000 games, it doesn't mean at all that player A is a superior player.

the individual rating trends relative to the skill level the player is presently at, so assuming that player A and player B both plateaued at 2500 i'd presume they're equally talented, not that player A is superior to player B. if, however, player A went on to continue to win and plateau at 2800, he'd obviously be the superior player. however, we cannot assume player A will continue to win at his current rate and attempt to quantify his skill as such. the inflationary points doesn't substitute for actual talent, as if you became overrated due to inflation you will lose more games until you are properly rated. it's a measure to increase the points injected into the total points pool, not a way for people to play en masse until they're rank #1

Like I said before, it's a way to look at a players current skill level, more than their rating. In theory, looking at their rating is fine, but rating doesn't reflect current skill for most players. Most players are still gaining. Look at my examples previous to this. If you see someone who has had an RPM of 4, and an RPM100 of 4, with a rating of 2500, you can imagine they are still quite a way from their 'plateau'. If you see a player with an RPM of 3, and an RPM100 of 1, with a rating of 2500, you can imagine they are much closer to plateauing. Yes, both players have the same rating, but player 1 is probably better... assuming you have a decent pool size of games to go by. If it helps, think of it as an underrated factor. The higher the RPM, and RPM100, the more underrated the player is.

Saying that two players at the same rating are at the same skill level is a bit silly, unless both players have played enough games to clearly show they have peaked in their ratings. I understand the principles behind the rating system, but it has flaws.


Another example. Shmo got to 2500 in 90 games(apprx). I would be expected to hit 2500 around game 220(currently at 180). If I did, it would be fair to say a player who got to 2500 in 90 games is at a higher skill level than a player that got to 2500 in 220 games. I completely disagree with

if player A reaches 2500 in 100 games but player B reached 2500 in 1000 games, it doesn't mean at all that player A is a superior player.

That would only be true if player A reached 2500 in 100 games and stayed there, and player B reached 2500 in 1000 games and stayed there, but that's not how things actually work.

I don't know why people have been so adverse to this idea, especially considering the numerator and denominator are already programmed in.

[fainaent]

Anyway, I'm tired and this obviously isn't going to be implemented. Nobo told me he doesn't think there is any value to that statistic, so...

[sunshineduck]

that's because there isn't any value to it. you can't approximate how underrated someone is based on how many points they've accumulated in the past few games, so the statistic is completely meaningless. that number completely ignores the fact that every player can and will plateau and that growth in ladder rating is essentially linear. the whole point of your number crunch is to basically say "hey, this dude is winning a lot recently, so he's underrated", which is entirely pointless to add to a ladder page.

your entire shmo analogy and assumption that higher RPM at equal rating = higher skill is extremely silly. i've plateaued pretty hard lately and would guess my RPM100 is fairly low. if i were to create a smurf account and play until i caught up to my current rating, i'm fairly sure that my RPM100 would be significantly higher due to my being underrated for a large number of games. would you then assume that i am better than myself, since i am at an equal rating but with a vastly higher RPM?

anyway apparently you've given up on your idea, which i suppose is fine with me. i just don't want you thinking you're right, because you are very much in the wrong.

[fainaent]

Eh, let's try this a different way, since you don't actually refer specifically to most of my points.

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

that's because there isn't any value to it. you can't approximate how underrated someone is based on how many points they've accumulated in the past few games, so the statistic is completely meaningless.

Just because you can't see any value in it doesn't mean it's not there. Sometimes you have to open yourself to other ideas.

that number completely ignores the fact that every player can and will plateau and that growth in ladder rating is essentially linear. the whole point of your number crunch is to basically say "hey, this dude is winning a lot recently, so he's underrated", which is entirely pointless to add to a ladder page.

First, the number is already included, because the numerator and denominator are included. It's just a fraction, and is more understandable than just seeing rating and games played. Showing rating and games played automatically leads to this number.

Secondly, I never said 'hey, this dude is winning a lot lately, so he's underrated'. What I said was, if Player A has gained, 5 points per match for 500 matches, and Player B has gained 2 points per match for 500 matches, indicates that Player A is a better player. While this might not be completely true, it is more-so than comparing ratings that don't reflect the majority of players' skill levels. As I said before, most players haven't peaked. Look at their charts.

your entire shmo analogy and assumption that higher RPM at equal rating = higher skill is extremely silly. i've plateaued pretty hard lately and would guess my RPM100 is fairly low. if i were to create a smurf account and play until i caught up to my current rating, i'm fairly sure that my RPM100 would be significantly higher due to my being underrated for a large number of games. would you then assume that i am better than myself, since i am at an equal rating but with a vastly higher RPM?

My initial example didn't have anything to do with RPM100. It was just a basic explanation of the statistic. The only reason to include something like an RPM100, or RPM200, (RPM 50% would probably work better, how has the player done in the second 50% of his games compared to first 50% of games), is to compare total rating growth to more recent rating growth. I just put RPM100 out there as an idea, not a statement on the best way to handle the short-term statistic. So, in fact, your argument about my shmo analogy is completely irrelevant to what I said.

anyway apparently you've given up on your idea, which i suppose is fine with me. i just don't want you thinking you're right, because you are very much in the wrong.

I have a hard time not responding to people when they continue to make vague replies, compared to actually discussing what I've said. I just wanted to clarify what you put in your last post. If others were interested in this idea, I'm happy to discuss it, but I'll only be replying unless something changes. If you really think I'm in the wrong, why don't you take what I say and refute it, point by point. I'm open to real discussion.

[Ingbo]

what exactly would this provide that win% doesnt provide except maybe an EXACT (dont really see the need or the interest of seeing what this would look like for specific players) curve for however someone is doing in a small part of their overall game sample?
- to me its just so intuitive that the higher up ppl get the flatter their curves would be

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by Ingbo

what exactly would this provide that win% doesnt provide except maybe an EXACT (dont really see the need or the interest of seeing what this would look like for specific players) curve for however someone is doing in a small part of their overall game sample?

It provides more insight into how close the player actually is to a plateau, especially if it is combined with a short-term statistic, or even win%, as well. It's actually pretty similar to what you would get if you applied a smoothing algorithm to the rating history graph of a player. The same win% does not equal the same RPM.

Another nice feature is it gives lower-ranked players an idea of how many games they might need to play to reach a certain level. For instance, with myself, I can see I would need to play 290 more games at my current rate to reach the 3500 area.

- to me its just so intuitive that the higher up ppl get the flatter their curves would be

But that's just not the case. Look at the graphs for BlueBomber and Sunaku, or Sunaku and Nikon. Those are examples that show the two extremes. One player that appears to be leveling off, and one who shows no signs of stopping. In theory you are correct, but the number of games it takes to actually get players to the tops of their curves just won't happen for some?many?most?

<---- Haven't checked every player to see how many are still obviously underrated.

[Ingbo]

i disagree that it would give more insight given that it doesnt provide for bad streaks as in not being on ur A-game for an x amount of games or not getting good teams for an x amount of games ->
the general idea to have a stat thats focusing on short term fluctuations which will be greatly impacted by variance such as how well ur playing, the lvl of srsosity on ur team, how well their playing and how much they care b/c of it etc etc etc u can go on forever with things that will impact ur short term point gain / loss that will affect this just makes it a stat that doesnt seem interesting for me.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by Ingbo

i disagree that it would give more insight given that it doesnt provide for bad streaks as in not being on ur A-game for an x amount of games or not getting good teams for an x amount of games ->
the general idea to have a stat thats focusing on short term fluctuations which will be greatly impacted by variance such as how well ur playing, the lvl of srsosity on ur team, how well their playing and how much they care b/c of it etc etc etc u can go on forever with things that will impact ur short term point gain / loss that will affect this just makes it a stat that doesnt seem interesting for me.

Maybe you should re-read my first post. The main point is to provide an RPM stat. Not short term. Rating/Games Played. That's it. All discussion about any type of short-term stat is in relation to compare how a player has changed in the ratings over the entire season, compared to recent gameplay. I didn't include anything like that in my original suggestion, it just came up as a possible idea for more data. Your concerns have nothing to do with total RPM.

[Ingbo]

it does question what the actual curve would show tho and how much u can read into it if u look at it critically.
if you only implement it as a stat for ur entire sample then to me its okay even tho not really needed but i really dont think a curve would add anything but confusion.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by Ingbo

it does question what the actual curve would show tho and how much u can read into it if u look at it critically.
if you only implement it as a stat for ur entire sample then to me its okay even tho not really needed but i really dont think a curve would add anything but confusion.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning a curve. This would be a number. I posted examples of charts earlier to try and explain to SSD what the point of RPM is, but I'm not talking about doing anything with graphs.

Having some kind of shorter-term version of RPM would further help to show if a player was underrated. It could be RPM for the last 100 matches, or for the last 50% of a players matches, or anything else. I haven't looked into it to see what would work best without being influenced too much by streaks.

[Ribilla]

I think that this RPM statistic is completely independent of skill and how far someone is from their true ranking. The reason you see an upward tendency in all players is because the games are not zero-sum and you gain points just for playing, I'm going to ignore this effect in the examples I propose, because it makes them more complicated.

This is essentially a re-hash of SSD's point, but it's a good one, so I will make it again anyway. Say I get to 2100 in 60 games in the new season. I then play 540 more games and stay at the same ranking, because I have tended to where I should be. Now I have played 600 games and gained 600 points, my RPM is 1.

Now, imagine I get bored, or decide to uselessly troll the ladder system by smurfing, I get to 2100 again, in 60 games. Now we have two players with the same skill level (me and me) who are both as stable as each other (same rating, where I plateau) Who have a RPM out by a factor of 10. How is this a good measurement of anything other than how long you have been at your plateau?

Second point, there is an inactivity multiplier. Say someone, Mr A, sees that season 3 is beginning and goes crazy, he plays 25 games in one night and his rating shoots up by 250 points (RPM of 10, OMG), he then realises that ladder is full of trolls and decides never to play again. Now we consider another player, by happy coincidence called Mr B, Mr B knows ladder is full of trolls and only plays once a month. He is of exactly the same skill level as Mr A, and so all of his skill related stats should be the same. He plays 10 games, but due to the inactivity multiplier that gets added (for arguements sake *2.5 to every win/loss), he also goes up 250 points. Now, despite having exactly the same skill level, he has an RPM of 25, much higher than his equally capable partner.

What are you actually hoping to indicate here other than a horrible muddling of win% and games played? (which is essentially all this represents).

Also, crucially, your point that you made earlier, that your RPM indicates you will hit 2500 at game 220. You will not hit this unless you improve significantly. By definition of the way ladder works, your RPM will always decrease (or tend to zero, rather) once you have played a decent amount of games, because it becomes harder and harder to fulfil your role as your gain more points.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by Ribilla

I think that this RPM statistic is completely independent of skill and how far someone is from their true ranking. The reason you see an upward tendency in all players is because the games are not zero-sum and you gain points just for playing, I'm going to ignore this effect in the examples I propose, because it makes them more complicated.

The fact that ladder isn't zero-sum is a good reason to include this statistic. You can have a player with under 50% win rate, and less than 1 RPM, in the top 20 or top 10, just by playing enough games. How is that an indication of skill? The way it is currently set up, everyone touts ranking only, but very few players are near their actual peak. For example, 9 of the top 10(I don't know which 9, 9 just fits better in a combined graph than 10):



The only one of these graphs I would say shows clear leveling off is the top right. The top left and middle-right are examples of standard deviations on an upward trend. The rest are all very clear that the players are in, and have been in, a consistent, steady upward trend. The theoretical 'leveling off' doesn't happen unless everyone can play enough games to be rated fairly.

If you look at the RPMs for these players, and consider either their win%, RPM100 or RPM50%, you will see that they are still trending as hard as their average trend. These players should be considered underrated, because they haven't topped yet. It's a simple concept.

This is essentially a re-hash of SSD's point, but it's a good one, so I will make it again anyway. Say I get to 2100 in 60 games in the new season. I then play 540 more games and stay at the same ranking, because I have tended to where I should be. Now I have played 600 games and gained 600 points, my RPM is 1.

Now, imagine I get bored, or decide to uselessly troll the ladder system by smurfing, I get to 2100 again, in 60 games. Now we have two players with the same skill level (me and me) who are both as stable as each other (same rating, where I plateau) Who have a RPM out by a factor of 10. How is this a good measurement of anything other than how long you have been at your plateau?

Yes, it is possible to come up with scenarios that temporarily abuse RPM, but it's already presented on the ladder webpage, just not clearly and up-front. I never said we should base rankings off of RPM or anything like that. RPM does show possible differences in skill between similarly ranked players, taking out the 'how many games have you played' factor. Your and SSD's example is absolutely ridiculous, as it doesn't have anything to do with actually ranking an actual player. It's a scenario specifically designed to use RPM the wrong way. You can do that with anything, but the current system has mis-information about true rankings for regular players. I'd take problems with hypothetical situations over problems with common situations anyday.

The fact of the matter is it clearly shows whether or not a player is trending or at a plateau. In other words, if a player is overrated, underrated, or rated correctly.

Second point, there is an inactivity multiplier. Say someone, Mr A, sees that season 3 is beginning and goes crazy, he plays 25 games in one night and his rating shoots up by 250 points (RPM of 10, OMG), he then realises that ladder is full of trolls and decides never to play again. Now we consider another player, by happy coincidence called Mr B, Mr B knows ladder is full of trolls and only plays once a month. He is of exactly the same skill level as Mr A, and so all of his skill related stats should be the same. He plays 10 games, but due to the inactivity multiplier that gets added (for arguements sake *2.5 to every win/loss), he also goes up 250 points. Now, despite having exactly the same skill level, he has an RPM of 25, much higher than his equally capable partner.

I don't know what the inactivity multiplier is, but in that situation, yes, his RPM would be skewed. This is no more of a problem than the players who only play a few games and have a 100% win-loss ratio. It doesn't affect the player's ranking, and these players won't be in the top ranks anyway due to how little they play. RPM is meant to demonstrate the trend of a player's change in ranking. If they are going up quickly, they can easily be considered underrated. It's not changing anybody's ranks, and it's not requiring any new data to be recorded. It's just a simple derivative of already recorded data. Just as Win % is Wins/Matches, Rating Change/Matches. I really don't see how that is any less relevant than Wins/Matches.

What are you actually hoping to indicate here other than a horrible muddling of win% and games played? (which is essentially all this represents).

Because the Rating formula isn't just based off of win percentage. If you win with a team rated lower than your opponent's team, you get more to your rating, but still only one win. I've presented several points about RPM, but people here tend to pick out very isolated possibilities rather than discuss the entire concept.

Also, crucially, your point that you made earlier, that your RPM indicates you will hit 2500 at game 220. You will not hit this unless you improve significantly. By definition of the way ladder works, your RPM will always decrease (or tend to zero, rather) once you have played a decent amount of games, because it becomes harder and harder to fulfil your role as your gain more points.

See the charts above. In theory you are right, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Most charts you look at will have a similar RPM100 as total RPM.

My RPM is 4.23. My RPM100 is 4.49. My RPM50 is 5.02.

It would only work the way you, and others, describe, if everyone else was already ranked properly, and even then, I don't know, because I don't have access to the entire ranking formula.

[Premier Stalin]

tl;dr

However, I did read most of the other posts.

As far as I can tell, the RPM 50 (for example) would show roughly how wrongly rated you are, as having a high RPM would indicate that you are moving through the rankings fairly quickly, and vice versa.

I think this would be a nice feature, although I'm not sure how useful this would be seeing as we already have the rating graph.

[sunshineduck]

your entire theorycraft is based around the idea that the vast majority of ladder players are not currently correctly ranked to their peak. this is entirely true, but only because the current system is injecting more points into the system for inflationary purposes to keep highly rated inactive people from staying in the top spots.

[Premier Stalin]

But the point is if they were correctly rated the RPM would be low, or at least the say RPM50, as you will have plateau'd.

The point of the idea isnt to rank people more accurately, but just to give an idea of their own rating level, rather than theirs in comparison to other peoples?

[sunshineduck]

there's a number that gives a pretty good indication of your rating level - it's called your rating

if you don't think you're accurately rated, play more games until you find out. the RPM doesn't give the information you want, a plateau is the same at the beginning as it is at the end - that's why it's called a plateau. you wouldn't assume a player at the same rating as another player with a higher RPM is a superior player because you don't know if they've plateaued or not.

[sunshineduck]

here's a fun exercise for you

what does this graph mean

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by Premier Stalin

tl;dr

However, I did read most of the other posts.

As far as I can tell, the RPM 50 (for example) would show roughly how wrongly rated you are, as having a high RPM would indicate that you are moving through the rankings fairly quickly, and vice versa.

I think this would be a nice feature, although I'm not sure how useful this would be seeing as we already have the rating graph.

It would be more similar to a smoothed rating graph than the graphs we have, but the information is different.

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

your entire theorycraft is based around the idea that the vast majority of ladder players are not currently correctly ranked to their peak. this is entirely true, but only because the current system is injecting more points into the system for inflationary purposes to keep highly rated inactive people from staying in the top spots.

Thank you for continuing to basically ignore everything I say. I can tell you are well versed in the art of discussion and debate. My 'theorycraft'(an immature attempt to discredit an argument with no basis, simply slander) is based precisely off what you said. You fail to understand that having a rating system that continually injects more points means that players that play more are rewarded more for the same level of skill. There is a disadvantage to the less-active half of the players compared to the more active half. If it was only 1 player that played more than everyone else, it would automatically adjust, given time, but with this much of a playerbase, half of the players benefit and half don't.

Using RPM shows an AVERAGE RATING GAIN PER MATCH. Rating shows TOTAL RATING GAIN FOR ALL MATCHES. You argue against yourself here. Being able to easily see how a player does on average(5 points per game) compared to someone who plays 2000 games(0.8 points per game) is a pretty clear indicator. Imagine where that player would be if he played 2000 games, instead of 400-800.

Originally Posted by Premier Stalin

But the point is if they were correctly rated the RPM would be low, or at least the say RPM50, as you will have plateau'd.

The point of the idea isnt to rank people more accurately, but just to give an idea of their own rating level, rather than theirs in comparison to other peoples?

Well, you can compare with others, and look at others. If you see the player ranked 1 above you has more rating but twice as many games, you can assume, if you play more than half what he plays, you'll probably pass him. RPM just shows that very quickly. You would be a 4 and he might be a 2.

Call it streak indicator, underrated indicator, etc... if that helps.

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

there's a number that gives a pretty good indication of your rating level - it's called your rating

if you don't think you're accurately rated, play more games until you find out. the RPM doesn't give the information you want, a plateau is the same at the beginning as it is at the end - that's why it's called a plateau. you wouldn't assume a player at the same rating as another player with a higher RPM is a superior player because you don't know if they've plateaued or not.

Again, you argue against yourself SSD. The whole reason I suggested this is because not every player has the time to play 2000 games, or even 1000 games. Not every player can reach a peak. RPM gives more insight into how undervalued a player is.

If you had one player at 2500 after 100 games, and one at 2500 after 1000 games, and you looked at the graph of the player with 1000 games, and saw it had plateau'd for the last 500 games, but the player with 100 games was a steady increase, it is absolutely logical to say that player is likely the superior player.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

here's a fun exercise for you

what does this graph mean

I trade Forex as a hobby, I understand how to look at the data behind charts.

This chart(giving me only a graph, no other information, such as time period, y-axis scale, or background) shows a slightly increasing trend, with a period one standard deviation under, and the rest of the time spent one standard deviation over.

The reasons for this could be anything from practicing with new planes, inevitable streaking(harder to know without knowing how many games played), different tactics tried, or even mood, amount of sleep, and general health.

But I have to ask, what's the point? You continue to ignore my points and dodge my questions. What does that chart have to do with RPM?

[sunshineduck]

you're accusing me of dodging your points but i'm addressing them fully, just not in the way that you want (otherwise you'd be winning the argument and this would be implemented)

my entire point is that all of your points are inherently flawed. you can't project future ladder success based on how well they've done in a smaller sample sized for the same reason that if adrian peterson rushes for 500 yards in the first two weeks they don't hand him the mvp trophy right then because he's on pace to rush for 4000 yards. it's completely illogical to assume that player A is superior to player B just because he reached the same rating in a faster amount of time and a statistic implying that is completely meaningless as it is simply a projection and doesn't present any actual evidence to support its claim.

[TRUEPAiN]

I think 'passes completed' stat would be exciting addition to overall ball stats :-)

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

you're accusing me of dodging your points but i'm addressing them fully, just not in the way that you want (otherwise you'd be winning the argument and this would be implemented)

I only request that if you try to discredit my arguments, you try to discredit them by responding to individual points, rather than just calling them flawed and making general, blanket statements. You don't have to of course, but what's the point in arguing(trolling?) unless you actually argue about *things*, rather than some, vague, something or other, kinda principle, kinda thing... ish.

In other words, yes, you are dodging my points.

my entire point is that all of your points are inherently flawed. you can't project future ladder success based on how well they've done in a smaller sample sized for the same reason that if adrian peterson rushes for 500 yards in the first two weeks they don't hand him the mvp trophy right then because he's on pace to rush for 4000 yards. it's completely illogical to assume that player A is superior to player B just because he reached the same rating in a faster amount of time and a statistic implying that is completely meaningless as it is simply a projection and doesn't present any actual evidence to support its claim.

You are saying that you can't make any assumptions to the future based off of past performance. If that were true, every investment in the stock markets, every joint venture, every finance group, everything, would be 50%. Random-Walk theory is what you support. The fact of the matter is you can make assumptions toward the future based off of performance. It's not a guarantee, and I never said we should RANK people differently due to RPM(so why would you say it's like handing the MVP trophy to someone after rushing 500 yards?) It's more like saying, I think Adrian Peterson is probably going to rush more yards than... *insert name here*, because Adrien Peterson rushes on average, twice as many yards per game. Yes, off a small sample, it's not perfect, but nothing is perfect off a small sample. But, it works.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by TRUEPAiN

I think 'passes completed' stat would be exciting addition to overall ball stats :-)

Haha, going to whore passes to be ranked #1 in that

[sunshineduck]

i really am failing to see where i'm dodging your points, i've been telling you exactly why you are completely wrong in every post.

actually, my own analogy was completely flawed because you can actually gain more rushing yards by just spamming carries, whereas you can't gain ladder points by spamming games played. players are mathematically only incorrectly rated when they haven't played enough games to accurately rate them, and this number of games is significantly lower now that ladder is no longer zero-sum. the point is that you can't say that one is only at a plateau when they've played X amount of games because they plateau much before then - it's just not been apparent until after they've played a decent amount of games. therefore you can't assume that blah blah blah i've said this six times in this thread already and you just keep spamming that i'm ignoring your points while you've yet to actually refute the point other than to just say the opposite.

re: your previous post when you responded to my "smurf and win lots of games until i'm at the same rating as my main account" point by saying that it's ridiculous because it's specifically designed to use RPM the wrong way, but the entire premise is silly. the same thing applies when two players of equal skill are equally rated but one has a higher RPM than the other - you can't assume that he's better just because he has a higher RPM.

[sunshineduck]

i just found out that you are armada x

this explains everything

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

i really am failing to see where i'm dodging your points, i've been telling you exactly why you are completely wrong in every post.

actually, my own analogy was completely flawed because you can actually gain more rushing yards by just spamming carries, whereas you can't gain ladder points by spamming games played. players are mathematically only incorrectly rated when they haven't played enough games to accurately rate them, and this number of games is significantly lower now that ladder is no longer zero-sum. the point is that you can't say that one is only at a plateau when they've played X amount of games because they plateau much before then - it's just not been apparent until after they've played a decent amount of games. therefore you can't assume that blah blah blah i've said this six times in this thread already and you just keep spamming that i'm ignoring your points while you've yet to actually refute the point other than to just say the opposite.

re: your previous post when you responded to my "smurf and win lots of games until i'm at the same rating as my main account" point by saying that it's ridiculous because it's specifically designed to use RPM the wrong way, but the entire premise is silly. the same thing applies when two players of equal skill are equally rated but one has a higher RPM than the other - you can't assume that he's better just because he has a higher RPM.

The only thing you have said is that you can't make assumptions on the future based off past results. Everything else has been a variation of 'you're wrong', or 'your argument is flawed'. You fail to reply to specific examples of why you CAN look at information this way. Really, lrn2debate.

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

i just found out that you are armada x

this explains everything

What does that explain? Enlighten us? I sense a general attack-of-character or something similar... why can't you just reply to specifics?

[sunshineduck]

Originally Posted by fainaent

The only thing you have said is that you can't make assumptions on the future based off past results. Everything else has been a variation of 'you're wrong', or 'your argument is flawed'. You fail to reply to specific examples of why you CAN look at information this way. Really, lrn2debate.

considering that is the entire basis for your argument for this statistic, it's sort of relevant. your examples have all been replied to - you can't assume that between 2 people of equal rating with one having a higher RPM, the one with the higher RPM will be a superior player. i have told you multiple times why you cannot, and you always reply by spamming that i don't address your points or that i'm wrong because i'm wrong. if you are referring to your stock market analogy, that was so asinine that it wasn't even worth responding to.

the fact that you are armada x explains why you are completely unable to grasp the simplest logic and why i am having such a hard time understanding why you are even bothering to continue wasting both your life and my life by posting when you are so obviously wrong. it's because you're armada x.

[Wok3N^]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

considering that is the entire basis for your argument for this statistic, it's sort of relevant. your examples have all been replied to - you can't assume that between 2 people of equal rating with one having a higher RPM, the one with the higher RPM will be a superior player. i have told you multiple times why you cannot, and you always reply by spamming that i don't address your points or that i'm wrong because i'm wrong. if you are referring to your stock market analogy, that was so asinine that it wasn't even worth responding to.

the fact that you are armada x explains why you are completely unable to grasp the simplest logic and why i am having such a hard time understanding why you are even bothering to continue wasting both your life and my life by posting when you are so obviously wrong. it's because you're armada x.

gee gee no re

[fainaent]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

considering that is the entire basis for your argument for this statistic, it's sort of relevant. your examples have all been replied to - you can't assume that between 2 people of equal rating with one having a higher RPM, the one with the higher RPM will be a superior player. i have told you multiple times why you cannot, and you always reply by spamming that i don't address your points or that i'm wrong because i'm wrong. if you are referring to your stock market analogy, that was so asinine that it wasn't even worth responding to.

the fact that you are armada x explains why you are completely unable to grasp the simplest logic and why i am having such a hard time understanding why you are even bothering to continue wasting both your life and my life by posting when you are so obviously wrong. it's because you're armada x.

I think you are still sticking by your initial post of 'Player A plateaued at 2500 after 100 games and Player B plateaued at 2500 after 1000 games', but that has never been the situation. I even showed the current charts of 9 of the top 10 players, where 6 of them were CLEARLY not near a plateau, 2 were iffy, and one was. You're comparing the total sums of Player A's 100 games to Player B's 1000 games. The only way to fairly compare the two is to compare them with the same number of games.

Tell you what. Here's an example of why RPM has meaning. I know that nothing I say matters, because I'm Armada-X, which means I know nothing... I know... circular logic is so convenient for you isn't it?

Oh, maybe it's because I suck? Maybe because you're ranked 18 and I'm a lowly 71. Means you're better, right?

Well, unfortunately I've only had the opportunity to play 193 games. In those 193 games I have 821 rank, or an RPM of 4.25.

In your first 193 games(after all, we can only compare apples to apples.) you gained 403 ranking, or an RPM of 2.08. Before you muted me though, I heard it all... ranking is ranking and it's all that matters. After all, I'm Armada-X... so that means... what again?