I agree, what I meant was: you can join the league, but a profile on the forum is mandatory. Nobody will be blocked to join.
This is hard to realise on challenge boards, unless you made it a closed league
Really enjoyed the league. Can’t wait for SHL3 
Was a fun league. Shout outs to 54% win rate and below 1500.
I liked the excuse to play games 1 step more serious on OCTGN, but if i cared about my rating a league this long I would not have played that many games.
Hopefully for a rating system adjustment, or i’ll just use it again to play more serious games and not care about my results… which kills me, since i am competitive in mindset, and not gaming the system for rating took willpower ~_~
Elo would be ok, but the K-factor is way too high. A k-factor of 15 or so would work much better.
I love the idea of separate corp and runner rates, I think that’d be even more beneficial than moving away from Elo or reducing K-factor.
I know that you guys are putting in a lot of work, and if it’s too much to make big changes then I totally understand!
My work here is done.
Yeah, we have a Ruby-powered glicko-2 implementation for our local league. Give me a week and I’ll talk to my guy to see if we could do some tweaks to it and have it run SHL3.
4 Likes
The K-factor, if it is the same across all games, makes no difference, barring rounding concerns if the K is too small. K value just means “how much does this game matter in relation to others”. If the K value is halved for all games and the starting rating is 1500, a player who was 1700 would be a 1600 and a player who is 1300 would be a 1400. Changing it wouldn’t make any difference with regard to how players are ranked or how much incentive there is to play or not play.
Glicko is good because it has a factor that concerns length between games. Basically, the idea is that if you don’t have a lot of games in recently, (or if the league just started) your rating will change more than if you’ve played a lot recently, This is nice because it makes peoples ratings settle at their ‘actual’ rating faster, and presumably, makes people who are highly ranked want to keep playing so that they don’t have a lot riding on each individual game. Unfortunately, it could have the opposite effect, where someone gets a really high rating, doesn’t play for a week, and feels that they can’t ever play again without risking a ton of points. Also, if you reach your actual rating quickly and like it, you might want to stop playing even faster than if you were using ELO. The best solution might be to use Glicko for 1-month leagues.
Anyway, the way I see it is that we have 3 main ways to run it:
(1) the same.
(2) using a different site than challongeboards that allows us to use a different rating system.
(3) using the open-source nature of challongeboards to make a league there using a different rating system that someone else implements, (no idea if someone has already done this somewhere or how it can be done if not).
3 Likes
The K-factor effectively says “how much information does one more game give”. An ELO rating completely refreshes in approximately 800/k games, so having a lower k-factor reduces variance. The fact that more games are needed shouldn’t be a problem since the top players are all pretty active anyway. It is not true that it would have no effect on rankings.
I agree that Glicko is better, but reducing the k-factor is a much easier adjustment to make for future leagues.
I was thinking that glicko would be so much better than elo because it’d let us punish the “parking the bus” pattern that ELO encouraged. We can just say the top cut will be the N highest rated players with RDs below 100 (or whatever RD is appropriate).
2 Likes
Got it, that makes sense then. Now we have to figure out how to actually do it. The thing is, challengeboards works quite well for what we need it to do and everyone is used to it. Can anyone build Glicko into it or find another place that we can use that supports Glicko?
Yeah - like I said, I have a guy. Should be able to meet up with him tomorrow, give me a week to be on the safe side. When exactly would we want to launch the next league? Would “in 5-6 weeks” be ok?
In terms of functionality, I’m guessing rudimentary like on challongeboards, with possible gradual implementation of Netrunner-specific stuff?
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s a good idea to hold off on SHL3 to wait for some dude to finish a project. Such projects have a tendency to take a long time to finish. Maybe SHL3 runs with challongeboards and then hopefully this new thing is good to go for SHL4?
2 Likes
We did have a 2 month gap between the first two leagues. I’m all in favour of waiting a bit longer for some sweet glicko action.
3 Likes
Yeah, people seem to be much happier OCTGNing when there is a league going. If he can get it done in 5-6 weeks for sure, we can potentially launch SHL3 as a one-month league. It seemed like a few of the top players didn’t play very much league in the second month anyway, (though it did give a few others time to get more games in).
If it sounds like something that might take longer, we can just do same old thing it and do another 2 month on challengeboards with ELO.
1 Like
Oh yeah, also, I vote for 6 weeks. Both 2 month leagues felt like they were dragging on towards the end, but with just 1 month I’d feel very rushed to get games in, no matter the rating system.
6 Likes
I have played both in 2 and 1 month leagues. 1 month feels like a tourney. You have 2 decks, do not change them a lot and hope for the best. In this league I started horribly, tuned the decks in the process and actually played other ids sometime to fight the meta.
For me two months was very nice. For others maybe not. Maybe 6 weeks is the sweet spot and we cover an additional data pack release
I would love to play another league - this time from the very beginning. And since I see the wisdom in the suggestion that every participant should be registered here, I just registered an account.
6 weeks sounds good.
Thanks to all people who spend time to organize this!
1 Like
One thing I would advocate is a ‘SH ranked game’ ongoing between leagues, one that doesn’t reset. Just having a number that goes up if you get better compared to your peers would interest me. For this system, ELO is probably fine.
3 Likes
[quote=“groober, post:2, topic:2804, full:true”]
1: Challenge board is open source. If someone codes up something else, that could help.[/quote]
Just a note here. It’s not enough to just come up with something and code it. That won’t change the website that is there. You need to then host it elsewhere and have your own database, server, etc…
5 Likes
This is another great idea that we can’t actually use challengeboards for yet.