1 |
This was the first team game of @Eskilo. Before the game, their "ladder rating" was 1100 and the actual "current rating" 1500. After the game, "ladder rating" was 1126 and "current rating" was 1513. Additionally, the other players' ratings changed a bit due to the game. AFAIK, the balancer uses "ladder rating" before the game instead of actual rating.
|
1 |
This was the first team game of @Eskilo. Before the game, their "ladder rating" was 1100 and the actual "current rating" 1500. After the game, "ladder rating" was 1126 and "current rating" was 1513. Additionally, the other players' ratings changed a bit due to the game. AFAIK, the balancer uses "ladder rating" before the game instead of actual rating.
|
3 |
"Ladder
rating"
has
many
strange
deviations
from
the
actual
rating.
That
it
starts
at
1100
instead
of
1500
is
one
of
the
few
deviations
that
makes
some
sense:
You
want
to
balance
a
new
player
as
below
average
but
the
actual
rating
average
has
to
be
kept
at
1500
if
a
new
player
joins.
This
could
be
solved
by
an
anti
inflation
mechanism:
If
a
new
player
joins,
their
actual
rating
could
start
at
1100
and
the
ratings
of
all
other
players
would
be
shifted
up
to
keep
the
average
at
1500.
Then,
ladder
rating
could
be
removed.
|
3 |
"Ladder
rating"
has
many
strange
deviations
from
the
actual
rating.
That
it
starts
at
1100
instead
of
1500
is
one
of
the
few
deviations
that
makes
some
sense:
You
want
to
balance
a
new
player
as
below
average
but
the
actual
rating
average
has
to
be
kept
at
1500
if
a
new
player
joins.
This
could
be
solved
by
an
anti
deflation
mechanism:
If
a
new
player
joins,
their
actual
rating
could
start
at
1100
and
the
ratings
of
all
other
players
would
be
shifted
up
to
keep
the
average
at
1500.
Then,
ladder
rating
could
be
removed.
The
same
mechanism
can
be
used
to
prevent
rating
inflation
if
a
player
leaves.
|