Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter
Seems that something like your suggestion would be (even) better than the current ranking system.
My iterative suggestion is to perhaps average the middle half of your matches... I think this would probably be even more accurate to teams' capabilities throughout the rankings. My suspicion is that this year's rankings work phenomenally well in events where:
- # of matches to # of teams ratio is high
- Most teams aren't improving dramatically
- No teams have 'outlier-like' performance
but probably become weaker, particularly in the middle and lower ranks, when there are more teams, fewer matches, and 1 or 2 powerhouses. Since a powerhouse can put up so many points, you'll see teams that would have a QA of 50 get bumped up to 60, just by playing a single match with a team that puts up 150pts. Particularly in the upper-middle section of the rankings, having a terrible match can drop you like a stone... this would also assist with that scenario.
So my recommendation is to take the middle 50% of your match scores.... average all those together. This nearly eliminates the impact of having 1 or 2 fiercely unlucky (or lucky) matches, but will still reward the 'consistent performers' who are just very good every time they go out there. |
For anyone who would like to try this out, I've got a very simple sim of the ranking system (demo
http://schreiaj.github.io/2015_ranki...s=64&matches=8 and code
https://github.com/schreiaj/2015_ranking_sim) To implement these changes you'd simply have to change
https://github.com/schreiaj/2015_ran...ain.coffee#L30
Rebuilding this to easily swap out the ranking system has been a todo item for a while.