Krach : Do you want it to be applied to leagues?

[Xenocidius]

Good question.

Basically, the system is already made. It is fast, effective and user-friendly for the LOs. The output I linked above can easily be iframed. In short, it's better, faster and easier to use than the current system.

[pikachufan2164]

Well, if it works faster than the existing League spreadsheets, and if the input spreadsheet can be easily imported to my auditing spreadsheets, then KRACH is the way to go

[bogtro]

As a system, I fully support it. If it can be logistically implemented without more work for the LOs, I would be happy to see it implemented.

[Jenkar]

New poll added. Vote now!

[TStar]

KRACH seems to have a major issue with the players who only play a couple matches.  Their scores can be far too high or too low based on just 1 or 2 other players results.  Under a KRACH system I'm wondering if we'd need to filter out players under a certain minimum threshold to prevent the results from being artificially skewed by them.

[Xenocidius]

The high and low scores of those players effectively cancel each other out. To my knowledge the results aren't awfully skewed by them. Incidentally, they could not be removed from the calculations, because every player that they've played uses their scores in calculating their own.

However, they should be ignored in the final results (if 1st has under 30 games, 2nd gets 1st place prize, and so on).

[Jocko]

KRACH seems to have a major issue with the players who only play a couple matches.  Their scores can be far too high or too low based on just 1 or 2 other players results.  Under a KRACH system I'm wondering if we'd need to filter out players under a certain minimum threshold to prevent the results from being artificially skewed by them.

Weren't you filtering players under 30 matches in elo anyways?

[pikachufan2164]

Weren't you filtering players under 30 matches in elo anyways?

Nope. We still counted matches in the standings regardless of how few matches a person played. Otherwise, we'd have a much smaller set of data to work with when it comes to standings calculation (and people who often preyed upon 'fresh meat' [i.e. players who play two or three matches, then quit] would have ranked much lower in the standings).

[TStar]

Expanding on what pika said, players with under 30 matches were not filtered.  In fact, they could finish in the top 6 but were not eligible for prizes.  We didn't drop them completely and just bump up 7th place to 6th for example.  Under KRACH we'd likely stick with the same concept, hence the problem.  In KRACH it's far more likely for players with under 30 matches (or under 5 even) to be in the top 6 than it was under ELO.  That can be a major problem if someone plays 4 games and winds up in 3rd place, for example.

[Jenkar]

I wonder, what's the basis for that rule?

[pikachufan2164]

I wonder, what's the basis for that rule?

If a player is inactive and failed to meet the 30 match requirement, we don't want to punish their opponents who got a fair win over them by removing that win from their records. This would also prevent sad 'chain reactions' in which removing matches causes other players to fall underneath the 30 match mark.

As for the prizing rule, we want the players who receive prizes to play a fair share of the matches. In both ELO and KRACH, it still takes a good number of matches before players land at their 'true rating' -- simply getting a lucky streak of wins early on and then refusing to play any further matches would be a rather lame way to get those shiny trophies and reward codes :\

[ddevans96]

The problem is that with the current system, a player finishing in the top 6 without 30 matches completely nullifies a reward code, so only 5 (or less) are given out in that situation. Because this would happen a fair bit more with KRACH, the rule needs to be removed.

Unless someone was wrong, and this rule doesn't exist.