Enhanced Manager Ratings

Nothing for nothing…

In the current universe of Strat365, the statistical significance for teams played (95% confidence level) is roughly 400 teams. If you haven’t reached 400 teams, then you’re not technically on the radar (yet).

If everyone started with say, a 1200 Elo, the managers who play more often will eventually have a rating with more stability. The managers playing less often will simply have a rating subject to greater fluctuations from game to game.

I think an Elo rating is interesting because it covers so many bases. It creates an accurate hierarchy of ability so managers can compete in that arena. Managers can also compete only among similar skill levels. Additionally, it would keep managers who are ringing up wins in the kiddie pool from inflating their success across player sets.

For the managers who prefer theme leagues, an Elo rating neither helps nor hurts, but it does give managers a chance to make an informed decision about who they would be competing with before jumping into a league.

In chess everyone is playing the same game with the same pieces, which means that ELO ratings can (eventually) give a pretty accurate picture of a player's strength or a player's improvement over time. With 365 there are so many different variations in types of leagues (Mystery? ATG? Theme league? Daily? single season?) and so many variables in players used/available that it seems impossible to come up with an ELO-style system that is all-encompassing as it is in chess.

Agreed. That’s why I would propose a separate rating for each player set. Right now, a daily league ring is equivalent to an ATG9 ring, even though the ATG9 manager pool has significantly better competition. So rings and winning pct are not really apples to apples across all player sets.

Having said that, if there was only one all encompassing Elo, it would still be better than nothing. Even if you play a theme league, you would still improve your Elo by beating the best competitors.

In addition, chess isn’t the only example of using Elo ratings. Age of Empires has 15,000 to 20,000 players online at any one time, playing different civs, on different maps, with very different formats.

Do we really need to go beyond what SOM already provides?
If you're looking to join a league, the league directory lists the Owners already in the league. Running the cursor over the Owner's name gives that player's w/l pct. If you click on the name, you see the manager's Career Record, which gives a detailed reckoning of # of teams played, games w/l, w/l pct., playoff record and so on.
There are many nuances that may not appear in this chronicle, but I wonder if an attempt at an Elo rating is going to improve on the info we already have at our fingertips.

Agreed. That’s why I would propose a separate rating for each player set. Right now, a daily league ring is equivalent to an ATG9 ring, even though the ATG9 manager pool has significantly better competition. So rings and winning pct are not really apples to apples across all player sets.

Having said that, if there was only one all encompassing Elo, it would still be better than nothing. Even if you play a theme league, you would still improve your Elo by beating the best competitors.

In addition, chess isn’t the only example of using Elo ratings. Age of Empires has 15,000 to 20,000 players online at any one time, playing different civs, on different maps, with very different formats.

Significantly better competition? That's laughable. What metric are you using to make this ridiculous and outrageous observation?

By the way, I would play ATG9 IF they would ever fix the bullpen settings. But I pay good money for the GM experience and I am not going to play in a format where pitchers can pitch 360 innings and you can make it through the whole season with 6 pitchers, it's ridiculous. And you don't have any control over the bullpen like the other formats.

ATG9 is for the casual player. The real GMs play MYSTERY & DAILY sets where you have to be a manager and a GM for the ENTIRE SEASON.

When I used to play ATG before they ruined the bullpen settings I faced much weaker competition when compared to Daily and Mystery managers who have to make real in season decisions on the fly. I routinely humiliated managers like the Last Droid who was supposedly a top ATG8 manager, and I have the receipts to prove it.

So I ask you, what metrics are using to make these outrageous claims? I won't hold my breathe for a cogent response.

There probably is something to what RB is saying. Or at least it is a valid perspective.

I used to play ATG. Now I play old single seasons. My favorite part of the season is drafting and waivers...right up to the beginning of the season. I put a lot of work/fun trying to figure out what the angles might be in a particular league environment. But once the season starts there's not much to do. Tinker with the lineups maybe. But mainly I let it rip and see what happens after 54 days.

I haven't played the Mystery or Daily sets. But if they require active manager thinking and decision making throughout the season, then maybe there is something to the argument.

Although maybe the folks in Mystery or Daily don't have to stress the draft/preseason as much if those periods are not as pivotal. Food for thought anyway.

Happy March!

ATG theme leagues can be a challenge, the ones that remove formula teams and allow for the manager to make changes without massive penalties. To me, those are still fun. Build your team, watch it perform, and still able to make changes that matter. Requires a 5% penalty and cap ceilings and limits that are wide and flexible.

Mystery league also very fun and challenging.

I was a big fan of fantasim, even though it seemed to always be challenged by the boards.

Any league where you can just plug in a Joe the Jet formula, use your own fancy math to stack the deck because managers are crippled by making adjustments, or where you can copy some established team are where sharks go to get credits, rarely challenging.

And yes, I do have my own formula teams, they just don't win all that much. Check my ratings and you'll see...

I hear you Fred, justed checked I have played 244 teams. Have 31 titles, lost finals 42 times, lost semi 59 times and have 2 active team that are in semi.. So 132 out of 244 I think pretty good. Especially I don't have ratings. I wing it or check teams I have played against for ideas

wtg bro

I don't know if you mean like "diamond dope" = ratings, but I don't use any other info also...only whats available on cards, SOM chartes, rules, etc....

I probably would use diamond dope if I knew how to use it better, but haven't learned yet

good luck, i'm sure we'll cross paths in a league sooner or later

Unfortunately Diamond Dope is no more.