Well, shoot, Merry Christmas to me... It wasn't that long ago that I thought a four-digit GR would be next to impossible, so I am quite proud to have made it there. Thanks for doing these rankings, Ghost, it's always fun for me to see what's happening with all the players on our site, especially those in the top hundred or so.

Thanks TGM. I'm now 221!

338.. on my way up ^^. Thanks for the ratings TGM, nice way of keeping track.

up into the top 25 :). Thanks ghostie!

99% of all ghost rating owned by 1% of players.

Occupy GR.

My christmas present was being dropped out, damn. Got a lot to do before next month then.

gah how did diplomat33 pass me?!? Fxxx! Definitely needed the WTA switch, but I don't think it's gonna matter if I'm only playing 1 game a month or so :P

Oh well, I'll just be "under-rated," I guess :)

Have you ever played a game with him YJ? It's actually really funny.

Nope... funny how?

Yj and ghug. Take, for instance, the case where a player solos. The number of GR points they gain is competent irrelevant to how many they currently have. That is probably the easiest case to illustrate what I was trying to say.

Was pleased with-self for actually making the list. Then saw the previous charts and find I have done worse. :'(

Went up nearly 200 spots in November, and then dropped 300 in December T_T

TGM, are the December ratings as of December 1st?

*and thanks for doing these... always interesting to read

Went up a lot of spots...
Now at an all-time high :p rank 361.

Yonni: your statement is still false. MM soloing any given 6 players will not gain as many points as I will soloing the same 6. Check the formula:

GRnew = GRold + V * (Ractual - Rexpected)

so change in GR = V * (Ractual - Rexpected)

Rexp for MM is much higher than mine, therefore to obtain the same change in GR, he needs a much higher Ract. V (as defined on TGMs website) offsets this to some degree, but not nearly enough to account for the difference in Rexp.

Another way to think about it is that if a soloing player approaches utter shit in nominal skill, Rexp approaches zero, and the change in GR approaches V. Any player more skilled than shit will have a reward smaller than V for soloing the same opponents.

I got that right Ghosty?

@YJ - You don't have it right. You actually have it wrong. What you are describing is for PPSC only. In WTA, all players put 2/35ths in. The winner takes it all. So the increase againbst the same 6 players in WTA will be exactly the same whether you win or MM wins.

I disagree, D-Money. I'm ignoring PPSC and talking strictly WTA right now (the PPSC calculation is more complicated). If I was wrong then there would be no Rexp necessary in the formula. The formula would be:

GRnew = GRold + sum(R1,R2...R6) / X where the R's are the GR of your 6 opponents and X is the same constant weighting factor used currently.

Also, I'm not sure you would know how much GR to subtract in a loss if you never calculated an expectation value... surely MM deserves to lose more rank when beaten by a bunch of chumps than I do? The system in its current form does that.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

*current form as I've described it, that is.

Draug is right. I'll ignore the formula and give a few examples:

Let's say my GR is 1000 and everyone else on the site is at 200. Then, let's say everyone actually contributes 2/40ths rather than 2/35ths, which is 1/20th.

If I solo a game, I would have put in 50 and everyone else would have put in 10. So, there would be a pot of 110 and that solo would have netted me 60. If I had lost, I would have lost 50.

If you entered a game without me, then the pot would have been 70 and if you had won you would net 60, just as I would have netted 60, but if you had lost, you would have lost 10 compared to me losing 50.

@YJ - You could be and are wrong. This has been analyzed to death and Ghost's equations factored to their simplistic form in the past. This was the final analysis of that factoring. Ghost's description sounds more complex than it is.

P.S. When did I become D-money and why? Not that I mind, but I noticed it a few days ago and found it interesting as a reference. Of course, I wish I were made of money. 100K a year ain't what it used to be.

Shit. I ran the #'s. You all are right.

That's pretty funny. I know a guy on another Internet community that I call D-Money.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=D-Money

ROFL abge.

Anyways, apparently I fail at math too...

so the simple thing is that a win is equally good for anybody, but a loss punishes the higher rated more than the lower. Like Yonni said :)

Which is a real shame, imho.

I feel it would make more sense if losses affected everyone equally, but wins changed based on relative skill.

For instance, a couple months ago my GR was trashed when I played a few games teaching friends how to play.

So with the system the way it is there is very little incentive to play anybody worse than you, right?

If your loss is the same # regardless of quality of competition, but the reward is higher by defeating strong players... I guess that's offset by the fewer number of wins you'd take home against stronger players... ugh it's too late to think.

well, i'm still climbing, but i seem to have slowed down a lot :(
more wins against higher rated players is my new motto i think :)