Site update 1st May - Rankings

Look up top...we've added Rankings!

Automatically generated from the results recorded on our match ticker and using a straightforward implementation of the Elo rating system with a few caveats:

• Considers the margin of victory in a fixture
• Considers home field advantage for intercontinental online matches
• High K-factor means that the rating should better represent the turbulent state of Overwatch

Team profiles have also received an update:

• Added rating panel (hover over points in the graph to see match details, click to go to that match)
• Added map performance panel showing win-loss-draw rates over various timeframes

As always we'd love to hear your feedback and answer any questions you may have. I've tried to preempt a few of the most likely ones...

Where is team x?
Teams must have at least 3 matches played in our database.

These ratings are trash! Have you got anything vetted by a curly haired Yorkshire man?
I trust machines even less than I trust Sideshow, so this is definitely not the end of the over.gg World Rankings. These new rankings are another tool you can use to get a sense of the state of competitive Overwatch.

I came first, what do I win?
A lovely bowl of kimchi.

kimchi

I came second, what do I win?

i can only be so erect

I came first, what do I win?
A lovely bowl of kimchi.

disgusting.

harsha making enemies in korea

Kimchi well done.

very good friendo

Is there a max rank?

P.S. we will add South America when we have started covering more games from that region xoxo

soon totally sjw'd by korean ppl bc insulting kimchi

I see teams that haven't played in over a month still rank mid-high ish.

Is there no rating decay in this ranking?

#11 no decay, we've opted to keep the implementation simple

wtf i love rogue now

Rankings imply Rogue 74.5% chance to beat Lunatic Hai on single map, not sure if serious

i hope this ranking wont be like gosugamers ranking :/

I know this might change up the rankings a bit and take more time, but since there's so many regions that can't be well connected, should we try for individual region leaderboards too? To say only LH and Rogue can beat nV and many other examples don't exactly line up. My idea would be to give teams different ratings in all the places they compete. For example, Rogue would be 1st in NA but low in the ladder for KR since they haven't been there since s1 of APEX. Meanwhile, nV would be around 2nd in the US but still higher than Rogue in KR (which could make sense as APEX is a LAN event).

kinda tl;dr: individual regional leaderboard rankings.

Problem is a lack of connectivity. If you imagine a network of blood vessels, you need sufficient capillaries to get the right amount of blood to all the smaller nodes/teams, and when you only have a few big veins linking disparate organs you end up with the tenth best Korean team rated close to the tenth best Chinese team, and no natural way within the system to fix that. You can rate each team manually to begin with (not actually cheating) so it starts off looking intuitively correct.

#20 Propagation is an interesting thought. It would also propagate errors. I think it would have the effect of changing the time scale without addressing the connectivity problem (and it would be confusing for teams who like to have clear targets to aim for). Might be​ worthwhile though, to deal with regions shifting relative strength. You can arbitrarily set the best Chinese team equal to the eighth Korean team, the best NA to the fourth best Korean, etc, then turn on the machine and it'll look fine for a while as they mostly play within their regions, but it'll fail to capture a regional surge, like gosugamers with Korea. So I like that idea.

If an Elo system works then it's a self-correcting network, so you can test it by giving it dodgy starting values and feeding it results, see how quickly it tends towards correctness. And if it doesn't work then you want it to look like it works for as long as possible, because who cares, it's just entertainment.