- Mark as unread from here
- Posted: 4 years ago
- Modified: 4 years ago
-
Post #46
Thus far, I've only responded on the first page of this thread, before it shifted to a new topic; Whether or not to put a cap on how much rating can be lost in any game.
I abstained from posting in this thread, because I frankly don't care too much about it. I'm fine with how it was before and I'm also fine with the new rule - I don't think either one is particularly good or bad for the website/game experience. Seeing how this topic got more attention, I figured it'd be good if I gave it some more thought and then shared my view. Especially considering I'd be one of the main players who could potentially benefit from the new rule (I believe I'm currently the highest ranked player with respect to absolute rating - I'm not saying skill; slackbatter will likely pass by again soon though).
I'll start with just giving some of my views on everything/anything/something that I guess has some place in this thread, so I should apologise in advance that this post might become rather cluttered and messy, ghehe. Sorry. A TL;DR is at the bottom of the page underneath the spoiler.
I came to this place little under 1 and a half years ago. As every new member, I started with 1000 rating and just danced around some - tried to get a feeling for the website/mechanics/community/games/everything that's involved. About 2 months in, I entered the D12 tournament with ~3400 rating. A rating which was mostly build up out of quick live 1v1 games in the first month? And then progressed to 4, 5 and 6 (sometimes 3) live multiplayer games. I guess that went on till ~4000 rating? After which I noticed I was rather unable to climb in rating anymore. I then switched over to mostly playing big long term games with people who averaged >2500 rating I suppose? Herewith I managed to climb to some ~5000 rating? Then I again noticed I reached a plateau, which made me switch over to almost entirely adjust to playing 2v2v2v2 games with a dedicated partner. Now I'm at ~6000 which I again suppose is sort of a plateau (at least, for me).
//Note, I've not kept a diary and am as such just ballparking most of my numbers.
The above section might give the impression that I care a lot about rating, albeit in fact I do not. I care about numbers/statistics and the beauty therein. I like understanding how things work and finding limits. Push boundaries. Reach for the sky and then go beyond.
I suppose what I was trying to convey here, is that the rating system on this website works. The higher someone grows in rating, the more rating they lose when losing games, this leads to somewhat of a stable max (if someone is in fact trying to grow their rating).
As a sidenote though, I've read a lot about the desire to keep the rating as a fixed/perm thing here and not creating any new rating. This is however not the case here. Corona has an influence on the world; banks are printing more money. In an essence, the same can be said about D12 rating here. Corona is having an impact. Simply because there's a large influx of new players here and each of them starts with a free 1000 rating. Although the thought behind it is fine, this is in fact creating instability in a system which is precariously attempted to keep stable. That said, I believe average ratings of say.... top 50? top 20? players on this website have increased quite a bit as of Feb/Mar '20 (had a swift browse through the monthly posted ratings). In my eyes it isn't a problem, but it doesn't seem to allign with the prospects which are sought after here. I suppose I can even reason for this thought without access to data. It stands to reason that most of the new players which join here, will either enjoy themselves and continue and often grow in rating, whereas those who seem to only last for a limited period will likely leave with a rating <1000; therewith giving a net rating gain for the remaining community which keeps on playing. Can also look at the rating here as if it were distributed with a standard normal distribution, most of the players will have a rating within ±1σ of μ, then a group between 1-2, another between 2-3 and then a very small number after beyond ±3σ (less than half a percent). Yes, μ remains ~1000 and the distribution in itself remains the same in percentage, but in absolute numbers there will be more people beyond the 3σ point and they'll also reach higher extreme values.
I've not had any succesful thoughts on how to make any changes here with respect to rating. I'm also completely fine with just the way it is. A happy life often results from simply not demanding too much from/for yourself and being content with whatever you do have/get.
There are a lot of things which could be altered here or there; the way rating is distributed over the type of games (e.g. have a rating dedicated for caps, dm, dom, etc), over the size of games (different rating level for playing 2, 3, 4, etc player games) and fog/unlimited/all the types one can play here.
I suppose the main take-away one should get from this, is that risk isn't 1-on-1 comparable with other things, like ELO/FIDE rating at chess. In risk it's not just skill and performance, there's risk/luck involved. Reading/influencing/manipulating players and much more. All we do here, is give somewhat of an idea of how well people understand/play the game. In general, it seems fine to say that someone who's once grown >2500 (feel free to suggest a different number) rating is a skilled player. Period. At least, from my perspective. However, this rating could be obtained from only playing 1v1 dm games on the classic map with adjacent fortification and capped cards at 10. So said skilled player might still make very unpredictable (read: bad?) moves in a 8p cap game with increased cards and unlimited fortification on the North America map. Alas, this is a bit of a repeat here. New players <2500 (continuing with this number) rating could of course also be very skilled - they just haven't played enough games yet to prove it (which is also a bit of a tricky thing tbh
it's easy (and unfair?) to lose a lot of rating to (or due to; when they do not win the game, but do cause your demise by SMART play that goes SOUR (for them personally) nonetheless) players who are rated much lower than what their skill would actually translate to).
I'll come to a conclusion with my own ideas on this newly found rule here. It seems I'm still fine with whether the rule stays or goes. I can see merit in both sides.
Yes, I think it'll stimulate some players to mix more with lower ranked players, due to not risking an additional X rating beyond 50 (or whatever the cap is/will be placed upon).
Yes, it will help the very high rated players to keep that higher rank, but only in a very insignificant manner. I think it'll help people to grow a little higher in rating, but it will most certainly NOT be the difference between staying on a ~stable high rating, which would truly reflect someone's skill, or just see rating become a 'score' which can grow till infinity. Even for the high(er) ranked players, the percentage of games in which they risk losing 50 rating (or more) is small. It's simply not feasible, if one wishes to keep growing their rating, to lose a lot of games. The loss-percentage has to simply be minimised. In theory, one could grow to an infinite rating, but that theory holds whether this new rule would be in place or not - it would simply depend on not losing any games. Practice will be different though.
As for the side of the winner (when it's not the high rated player) of such 'changed' games, it's also perfectly sensible to me that such a winner does not need to get exorbitant gains from such games. The rule is only in effect for games with more than 2 players (there's a different rule with a cap of 30 rating for them). As such, winning such a game can often be contributed for a large portion also to the other competitors, as opposed to solely ones own sublime play (completely different with chess). It could even be argued that such large winnings are unfair? Then perhaps rating should be dispersed differently after a game is lost? X% to #1, Y% to #2, Z% to #3? etc. However, I guess that will lead to people just trying to end up in top 1,2,3 of each game (if it's large multi player games) and no longer living with rule 6: Play to win - so new issues would present themselves.
Then I guess as a PS, I'll just run some numbers:
TL;DR
Having ran some numbers, I believe I'm actually a slight proponent of the rule/cap. For the extreme cases (which won't really ever happen...), it makes perfect sense and for the less extreme cases, it won't make much of a difference. If the cap/rule had not been invented, I probably wouldn't have requested for it, I wouldn't have justified the marginal gains for the coding needed (albeit negligible too). Now that it's in place, I wouldn't want to put effort into reversing what's been done, as I see no harm in it.
Just my view on it, after looking into it some. Perfectly fine with whatever happens next with respect to this topic.
-Alex
I abstained from posting in this thread, because I frankly don't care too much about it. I'm fine with how it was before and I'm also fine with the new rule - I don't think either one is particularly good or bad for the website/game experience. Seeing how this topic got more attention, I figured it'd be good if I gave it some more thought and then shared my view. Especially considering I'd be one of the main players who could potentially benefit from the new rule (I believe I'm currently the highest ranked player with respect to absolute rating - I'm not saying skill; slackbatter will likely pass by again soon though).
Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal. (click to show)
I'll start with just giving some of my views on everything/anything/something that I guess has some place in this thread, so I should apologise in advance that this post might become rather cluttered and messy, ghehe. Sorry. A TL;DR is at the bottom of the page underneath the spoiler.
I came to this place little under 1 and a half years ago. As every new member, I started with 1000 rating and just danced around some - tried to get a feeling for the website/mechanics/community/games/everything that's involved. About 2 months in, I entered the D12 tournament with ~3400 rating. A rating which was mostly build up out of quick live 1v1 games in the first month? And then progressed to 4, 5 and 6 (sometimes 3) live multiplayer games. I guess that went on till ~4000 rating? After which I noticed I was rather unable to climb in rating anymore. I then switched over to mostly playing big long term games with people who averaged >2500 rating I suppose? Herewith I managed to climb to some ~5000 rating? Then I again noticed I reached a plateau, which made me switch over to almost entirely adjust to playing 2v2v2v2 games with a dedicated partner. Now I'm at ~6000 which I again suppose is sort of a plateau (at least, for me).
//Note, I've not kept a diary and am as such just ballparking most of my numbers.
The above section might give the impression that I care a lot about rating, albeit in fact I do not. I care about numbers/statistics and the beauty therein. I like understanding how things work and finding limits. Push boundaries. Reach for the sky and then go beyond.
I suppose what I was trying to convey here, is that the rating system on this website works. The higher someone grows in rating, the more rating they lose when losing games, this leads to somewhat of a stable max (if someone is in fact trying to grow their rating).
As a sidenote though, I've read a lot about the desire to keep the rating as a fixed/perm thing here and not creating any new rating. This is however not the case here. Corona has an influence on the world; banks are printing more money. In an essence, the same can be said about D12 rating here. Corona is having an impact. Simply because there's a large influx of new players here and each of them starts with a free 1000 rating. Although the thought behind it is fine, this is in fact creating instability in a system which is precariously attempted to keep stable. That said, I believe average ratings of say.... top 50? top 20? players on this website have increased quite a bit as of Feb/Mar '20 (had a swift browse through the monthly posted ratings). In my eyes it isn't a problem, but it doesn't seem to allign with the prospects which are sought after here. I suppose I can even reason for this thought without access to data. It stands to reason that most of the new players which join here, will either enjoy themselves and continue and often grow in rating, whereas those who seem to only last for a limited period will likely leave with a rating <1000; therewith giving a net rating gain for the remaining community which keeps on playing. Can also look at the rating here as if it were distributed with a standard normal distribution, most of the players will have a rating within ±1σ of μ, then a group between 1-2, another between 2-3 and then a very small number after beyond ±3σ (less than half a percent). Yes, μ remains ~1000 and the distribution in itself remains the same in percentage, but in absolute numbers there will be more people beyond the 3σ point and they'll also reach higher extreme values.
I've not had any succesful thoughts on how to make any changes here with respect to rating. I'm also completely fine with just the way it is. A happy life often results from simply not demanding too much from/for yourself and being content with whatever you do have/get.
There are a lot of things which could be altered here or there; the way rating is distributed over the type of games (e.g. have a rating dedicated for caps, dm, dom, etc), over the size of games (different rating level for playing 2, 3, 4, etc player games) and fog/unlimited/all the types one can play here.
I suppose the main take-away one should get from this, is that risk isn't 1-on-1 comparable with other things, like ELO/FIDE rating at chess. In risk it's not just skill and performance, there's risk/luck involved. Reading/influencing/manipulating players and much more. All we do here, is give somewhat of an idea of how well people understand/play the game. In general, it seems fine to say that someone who's once grown >2500 (feel free to suggest a different number) rating is a skilled player. Period. At least, from my perspective. However, this rating could be obtained from only playing 1v1 dm games on the classic map with adjacent fortification and capped cards at 10. So said skilled player might still make very unpredictable (read: bad?) moves in a 8p cap game with increased cards and unlimited fortification on the North America map. Alas, this is a bit of a repeat here. New players <2500 (continuing with this number) rating could of course also be very skilled - they just haven't played enough games yet to prove it (which is also a bit of a tricky thing tbh
it's easy (and unfair?) to lose a lot of rating to (or due to; when they do not win the game, but do cause your demise by SMART play that goes SOUR (for them personally) nonetheless) players who are rated much lower than what their skill would actually translate to).I'll come to a conclusion with my own ideas on this newly found rule here. It seems I'm still fine with whether the rule stays or goes. I can see merit in both sides.
Yes, I think it'll stimulate some players to mix more with lower ranked players, due to not risking an additional X rating beyond 50 (or whatever the cap is/will be placed upon).
Yes, it will help the very high rated players to keep that higher rank, but only in a very insignificant manner. I think it'll help people to grow a little higher in rating, but it will most certainly NOT be the difference between staying on a ~stable high rating, which would truly reflect someone's skill, or just see rating become a 'score' which can grow till infinity. Even for the high(er) ranked players, the percentage of games in which they risk losing 50 rating (or more) is small. It's simply not feasible, if one wishes to keep growing their rating, to lose a lot of games. The loss-percentage has to simply be minimised. In theory, one could grow to an infinite rating, but that theory holds whether this new rule would be in place or not - it would simply depend on not losing any games. Practice will be different though.
As for the side of the winner (when it's not the high rated player) of such 'changed' games, it's also perfectly sensible to me that such a winner does not need to get exorbitant gains from such games. The rule is only in effect for games with more than 2 players (there's a different rule with a cap of 30 rating for them). As such, winning such a game can often be contributed for a large portion also to the other competitors, as opposed to solely ones own sublime play (completely different with chess). It could even be argued that such large winnings are unfair? Then perhaps rating should be dispersed differently after a game is lost? X% to #1, Y% to #2, Z% to #3? etc. However, I guess that will lead to people just trying to end up in top 1,2,3 of each game (if it's large multi player games) and no longer living with rule 6: Play to win - so new issues would present themselves.
Then I guess as a PS, I'll just run some numbers:
Numbahsss (click to show)
Game #1: 9 player; rating 6000, 4000, 4000, 2000, 2000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000 (So say, 5 skilled players of which 3 highly skilled and 1 at the current roof of the website).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 49, 32, 32, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8, 8. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 128. If B or C wins, s/he would get 145, if D or E wins, s/he'd get 161 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 169.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 49.
Notice2:The top player gambles 49 rating to win 128. S/he needs to win ~2 out of 7 games (>28% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~250, lose ~250). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 169. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 22 games... (<5%).
Game #2 is a duplicate of game #1 with 1 exception; replace 1 of the 4k players with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 56, 37, 18, 18, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 118. If B wins, s/he gets 137 if C or D wins, s/he'd get 156 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 165.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 6 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 6 less rating (131, 150 or 159 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #1 & #2 without the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 7 more rating (56 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). S/he actually needs to win a higher percentage now than before (granted, you might argue it's somewhat 'easier' to win, as there's 1 less 4k player).
Notice2: Comparing game #1 & #2 with the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 1 more rating (50 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #1 over game #2, whether or not the new rule is active.
Lets try again for a smaller 5p game now:
Game #3: 5 player; rating 6000, 4000, 2000, 1000, 1000 (So say, 3 skilled players of which 2 highly skilled and 1 at the current roof of the website).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 42, 28, 14, 7, 7. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 56. If B wins, s/he would get 70, if C wins, s/he'd get 84 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 91.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 42.
Notice2:The top player gambles 42 rating to win 56. S/he needs to win ~4 out of 9 games (>45% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~220, lose ~210). Whereas one of the new players gambles 7 to win 91. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (<8%).
Game #4 is a duplicate of game #3 with 1 exception; replace the 4k player with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 54,18, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 45. If B wins, s/he gets 81 if C and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 90.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 4 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 4 less rating (77 or 86 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #3 & #4 without the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 12 more rating (54 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45).
Notice2: Comparing game #3 & #4 with the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 8 more rating (50 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #3 over game #4, whether or not the new rule is active (personal taste).
Now an extreme case (per @The_Bishop):
Game #5: 9 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 90 for the TD, 11 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 88. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 167.
Notice:The top player gambles 90 rating to win 88. S/he needs to win >1 out of 2 games (>50% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 167. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 16 games... (<7%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 88. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 14 games (>35% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 440, lose 450). Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 127. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
For this extreme case, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. However, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
And another extreme case, with fewer players; game #6: 5 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 4 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 66 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 32. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 90.
Notice:The top player gambles 66 rating to win 32. S/he needs to win >2 out of 3 games (>66% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 90. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 32. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 8 games (>60% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 160, lose 150). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 74. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 10 games... (<10%).
For this extreme case too, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. Again, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
Now an 'impossible' case:
Game #7: 9 player; rating 10,000, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player (with an unheard of rating) vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 109 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 64. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 165.
Notice:The top player gambles 109 rating to win 64. S/he needs to win >8 out of 13 games (>60% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~520, lose ~550). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 165. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 21 games... (<5%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 64. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 11 games (~45% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 320, lose 300). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 106. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (~8%).
I won't even repeat the argument/logic here. This is purely a hypothetical case, in my eyes at least.
I suppose this last case also shows how 'impossible' it becomes to grow in rating towards infinity (except for the case when we obtain a lot more players on this website (factor 10++) and/or see people 'cheat' towards victories (have 'friends' help 1 account to win loads of games)).
Think of it by looking at nature. Velocity. We all know how 'easy' it is to ride a bike 10km/h, how much harder it becomes to ride at 20, 30, 40, etc. The drag a bike experiences with increasing velocity isn't linear, it's more than that. There's a square factor in the aerodynamic drag (ok... granted... go towards a vacuum medium - going to dismiss that here) and that'll lead towards a maximum velocity, as the input power is bounded.
Disclaimer: There could be an error here or there with the numbers, if so, probably from copying from here to there - no intent.
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 49, 32, 32, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8, 8. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 128. If B or C wins, s/he would get 145, if D or E wins, s/he'd get 161 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 169.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 49.
Notice2:The top player gambles 49 rating to win 128. S/he needs to win ~2 out of 7 games (>28% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~250, lose ~250). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 169. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 22 games... (<5%).
Game #2 is a duplicate of game #1 with 1 exception; replace 1 of the 4k players with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 56, 37, 18, 18, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 118. If B wins, s/he gets 137 if C or D wins, s/he'd get 156 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 165.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 6 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 6 less rating (131, 150 or 159 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #1 & #2 without the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 7 more rating (56 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). S/he actually needs to win a higher percentage now than before (granted, you might argue it's somewhat 'easier' to win, as there's 1 less 4k player).
Notice2: Comparing game #1 & #2 with the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 1 more rating (50 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #1 over game #2, whether or not the new rule is active.
Lets try again for a smaller 5p game now:
Game #3: 5 player; rating 6000, 4000, 2000, 1000, 1000 (So say, 3 skilled players of which 2 highly skilled and 1 at the current roof of the website).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 42, 28, 14, 7, 7. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 56. If B wins, s/he would get 70, if C wins, s/he'd get 84 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 91.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 42.
Notice2:The top player gambles 42 rating to win 56. S/he needs to win ~4 out of 9 games (>45% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~220, lose ~210). Whereas one of the new players gambles 7 to win 91. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (<8%).
Game #4 is a duplicate of game #3 with 1 exception; replace the 4k player with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 54,18, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 45. If B wins, s/he gets 81 if C and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 90.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 4 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 4 less rating (77 or 86 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #3 & #4 without the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 12 more rating (54 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45).
Notice2: Comparing game #3 & #4 with the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 8 more rating (50 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #3 over game #4, whether or not the new rule is active (personal taste).
Now an extreme case (per @The_Bishop):
Game #5: 9 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 90 for the TD, 11 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 88. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 167.
Notice:The top player gambles 90 rating to win 88. S/he needs to win >1 out of 2 games (>50% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 167. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 16 games... (<7%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 88. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 14 games (>35% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 440, lose 450). Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 127. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
For this extreme case, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. However, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
And another extreme case, with fewer players; game #6: 5 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 4 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 66 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 32. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 90.
Notice:The top player gambles 66 rating to win 32. S/he needs to win >2 out of 3 games (>66% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 90. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 32. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 8 games (>60% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 160, lose 150). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 74. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 10 games... (<10%).
For this extreme case too, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. Again, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
Now an 'impossible' case:
Game #7: 9 player; rating 10,000, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player (with an unheard of rating) vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 109 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 64. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 165.
Notice:The top player gambles 109 rating to win 64. S/he needs to win >8 out of 13 games (>60% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~520, lose ~550). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 165. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 21 games... (<5%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 64. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 11 games (~45% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 320, lose 300). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 106. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (~8%).
I won't even repeat the argument/logic here. This is purely a hypothetical case, in my eyes at least.
I suppose this last case also shows how 'impossible' it becomes to grow in rating towards infinity (except for the case when we obtain a lot more players on this website (factor 10++) and/or see people 'cheat' towards victories (have 'friends' help 1 account to win loads of games)).
Think of it by looking at nature. Velocity. We all know how 'easy' it is to ride a bike 10km/h, how much harder it becomes to ride at 20, 30, 40, etc. The drag a bike experiences with increasing velocity isn't linear, it's more than that. There's a square factor in the aerodynamic drag (ok... granted... go towards a vacuum medium - going to dismiss that here) and that'll lead towards a maximum velocity, as the input power is bounded.
Disclaimer: There could be an error here or there with the numbers, if so, probably from copying from here to there - no intent.
TL;DR
Having ran some numbers, I believe I'm actually a slight proponent of the rule/cap. For the extreme cases (which won't really ever happen...), it makes perfect sense and for the less extreme cases, it won't make much of a difference. If the cap/rule had not been invented, I probably wouldn't have requested for it, I wouldn't have justified the marginal gains for the coding needed (albeit negligible too). Now that it's in place, I wouldn't want to put effort into reversing what's been done, as I see no harm in it.
Just my view on it, after looking into it some. Perfectly fine with whatever happens next with respect to this topic.
-Alex
Thus far, I've only responded on the first page of this thread, before it shifted to a new topic; [i]Whether or not to put a cap on how much rating can be lost in any game.[/i]
I abstained from posting in this thread, because I frankly don't care too much about it. I'm fine with how it was before and I'm also fine with the new rule - I don't think either one is particularly good or bad for the website/game experience. Seeing how this topic got more attention, I figured it'd be good if I gave it some more thought and then shared my view. Especially considering I'd be one of the main players who could potentially benefit from the new rule (I believe I'm currently the highest ranked player with respect to absolute rating - I'm not saying skill; slackbatter will likely pass by again soon though).
[spoiler=Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal.]
I'll start with just giving some of my views on everything/anything/something that I guess has some place in this thread, so I should apologise in advance that this post might become rather cluttered and messy, ghehe. Sorry. [b]A TL;DR is at the bottom of the page underneath the spoiler.[/b]
I came to this place little under 1 and a half years ago. As every new member, I started with 1000 rating and just danced around some - tried to get a feeling for the website/mechanics/community/games/everything that's involved. About 2 months in, I entered the D12 tournament with ~3400 rating. A rating which was mostly build up out of quick live 1v1 games in the first month? And then progressed to 4, 5 and 6 (sometimes 3) live multiplayer games. I guess that went on till ~4000 rating? After which I noticed I was rather unable to climb in rating anymore. I then switched over to mostly playing big long term games with people who averaged >2500 rating I suppose? Herewith I managed to climb to some ~5000 rating? Then I again noticed I reached a plateau, which made me switch over to [u]almost entirely adjust to playing 2v2v2v2 games with a dedicated partner[/u]. Now I'm at ~6000 which I again suppose is sort of a plateau (at least, for me).
//Note, I've not kept a diary and am as such just ballparking most of my numbers.
The above section might give the impression that I care a lot about rating, albeit in fact I do not. I care about numbers/statistics and the beauty therein. I like understanding how things work and finding limits. Push boundaries. Reach for the sky and then go beyond.
I suppose what I was trying to convey here, is that the rating system on this website works. The higher someone grows in rating, the more rating they lose when losing games, this leads to somewhat of a stable max (if someone is in fact trying to grow their rating).
As a sidenote though, I've read a lot about the desire to keep the rating as a fixed/perm thing here and not creating any new rating. This is however not the case here. Corona has an influence on the world; banks are printing more money. In an essence, the same can be said about D12 rating here. Corona is having an impact. Simply because there's a large influx of new players here and each of them starts with a free 1000 rating. Although the thought behind it is fine, this is in fact creating instability in a system which is precariously attempted to keep stable. That said, I believe average ratings of say.... top 50? top 20? players on this website have increased quite a bit as of Feb/Mar '20 (had a swift browse through the monthly posted ratings). In my eyes it isn't a problem, but it doesn't seem to allign with the prospects which are sought after here. I suppose I can even reason for this thought without access to data. It stands to reason that most of the new players which join here, will either enjoy themselves and continue and often grow in rating, whereas those who seem to only last for a limited period will likely leave with a rating <1000; therewith giving a net rating gain for the remaining community which keeps on playing. Can also look at the rating here as if it were distributed with a standard normal distribution, most of the players will have a rating within ±1σ of μ, then a group between 1-2, another between 2-3 and then a very small number after beyond ±3σ (less than half a percent). Yes, μ remains ~1000 and the distribution in itself remains the same in percentage, but in absolute numbers there will be more people beyond the 3σ point and they'll also reach higher extreme values.
I've not had any succesful thoughts on how to make any changes here with respect to rating. I'm also completely fine with just the way it is. A happy life often results from simply not demanding too much from/for yourself and being content with whatever you do have/get.
There are a lot of things which could be altered here or there; the way rating is distributed over the type of games (e.g. have a rating dedicated for caps, dm, dom, etc), over the size of games (different rating level for playing 2, 3, 4, etc player games) and fog/unlimited/all the types one can play here.
I suppose the main take-away one should get from this, is that risk isn't 1-on-1 comparable with other things, like ELO/FIDE rating at chess. In risk it's not just skill and performance, there's risk/luck involved. Reading/influencing/manipulating players and much more. All we do here, is give somewhat of an idea of how well people understand/play the game. In general, it seems fine to say that someone who's once grown >2500 (feel free to suggest a different number) rating is a skilled player. Period. At least, from my perspective. However, this rating could be obtained from only playing 1v1 dm games on the classic map with adjacent fortification and capped cards at 10. So said skilled player might still make very unpredictable (read: bad?) moves in a 8p cap game with increased cards and unlimited fortification on the North America map. Alas, this is a bit of a repeat here. New players <2500 (continuing with this number) rating could of course also be very skilled - they just haven't played enough games yet to prove it (which is also a bit of a tricky thing tbh :D it's easy (and unfair?) to lose a lot of rating to (or due to; when they do not win the game, but do cause your demise by SMART play that goes SOUR (for them personally) nonetheless) players who are rated much lower than what their skill would actually translate to).
I'll come to a conclusion with my own ideas on this newly found rule here. It seems I'm still fine with whether the rule stays or goes. I can see merit in both sides.
Yes, I think it'll stimulate some players to mix more with lower ranked players, due to not risking an additional X rating beyond 50 (or whatever the cap is/will be placed upon).
Yes, it will help the very high rated players to keep that higher rank, but only in a very insignificant manner. I think it'll help people to grow a little higher in rating, but it will most certainly NOT be the difference between staying on a ~stable high rating, which would truly reflect someone's skill, or just see rating become a 'score' which can grow till infinity. Even for the high(er) ranked players, the percentage of games in which they risk losing 50 rating (or more) is small. It's simply not feasible, if one wishes to keep growing their rating, to lose a lot of games. The loss-percentage has to simply be minimised. In theory, one could grow to an infinite rating, but that theory holds whether this new rule would be in place or not - it would simply depend on not losing any games. Practice will be different though.
As for the side of the winner (when it's not the high rated player) of such 'changed' games, it's also perfectly sensible to me that such a winner does not need to get exorbitant gains from such games. The rule is only in effect for games with more than 2 players (there's a different rule with a cap of 30 rating for them). As such, winning such a game can often be contributed for a large portion also to the other competitors, as opposed to solely ones own sublime play (completely different with chess). It could even be argued that such large winnings are unfair? Then perhaps rating should be dispersed differently after a game is lost? X% to #1, Y% to #2, Z% to #3? etc. However, I guess that will lead to people just trying to end up in top 1,2,3 of each game (if it's large multi player games) and no longer living with rule 6: Play to win - so new issues would present themselves.
Then I guess as a PS, I'll just run some numbers:
[spoiler=Numbahsss][u]Game #1[/u]: 9 player; rating 6000, 4000, 4000, 2000, 2000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000 (So say, 5 skilled players of which 3 highly skilled and 1 at the current roof of the website).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 49, 32, 32, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8, 8. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 128. If B or C wins, s/he would get 145, if D or E wins, s/he'd get 161 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 169.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 49.
Notice2:The top player gambles 49 rating to win 128. S/he needs to win ~2 out of 7 games (>28% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~250, lose ~250). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 169. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 22 games... (<5%).
[u]Game #2[/u] is a duplicate of game #1 with 1 exception; replace 1 of the 4k players with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 56, 37, 18, 18, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 118. If B wins, s/he gets 137 if C or D wins, s/he'd get 156 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 165.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 6 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 6 less rating (131, 150 or 159 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #1 & #2 [u]without[/u] the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 7 more rating (56 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). S/he actually needs to win a higher percentage now than before (granted, you might argue it's somewhat 'easier' to win, as there's 1 less 4k player).
Notice2: Comparing game #1 & #2 [u]with[/u] the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 1 more rating (50 for 49), for a decreased potential gain of 10 (118 for 128). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #1 over game #2, whether or not the new rule is active.
Lets try again for a smaller 5p game now:
[u]Game #3[/u]: 5 player; rating 6000, 4000, 2000, 1000, 1000 (So say, 3 skilled players of which 2 highly skilled and 1 at the current roof of the website).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 42, 28, 14, 7, 7. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 56. If B wins, s/he would get 70, if C wins, s/he'd get 84 and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 91.
Notice that in this scenario, the new rule doesn't even come into play. Max lost rating is still only 42.
Notice2:The top player gambles 42 rating to win 56. S/he needs to win ~4 out of 9 games (>45% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~220, lose ~210). Whereas one of the new players gambles 7 to win 91. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (<8%).
[u]Game #4[/u] is a duplicate of game #3 with 1 exception; replace the 4k player with another 1k player:
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 54,18, 9, 9, 9. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 45. If B wins, s/he gets 81 if C and if one of the just registered players win, s/he'd get 90.
With the new rule in effect, TD would lose 4 less rating and winner (provided it's someone other than the TD) would gain 4 less rating (77 or 86 respectively).
Notice: Comparing game #3 & #4 [u]without[/u] the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 12 more rating (54 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45).
Notice2: Comparing game #3 & #4 [u]with[/u] the new rule in place: TD jeopardises 8 more rating (50 for 42), for a decreased potential gain of 11 (56 for 45). Still not much of a difference and I would argue that the TD would prefer to play in game #3 over game #4, whether or not the new rule is active (personal taste).
Now an extreme case (per @@The_Bishop):
[u]Game #5[/u]: 9 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 90 for the TD, 11 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 88. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 167.
Notice:The top player gambles 90 rating to win 88. S/he needs to win >1 out of 2 games (>50% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 167. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 16 games... (<7%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 88. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 14 games (>35% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 440, lose 450). Whereas one of the new players gambles 11 to win 127. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
For this extreme case, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. However, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
And another extreme case, with fewer players; [u]game #6[/u]: 5 player; rating 6400, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player vs 4 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 66 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 32. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 90.
Notice:The top player gambles 66 rating to win 32. S/he needs to win >2 out of 3 games (>66% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating. Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 90. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 12 games... (<9%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 32. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 8 games (>60% with 5 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 160, lose 150). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 74. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 10 games... (<10%).
For this extreme case too, I would actually be a PROPONENT for this rule. Again, I do not think it makes sense to look at this extreme case. Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it. With them not being viable, I do not expect to see (m)any of them at all (I assume it's a fair assumption that whoever is >5k rating, has a neck for numbers and would realise s/he shouldn't be playing these games, either before even attempting 1, or after losing/winning some).
Now an [u]'impossible'[/u] case:
[u]Game #7[/u]: 9 player; rating 10,000, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800, 800 (1 elite player (with an unheard of rating) vs 8 new players who've been on a losing streak).
All these players risk the following amounts of rating: 109 for the TD, 8 for the others. If the topdog wins, s/he would get 64. If anyone else wins, s/he'd get 165.
Notice:The top player gambles 109 rating to win 64. S/he needs to win >8 out of 13 games (>60% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win ~520, lose ~550). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 165. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 21 games... (<5%).
Now with the new rule applied: TD would gamble 50 to win 64. S/he still needs to win ~5 out of 11 games (~45% with 9 players!) to stay on a stable rating (win 320, lose 300). Whereas one of the new players gambles 8 to win 106. S/he'd stay put winning just ~1 out of 14 games... (~8%).
I won't even repeat the argument/logic here. This is purely a hypothetical case, in my eyes at least.
I suppose this last case also shows how 'impossible' it becomes to grow in rating towards infinity (except for the case when we obtain a lot more players on this website (factor 10++) and/or see people 'cheat' towards victories (have 'friends' help 1 account to win loads of games)).
Think of it by looking at nature. Velocity. We all know how 'easy' it is to ride a bike 10km/h, how much harder it becomes to ride at 20, 30, 40, etc. The drag a bike experiences with increasing velocity isn't linear, it's more than that. There's a square factor in the aerodynamic drag (ok... granted... go towards a vacuum medium - going to dismiss that here) and that'll lead towards a maximum velocity, as the input power is bounded.
[i]Disclaimer: There could be an error here or there with the numbers, if so, probably from copying from here to there - no intent.[/i][/spoiler]
[b]TL;DR[/b]
Having ran some numbers, I believe [u][i]I'm actually a slight proponent of the rule/cap[/i][/u]. For the extreme cases (which won't really ever happen...), it makes perfect sense and for the less extreme cases, it won't make much of a difference. If the cap/rule had not been invented, I probably wouldn't have requested for it, I wouldn't have justified the marginal gains for the coding needed (albeit negligible too). Now that it's in place, I wouldn't want to put effort into reversing what's been done, as I see no harm in it.
Just my view on it, after looking into it some. Perfectly fine with whatever happens next with respect to this topic.[/spoiler]
-Alex
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”
― Albert Einstein
― Albert Einstein
