I am glad you are using data to try and make your point. It is of course impossible to say whether the rating increases are caused by the rating limit or not, unless...
Unless you actually run the numbers using a simulation, which is what I had done recently anyway. Yes, the rating limit has an impact, as we expected, but it doesn't account for the majority of the points gained. In a 180 day period, AlexCheckMate would've lost 60 rating more without the limit, and vikingo1337 only 36. slackbatter actually stood to lose the most rating if the limit wouldn't have been there, at 192 points. Yet that big difference hasn't stopped slackbatter from dropping in rating overall, ending up lower on the D12 list, and while AlexCheckMate and vikingo1337 surely benefitted from the rating limit, the point difference isn't so big that they would have ended up in a different position on the the Dominating12 list of Apr 28th, 2022.
The rating help provided slowing down over 7000 sounds unlikely. I won't pretend to fully understand the effects of the rating limit in all detail, but if you think about it: the higher the rating difference, the more rating you stand to lose, so the more the rating limit helps you "save". If the rating limit was such a huge deal, I would expect to see a runaway effect, rather than a slowdown in rating gain. The fact that slackbatter, who has a rating that is 2000 lower than AlexCheckMate, has benefitted so much more from the rating limit (three times as much), whereas vikingo1337 with 700 rating lower has benefited half as much is - to me - a pretty good indication that one's current rating is at least not the only factor in how much the rating limit affects somebody. As a matter of fact, the person who after vikingo1337 has benefitted the most from the rating limit currently has a rating of only 1284!
Now, if the difference is indeed not so big, you might rightly ask: why have the limit in the first place? Because I believe that we - humans - are much more likely to make decisions based on single outliers than overall trends. Seeing yourself lose 70, 80, or even 90 rating in a single game is going to put you off playing with newbies, and that will reduce the amount of mixing that happens, which I think would be doing the overall community a disservice. Telling high level players "don't be scared playing noobs, we've got your back", at minimal impact to our overall rating numbers, doesn't sound like such a bad approach to me.
Anyway, I find it important to make decisions based on real, true data, rather than emotions and numbers that can't be traced back to the actual topic at hand. I've run the simulations, I've spent the time looking into this, and I am not unhappy with what I have seen. I have shared the numbers here, openly, to show that I am not trying to screw people over: I genuinely want what's best for the community, and I remain convinced that that is what we have given them.
I am glad you are using data to try and make your point. It is of course impossible to say whether the rating increases are caused by the rating limit or not, unless... :)
Unless you actually run the numbers using a simulation, which is what I had done recently anyway. Yes, the rating limit has an impact, as we expected, but it doesn't account for the majority of the points gained. In a 180 day period, AlexCheckMate would've lost 60 rating more without the limit, and vikingo1337 only 36. slackbatter actually stood to lose the most rating if the limit wouldn't have been there, at 192 points. Yet that big difference hasn't stopped slackbatter from dropping in rating overall, ending up lower on the D12 list, and while AlexCheckMate and vikingo1337 surely benefitted from the rating limit, the point difference isn't so big that they would have ended up in a different position on the the Dominating12 list of Apr 28th, 2022.
The rating help provided slowing down over 7000 sounds unlikely. I won't pretend to fully understand the effects of the rating limit in all detail, but if you think about it: the higher the rating difference, the more rating you stand to lose, so the more the rating limit helps you "save". If the rating limit was such a huge deal, I would expect to see a runaway effect, rather than a slowdown in rating gain. The fact that slackbatter, who has a rating that is 2000 lower than AlexCheckMate, has benefitted so much more from the rating limit (three times as much), whereas vikingo1337 with 700 rating lower has benefited half as much is - to me - a pretty good indication that one's current rating is at least not the only factor in how much the rating limit affects somebody. As a matter of fact, the person who after vikingo1337 has benefitted the most from the rating limit currently has a rating of only 1284!
Now, if the difference is indeed not so big, you might rightly ask: why have the limit in the first place? Because I believe that we - humans - are much more likely to make decisions based on single outliers than overall trends. Seeing yourself lose 70, 80, or even 90 rating in a single game is going to put you off playing with newbies, and that will reduce the amount of mixing that happens, which I think would be doing the overall community a disservice. Telling high level players "don't be scared playing noobs, we've got your back", at minimal impact to our overall rating numbers, doesn't sound like such a bad approach to me.
Anyway, I find it important to make decisions based on real, true data, rather than emotions and numbers that can't be traced back to the actual topic at hand. I've run the simulations, I've spent the time looking into this, and I am not unhappy with what I have seen. I have shared the numbers here, openly, to show that I am not trying to screw people over: I genuinely want what's best for the community, and I remain convinced that that is what we have given them.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
