Rating Disparity Ratio

[quote=elysium5]It is hard to determine if a missed turn is on purpose or bad connection, although most rage quits are fairly easy to spot and is considered worth a suicide report as it is not playing to win. There are restrictions that can and are placed on repeat offenders. Also, as a general rule, we usually restrict individuals to 2 player games only if their attendance score falls below 90.[/quote] Thanks for that elysium5. Having just lost another 4p game where 2 players didn't even start I'm even more annoyed. Tonight I went to join another game and found a 4p where the creator has 70 attendance.

I have uploaded a change that limits the maximum amount of rating you can lose in a single game to 50. Note that in two player games, the maximum rating you can lose was already 30, and that has been kept unchanged.

Thanks, Cireon. That helps. May I suggest 40 instead though?

We discussed this among the staff, and we agreed on 50 for the time being.

If you care to know, these are my reasons for wanting the cap on 50, not 40. [quote=Matty]I have browsed through a couple of finished games from slackbatter, who is the best player rating wise on this site for a while now, and he does play newbies, but not that much. He rarely loses more than 50 rating too (usually between 30 and 45). So I think that making ppl not lose more than 50 rating in one game: 1. Will not have that big an influence overall (at least not in the current way ppl are playing). 2. It will help high level players be a little bit more lenient to play with newbies, even in ranked matches. Back in the days we did something similar for 2p games, because it just isn't viable otherwise as a high ranked player to play those. I think we can add this cap as well. I'd rather not put the cap on 40 right now, because that will have a much bigger impact on 'the normal games'.[/quote]

I don't think slack is the best example in this case. Far more players, of all weight classes, would have to be researched to get a reliable result. But I respect your decision of course. 50 is still better than 70. Or whatever the limit was before. Although it could be lowered even further and thereby inspire more games with players of all shapes and sizes. The same goes for the 1v1 rating limit I think. Anyway, thanks for looking into it and making the necessary modification.

[quote=vikingo1337]I don't think slack is the best example in this case. Far more players, of all weight classes, would have to be researched to get a reliable result.[/quote] True of course, but this is the easiest way to look at big rating differences I could think of. And the goal really was to not alter too much in practical situations by putting arbetrary caps on rating losses. This way it seems to not make too much of an impact. [quote=vikingo1337]Correction: It was supposed to say ‘1v1 rating limit I think’ there at the end. Can’t edit it though, for whatever reason.[/quote] I edited it for you and removed the edit post.

It's a delicate balance. On the one hand, we really want people to mix and match when playing. That being said, if we made the limit too low, then suddenly it becomes much more beneficial to only play newbies, and we get a different set of problems altogether ("newbie farming"). Our current ranking isn't perfect, but I think we struck the right balance here. Of course we'll keep monitoring, and we can adjust the limit easily if we find further change is needed.

Some follow-up discussion. [quote=The_Bishop] My average rating is about 3100, but really it keeps oscillating between let's say 2800 (even 2700) up to 3400 (even 3500). Like everybody here sometimes I have good winning streaks, sometimes bad losing streaks, sometimes I just... float. The principle of the rating system is: the higher you get the more points you lose when defeated, so that things become harder if you get high, and things become easier if you get low. This keeps the balance, it works like a spring. When I climb up to 3400 (which is over my actual skills) then I lose too many points per game and the system pulls me down. When I fall down to 2800 (which is under my actual skills) then I only lose a few points per game and the system repushes me up. So you have not to worry much for a single loss or even a series of losses all together, just keep playing and you'll always be back to your average rating. Questions & Answers -- My skills are always the same, why my rating oscillates like this? -- Well, this game is mostly based on strategy but there is also a great influence of randomness: dice, cards, and... yes, beginners' mistakes are also part of the randomness. You cannot think at your rating like something fixed and established: you'll always go up and down. Keep in mind, when you win a 9p game you are rewarded with 160 points, if you win 3 of them then it's 480 points upward! Great climbs are possible, great falls too. Keeping this on personal examples. My worst experience was (years ago) when I tried to learn how to play same-time games... It is not for me really, it was a complete failure: in a few days I lost more than 1000 points! "Oh Lord, years of hard work to get my nice rank, all thrown away! What I can do now?" Nothing, I just restarted playing as always and in a couple of weeks or so I got my rank again. Remember the spring effect: the more you go down the more you are pushed up. I'm getting to the topic now. What is better for ranking up as high as possible? Playing only high ranks, so you lose less points per game? Playing only newbies, so you win many games? Well, I tried both "modes" and it doesn't change much, my rating is always the same more or less. It is hard to win against newbies? Of course it is not, it is as hard as stealing sweets from kids! :D But wait, it is not all good, it's a sort of gamble at reverse: you can surely win many games, but you are risking much, if something goes wrong you'll lose many points. Well, that's fair. Now, asking to play beginners, without having the risk of losing many points, it's a bit like wishing to get drunk keeping the bottle full. It shouldn't be possible normally. I mean, it might be a legit request, but to be implemented in a way that is fair, it would require more job than just putting a cap of 50 on the points lost. For example it may be established (in advance) that the game is "point halved", then you'll ask to an Admin to do the maths returning points divided by 2. Oh well, this would be fair! But c'mon... Is it really necessary? I don't think so. Worst of the worst, when a General loses on Privates, and he's supposed to lose let's say 80 points, but actually he only loses 50 (because of the new rule), this means that the legitimate winner of the game is rewarded 30 points less! We are actually deducting points from beginners' wins in order to refund Generals' losses! It is not something I can call "fair" in any ways. As a player and staff member I'm totally opposed to the new rule, and I'll do my best to convince the wise members of the staff to restore the original rules as they had been until May 24th: no cap on the points one can lose. It doesn't change much for the rating I am, because when I play beginners I lose at most 45-50 points (unlikely more than 50) but just in case, I don't want any points-cap facility to be applied on my account. I'm fairly happy to always lose all the points I deserve to lose, and above all I want the players in my games to be always rewarded in full for their wins. I felt like we should be fair and clear on this matter and so I could not avoid to express my thought. Anyone feeling the same? [/quote]

[quote=cicciomisto2013]I feel the same![/quote] [quote=bilboquet]Hi, I agree. I think that especialy removing points from lower point players is damaging because it causes a lesser interest to play more games. It also makes different level players games less risky and so maybe a little more boring. I don't know why the change came to be, maybe you can tell us? I could speculate that there where not enough games that mixed higher players with lowers so in this case higher players are more keen to play with lower players by losing less points? If this is the case maybe it can be done with some other prizes to incentivise mixed levels games? Or else more points to everyone :-) cheers.![/quote] Let's keep all the discussion in one thread. That way people can read back and read each other's opinion, so we don't have to all repeat ourselves.

How about 'anonymous' games? You know who is playing, but you don't know who took what colour. That way, Generals can play newbies, but nobody knows who's the General, or who's the newbie. No one will be attacked for their rank, and there is a smaller chance players will gang up.

I like that idea B4rny. There is still this to consider: [quote]That way, Generals can play newbies, but nobody knows who's the General, or who's the newbie.[/quote] Newbies know who the other newbies are if they are friends... they'll PM each other. [quote]No one will be attacked for their rank, and there is a smaller chance players will gang up.[/quote] Correct, they won't know the other person's rank, but they'll know that the "General" player is the outsider to their friends game and will still play with bias.

[quote=aeronautic]I like that idea B4rny. There is still this to consider: [quote]That way, Generals can play newbies, but nobody knows who's the General, or who's the newbie.[/quote] Newbies know who the other newbies are if they are friends... they'll PM each other. [quote]No one will be attacked for their rank, and there is a smaller chance players will gang up.[/quote] Correct, they won't know the other person's rank, but they'll know that the "General" player is the outsider to their friends game and will still play with bias.[/quote] Well, a General is a General for a reason. Before he joins the game, he can check players standings, and see if they are good friends or not. But in an ideal riskworld, players will not PM each other, and play for the win. Also, I thought the idea was to get high ranked players to join games with low ranked players. If new players just want to play games with each other, most of the time they set a PW. I'd like to try some anonymous games.

I try to play with all levels of players and never put point limits on games that I create. When I was new I really appreciated begin able to play with high ranked players so I feel obligated to do so as well. But I still join plenty of games with point limits. I've found that in general I gain more points by playing low ranked players (no hard evidence to present, just the impression I get when I have big point swings). So I don't think the new system is necessary or fair. I've had games where I lost over 70 points, and sure that can be a little frustrating, but I still feel it is a genius system that has been developed here and the new rule only taints it. The top ranked players don't need any extra advantage. I don't think that worrying about rank and trying to only play certain games based on the rank of opponents helps anyone achieve a higher rank anyway. The best way to get more points is to have fun, and the best way to have fun is to win!

@B4rny and @aeronautic Anonymous games have nothing to do with the topic. I'm just requesting the new rule in place to be removed as soon as possible because of its evident unfairness.