• 98 posts
  • Page 4 of 7
AlexCheckMate wrote:
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).

Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal. (click to show)

-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
Cireon wrote:
Thanks for running the numbers, Alex. I didn't check you maths, but the numbers all look very reasonable, and I think the examples show the impact of the rule very well.

Regarding your comment about how rating does enter the system through new players: you're absolutely right. I didn't mention it before because I didn't want to complicate the logic. The rating entering the system is actually important. It means that on average, everybody has 1000 points, so the average stays the same no matter what. For somebody to get a really high score, you would need lots of new players ending up with a score below the starting 1000. The assumption is that even though there is more rating in the system, there are more players competing for it, so it should get roughly as hard to get the higher ranks as before. One day, the next dominator may register, and start rising the ranks again.

Of course players go inactive. When players leave the system, they probably don't have exactly 1000 rating, so that is where the average might start moving up or down. The effect doesn't seem pronounced enough right now for us to have to intervene, but it's worth keeping in the back of our minds. Still, in an ideal world where everybody would keep playing, the custom system works and is hermetic, so we'll keep using the argument, as it still holds up.
“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
dough_boy wrote:
So if we are saying that it doesn't happen except in extreme situations...then why bother with it. The person that is impacted the most are those who are able to take down a whale.

Again, show me a high ranked player that doesn't play lower ranked because they can lose too many ranking points.
AlexCheckMate wrote:
Don't take (the start of) this post the wrong way, I'm merely making it because I don't like errors. So I'll quote some bits and pieces from other players in this thread and comment on them - it might clarify some things here and there, as errors may cause confusion. Shed some light where darkness still reigns and improve the environment for discussion.

Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal. (click to show)
“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
Cireon wrote:
You're right, Alex. In my quest to simplify, I looked at the wrong rating numbers. I looked at the winners rating, instead of the average rating of the game. I don't think it changes the course of my arguments significantly. If anything, it shows that the cap is even less of a problem than I laid out.

I am happy to rewrite my arguments, but I think your examples are illustrative enough that I don't have to go back.
“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
Matty wrote:
For what it's worth, I will not respond to this topic, even though I'm the one to have implemented this change.
The reason is that simply too many comments have been sarcastic and passive aggressive, rather than an honest attempt to understand one another.

I'm willing to discuss things, but then let's stay polite.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
The_Bishop wrote:
Thanks Alex for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I'm replying and commenting to some of yours just for contributing the entire discussion.

Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal. (click to show)
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Cireon wrote:
And I think the quick judgements here didn't come from my side. I studied the matter and when realized something was wrong with the new rule I just tried to warn the other staff and not achieving to have a great discussion then I decided to speak in public.
By showing my data and calculations, we have shown that we did not come to this conclusion lightly. Why do you insist on trying to put the staff members of this website in a bad light? The team really wants the best for this website and community. The fact that I've gone through much effort in addressing your points and concerns here, even after you tried to play out staff members against each other in private messages to get your way, hopefully shows that we're willing to see things from both sides.

While the calculations shared here brought some useful information to the table, and it helped us all understand the impact of the cap better, all that is left now is to continue arguing about which scenario we like. Since that's totally a matter of opinion, we could probably do that forever, and that is a waste of time in which players could play more Risk, and staff members can do work that really makes a difference for this community.

In the end, this is a subjective matter, and the staff has collectively decided that we like the advantages of the current option better. This may change in the future with more data, or if the community changes, but this is where we're at right now. I accept that you have a different opinion, and you're entitled to do so. I hope you can also accept that we have a different opinion than yours, and last us focus on other things, rather than digging up a decision that was made and signed off weeks ago.
“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
slackbatter wrote:
This rule has applied to 4 of my games so far and maafi won 3 of them. So I change my mind, I like this rule if it's mainly just hurting maafi :)
slackbatter is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
Some of these comments are so long it's unreal. Calculations and what not. Someone even changed his signature in protest?

If we backtrack a little to the first comments and the original suggestion itself, it's all very simple.

The point of this is to ensure that more games, with players of all ranks (especially noobs), take place, thereby avoiding a divided site where players predominantly play with other players of their own rank. The theory being that if a player with a high rank is to potentially lose, say, 70 rating in a single game, whereas he would stand to gain as little as 35 rating by winning it, well, then why even bother with games that involve a lot of noobs? The risk of playing those games would, in the long run, be too high. Suicides and maintargeting already make it a perilous road to take as it is.

Sure, there's the entertainment bit, but that is inexorably linked to winning whether we like it or not, or we wouldn't have ranks in the first place. Most people like to see progress after a while, and that's completely normal. Even the last few comments in this thread prove that most in here are very aware of both their rank and rating, and how they got there.

At the same time, enabling noobs to learn from senior players – without the latter having to worry too much about, for instance, being suicided – seems more likely to happen with the change in effect. Several new players in this thread have already said that they would like to play with senior players, so if we enable that to happen without anyone getting hurt (too bad), then that's a win-win for everyone involved. The noob gains experience, and the senior player gets (some much needed) variation.

The change not only, in theory, ensures more games with mixed players due to a more fair redistribution of rating. It is also in tune with the site's existing limit of 30 rating lost in 1v1 games. So the change is by no means a revolutionary act. It just extends the already existing limit from 1v1 games to all other games – although with a higher cap in these cases (still too high in my opinion, but whatever). Curiously, I've seen no protests about the 1v1 limit...

And that's it. That's all there is to it. Cireon and Matty, I believe it was, have already said that the results of the change will be analysed, and then the change may be reevaluated at a later stage. At that point it may make sense to bring out your calculators again. But for now, it's a waste of time.
"The brave man well shall fight and win, though dull his blade may be."
~Fafnismal 28
The_Bishop wrote:
Thanks for expressing your thought, vikingo1337.

I can understand that you would "like to see progress after a while" but it is not how the rating system is supposed to work. As I said before it is not a videogame here in which the more you play the more your score actually grows. Here we have a rating system rapresenting your skills, so you cannot grow at infinity: at some point you stop because your ability is so.

Implementing a new rule that helps you and a few others to grow isn't a benefit for the rating system of Dominating12.

«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
GIO_thePioneer wrote:
I hadn't written in the forum until now but I think it is time for me to do it.

Hello everyone, I have been playing on this website for a couple of months already and enjoyed it very much so far! I love all these gametypes, games with many players and the maps are just really cool. :)
From the beginning I was very curious to everything happening here. I read many topics in the forum, some very old ones too, I was curious to understand in which kind of games the best players usually play and sometimes I just watched strangers games to, for example, learn how to play capitals.

In my first days here I also noticed, some of the experienced players invited me a lot (almost daily) to 2v2v2v2 games and not only. I suppose they enjoyed playing with noobs, they did it then and I'm sure they will do it even more now that they have this parachute rule.

It was probably only by my 2nd week that I realised there was a rating system, I must say I would have enjoyed playing as much even if there wasn't, but if a rating system exists it must be fair for everyone.

I'm confident that the new rule was introduced as an improvement. From what I understand the goal is to increase the number of games among players of different ranks and in fact it does serve the purpose, but unfortunately at the expense of the low rated players.

It is evident to me that the new rule is Not Just to everyone.

I don't want to talk about any big numbers, calculations or formulas. I will only give examples from my own experience that will show why I am opposed to the new implemented rule.

In the last month my rating has been fluctuating around 1800<->2000 rating points. In the last 2 weeks I lost 2 games with low ranked players. In the 1st one I lost 39 points and in the 2nd one 38 points. Well it's easy to see that I lost something around 2% of my rating score. If a high rated player (~5000 points or higher) had lost those same 2 games he/she would have only lost 1% or less of their rating (50 points according to the new rule). The disparity here is clear.

This is my situation and it is the same for many other players with a similar rating.

So my question is very simple. How is this Fair?
aeronautic wrote:
Things to consider:
The loss percentage may well be different, but the purpose of the amendment was to encourage High (points) Players to play with Low (points) Players in solo games.
This is something that was becoming quite rare.

Your example quoted below, that experienced players were once eager and willing to play inexperienced players, is for Team Games.
GIO_thePioneer
In my first days here I also noticed, some of the experienced players invited me a lot (almost daily) to 2v2v2v2 games and not only. I suppose they enjoyed playing with noobs, they did it then and I'm sure they will do it even more now that they have this parachute rule.
The reason why experienced players are always happy to play with mainly inexperienced players in Team Games is that they can't be "ganged up" on, rank attacked and all the other actions which would ensure the loss of many points in Solo Games that they could have easily won through good strategy and experience.

This will be controversial, but nonetheless true in almost all cases: In Fixed Join Order games, the experienced Team Game players are basically hustling inexperienced players with their hundreds & thousands of team games experience with mainly the same partner/s.

Even if you don't yet know the veteran Team Players, you'll be able to tell if you are about to be hustled, by the Join Order (not random, but fixed).
Out of curiosity, check your game history and see if you ever won when you were still inexperienced, against the experienced Team Game players in 2v2 and 2v2v2 where the join order was fixed and they had a chosen partner. You'll also notice that veteran Team Game players always play with the same 2 or 3 team mates.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
aeronautic wrote:
This page is ridiculously long, so I will put all the huge posts into spoilers, where anyone wanting to read the whole post can open the spoiler.
I have only Spoilered the posts that have to be scrolled to read the whole post.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
cicciomisto2013 wrote:
Dear Mr. Vikingo,

perhaps I'm missing something but I really cannot understand your point.

As a newbye, I would prefer to play with experts, because:
1) I can learn faster
2) I can grow faster, gaining more points.

I really thank you for being worry for us, noobs, but it seems to me that you are more scared to play with noobs instead of be interested in transmitting them your expertise. You would play with noobies only if you lose less points? That's not so brave! And what about the less quantity of points I'll win, in case of your loss?

In any case thanks to everybody for providing such a nice game for free!