Rating Disparity Ratio

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

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.

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.

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. [spoiler=Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal.] [quote=Cireon]3. That's not how the ranking system works. Rating isn't created out of nowhere, so it isn't "more points for him". Otherwise, yes, your arithmetic is sound. If a player is involved in a hundred games where they would have lost 70 rating , but they actually lost 50, there is 2000 rating that that players still has. To lose 70 rating in a game, you need to lose from a player that you have more than 3.5 times as many ratings as. The top players of this website have around 6000 rating right now, so for this scenario of 70 rating to happen, one of these players needs to lose against a player with 1700 rating or so in a >3 player game. Realistically, that doesn't happen very often.[/quote] This^ is incorrect; the high rated player doesn't need to lose against someone who's much lower in rating; s/he simply needs to lose while being in a game with an average rating which is much lower. Pretty sure this was simply a typo/slip of the tongue from your side. I've already responded on the rating getting created out of nowhere, so I'll leave that for now (update: noticed you've since commented and agreed). [quote=Cireon]As soon as somebody hits 5 digits, they would win only 2 points per game per player from playing brand new recruits. Let's say they play experienced players (around 2000 rating) all the time: they would win 4 rating per player per game. That means for every game they lose (50 rating), they would have to win from 12.5 players. That could translate to winning half of all 7 player games, which is really really hard! Long story short: the system is designed to deal with this, and the 50 rating cap does not significantly influence its ability to self correct.[/quote] The number 2 isn't even correct when playing 1v1 (10,000 vs 1000 rating); the number would be 3 in that case. For more players in the game, the number would only grow (5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9 and 10 respectively - so total gains of 2, 10 (2*5), 18 (3*6), 28, 40, 48, 63 and 80 respectively)). For the case (again with the 10k topdog) against 2000 rated player(s), the sequence would alter to become this: (6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13 and 13 respectively - so total gains of 6, 16 (2*8), 30 (3*10), 44, 60, 72, 91 and 104)). So going with the 7p games... lose 50 rating/game when losing, gain 72 when winning => need to win almost 5/12 games (have a 10 net rating gain), which is indeed close to almost half. So the point you wish to make remains - it's very hard (read: impossible in practice). Not quite sure what happened here with your numbers? Or am I mistaken myself? [quote=The_Bishop]Let's say player A has 6400 rating, he plays against eight guys having 800 rating each and one of them wins: the average rating of the losers is (6400+800+800+800+800+800+800+800) / 8 = 1500; A loses 20*6400/1500 = 85 rating points (rounded down), capped at 50 by the new rule; all the other losers lose 20*800/1500 = 10 rating points each (rounded down); the winners receives 85+10+10+10+10+10+10+10 = 155 rating points, reduced to 120 by the new rule.[/quote] Mistakes here are actually treated in my previous post; so no need to go over it again. [quote=The_Bishop]The points awarded are fixed: we win (we won really) always the same, whatever the ratings of our opponents are. So it is not possible for anyone to win only 2 or 3 points per player, not even for one having a 9 digits rating. Excluding small deductions, due to the approximations, we win: 160 in a 9p game, 140 in a 8p game, 120 in a 7p, 100 in a 6p game, and so on... The losers "pay" for our win dividing the "cost" in proportion to their ratings (just as showed above). If one of the losers is a very high rank benefiting from the 50-point cap, then we win less points than usual: that's the worst part of this "rule".[/quote] Almost entirely incorrect; a good source for further research: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3078/inner-workings-of-the-game-engine/post/53771#post-53771 - please don't take this as a snarky comment. I had to research this too, before I didn't know either. I could've kept it for myself, but I believe it's more useful out in the open (with all credits to @@Matty for providing his input). Also, I realise I didn't mention anything with respect to the NUMBER involved in the current cap; I think the number 50 is rather spot on. 1) because it's a slick number, 2) because I guess anything like ~40 would be too low (it'll have a more significant, negative, impact for everyone other than those who loose less points) and anything like ~60 would make it's occurence even more marginal, completely voiding the use of the cap in the first place. With a cap on 50, high rated people will be less reluctant to play in games with a much lower average rating - which I too suppose is a good evolution. As a lot of things can actually be learnt, from observing and interacting (read: playing) with people who have more skill (that goes for anything in life - whether it's rating in a risk game, or knowledge how to properly dead lift, or to debunk some mathematical theorem). Another strong argument for this rating cap would be the cap that is already present for 1v1 games - I've not seen anyone say anything negative about that cap in this topic. All that said... I suppose there could also be 'a market' for a cap (of 30?) on 2v2 games, as these are in fact bloated 1v1 games... but I'll not open another can of worms here ;d Maybe later. As for some other quotes here without calculations: [quote=B4rny]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. [/quote] I'd very much like this^! I think there's quite a bit of strategy involved in actually knowing WHO you are playing against and in which ORDER they play - quite a lot of strategical decisions can be based upon (I know I do). Taking this away, could lead to other playstyles, as one wouldn't know, and/or has to try and guess it while the game is running live (somewhat comparable to assassination games, I like to quickly deduce everyone's target). The PM'ing comment by @@aeronautic is a true thing though, but I guess I'd just (wrongfully/naive) assume that people would just play straight. If someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way to do so anyway, so I don't feel like wasting energy/anger over such frivolous behaviour. I'll still be able to enjoy myself. Note: This does not mean that I won't try to argue when I do catch blatant wrongdoing... as injustice is a 'value' I have great trouble with (I value justice, morale, ethics, etc). [quote=slackbatter]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! [/quote] As a player, I think slackbatter is the person who I respect most on this website. Just a few days ago I noticed this game of his: https://dominating12.com/game/1019018 - I appreciate what he did in the chat. I remember that when I joined the website, I took a lot of positivity out of interacting with a few veterans and it helped me grow in the game, some words on that can be found here: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3246/dominating12-my-experiences - I too wish to repay to others, so I'll often engage in chats and whatever with new people; not so much in low average ranked games, but more power to you! As for your other words; I don't think fairness is an issue with this new rule. I think you want to look at it from your own perspective as high rated selfless player and therefore feel aided where you don't request nor need any aid - I appreciate this viewpoint. Whereas I tried to look at it from a helicopter perspective; I do see some merit in it. I don't think I'll (ab)use this new rule much myself (as I'm currently not at all in any game that could profit from it), whereas I do believe it'll create a more inclusive environment here on D12, especially with this great influx of new D12 players due to Corona. I do agree though that the new rule isn't neccesarry at all. [quote=Virtuosity98]So the question is, which do you value more? Increased interplay between high and low ratings at the expense of "fairness" in 1/150 games OR Increased "fairness" in 1/150 games at the expense of increased interplay between the high and low ratings I think the negative effect of the cap is quite limited, and the potential benefits could well outweigh the cost. BUT if we see after a few months that the high ratings are gaining too much or exploiting the cap, and the data back this up, I'm sure the cap would be adjusted. [/quote] I believe this^ is a very concise and spot on summary of what this entire thread (from the 4th post onwards) is about. I would go for option 1. [quote=maafi]I am also neutral. I had no problem with the rating system as it was and I have no problem with changing it slightly if it means games are filled quicker and more are created. But I think Bishop is right to question the change and the reasons behind it. I'm just not clever enough to understand the mechanisms and implications.[/quote] I suppose this^ reflects how I felt yesterday when I first thought I should give it a thought. I'm happy that The_Bishop made such a fuzz about it, if he hadn't, I wouldn't have bothered to have a closer look at it and actually form a grounded opinion - I would've just let it slide (granted, it did take some time ;d). From how I've seen him behave in other parts of the fora (mostly map creation) I believe he's a guy with a very strong ethical backbone and it makes sense to me that his initial response was to go against it, albeit perhaps a bit too strongly... Seeing how he's already apologised for several errors here and there, I suppose he just made a few judgements too quickly, but with the right intentions in mind. [quote=dough_boy]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. [/quote] Yes, I probably wouldn't have bothered with it, but now that it's here, I wouldn't bother with going back. I myself could actually be an example for your request. I used to play live 6p multiplayer (DM) games (these normally attract people <1400 rating); I quit with those (for the time being), as they weren't beneficial for my rating (and tedious to actually participate in, as they require 'constant' attention). At this point in time, I'm still trying to increase my rating. Not so much because I care for high rating, but because I'm curious to where it may lead to and am fine with 'sacrificing' to play those 6p live games. As a counter argument; with or without this new rule, I would not change my selective nature for games right now, as losing 50 rating in games which I not at all manage to win >40% of the time (which I would need, even with a 50 rating cap), is just not viable for my current goal. That said, this new rule will only have a very marginal impact on me. I believe @@Joeyseven would be one of the players who would see most 'benefit' of this newly installed rule, in a personal-rating-wise-sense. If an admin would care to check his games, that could give some other interesting information. [/spoiler]

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.

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.

Thanks Alex for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I'm replying and commenting to some of yours just for contributing the entire discussion. [spoiler=Main part of post placed in this spoiler due to excessive length. Click to reveal.] [quote=AlexCheckMate]Thus far, I've only responded on the first page of this thread, before it shifted to a new topic;[/quote] Well, first point, this thread seems to be "whatever", that's why I didn't want to post here. The main topic should be in theory the one expressed as first, all the other topics should in theory be considered off-topic. And in the off-topic part of this thread has been discussed and approved a new rule which is now effective, and that rule has now become the main topic here (apart from some other suggestions slightly related). My intent wasn't to suggest or feedback anything, I just declared myself firmly opposed to this new rule and not responsible for any unfairness caused by it, so my post had its own thread in another area of the forums and it was meant to stay there. It was not only about restoring the rule but also sharing a bit of my personal story wishing for people not being much "rating obsessed". A very important topic in my opinion that deserved to stay in the General Discussion forum. Probably what said above it's enough for letting you know what my opinion is. But it's so nice for me to go into the details and show to Alex some flaws of his reasoning. Still I'm thankful with him for showing us many examples with some good maths and also spotting the mistakes done by anyone else, including myself. Really I didn't do any math mistakes, I just relayed on a wrong source with a slightly different formula, but there's someone having the right formula which also did similar mistakes in his examples. Anyway, all these calculations can lead to a better judgement on what the effects of the rule are, but they aren't necessary at all for understanding if the rule is fair or not. Anyway... [quote=AlexCheckMate]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).[/quote] The loss of "a lot of rating" in a single game isn't (and wasn't) possible in any ways, it sounds hilarious to me that 70 points or so are called "a lot of rating" by one having 6000. Well okay, just a matter of wording, but I wanted to highlight it. [spoiler=More]Yes, "players who are rated much lower than what their skill" might be a problem, but I wouldn't call it unfair (even if it is) it's just a flaw of the system, much job required to fix it. We live with that finely, also because the effect is minimal, being the rating lost per game calculated on the average of all players' involved in the game (and not only on the winner's) the impact of just one of such players joining one of your games is really small. The problem could occure if [u]many[/u] of those low-rated good-skilled players join one of your game, and still only one game is not much, it should occure often for having an impact. Personally, if I know that a player is good but his rating is low just because he's new, well then I'm fully happy to invite him in my games, I don't worry if I win a few points less. I think it's the same for you and the most of us. Let's say it's just a small unfairness kindly accepted by everybody. You probably know chess sites have a system using provitional rating for new members, even better, provitional rating with later post-calculation / re-adjustement of the rating. Oh yes, that would be really fair, but it would be really complex to be applyed here, just not feasible. I consider this related to the topic but not really in the topic. I assume it was just an example for saying that other unfairness can actually exsist. Well okay, I'm fine with it, but still our task here is to do our best to minimize and avoid any possible unfairness.[/spoiler] [quote=AlexCheckMate]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)[/quote] The kind of games, where the new rule applies the most, are just the games where you (and few others) play aginst beginners only (also in case of all opponents beginners except one or two, to be punctillious) so it is anything I can call a "mix", it's just incentivating the Generals' to farm rating against beginners. And notice such an incentivation is in one direction only: you* lose less points, good for you*, but they win less points, bad for them! * "you" in this case and most of cases is just a short form for saying "any of the few very high rated players". Really it doesn't help "some players" but just a handful of them at the (small but significant) detritment of all the others. [quote=AlexCheckMate]Even for the high(er) ranked players, the percentage of games in which they risk losing 50 rating (or more) is small.[/quote] Well, the percentage were the new rule applies is very small, several keep saying that. Of course it is small, they are just the games where Alex, Slack and few others play against beginners only. Cannot your own games be 50% of games of the whole site, that's sure. Here you are considering the percentage of those games among just your own games and say it's still a small. But wait it depends on you if that percentage is small or not. You can actually exploit the rule if you want, by just playing more of those games. [quote=AlexCheckMate]It's simply not feasible, if one wishes to keep growing their rating, to lose a lot of games.[/quote] Comon, this is a serious argument? Of course you cannot grow by losing games! :D But the point is that when you lose you benefit of an insurance granting you to not lose more than 50. ((And the insurance refund is just paid by the winner of your game, it's simply insane, probably I'll never stop to repeat this)). If you are a 6000 and you can actually benefit of a cap at 50, then I'm a 3000 and I want to benefit of a cap at let say 35... Let's see how my rating grows then!! [quote=AlexCheckMate]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.[/quote] Exorbitant gains?? Even in the most extreme of your examples (the one you called "impossible" ), a pretty low rated player winning a 9p game against 7 same ratings and one 10'000 rating super-champion, even in that case he got rewarded with just 165 rating, it's just 5 more than a normal win. I mean defeating the super-champion caused him "an exorbitant gain" of 5 points more than usual... But with new rule applied instead he actually gains [b]less rating[/b] than normal everytime he menage to defeats the super-champion (59 points less!! in your (really extreme) example ... from a "gigantic win" (not true) to a poorish win (for real)). Well, I had already spotted this incosistence and I'm not saying more. [quote=AlexCheckMate]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.[/quote] First, it's too late for being a "proponent" because the rule is already in place. I'm the proponent here and I am (kindly) asking for abolishing the new rule. And second, yes we actually have to look at the extreme cases, above all the extreme cases, because it's just where the rule is more effective. If we have rating rules working finely (and fairly) even in the most extreme cases, it would be just a very good news, this is the garantee that the rating system works well, probably very well, in normal cases. [quote=AlexCheckMate]Such games are simply not viable to keep your rating on the level it was, let alone rise from it.[/quote] Oh no, I think you're wrong. I see from the exclamation marks in your examples that you consider something very hard to win half or so of 9p games against beginners, but... From what I remember from past years (I can be wrong though) I guess it is just how Slack actually built his rating and it is just how strong a General is supposed to be (without receiving any helps). I know Slack has already expressed his thought and I don't want to force him to say more if he's not in the mood or busy with other stuff. Just ask him. Alex, you're probably better on other kind of games, let say "medium sized" with medium rating opponents or mixed. Then, I'm sorry for you, probably Slackbatter can potentially profit much more than you from the new rule. As I said after some re-evaluation 6 digits score aren't anything possible but I do think one player in this site can actually run for a 5 digit score with the new rule in place, if he just decides to exploit it as his best. As I said it would be funny to do the experiment, but I suggest not doing any experiments like this because it would only harm the entire system requiring then some time (and games!) to re-establish the balance. Also... [quote=Virtuosity98] So the question is, which do you value more? Increased interplay between high and low ratings at the expense of "fairness" in 1/150 games OR Increased "fairness" in 1/150 games at the expense of increased interplay between the high and low ratings I think the negative effect of the cap is quite limited, and the potential benefits could well outweigh the cost. BUT if we see after a few months that the high ratings are gaining too much or exploiting the cap, and the data back this up, I'm sure the cap would be adjusted.[/quote] Basically this is the main argument behind the new rule, so I'm not replaying to Virtuos specifically but to everybody being in favour of keeping the new rule. This argument is just contraddicted by self. In practice you are admitting there is some unfairness and some harms with the new rule but they are small things because they only occur in a small percentage of cases and in the other hand the good is that we achieve to incentivate some kind of games which we want to. But wait, the kind of games we are incentivating are just those games where the new rule applies. Incentivating them means just to incentivate that small percentage of unfairness to actually grow. It cannot work, it can only lead to a fail. [quote=AlexCheckMate referring to My Eminence The_Bishop]Seeing how he's already apologised for several errors here and there, I suppose he just made a few judgements too quickly, but with the right intentions in mind.[/quote] Wait please, of course I apologised, because if one made a mistake, or wrong assumptions, wrong accusations, or just harmed someone in some way, then the best think to do is just to apologise... As soon as you can. But the fact that my formula was slighly different from the actual, and some of my wordings could have caused irritation to someone, doesn't change my tought in the whole of this rule beeing unfair and not giving any benefit. 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. P.S. To be clear with the person requesting to have a cap on points lost: there's no culpability in that request, it's a legitimate request, I had already said it in my first post of the locked thread. The fact is that there are several ways to implement a cap on points lost which are fair, but the way it has been implemented here is not fair.[/spoiler]

[quote] 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. [/quote] 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 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 :)

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.

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.

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. [b]How is this Fair?[/b]

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. [quote=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.[/quote] 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. [u]This will be controversial, but nonetheless true in almost all cases:[/u] 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.

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.

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!