update suggestion
  • 22 posts
  • Page 1 of 2
AlphaLeo wrote:
I would like to suggest an update to the rating algorithm...
I think a great option would be also adding a "Bonus" of rating to the winner / loser depending on how many rounds have been played...
What do you think?
AlphaLeo wrote:
lets make like +1 in the rating final score depending on how many rounds have been played
(just a random example)
AlexCheckMate wrote:
Hey AlphaLeo,

Can you tell me what caused this idea to sprout? I'm interested in the thought process that preceded it. What's the goal of this change? What's the use?
I'm unsure why games that last longer should be awarded with more points?
This can also be 'abused' 'easily' by continuing to play in a game, which already has a set winner (provided dice don't go completely wonky/prospected winner doing some very unpredictable/bad things (e.g. missing 2 turns in a row)).

I like the fresh breath of air though, with respect to a very novel idea =D

-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:
It isn't possible to just "add" new rating into the system without breaking the system. If there were more players given to the winner than the loser lost, then there would be a net positive of rating entering the system, and if we played long enough, everybody would become General, which isn't what we're trying to achieve.

If anything, longer games should aware more tokens, but as Alex explained, that could lead to abuse.
“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
The_Bishop wrote:
Please Cireon, should I put my post here?
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
The_Bishop wrote:
Honestly I'm not sure it was the case to move it, anyway... Here is my post:

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?
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
The_Bishop wrote:
2 answers to my post above:
(they were written in the other thread which has been locked for being on the same topic of this one)


cicciomisto2013
I feel the same!


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.!
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
Cireon wrote:
No, I added a link to this thread in the other post. Now you're derailing this thread as well...
“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
Hoodlum wrote:
here it's just like fight sports, they fight anyone to climb the ranks and are active, to move up the ranks to ultimately get a title shot.

Once they are close to the top, it's not worth the risk fighting a low rank fighter, you risk your chance to fight for the title. But here, you can retire for a few months, have a few quick fights without losing too much cause there isn't any ring rust factor and get a title shot :)

i'd like to see players points decline with inactivity, like ring rust.

ultimately, i'd prefer that if the ranking system didn't promote avoiding, picking opponents. The most respected fighters fight anyone and remain the champ or climb back up winning by being active.
as for the current topic... i say leave it as it was while there is not ring rust formula (inactivity)

let's all reset our ranks and see who the dominating are! the active players ;)
The web moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
aeronautic wrote:
Hoodlum
i'd like to see players points decline with inactivity, like ring rust.
If this happened, my rank would be; "the friend of the guy who provides the shoe polish for the bat boy"
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
AlphaLeo wrote:
AlexCheckMate
Hey AlphaLeo,

Can you tell me what caused this idea to sprout? I'm interested in the thought process that preceded it. What's the goal of this change? What's the use?
I'm unsure why games that last longer should be awarded with more points?
This can also be 'abused' 'easily' by continuing to play in a game, which already has a set winner (provided dice don't go completely wonky/prospected winner doing some very unpredictable/bad things (e.g. missing 2 turns in a row)).

I like the fresh breath of air though, with respect to a very novel idea =D

-Alex

I am proposing this because it happened that I had a great game that lasted for almost 3 hours (live game of 5 mins)... at the end me and the other player were kind of disappointed that after so much time of playing he earned just 21 rating (almost the standard) and 20 tokens...

I think that next time I will find a game that will last for so long I will just resign and do another 3/4 other games in the same time....
This system update can really make things better for games that last for very long, it will keep the people interested in playing...

Regarding the people that will try to abuse it I thought about a solution:
- not giving tokens bonus
- set a limit (ex 15 additional points max)
- set that it also depends on how long the game lasted in matter of time (if the game lasts for just 10 minutes and have 20 rounds this means that probably the players were organized in doing this)
- If the worry go on the people "bulling" the opponent that don't have any way to come back in the game, and the "winning" player don't kill him cuz he want to get more points, make the resign free

I hope this idea can be seriously taken into consideration...
thx
dough_boy wrote:
But you miss the purpose of the ranking system. Everyone starts out at 1k. When you lose you lose a % of your rank. The person winning gets that % from all players in the game. So you advance based upon winning and playing games.

It isn't like everyone starts out at 0 and if you win you go up, if you lose you go down less, etc.

If you want to rank up faster you need to play more than 1v1 games, player higher ranked players, and don't play fixed/capped cards.
dough_boy wrote:
Hoodlum
let's all reset our ranks and see who the dominating are! the active players ;)

See...this is what should qualify for the D12. Not someone who maintains their rank from month to month, but who is actually dominating 12. So you keep your rank overall, but every 1st everyone starts fresh. The top 12 (9) players gaining in rank (not a %) fight it out. Maybe there are other qualifications like rank gained and number of opponents played. So if someone only plays 1v1, they get 1 point (not rank), whereas if you play 9v9 you get 9 points. So you can never be negative.
Cireon wrote:
AlphaLeo. These are all cool suggestions, but have you read my post above? We can't just add points to the system. Are you suggesting that you also lose more points every game?
“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