A suggestion for rated games

[Stockfish]

Hello, im Stockfish, since some weeks, i've been thinking in the idea of changing the rated points.

What i want to do, is not changing the rated system (that in my opinion is ok, ¡but! i would implement some changes . But that's another topic)

 

The idea i have is to change proportionally the points to 2857, finding the multiplierr number to obtain those ratings.

If @borg- is now 2371, then to make it be 2857 you must multiplicate his ELO for 1.205 ---- (2371 x 1.205) = 2857

Let's do a top 7 players by ELO and see how it would be :

@borg-(2371) x 1.205 = (2857)

@ValihrAnt(2164) x 1.205 = (2607)

@Feldfeld(2076) x 1.205 = (2501)

@Stockfish(2069) x 1.205 = (2493)

@chrstgtr(2031) x 1.205 = (2447)

@JC (naval supremacist)(2026) x 1.205 = (2441)

@liberty (1896) x 1.205 = (2284)

 

That's how it would be, but as there is a lot if difference betwem the first, and the second (and then they're all equal more or less) i would suggest to make the proportion with @ValihrAnt's score, and then, with the number that we obtain, plus it to @borg-.

Let's see how it would be!

@ValihrAnt's score is (2164), so:    2857/2164 = 1.320.

¡Lets apply it!

 

@borg-(2371) x 1.320 = (3130)

@ValihrAnt(2164) x 1.320 = (2856)

@Feldfeld(2076) x 1.320 = (2740)

@Stockfish(2069) x 1.320 = (2731)

@chrstgtr(2031) x 1.320 = (2681)

@JC (naval supremacist)(2026) x 1.320 = (2674)

@liberty (1896) x 1.320 = (2503)

 

That's how it would be, in my opinion would be better becouse as more points difference, is cleaner.

 

Greeting! What do you think?

 

 

[Stockfish]

@user1

@elexis

@feneur

@Stan`

[nani]

[Stockfish]

37 minutes ago, nani said:

 

hahaha. OP

[nani]

Doesn't make much sense to be honest.

[Emperior]

Does anyone playing 1vs1 rated anymore? Current rating as well as the topic idea for 1vs1 rated games has no point to actually fight for rating. Most of already don't even do rated games as the rating means nothing in the game.

• you can't decide about someone's skill level if game is not balanced, so at that point the rating system is already useless
• "point system works so well like game isn't lagging at all".
• stockfish or someone else rated 2k+ lost vs vinme, vinme (1540 something like that) got maybe 40 points while 2k+ lost maybe 15 points? - seems like no logic here

Actually the topic idea seems just to add free points to make higher rating. What it will help/ fix by adding more points to you or others?

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Emperior

[Stockfish]

1) Yes, there are people playing rated games anymore.

2) If points doesn't matter, then let's do them matter, not we, developers, maybe some gift to first 10 players? that could make people play more seriously.

3) As all players can use same things in game, inside the unbalance there is a balance, luckyly some players are working on balance.

4) What i try is to make points a bit more important, why not giving players who pass some point barrier something like an insignia or something like that?

(Is not the same thing, but for example in chess you have some tittles like IM, CM, GM when you break some FIDE barrier, why not same with rating? or for example name from diferent color... what i mean is to make them important in any way, that would balance the game becouse now all players would try to reach them maximun.

5) I don't know what you mean with this "point system works so well like game isn't lagging at all"

6) What happens if i lose to a 1500 player? I mean, we're all are humans and make mistakes, @vinme made a big mass of slings and won, i couldn't defend. @borg- lost too against a 1600 and nothing happens, but it's not the common thing.

7) I don't want to add free points, i want to make all players's points x 1.320, to balance in that way the rated system, and implement some things to motivate players to play rated games.

Is not good that you're 1465, you're not 1465 and can confuse other players. It's like smurfing, but of course the option of no wanting to play rated games is completely aceptable. Why not adding rating to team games? Would be good too. We could have 2 ratings,  one for 1v1's and another for rated games.

     

Greetings

[Stockfish]

PD: if you lose a game and you lose 11 points, the other earns 11 too. Always same losind and earning.

[vinme]

first of all i wanna say that i have no idea what multiplying all players points by 1.3 or whatever is to accomplish each player has over a thousand points what more accuracy do you need than accuracy in 1/1000.will it matter if its 1/2000? seems pointless to me.

second of all me winning vs stockfish (got 25 points not 40) cannot be used as an example for anything considering that im an extremely unstable player so you really cant say that im a 1500 cant even put me in a range tbh but nevertheless it wasnt my victory if i could take 2 min to search up on how to upload replays id upload the replay of that match which if anyone above 1300 were to watch could realize that it wasnt my victory at all it was stockfishes loss (stockfish had 2 extra berries which would be a game ender  in a 1v1 lets say within the range of 300-500 rating points very roughly speaking)  he overmakes like 15-20 men for no reason early on like min 5 slowing his eco drastically (btw for anyone who doesnt know how this game works bacically you cant half @#$% 2 things that is basically suicide you have to full @#$% 1 thing so a very inacurate example that gets the point across: dont make 30 men to atack wiht 15 while the rest eco youll lose the 15 men atacking to a superior army and youll lose in eco and lose the game)

so without any extra berries i was able to have population that was equal to his early on i think i did my eco ok not poorly but not well and then stockfish just randomly ignores the second extra berries which he had absolutely no reason to ignore they were right next to his wood line so perfectly secure and makes farms at this point (my stamina is utter dogshit) i get exausted and i have low wood so instead of reaching for wood batches by building stuff on the edge i panick and make the wrong decision to go for a late p1 rush (generally best to rush at certain points when the enemy is weakened for exanple when he is going p2 when he just spent 1000 resources on it while you spent all thoes res on men + more as if your rushign you undermake women) 

the decision was wrong as in chat someone had previously revelaled that stockfish had the map advantage so as far as im concerned hes stronger than me and the longer the game goes on better my chances are vs an opponent who has an economic advantage early on my p1 late rush was decent in setup but since i hadnt scouted with cav or men ect and had no information on stockfishes state i was going on blind against an enemy that if he had played correctly i likely wouldve lost against. 

TLDR that match was  a fluke stockfish messed up as he says on accident but hard to believe

as for saying nobody palyes rated anymore and that rating points are irrlevant that is completely incorrect plenty of palyer play rated  its a nessesity early on before you reach 1300 as before that plenty of dishonest players will rage quit dont give u points and also anyone below 1300 generally cannot be trusted you wont get into any decent teamgames unless you are 1300 or above as below that nobody can take you seriously skill wise and 1300 is the bare minimum dont think that im saying anyone who is above 1300 is a good player.

apart from that saying points are irrelvant is like saying money is irrelevant because its just paper.its what the money represents taht gives it absolute value and same with points.points represent skill of a player and even abouve 1300-1500 there is a significant correlation between someones rating and their skill like 9 out of 10 players above 1300 are withing the range of their rating in their skill  (skill)-100 - +100) 

i think its a great idea to set up like medals or somethign that appear next to the players name if they surpass a certain point currently i can think of 3 benchmarks that most palyers can agree are significant the 1300+ where you now exist you now have a name.1600+ where you are a compentent palyer reliable and significantly above the average 1300+ in skill. 

the 2000+ where you are elite top 5 again there are few exceptions where players have improper ratings either much higher or lower than their skill but its exception not the rule

 

[vinme]

im gonna start a thread on attributes that affect your competence as a player soon and talk in detail on which ones are most important currently which ones might become significantly more relevant in the future when many top players will reach a certain point in currently significant skills after which more complex things might come into play ect.gotta walk my dog now and then ill write it.also wanna do a thread on countering the camel rush as it is the rush even the currently best players find extremely difficult to counter

[vinme]

doing teamgame ranks is a horrible idea too complicated if it were introduced itll be mandatory to separate teh multiplayer rating from the 1v1 one.also 1v1 rating  can pretty much define TG capacity generally ones who do better in teamgames than in 1v1 lack a major atribute(ill add stuff on this in the attributes that affect your competence as a player thread that ill make) vital for a 1v1 that matters less in a teamgame.

[Stockfish]

2 hours ago, go2die said:

multiplicar / dividir puntos no tiene sentido 

más allá del comienzo, la calificación se cuenta desde la base 1200 (rango de novato), por lo que requeriría un esfuerzo adicional (no solo multiplicación).

La diferencia máxima para contar puntos es 600 entre jugadores. Donde la calificación más baja se mueve más rápido que la más alta (suma de puntos), por lo que hay una constante en el código 2200 que ayuda a esos cálculos. Esta es la razón por la cual la multiplicación es difícil.

más puedes encontrar aquí  https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/source/tools/lobbybots/EcheLOn/ELO.py

Entonces, de hecho, cómo hacer que el juego sea más interesante es:

- haga trabajos calificados en un entorno multijugador (realmente requeriría rehacer mucho el código actual) en función de otros factores luego 1vs1 [o haga una calificación adicional de juego de equipo]
- agregue algunos extras de algún nivel de rango como: posibilidad de agregar prefijo de nombre, sufijo ( Siempre me gustó randomid (ilimitado) pero no puedo tenerlo ...) o una selección de color adicional (siempre puede tener ese color contra un jugador de bajo rango ... algún administrador / partidario adicional justo en el lobby (basado en rango + meses de jugando...)

 

 

-
 

 

@go2die multiplieing 1200 x 1.320 the initial 1200 is the solution

[vinme]

even if its doable itll be complicated,unnecessary ect but more importantly i think just giving ppl any merit on the basis of "being a good team player" is a bad idea like ppl who cant play well but seems as if their major flaws are less exploited in teamgames already feel a false sense of accomplishment or level of skill based on what seems as if they are succeeding in teamgames probably a balancing issue too like they are better(atleast in teamgames) than they are known to be so their team is always in an advantage from the getgo so they atribute the victories to their skill instead of whats really giving them the edge when they play .being a teamplayer isnt that hard there isnt alot of things you have to do and beyonde all that 99% of whats important is being a good player on your own thats whatll help the team the most.atacking/defending together,sending res to a player who is behind or who needs something..well thats about it i guess. 2 major things i can think of.so unnesesary like participation trophies all that trouble when there is no merit to be earned by playing teamgames teamgames prove nothing whatsoever about anybodys skill (i mean from results of the game ofcourse if u watch the whole game u can tell whos good and who isnt )

[Feldfeld]

1 hour ago, go2die said:

It is not complicated at all... Even now all data like gathered resources, killed units, buildings are stored in DB and with those data you can do really good magic. so from long-term perspective it has some value which is much better then nothing

There was this try : 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Feldfeld

[Stockfish]

In my opinion, in a possible multiplayer rating, all players should earn or lose same quantity of points

[Stockfish]

i don't share that @go2die

[badosu]

A change I'd like to see is some kind of system to reward players actively playing 1v1 rated.

e.g. lose x points each week/month where you don't engage in a 1v1 rated with someone your rating +-200. Where x is proportional to your score - 1200.

This is a way I can see to actually making points be more accurate, it would penalize great players who don't play often, that's true but at least makes it meaningful.

Players that win against a lot of nubs and park on a high rating will have to fight to stay there, players who are in an accurate rating or underrated will climb/stay at their rating easily.

That and/or make the multiplier for point gain/loss more severe between players with a huge rating difference, case in point: I put a dispute when I was uber nob (only nob now) for rated quitters, gained 3 matches against 1200-1300 players and when from 1670-1700 which doesn't make sense IMO.

Edited January 29, 2020 by badosu

[JC (naval supremacist)]

 

Stockfish , to make it clear,   so basicaly you want to multiply everyone's score based on a random number (2857) and a random player (Val) ;  

 

player  score x   2857/2164     .... okeeey