How about lowering rating of people who dont play anymore/dont play rated anymore?

[vinme]

this seems reasonable so rest of us can more clearly see our level on the leaderboard.

started this thread because like half the people above me dont play anymore or dont play rated anymore.

maybe there should be a quota of X amount of games per month that a player must play rated or otherwise remove "y" amount of rank.

 

[alre]

this comes up very often. Then people start to discuss how and when this rating adjustment should be done, and no agreement is reached. Still, most players agree some adjustment should be done.

I suggest we collect a number of proposals and we make a poll.

[Player of 0AD]

- don't decrease rating, because playing no rated games doesnt mean that the skill decreases
- if a player doesnt play rated, increase the uncertainty of his rating
- if the uncertainty is too high, mark the player rating with a question mark and remove him from the leaderbord

[LetswaveaBook]

Maybe I am going of point, but I had a different idea for ratings for players on the other side of the spectrum.

 

My suggestion: If a player under 1250 completes a game, his rating gets increased by 1 point regardless of whether it was a rated game. I think it would not hurt too much as people will probably learn from each game and after 50 games you are probably better than before. This would solve the issue with all the 1200 rated players and new players can easier distinguish between real noobs and those who did not play rated games.

[Silier]

Or reset rating on each alpha

[Yekaterina]

Another idea: we can set up a council of ratings judge on the forum. Players who are unhappy with their rating can submit their replays and let the judges decide their skill level. Players who think others are smurfing can also submit such evidences and the Smurf's rating would be adjusted accordingly.

[Stan`]

4 hours ago, Angen said:

Or reset rating on each alpha

I think that used to be the case.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

27 minutes ago, Stan` said:

I think that used to be the case.

Seams reasonable for the alpha releases.

[Gurken Khan]

Since it seems to be a leaderboard issue: I don't think people who don't play (rated) anymore should stay at the top forever. I would handle it more like other world rankings (eg tennis), where if you don't earn points you move down. I think it's also justified by the change of versions, or people could become rusty (or deteriorate biologically/die).

I would take a simple approach: at the end of each inactive calendrical month -50 pts. So a month of inactivity wouldn't be too bad, but a year of inactivity certainly would get you closer to the bottom.

Since I only do SP I'm totally impartial.

[Yekaterina]

Resetting rating is definitely a good idea, as some players quit simply because they don't like the new Alpha. For these people no need to keep  them at the top of the leaderboard. 

The main purpose of rating is for balancing. If your rating cannot reflect your theoretical performance in a game then it is quite pointless. 

[flint1]

Hey, yeah that's a pretty good idea 

[Gurken Khan]

2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Resetting rating is definitely a good idea, as some players quit simply because they don't like the new Alpha. For these people no need to keep  them at the top of the leaderboard. 

The main purpose of rating is for balancing. If your rating cannot reflect your theoretical performance in a game then it is quite pointless. 

With all due respect, that reasoning doesn't sound coherent and even contradictory to me.

Sure, people who quit don't need to be kept around; but there can be a lot of reasons why people are temporarily inactive. But if one understands how to boom, has a solid understanding of strategies and tactics and can do ~100 clicks/second, the rating one acquired with previous alphas will be a better indicator of how someone will do in the game than just giving them a noob rating just because the version number changed.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

-50 per inactive month should do it. It's simple, easy to understand, and incentivizes activity.

[Freagarach]

Or have a rating per alpha, so if one switches back temporarily one can still enjoy their old rating.

[smiley]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

-50 per inactive month should do it. It's simple, easy to understand, and incentivizes activity.

I think this already happens naturally. ELO inflation is a thing. When I started to play three alpha versions ago, the second on the leaderboard was 1800 something.

I don't know the exact rate.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

57 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

enjoy

lol

[LetswaveaBook]

11 hours ago, smiley said:

I think this already happens naturally. ELO inflation is a thing.

I don't think it happens naturally, as the only player in the top 20 gaining points is Dakeyras and that is because I lost 3 matches against him.

Also I agree with Gurken Khan and have little to add to his explaination.

15 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

With all due respect, that reasoning doesn't sound coherent and even contradictory to me.

Sure, people who quit don't need to be kept around; but there can be a lot of reasons why people are temporarily inactive. But if one understands how to boom, has a solid understanding of strategies and tactics and can do ~100 clicks/second, the rating one acquired with previous alphas will be a better indicator of how someone will do in the game than just giving them a noob rating just because the version number changed.

Imagine that with a new alpha all ratings reset. Then all players above 1600 will be 1200 and it would take several weeks before their ratings become faithful again. I think the idea should be to make the ratings faithful.

[Stan`]

Isn't it how it works in leagues of legends ?

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 24/07/2021 at 10:42 AM, Angen said:

Or reset rating on each alpha

a small loss of points, like Clash Royale.

 

 

[Player of 0AD]

No point of resetting ratings for each alpha. The alphas are similar after all.

[Aoidos]

Why not simply use a well established rating system, like ELO, or Glicko? There are plenty of sports out there that use them regularly. I think what @Player of 0ADsaid pretty much sums it up.

On 24/07/2021 at 1:26 PM, Player of 0AD said:

- don't decrease rating, because playing no rated games doesnt mean that the skill decreases
- if a player doesnt play rated, increase the uncertainty of his rating
- if the uncertainty is too high, mark the player rating with a question mark and remove him from the leaderbord

That is how it works, at least in online chess, which I play a lot, if you stop playing rated your rating will fluctuate more when you next play, also this is the case when new players start until their rating is adjusted to their level, with each game played the uncertainty decreases.

 

As asides, a system like in tennis of "defending" points as I saw mentioned above doesn't really fit here, in my opinion, as we don't have regular, fixed calendar events. Also, I don't think we should care about possible "inflation", it doesn't matter if the lowest rated used to be 1250 and now it is 1000 or whatever, what matters is that the difference between a good player and a not so good one will show in their rating difference, after all this is not a professional competitive game (although people can be very competitive even when no stakes are on and that is ok) and I also think the relatively small pool of player is to be blamed a bit as it makes harder for ratings to stabilize overall.

 

Finally, I also agree with @LetswaveaBook that rating shouldn't be reset between alphas for the reason he just exposed, players that know best the underlying mechanics will inevitably crop up to the top.

[Player of 0AD]

1 hour ago, Aoidos said:

Why not simply use a well established rating system, like ELO, or Glicko? There are plenty of sports out there that use them regularly. I think what @Player of 0ADsaid pretty much sums it up.

That is how it works, at least in online chess, which I play a lot, if you stop playing rated your rating will fluctuate more when you next play, also this is the case when new players start until their rating is adjusted to their level, with each game played the uncertainty decreases.

 

As asides, a system like in tennis of "defending" points as I saw mentioned above doesn't really fit here, in my opinion, as we don't have regular, fixed calendar events. Also, I don't think we should care about possible "inflation", it doesn't matter if the lowest rated used to be 1250 and now it is 1000 or whatever, what matters is that the difference between a good player and a not so good one will show in their rating difference, after all this is not a professional competitive game (although people can be very competitive even when no stakes are on and that is ok) and I also think the relatively small pool of player is to be blamed a bit as it makes harder for ratings to stabilize overall.

 

Finally, I also agree with @LetswaveaBook that rating shouldn't be reset between alphas for the reason he just exposed, players that know best the underlying mechanics will inevitably crop up to the top.

I think the rating system is some kind of ELO rating.

[Stan`]

@Dunedan do you how it currently works? AFAIK it's a modified ELO system

 

The lobby code now accepts PRs and is on https://github.com/0ad/lobby-bots

[Dunedan]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

@Dunedan do you how it currently works? AFAIK it's a modified ELO system

Yes, it's based on ELO with some modifications. The current logic can be found here: https://github.com/0ad/lobby-bots/blob/master/xpartamupp/elo.py

[alre]

I don't think using the summary can possibly be fair.