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

[seeh]

On 24/07/2021 at 4:16 PM, alre said:

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.

create a Team-Rating. using summary in result for fair calculation.

[alre]

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

[clavz]

On 24/7/2021 at 2:15 PM, vinme said:

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.

 

The rating is needed for balancing and for gratification.

For balancing, IMHO, the best is to keep the rating of inactive players unchanged. If a player rated ≈1700 comes after six months of inactivity, he is likely to have more or less the same rating as before, and for sure he will be much stronger than a noob. Resetting the ranking would just frustrate the noobs.

For gratification, the best would be to exclude inactive players from the leaderboard and from the ranking.

A good compromise would be to split player into "active" and "inactive" players.

Then it would be possible to delete players who switch to inactive (>6mo with no unranked games?) from the leaderboard and from the “current rank” in the box in the lower left, but to show the rating of players that are present in the lobby, so that balancing is kept and the leaderboard gratifies the active players more than inactive players. In “current rank” there could be written something like “Not Active”.

The rating could have some graphical feature so that is clear a player is inactive (some symbol or a different color).

[a 0ad player]

Hello,

how about a second monthly elo list.

0ad is not like professional sports where enough people are constantly competing. I play for fun and have no interest in being rated/observed by others. (Therefore I refuse an elo decay, which would be a forced participation in the elo observation system).
I need the elo value as a certificate to not be constantly asked about my ability (which is used very differently depending on the game). To balance games I rely on my experience with the players. The all-time elo value is more a rough statement about the minimum skill (an average with large standard deviation) of the players for me.
Those who want to have their skills recorded in a list can hold their monthly list / monthly tournaments.

 

[seeh]

3 hours ago, alre said:

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

your better suggestion for create a Team-Rating? (don't mix with normal rating, its team-rating talking about). pls reThink you opinion

[seeh]

49 minutes ago, a 0ad player said:

Hello,

how about a second monthly elo list.

0ad is not like professional sports where enough people are constantly competing. I play for fun and have no interest in being rated/observed by others. (Therefore I refuse an elo decay, which would be a forced participation in the elo observation system).
I need the elo value as a certificate to not be constantly asked about my ability (which is used very differently depending on the game). To balance games I rely on my experience with the players. The all-time elo value is more a rough statement about the minimum skill (an average with large standard deviation) of the players for me.
Those who want to have their skills recorded in a list can hold their monthly list / monthly tournaments.

 

that means you use it. so use it. create a Team-Rating (what could a easy helpful algorithm for that?). BTW today i saw somebody winning with 900rating (called father) VS 1770 rating

[vinme]

14 hours ago, clavz said:

 

The rating is needed for balancing and for gratification.

For balancing, IMHO, the best is to keep the rating of inactive players unchanged. If a player rated ≈1700 comes after six months of inactivity, he is likely to have more or less the same rating as before, and for sure he will be much stronger than a noob. Resetting the ranking would just frustrate the noobs.

For gratification, the best would be to exclude inactive players from the leaderboard and from the ranking.

A good compromise would be to split player into "active" and "inactive" players.

Then it would be possible to delete players who switch to inactive (>6mo with no unranked games?) from the leaderboard and from the “current rank” in the box in the lower left, but to show the rating of players that are present in the lobby, so that balancing is kept and the leaderboard gratifies the active players more than inactive players. In “current rank” there could be written something like “Not Active”.

The rating could have some graphical feature so that is clear a player is inactive (some symbol or a different color).

I think the gratification angle is a terrible idea and should be ignored and disregarded entirely.

As for inactive players retaining skill if this were so i wouldnt be making this thread i can assure you that on higher levels (at least 1800+ for sure) theres a significant difference between a 1900 who plays a lot and a 1900 who just came back(maybe like 125 rating difference if i were to guess).

And sure some retain more skill, some retain less but since we can not predict that we must treat them all equally.

Not saying nessesarily 6 months only since there are many, many players who havent played a rated game in over a year or years! i dont remember last time chrstgr played a rated game, there are ppl on leaderboard i havent seen in lobby in my life like the legendary defenderbenny.

Also raffut for example who literally came out of nowhere and had 1800 rating from the start (pretty certain fake via rating farm via other acc creation).

 

[vinme]

12 hours ago, seeh said:

that means you use it. so use it. create a Team-Rating (what could a easy helpful algorithm for that?). BTW today i saw somebody winning with 900rating (called father) VS 1770 rating

father is notorious fake low rated guy who somehow managed to i assume purpousefully stay low rated for a long time.
im guessing hes around 1400-1500 but idk who 1770 guy was that he beat.

team rating seems problematic and ive heard talks about it for years but since tgs are so random shouldnt be a simple goal.

 

[clavz]

6 minutes ago, vinme said:

I think the gratification angle is a terrible idea and should be ignored and disregarded entirely.

I thought that the leaderboard and the "current rank" are there for gratification. I don't like it neither, but I think it helps making people be more active.

IMO, there is no need for a leaderboard then, and the simplest solution to make it better would be to get rid of it.

[vinme]

12 hours ago, clavz said:

I thought that the leaderboard and the "current rank" are there for gratification. I don't like it neither, but I think it helps making people be more active.

IMO, there is no need for a leaderboard then, and the simplest solution to make it better would be to get rid of it.

if it was upto me id even make it not top 100 but top 1000 so players ratings could be more easily found, the point of it is for people to clearly see the rankings so i dont get how you didnt see that and had to look for "gratification" angle which idk what that even means like feeling accomplished to be top rated? Wouldnt it make more sense to feel accomplished to be top skill wise(which correlates near absolutely at least in top 20 with rating).we top 20 active players all know eachother more or less and rating does reflect on our skill quite accurately, if there wasnt a leaderboard newly improving players may have trouble finding challenging opponents, ect so rating is very valuable in keeping things efficient, organized. if someones rating drops/rises one can extrapolate their skill from that obviously ect. the "gratification" was never the point any more than actually wanting to surpass others in a sporting sense since rating means nothing if it doesnt represent skill accurately.

[clavz]

1 hour ago, a 0ad player said:

Hello,

how about a second monthly elo list.

0ad is not like professional sports where enough people are constantly competing. I play for fun and have no interest in being rated/observed by others. (Therefore I refuse an elo decay, which would be a forced participation in the elo observation system).
I need the elo value as a certificate to not be constantly asked about my ability (which is used very differently depending on the game). To balance games I rely on my experience with the players. The all-time elo value is more a rough statement about the minimum skill (an average with large standard deviation) of the players for me.
Those who want to have their skills recorded in a list can hold their monthly list / monthly tournaments.

 

The rating purpose should be to find the right opponent, and that's particularly useful for newbies and mid-level players. Top players in our community are few and know each others, so they could play without rating easily.

The “certificate to not be constantly asked about my ability” should be the TG rating, that I think should be implemented to reduce the toxicity of the lobby and to make more people join it, ultimately making the community of MP grow.

Being forced to play to keep your place in a leaderboard would keep more players active, in my opinion… and with the small number of players we have online it should be one of our targets, as well as making newbies like the lobby. Having a dynamic leaderboard and fair ratings for both single and multiplayer could help.

[vinme]

On 24/07/2021 at 8:26 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

it does mean their skill decreases on average since people stop playing rateds as they are generally incapable of performing on a proper level and would prefer to keep their rating where it is over adjusting it down to a more relaisitc level. uncertainty brings in new variables and overcomplicates what otherwise can be a simple and reasonable system

i thin its unfair to remove lets say feldfeld from the leaderboard simply because he doesnt play much i suggest an initially low reduction of rating followed by a high reduction of rating followed by a low reduciton of rating again. so like a bellcurve of rating reduction where one cannot be reduced an x amount more than the initial rating.

so lets say 450 total rating reduction seems reasonable.

first 4 months total reduced by 50

next 4 months total reduced by 100 more

next 4 months by 150

 next 4 months by 100

 next 4 months by 50

  and then no more reduction.first 4 months only a reduction of 50 but the first year a reasonable reduction of 300, in a year and 8 months its 450. 

On 25/07/2021 at 7:27 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

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

 

[clavz]

58 minutes ago, vinme said:

if it was upto me id even make it not top 100 but top 1000 so players ratings could be more easily found, the point of it is for people to clearly see the rankings so i dont get how you didnt see that and had to look for "gratification" angle which idk what that even means like feeling accomplished to be top rated? Wouldnt it make more sense to feel accomplished to be top skill wise(which correlates near absolutely at least in top 20 with rating).we top 20 active players all know eachother more or less and rating does reflect on our skill quite accurately, if there wasnt a leaderboard newly improving players may have trouble finding challenging opponents, ect so rating is very valuable in keeping things efficient, organized. if someones rating drops/rises one can extrapolate their skill from that obviously ect. the "gratification" was never the point any more than actually wanting to surpass others in a sporting sense since rating means nothing if it doesnt represent skill accurately.

until now most players find opponents by joining the lobby and finding someone online in the mood of playing 1v1, hopefully having a rating that is more or less the same as yours. No mid level player nor newbie would ever find somebody on the leaderboard, because players are rated >1600. Even making the leaderboard count until 1000, players would be >1400, so newbies would not benefit from it. 

48 minutes ago, vinme said:

so lets say 450 total rating reduction seems reasonable.

first 4 months total reduced by 50

next 4 months total reduced by 100 more

next 4 months by 150

 next 4 months by 100

 next 4 months by 50

  and then no more reduction.first 4 months only a reduction of 50 but the first year a reasonable reduction of 300, in a year and 8 months its 450. 

 

Finding some values of reduction does not make sense to me. A 1400 player that stops for 1 year is like a 1100???

Edited July 26, 2021 by clavz

[clavz]

I forgot to reply to this:

33 minutes ago, vinme said:

i thin its unfair to remove lets say feldfeld from the leaderboard simply because he doesnt play much

why?

[Player of 0AD]

Don't reinvent the square wheel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel#Related_phrases )

Just learn from the rating system of Lichess.org, a free chess website

[seeh]

6 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

Don't reinvent the square wheel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel#Related_phrases )

Just learn from the rating system of Lichess.org, a free chess website

yes good always. learn from the very active and up to date lichess. but of course there is no teamRating. i think this will nice feature. that don't mean that every of the team get the same teamrating plus if the team wins. of course not.

[clavz]

34 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

Don't reinvent the square wheel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_the_wheel#Related_phrases )

Just learn from the rating system of Lichess.org, a free chess website

Switching to Glicko-2 would be nice, yep.

[Player of 0AD]

14 minutes ago, clavz said:

Switching to Glicko-2 would be nice, yep.

Don't think that that is necessary. But the other benefits are:

- Marking player ratings which are provisional with a question mark

- removing those players from the leaderbord

- Inactivity makes rating more provisional, so after some time the players disappear in leaderbord

[clavz]

I’m not exactly an expert in the field, but from what I could understand the inactivity is part of the Glicko-2 system.

Provisional ratings should be ratings with a deviation lower than some cut off level (around 100, but I couldn’t find the value lichess uses).

Edited July 26, 2021 by clavz

[alre]

4 hours ago, seeh said:

your better suggestion for create a Team-Rating? (don't mix with normal rating, its team-rating talking about). pls reThink you opinion

Off-topic now, but anyway I just wanted to say that any use of the resume I can think of, to tweak the rating adjustment, would fail in mamy possible cases. The only goal of a team game is to make your team win, so that's the only thing that should be considered to possibly compute team games rating adjustments IMHO. If you want, open another thread making a different proposal.

4 hours ago, seeh said:

that means you use it. so use it. create a Team-Rating (what could a easy helpful algorithm for that?). BTW today i saw somebody winning with 900rating (called father) VS 1770 rating

Father is a well known smurf. Also many other players have created smurf accounts called 'Sister', 'Mother', etc.

~~~~

Going back on topic, it seems to me that there are two main possibilities for "rating fading":

1) periodical reset/step reset/decrease of rating for all players [aboove a certain rating]. This option encourages continuous competitiveness, players who don't keep gaining significant 1v1 victories lose positions to more active players.

2) only players that are inactive for some time are hidden from the current leaderboard. They may lose points or just be marked as inactive, but in any case they are only affected if they don't play at all, and they could avoid the change by playing unrated, team games, or at most a safe rated game against a weaker player. We can assume most players if not all won't do any of this, so the leaderboard will be effectively refreshed anyway.

One may also think about keeping two different rating systems, one with some kind of reset/fading and one without, but I think that for simplicity only one main rating value should be shown for each player, the other better being visible in their personal statistics.

[Aoidos]

A very good idea indeed is to learn from lichess, they even have a very good FAQ, with a section explaining their rating system(Glicko-2, which I think is very good), how leader boards work, how they treat disconnections or leaving without resign, etc. All very pertinent to 0a.d.

https://lichess.org/faq

[seeh]

On 24/07/2021 at 6:26 PM, Player of 0AD said:

- don't decrease rating, because playing no rated games doesnt mean that the skill decreases

true for some reasons.
-Team Games
- Plays vs AI's , o local.

=>check if the player dont play TG and not 1v1

Anyhow i think this idear is not bad.
what i like more;) for various reasons, when the rating slowly diffuses back towards 1200. would also reduce the motivation to have many accounts.

Edited August 11, 2021 by seeh

[vinme]

good point with difusion reducing alt acc motivation.