hidden skill rating

.Memories. · 11-06-2013, 09:08 AM

(11-06-2013 09:03 AM)Cor13:4 Wrote: Chess for example, uses the Elo rating system and people's Elo scores never degrade.

There has been a lot of issues with this, though, that lead to players not playing just to protect their rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_...27s_rating

[PETA] Cor13:4 · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 09:11 AM by [PETA] Cor13:4.)

Ok, I looked up Starcraft 2 and they have a system for seperating inactive from active players.

It's not a degrade system, but a "Bonus" system, where you have a bonus pool of points that you get when you win that is replenished over time, so essentially there is an inflation system built in, so that more active players will get more bonus points and rise above the inactive players.

So I stand corrected.

Ok, I stand corrected twice, I just read .Memories post Big Grin

DimebagDerek · 11-06-2013, 09:14 AM

(11-06-2013 06:25 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote: They disapear from the list if they don't play, so what is wrong for you? I don't understand. Why would their level decrease if they stop playing for a moment? Also, if someone is that good, he will rise in the ranks and kick the "inactive" ones out. If he isn't good enough, he doesn't reach the top, it's as simple as that. Thus if no one is good enough to be better than you, that means to be higher ranked than you, why should you have your rank decreased. You are ranked as the best if you are the best, it's the role of the others players to come steal your places. They just have to be good enough.

I'm not saying the top is right to be almost inactive, but it's not because it's called "ladder" that you have to kick the ones not playing. They're here because they deserve it, and if you don't want them to be the best anymore then come to be the best.

If I was in a top spot and didn't play, I would expect to no longer be there if I decided to come back later. And I could care less if they stay there or not from inactivity. Don't put words in my mouth like I want them booted to raise my own rating. I've said more than once that is not what they do anyways, it is just not fair to be able to keep the spot without playing (which is possible). Your haughty attitude is really off putting. If you don't understand what I mean or don't agree with it, don't try to make me sound like a punk.

TheGoldenGriffin · 11-06-2013, 09:16 AM

(11-06-2013 09:08 AM).Memories. Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:03 AM)Cor13:4 Wrote: Chess for example, uses the Elo rating system and people's Elo scores never degrade.

There has been a lot of issues with this, though, that lead to players not playing just to protect their rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_...27s_rating

You mean like if they're satisfied with their high rating and they don't want it to drop so they'll not play as much so it won't change?

.Memories. · 11-06-2013, 09:17 AM

(11-06-2013 09:10 AM)Cor13:4 Wrote: Ok, I stand corrected twice, I just read .Memories post

I wasn't correcting you, just putting in an argument against that aspect of ELO rating systems in general Smile

DimebagDerek · 11-06-2013, 09:18 AM

And I play lots of chess and the Elo system is definitely messed up. As competition strengthens in chess the average Elo increases, so eventually others will catch up, and highest ratings will become higher. But it also means that those highest players need to perform at an incredibly high level of play against other monsters to barely make a point or two, while having a poor outing costs them a ton of points. It makes them only play the biggest and most prestigious of events instead of more events.

.Memories. · 11-06-2013, 09:19 AM

(11-06-2013 09:16 AM)TheGoldenGriffin Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:08 AM).Memories. Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:03 AM)Cor13:4 Wrote: Chess for example, uses the Elo rating system and people's Elo scores never degrade.

There has been a lot of issues with this, though, that lead to players not playing just to protect their rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_...27s_rating

You mean like if they're satisfied with their high rating and they don't want it to drop so they'll not play as much so it won't change?

Exactly. (Disclaimer, I don't play chess, so I don't know a ton about it.)

Say I play a Grandmaster and win mostly by luck (I understand this is hard in chess). My ELO goes way up. So, now I have a higher ELO than I should. Therefore, I stop playing so that I maintain that high ELO to enter tournaments, brag, or whatever.

[PETA] Cor13:4 · 11-06-2013, 09:24 AM

Yeah, I know you weren't "correcting" me, I just meant that I didn't see the negatives of a static system like this until I read your post.

Although for this type of game, I think a static system is fine.

.Memories. · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 09:28 AM by .Memories..)

I think it's mostly okay, but a few changes might help.

1. Matchmaking should match top players better.
2. The time limit for removing inactives should be shorter. Or should only be reset by playing in that particular league. I.e., if I make it to #20 1v1, but then only play 2v2 for a year, I shouldn't remain on the 1v1 list.

Idk... wishful thinking. I'm sure there are better ways for everything that we haven't even thought about.

DimebagDerek · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 09:34 AM by DimebagDerek.)

Also they have official world titles matches and candidate matches to ensure them playing for those spots. I don't think something like that should be involved here, just an example of how they cannot coast by and be called best once they get there. For the most part the system does just go by their rating and people can achieve it and not play again and hold those spots. And others would just have to like it and keep playing until the average rating increases enough they can get enough points to eclipse them, or go on a dominating win streak and beat it. Just seems like a lot of work to beat someone who no longer wants to play and risk their precious points. There should be Hall of Fames for amazing players. They deserve recognition for their achievements, but if you don't actively play in a competitive league, you shouldn't be rated the best. I think the current system just rewards coasting by on good play, rather than promoting it.

(11-06-2013 09:19 AM).Memories. Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:16 AM)TheGoldenGriffin Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:08 AM).Memories. Wrote:
(11-06-2013 09:03 AM)Cor13:4 Wrote: Chess for example, uses the Elo rating system and people's Elo scores never degrade.

There has been a lot of issues with this, though, that lead to players not playing just to protect their rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_...27s_rating

You mean like if they're satisfied with their high rating and they don't want it to drop so they'll not play as much so it won't change?

Exactly. (Disclaimer, I don't play chess, so I don't know a ton about it.)

Say I play a Grandmaster and win mostly by luck (I understand this is hard in chess). My ELO goes way up. So, now I have a higher ELO than I should. Therefore, I stop playing so that I maintain that high ELO to enter tournaments, brag, or whatever.

Something like this happens with draws a lot. The GM is ranked much higher, but the IM is a very amazing player and finds a repetitious draw. The GM loses a decent amount of hard earned and hard to get points, while the IM gains a good boost to his rating. Now what happens? The IM plays less inspired chess, because draws are as good as wins, and the GM plays less games against lower ranked people at lower level tournaments because he risks too much to gain very little. It just seems to defeat the idea of competition and evolving play.