Stop the Count(ing of Rating)
-
@ftxcommando said in Stop the Count(ing of Rating):
If you want to make it less restrictive, have people sign up and do a captain picking procedure.
If you go with captain picking, then give people Z amount of time to practice with their teammate if they have any interest.
But it's really exhausting to see teammate tournaments relegated to the tournament being won before it begins because the real game is beating the rules and not the opponents.
Uncapped tournaments are still fine obviously, this is about the attempts to create tournaments that are "fair" and yes I am aware this requires more TD work but I don't really care.
-
The one question I have is how do we have events for lower-level players that want to participate in events and do it honorably? I am not ready to say we should 100% banish rating-limited events because of the "bad apples".
As far as "2300 vs 1700" being uninteresting - agreed.
Should we implement a rating threshold for events as well? I think there was an event by Swkoll in recent where not enough people could play, and 2 of the players allowed in were quite deficient from the average rating.
In equal amounts of frustrating events with rating gaps, there have been equal amounts of frustrating events with not enough players.
I would not mind hosting some heavily-restricted events myself to test this out (although that goes completely against what I promised in my PC application and likely would not stand), but if someone like Auriko 2v2 Calypso, or Pryanichek 2v2 Kings & Veterans wants to do this, that is their choice.
Are you asking "Official FAF" to stop hosting rating limit events or everyone in general?
-
It's a garbage format with no redeeming qualities, nobody should be doing it and nobody should be telling others to do it.
This post gives two separate ways to make fair tournaments for lower rated players that does not require rating caps. If the people that end up signing up for a tournament on X weekend are not low rated, then low rated brackets don't exist.
The only events that got canceled for lack of players were events that shot for participation from groups hovering around 1k rating. If people want more players to sign up, we have a Discord ping for tournament signups that literally nobody uses and we have a news post that can advertise tournaments. Since the Discord role is rating-blind and this restructure of tournament formats would also turn many tournaments rating-blind and instead rely on signups to craft brackets, it synergizes well.
-
Can we add rating divisions to the faf? Which are updated about once a month (all this can be discussed in more detail). And hold tournaments within the division or on the principle of 1 player from division X + 1 player from division Y etc? In this case, when the tournament is announced 2 weeks before the start, the player will not be able to change his division, no matter how hard he tries. And vice versa, he can be calm that even if he plays a series of successful games, he will still be able to get into the tournament.
-
A division system is already being implemented.
-
Of course, divisions will not be reflected in regular games.
By the way, it would be great if the divisions calculated the average rating by the sum of the ladder and the globalSorry for my English. I use translator
-
Then we could make a limitation not by the rating but by the rating of the divisions (if we assume that the 1st division is the weakest and the 5th is the strongest) In this case, for the tournament, you can make a limitation in the total division max 6 or 7 for example
-
@pryanichek said in Stop the Count(ing of Rating):
it would be great if the divisions calculated the average rating by the sum of the ladder and the global
Some people never play ladder, or they haven't played in years.
Other people only play ladder.
How do you average that?
If someone has 1600 global and 800 ladder, they would be treated the same as someone with 1200/1200? That would create an incentive for certain people to never join the ladder. Or an incentive to "throw" ladder games to keep the rating down so they can get a better spot in Seton's.
There is already the possibility of people throwing games to manipulate global rating. But if you're 1600/800 you might have to throw 20 global matches to get the same impact on a "combined" rating compared to throwing a single ladder match.
The best way to prevent smurfing is to make it difficult to pull off. Fewer people will do it if it's harder to do. And if people have to put more effort into it, it should be easier to catch them.
My ladder rating gone down about 100 points while my global has gone up 100. Mostly because I'm out of practice. Does that mark me as a "smurf"? If there was a combined global + ladder rating, some people might think so. And I wouldn't have an incentive to get my ladder score up. My best move would be to abandon the ladder completely. If I play and win, I hurt myself on "combined rating" for Seton's placement. If I play and lose, people will call me a smurf.
-
Forgive me @FtXCommando , I should have said "frustrating events with not enough players that meet the requirements but sub in less-qualified ones to make up for it."
-
I don’t really think subs are going to be that big of a problem. It can be handled on a case-by-case basis just as always. The bigger issue with this stuff relates to the fact there will be a closing of signups which will hit the FAF habit of signing up 2 minutes before the tournament starts hard.
-
This is inspired by the gene centric model of evolution as really popularized by Richard Dawkins.
- People of any rating can join, low rated are encouraged to join in fact.
- Each game is either a 3v3 or a 4v4 depending on player availability.
- People are assigned to games first based on location and then randomly.
- Each game is set to all random auto balance.
- Being on a losing team means you lost, which in a knockout means you are out.
Being on the winning team is less obvious, at least it means you are NOT out yet.
This system will basically select those players that played well for their rating these games.
Determining winner is somewhat more difficult as it is possible a well playing 500 rated and a 2200 rated would come out in #1 and #2 position. A 1v1 as final would be pointless.
- Selecting a single winner would require an extensive number of rounds and points counting
- You could get 3 winners by going into a knockout 3v3 finals where again each game is all random auto balance.
-
N-nice tourney format you've got here ;d
-
I'm gonna be honest, I'm really confused by the tourney format.
-
@archsimkat I will post it soon-ish again in its own topic with better explanation and examples.
