Lets Talk about Rating
-
One problem is when rating covers a wide range of games as one number
Most obviously an issue with global - you can play like a 1700 on one popular map and like an 800 on another
Making rating take far longer to adjust makes it in turn far harder for people to try different games/maps, and could hurt retention. It also takes longer for a returning player’s rating to realise they’re not as good after a multi-year gap and only playing infrequently vs when they were playing constantly.So it feels better to err on the side of faster rating adjustments than slower (outside new players) to me. I also don’t see having a smoother graph as being all that big a benefit compared to the downsides.
-
@rampeer said in Lets Talk about Rating:
I do not believe you. 1v1 rating graph looks just as jagged as global:
I am certain it's possible to sacrifice a bit of ramp-up time (note spike on the left) for overall smoother graph and more stable rating.
Also, what about draw probability? It feels like all the coefficients are off; will look into it later.
that is a graph that deviates no more than 100 rating up and down, as i said. the rating is fairly solid around 1500-1700 and that is normal because humans are inconsistent. one day we play well, one day we don't. one day we run into an opponent whos having a good day, one day we don't. same thing happens in chess, where you also lose/gain 10 rating per game btw. and there is no problem with this system because going on a 10-game winstreak and only getting 50 rating sucks
and this 100 rating deviation is an entirely different scenario than what caliber described with his global rating - he lost 400, not 200 (i now see this 400 was actually exaggerated - he was 1850 and dropped to 1550, not 1900 to 1500).
-
@rampeer said in Lets Talk about Rating:
Also, 4.5% draw probability is just wrong. Who has that many draws?
The draw probability is estimated by FAF to be 10%. The math behind it is already mentioned above. Lower draw expectation would actually increase the jumps.
-
One other point i would like to raise that i forgot about in the opening statement, was that at least through my experiance is that most games seem to be won/lost quite heavily, indecating that although most games are rated at 90% + balance they often go so very heavily one sided, I would say that only around 1 in 10 games actually seem to be a good balance that last a while at least.
-
Every RPS game is 100% balanced yet they can go from a theoretical length of 3 seconds to the heat death of the universe.
All a balanced game means is that both sides have a good shot at winning the game, neither a singular game result nor its length is evidence of it being wrong.
-
This my first post.
If you allow me, I'd like to share a few thoughts about [<100] rate players, like myself & about my brother [<-400] ... and probably all the 99% of players (according to the statistics I've seen) who are not here, because new players tried this game, and ran away quickly.You guys are all pros. Really.
And the rating system seems to be a real thing, because it's true: I can not beat a 300+ player in 1v1.The problems are:
1.
I can mostly beat the AI NPC (the computer), which is rated 450.
-> That means in theory I'm stronger than 500...Usually there are no games for <200 players.
Players with 5-800+ rating create / join games called "noob..." and take away all the fun of beginners or players who are not "on the top".
So they quit for good.If I dye in a team, or do not provide enough air, etc, -> I get very strong negative chat sentences, why I'm such a noob?
Yes, I know I can create a game myself, limit the max rate to 200, and wait for new players to join, but as I've already explaned:
- you guys have made all of them quit already.
So we are only a few left, who still try to play, but our rating is low.
Conclusion / Solution ?:
I do not know exactly, how to solve these problems, but these are the facts. So I'm not playing this game more than a few times a year,
and mostly against the AI opponent, which is not so good, because it's either too strong, or too weak randomly, or depending on the map I choose.Maybe:
- Pushing the point system by adding +10000 to everyone would allow to feel the beginners not "being a zero" or even less?
- Adding extra points even if you loose, (but provided enough eco, showing you have mastered the game on a minimal level, so these players can play against each other next time.
- And prohibiting somehow top players to feel "great" by smashing beginners.
- Auto creating a few games which beginners can join.
- Creating and showing a secondary point system, independent from the existing one. (starting from 10K or 100K, always incrementing, even if you play non-rated games.)
A little background:
I'm 50 year old, my brother is 44, so we are not 17 any more, our reflexes are slower, we forget more things, etc.
We play this game since 25-30? years. I don't even remember, but we have always LOVED it!
I have played only with 5 different games during the last 5 years. My brother even less, because we are very selective.Yes, I've seen all the videos and blogs how to play "better", but I do not want to be a top player, race against You all, kill everyone else, simply want to enjoy this.
Would you think about to make this possible?
-
I'd caution against assuming that the default AI is the same challenge as a 450 rating player; a separate points system that increases based on how many games you've played is also already implemented (in custom games at least - the number of games played shows when you join a lobby)
-
It looks like the matchmaker could fulfill most of your needs. Have you tried that?
-
@rampeer said in Lets Talk about Rating:
I do not believe you. 1v1 rating graph looks just as jagged as global:
I am certain it's possible to sacrifice a bit of ramp-up time (note spike on the left) for overall smoother graph and more stable rating.
Also, what about draw probability? It feels like all the coefficients are off; will look into it later.
You can't compare long format chess games with faf.
You usually play 1, sometimes 2 long chess games a day and that's it. Meanwhile on faf it isn't uncommon to play 10 games in a row on the same day, because the games naturally are way shorter (even the 1,5 hour sentons are still 3x as short as the 4+ hour chess games).
If you combine this with what bully said, that humans are inconsistent and sometimes have a good or bad day, you can translate this to one day getting 8 wins and 2 losses and the other day getting 2 wins and 8 losses, which will be like a 60 rating gain/loss a day, compared to 10-20 for chess.
Another good example is chess but not in a long over the board format. If i look at my own rating graph for bullet games (2 min online chess games, the type u play like 20-40 in a row) it's just like the faf rating graph but more extreme: https://puu.sh/KA5JJ/4ac973c2bd.png (the light blue line)
Losing 150 rating in 5 days, only to regain 150 rating in the next 5, only to lose it again in 2 days, to then gain 200 rating and somehow stabilize there.
-
@rampeer said in Lets Talk about Rating:
But my hunch is that current change-per-game is too high. These zigzags are not normal, just look how rating graph looks for chess:
This comparison is not representative. The graph contains mostly long-lasting chess players who dominated for decades. It’s not a surprise at all that a world chess champion with peers will have consistently high rating. Because anyone else would not be included into your picture to begin with. The correct comparison would be the graph of MMR in Dota, CS or League of Legends.
Even if you sample was more representative, there are fundamental differences that won’t allow FAF to ever have the same accuracy as chess. Chess players play the same “map”. Cannot expect the same level of consistency when playing hundreds and thousands of different maps. Last but not least - chess is 1v1, but FAF is mostly team games.
Trueskill is better than basic chess ELO in evaluating players’ skill, but there are more obstacles contributing to larger swings too.
-
This post is deleted!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login