Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker
-
Ok, well that means global rating gets messed with in a random way less often. Could we just not mess with it in the first place?
Some years ago i spent months in the forum on every rating related thread trying to convince people to reduce starting mean for new players. The conclusion was that we have no real way so simulate the effects of that change so wed rather not change anything. And now we just start randomly increasing numbers based on a calculation that makes no sense from Trueskills point of view?
Im kind of pissed.
Why don't we use the interpolation solution instead? We achieve the same goal without doing questionable manipulations to global rating.
Edit:
The proposed change would also make simulating a change to global rating parameters with past data much harder i think, because global game outcomes are no longer enough to redo all global rating calculations. All in all it increases the complexity of the rating system in ways that we did not really have before (games affecting unrelated ratings), which imo is worse than the actual math. -
So basically, we now know that one or both ratings are horifically wrong, but we do NOT know which it is, nevertheless we always assume ladder is right and global is wrong.
We assume that ladder is right, because you gain ladder rating in a controlled environment that cannot be manipulated by the player, in contrast to global.
But this is only the first problem. In addition, instead of taking into account global rating of both players when adjusting global rating of a player, it also replaces global rating with ladder rating when calculating the new global rating. This is nuts because it absolutely destroys the way in which deviation is supposed to affect the Trueskill algorithm.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It never changes only the mean, when inserting global rating to calculate the adjustment, it also uses the global deviation of course.
If we decide that global is so broken that we just fuck with it in any way we want, why do we not do the proper thing and remove global, rating and instead show an accumulation of various ladder ratings for custom games that cannot be affected by custom games?
We still need global so the communities that play on one map only and barely any matchmaker can keep a system to balance their games. What this change is trying to address is the problem of new players not being able to get into custom games, because they have no rating. In the future they can play matchmaker games and global will slowly float to their highest matchmaker rating.
This change does not intend to address the inconsistencies with global rating.Some years ago i spent months in the forum on every rating related thread trying to convince people to reduce starting mean for new players. The conclusion was that we have no real way so simulate the effects of that change so wed rather not change anything.
That's not entirely true, because the rating interpolation was introduced. That was without simulating the effects and that is fine, because demanding every possible change be completely simulated beforehand seems over the top to me.
We don't use the interpolation because as I explained above we still need global to function as before for some players. Also making this interpolation in lobby only leads to problems when you want to look up a players global rating in the client.
I don't see our way of adjusting global as such an egregious manipulation that we should at all costs avoid persisting it in the database. -
@blackyps said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
So basically, we now know that one or both ratings are horifically wrong, but we do NOT know which it is, nevertheless we always assume ladder is right and global is wrong.
We assume that ladder is right, because you gain ladder rating in a controlled environment that cannot be manipulated by the player, in contrast to global.
So we effectively do not trust ladder rating? Why do we still bother using it then? It is not needed (just remove it and use interpolated ladder rating instead).
But this is only the first problem. In addition, instead of taking into account global rating of both players when adjusting global rating of a player, it also replaces global rating with ladder rating when calculating the new global rating. This is nuts because it absolutely destroys the way in which deviation is supposed to affect the Trueskill algorithm.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It never changes only the mean, when inserting global rating to calculate the adjustment, it also uses the global deviation of course.
Every mean rating in a Trueskill context is only relative to other ratings inside the same context (500 mean in ladder is not the same as 500 in custom).
And in every match Trueskill tests its own (relative!) prediction of the player s skill to adjust its own knowledge. Inserting a prediction into the match that this Trueskill context never actually made (by replacing ONLY the opponents rating with their ladder rating) is bonkers! It makes no sense! The result of that calculation does not mean anything!
You COULD actually make use of ladder games by simply pretending that each ladder game was played both in ladder AND as a custom game. That would make sense, because now you are replacing ALL players rating with their global rating and then adjusting ALL players (whose relative ratings now make sense because all those ratings were produced in the same system). But that is not being proposed!
It would be the only thing that would make sense if you are hellbent on changing global rating through ladder games. Not sure if it can be exploited.
If we decide that global is so broken that we just fuck with it in any way we want, why do we not do the proper thing and remove global, rating and instead show an accumulation of various ladder ratings for custom games that cannot be affected by custom games?
We still need global so the communities that play on one map only and barely any matchmaker can keep a system to balance their games. What this change is trying to address is the problem of new players not being able to get into custom games, because they have no rating. In the future they can play matchmaker games and global will slowly float to their highest matchmaker rating.
This change does not intend to address the inconsistencies with global rating.I hope you plan to remove global at some point then because if you do it as it is currently planned you are no longer doing things that make sense for having a predictable well-behaved rating system, you are deep inside band-aid mode already.
Some years ago i spent months in the forum on every rating related thread trying to convince people to reduce starting mean for new players. The conclusion was that we have no real way so simulate the effects of that change so wed rather not change anything.
That's not entirely true, because the rating interpolation was introduced. That was without simulating the effects and that is fine, because demanding every possible change be completely simulated beforehand seems over the top to me.
From what i understand, the rating interpolation does NOT interfere with the rating system in anyway? It is only used to determine which players are matched against each other. Matchmaking really is not mathematically connected to Trueskill! You can decide to let -100 players play against 2000 player all day long, Trueskill would not care!
Trueskill cares about having a prediction of a player skill that was built up in a non-changing context together with predictions of other players in that same context, and improving its own prediction of the player skills relative to each other. It is not really concerned with who is matched against who.
So if i am correct this is the first time we really try to fuck with Trueskill itself!
We don't use the interpolation because as I explained above we still need global to function as before for some players.
Interpolation would include global as one of the ratings being interpolated. Players that have no ladder games would have their global rating shown. I have no idea why you think interpolation would not work.
Also making this interpolation in lobby only leads to problems when you want to look up a players global rating in the client.
I don't see our way of adjusting global as such an egregious manipulation that we should at all costs avoid persisting it in the database.Just use that exat same calculation to show people their "global" rating? Its not rocket science. Its just averaging by weights. Leave out the normalization step for all i care, its not essential.
The proposed change fucks with global in a way we have never done before, and i have proposed the interpolation solution for this exact problem before (i can try digging it up if you want), so i really do not see why we are know suddenly making this change when a better much less invasive solution could have been implemented.
And i think the argument in my last edit is kinda important unless death of global rating is planned:
The proposed change would also make simulating a change to global rating parameters with past data much harder i think, because global game outcomes are no longer enough to redo all global rating calculations.
Also, how about we (as a community) discuss such intrusive changes BEFORE they are implemented?
-
So we effectively do not trust ladder rating?
No? How do you get that impression?
Inserting a prediction into the match that Trueskill never actually made (by replacing ONLY the opponents rating with their ladder rating) is bonkers!
It seems like there is a misunderstanding here. I'll give you a 2v2 example: When performing the adjustment for player 1 we take the tmm ratings of everyone and replace only player 1's rating with global. Then we let trueskill rate this game and if the conditions mentioned in the first post are met, save the new global rating for player 1. Then we do this with all other players. So for player 2 everyone else will have tmm rating again and player 2's global will be used.
We could maybe perform the adjustment with using only global ratings, but we don't know the global ratings of the players at all. The only thing we know is that their tmm ratings are similar enough to give a balanced game, so we use these. Also we have more trust in the matchmaker ratings than global as I explained above.I hope you plan to remove global at some point then because if you do it as it is currently planned you are no longer doing things that make sense for having a predictable well-behaved rating system, you are deep inside band-aid mode already.
Yes, I do not believe that global as it is now is a healthy rating system. There are too many variables players can control in custom games to influence their rating. You can see the result in people that are way higher rated than you would expect them to be. Removing global right now would make the gap, setons and astro players rise up in arms, so unless you have an idea how to solve their needs, global stays for now. In the long term people hopefully play the matchmaker more, so global becomes less relevant, but when it has become irrelevant it doesn't really matter if it gets removed or not.
So if i am correct this is the first time we really try to fuck with Trueskill itself!
I really fail to see what we are fucking with. Yes, this change will lead to "communication" between the ratings, but as we all initialize them with 1500+-500 I don't see a problem with that.
The proposed change would also make simulating a change to global rating parameters with past data much harder i think, because global game outcomes are no longer enough to redo all global rating calculations.
Does anyone actually want to do this? This is a genuine question. I know that in the past it was demanded to do this to test changes to trueskill, but to me it seemed more like a ostensible reason to prevent changes to the rating system. There has been a change of the tau value in the past and I don't think it was simulated beforehand with all the rating data we have.
Also, how about we (as a community) discuss such intrusive changes BEFORE they are implemented?
There has been discussion about this. I don't remember everything where it took place, but there was discussion on the issue: https://github.com/FAForever/server/issues/845
We also had a voice call with Morax as the player councillor, some developers and some ladder team members. -
@askaholic said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
I used displayed ratings in my example to make it easier for people to understand, but the code still uses vanilla trueskill mean, dev pairs.
Ok so this is much worse than i thought (i expected the rules to operate on mean rating). If all those rules are operating on displayed rating instead of mean rating, than we are in really deep shit. Sorry.
New players will have a very HIGH starting mean rating og 1500. That is what i was trying to fix years ago.
They have very high deviation because they start with 500, which is the only reason their displayed rating is low in the beginning.
What you are essentially proposiong is that when a new player wins in ladder, their global mean rating will get inflated and become EVEN BIGGER than 1500, which means they are going to have a completely unrealistic mean rating.
When thay start playing global, their deviation will reduce, catapulting them into a rating range where they should have never ever been and where they will destroy balance in matches!
I hope that i am wrong and you actually have a good idea about what you are manipulating here, but it doesn't seem like it.
-
In contrast to Katharsas, I'd like to add some positivity here and say that this a a good change!
It will lead to global rating inflation, yes, but global rating itself is so untrustworthy in a vacuum, that it probably doesn't matter much.
(maybe reduce the rating threshold from 1.4k to 1k?)Most importantly though: New players being grey for dozens of games really is a big problem and this effectively solves that for anyone willing to play a couple ladder games. Good stuff
-
What you are essentially proposiong is that when a new player wins in ladder, their mean rating will get inflated and become EVEN BIGGER than 1500, which means they are going to have a completely unrealistic mean rating.
When thay start playing global, their deviation will reduce, catapulting them into a rating range where they should have never ever been and where they will destroy balance in matches!
I hope that i am wrong and you actually have a good idea about what you manipulating here, but it doesn't seem like it.I'm sorry, but at the moment it looks more like you are the one having strange ideas about the rating system. A player winning his first match will have a mean higher than 1500 this the way it has always been. That is not a problem, because when he keeps playing it's not like his mean will stay that way. When he loses against players with a much lower mean than him, his mean will also drastically reduce. In ladder this happens because of the rating interpolation we use for matching, in global this happens because people balance by displayed rating, so our "1600 mean conceiled by high deviation" guy would play in a game with let's say average 500 players and because he is new he won't win all of these games.
-
@blackyps said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
So we effectively do not trust ladder rating?
No? How do you get that impression?
Because you are assuming that ladder rating is correct and global is not when both rating contexts have built up different predictions of skill difference between two players.
Inserting a prediction into the match that Trueskill never actually made (by replacing ONLY the opponents rating with their ladder rating) is bonkers!
It seems like there is a misunderstanding here. I'll give you a 2v2 example: When performing the adjustment for player 1 we take the tmm ratings of everyone and replace only player 1's rating with global. Then we let trueskill rate this game and if the conditions mentioned in the first post are met, save the new global rating for player 1. Then we do this with all other players. So for player 2 everyone else will have tmm rating again and player 2's global will be used.
We could maybe perform the adjustment with using only global ratings, but we don't know the global ratings of the players at all. The only thing we know is that their tmm ratings are similar enough to give a balanced game, so we use these. Also we have more trust in the matchmaker ratings than global as I explained above.There is no misunderstanding here. You are using ladder rating numbers, which have no meaning inside the global rating context, as prediction to adjust the prediction of the global rating context, in fact mixing them inside the same calculation. That makes no sense.
If you adjust the global prediction you MUST only use global predicitions as input! The different rating contexts gain inflation and deflation independently of each other, as i have already sid, 500 in global is not guarantueed to be close to 500 in ladder!
Why is it important to know what their global ratings are?? You don't need to! Trueskill was made so you don't have to worry about this, just let it calculate inside its context and improve its own prediction!
I hope you plan to remove global at some point then because if you do it as it is currently planned you are no longer doing things that make sense for having a predictable well-behaved rating system, you are deep inside band-aid mode already.
Yes, I do not believe that global as it is now is a healthy rating system. There are too many variables players can control in custom games to influence their rating. You can see the result in people that are way higher rated than you would expect them to be. Removing global right now would make the gap, setons and astro players rise up in arms, so unless you have an idea how to solve their needs, global stays for now. In the long term people hopefully play the matchmaker more, so global becomes less relevant, but when it has become irrelevant it doesn't really matter if it gets removed or not.
And the interpolation i suggested would let you slowly phase out global by adjusting the global weight over time, which is another advantage it has.
So if i am correct this is the first time we really try to fuck with Trueskill itself!
I really fail to see what we are fucking with. Yes, this change will lead to "communication" between the ratings, but as we all initialize them with 1500+-500 I don't see a problem with that.
The problem is that every single player entering or leaving the rating context shifts that context ratings range! If a 2000 rated player stops playing global, then the global rating pool just lost 2000 rating! So right from the start the averge mean rating will start to diverge. The default values only guarantuee that deviation has the same meaning, mean rating is not predictably related!
The proposed change would also make simulating a change to global rating parameters with past data much harder i think, because global game outcomes are no longer enough to redo all global rating calculations.
Does anyone actually want to do this? This is a genuine question. I know that in the past it was demanded to do this to test changes to trueskill, but to me it seemed more like a ostensible reason to prevent changes to the rating system. There has been a change of the tau value in the past and I don't think it was simulated beforehand with all the rating data we have.
Yeah that Tau value was changed when we still had a person that had a lot of confidence in its own understanding of Trueskill. But if i remember correctly, Tau does not really do much, it basically just changes the average amount of mean rating gain/loss. So an very non-risky change to make.
Also, how about we (as a community) discuss such intrusive changes BEFORE they are implemented?
There has been discussion about this. I don't remember everything where it took place, but there was discussion on the issue: https://github.com/FAForever/server/issues/845
We also had a voice call with Morax as the player councillor, some developers and some ladder team members.So no open discussion in the forum where such things need to take place if you want others than developers and councillors to give input on these things.
-
@blackyps said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
I'm sorry, but at the moment it looks more like you are the one having strange ideas about the rating system. A player winning his first match will have a mean higher than 1500 this the way it has always been. That is not a problem, because when he keeps playing it's not like his mean will stay that way. When he loses against players with a much lower mean than him, his mean will also drastically reduce. In ladder this happens because of the rating interpolation we use for matching, in global this happens because people balance by displayed rating, so our "1600 mean conceiled by high deviation" guy would play in a game with let's say average 500 players and because he is new he won't win all of these games.
So we are potentially destroying the balance of 1 to maybe 5 global games (if deviation was reduced a lot it needs to build back up to where mean rating changes are bigger) whenever a ladder player enters global so that we can cleanup a shitty global mean rating that was basically produced out of thin air? Why is that an OK solution?
Why don't we just randomly generate a small number between -150 and 150, add that to starting rating and then make displayed rating in lobby always white? Simple, no discussion necessary, guarantueed to not have bad side effects.
There are various solutions to this problem, and the proposed one is not close to being necessary.
-
So what specific problems do you think this introduces? I get that you think it messes with the integrity, but what issues will arise from that?
In my experience asking about complicated things on the forum doesn't really give good results. Most of the time you either get no answers or input that is not really well thought out. If there are in depth answers they are most of the times from people that are already contributing, so basically the developers and councillors you mentioned. I linked the github issue because I know that you are also a developer and more familiar with that. I don't expect regular players to browse github.
In a way the open forum dicussion was the retention thread were people repeatedly mentioned that it is very hard to get let into games when you are a new player. So we started working on a solution in the typical developer media. The implementation details of the solution are not really suitable to be discussed on the forum.I don't know in what parts of the project you are contributing to, but if you are also a server developer how did you manage to completely miss the development of that pull request?
-
So we are potentially destroying the balance of 1 to maybe 5 global games (if deviation was reduced a lot it needs to build back up to where mean rating changes are bigger) whenever a ladder player enters global so that we can cleanup a shitty global mean rating that was basically produced out of thin air?
What would happen when an established ladder player started playing global is that basically he would start with his ladder rating (because his global would float up until it is more or less equal to his ladder rating. It was not produced out of thin air) instead of 0 rating (assuming his ladder is under the 1400 threshold). How would that destroy the balance of the first global games more than starting with 0?
Why don't we just randomly generate a small number between -150 and 150, add that to starting rating and then make displayed rating in lobby always white? Simple, no discussion necessary, guarantueed to not have bad side effects.
Please don't drag this thread down into shitposting territory
-
I am not a developer (anymore)? That is the point.
Also that was not a shitpost, but a genuine suggestion. What are the problems with it that make you think it was shitposting?
Im am just disappointed with bad and complex solutions being implemented in the face of substantially better possible solutions, two of which i have proposed here. In the past, rating related changes have always been extensivly discussed in the forum prior to being implemented. Can we not at least trying to discuss such things in the forum, even if we do not always end up with valuable input?
What would happen when an established ladder player started playing global is that basically he would start with his ladder rating (because his global would float up until it is more or less equal to his ladder rating. It was not produced out of thin air) instead of 0 rating (assuming his ladder is under the 1400 threshold). How would that destroy the balance of the first global games more than starting with 0?
No he would not start with his ladder rating! Because you can have the same displayed rating while having entirely different mean and deviation! Trueskill rating cannot be expressed in a single number if you want to actually manipulate it in a way that makes sense to Trueskill! For the god of love at least make the 3 conditions from initial post operate on mean rating instead of displayed rating!
-
I am not a developer (anymore)? That is the point.
Oh, then I got the wrong impression, my apologies!
Also that was not a shitpost, but a genuine suggestion. What are the problems with it that make you think it was shitposting?
It was the adding a random number thing combined with "guarantueed to not have bad side effects". Making lobby rating always white is a good suggestion and already on the way to being implemented. I believe it is planned to be included in the next faf patch. But I don't understand what adding a random number is supposed to accomplish?
No he would not start with his ladder rating! Because you can have the same displayed rating while having entirely different mean and deviation! Trueskill rating cannot be expressed in a single number if you want to actually manipulate it in a way that makes sense to Trueskill!
Yes that was a bit of an oversimplification by me. Only if he only played ladder and nothing else his global rating would be exactly the same in mean and dev to his ladder rating. However, even if he also played other games, a settled deviation is somewhere between 60 and 80, so I am pretty confident that if he played enough games in the matchmakers to have established rating there, his global would also have a similar deviation and in consequence a similar mean.
The rules operate on displayed rating, because that is what the client shows to the players and we would accidentaly exclude new players from the adjustments, because their mean is massively higher than their displayed rating in comparison to established players.
I don't really understand why you think it is so much worse to have these rules use displayed rating instead of mean.
-
I assume the mean vs displayed rating thing is Katharsas assuming that you are going to apply the trueskill algorithm to the displayed rating.
That wouldn't make much sense and also not how I understood askaholics initial post.
I understood it such that you are going to apply the trueskill algorithm to the mean+deviation, as that is the only thing that makes sense and use the displayed ratings only to figure out if you should apply the algorithm in the first place.
Am I correct?
-
@blackyps said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
I am not a developer (anymore)? That is the point.
Oh, then I got the wrong impression, my apologies!
Also that was not a shitpost, but a genuine suggestion. What are the problems with it that make you think it was shitposting?
It was the adding a random number thing combined with "guarantueed to not have bad side effects". Making lobby rating always white is a good suggestion and already on the way to being implemented. I believe it is planned to be included in the next faf patch. But I don't understand what adding a random number is supposed to accomplish?
Preventing a clean 0 showing up inside the player tooltip (unless that tooltip would also get removed). You probably would have to hide it anyway though to hide deviation, because 500 deviation is just as obvious as 0 mean.
The rules operate on displayed rating, because that is what the client shows to the players and we would accidentaly exclude new players from the adjustments, because their mean is massively higher than their displayed rating in comparison to established players.
I see. Here is another possible solution:
When a player plays his first global game after having played at least one ladder game, simply set their global starting rating to their ladding rating once (and increase global deviation by 100 points compared to ladder deviation).
This one should be abuse-free since it is a one-time operation for each player. It should have close to no side-effects.
I still think that there is a lot of good benefits to the idea of treating every ladder game as a global game (in addition to it being a ladder game). This would not only make life easier for ladder players coming to global, it would also simply improve the prediction capability of the entire global rating context because more games are effecively being played in "global".
I also don't see how it could be abused unless you loose by purpose in ladder to be able to be underrated in global (but you could already do that by loosing in global on purpose).
@CheeseBerry
Trueskill itself has no real notion of displayed rating, so you need to plugin the mean and deviation into the algorithm (there is no way to just put in a single number). So we are discussing only the rules in the first post being based on mean or displayed rating. But im not too interested in that discussion because i think that both would not be great.Edit:
I think that treating every ladder game as also being global is really close to your current solution except you don't need to recalculate the change for every player that meets conditions and you have no conditions. Should be significantly simpler in code without any new code being required really. -
I think this thread is a great example of why having development discussions on the forums is not useful. There is a ton of text here and a lot of rage but not very much that is actually productive.
We can’t just treat ladder games as global. That’s what was done in the past and it lead to massive rating manipulation by people who wanted to artificially lower their global rating. So the restriction of only doing positive adjustments is absolutely necessary to prevent intentional abuse. This then necessitates the other restrictions to prevent your global from just infinitely inflating. It doesn’t really matter if we use displayed rating or mu to implement the restrictions, but using displayed rating is way more maintainable in the long run as that’s what people are familiar with, and makes it much easier to figure out what the right configuration settings need to be. It will also prevent all of the questions of “why did I suddenly lose 5 global rating by playing ladder” that will inevitably pop up in the other case.
The only thing useful that I think this discussion has yielded so far is the idea that the games could be rated using the global rating of all players instead of just the one for the player who’s being adjusted. The reason I did it the other way was because the I know the other ratings will at least be somewhat balanced, but maybe that doesn’t matter. The most important thing is that the global rating of new players has a chance to change.
-
@askaholic said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
Whenever you play a matchmaker game (1v1, 2v2, etc) and the game is rated, the rating system will perform an additional rating step using players global rating. This works by taking the matchmaker ratings of all players, substituting in the global rating for the player who's rating is being adjusted. The changes to global are then applied to players that meet a few conditions:
The player's global rating must be below a threshold (currently 1400)
The player's matchmaker rating must be higher than the player's global rating
The global rating change must result in an increase in displayed ratingAny players who don't meet all of those conditions will not have their global rating changed by the game.
This proposed idea is heavily flawed, and I don't think it should be implemented in this manner.
Afaik, the rating system is currently a zero sum game*. If the idea proposed above is implemented, FAF would have perpetual global rating inflation; it would no longer be a zero sum game. That seems like a very bad change to make, especially when there are alternative ways to address the issues regarding new players.
So, I propose that we implement an alternative solution:
One alternative solution would be to change the above proposal to specifically affect rating sigma but not rating mu. The conditions for when it would apply could be the same, and the value to change sigma by could be calculated in whatever way seems most sensible (such as changing sigma by an amount that would result in the same change in displayed rating as you would get via normal rating calculations). This would avoid perpetual rating inflation, as players' base ratings would remain the same, while grays' displayed ratings and rating certainty could increase (if the conditions are met) towards the proposed 1400 rating threshold.
Another alternative solution would be to create a universal rating that is affected by all rated normal game types on ladder, TMM, and global, and display that (perhaps in a different color, such as gold) in lieu of global for players with high rating uncertainty (grays).
@askaholic said in Upcoming rating changes: Gaining global from playing matchmaker:
I think this thread is a great example of why having development discussions on the forums is not useful. There is a ton of text here and a lot of rage but not very much that is actually productive.
This might be a complicated topic, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed by more of the community than the particular developers/etc who happened to look over the relevant commits on github/etc.
In fact, there are several other alternative solutions (beyond my suggestions and the basic idea of just applying regular global rating calculations to ladder/TMM games for all players) that potentially could be suggested/considered/discussed as well. There is no reason we can't have transparency and useful community discussion on this.
*Yes, you can make the argument that players permanently quitting adds rating inflation/deflation. Regardless, the proposed change detailed in Askaholic's post would add further perpetual global rating inflation on top of whatever we may or may not already have. So, increasing inflation is still something that would be good to avoid.
pfp credit to gieb
-
Somebody explain to me why inflation ruins a TrueSkill system. Doesn’t matter if 800 on global is -47108689 on ladder, the dudes gaining rating will feed it back into global as he loses games and there are hardly that many players with global lower than their ladder or other matchmaker ratings. Even less that are only that temporarily and actually are somehow great at those game modes but terrible in custom games.
Making a new rating that is expressed differently from global changes 0, people will still kick anybody considered an unknown entity. If he’s 1000 on ladder and 0 in the global game he might be good, but he still ruins “my rating” by being here in my 1000 median rating lobby where he might win.
Also, FAF has general deflation not inflation in all its implementations.
-
Afaik, the rating system is currently a zero sum game*.
I'm not sure this is actually true, or there are at least a couple examples where it is definitely not true.
If your uncertainty is high, you gain and loose many more points of mean rating, than when your uncertainty is low, while your opponent doesn't gain or loose that much.
A completely new player may loose like 100 points of mean rank in a single loss, while his non-grey opponent only gains like 10 rank.
In essence, 90 rank just vanished into the ether.There may still be some conservation law given by the algorithm of trueskill (maybe something like mean + n*deviation is always conserved?) but I don't know what it would be.
While I agree with FTX that inflation really isn't that big of a problem, should it even occur significantly, we could figure out what the result of implementing the above system would be:
If we run the new algorithm over the games that have been played in the last year, we can see how global rank would have changed.
Also, FAF has general deflation not inflation in all its implementations.
It does?
-
Yes, every year’s players have settled at a lower and lower average as time has gone on. During the first few years FAF matches closer to the intended distribution around 1500, then it slowly deviated to where 1000 or so mu is now the peak of the curve.
I attribute it to a skewed sample at the start of FAF’s implementation which skewed the “skill level” of players since the system got settled on some win rate against 1200s (who may 4 years later have been considered 1800s at that skill level) being the expected competency of a 1500.
As time has gone on, less and less old players arrive with the new players and so it’s more people with zero exposure to the game and average rating in that “year” decreases.
Does this matter? Not really. It’s all about your relativist position on the distribution. Doesn’t matter if we rate players from (0,1) (0,100) or (0,10000). In the end people will still lose their games, biggest issue is the efficiency of your initial games since 1500 is intended to be the top of the curve, but we already went away from that because of interpolation due to FAF’s deflation.
