# No ranks below 0 (yes / no)?

It doesn't affect me, but I keep seeing players with a minus rank.
What is the deeper meaning of minus ranks?
Wouldn't it make more sense to limit the lowest limit to 0?

There is no deeper meaning. The actual rating consists of two values
mean = your assumed "real" skill

The deviation shrinks the more often the system predictions for your games are correct. It grows when the systems prediction is wrong.
This is especially often the case if you lose your first few games after registration.

Now we have two numbers but try you build only one for visualization. So the display value (aka "rating") is calculated via ’mean - 3 x deviation’

So if a players mean is low and the deviation is high, the rating becomes negative.

"Nerds have a really complicated relationship with change: Change is awesome when WE'RE the ones doing it. As soon as change is coming from outside of us it becomes untrustworthy and it threatens what we think of is the familiar."
– Benno Rice

The 0 point in the distributions of ratings is chosen completely arbitrary. For the system only relative differences between rating matter. You could add 1000 to everyone's rating and everything would still behave the same, just fresh players would now start at 1000 rating.

1 - It's a psychological thing, I remember losing my first ranked global match and having a negative rating. I didn't care, but I can see how some people would.

2 - I like where it's at. Roughly speaking, two 500s equal a 1000. I'm not saying this math works in all circumstances, but it's pretty handy if you're trying to balance low-rated games.

Psychology plays a major role in the games industry.

Minus ranks could demotivate new players and make them feel hopeless.

I imagine finding a match is also quite difficult, at least these players are kicked very often.

The 0 point in the distributions of ratings is chosen completely arbitrary. For the system only relative differences between rating matter. You could add 1000 to everyone's rating and everything would still behave the same, just fresh players would now start at 1000 rating.

Wonder why this isn't done? Would it just lead to a shift of rating discrimination towards <1000s anyway?

frick snoops!

Either that or people would discriminate you for a low number of played games.

"Nerds have a really complicated relationship with change: Change is awesome when WE'RE the ones doing it. As soon as change is coming from outside of us it becomes untrustworthy and it threatens what we think of is the familiar."
– Benno Rice

solves the demotivating feeling that people experience when having a negative rating though

frick snoops!

I started my FAF career as a -700 after a half dozen games. It was pretty scary but didn't take long to turn it around. I would argue that people who quit FAF after losing their first half dozen or so games didn't really have their heart in it and were going to quit whether their rank said -700 or 300 after such a stretch.