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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

But realized that it's hard to devise any sort of controlled experiment. Some players get better over time, some players get worse, expecting the rating to be stable is wrong, and it's impossible to differentiate between rating drift due to misconfiguration and . Maybe let different AIs battle each other?..

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:

People stay in FAF for many thousands of games, so I do not buy "it's for people to get to their real rating quicker" argument.

Also, 4.5% draw probability is just wrong. Who has that many draws?

@Nomander in the link you gave the guy that created the "optimimum" parameters (axle) even states that is is very volitile, which is exactly what im trying to say

The purpose of trueskill is to correctly predict games, which includes getting players up to their skill level quickly and having the rating value be accurate enough after reaching that level. If you can prove that some parameter adjustment improves its predictions, that would be convincing. Axle linked a github for his work, so it should be possible to adapt for someone savvy.

If you wanted a lower tau than argue for it to be 2% of sigma rather than 3%.

FAF’s system is the result of fiddling with the results of professional statisticians. Our tau is like triple the value those professional statisticians recommended which is what this guy is complaining about. Still a good change though, otherwise people would be gaining or losing 3 points a game. Supposed to win 30 games in a row to climb 100 rating?

Yes pretty much bang on, seeing as the average rating increase/decrease for a standard team game of 10 players results in a 10 points increase or decrease and you describe it as being a 3 point change then perhaps a middle ground may be a suitable alternative.

also seeing as the outcome of the game becomes vastly more difficult to influance the players exist in the game maybe create a larger change based off of player numbers in game, such as I see points in a 4v4 change being at 11 and larger team games can still be 10 a smaller change based of off the number of players maybe a worthwile thing to took into, perhaps more like 2 points per player in game decrease so like this,

1v1 15 points
2v2 13 points
3v3 11 points
4v4 9 points
5v5 7 points
6v6 5 points

obvisously this excludes player uncertainty calculations in this example but you get the idea

as an example, seeing as the lower the player count the more you impact the game and the rating change would be more inline with individual performance.

@Nomander in the link you gave the guy that created the "optimimum" parameters (axle) even states that is is very volitile, which is exactly what im trying to say

@Brutus5000 I dont beleive I mentioned any desire to change true skill.

Rather slowing it down a bit

Huh?

Rather slowing it down a bit

this would mean that in my situation my chart would look more like these

Without such a large change in rating so quickly

Why? because there were tons of complains about rating moving too slowly and getting very stale over time