Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion  (Read 10571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +4266
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2012, 03:44:40 pm »
+1

No, not really clearly at all.  Maybe I didn't phrase the example very well, let's try wording the question in a different way.

Hypothetically let's say I started a new Iso account, played 200 games and tried my absolute best and played with no distractions.  At the end of the 200 games I have a level of 25.  Then I play another 200 games.  In these I goof around, try some fun combos and unconventional decks, play while doing other things, and otherwise play sub-optimally.  After that my level has dropped to 20.  Have I actually got worse at the game?  Sure, I am playing worse, but if I entered a tournament I could play back at my old 25 level again so at that tournament my level really doesn't reflect my ability.

Or to use a non-Dominion example, every year the Williams Sisters turn up to Wimbledon seeded a long way down because they don't really play their best game other than at the majors.  They could probably try harder in the tour events and ply more to get a higher seeding for the slams, but it wouldn't mean they were better players at the slams, they would just have a higher ranking.

I disagree for two reasons. The first is practical, the other has to do with how you try to separate two things ("playing" and "being" good at Dominion) when there's only one that matters.

Practical: if you play sloppy, pick bad strategies, don't pay attention etc., not only will you "play" worse at Dominion, you will actually "get" worse at the game. Practicing bad habits will cause you to play worse in all your future games then you would have if you had tried to play well. Dominion ability is not as simple as turning a switch on/off. Or if it is an on/off switch, leaving the switch "off" for some time leads to diminished effects when you turn it back "on".

Other thing: basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform. In my mind, a person who isn't focusing or is playing dumb strategies is not only playing poorly, but has "become" worse at Dominion. The fact that they might be able to turn it around quickly doesn't change that for me. I have no problem with defining ability so that it fluctuates a whole bunch depending on the individual game performance. I think that's exactly what happens, and as a result we see upsets between players of vastly different levels all the time.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2012, 04:32:06 pm »
+2

basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform

I think this is a short-sighted view of ability.  It gives you an instantaneous view, but it doesn't easily make provision for learning.  For example, if a player tries a new strategy and they lose, you might say "ah, not performing well - this means low ability".  But it's likely that player learned something from the new strategy that will improve their overall game.

Let's look at it from another angle.  Take a player who pours all their attention into the game, but isn't very creative.  So they have a couple of very strong BM strategies and they're really good at the obvious engines.  They win a lot - at the things they're good at.  But, by focusing so much on a narrow portion of the game, they've limited their ability to perform in the subtler scenarios.  I think this shows that choosing your personally-strongest strategy for each game does not necessarily make you a better overall player.  Sometimes the lessons that come from experimenting and losing are more valuable than another notch on the belt.
Logged

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2012, 05:01:16 pm »
0

Other thing: basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform.

Yes, but how you perform when is the issue.  If I'm assessing a sprinter, I want to know how fast he runs on the track in big competitions, not how fast he runs when he's chasing his kids around the park.  In the same way if I want to know how good a player is at Dominion I want to know how good he is when he is actually trying.  I love Isotropic to bits, but that doesn't mean it's the be all and end all of Dominion.  Some people blatantly care about (and go to great lengths to increase/maintain) their isotropic rating a lot more than others.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +4266
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2012, 05:58:52 pm »
+1

basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform

I think this is a short-sighted view of ability.  It gives you an instantaneous view, but it doesn't easily make provision for learning.  For example, if a player tries a new strategy and they lose, you might say "ah, not performing well - this means low ability".  But it's likely that player learned something from the new strategy that will improve their overall game.

Let's look at it from another angle.  Take a player who pours all their attention into the game, but isn't very creative.  So they have a couple of very strong BM strategies and they're really good at the obvious engines.  They win a lot - at the things they're good at.  But, by focusing so much on a narrow portion of the game, they've limited their ability to perform in the subtler scenarios.  I think this shows that choosing your personally-strongest strategy for each game does not necessarily make you a better overall player.  Sometimes the lessons that come from experimenting and losing are more valuable than another notch on the belt.

You seem to think that experimentation and trying to give yourself the best chance to win are mutually exclusive. This isn't true at all, and I don't know why anybody would think that. And of course I think people can learn from their mistakes, you don't have to play absurd strategies to make mistakes though. Every single game has instances where your play can be improved.

Other thing: basically I think the only criteria that matters for describing ability is how well you perform.

Yes, but how you perform when is the issue.  If I'm assessing a sprinter, I want to know how fast he runs on the track in big competitions, not how fast he runs when he's chasing his kids around the park.  In the same way if I want to know how good a player is at Dominion I want to know how good he is when he is actually trying.  I love Isotropic to bits, but that doesn't mean it's the be all and end all of Dominion.  Some people blatantly care about (and go to great lengths to increase/maintain) their isotropic rating a lot more than others.

I don't know of a tool for measuring a person's effort. So, until I find one, I will continue to use performance as my standard of ability. This doesn't mean I think it's perfect, I think fluctuations will be common, and that's why we have upsets.

Nobody looks at the dad in the park chasing his kids and says "that guy must be a world class sprinter, he caught that 5 year old without breaking a sweat". So when he shows up and beats Usain Bolt, we are surprised. That's the nature of upsets. But we don't think his ability is high until he demonstrates it.

Also, I'm not sure who you're thinking of with your comment about isotropic level and the "great lengths" people go to increase/maintain theirs, but with the exception of a few cheaters, as far as I can tell the only methods anybody uses is "play some games of Dominion". I have not (yet) developed a complex training schedule/diet. I suspect -Stef- is genetically modified though, so yeah, that is taking it a bit far.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2012, 08:23:54 pm »
+1

You seem to think that experimentation and trying to give yourself the best chance to win are mutually exclusive. This isn't true at all, and I don't know why anybody would think that.

I don't think they're always mutually exclusive, but I think there will be plenty of instances where they are.  I'd say this becomes obvious when you realize that it's quite possible for the strongest strategy on a board to be totally different than the strategy you play the best.  In a case like this, trying to play the strongest board strategy may not give you the best chance to win, simply because you're not skilled in it.  But if you never play that strongest strategy because it doesn't give you the best chance to win, you're not going to improve in it.  So you have to be willing to take some losses in order to improve your long-term play.

This is a known phenomenon that happens in other games, as well.  I follow Starcraft / Starcraft 2 a bit and foreigners (non-Koreans) who go to Korea to train sometimes talk about a "breaking down" period where their overall play gets worse as they re-invent their game.  These guys realize they have to take a step backwards in order to break bad habits / ruts so they can rebuild into an even stronger all-around player.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +4266
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2012, 09:32:45 pm »
0

I don't think they're always mutually exclusive, but I think there will be plenty of instances where they are.  I'd say this becomes obvious when you realize that it's quite possible for the strongest strategy on a board to be totally different than the strategy you play the best.  In a case like this, trying to play the strongest board strategy may not give you the best chance to win, simply because you're not skilled in it.  But if you never play that strongest strategy because it doesn't give you the best chance to win, you're not going to improve in it.  So you have to be willing to take some losses in order to improve your long-term play.

This is a known phenomenon that happens in other games, as well.  I follow Starcraft / Starcraft 2 a bit and foreigners (non-Koreans) who go to Korea to train sometimes talk about a "breaking down" period where their overall play gets worse as they re-invent their game.  These guys realize they have to take a step backwards in order to break bad habits / ruts so they can rebuild into an even stronger all-around player.

Ok, I mostly agree with this. I don't know how it contradicts anything I said earlier. We agree that this kind of experimentation can result in a decrease in performance, hopefully with an upside later. And I never said that a person shouldn't try that sort of thing if they think the end result will be worth it. But there is still a decrease in ability.

And for Dominion, I honestly believe that if you play a fair amount of games you will be presented with plenty of opportunities to try new strategies which also give you a good shot at winning. So I think even fairly conservative players will become exposed to most strategies over time.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 09:35:36 pm by Mic Qsenoch »
Logged

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2012, 12:31:27 am »
0

I don't know of a tool for measuring a person's effort. So, until I find one, I will continue to use performance as my standard of ability. This doesn't mean I think it's perfect, I think fluctuations will be common, and that's why we have upsets.

I sense that you have kind of lost perspective on the original point and are now just trying to 'win the argument'.  My only point was that there are a ton of factors that determine someone's isotropic rating and many of them have little correlation with how good they are (and hence how well they can be expected to perform in the championship).  Some players are level 20, but play like they're level 30 when it really counts.  Some people are level 30 because they essentially play their A-game every time they are on isotropic, so when it comes to tournaments they don't have 'a higher level' to play to and so play no better than the aforementioned level 20.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 12:32:30 am by Piemaster »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4364
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #32 on: December 09, 2012, 08:17:26 am »
0

I don't know of a tool for measuring a person's effort. So, until I find one, I will continue to use performance as my standard of ability. This doesn't mean I think it's perfect, I think fluctuations will be common, and that's why we have upsets.

I sense that you have kind of lost perspective on the original point and are now just trying to 'win the argument'.  My only point was that there are a ton of factors that determine someone's isotropic rating and many of them have little correlation with how good they are (and hence how well they can be expected to perform in the championship).  Some players are level 20, but play like they're level 30 when it really counts.  Some people are level 30 because they essentially play their A-game every time they are on isotropic, so when it comes to tournaments they don't have 'a higher level' to play to and so play no better than the aforementioned level 20.

Actually, I think you're the one who has really lost the thread, as your argument is basically entirely geared toward 'we just shouldn't have a rating system at all'. I wouldn't say so much that you are trying to win the argument, more just that you are trying to argue something that nobody was really arguing against, at least until you brought it up.
A good rating system will have some measurement of the variability with which a player plays to try to account somewhat for things like what you're talking about.

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4067
  • Respect: +2608
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #33 on: December 09, 2012, 09:10:48 am »
+1

I suppose my rating is the most extreme. Level 36. Skill 58.175 with 21.208 variance. How did I get that? All my matches on iso over the last however months have been in this tournament or the previous 2 IsoDoms where I reached the final each time. You can make different arguments as to whether my skill range or iso ranking is more accurate. It's still fair to use an isotropic ranking for an isotropic tournament.

In terms of seeding I would suggest that next time the seeding is not quite so precise. We're seeing 1 vs 64 or 32 vs 33 and this seems to be providing a lot of whitewashes for the lowest ranked and very competitive games for the mid ranked. This is fine for the lower-mid ranked players but perhaps a random draw across the pool of 33-64 would have been better for everyone else.
Logged

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #34 on: December 09, 2012, 11:21:19 am »
+1

Actually, I think you're the one who has really lost the thread, as your argument is basically entirely geared toward 'we just shouldn't have a rating system at all'.

I wasn't trying to argue that at all.  If you look back at the start of the discussion people were saying how certain players were under-ranked due to not having played much in a while.  All I was doing is extending that to say there are a bunch of people that are under-ranked and over-ranked for all kinds of reasons and we can't necessarily read too much into people's rankings.  I'm absolutely fine with the rankings being used as a 'best guess' for the purpose of seeding.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4364
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #35 on: December 09, 2012, 11:29:22 am »
0

Actually, I think you're the one who has really lost the thread, as your argument is basically entirely geared toward 'we just shouldn't have a rating system at all'.

I wasn't trying to argue that at all.
All of your arguments have the effect of supporting this decision, so while you haven't explicitly stated it, you are effectively doing so.
Quote
If you look back at the start of the discussion people were saying how certain players were under-ranked due to not having played much in a while.
Sure,, because level is a lousy measure compared to mean skill....
Quote
All I was doing is extending that to say there are a bunch of people that are under-ranked and over-ranked for all kinds of reasons and we can't necessarily read too much into people's rankings.
i.e., ratings don't mean anything (or very much), so you should largely just ignore them, basically what I was saying. If there's some important nuance here, I genuinely can't pick it out, so assume I am very very thick and try to explain it simply. Because there must be something I don't understand here.
Quote
I'm absolutely fine with the rankings being used as a 'best guess' for the purpose of seeding.
But the problem is that the rankings are based on level, which is a measure that isn't really the best guess, but a guess of the minimum ability, extremely biased to the minimum, which is basically just a big scheme by whoever made the rating system (guys at Microsoft) to encourage people to play more.

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #36 on: December 09, 2012, 11:46:35 am »
0

i.e., ratings don't mean anything (or very much), so you should largely just ignore them, basically what I was saying. If there's some important nuance here, I genuinely can't pick it out, so assume I am very very thick and try to explain it simply. Because there must be something I don't understand here.

Nope, no nuance whatsoever.  We're basically arguing the same thing, that player levels don't mean that much.  I wasn't arguing with you at all, only with Qsenoch, who for every example I gave of how a person might be better (or worse) than their rating suggests he tried to flip it around and make an argument that their results actually reflect their true ability.  Some of the later ones seemed rather far-reaching illustrations of how, for example, a player who tries out new or unconventional strategies makes themselves a worse player as a result, which seemed to me to be an attempt to win the argument rather than actually make a point, hence my post.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 11:47:54 am by Piemaster »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4364
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2012, 12:06:58 pm »
0

i.e., ratings don't mean anything (or very much), so you should largely just ignore them, basically what I was saying. If there's some important nuance here, I genuinely can't pick it out, so assume I am very very thick and try to explain it simply. Because there must be something I don't understand here.

Nope, no nuance whatsoever.  We're basically arguing the same thing, that player levels don't mean that much.  I wasn't arguing with you at all, only with Qsenoch, who for every example I gave of how a person might be better (or worse) than their rating suggests he tried to flip it around and make an argument that their results actually reflect their true ability.  Some of the later ones seemed rather far-reaching illustrations of how, for example, a player who tries out new or unconventional strategies makes themselves a worse player as a result, which seemed to me to be an attempt to win the argument rather than actually make a point, hence my post.
Okay, except now I don't think you understand MY position. I am not saying that ratings don't mean much - that's my characterization of your position. My position is that ratings DO mean a fair bit (though they have some inherent uncertainty) in general, but LEVEL doesn't reflect this.

Stealth Tomato

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 507
  • Dorkneel
  • Respect: +478
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2012, 01:35:35 pm »
+2

Jesus tapdancing Christ.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2012, 01:57:35 pm »
0

I think if you guys were in the same room actually talking about this, you'd quickly realize that you agree with each other.

I think Piemaster's saying the "Isotropic levels" used for seeding will be inaccurate for a variety of reasons (he's not saying "ratings don't matter", just "Isotropic ratings (levels) can be misleading").  And I think WW is saying ratings are useful, but that "Isotropic levels" don't do a good job of capturing them.

So you both agree that "Isotropic levels" aren't a particularly good ratings metric.
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Upsets
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2012, 02:08:02 pm »
0

Funny, I do sorta consider myself a bad player...

Level 43   51.721 8.108   20   10486   WanderingWinder

if you are bad then the 7919 of us lower down on the leaderboard must just be hideously awful.
Well, two things. One, please please please use mean skill, not level.
Two, I was originally going to make some complaint about Insomniac saying that he doesn't consider himself a bad player, because everyone thinks they are a good player - self-reporting bias! So i thought to myself 'who considers himself a bad player', and I was like, gee, I sorta do.

I get that, but that was never my point personally (didn't see this response till today). Let's say I had never joined f.DS until this year. I go to one tournament a month in the city I live in and always rank near the top if not the top. I rarely if EVER play on ISO I haven't played much on ISO since Dark Ages came out and even before then I only played on there as a way to play dominion with my girlfriend when we couldn't get out the actual game (I was travelling for work or what have you). Now if I registered for F.DS to participate in this tournament and registered early enough to be in the 240-256 area and got bumped by someone who was still playing on ISO I would be totally choked.

I get why theory put it there, I just don't agree with what it might cause if someone who is high ranking actually misses the sign ups bumping someone who may or may not be high level just because they are ranked poorly on ISO. It will push them away from our community and is not the point of these tournaments.

I used myself meerly as a metric to demonstrate my point. While I do think I am a good player I do not think I hold a candle to the Marins, Stefs, WanderingWinders etc.
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4364
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2012, 02:12:28 pm »
0

Funny, I do sorta consider myself a bad player...

Level 43   51.721 8.108   20   10486   WanderingWinder

if you are bad then the 7919 of us lower down on the leaderboard must just be hideously awful.
Well, two things. One, please please please use mean skill, not level.
Two, I was originally going to make some complaint about Insomniac saying that he doesn't consider himself a bad player, because everyone thinks they are a good player - self-reporting bias! So i thought to myself 'who considers himself a bad player', and I was like, gee, I sorta do.

I get that, but that was never my point personally (didn't see this response till today). Let's say I had never joined f.DS until this year. I go to one tournament a month in the city I live in and always rank near the top if not the top. I rarely if EVER play on ISO I haven't played much on ISO since Dark Ages came out and even before then I only played on there as a way to play dominion with my girlfriend when we couldn't get out the actual game (I was travelling for work or what have you). Now if I registered for F.DS to participate in this tournament and registered early enough to be in the 240-256 area and got bumped by someone who was still playing on ISO I would be totally choked.

I get why theory put it there, I just don't agree with what it might cause if someone who is high ranking actually misses the sign ups bumping someone who may or may not be high level just because they are ranked poorly on ISO. It will push them away from our community and is not the point of these tournaments.

I used myself meerly as a metric to demonstrate my point. While I do think I am a good player I do not think I hold a candle to the Marins, Stefs, WanderingWinders etc.
Sure, and I don't have a problem with that.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2012, 04:42:29 pm »
+2

I get that, but that was never my point personally (didn't see this response till today). Let's say I had never joined f.DS until this year. I go to one tournament a month in the city I live in and always rank near the top if not the top. I rarely if EVER play on ISO I haven't played much on ISO since Dark Ages came out and even before then I only played on there as a way to play dominion with my girlfriend when we couldn't get out the actual game (I was travelling for work or what have you). Now if I registered for F.DS to participate in this tournament and registered early enough to be in the 240-256 area and got bumped by someone who was still playing on ISO I would be totally choked.

I get why theory put it there, I just don't agree with what it might cause if someone who is high ranking actually misses the sign ups bumping someone who may or may not be high level just because they are rankede  poorly on ISO. It will push them away from our community and is not the point of these tournaments.

Isn't it far more likely that someone high ranking will miss the signups without the wildcard policy?

Isn't the point of the tournament both to encourage participation (for 240-256 registrants) and to encourage the best to play?

Isn't our community improved when high ranking Isotropic players participate more in the community?

Isn't it much more likely that the high-ranking wildcards are more likely to be good players than the ones they are bumping?

Aren't there 240 guaranteed slots for these hypothetical very-good-but-bad-on-Isotropic players to sign up in?

I'm being contentious here because I really want to know if this is a bad policy.  I am convinced that it is an unequivocally good one, and I can't even see why it could be bad.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3593
  • Respect: +6021
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2012, 04:53:59 pm »
+4

I think the other reason this debate might be a bit contentious is that it comes very close to the traditional intelligence debate.  It really pisses me off to listen to people talk about how smart they are "if only they tried at it", as if "just trying at it" is something that you can just turn on.

I think it is far more likely for someone with a low Isotropic level to be bad rather than good-but-goofing-around.  In my experience, if you play badly and lose a lot, that just means you are bad.  I've never cost myself the equivalent of 10 levels or whatever just trying new things -- if I actually did lose that many levels (like 45 to 35, rather than 45 to 44), then it is much more likely that I am just getting bad rather than "I'm still a theoretical 45, I'm just screwing around right now though".

Of course sometimes your level underestimates your skill, but I don't ever think it underestimates it by all that much.  At most 5-10 levels.
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +637
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2012, 05:05:06 pm »
+6

I support the objective of getting high level players to play.
Maybe less people would have a problem with it if presented differently.
For example:
Open sign ups: 240 slots.
Seeded sign ups: 16 Slots.
Reserve list: if anyone drops out or not enough seeds sign up.

The above leads to the same result, but with different player perception of the event.
I think it is the feeling of being "kicked out" that most annoys people.
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3247
  • Respect: +5447
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2012, 05:05:52 pm »
+1

I think the other reason this debate might be a bit contentious is that it comes very close to the traditional intelligence debate.  It really pisses me off to listen to people talk about how smart they are "if only they tried at it", as if "just trying at it" is something that you can just turn on.

I think it is far more likely for someone with a low Isotropic level to be bad rather than good-but-goofing-around.  In my experience, if you play badly and lose a lot, that just means you are bad.  I've never cost myself the equivalent of 10 levels or whatever just trying new things -- if I actually did lose that many levels (like 45 to 35, rather than 45 to 44), then it is much more likely that I am just getting bad rather than "I'm still a theoretical 45, I'm just screwing around right now though".

Of course sometimes your level underestimates your skill, but I don't ever think it underestimates it by all that much.  At most 5-10 levels.

I think the bigger issue here is that a lot of Dominion players don't play on isotropic.  This forum is very isotropic-centric;  I get that.  But the vast majority of Dominion players have probably never heard of isotropic.  Admittedly, this is probably much less true for those who compete in tournaments, but I entirely sympathize with the sentiment that someone is essentially being marginalized simply because they choose to play with either the official physical copy or with the official online implementation, and not with the preferred unofficial online implementation of the tournament organizers.

That said, people aren't being bumped from the first 240 slots, which I feel is more than enough.  If the organizers opted to have only 128 slots without reservations, then even more of the latecomers would be denied a slot.  But they wouldn't feel marginalized.  I think a big part of what rubs people the wrong way is that they seem themselves on the list, and then they get bumped off by someone who knew about the registration long ago, but didn't bother registering sooner because they're a high iso-level big shot.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2734
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3635
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2012, 05:12:53 pm »
+4

I think the other reason this debate might be a bit contentious is that it comes very close to the traditional intelligence debate.  It really pisses me off to listen to people talk about how smart they are "if only they tried at it", as if "just trying at it" is something that you can just turn on.

I think it is far more likely for someone with a low Isotropic level to be bad rather than good-but-goofing-around.  In my experience, if you play badly and lose a lot, that just means you are bad.  I've never cost myself the equivalent of 10 levels or whatever just trying new things -- if I actually did lose that many levels (like 45 to 35, rather than 45 to 44), then it is much more likely that I am just getting bad rather than "I'm still a theoretical 45, I'm just screwing around right now though".

Of course sometimes your level underestimates your skill, but I don't ever think it underestimates it by all that much.  At most 5-10 levels.

I think the bigger issue here is that a lot of Dominion players don't play on isotropic.  This forum is very isotropic-centric;  I get that.  But the vast majority of Dominion players have probably never heard of isotropic.  Admittedly, this is probably much less true for those who compete in tournaments, but I entirely sympathize with the sentiment that someone is essentially being marginalized simply because they choose to play with either the official physical copy or with the official online implementation, and not with the preferred unofficial online implementation of the tournament organizers.

That said, people aren't being bumped from the first 240 slots, which I feel is more than enough.  If the organizers opted to have only 128 slots without reservations, then even more of the latecomers would be denied a slot.  But they wouldn't feel marginalized.  I think a big part of what rubs people the wrong way is that they seem themselves on the list, and then they get bumped off by someone who knew about the registration long ago, but didn't bother registering sooner because they're a high iso-level big shot.

1. Iso rankings is the best possible seeding we can use for an online tournament. No solution is perfect but this is definitely the best.

2. I really doubt any high level iso players were thinking about how they would wait until sign up filled up so they could bump a lower level player. Most people signed up when they saw the sign ups. Registration closed after what, 4 days? That's not a long time if you don't constantly hang out on these forums.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4364
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2012, 05:17:11 pm »
+1

I think the other reason this debate might be a bit contentious is that it comes very close to the traditional intelligence debate.  It really pisses me off to listen to people talk about how smart they are "if only they tried at it", as if "just trying at it" is something that you can just turn on.

I think it is far more likely for someone with a low Isotropic level to be bad rather than good-but-goofing-around.  In my experience, if you play badly and lose a lot, that just means you are bad.  I've never cost myself the equivalent of 10 levels or whatever just trying new things -- if I actually did lose that many levels (like 45 to 35, rather than 45 to 44), then it is much more likely that I am just getting bad rather than "I'm still a theoretical 45, I'm just screwing around right now though".

Of course sometimes your level underestimates your skill, but I don't ever think it underestimates it by all that much.  At most 5-10 levels.

I think the bigger issue here is that a lot of Dominion players don't play on isotropic.  This forum is very isotropic-centric;  I get that.  But the vast majority of Dominion players have probably never heard of isotropic.  Admittedly, this is probably much less true for those who compete in tournaments, but I entirely sympathize with the sentiment that someone is essentially being marginalized simply because they choose to play with either the official physical copy or with the official online implementation, and not with the preferred unofficial online implementation of the tournament organizers.

That said, people aren't being bumped from the first 240 slots, which I feel is more than enough.  If the organizers opted to have only 128 slots without reservations, then even more of the latecomers would be denied a slot.  But they wouldn't feel marginalized.  I think a big part of what rubs people the wrong way is that they seem themselves on the list, and then they get bumped off by someone who knew about the registration long ago, but didn't bother registering sooner because they're a high iso-level big shot.
This is probably true. But on the other hand, this isn't a 'the best dominion player' tournament. It's the DS tournament. So if DS is iso-centric, then doesn't it makes sense for the criteria to be a bit that way too?

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +391
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2012, 09:40:47 pm »
0

I want to say theory that I mean no ill will and I 100% get the intention of both the wildcard and the seeding by iso. I take no issue with either.

I'm simply expressing that while I think a player ranked highly on isotropic is undeniably a good player I do not think a player ranked low on iso implies a bad player as this forum tends to imply. When I played my match this week I was level 3 on iso. I like iso but its never been how I want to play the game. Goko is closer even with all their bugs. And I'm ranked highly there.

All I'm saying is there is always exceptions. I do not think that high level players were more likely to miss sign ups as I think a majority of them are here frequently. And if I joined the forum and was bumped from the tournament based on my iso rating I would not think this community is as welcoming as I know it to be.
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Piemaster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking, Seeding, and Skill Discussion
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2012, 12:43:32 am »
0

It probably doesn't help that on top of the 'reserved slots' the tournament seems a bit slanted towards the top iso players in other ways too.

1.  Non-random draw designed to give them easy early round matchups.
2.  First turn advantage in their first few rounds at least
3.  Non-random shuffling so a lower ranked player is less likely to 'get lucky' against them

I can see the logic behind all of these rules individually and I understand why you want keep the 'name' players in the tournament, but there comes a point where this gets outweighed by the perception that the lower ranked players are not really supposed to win.  Would it be really be so bad if Stef played WW in round 2?  Or if little Timmy took a game off Marin through opening 5/2 on a Mountebank board?

This isn't really a complaint as such, but just stuff to think about to make the tournament even better next year.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 01:07:55 am by Piemaster »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 20 queries.