Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WanderingWinder]

... is terrible. For one thing, I just won a game against the number 12 guy on the list, and gained a whopping 0 points. But ok, this appears to be a bug - it's not normally THAT bad. But there are a couple things. One, the rating it shows you is some form of rating - 2* uncertainty. Well, I don't like that so much in general - I didn't like it abut iso - and it basically strikes me as a gimmick to get people to play more. But the bigger issue I see with it is I will play someone who is rated, I don't know 5000, and I will 'gain 8 points'. Well, at least some of that is just my uncertainty lowering. Indeed, it seems to me that it wouldn't take someone much lower than that for my rating (i.e. the actual skill bit, not the number they show you) to actually *decrease* with game play. Maybe this is already happening there, it's hard to tell, since they only give you the number that they do. And while there is a big problem with the system in that people with the same rating can have a wide variety of skills, well, even someone who is pretty bad is going to have more than a 1% chance, just because of the inherent randomness. Indeed, it seems to me that the expectation function might actually be *linear*, which would be truly terrible, and that certainly there comes a point where the expectation is 100%, and after that, you are actually expected to win *more* games than you are playing, which is of course absurd.

So the other thing is that people even in the 5000s and 6000s seem to be, well, pretty bad. That might not be a problem with the ratings, so much as a weak player pool, but on the other hand, the system stops the few actually pretty good players there from rising above them significantly. I mean, there is a competitive aspect to ratings, but one of their main features is to actually get you paired up against people of reasonably similar skill levels, which should make the game more fun. And this system is failing at that.

So, question for someone who knows, or who has any kind of experience, how does the system deal with multiplayer? Because I've only played 1v1s.

[Polk5440]

So the other thing is that people even in the 5000s and 6000s seem to be, well, pretty bad. That might not be a problem with the ratings, so much as a weak player pool, but on the other hand, the system stops the few actually pretty good players there from rising above them significantly.

I think part of the problem is that a LOT of players are new or "provisional" (platform is new and new people keep joining). Because there is a lot of variation in skill in provisional players and so many people are provisional, the rating system isn't sorting as well as Iso, yet. I do not get the impression it's a fault of the actual rating system, though.

I was about 35 on Iso before leaving and have been hovering around 6000 or so on Goko (I like to think I've improved a bit since leaving Iso), and I am not finding an unreasonable skill disparity with people similarly ranked (say +/- 500 points) if they have 100+ games under their belt.

@WW: I saw you on Thursday waiting (and waiting) for people 6000+ to play against. Sorry I couldn't join, but I was playing against some friends; hopefully, you eventually found some good matches. But based on this post, maybe you didn't? 

[Watno]

You can loose insane amounts of points losing a multiplayer game.

[Schlippy]

You can loose insane amounts of points losing a multiplayer game.

As a matter of fact, you can also gain quite a few points losing a multiplayer game.

[jsh357]

I find the system very disheartening just on a visceral level.  sometimes I beat players I know are good and gain nothing, but losing any game drops me near or over a hundred points.  really makes you angry when you drop like that sometimes if you're at all competitive.

[Schlippy]

For me the most disheartening thing about the rating system is that when I play 10 games against my brothers, win 8 of them, lose 1 of them and tie in the last one I lose more points than I win and drop 10-80 ranks.

[michaeljb]

Back in January, I got up to the #1 spot for a while after around 30 games I think.

The rating system is definitely frustrating, even more so because of one question we've asked each of the Goko's Q&A things they've done here--"what is the actual formula used to determine the ratings?" And we never got an actual formula answer (that I'm aware of anyway).

[Rabid]

Back in January, I got up to the #1 spot for a while after around 30 games I think.

The rating system is definitely frustrating, even more so because of one question we've asked each of the Goko's Q&A things they've done here--"what is the actual formula used to determine the ratings?" And we never got an actual formula answer (that I'm aware of anyway).

Yep after trying several times to get an answer to this the best we got was:
A bit like ELO, followed by a description of what I guess to a TrueSkill variant.

[rrenaud]

Goko's ranking system sucking is a good reason to just go and make your own.

[DG]

As far as I can tell, when you win a multiplayer game you get 75-90% of the rating change you might from beating your opponents in a series of two player games. For me the worst part about the ratings is losing quite a lot of points for a tied game against a lower ranked player. So if you come joint first in a four player game you could still lose rating overall even though that's a good result in most circumstances.

In beta I tried to monitor the rating changes and ultimately had no confidence that they were calculated correctly, or at least be consistent to a player's eyes. It would probably need an exclusive series of matches between a few players who were recording their ratings to properly give me confidence in the ratings system.

[hsiale]

Goko's ranking system sucking is a good reason to just go and make your own.

That's a good idea. To make it possible, I think they need to add to the log:
- info on if a game is professional play, casual, unranked or adventure,
- in case of pro games, sets used to generate the kingdom.

Anything else I missed?

It would probably need an exclusive series of matches between a few players who were recording their ratings to properly give me confidence in the ratings system.

I'm playing Lord Bottington in pro play mode quite often. What data should I log next time I'll be playing quite many games in a row?

[Watno]

The problem is that it still won't affect matchmaking (assuming it's implemented at some point)

[heron]

I just played two games against Defender Bot and won both, but the second time my rating went up twice as much. That makes no sense at all.

[Mic Qsenoch]

I just played two games against Defender Bot and won both, but the second time my rating went up twice as much. That makes no sense at all.

Well, that does seem strange, but it might be explained by a whole bunch of other people losing to that Bot causing its rating to increase between your two games.

[heron]

Its rating seemed to remain the same, 3945 or something.

[WanderingWinder]

So, I'm pretty sure that a straight implementation of the Elo system would do better. Actually, I have most of the math for my own system already (there are a couple of parameters that need empirical fitting; well, one really, but then you have to deal with provisional-ness, which is something I haven't looked into too much), but there are a couple issues. One is getting the data, because you need all of it, and the bots are going to potentially complicate it by playing multiple games simultaneously. I guess you could ignore them. But definitely you also only want 'pro' games. The other issue is, even if I can keep my own ratings... so what? Unless I publish them all in some place that everyone sees, it's not going to help most of the problems - the only thing this would do is tell the few people who have access it's the best. Mostly this is just me, though probably I could find someone (the CR people) to host the data in a  place where we see it, if they can work out getting the data. Anyways, the vast majority of people are just going to see the official thing, and so there's very little upside. Not to mention there may be some issues with the site allowing things, Id have to check the ToS. Though probably if I asked, they wouldn't care - they're pretty chill on such things.

[Kirian]

Goko's ranking system sucking is a good reason to just go and make your own.

<shameless plug>This is what tournaments are for, of course.</shameless plug>

I wonder if there would be some way to create a "rolling" tournament.

[philosophyguy]

So, it should be possible to write an extension that extends the click-on-player behavior to get the rating from [whoever is hosting WW's algorithm] in addition to the ratings already there. I wasn't able to dig through the JS enough to determine if you could change so that the WW-rating is displayed by default in the player list, but I would imagine so.

[hsiale]

I wonder if there would be some way to create a "rolling" tournament.

You mean a tournament going on  indefinitely with past rounds getting gradually less important? I think it's definitely possible. Play Swiss, I guess one round per week is realistic, latest round counts 100%, one before that 90% and so on, you cannot play any of your let's say 8 latest opponents, once every 2 months (or twice every half year, or some other solution that lets people have holiday but still makes them play regularly) you can take a week off freezing your ranking. Players joining need some provisional ranking for pairing reasons.

[SCSN]

So, I'm pretty sure that a straight implementation of the Elo system would do better. Actually, I have most of the math for my own system already (there are a couple of parameters that need empirical fitting; well, one really, but then you have to deal with provisional-ness, which is something I haven't looked into too much), but there are a couple issues. One is getting the data, because you need all of it, and the bots are going to potentially complicate it by playing multiple games simultaneously. I guess you could ignore them. But definitely you also only want 'pro' games. The other issue is, even if I can keep my own ratings... so what? Unless I publish them all in some place that everyone sees, it's not going to help most of the problems - the only thing this would do is tell the few people who have access it's the best. Mostly this is just me, though probably I could find someone (the CR people) to host the data in a  place where we see it, if they can work out getting the data. Anyways, the vast majority of people are just going to see the official thing, and so there's very little upside. Not to mention there may be some issues with the site allowing things, Id have to check the ToS. Though probably if I asked, they wouldn't care - they're pretty chill on such things.

What about contacting Goko with your ideas so that yours might become the official rating system?

[blueblimp]

So, I'm pretty sure that a straight implementation of the Elo system would do better. Actually, I have most of the math for my own system already (there are a couple of parameters that need empirical fitting; well, one really, but then you have to deal with provisional-ness, which is something I haven't looked into too much), but there are a couple issues.

Elo sucks, because it doesn't model rating uncertainty, so it needs kludges like provisional ratings. Why would you want to use Elo instead of TrueSkill / Glicko2 / something else non-awful. Isotropic used TrueSkill, and although that is (unfortunately) patented so Goko probably can't use it, Glicko2 works out pretty similarly for 2-player matches.

[Morgrim7]

Ugh. Ive given up Goko

[noey21]

I have given up also.  How do I not show provisional?  I have been disconnected like 3 times and you can't go back in.  No one will play anymore.  NO one chats.  I am glad i only put in minimal time.  I just need to find more players IRL so glad wife and family plays.  Too bad I am on other side of the world with my family.

Hard to teach new players when you have played over a few thousand games.  Unfortunately I get booted on here every game because I am provisiional and being 6-9 hours ahead of the US less player pool.

I loved you dominion.

[hsiale]

You can get a non-provisional Pro rating playing Bots in Pro mode. I think something like 20-30 games should easily be enough. My Pro rating is above 5000 now and I don't think I played more than 10 Pro games against a human opponent.

[Kirian]

Yep... spend 5 games beating up on bots, you'll have a non-provisional rating.  Most people seem to be in the 3500 and up range, sp a 3000 rating should get you games.

Or host games yourself...