Print

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

[Piemaster]

From what I remember on Isotropic, people tended to cherry-pick lower ranked players rather than higher ranked ones.  Now on Goko nearly everyone on the pro leaderboard demands that players are at least 4000 and often higher.

I'm not complaining as such as I rarely find anyone demanding a ranking higher than mine, but I assume there is some reason for this?

[Piemaster]

Hmm, I meant to post this in the Dominion Online board.  Could a mod move it?

[Kirian]

On Iso, most people would play with a plus or minus range checked for automatch.  So I would generally play someone within ten ranks of me.  I try to do something similar on Goko.  I personally have little interest in playing someone who I have an 85% chance of demolishing, but a small chance of them getting lucky and me dropping 100 or more rating points... in what still ends up being an unfun game.

[jsh357]

I do it because of the rating drops.  I'm happy to play almost anyone, but it is just way too disheartening when you lose a game and drop 20 places on the leaderboard.  also, lowranked players sometimes do not know the cards and I want a quicker game. 

to me, it's more frustrating that when I specify a rating, people with lower ratings still click on the game.  I don't like kicking people, it seems rude and sometimes they whine in the chat about it.

[Awaclus]

I think it's awesome, because if a host demands 4k+ or 5k+, it's more likely that I'm the one who gets there first (I have an unreliable Internet connection so often when I join in an empty game, the game's not available for joining anymore) and also, it means that the host isn't a bad player. I don't care about the rank really, because I don't understand how it works, but playing against better players results in learning new things while playing against newbies results at best in re-learning to not get frustrated when your turn 3/4 cards are your opening 10.

[GendoIkari]

I believe you're mistaken, most people on Iso avoided lower-ranked players as well. As Kirian mentioned, they did this by setting a +/- rating limit for automatch.

[Kirian]

For reference, 5000+ on the leaderboard is nearly 400 people.  (I'm not going to scan down to find out what 4000+ is.)

[Davio]

 I was 40+ on Iso and accepted matches against any registered player. I didn't want to be elitist and restrict myself just to get higher ratings.

[Joseph2302]

For reference, 5000+ on the leaderboard is nearly 400 people.  (I'm not going to scan down to find out what 4000+ is.)

On the Pro Leaderboard, 4000+ rating is 1253 people currently.

[Piemaster]

I believe you're mistaken, most people on Iso avoided lower-ranked players as well. As Kirian mentioned, they did this by setting a +/- rating limit for automatch.

All I know is that the higher my Iso ranking got, the more people rejected auto-matchups with me.

[GendoIkari]

I believe you're mistaken, most people on Iso avoided lower-ranked players as well. As Kirian mentioned, they did this by setting a +/- rating limit for automatch.

All I know is that the higher my Iso ranking got, the more people rejected auto-matchups with me.

Well if you didn't have a filter on, then you were probably getting auto-matched with a lot of newer players; even a lot of level 0s. They may have been much less likely to play against someone who was highly ranked... I know I was when I first started playing. But those aren't the people who are putting "5000+" in their games. It's the really good players who are.

[Stealth Tomato]

I never enjoyed playing new/inexperienced/bad players simply because I might as well be playing a solo game 95% of the time... and the other 5% is strange collisions of bad luck that aren't fun either.

[Piemaster]

I believe you're mistaken, most people on Iso avoided lower-ranked players as well. As Kirian mentioned, they did this by setting a +/- rating limit for automatch.

All I know is that the higher my Iso ranking got, the more people rejected auto-matchups with me.

Well if you didn't have a filter on, then you were probably getting auto-matched with a lot of newer players; even a lot of level 0s. They may have been much less likely to play against someone who was highly ranked...

I often didn't have filters on, mainly because I played at weird times of day when there wouldn't be *that* many people online.  But the people who most often rejected my games were people in their low 20's when I started to hit 30.  I guess high enough to care about their rankings, but not high enough to think they could reliably beat me.

The reasons people give in this thread all make sense though.  I was just curious with the apparent disconnect with the behaviour I observed on each platform.

[Robz888]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

[eHalcyon]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

Levels or points?  Dropping 70 points is not much at all.

[Robz888]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

Levels or points?  Dropping 70 points is not much at all.

From 6200 to 6130, so... points? It is a lot, though. I lose three games like that and I'm out of the big leagues! Which, obviously I'm not supposed to lose three games to those opponents, but it just seems like I don't make it up fast enough when I usually beat them.

[Fuu]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

That is unfortunate to hear... I remember back on isotropic, I (a) used to be hesitant to play against IRL friends (low level, sometimes zero) because of the hit I'd take to my level if I lost, and (b) when I did play them, I wouldn't be playing for fun, I'd be playing to win and preserve my level. And I'm by no means even a top-tier player. Still, this definitely made the game less fun for me.

I think that a rating system inherently subtracts some of the fun of the game, because if you really care about ratings, then you really care about winning. Then you're perhaps less likely to try out new fun combo ideas too. Well, I guess that there is a 'non-rated' game set-up option on goko now...

[Watno]

I don't know how it is for you, but when I win/lose against someone around my own rating, that's about 30-40 points. Loosing twice as much for losing to a player more than a thousand points below you seems perfectly reasonable.
I'm more and more convinced the main "flaw" with Goko's rating system is that it updates ratings more frequently than iso's, thus obviosuly swinging more than Iso's rating used to.

[SCSN]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

Levels or points?  Dropping 70 points is not much at all.

70 is an absolutely insane amount considering that beating a ~4000 player gets you 8 points or so and beating Stef still only 37.

[Watno]

The rating difference between Stef and you is ~500 points
The rating difference between Robz and summon with less than 5000 points is roughly ~1500 points.

Now that might have to do with Stefs ranking not yet being fully established (since he's only been playing for 2 days on Goko). But I don't know how any rating system is supposed to handle that.

[Schneau]

Goko really, really punishes you for playing low-ranked players. I'm about 6200, and if I lose a game to someone under 5000, I drop like 70 levels.

Levels or points?  Dropping 70 points is not much at all.

70 is an absolutely insane amount considering that beating a ~4000 player gets you 8 points or so and beating Stef still only 37.

Depends how many games you've played. All of the Iso veterans are used to small rating changes, but most of them had 1000+ games. I don't know how many games Robz888 has played on Goko, but I'd say 70 point swing is totally reasonable unless he's played 2000 or 3000 games already.

[Lekkit]

The thing is this. You can either play someone who you'll probably beat (-500 points or so) who you'll gain, say 15-20 points from beating and losing like 30 if you do, or you can play someone you'll most likely beat (say -1000/-2000 or so) and gain 7 points from winning or losing 70 if you loose. It was the same on Iso. People set their automatch to +/-10. I get why you wouldn't want to play lower ranked players.

[Davio]

Well, the rating only exists so that you might find players of equal skill. Playing someone of equal skill is fun if you can sometimes still learn something or have a real nail biter where small details matter a lot.

But with Dominion, there's so much randomness that when you're playing someone of comparable skill the game is most likely decided on shuffle luck instead of keen tactics. If you play a chess match against someone rated 100 points below you on the ELO system, say you're 1700 playing a 1600, you could win close to 100% of the games, simply because you know everything the 1600 knows and a bit more.

The rating system on Goko uses 4 significant digits and a ladder, corrupting the system in my view. If you create a ladder, you're making players play just for their rating instead of the fun the game offers. I think it's wrong that people should be worried about dropping any levels on a ladder over such a simple game. A ladder makes people scared of losing and stops innovation.

What I would have liked to see is just one significant digit or even one half and no ladder. Rate the players 1-5 stars or something. This way you can use the rating the way it was intended: To find players of similar skill.

[WanderingWinder]

A 100 point difference in someone's Elo (and for Arpad's sake, it's Elo, not ELO) in chess leads to an expected win rate of .64.

[StrongRhino]

I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.


Seriously?