Print

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

[ashersky]

Can I ask a question of interest?

Most "great" players of online Dominion set a bar on the Leaderboard above which you must sit to be allowed to play them.  I get it, and it doesn't bother me personally.  I understand that this bar is set to protect their ranking -- a loss to a low ranked player would disproportionately affect it.

Does this philosophy affect the "validity" of the rankings?  I don't know how it works in other competitively ranked sports and games, so that's why I'm asking.  For example, I think tennis rankings are based on participation and results, not on opponent strength.

I get the conventional wisdom that someone ranked 6000 should very rarely lose to someone ranked 2000.  But is ensuring that 6000 doesn't play 2000 the best way to go about things?  Is playing within your strata in any way artificially maintaining a ranking because it's impossible to lose many points?

(Yes, ranking limits are also used to ensure you play someone "worth" playing.  Aside from that, I think it is fair to say that ranking limits are used to protect one's ranking as well.)

[UmbrageOfSnow]

Dominion has a much greater random luck element than chess, go, tennis, etc.

I could be a complete idiot and once in a while get perfect luck against terrible luck from one of you experts.  In that case, it would tank their rating, which they'd have trouble getting back up (particularly with the daily point losses) while I would fritter away the points I earned losing to now-lower-ranked-but-should-be-higher opponents.

But more than that, I think it's just boredom with too-easy games.  I know I feel that way about things I'm actually good at.

[ashersky]

I could be a complete idiot and once in a while get perfect luck against terrible luck from one of you experts.  In that case, it would tank their rating, which they'd have trouble getting back up (particularly with the daily point losses) while I would fritter away the points I earned losing to now-lower-ranked-but-should-be-higher opponents.

I know this is how I feel every time I beat one of the greats.

[Beyond Awesome]

About a week ago, I decided to play a lower ranked player. This player didn't play well, but got great Familiar luck and won the curse split 9-1. I ended up losing that game. Dominion does have a random luck element and sometimes even if you're Stef, you're bound to get screwed every now and then.

[mameluke]

I think it's a lot to do with wanting to play someone of a similar skill level. It's pretty boring to play a player who's no good, especially if they have little experience with the cards. I play online because of the challenge: a lot of my IRL friends who play the game would probably be level 4000 or so.

But I agree that, say, if all of the level 2000-3000 players only played each other and all of the 5000-6000 players only played each other, we could imagine due to a few initial ratings jumps (or drops), the "true skill" level of the two sets of players would actually be the same. But I don't think this is the real situation.

[Awaclus]

About a week ago, I decided to play a lower ranked player. This player didn't play well, but got great Familiar luck and won the curse split 9-1. I ended up losing that game. Dominion does have a random luck element and sometimes even if you're Stef, you're bound to get screwed every now and then.

Though, if you are Stef, you still believe that you lost because you played poorly.

[philosophyguy]

I don't think it's an issue.

1) In order to even get to the 5500+ level, you need to have played a lot of games and won very consistently against some tough competition. So, the folks who are playing in these 5500+ games are very good.

2) I'm almost laughing imagining what would happen if the guy who plays tennis at the local park on Sundays challenged someone like Nadal. I don't think Nadal would have a problem declining the match, and I don't think anyone would look down on him for doing some. Same for a 9-dan Go player, or a chess GM, or an Olympic sprinter. About the only exception I can think of would be a poker pro, because he or she is likely to turn the am into an ATM machine.

3) I'm even more ok because of the harshness of Goko's rating algorithm. It's extremely unforgiving for a game with as much chance as we have.

[WanderingWinder]

If the rating system were 'correct', it wouldn't be an issue of rating protection - you don't expect your rating to change with any game. It wouldn't matter that sometimes you can get terrible luck and lose just because - the system would correctly expect this to happen with the right frequency. But while right now I think there's some rating protection in this, for me (and I guess for at least most of the others), I have the minimum rating because I want a reasonably close match - it's just more fun.

[markusin]

I'm conflicted on the matter of putting a minimum rating on games I host. My natural choice is to make my games open to all ranks and not crush the hearts of eager players by kicking them from the game due to their low rank. I have all the expansions and so by hosting games I guess I contribute to the overall user experience. I don't mind losing a whole bunch of points on a loss to a low ranked player. The problem is the games themselves are often not as fun when playing against weak opponents. I end up getting so many easy wins that way and makes me consider the option of having a minimum rating.

[Robz888]

It's currently my belief that the rating system is sufficiently skewed to make it disadvantageous for me to play other players of much lower rank. I've noticed that nice guy Robz888 who plays people in the 4000 range loses points rapidly. Strict guy Robz888 who refuses to play anyone under 5300 or so keeps his high ranking. So, that's it.

[-Stef-]

About a week ago, I decided to play a lower ranked player. This player didn't play well, but got great Familiar luck and won the curse split 9-1. I ended up losing that game. Dominion does have a random luck element and sometimes even if you're Stef, you're bound to get screwed every now and then.

Though, if you are Stef, you still believe that you lost because you played poorly.

Heuh, I never said that. Sometimes I get so much bad luck I will lose no matter what you do.
What I said was that even in those cases I can probably find some spots where I played less then optimal.

And sometimes after a bad start, when I just keep trying my very best, something beautiful can happen.
Usually some combination of luck later on and opponent making a few mistakes.

Against 5-2 Mountebank/Chapel with a good chapel on turn 3 and a Gold on turn 4, while I get (choose?) to chapel only 1 card.
Against a 5-2 Cultist/Crossroads I lose the ruins split 8-2.
These are of course the exceptions I like to remember, because usually after such a start I just lose.