seems to be equivalent with about level 35+ to me.
seems to be equivalent with about level 35+ to me.
I think iso and Goko levels aren't comparable. I was already at over 7000 on Goko, but never managed to break level 38 on iso.
I think iso and Goko levels aren't comparable. I was already at over 7000 on Goko, but never managed to break level 38 on iso.
I wonder if this is an intrinsic property of the rating system, or just because the system is still finding its feet. I hovered around 40 on Iso and am currently 6450 on Goko. I find that, playing whoever joins my games, I'm typically gaining 20 points for a win, and losing 60 for a loss. The standard is sufficiently low that's it's still possible to grind out a steady rating increase. Has your experience been the same, or is your 7000 mostly from higher skill players?
I play against anyone but guests (it takes too long to wait on high skill players), and I have a very hard time making progress. Winning gets me 2-10 points generally, but losing will set me back by 20-70. I would assume the players who are on top primarily play people with high skill or just lose so little that it doesn't impact their ratings much. I haven't seen any of the top guys on, so I haven't been able to look at their win/loss records to tell.Both. From what I understand, it's basically impossible to get very high playing people who are very far below you - part of why there are 6000-rated people who are super strong and some who are moderately good. It's a problem with the system. To be fair to them, it's a tricky problem to solve totally, ad iso (as well as many other rating systems) had the same problem to an extent, though not to this extent.
I think iso and Goko levels aren't comparable. I was already at over 7000 on Goko, but never managed to break level 38 on iso.
I wonder if this is an intrinsic property of the rating system, or just because the system is still finding its feet. I hovered around 40 on Iso and am currently 6450 on Goko. I find that, playing whoever joins my games, I'm typically gaining 20 points for a win, and losing 60 for a loss. The standard is sufficiently low that's it's still possible to grind out a steady rating increase. Has your experience been the same, or is your 7000 mostly from higher skill players?
I think iso and Goko levels aren't comparable. I was already at over 7000 on Goko, but never managed to break level 38 on iso.
I wonder if this is an intrinsic property of the rating system, or just because the system is still finding its feet. I hovered around 40 on Iso and am currently 6450 on Goko. I find that, playing whoever joins my games, I'm typically gaining 20 points for a win, and losing 60 for a loss. The standard is sufficiently low that's it's still possible to grind out a steady rating increase. Has your experience been the same, or is your 7000 mostly from higher skill players?
I think Qvist has just gotten better. Presence of DA cards matters a lot, too. Some people have learned how to use them better than others.
At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking?
If the rating system is an ELO-type rating system, which I believe someone from Goko said it was in a FAQ,Well, they said this, but in actual practice, it doesn't seem to have almost anything in common with the Elo system (by the way, I don't know why people capitalize all three letters of this name, but this is an aside), other than they are both rating system where higher numbers are supposed to represent better players.
If the rating system is an ELO-type rating system, which I believe someone from Goko said it was in a FAQ,Well, they said this, but in actual practice, it doesn't seem to have almost anything in common with the Elo system (by the way, I don't know why people capitalize all three letters of this name, but this is an aside), other than they are both rating system where higher numbers are supposed to represent better players.
Two problems with this: first, this is true of, well, virtually every rating system, so it doesn't really make it Elo-like. Second, it isn't true! (as has been shown in numerous examples; generally, yes this happens, but only generally).If the rating system is an ELO-type rating system, which I believe someone from Goko said it was in a FAQ,Well, they said this, but in actual practice, it doesn't seem to have almost anything in common with the Elo system (by the way, I don't know why people capitalize all three letters of this name, but this is an aside), other than they are both rating system where higher numbers are supposed to represent better players.
Well, it's hard to say without more information, but it does have some similarities, in that defeating an opponent ranked higher gives more points than defeating a lower ranked opponent, and vice versa with losses.
At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking? (hoping that I no longer suck too hard - my pro rating is currently 4098 and fluctuating wildly. I pretty consistently beat all the bots in 2-player, but lose just about whenever I play humans, part of the explanation for that is that I play far too quickly for my own good against humans, because I don't want to make them wait for me to consider my options).
At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking?
Best guess? 10,000.
At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking? (hoping that I no longer suck too hard - my pro rating is currently 4098 and fluctuating wildly. I pretty consistently beat all the bots in 2-player, but lose just about whenever I play humans, part of the explanation for that is that I play far too quickly for my own good against humans, because I don't want to make them wait for me to consider my options).
With no bots, I would guess about 5000 pro, 4000 casual. The casual ratings appear to be naturally depressed somewhat, and it's extremely difficult to get past 5000.
Bots make it strange because they're not players and they're naturally predictable.
At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking? (hoping that I no longer suck too hard - my pro rating is currently 4098 and fluctuating wildly. I pretty consistently beat all the bots in 2-player, but lose just about whenever I play humans, part of the explanation for that is that I play far too quickly for my own good against humans, because I don't want to make them wait for me to consider my options).
With no bots, I would guess about 5000 pro, 4000 casual. The casual ratings appear to be naturally depressed somewhat, and it's extremely difficult to get past 5000.
Bots make it strange because they're not players and they're naturally predictable.
With enough games, my guess is that the "halfway point" from iso (I think lvl. 25) ends up somewhere around 4800 on Goko. The problem is, 9600 isn't lvl 50, because I don't see anyone getting up that high yet. I expect WW, et al. to push 7500? Is that feasible?
Now in Goko, I could be playing a 5500-6000 player which has skill level of roughly lv.15-20 in iso. And it happens quite often. Maybe it could be that everyone is still not familiar with Dark Age? (but so do I)...
My general feeling is that the Goko rating does not reflect player's strength as good as Iso did.
I am ~6000 in Goko and ~30 in iso. Back in the iso days, if I automatch and select "+/-10 rank", I could generally be able to play with someone that have roughly similar skill level with me (well, the lv.38 player is generally better and lv.22 is generally weaker than me. Though it is still very possible to beat a lv.38 or lose to a lv.22 in a game)
Now in Goko, I could be playing a 5500-6000 player which has skill level of roughly lv.15-20 in iso. And it happens quite often. Maybe it could be that everyone is still not familiar with Dark Age? (but so do I)...
often iso players comes into goko and trash talk on the chat room saying how bad goko is, rofl
I don't know whether I trust the goko rating system right now. I'm #3 on it right now, and I really don't think I'm particularly good - on iso at least, I wasn't remotely close to the top 10 players, my rating was fairly unremarkable. So I suspect that me being #3 on the leaderboard is a symptom of some sort of problem with it, but I don't know what that problem is or how it affects everyone else.
I don't have a strong opinion if the ratings are "bad" either, but it does seem like it's pretty necessary to avoid playing low rated players if you want your own rating to stay high. Like, I feel like it's pretty weird to have a rating system in 2p Dominion where one player gains 7 points after a win and loses 120 points after a loss. That seems kinda harsh, although maybe that just means you're not supposed to have a rating that high, or something, though that seems pretty weird too.This is *potentially* fine, but it means that you should have a win percentage of... 94.5% against that other player.
I definitely don't think the imbalance was as big on isotropic. I do think there were plenty of competent lvl 25-30ish players which any 45ish player would have had a hard time staying even on in the long run (my RL friend who I played a ton being a good example), but it wasn't even close to the kind of stuff you encounter on goko when you're 7150. With that rating, it seemed pretty much every opponent was just impossible to keep your rating against in the long run. Imagine playing some top15 or top20 player and having to score 75-80% to break even, it's ridiculous (in the context of Dominion, anyway, obviously something like chess would be a whole different story).
Edit: Basically, this "it's incredibly clear that they are way off, and they could adjust this"
75%? Councilroom link? I was at ~60% for all my isotropic life (past the first couple months) and that was good enough to be near the top of the leaderboard, although admitedly I played much stronger opponents (average level ~35.6).
75%? Councilroom link? I was at ~60% for all my isotropic life (past the first couple months) and that was good enough to be near the top of the leaderboard, although admitedly I played much stronger opponents (average level ~35.6).
Heh, I guess we're not going to figure out whether the rating system is good or bad just by abstract talk... I'd assumed the opposite, that it was too easy to gain rating by playing low-level people,
I haven't played a single "I should win 19 out of 20" opponent on Goko so far, and it surprises me you think they exist in abundance.
"Have you ever accidentally played a career Lv10 or so on Iso?"
I played 5k or 6k games or something, and no, no I can't say that I have.
my thesis defense is on may 16th
I'm 100.0% convinced it's not, fwiw.
my thesis defense is on may 16th
GOOD LUCK! (Do you want to brag and share a link to your paper? I might even read it.)
I don't think it's so easy. There is no automatic win in Dominion, someone who has never played this game will not win 100% of the games against you when they open 5/2 vs 4/3 on a Mountebank/Chapel board. They probably will even lose most of the games.
How much variance a kingdom has depends on the board, but I don't really see a good way on how to get this into a model. It also depends on the player skills, e.g. say Horse Traders/Duke is dominant on a board without other support, that's more or less a 50/50+first player advantage if both players know the strategy, but if not the board might be much more complicated.
or winning the Duchy split in a Duke game, etc.
I don't think it's so easy. There is no automatic win in Dominion, someone who has never played this game will not win 100% of the games against you when they open 5/2 vs 4/3 on a Mountebank/Chapel board. They probably will even lose most of the games.
I agree. That sort of formula couldn't apply for all ratings differences. If a 10% adjustment were appropriate for a 1500-pt difference, then you'd need a smaller one for a 3000-pt difference. But that's clumsy and inelegant, and I'm not seriously proposing it as a modification of Elo... it's just an example of how using Elo for Dominion might generate a bias in favor of the lower-rated player.
Personally, I find it impossible to break even against anyone more than 1500 points lower than me. I've also jumped about 300 points since I changed my match criteria from 5000+ to 5500+. But maybe that's just noise, or maybe it's the variance in the quality of my play that's higher than Goko's rating system expects.
And actually, if you look at what they are saying, they have to pervert their system to not allow WE of over 100%/less than 0% in some games, which is prima facie quite bad.Yikes, that sounds awful. Okay, I just found the Goko wiki entry and the Funsockets Q&A, but they don't really say anything useful about their system, except that it's a TrueSkill variant. Can you link me to where they talk about perverting their system?
Okay, the 10% sure win but-then-change-that-based-on-how-big-a-rating-gap-there-is is really wanting a different curve. Which is fine, of course, though finding exactly which one is best is EXTREMELY tricky.Ah. That makes sense. Ok, so there's no reason that Elo with a non-Gaussian WE has to have the bias I'm thinking about.
And actually, if you look at what they are saying, they have to pervert their system to not allow WE of over 100%/less than 0% in some games, which is prima facie quite bad.Yikes, that sounds awful. Okay, I just found the Goko wiki entry and the Funsockets Q&A, but they don't really say anything useful about their system, except that it's a TrueSkill variant. Can you link me to where they talk about perverting their system?
That said, we no longer allow you to lose points by winning. Instead, we're perverting the rating system a little to prevent this, only because it upsets players who have a hard time believing it's the best thing to happen in order to model their ability.
Personally, I find it impossible to break even against anyone more than 1500 points lower than me. I've also jumped about 300 points since I changed my match criteria from 5000+ to 5500+.
I was around 5.6k until I decide to get to the top,I like this quote a lot. :D
Getting sooo close to not sucking. ;)At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking? [...]
With no bots, I would guess about 5000 pro[...]
There's been a definite skill drop since Iso. There was a point at which I was arguably world-class, and I never got above #3 on Iso and typically hung around the middle of the top 10. I am certainly not world-class now and yet I'm sitting #3 on Goko.
There's been a definite skill drop since Iso. There was a point at which I was arguably world-class, and I never got above #3 on Iso and typically hung around the middle of the top 10. I am certainly not world-class now and yet I'm sitting #3 on Goko.
Is it just that some of the best Iso players haven't transitioned?
There was (surprise, surprise) a huge increase in Goko skill when the Iso players transitioned in March and April. None of Goko's top-10 from early March is higher than 30 today.
I played my first two pro games ever on Goko earlier. I won both and gained almost 4000 points, which seems insane. I went from 1000 to 4800 and am in the top 500 now, which is...cool...I guess...but seems totally bizarre and wrong after just 2 games. I've seen lvl 5000 compared to lvl 20-25 on iso in this thread, so this is like a 15+ lvl jump in iso terms.It's not even like he beat a 6000 or anything, he beat me, and I was like 5000 before the first, and 4600 after the second.
I played my first two pro games ever on Goko earlier. I won both and gained almost 4000 points, which seems insane. I went from 1000 to 4800 and am in the top 500 now, which is...cool...I guess...but seems totally bizarre and wrong after just 2 games. I've seen lvl 5000 compared to lvl 20-25 on iso in this thread, so this is like a 15+ lvl jump in iso terms.the first few games dont say that much. you have a high deviation and gain a lot or loose a lot of points in 1 game.
You will notice that when you look at your name in the leaderboard, it doesn't say your position next to it, but "prov". This means your rating is provisional, and is just the best guess that can be made with the limited information available. You won't actually appear on the leaderboard (visible to others), once you have played more games.
A rating is not a reward for playing well, it is for finding people of similar skill levels so that you can have reasonably evenly matched games. A rating jump is neither fair nor unfair; it is either accurate or inaccurate. Of course you can "gain" 4000 points for winning your first two pro games; if you beat someone around 5000 level in your first game, the system is not going to say "oh, I guess you should play with opponents around 1050 instead of 1000".
I'm just comparing it with the only thing I really know how to compare it to (iso) and the dramatic change was startling.