Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Goko Dominion Online => Topic started by: Piemaster on May 20, 2013, 07:58:30 am
-
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?
-
Hmm, I meant to post this in the Dominion Online board. Could a mod move it?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
For reference, 5000+ on the leaderboard is nearly 400 people. (I'm not going to scan down to find out what 4000+ is.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.
Seriously?
-
I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.
Seriously?
It is possible that he lost a game and it put him under 5000 and didn't realize it.
-
I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.
Seriously?
It is possible that he lost a game and it put him under 5000 and didn't realize it.
Eh, still... when my rating drops below about 5500, I start asking for 4500+ instead of 5000+. It's really tough to justify 5000+ if you're not well above 5000.
Also, my casual rating is like 3000 because I don't care about it... were you (StrongRhino) looking at his casual rating?
-
I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.
Seriously?
It is possible that he lost a game and it put him under 5000 and didn't realize it.
Also possible he fell victim to the bug that defaults your game's name to the last game you played, even if it was hosted by an opponent, and didn't notice.
-
I don't actually see anything wrong with only wanting to play people who are higher rated than you are. I mean, he hosts the game, he can set the entry requirements as long as he's fine with the consequences (longer waiting times, being made fun of on the forums).
-
I don't care much about the 5000+ and 4000+ stuff, but I once saw someone with a 5000+ game.
Their rating?
4983.
Seriously?
It is possible that he lost a game and it put him under 5000 and didn't realize it.
Eh, still... when my rating drops below about 5500, I start asking for 4500+ instead of 5000+. It's really tough to justify 5000+ if you're not well above 5000.
Also, my casual rating is like 3000 because I don't care about it... were you (StrongRhino) looking at his casual rating?
Yeah, his casual was still 1000 or whatever the default is.
It was probably an accident, but even so, I don't actually care that much. It was just hilarious.
-
I use it because I'd rather play someone who is decent at dominion. Those people tend to play a little bit faster, and it's a more worthwhile experience for me to play someone at my skill level. I'd rather have a game that requires me to think than being able to just go on autopilot after I see my opponent opened with something that's clearly not going to win.
-
I'm sometimes the annoying person below level joining games, but most of the time you'll accept me because you recognize the name from f.ds.
I sit around ~5000, give or take 200, but I don't play every day, and I lose ~100 ranking points per day I don't play. So I come in after two days and I'm at 4788 or something, but I feel like I ought to get to play in the 5000s league, so I still join up. But then I win a game and lose two and I'm at 4600, which is hard. So then I'm looking at 4000+ games.
TLDR: the rankings are swingy, even at the low levels.
-
I play 3500+ because if I play a human opponent (which takes more time than playing a bot) I want to play an opponent that's better than the bot. My rating is around 4500.
-
One time, I decided to see what would happen if I refreshed the page while playing a bot. The result was dropping from #10 on the casual leaderboard to #80 something. That is an extreme case against a low ranked opponent.
-
One time, I decided to see what would happen if I refreshed the page while playing a bot. The result was dropping from #10 on the casual leaderboard to #80 something. That is an extreme case against a low ranked opponent.
Yeah, I play the bots frequently as a procrastination tool, and losing makes my rating sink like a rock.
-
Another thing I've noticed: Players with less games / lower ratings tend to have more connection problems or just leave in the middle of games at times.
-
Another thing I've noticed: Players with less games / lower ratings tend to have more connection problems or just leave in the middle of games at times.
Maybe they have less games due to the connection issues?
-
JSH, you're currently playing a rated game with a player sporting a 0-0 record. C'mon, man. :P
-
As mentioned above, I'm still quite new to the Goko System and their ratings.
My first impression of the rating system is that it's actually quite good. Swingy, but good.
Yesterday I started at 7K, then dropped to 6.6K and eventually climbed back up to 7K.
Quite a gap, but I haven't played that many games yet so I can understand this.
However, their good rating system can only function properly if they implement some kind of matching system.
Both on Iso and on Goko I always tried to play the highest ranked person I could find. That's more fun and as a bonus it's better for my rating.
When I play against someone approximately 300 points below me, I'm supposed to win something between 55% and 60% to maintain rating.
When I play against someone about 2000 points below me, I need to win about 80%.
Although both are doable, there's no fun in the second. I used the word 'need' on purpose, and I don't like what it does to me. I either 'do what I'm supposed to do' or 'I lose'.
And... I can't imagine there's much fun for the other player either.
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.
The way the ladder affects you is in fact a choice, and I don't agree with it.
I'm not scared to try something new at all. Sometimes it makes me lose and that's ok. Usually my opponent is happy enough for the both of us.
Trying out new things or combo's I haven't seen before is the main reason I like playing this game.
Besides: if I lose a game I could have won, then my rating is temporarily a little bit lower then it's supposed to be. Future games will automatically compensate.
The only way my rating goes up in the long run is if I get better.
Although I like being on top of the leaderboard, I apparently care less about rating then you do. Yes, there is a lot of randomness in Dominion. However, there also are a lot of decisions. And those decisions have a huge impact on your chances. I see a lot of people blaming their bad luck where in fact they just played poorly. When I lose a game of Dominion, I almost always can find a point where I made a bad decision myself. And when I can't, I'm just not smart enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm yet to play a game of Dominion where I don't make any mistakes. This game is a lot more complicated then most people seem to realize.
Blaming your bad luck after the game kills your learning process.
Blaming your bad luck during the game stops you from 'making the best of you bad position'.
Blaming your bad luck in the chat isn't any fun for your opponent.
Really, there's barely ever any point in whining about bad luck.
...unless there is a need to save your own ego, which is both understandable and human.
-
As mentioned above, I'm still quite new to the Goko System and their ratings.
My first impression of the rating system is that it's actually quite good. Swingy, but good.
Yesterday I started at 7K, then dropped to 6.6K and eventually climbed back up to 7K.
Quite a gap, but I haven't played that many games yet so I can understand this.
However, their good rating system can only function properly if they implement some kind of matching system.
Both on Iso and on Goko I always tried to play the highest ranked person I could find. That's more fun and as a bonus it's better for my rating.
When I play against someone approximately 300 points below me, I'm supposed to win something between 55% and 60% to maintain rating.
When I play against someone about 2000 points below me, I need to win about 80%.
Although both are doable, there's no fun in the second. I used the word 'need' on purpose, and I don't like what it does to me. I either 'do what I'm supposed to do' or 'I lose'.
And... I can't imagine there's much fun for the other player either.
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.
The way the ladder affects you is in fact a choice, and I don't agree with it.
I'm not scared to try something new at all. Sometimes it makes me lose and that's ok. Usually my opponent is happy enough for the both of us.
Trying out new things or combo's I haven't seen before is the main reason I like playing this game.
Besides: if I lose a game I could have won, then my rating is temporarily a little bit lower then it's supposed to be. Future games will automatically compensate.
The only way my rating goes up in the long run is if I get better.
Although I like being on top of the leaderboard, I apparently care less about rating then you do. Yes, there is a lot of randomness in Dominion. However, there also are a lot of decisions. And those decisions have a huge impact on your chances. I see a lot of people blaming their bad luck where in fact they just played poorly. When I lose a game of Dominion, I almost always can find a point where I made a bad decision myself. And when I can't, I'm just not smart enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm yet to play a game of Dominion where I don't make any mistakes. This game is a lot more complicated then most people seem to realize.
Blaming your bad luck after the game kills your learning process.
Blaming your bad luck during the game stops you from 'making the best of you bad position'.
Blaming your bad luck in the chat isn't any fun for your opponent.
Really, there's barely ever any point in whining about bad luck.
...unless there is a need to save your own ego, which is both understandable and human.
I love this post. I especially agree about the whole blaming bad luck aspect. It sometimes happen such as the boards where my opponent gets a 5/2 Dame Anna on a cursing board with no other trasher, but you make a great point.
Also, I think you are right, the biggest culprit of the ratings is a lack of good matchmaking.
-
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.
I don't think you are being an elitist by requesting to play players higher than a certain score or rank. Although, I do understand and respect where you are coming from, it can be really annoying to play a newbie who might not know some of the cards on the board and then hear them complain or say "well I didn't really understand those cards, I've never played with them before". A person should know when they are playing a player with a high rank that maybe some of the cards will be foreign to them. Also, the pro rating drop from losing to lower ranked players is frustrating too.
-
One issue with all the 4000+/5000+ demands is that they make the start of one's Goko career quite tricky. Especially now that the bot rankings seem to be dropping (for whatever reason) to low 3000s, it is actually non-trivial even for fairly good players to reach sufficient pro rating. The only options are beating the bots very consistently or getting lucky with finding some middle-ranked opponents willing to play pro games but not insisting on high rank.
I should be good enough opponent for most (was consistently around lvl 30 or so in iso), but after a couple of attempts to find decent opponents without highly restrictive rating gaps I simply gave up. Of course the blame is on Goko for not having proper matchmaking, but the way people "solve" the problem is definitely not helping newbies who would not satisfy any of the properties the good players are trying to avoid; I would not play more slowly, I would not quit, I would be just as chatty, and I should be able to offer interesting enough opposition. I still understand them as I would probably do the same, but I wanted to provide this alternative viewpoint anyway.
-
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.
I don't think you are being an elitist by requesting to play players higher than a certain score or rank. Although, I do understand and respect where you are coming from, it can be really annoying to play a newbie who might not know some of the cards on the board and then hear them complain or say "well I didn't really understand those cards, I've never played with them before". A person should know when they are playing a player with a high rank that maybe some of the cards will be foreign to them. Also, the pro rating drop from losing to lower ranked players is frustrating too.
I think my most fun matches have been with inexperienced players, because they didn't mind losing and wanted to learn what they did wrong. Heck, and of course they even won some of the matches.
-
One issue with all the 4000+/5000+ demands is that they make the start of one's Goko career quite tricky. Especially now that the bot rankings seem to be dropping (for whatever reason) to low 3000s, it is actually non-trivial even for fairly good players to reach sufficient pro rating. The only options are beating the bots very consistently or getting lucky with finding some middle-ranked opponents willing to play pro games but not insisting on high rank.
I should be good enough opponent for most (was consistently around lvl 30 or so in iso), but after a couple of attempts to find decent opponents without highly restrictive rating gaps I simply gave up. Of course the blame is on Goko for not having proper matchmaking, but the way people "solve" the problem is definitely not helping newbies who would not satisfy any of the properties the good players are trying to avoid; I would not play more slowly, I would not quit, I would be just as chatty, and I should be able to offer interesting enough opposition. I still understand them as I would probably do the same, but I wanted to provide this alternative viewpoint anyway.
This is certainly a considerable viewpoint. However, even with bots at 3500 (banker bot right now), it's not such a big problem to get to 4000. And there you are. If you own cards and host games, you'll certainly get some 5000+ players to play with you then. All those guys in the top x00 of the leaderboard have somehow got there - and it hasn't been any magic involved.
-
One issue with all the 4000+/5000+ demands is that they make the start of one's Goko career quite tricky. Especially now that the bot rankings seem to be dropping (for whatever reason) to low 3000s, it is actually non-trivial even for fairly good players to reach sufficient pro rating.
The moment I write this Banker Bot has 4190 pro rating, Lord Bottington has 4029, Defender Bot has 4254. As long as someone wins more often than not against them, it should be easy to get your rating over 4500. And with this rating (at least when you have the cards, no idea how much does this change if you don't) it is very easy to find opponents (my rating is usually 4500-4700, I play with 3500+ and almost never have to wait more than one minute for a game).
If things are way worse when you have no cards, I guess this is more due to overall shortage of people with cards at Goko.
-
This is certainly a considerable viewpoint. However, even with bots at 3500 (banker bot right now), it's not such a big problem to get to 4000.
It's not terribly hard, but still a threshold. In particular, it requires doing something that many might consider boring. Furthermore, an infrequent medium-level player (maybe someone who would sit around 4500-5000 if playing a lot) needs to do it again every time they decide to play, due to the fairly heavy rating drops due to inactivity -- at least my rating that I once pumped to 4000+ had dropped to something like 3200 when I came back after some weeks. Someone who only wants to play for an hour or so every Sunday might easily find the first 20 minutes of that time spent honing their rating against the bots just to look credible...
Hosting games with all sets naturally helps, but given the current pricing model the game is supposed to be kind of playable also without that. I'll buy all of them if the remaining major issues (matchmaking being the most critical one) are fixed, but not being able to enjoy (very) casual play easily before that is making it less likely for me to reach the point where I'm happy enough with their product.
-
I have never played a pro game against bots, and got over 4000 before I bought any cards just by joining games in the lobby (more of which than I would have liked were base only).
Other people have mentioned this here or elsewhere: if I'm hosting games with a minimum rating and I recognise you from here then I'll accept whatever your rating. (This naturally leads to embarrassment if I don't recognise somebody. :) )
-
The moment I write this Banker Bot has 4190 pro rating, Lord Bottington has 4029, Defender Bot has 4254.
Okay, so they are simply extremely swingy. Yesterday none of them was above 3500 or so.
Edit: Not so swingy after all. It seems I was looking at the bot's casual ratings, due to the ridiculous interface. When you create a pro game and click "Add bot", it shows the list of bots with their casual rankings... This makes absolutely no sense, so I never even thought it could be showing something else than the pro rating. Indeed the bots are close to 4000, it's just their casual rating that is below 3500.
I guess one struggle for people with no cards is also that the bots are stronger on Base than they would be with all cards (for various reasons; simpler cards, BM being often close to optimal, probably more development spent on optimizing the bots for that set). Hence, their rating is actually lower than their true skill is when playing with Base only, assuming some people with other sets still play against them every now and then (no idea if anyone does).
(Related to the point of recognizing people from here or iso: At least I have a different name in Goko due to having registered with Google+ during the beta. Is it still impossible to change the name?)
-
(Related to the point of recognizing people from here or iso: At least I have a different name in Goko due to having registered with Google+ during the beta. Is it still impossible to change the name?)
Don't know, but you can put your goko name in your forum profile...
-
It's possible to change the name and I think it has been for a long time, but I can't for the life of me remember how, you have to click on your name on the main screen or on the goko page or something. I remember never being able to find it, that gets asked once every few weeks on getsatisfaction.
-
Yeah if you go to goko.com and click on your name in the top right, you can change it. Doesn't work from the dominion page.
-
(Related to the point of recognizing people from here or iso: At least I have a different name in Goko due to having registered with Google+ during the beta. Is it still impossible to change the name?)
I think it's possible somewhere on the Goko main page. But I think the best way to be recognized as f.ds member is to get yourself a custom avatar - having one clearly shows you use Nutki's extension so most probably use this forum as well.
-
Back to the main topic, I think newbies are better off not playing the bots. Especially if you are okay playing with the base set, it can be very enjoyable playing with new players. (Or you can just buy the cards and host games with new players) The best thing about it is you don't lose your ranking if you lose! When I started climbing the ladder, I never set restrictions, and in about 15 games I was in close to 5000. IMO that is when you should start to set restrictions. No one wants to loose a game to a noob and drop 500 points.
-
Every ambitious player wants to play against stronger opponents. Playing against weaker opponents is a courtesy -- one that's necessary for the system to work in equilibrium.
If ratings requirements bug you, ask yourself whether your average opponent has been weaker or stronger than you. Actually, most of us are terrible at judging our own ability, so just check your win-loss ratio. ;)
A ratio better than 1-to-1 means you mostly play weaker opponents... you're a contributor.
A ratio worse than 1-to-1 means you mostly play stronger opponents... you're a leech.
Folks near the top are contributors perforce; folks near the bottom are leeches for the same reason. But if you're in the middle and you're a leech, then you really shouldn't be griping about requirements you don't meet. Instead, consider extending to weaker players the courtesy that has already been extended to you.
-
A ratio better than 1-to-1 means you mostly play weaker opponents... you're a contributor.
A ratio worse than 1-to-1 means you mostly play stronger opponents... you're a leech.
Thank god i´m not a leech ;)
-
I was a contributor even when leeching on other's sets. ;) I really don't mind playing people ranked a lot lower than me most of the time. I prefer to play against people who know the game and know the cards, but I don't always care about that. Sometimes I want a nice and tense game. That's when I put a rating restriction in the title. And people tend to get to play with me even if they have lower rating than the one I've set as a requirement. I prefer to play over not playing.
-
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.
I don't think you are being an elitist by requesting to play players higher than a certain score or rank. Although, I do understand and respect where you are coming from, it can be really annoying to play a newbie who might not know some of the cards on the board and then hear them complain or say "well I didn't really understand those cards, I've never played with them before". A person should know when they are playing a player with a high rank that maybe some of the cards will be foreign to them. Also, the pro rating drop from losing to lower ranked players is frustrating too.
I think my most fun matches have been with inexperienced players, because they didn't mind losing and wanted to learn what they did wrong. Heck, and of course they even won some of the matches.
Nicely put! Although most of the time newbie players that are humble and ask what they did wrong, usually turn out to eventually be really good players with some practice. The ones that complain and blame probably never hit their full potential. In my case it was very true that once I started having more experienced players critic me after I lost, was really when I started to greatly improve my skill. I just wish goko's rating system was a tad more forgiving.
-
Putting my differences with the system in place aside, I have to admit I think it's pretty accurate just by looking at the top 25 or so players.
I see a lot of names that were also on top on the Iso leaderboard, so if you're a good player, you'll get an appropriate high rating in the end.
I'm even proud that I'm in the top 25 (~6200) given how little games I play, maybe 5 per day maximum, so it seems with this rating system there is less focus on uncertainty. And I don't even have any cards, full-leech-mode! :D
What I take away from it is this: I think I can hold my own and play competitively against anyone on the list and that's all that matters for me. I don't need to be on top, but I like to be good enough that I don't feel overwhelmed by anybody up there. It's a bit sad though that there are many kingdoms with blatant dominant strategies or, more likely, sub-strategies like: be the first to get or do X, making shuffle luck a big factor in those games. However, the randomness is also a feature, making it able to pull of some crazy comebacks. :)
I don't know how 4ks and 5ks feel about the system though.
-
I think there's another point that needs to be made here, and I'm going to sound like a bit of a jerk for saying it:
Not everyone can expect to be 5000+ rated. Not everyone can expect to be 4000+ rated. I think the estimates have been that a 4000 Goko rating is near a 10-15 Iso level. The space below that is more than half the old Iso leaderboard.
Requesting to play with 4000+ if you're already 5000+ is not exactly keeping those with under 4000 rating from playing with people who are of approximately even skill... there are plenty of players with ratings in that range.
-
Putting my differences with the system in place aside, I have to admit I think it's pretty accurate just by looking at the top 25 or so players.
I see a lot of names that were also on top on the Iso leaderboard, so if you're a good player, you'll get an appropriate high rating in the end.
I'm even proud that I'm in the top 25 (~6200) given how little games I play, maybe 5 per day maximum, so it seems with this rating system there is less focus on uncertainty. And I don't even have any cards, full-leech-mode! :D
What I take away from it is this: I think I can hold my own and play competitively against anyone on the list and that's all that matters for me. I don't need to be on top, but I like to be good enough that I don't feel overwhelmed by anybody up there. It's a bit sad though that there are many kingdoms with blatant dominant strategies or, more likely, sub-strategies like: be the first to get or do X, making shuffle luck a big factor in those games. However, the randomness is also a feature, making it able to pull of some crazy comebacks. :)
I don't know how 4ks and 5ks feel about the system though.
I am 32 in the pro leaderboard and I am pretty sure I do not deserve it.
-
(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s631/Drab_Emordnilap/number10_zps2da819f1.png)
This totally counts, right? Clearly I am in the top ten best Dominion players. ???
-
This totally counts, right? Clearly I am in the top ten best Dominion players. ???
Don't disparage the leaderboard! We need to keep the fiction alive!
-
I mean, the leaderboard can't be that inaccurate. It has Stef and WanderingWinder at the top, followed closely by Rabid and lespeutere.
-
I mean, the leaderboard can't be that inaccurate. It has Stef and WanderingWinder at the top, followed closely by Rabid and lespeutere.
(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s631/Drab_Emordnilap/c45e7a64-6b3d-478d-858b-6cb3f8b08caa_zpsd8756a48.jpg?t=1369666632)
Then I lost a game. But still! :P
-
I'm number 10, now!
(Do I risk playing a game, almost certainly dropping like 6 spots? )
-
(Do I risk playing a game, almost certainly dropping like 6 spots? )
/chicken
-
I mean, the leaderboard can't be that inaccurate. It has Stef and WanderingWinder at the top, followed closely by Rabid and lespeutere.
(http://i1309.photobucket.com/albums/s631/Drab_Emordnilap/c45e7a64-6b3d-478d-858b-6cb3f8b08caa_zpsd8756a48.jpg?t=1369666632)
Then I lost a game. But still! :P
Hey i´m in the top 10 too. this leader-board is in my opinion well balanced and totally representing the true skill of people.
Its definitely the best leader-board ever. much better the iso (where i was only level 25)
-
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.
The way the ladder affects you is in fact a choice, and I don't agree with it.
I'm not scared to try something new at all. Sometimes it makes me lose and that's ok. Usually my opponent is happy enough for the both of us.
Trying out new things or combo's I haven't seen before is the main reason I like playing this game.
Besides: if I lose a game I could have won, then my rating is temporarily a little bit lower then it's supposed to be. Future games will automatically compensate.
The only way my rating goes up in the long run is if I get better.
Although I like being on top of the leaderboard, I apparently care less about rating then you do. Yes, there is a lot of randomness in Dominion. However, there also are a lot of decisions. And those decisions have a huge impact on your chances. I see a lot of people blaming their bad luck where in fact they just played poorly. When I lose a game of Dominion, I almost always can find a point where I made a bad decision myself. And when I can't, I'm just not smart enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm yet to play a game of Dominion where I don't make any mistakes. This game is a lot more complicated then most people seem to realize.
Blaming your bad luck after the game kills your learning process.
Blaming your bad luck during the game stops you from 'making the best of you bad position'.
Blaming your bad luck in the chat isn't any fun for your opponent.
Really, there's barely ever any point in whining about bad luck.
...unless there is a need to save your own ego, which is both understandable and human.
Stef, I like pretty much all of what you've said here, but Davio's remarks about ladder psychology are a genuine concern and really keep some people from playing. Ladder anxiety is enough of a concern that, for the first Starcraft 2 expansion, Blizzard added an entirely separate "Unranked" way to play. The only difference, from what I understand, is that you never see your rank/MMR. And more people are playing the game now.
So, yes, you do get to choose your response to being ranked. But it's better for the game as a whole if you don't force everybody to make that choice.