Print

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

[Awaclus]

Personally, I'm appalled that they're not re-importing our ratings from Goko. With an app that had a HUGE history of crashing, they should know better.

Your rating doesn't build up from playing lots of games, it just adjusts as you play better. It only take a couple handfuls of games to get it close to where it was before.

I've played probably like 30 games and lost only a couple of them after MAKiNG MORE FUN was released, and I'm still in the mid-4000s.

[sc0UT]

Personally, I'm appalled that they're not re-importing our ratings from Goko. With an app that had a HUGE history of crashing, they should know better.

Your rating doesn't build up from playing lots of games, it just adjusts as you play better. It only take a couple handfuls of games to get it close to where it was before.

I've played probably like 30 games and lost only a couple of them after MAKiNG MORE FUN was released, and I'm still in the mid-4000s.

Yeah, you should challenge more bots!

[Beyond Awesome]

Same here. My rating is a lot lower because of my computer crashing a lot on the new client

[popsofctown]

Mic Qsenoch's point is still relevant.  If the crashing issue is fixed, your rating will quickly move to where it should be.  If the crashing issue remains, then importing your Goko rating won't help, it will be eroded after a handful of games.

Compared to other issues going on I don't think the handful of games it takes to restabilize after switching from Goko to MF is very relevant.

[-Stef-]

Also: even after they fix their automatch bugs (I'm convinced it currently is just bugged) we're stuck again with using the crappy goko-rating system for matching instead of the nice iso-levels.

That means that a frequent player will be the equivalent of 10-15 levels higher then someone of equal strength playing infrequent.

[werothegreat]

Also: even after they fix their automatch bugs (I'm convinced it currently is just bugged) we're stuck again with using the crappy goko-rating system for matching instead of the nice iso-levels.

That means that a frequent player will be the equivalent of 10-15 levels higher then someone of equal strength playing infrequent.

Sounds like someone should advise MF on how to make a rating system.

Another option would be to have ratings Hearthstone style - various ranks, etc. - but only have that count for games against humans, not bots.

[Beyond Awesome]

We should tell them bots should not count for ranked games. Right now they do.

[LastFootnote]

Remind me why bots shouldn't count for ranked games?

[popsofctown]

Remind me why bots shouldn't count for ranked games?

Surely, at least in combination with the activity level issue, you see a problem there. 

[Chris is me]

Apparently my opponent was very impressed with my Pawn buy, because on turn 3 with $4P in play he also bought a Pawn.

I've played quite a few games on v2.0 recently, and that thing always happens. It seems they don't really take your ranking into account while automatching.
Or maybe the leaderboard is not "settled" enough yet.

I think it does, but in a counterintuitive, shitty way.

The text of the option in question is "Compatible rating. Never more than 1000 below my rating". I think we all assumed that meant Opponent's Rating > (Your rating - 1000), but it might actually just mean Opponent's Rating < (Your rating - 1000). As in, their rating is never more than your rating - 1000, not never more than 1000 below your rating.

I just have consistently better games when I hit "any rating", and I can't figure out why. Maybe it's confirmation bias, I don't know.

[Kirian]

Stef who would buy Pawn with $4P on a Pool board.

I don't think I know that Stef.

Dammit, English language, you had one job!

[iguanaiguana]

Well, it looks like there is no web build yet, so I believe MF just announced my hiatus from dominion. Sad day.

[Kirian]

Well, it looks like there is no web build yet, so I believe MF just announced my hiatus from dominion. Sad day.

Telling paying customers they can no longer play seems like a really huge problem to me.

[popsofctown]

Apparently my opponent was very impressed with my Pawn buy, because on turn 3 with $4P in play he also bought a Pawn.

I've played quite a few games on v2.0 recently, and that thing always happens. It seems they don't really take your ranking into account while automatching.
Or maybe the leaderboard is not "settled" enough yet.

I think it does, but in a counterintuitive, shitty way.

If that's the case, it's not counterintuitive.  The written description saying "never more than 1000 below my rating" is not an intuition.  That would be a bug.

[rspeer]

Sounds like someone should advise MF on how to make a rating system.

Another option would be to have ratings Hearthstone style - various ranks, etc. - but only have that count for games against humans, not bots.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that Hearthstone ranks are a good rating system?

[Elanchana]

Also: even after they fix their automatch bugs (I'm convinced it currently is just bugged) we're stuck again with using the crappy goko-rating system for matching instead of the nice iso-levels.

That means that a frequent player will be the equivalent of 10-15 levels higher then someone of equal strength playing infrequent.

At least Iso will import our previous levels, right? If I have to do that entire level 30 grind again...

[popsofctown]

Sounds like someone should advise MF on how to make a rating system.

Another option would be to have ratings Hearthstone style - various ranks, etc. - but only have that count for games against humans, not bots.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting that Hearthstone ranks are a good rating system?

He didn't say it was a good option, he said it was an option, so I'm trying to give him a lot of the benefit of the doubt on it.

[SCSN]

It seems they don't really take your ranking into account while automatching.

I think it does, but in a counterintuitive, shitty way.

If that's the case, it's not counterintuitive.  The written description saying "never more than 1000 below my rating" is not an intuition.  That would be a bug.

He's saying that they might have interpreted the sentence as "Never more than (1000 below my rating)", i.e. anything in the range (-infinity, myRating-1000].

It sounds extremely far-fetched but I do think that on a linguistic level the sentence is just ambiguous enough for a small % of non-native speakers with no mathematical intuition to get it wrong, and those are exactly the sort of people you outsource your programming work to if all you care about is cutting corners costs.

I checked the code to see whether I could find anything like this, but they seem to just send your choice to the server, so that doesn't tell us anything.

[Mic Qsenoch]

At least Iso will import our previous levels, right? If I have to do that entire level 30 grind again...

That isn't how the ratings work! It sort of looks like that when the system has zero information, but only for a short period of playing. That's because the iso levels (and the Goko ratings) are their estimation of your skill minus some uncertainty (i.e. it is a conservative estimation of the player's skill). So when you start out it looks like their estimation of your skill is really low, but actually it's just really uncertain. After you lower that uncertainty by playing some games, your changes in level aren't from grinding out games but from actually getting better (mostly).

So if you're iso level 30, the "grind" will just be playing enough games that your uncertainty drops to a reasonable level. I'd guess that with a fresh account a person would be within 5 levels of their "actual" rating (higher or lower, with lower being more likely due to the uncertainty being subtracted) within 50 games or so. I'm confident that within 100 games your rating would just be whatever it's "supposed" to be (within a level or two).

I am making these numbers up, and probably skewing them low to support my position. But I have on a couple occasions created alts and gotten them to near the top of the leaderboard and it doesn't take that many games. People used to do this on isotropic as well and just by glancing through the current leaderboard you can see lots of players with high ratings and a low number of games. It doesn't take 1000 games to get a good sense of a player's skill.

[assemble_me]

At least Iso will import our previous levels, right? If I have to do that entire level 30 grind again...

So if you're iso level 30, the "grind" will just be playing enough games that your uncertainty drops to a reasonable level. I'd guess that with a fresh account a person would be within 5 levels of their "actual" rating (higher or lower, with lower being more likely due to the uncertainty being subtracted) within 50 games or so. I'm confident that within 100 games your rating would just be whatever it's "supposed" to be (within a level or two).

Looking at the current leader board, people with an uncertainty around 10 (which is as low as it gets ) have played at least 250 games.
andrewbartley with 54 games has an uncertainty of 18.6
JW with 95 games has an uncertainty of 14.4
Some guy with a very long (probably french name) name has 172 games and has an uncertainty of 12.7

So you need quite some more games to get back to your level, after 150 you're at least getting close.

[popsofctown]

It seems they don't really take your ranking into account while automatching.

I think it does, but in a counterintuitive, shitty way.

If that's the case, it's not counterintuitive.  The written description saying "never more than 1000 below my rating" is not an intuition.  That would be a bug.

He's saying that they might have interpreted the sentence as "Never more than (1000 below my rating)", i.e. anything in the range (-infinity, myRating-1000].

It sounds extremely far-fetched but I do think that on a linguistic level the sentence is just ambiguous enough for a small % of non-native speakers with no mathematical intuition to get it wrong, and those are exactly the sort of people you outsource your programming work to if all you care about is cutting corners costs.

I checked the code to see whether I could find anything like this, but they seem to just send your choice to the server, so that doesn't tell us anything.

OH I get it now

[SCSN]

My rating is down to 2600 or so. Looks like I've made MF playable at the cost of having no one left worth playing.

[Mic Qsenoch]

At least Iso will import our previous levels, right? If I have to do that entire level 30 grind again...

So if you're iso level 30, the "grind" will just be playing enough games that your uncertainty drops to a reasonable level. I'd guess that with a fresh account a person would be within 5 levels of their "actual" rating (higher or lower, with lower being more likely due to the uncertainty being subtracted) within 50 games or so. I'm confident that within 100 games your rating would just be whatever it's "supposed" to be (within a level or two).

Looking at the current leader board, people with an uncertainty around 10 (which is as low as it gets ) have played at least 250 games.
andrewbartley with 54 games has an uncertainty of 18.6
JW with 95 games has an uncertainty of 14.4
Some guy with a very long (probably french name) name has 172 games and has an uncertainty of 12.7

So you need quite some more games to get back to your level, after 150 you're at least getting close.

You don't have to have an uncertainty of 10 to be "back to your level", though it would help. In any case, a higher uncertainty of 2-4 levels is no real barrier to reaching some arbitrary cutoff (say, level 30). Thanks for looking up the numbers.

[DG]

You don't have to play particularly frequently to get a reasonable Iso level. I had about 200 games logged and those were just the league games I've played over all the league seasons. I've been in the top 5 of the Iso leaderboard for most of that time.

[popsofctown]

I'm 54 - 8 and still getting paired with people presumably 999 points below my level that think they should open Chancellor Smithy on a Witch board.

I think the matchmaking is probably the biggest funkiller on the new client