Print

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

[Watno]

Since Goko justifies some of the stupid things it does with ridiculous argumentations (like only 3 in a 1000 games are supposed to have colonies) and seem to be hard to convince that they are wrong, I think we need to organize telling them this.
I'll give some get-satisfaction links of things to heavily protest against, please post in those threads and tell them that they are wrong.

It's ok selling a pack for more than it's individual components put together and calling this a 15% discount when you can buy gokoins cheaper in a bunch

Only 3 in a 1000 games should have colonies (Kevin's response)

A rating system in which you can lose points by winning isn't incredibly broken (Tanya's response)

Feel free to add to this list, maybe if more people tell them they're wrong they will believe it.

[DStu]

The short answer is that the discount comes from having to buy more Gokoins when you purchase the bundles. The discount comes in the cost of the Gokoins. Most people buy enough Gokoins to make a particular purchase (and we revamped our Gokoin amounts and pricing to reflect that trend).

m( m( m(

After reading all these responses on the getsatisfaction I get to believe that it was a clever move to not answer any questions in the beta...

Edit
Also

BTW Serf bot's actual rank is negative, but we display it Zero, and it is for anyone who has a negative rank. However in calculation the actual rank is taken, which gives negative points for those, who has big positive rank, even if they win.

Not that it should not be the case, I can't even imagine a system where that makes sense.  The difference if your rank is what should matter, and than there is no magical line at absolute rank 0 where the difference behaves differently, it's just a point like every other one on the line (except maybe x=y, where in deed something happens).  Anyway, with the logic that if your opponents rank is negative and you win you should lose points, doesn't this imply that if your opponents rank is negative and you lose you should win points?

[Watno]

Also, theory or some other lawyer: Could you sue goko for these missleading package deals? (not that I ask you to do so, just interested in wether it'd be possible)

[Polk5440]

The short answer is that the discount comes from having to buy more Gokoins when you purchase the bundles. The discount comes in the cost of the Gokoins. Most people buy enough Gokoins to make a particular purchase (and we revamped our Gokoin amounts and pricing to reflect that trend).

m( m( m(

After reading all these responses on the getsatisfaction I get to believe that it was a clever move to not answer any questions in the beta...

This is not being fair to jqs. He agrees with the premise because he had to ask the person responsible, and he said they are looking at remedying this.

Further, the megapack is more expensive because it includes zaps and coins in addition to the expansions. That was explained in a different thread.

At best, "rating shouldn't go down" is an idea. There are perfectly fine rating systems that can adjust your rating down when you play weak opponents. Just like if you don't play for a while, there are perfectly fine rating systems that adjust your rating down.

Look, I am all for helping them improve the Dominion experience, but the tone and target of the criticisms could be much better. You are right about the Colonies/Shelters, but with you sniping at them like this about every little thing, is it surprising they are ignoring you on the important things, too?

[Watno]

Intrigue Complete: 70
Seaside Complete: 70
Prosperity Complete: 70
Total: 210
All 3 (Super Pack 1), "15% off!": 230.

Super Pack 1 contains exactly those components afaik.
jqs ackknowlededged that the description should be changed, however he doesn't seem to grasp that this pricing scheme in itself is ridicolous.

I don't see how a rating system that makes my rating go down if win can be perfectly fine. It doesn't seem right to me.

Who do you think the criticism should target? I'm just pointing out things where i think people from goko are wrong, people from goko think they're right. This can best be solved by another person coming in and telling them they're wrong (or telling me I'm wrong, but I can hardly see that in those cases)

[DStu]

This is not being fair to jqs. He agrees with the premise because he had to ask the person responsible, and he said they are looking at remedying this.

This was not adressed at jqs, that was adressed at goko. And saying "you get this for an discount" while meaning "this one is more expansive, but we say it's a discount, because you will likely get a discount by other means when you order this", is, I will not say anything to this topic IANAL...

At best, "rating shouldn't go down" is an idea. There are perfectly fine rating systems that can adjust your rating down when you play weak opponents. Just like if you don't play for a while, there are perfectly fine rating systems that adjust your rating down.

Of course there are, but the reasoning that there is something special happen at 0, and exactly this is the reason why your rating will go down, is, as I said, I can not imagine a sane rating system to have this feature, at least no one in which you can get a negative rating.

Look, I am all for helping them improve the Dominion experience, but the tone and target of the criticisms could be much better. You are right about the Colonies/Shelters, but with you sniping at them like this about every little thing, is it surprising they are ignoring you on the important things, too?

They are probably "ignoring" me because I more or less have said nothing the last half year, except this week.  And maybe this rating thing is a little thing which just fits well to the Colony/Shelter thing, but calling something a discount which is none, or just in extreme reality-distortion-fields, that's definitely not a little thing, that's fooling your costumers...

[Polk5440]

Intrigue Complete: 70
Seaside Complete: 70
Prosperity Complete: 70
Total: 210
All 3 (Super Pack 1), "15% off!": 230.

Super Pack 1 contains exactly those components afaik.
jqs ackknowlededged that the description should be changed, however he doesn't seem to grasp that this pricing scheme in itself is ridicolous.

I thought you were referring to megapack. I now see the language on super pack 1.

I still give jqs the benefit of the doubt when reading the response. We'll see if the description is changed. As to the general pricing levels, if this structure was done on purpose, it can be viewed as misleading by some, but it is acceptable price discrimination in my book. You pay a little extra for the convenience of clicking only one time off the main screen, while more price conscious consumers will get a better deal by hunting around and piecing together a better deal themselves. This type of thing is done by companies all the time, though I suspect in Goko's case, it wasn't done on purpose. We'll see if they decide to change their prices again in the future.

I don't see how a rating system that makes my rating go down if win can be perfectly fine. It doesn't seem right to me.

Also, @DStu.
For example, Iso's rating system has the feature that if you don't play, your rating goes down. Most people are okay with this feature because you can't entrench yourself at a high spot. But, if you play a sufficiently weak opponent, you always win, thus you can prevent a rating decrease over time by occasionally playing someone weak enough. So if you are open to rating decreases because of not playing often enough, you should be open to rating systems where playing weak opponents may lead to rating decreases.

More generally, ELO systems often have this feature because your rating change depends on the relative skill level between you and your opponent.

Also, reasonable people can disagree about what properties a rating system should have and what it is the rating is supposed to reflect. There is no "telling them they're wrong" here.

Who do you think the criticism should target? I'm just pointing out things where i think people from goko are wrong, people from goko think they're right. This can best be solved by another person coming in and telling them they're wrong (or telling me I'm wrong, but I can hardly see that in those cases)

By target, I was more referring to items/problems rather than people. Some things are more critical than others; not every mistake/bug deserves the same level of condemnation. Telling them they're wrong can be done politely, which you generally do. I just thought this particular thread (and too many others on f.ds and getsatisfaction) has an overly negative tone not prone to actually being constructive and getting results and also ignores what positives there are.

They are probably "ignoring" me because I more or less have said nothing the last half year, except this week.  And maybe this rating thing is a little thing which just fits well to the Colony/Shelter thing, but calling something a discount which is none, or just in extreme reality-distortion-fields, that's definitely not a little thing, that's fooling your costumers...

Sorry, this was not directed at you, personally. More like directed at the tone of the thread; a vague, plural "you".

[DStu]

Also, @DStu.

As I said, I can perfectly see how your rating can go down by winning, just not how your rating can go down because the opponents skill is below 0. That sounds as if 0 is something special, and it should not be something special if you can cross the 0 with incremental updates, as the SerfBot seems to have done.

Of course it could also have meant: "Because the opponents skill is SOOOOOOOOO low you can't even imagine", but as I said, that's not how I understood it.

[Watno]

It's just that so far goko has ignnored instances of people telling them that they wrong (or that their potential customers disagree with them, if you like that better).

I'm not really into rating systems, but can you give me examples of where a rating system that causes rating decrease when winning is used?

[gryph202]

It's just that so far goko has ignnored instances of people telling them that they wrong (or that their potential customers disagree with them, if you like that better).

I'm not really into rating systems, but can you give me examples of where a rating system that causes rating decrease when winning is used?

Elo ratings can cause a win to decrease one's rating theoretically IF you win against a player with a sufficiently low rating.  The odds of that happening in most venues where Elo is used, such as in chess tournaments, is very very slim so as to be almost astronomical.  Unfortunately, due to intellectual property limitations and the worldwide use of Elo by official bodies, most online Elo users modify the formula somewhat in ways that can be detrimental to the formula's original spirit.

[Polk5440]

It's just that so far goko has ignnored instances of people telling them that they wrong (or that their potential customers disagree with them, if you like that better).

I'm not really into rating systems, but can you give me examples of where a rating system that causes rating decrease when winning is used?

I'll look for something later today. This actually might be harder than I thought because the examples I had in mind are not exact analogies to Dominion. It's more common when margin of victory matters or you're playing multiple games in a tournament, so you compare expected points to actual points (so a winning record in a tournament can cause your rating to go down).

Elo ratings can cause a win to decrease one's rating theoretically IF you win against a player with a sufficiently low rating.  The odds of that happening in most venues where Elo is used, such as in chess tournaments, is very very slim so as to be almost astronomical.  Unfortunately, due to intellectual property limitations and the worldwide use of Elo by official bodies, most online Elo users modify the formula somewhat in ways that can be detrimental to the formula's original spirit.

Yes, I should have said Elo-based systems. Modifications to the original can make this happen more often.

[Watno]

Are you sure about classic Elo having this problem? I just checked the formulae on wikipedia, and that doesn't support your claim (expected scores are always between 0 and 1, and the rating change is a positive multiple of 1-expected score if you win).
Anyway, my opinion is that a rating system shouldn't allow the possibility if loosing points by winning.

[greatexpectations]

Are you sure about classic Elo having this problem? I just checked the formulae on wikipedia, and that doesn't support your claim (expected scores are always between 0 and 1, and the rating change is a positive multiple of 1-expected score if you win).
Anyway, my opinion is that a rating system shouldn't allow the possibility if loosing points by winning.

i believe the potential for a rating drop in elo is tied to the uncertainty system. the only time you would see this sort of rating drop is if your mean skill rating gain was less than the change the match caused in your uncertainty. i am pretty sure that this is quite rare in isotropic's implementation of it.

[enfynet]

When pk cards had the online game running, they used elo very well. They even had a system to split 2-3-4 player games.

[DG]

There are a lot of problems with the rating system. Going into obscure examples to discuss one facet of rating system should not disguise the other problems.

I agree that winning should not harm your ranking. There should be no incentive for players to decline matches based on ranking. Drawn matches can have far too much penalty as well, especially in multiplayer where sharing a victory makes you feel as if you've lost to everyone.

[gryph202]

There are a lot of problems with the rating system. Going into obscure examples to discuss one facet of rating system should not disguise the other problems.

I agree that winning should not harm your ranking. There should be no incentive for players to decline matches based on ranking. Drawn matches can have far too much penalty as well, especially in multiplayer where sharing a victory makes you feel as if you've lost to everyone.

Oddly enough, the same argument has been made about the Elo system used by the FIDE, and it's arguably the most "statistically pure" system to rank people according to chess skill (in such a game where there is no element of luck and skilled players win consistently against less skilled players).  Indeed, chess players over the years have as much as admitted they pick events and opponents with their ratings specifically in mind in order to preserve them.  Is this ever going to become an issue in Dominion?  Part of me hopes so, because it would mean that Dominion, like chess, is really popular.  Growing pains aren't necessarily a bad thing.

[Beyond Awesome]

My biggest problem is with the Colonies/Shelters. Colonies seems to show up enough, but Shelters don't. I almost never see them like as in they show up 3 out of 1000 games. I see something wrong with that because I have paid for the full Dominion experience.

I can also say that I have started to preserve my rating on Goko. It is not just a win against a 0 opponent that is a problem. But, even playing people at level 4000 is problematic. You barely go up at all in ranking for winning and losing really sets you back in points. I played a game two days ago where the only trasher was the trashing Knight and it was a Familiar board. My opponent got first turn advantage and also opened 5/2 to my 3/4 and opened with that Knight. My oppoenent did not play as well me. At the end, my opponent won 14 to 10. He had 0 curses to my 6. There was nothing I could have done better that I know of that would have helped me in that situation. But, the amount of points lost for that game was stupid. So, what I am getting at is because of the random factor, you can play a lower skilled opponent and losing against that player really hurts even if you played really well.

[ashersky]

This is an eye-opening thread.  I don't want to be a new Goko player--even beating me hurts your valid, earned rating?  That's insane.

[Kirian]

This is an eye-opening thread.  I don't want to be a new Goko player--even beating me hurts your valid, earned rating?  That's insane.

Thankfully, it's quite easy to boost your rating into the 3-4k range by playing maybe 6-8 pro games vs a mid-level bot.  Given where I sit, Level 25 on Isotropic is about 6000 on Goko.  The problem is that Level 0 on Iso is really around 3000 on Goko.

[Polk5440]

Iso uses TrueSkill. (I think Goko uses something similar??? I am not sure, though.) There is tons of info on it via Microsoft (see here and here). I think of TrueSkill as Elo-like, but maybe that is not technically right.

I can also say that I have started to preserve my rating on Goko. It is not just a win against a 0 opponent that is a problem.... So, what I am getting at is because of the random factor, you can play a lower skilled opponent and losing against that player really hurts even if you played really well.

BA is correct. Based on the Q&A a while back, the level is the mean minus two standard deviations (so it has an uncertainty factor), so you can win a game and have your rating go down. It seeds new players at mean 5500 (Iso seeded at 25) with starting level 1000 (Iso started at 0).

Via the TrueSkill FAQ:

Q: Well there must be a bug in the system because I jumped into a 4 person race with 3 lower ranked individuals, won the race and my position in the league I was in dropped about 50 spots.

A: Surprisingly, this is not a bug and it happens when players with very small σ but widely varying μ get matched together (thanks to rugdivot for figuring this out). For example, try this link.

So, what is going on here? Between any two games of a gamer, the TrueSkill ranking system assumes that the true skill of a gamer, that is, μ, can have changed slightly either up or down; this property is what allows the ranking system to adapt to a change in the skill of a gamer. Technically, this is achieved by a small increase in the σ of each participating gamer before the game outcome is incorporated. Usually, a game outcome provides enough pieces of information to reduce this increased uncertainty. But, in a badly matched game (as the one described above) this is not the case; in this case, nothing can be learned about the winner from the game outcome (because it was already known before the game that the winner was significantly higher ranked than the other gamers he has beaten). So, conservatively speaking, the winner's skill might have slightly decreased! Note that this can only happen if the gamer is not matched correctly so that he can "prove" to the TrueSkill ranking system that his skill has not changed.

@DStu, I am not sure 0 is special based on the Q&A.

Regarding Elo, I think Watno is correct that a strict application of what the Wikipedia article has would not result in rating declines after one game if you care about win/loss only. If you cared about points in a tournament (e.g. Chess), then you can have a decline in rating even if you have a winning record (in a Chess tournament). The article provides this example:

An example may help clarify. Suppose Player A has a rating of 1613, and plays in a five-round tournament. He loses to a player rated 1609, draws with a player rated 1477, defeats a player rated 1388, defeats a player rated 1586, and loses to a player rated 1720. His actual score is (0 + 0.5 + 1 + 1 + 0) = 2.5. His expected score, calculated according to the formula above, was (0.506 + 0.686 + 0.785 + 0.539 + 0.351) = 2.867. Therefore his new rating is (1613 + 32×(2.5 − 2.867)) = 1601, assuming that a K-factor of 32 is used.

Note that while two wins, two losses, and one draw may seem like a par score, it is worse than expected for Player A because his opponents were lower rated on average.

Online Scrabble systems sometimes care about the absolute difference in score, not just win/loss, so you can lose points, there, too if you don't do well enough. For instance, in this implementation, you can lose points if one player is provisional.

I have no problem personally with systems that may result in rating declines for both not playing enough and not playing strong enough players, even after one game, as long as the rating does a decent job of resulting in ranking people well over time.


This is a bit piecemeal, but I hope it answers what people were asking me.

[dondon151]

Losing points when winning against a worse player would not be a problem if there existed an automatch option not unlike Iso's level +/- 20 option.

[Phelddagrif]

In my opinion:

A rating system should never discourage play. If players are avoiding play because of the system, this is bad. Rating systems such as elo are always more inaccurate the further you get from each other, so you always end up with a system where advanced players avoid games with less advanced, or seek it out. Either is bad (in the latter case it means people avoid the closer ranks which are generally the best games) Either is also bad in particular for less advanced players because they are either avoided, or preyed upon.

The solution which I have seen work for this problem is to make it so that all games outside a certain range is rating free. This works quite well. Beginners get to play against experts and learn from them, and the experts can experiment, be ambassadors for their game, and just have a good time. Yes, there are players who will under this system not play beginners but those are exactly the players you don't want to have playing your beginners. I would strongly recommend any game with a skilled rating system look at the extremes of the rating system, the inevitable difference that exists where experts should either avoid or seek games, and make those rating free.

Also an aside. A tie game should totally be able to drop the rank of the more advanced player. However, unless I am mistaken there is no such thing in dominion, there is a tie breaker which determines the winner. There is no difference between winning on the tie breaker or by 100 points, to my understanding of the game. Sometimes games institute some wacky tournament rules, however, so if I am wrong about that I apologize!

[eHalcyon]

Also an aside. A tie game should totally be able to drop the rank of the more advanced player. However, unless I am mistaken there is no such thing in dominion, there is a tie breaker which determines the winner. There is no difference between winning on the tie breaker or by 100 points, to my understanding of the game. Sometimes games institute some wacky tournament rules, however, so if I am wrong about that I apologize!

Dominion games can end in a tie, though the official rules say that the player(s) share a mutual victory in this case.  The way it works is that whoever has most points wins.  If multiple players have the same number of points, whoever has played the fewest number of turns (not counting Outpost and Possession) wins.  In practice, this means whoever is last in turn order will win if an earlier player ends the game.  For example, if it is a tie on points in a 2p game, the second player wins if the first player ended the game on his turn.  But if the second player ends the game on her turn, then both players will rejoice in their shared victory.

[Phelddagrif]

Ahh, that's right. It has been a while. So in any case, if you can get a tie, the higher ranked player, in this case should lose points. If your scores are tie but the game isn't it should be a full win for the victor.

The fact that you can have a tie score and tie game aren't synonymous leads to some confusion in discussion.

[loppo]

Ahh, that's right. It has been a while. So in any case, if you can get a tie, the higher ranked player, in this case should lose points. If your scores are tie but the game isn't it should be a full win for the victor.

this actually happens in the rating system right now. I had this happen yesterday, where i lost 25 points for a tie with a player ~1500 points lower than me.

And i certainly felt it's not right. It was a game with no +buy and we traded provinces back and forth. He broke PPR, and i couldn't do anything but tie, since i was 2nd player. Why should i get penalized for this?