Print

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

[math]

I just won a game on Goko which finally pushed my pro rating over 6000!  I have been aiming for this, and failing, for several weeks.  I am currently #59 on the leaderboard, although I probably won't stay that high for long.  I'm just making this thread to celebrate/brag.

It's ironic that I only got my rating up to 17 on Isotropic before it shut down.  I wonder how high I could have gone there if I had been able to keep going.  Does anyone have an estimate as to what 6000 would be on iso?

[ashersky]

Congrats!

[jsh357]

seems to be equivalent with about level 35+ to me.

[Polk5440]

seems to be equivalent with about level 35+ to me.

I would agree with this.

I am waiting for the day when someone breaks 9000....

[Robz888]

seems to be equivalent with about level 35+ to me.

I concur. I'm currently hanging out in the 6300~ range, which seems not so far off my Level 42~ on Iso.

[Qvist]

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.

[qmech]

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?

[RTT]

i´m 6000 now already on goko and never got over 25 on ISO. I think reaching higher levels on Goko goes much faster.

[Qvist]

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 expect that I'm just lucky so far and as I only played ~100 Pro games on Goko so far the uncertainty factor is still high.
I play almost exclusively against people I know (that means mainly against all of you from the forums and also IRL friends), but I don't know how much this could affect the rating.

[Tables]

I had a lucky stream when I first started playing pro games, leading to the image in my sig. Now, I've just come off of a losing streak, and I'm below 5K. I think the system is far more temperamental (at first, at least) compared to Iso. I probably will end up hovering around 5.5K-6K, which is about level 30 on Iso.

[markusin]

My Goko pro rating is above 6000 now, but on Iso I had a hard time even maintaining a rating past 25. The thing is I mostly just play with anyone that joins my games. I'll still get like 20 points against someone with a rating below 1000 or something.

[jsh357]

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.

[WanderingWinder]

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.

[Polk5440]

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.

[Qvist]

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.

Well, I lost a lot of games today, so my guess might be right that I'm not that good. 

[Fabian]

Uhm speaking of rating.. I just beat some guy a few times in a row, I gained like 60 points or 50 points or whatever per game.

Then I beat him 47-46 and I gained... 0 points.

I can't really find words to describe how bad this rating system is if that just happened (and it did)

Edit: In picture form:

[Watno]

Yeah, I think there's a bug that occasionally games are ignored for rating. Happened to me a couple of times, but I don't think I ever reported it.

[Fabian]

Ok if that game was ignored because of some bug, I guess that's.. not as bad (lol imagine someone typing this sentence anywhere outside of goko)

[Watno]

I reported this on getsatisfaction with your pic now. Hope that's ok.

[qmech]

It's possible that the game deliberately doesn't reward very long winning streaks against the same player to discourage gaming of the leaderboard.

[WanderingWinder]

No, it's not that. I have had this happen before, too, where for some reason, seemingly randomly, I got 0 points off of a win... from someone who at the time was higher rated than me.

[Blueswan]

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).

[Twistedarcher]

If the rating system is an ELO-type rating system, which I believe someone from Goko said it was in a FAQ, then there's no true way to match ratings on goko to levels on isotropic.

The more active players there are, the higher the top ratings will be. More overall rating points will be in the system, allowing the scores to become slightly more spread out. As more and more people create accounts and participate in the rating system, the points will slowly gravitate towards the top players, increasing the top possible ratings ever so slightly.

The ratings that can be reasonably achieved, therefore, are determined mostly by the number of players. The only way someone would ever be able to reach 9000+ is if many, many more players joined in the rating system. If the number of players remains steady, it will be difficult for any player to get above the highest current ratings.

[WanderingWinder]

At what rating would you say that a player stops sucking?

Best guess? 10,000.

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.

[Twistedarcher]

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. The games with no gain are a mystery, to be sure, but it seems to have several components of the ELO system.

As to why ELO rather than Elo, I know that sports economics literature uses ELO rather than Elo. It probably should be Elo, since it's a guy's name and doesn't stand for anything, but I think both are acceptable.