# Per game rating floors

mrmist
Site Ideas 26 Nov '12 11:06
1. 26 Nov '12 11:06
It might be nice e.g. in certain banded tournament games for there to be a "rating floor" on an apponent's rating.

I'll illustrate by example -

A person joins a game with a 1300 rating.
Whilst that game is in progress, they lose/time out, a lot of games, costing hundreds of rating points, leaving them on, say, 1000.
Meanwhile, they still have a few games in progress, which they continue playing.

Now, the raft of games that this person has lost through timeout has cost them rating points, but, one can assume, it hasn't cost them 300 points of actual skill. They are still playing as a 1300 player. If they win, people playing them will lose against a 1000 rated player.

This seems a little broken. Furthermore, it actively encourages other people engaged in games against that player to take timeout victories rather than continue playing against what might suddenly be a low-rated player.

So my proposal is fairly simple - either the calculation for ratings at the end of a game is based on the rating or tournament rating of a player when the game starts, or the rating is based on that rating but with a floor on it to guard against sudden rating drops.

I guess even this could be set per-game, so that you could decide at the outset whether to play against starting or "current" ratings.

Cheers.
2. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
26 Nov '12 14:31
Originally posted by mrmist
It might be nice e.g. in certain banded tournament games for there to be a "rating floor" on an apponent's rating.

I'll illustrate by example -

A person joins a game with a 1300 rating.
Whilst that game is in progress, they lose/time out, a lot of games, costing hundreds of rating points, leaving them on, say, 1000.
Meanwhile, they still have a few ...[text shortened]... ld decide at the outset whether to play against starting or "current" ratings.

Cheers.
Why limit it to certain games or tournaments? I've long advocated rating floors in general. The idea is simple. Once you establish yourself at a certain rating level [say, maintain 1600+ for 30 games] you have a floor of 1500 [one hundred points lower than your established class].

After all, people outside 'certain banded tournament games' also hate playing extremely underrated players.
3. 26 Nov '12 22:24
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why limit it to certain games or tournaments? I've long advocated rating floors in general. The idea is simple. Once you establish yourself at a certain rating level [say, maintain 1600+ for 30 games] you have a floor of 1500 [one hundred points lower than your established class].

After all, people outside 'certain banded tournament games' also hate playing extremely underrated players.
There seems to be a lot of discontent among people, especially between I V V and Metallica clans that :

A: there is cheating, and

B: there are matches set up with ratings that are not exactly equal.

Is there not a mechanism whereby some adjudicating body would take this into consideration when clan matches are set up?

I am only asking because when I read the forums on clans, there are an awful
lot of unhappy people out there.

Can the administrators not sort it out?

Surely there must be a way to satisfy everyone that:

A: the match is an equal one, and

B: when the eventual clan emerges successful,

The result is not tainted by innuendo and suspicion.
4. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
26 Nov '12 22:281 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
There seems to be a lot of discontent among people, especially between I V V and Metallica clans...
5. Kewpie
since 1-Feb-07
26 Nov '12 22:35
IVV and Metallica have been brawling since Adam was a pup. Nobody else gives them a moment's thought, and you shouldn't either.
6. 26 Nov '12 22:53
Originally posted by Kewpie
IVV and Metallica have been brawling since Adam was a pup. Nobody else gives them a moment's thought, and you shouldn't either.
Yes I can see that, but the points I make should be addressed by

If a proper adjudicating body was overseeing all clan games,
then perhaps all this unpleasantness could never take place.
7. Kewpie
since 1-Feb-07
27 Nov '12 01:21
You've missed the point. Clans are fighting units, like football teams. Badmouthing the opponents is considered normal tactics these days, both to motivate your troops and to intimidate the opposition.
8. Ponderable
chemist
27 Nov '12 13:19
Thank you for the positive input Johnny.

The point however is thatclan games can't be really fair. As a captain of the Crazy Aquarists I try to set up as fair challenges as possible. But my rating for example fluctuates in a range of more than 200 points...so who is my exact equal?

I am still for a permanent rating floor in tournaments. and would suggest the display of that e.g. in clan's matches to make things easier.
9. 27 Nov '12 13:53
Originally posted by Ponderable
Thank you for the positive input Johnny.

The point however is thatclan games can't be really fair. As a captain of the Crazy Aquarists I try to set up as fair challenges as possible. But my rating for example fluctuates in a range of more than 200 points...so who is my exact equal?

I am still for a permanent rating floor in tournaments. and would suggest the display of that e.g. in clan's matches to make things easier.
Maybe you're right.ðŸ˜ž
10. Scheel
<blank>
28 Nov '12 00:20
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why limit it to certain games or tournaments? I've long advocated rating floors in general. The idea is simple. Once you establish yourself at a certain rating level [say, maintain 1600+ for 30 games] you have a floor of 1500 [one hundred points lower than your established class].

After all, people outside 'certain banded tournament games' also hate playing extremely underrated players.
Problem is that what you suggest would mess with the balance of the rating system, currently one player loses points and the other player gains points.
But if a fictive player is at her fictive rating floor and loses a match you would still want to award points for the win, but can not subtract points for the loss due to the rating floor.

That way the transaction increase the total number of points, these points will spread out in the system and lead to rating inflation. Soon you will have people with +3000 ratings.

Would not be a catastrophe, after all its just points on a Internet page, but still.
11. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
28 Nov '12 07:07
Originally posted by Scheel
Problem is that what you suggest would mess with the balance of the rating system, currently one player loses points and the other player gains points.
But if a fictive player is at her fictive rating floor and loses a match you would still want to award points for the win, but can not subtract points for the loss due to the rating floor.

That way the tra ...[text shortened]... ratings.

Would not be a catastrophe, after all its just points on a Internet page, but still.
The balance of the system is disturbed more by a new player who acquires a provisional rating. The new player gets hundreds of points that weren't taken from the opponent.

I don't see why inflation matters. Ratings are merely a relative measure of playing strength. Allowing a person to fall hundreds of points below their actual strength destroys the whole point of the rating system. Inflation just means a bit of an adjustment phase as those points get distributed through the pool.
12. venda
Dave
28 Nov '12 15:51
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Yes I can see that, but the points I make should be addressed by