16 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by arrakisLMAO. Is this a serious question?
...but what gives him the right to drop 1000 points here and start playing with a 950 rating!?
He has every right in the world to do whatever he wants. This is a free goddamn society, you chump.
If he wants to take a break from RHP and get timed-out in a hundred games and then come back and play a hundred more, he can do just that if he wants. Sure, it makes him a bozo but who are you to say he has no "right" to do so?
17 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisCome on, kid. Lose the tantrums.
Take a look at fierytorment's profile. I got matched up with this bozo when he was rated around 1275. If you check his stats you'll see that he resigned a ton of games and dropped his rating from near expert down to around 950!
I personally recommend that nobody play this jerk who informed me that he's a USCF expert. He might be rated as an expert... but what gives him the right to drop 1000 points here and start playing with a 950 rating!?
We're trying to be constructive in here.
D
17 Nov 05
I agree with the original poster. If 20 people are entered into a rated tourno, all with a small hope of winning, it is more than galling if a superior player comes in and cleans up just for his ego boost. I would go for a name and shame policy. Efeectively it wastes the other 19 players time.
There are plenty of open tournos for a player to play aginst lower players or to resurrect their rating.
To be fair this unsporting behavour is not that far off cheating.
17 Nov 05
For that matter, it would be a good idea if people on provisional ratings were not allowed to enter tournaments.
The current monster mash up to 1299 tourno has a provisional player whose provisional ranking has just climbed to above 1500. Welcome to RHP here is your first tourno win on a plate.
17 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneSuzi,
These ratings points aren't "coming from nowhere" since (using the previous example) the now 1200 player *should* be 2200 anyway. That's the whole point of this system.
And you forget that there is already a DEflation of points in the system by the 2000 (now 1200) player beating the stuffing out of the 1400-1700 players. The current system promotes ...[text shortened]... agging going on in clan matches.
Yes, I can see why the high levels might not like this plan.
I like your avatar. Do you have one in blue for me? I too am a scorpio with a temper. ðŸ˜
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by arrakisYou may have established that in your mind. The same mind which believed that RHP was spying on your computer because of packet corruption. The same mind which makes claims about being an ex-cheat mod and therefore knowing that back-doors are built into all commercial engines. However, I think the majority of opinion is far from what you think.
Who cares what you think? You've already established yourself as an imbecile kid who knows nothing, criticizes everybody, and thinks only your ideas are any good. We don't need people like you.
Notice how, instead of just saying something completely stupid (what gives him the right to drop 1000 points here?) I pointed out where I thought a problem existed and stated that if this was fixed up I would agree with him. It's called constructive criticism, perhaps you have read about it. Notice you made no actual contribution to the idea RookRAK tabled.
But of course I only think my own ideas are any good so you'll have to pretend that didn't happen (I've noticed you have no problem pretending things you don't like didn't happen).
Just go back to your tinfoil covered house, turn off the light and sit there in the dark pretending you are the most important person here.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by RookRAKYes point inequalities are currently present in the system.
Point inequalities are introduced into the system today, every time players with different K values play, or when provisional plays non-prov.
My hypothesis was that the inflation would be negligible. But even if it wasn't, there an inelegant solution. Every New Years Day Russ could compute the total inflation, and dock everyone the overage. Happy New Ye ...[text shortened]... nts come and go via players every day, than would be accounted for by rating floor inaccuracies.
Case 1: A provisional player plays a non-provisional player. Depending on whether the provisional player wins or loses points enter or leave the system.
Case 2: A player above the K cutoffs plays a player below it. Assuming that the higher rated player will win most contests this removes points from the system.
The points from Case 1 will be approximately balanced. The points from Case 2 are mostly leaving the system, however this is a very slow process (very few players above the cutoff and player below the cutoff lose only a handful of points per loss (or none at all)).
Now say we have a 2000 rated player who leaves the site suddenly. His rating plummets to 1200. He then returns. The rating floor has him at 1800. He plays a 1200 player and wins. He gains 16 points. The 1200 player loses nothing (as difference in ratings from his point of view exceeds 597). The same number of points enters the system if the player plays a 1800 player and wins.
This player alone will account for 600 new rating points entering the system before he reaches his rating floor again and the formula goes back to normal.
Instead of just one or two points per very rare game we have hundreds of points entering the system everytime a player returns from a long vacation or break from the site. Dustn alone could destroy the rating system.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZYour scenario sounds alarming as a refutation, but if you look at the mathematical assumptions behind it you'll realize the feared ratings inflation is smaller than you imply. It's all a matter of scale.
Yes point inequalities are currently present in the system.
Case 1: A provisional player plays a non-provisional player. Depending on whether the provisional player wins or loses points enter or leave the system.
Case 2: A player above the K cutoffs plays a player below it. Assuming that the higher rated player will win most contests this removes point ...[text shortened]... eturns from a long vacation or break from the site. Dustn alone could destroy the rating system.
Yes, there are extreme cases, like Dustn, which would add an unmatched 1000 points into the system. But remember, the ratings floor only is only used in a calculation when a player is below their rating floor. What percentage of total games at RHP do you expect that to be the case (not just for Dustn)?
- I looked at my graph, and in my last 300 games I finished exactly one game below my rating floor.
- Looked at yours - I don't know you full history but assuming the high on the graph (2062) is your all-time high, you play zero games below your rating floor (1862) in your last 300.
- Anyone else want to look at their graph and submit how many of their last 300 games were played with your rating lower than 200 below your all-time high?
So, let's assume it's 2 percent of all games played (which is a far too generous assumption). At current rates RHP is still below 1 million games per year. The maximum "extra" points is 16 for these 2 percent. So our total extra points, for the entire system, for a year is capped at 320,000. That's less than 2 ratings points per registered player. If Dustn goes away and comes back 4 times every year, thats still only 4000 total points. There's just under 200K players in the system.
Again, I'd submit that:
a) these are worst case scenarios - I believe actual total extra points would be truly negigible
b) if, somehow, extra points were getting poured in at a higher than expected rate, wouldn't it be easy to take them back out once a year, or once a quarter? Russ could do an easy calculation of total points in the system, and correct it so it equals 1200 * total people in the system.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt's a good concern to raise. One possible solution is for someone who drops below their rating floor to only be able to increase in rating as if they were still at their floor, so that way the same number of points are won as are lost each game they play.
Everytime a player is far below their rating floor wins a game points enter the RHP pool (as less points are lost than won). This could lead to rating inflation (which despite some claims to the contrary isn't occuring now). This would need to be addressed before I would be happy with introducing a rating floor.
I realise it would be unfortunate to have to climb slower after losing lots of games due to time-outs, but players have some ability to take precautions to reduce the risk of this happening (e.g. don't start lots of games if you foresee being unable to keep up with them in the near future).