Unfair Rank Points Given

suggestion

#1

So, I’ve been playing some games recently among people with around the same ranks as me, and when someone with the same rank gets first and lets say I get second, I lose 1 or 3 rank points. This has also happened when people of the same rank but one star higher than me get first and I get second. Personally, I find this annoying as it has caused me to lose many rank points for a higher rank. Is there anyway to change this perhaps? :frowning:

(Lol first post :3)


Rank needs to be given for area on the leaderboard
#2

ya its annoying if i leave a game bc of hackers and/or lag and i go down a whole star rank


#3

hackers?? Why would anyone hack THIS game


#4

Are you gm? Cause gms usually lose even more if they finish on 2nd place :laughing:


#5

yeah I’m a gold and i play with to diamonds and three silvers. Then i just finish behind the two diamonds and above all the silvers (where i should finish with the rank that i am) but then i get minus. I find this wierd I finish at the place where should finish in my rank. Why do you get minus then. Just give me 0 rankpoints then.


#6

Everything is fine with the current system imho.
In a gold arena, I am maybe supposed to get 1st with a propability of 90%. If I finish second, it’s normal to loose points.
The rule is the same for everybody -> nobody can take advantage of it. :slight_smile:
So this is a fair rule based on a cool probability equation that works well.
It’s my opinion. :slight_smile:


#8

No ima diamond 3


#9

As I understand it, as long as there are no players with ‘provisional’ ratings in the room, then the only variables that matter are your own rating and the average of all the other players’ ratings (i.e. your opponents’ ratings are not considered individually).

e.g. say you are rated 1650 and your opponents ratings are 1700, 1300, 1300, 1250 and 1050 (a diamond 4, two gold 2s, a gold 1 and a silver 3, not that uncommon a situation to be matched into). Your expected position based on those ratings considered individually might be second.

But the important value is the average opponent rating, which in this case is 1340.
Per the Elo formula this gives an expected performance value of:

1 / ( 1 + 10 ^[ {1340 - 1650} / 400 ] )
= ~0.856

[1 divided by 1 plus 10 to the power of the average opponent rating minus your rating over 400]

which in a 6 player room corresponds to a result between second and first; meaning the rating system takes points off you for finishing second, though the scale of the penalty is lesser than the scale of the reward for finishing first.

I believe the K factor CFP uses is 30 so for each possible poisition your rating change would be:

1st : +4.31
2nd : -1.69
3rd : -7.69
4th : -13.69
5th : -19.69
6th : -25.69

(if you want to play around with this I made a google sheet; just change the values in the pink cells and it’ll do the rest for you - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dM5hnpcBYJTmROc6wuHDAnp3eB6Wvd7Cn7UDkwDKA9M/edit?usp=sharing)

For the most part I think this system is pretty good and fairly equitable, however it does throw up some weird oddities.

For instance [assuming the K-factor is the same across all room sizes], you would gain more points by finishing first in a room against one diamond 2 and three bronzes than if a fourth bronze joined to make it a 6-player game, due to their disproportionate effect of pulling the overall average rating down.

If anyone with knowledge of the rating algorithm wants to correct me on any of this, feel free to of course!
But I hope this should explain how they work in a bit more detail to those who are curious and who have a bit of maths knowledge.


#10

Wow, Thanks a lot! Makes a lot of sense.


#11

This looks about right having tried out some values in your sheets. The other thing to note is that while the “provisional ratings” are usually only in the first few games you play on a new account, I think they also happen when you win a lot of games in a row or generally have a high win rate over a period of games compared to normal. This means that 2 players ranked 2000 will get different rank increases for winning in the same room. Its possibly easier to rank up by starting from silver and winning every game than by starting from diamond, because you will have a longer win streak (assuming you don’t lose any matches).


#12

didnt know that was true.


#13

Me neither for certain. But check previous topics on rank as @Geert has explained it before. I think in general some of the unfair rank given comments were about unranked April fools matches anyway xd


#14

also in the beginning it said first place reward +32 and i won and got +16

it s u c c s


#15

The only reason I know this is because of chess lol. Provisional ratings are easier to be changed


#16

Thanks for the rank demonstration, Ren. I didn’t know about ranking like that until now. Good work. :+1:


#17

Here are the replays that I lost so many points at:




(The second one may not count, but I’m trying to give my point here)