Is rating assignation wonky?

[Nutella]

I suggest to change the rating assignation and try some different system maybe a fix system (if you win 5 points, if you kill 1 com 2 more points if you kill 2 com 5 points ect ... or something like that)
I played some games and noticed that when I win, I got 6 to 8 points, when I lose I lost 10 to 12 ... that means that my winning ratio to maintain my global rating should be 2 to 1 ... that is quite impossible ...
Honestly this is quite wonky ...

Nutella

[FtXCommando]

Killing the most ACUs has no relation to your contribution in game and is an even worse system than the current implementation of trueskill in custom games.

There are several factors that could cause you losing more points than you gain. For instance, you could be losing games the system is more confident that you should win, meaning not only do you lose points but your deviation increases which in turn gives the illusion that you lost extra rating.

[armacham01]

People who play RTS games competitively are already looking to take every advantage that they can. The last thing we want to do is to encourage people to find new ways to game the system in order to manipulate their ratings (up or down). We don't need to create new "mini-games" for players to engage in during team games.

E.g., intentionally letting teammates die so you get more points for yourself, being greedy about trying to snipe the ACU instead of making units so you get points for yourself, make 10 strats and give them to a teammate so you don't gain rating from the ACU snipe, give all your stuff to a teammate at the 5-minute mark so your score goes down, etc. etc. etc.

And then we would either have to accept that all this BS is just "part of the game now" OR we would need the moderation team to step in police all of it. Which would become a giant mess and lead to much unhappiness.

[Nutella]

Killing the most ACUs has no relation to your contribution in game and is an even worse system than the current implementation of trueskill in custom games.

There are several factors that could cause you losing more points than you gain. For instance, you could be losing games the system is more confident that you should win, meaning not only do you lose points but your deviation increases which in turn gives the illusion that you lost extra rating.

Then the system is quite stupid cause I lost a game vs 2 opponent stronger then me; my teammate was stronger then all but he lost less points than me ... that's not a great system in my opinion ... that means that strong players will become stronger losing less points, weak players will become weaker ... I think that standard deviation is a wonky system and not so efficient as you think

[Nutella]

People who play RTS games competitively are already looking to take every advantage that they can. The last thing we want to do is to encourage people to find new ways to game the system in order to manipulate their ratings (up or down). We don't need to create new "mini-games" for players to engage in during team games.

E.g., intentionally letting teammates die so you get more points for yourself, being greedy about trying to snipe the ACU instead of making units so you get points for yourself, make 10 strats and give them to a teammate so you don't gain rating from the ACU snipe, give all your stuff to a teammate at the 5-minute mark so your score goes down, etc. etc. etc.

And then we would either have to accept that all this BS is just "part of the game now" OR we would need the moderation team to step in police all of it. Which would become a giant mess and lead to much unhappiness.

As I said the system is wonky, maybe you are right, maybe there could be a system to manipulate points, but in our actual situation (standard deviation) you will belong to your category and you will not be able to improve if the system decide that you belong to a certain rating. As I said, when I lose, I lost more than my stronger teammate ... do you think it's an equal opportunity?

[FtXCommando]

Killing the most ACUs has no relation to your contribution in game and is an even worse system than the current implementation of trueskill in custom games.

There are several factors that could cause you losing more points than you gain. For instance, you could be losing games the system is more confident that you should win, meaning not only do you lose points but your deviation increases which in turn gives the illusion that you lost extra rating.

Then the system is quite stupid cause I lost a game vs 2 opponent stronger then me; my teammate was stronger then all but he lost less points than me ... that's not a great system in my opinion ... that means that strong players will become stronger losing less points, weak players will become weaker ... I think that standard deviation is a wonky system and not so efficient as you think

You are talking to a dude that has been beating the war drum to remove/edit/minimize global rating for 2.5 years. However, just because global is an awful system prone to manipulation doesn’t mean your idea is worth considering. Your idea manages to not only be an inaccurate gauge of player capability but it also manages to be an obscenely easy system to abuse. It’s an awful idea and it’s why when the Council was considering making ACU kills influence global rating I immediately blocked the idea.

I also don’t think you understand how trueskill works. The system itself is solid enough. The problem is FAF does not create the environmental conditions expected for trueskill to work optimally (in custom games). In ladder, it works excellently.

[Nutella]

Killing the most ACUs has no relation to your contribution in game and is an even worse system than the current implementation of trueskill in custom games.

There are several factors that could cause you losing more points than you gain. For instance, you could be losing games the system is more confident that you should win, meaning not only do you lose points but your deviation increases which in turn gives the illusion that you lost extra rating.

Then the system is quite stupid cause I lost a game vs 2 opponent stronger then me; my teammate was stronger then all but he lost less points than me ... that's not a great system in my opinion ... that means that strong players will become stronger losing less points, weak players will become weaker ... I think that standard deviation is a wonky system and not so efficient as you think

You are talking to a dude that has been beating the war drum to remove/edit/minimize global rating for 2.5 years. However, just because global is an awful system prone to manipulation doesn’t mean your idea is worth considering. Your idea manages to not only be an inaccurate gauge of player capability but it also manages to be an obscenely easy system to abuse. It’s an awful idea and it’s why when the Council was considering making ACU kills influence global rating I immediately blocked the idea.

I also don’t think you understand how trueskill works. The system itself is solid enough. The problem is FAF does not create the environmental conditions expected for trueskill to work optimally (in custom games). In ladder, it works excellently.

Let's say my idea is terrible, ok! I can agee ... but I also said that the actual system is wonky and maybe works properly in ladder game but it's terrible in custom. I repeat ... I lost a game vs 2 opponent stronger then me (1200 + 1400); my teammate was stronger then all (1700) we lost but he lost less points than me... if a weak player lose more points vs a stronger one when he loses than earn less when he wins means that the system has something that doesn't work in my personal opinion. I tried to tell to one programmer that the new rating system based on standard deviation was terrible idea, (I don't remember who was) but he said that if was perfect. What happened to me, and to more players I suppose, demonstrate that the system is a shit (always personal opinion) and it should be rethink.

[FtXCommando]

Your first problem is that you assume trueskill is a form of leaderboard to rate players. It isn't. So your example is irrelevant.

The system is more confident that the high rated player is his trueskill value, therefore he loses less rating. The system is less confident in your trueskill value, therefore you lose more as the system is attempting to correct the inaccuracy it had.

Again, the system is fine. It was developed by people with decades of experience in statistics and paid millions of dollars by Microsoft. You can't think of a better system and we can't develop a better system. The problem is that the conditions of custom games do not match what trueskill requires for an accurate gauging of skill. If you want a better custom game experience, advocate for team matchmaker and the eventual outdating of custom games.

[Blodir]

The reason your teammate lost less points in your game is that they had lower deviation than you. Ie. The system is more confident in their rating being accurate. If they have been around 1700 rating for the last 1000 games why would you drastically reduce their rating based on 1 game?

If you're confused I suggest you read up on trueskill. Iirc we even have a faf wiki page for it. It's an excellent system.