@Rento: I'm a snail myself, so we did carefully consider these numbers. I knew it would penalise me as well. :-)

The impact should be reasonable. To use myself as an example: I play few games at the time and slow, barely enough to remain ranked actually. Yet, at this moment, I have 25 activity points. A criterion that I proposed to MotD was that anyone putting it at least some minimum effort needs to get half the activity points (40). A total of 30 games in 5 months (you needed 20 to remain ranked) gives you (slightly more than) that. The difference between a very active player and someone who achieves this is less than 40 points, which seems to make a difference of only a few ranks.

I personally think this is correct and fair because the rating of someone who plays more is more accurate.
Someone who wins his last 10 games, but didn't play all that much during that period (and may be delaying losses), does not deserve the same activity bonus as someone who goes 20-5 during the same period. Yet, without activity bonus, they might get the same rating. For the first player, there is a much larger risk that this rating is inflated. Note that TrueSkill, used on RT, also penalises for (lower) activity and more severely than this system. From a mathematical and theoretical point of view, I don't see it as an activity bonus, but as an accuracy bonus. My first proposal to MotD was about using a variance measure to achieve this same effect, but that was not as practical.

Either how, as far as I understood, these numbers are not final yet and may be adapted based on how much activity should translate to a full activity bonus. I'm sure MotD doesn't want it to be a reason for people not to join, but at the same time it should remain an incentive to play more than just two games at a time.

I'm personally not a fan of delaying the decay. This would give an incentive to stall losses with exactly a week in between, which we definitely want to avoid!

EDIT: some more details and example added in second real paragraph.

Edited 7/31/2017 15:45:44

Well here's where we disagree: 40 or 50 points difference is a big deal if you ask me. I mean, I was never in top of that ladder, but from what I've heard you get literally a few points for every win up there. (Can I ask for confirmation MotD?)

To put things in perspective:
- finishing a game every 2,5 day gives you full 80 points
- every 3 days - 70 points (-10 points already! just half a day difference in playing speed)
- every 5 days - 40 points (40 points behind)
- every 7 days - 30 points (50 points behind!)

Does that really seem fine to you guys?

I personally think this is correct and fair because the rating of someone who plays more is more accurate.
Someone who wins his last 10 games, but didn't play all that much during that period (and may be delaying losses), does not deserve the same activity bonus as someone who goes 20-5 during the same period

I agree partly, however sometimes a person is being penalised for not finishing games because their opponents are playing ridiculously slow. Is it fair to penalise the other person who would play fast given the chance?

Currently I have 5 games ongoing. (1 just finished because I asked the other person to play faster) but 4 out of those 5 games are being played ridiculously slow by my opponents. The one that just finished today was over two weeks and the other 4 are about to be 2 weeks. That means I have not finished a single game in two weeks, not from any fault of my own, yet I am penalised for those extra points I could have had. I did talk to Motd about it and he explained it doesn't have that much impact and it will even out due to getting faster opponents another time and I'm fine with that. However I just wanted to comment on your statement where you said it was fair.

Is there any way the "Best Rating Achieved" can be recalculated factoring in this new rating system? Ex. I had 1750+ on the old rating system, but with this new one, my current rating (below my former max in relation to the old rating system) is automatically above the old max rating I had on the old rating system. I'm not sure whether the data has been lost, but I think the conversion of old -> new should also apply to the former max rating achieved.

Well here's where we disagree: 40 or 50 points difference is a big deal if you ask me. I mean, I was never in top of that ladder, but from what I've heard you get literally a few points for every win up there. (Can I ask for confirmation MotD?)

That's not completely true anymore. This had to do with the expiration, which pulled the rating back down again and again whenever a previous win expired. A win while ranked at the top should now actually make a difference. Note that the top rated players all have a much higher rating now because of this (as it should be!)

To put things in perspective:
- finishing a game every 2,5 day gives you full 80 points
- every 3 days - 70 points (-10 points already! just half a day difference in playing speed)
- every 5 days - 40 points (40 points behind)
- every 7 days - 30 points (50 points behind!)

Does that really seem fine to you guys?

It's of course up to MotD to decide if he wants to change the numbers (I'm in contact with him and open for discussion about it at all times). Personally, I'm happy to talk about them here and discuss the pros and cons of them.

That said, I personally agree on these numbers and they look fine to me (as a slow player!).
Because:
Every 2.5 days means almost 3 times more games than every 7 days! That's 3 times as much chance of an upset loss, because more games also has a higher chance of getting an opponent that is somewhat further away in rating. A difference of 50 points to offset that seems fair to me with a K-factor of 32. After all, a game against an equally rated opponent nets you 16 points while a big upset loss can cost you 30. Lower amounts of games do lead to reduced precision and associated behaviour to game the system.

Also every 2.5 days versus every 3 days is 20% more games as well. It's not half a day difference in play speed necessarily, it can also be 6 games instead of 5, which is a tangible difference, I'd say.

Again, they are not final and as far as I know it's open for discussion what should be enough to warrant a maximum bonus. Giving 5 points per game for example, would already mean you need 20% less games to achieve the maximum (and would give everyone except those at the cap a 25% higher bonus). A total of 8 points per game (or alternatively, 4 when started, 4 when finished), would mean 30 games in 5 months is enough to reach the max.

I personally think this is correct and fair because the rating of someone who plays more is more accurate.
Someone who wins his last 10 games, but didn't play all that much during that period (and may be delaying losses), does not deserve the same activity bonus as someone who goes 20-5 during the same period

I agree partly, however sometimes a person is being penalised for not finishing games because their opponents are playing ridiculously slow. Is it fair to penalise the other person who would play fast given the chance?

Currently I have 5 games ongoing. (1 just finished because I asked the other person to play faster) but 4 out of those 5 games are being played ridiculously slow by my opponents. The one that just finished today was over two weeks and the other 4 are about to be 2 weeks. That means I have not finished a single game in two weeks, not from any fault of my own, yet I am penalised for those extra points I could have had. I did talk to Motd about it and he explained it doesn't have that much impact and it will even out due to getting faster opponents another time and I'm fine with that. However I just wanted to comment on your statement where you said it was fair.

That's obviously a fair point. There are three (four) things I can say about this:
* I agree with MotD that over time it will offset each other, but this will indeed lead to small changes during periods when many games finish close after one another and periods where few expire. I'm not aware of any reasonable solution to this.
* After reading about the update, comparing the numbers and thinking everything through again, we discussed a small (future) back-end change that should make sure that this has no impact on very active players who are/were at the cap. If you accumulated points above the cap, some of those are retained in the back-end, so that you can keep maximum bonus for a few days after finishing the last game (not all to avoid the most extremely active players to remain at +80 a month after they leave!)
* Splitting the bonus in 2 points when starting a game and 2 when finishing could offset this and allow active players to add games in such situations? I'm not sure if this would be easy to program however.
* You are lucky I am not one of your opponents. ;-)

EDIT: minor text fixes and included reply to Styxie as well.

Edited 7/31/2017 16:19:03

* You are lucky I am not one of your opponents. ;-)

Haha yup. I'm not complaining as such, I understand some players play slower than others especially when busy and I don't really have a problem with people playing slowly. Just wanted to point out that while slow players are being penalised which may be deserved, this impacts their opponents too which may or may not be deserved.

* After reading about the update, comparing the numbers and thinking everything through again, we discussed a small (future) back-end change that should make sure that this has no impact on very active players who are/were at the cap. If you accumulated points above the cap, some of those are retained in the back-end, so that you can keep maximum bonus for a few days after finishing the last game (not all to avoid the most extremely active players to remain at +80 a month after they leave!)

If it does fix the issue, then that's great and appreciate you and motd taking it into consideration. Thanks for all the effort and discussion.

"Haha yup. I'm not complaining as such, I understand some players play slower than others especially when busy and I don't really have a problem with people playing slowly. Just wanted to point out that while slow players are being penalised which may be deserved, this impacts their opponents too which may or may not be deserved."


Well this is so easy to fix. whenever you end up in such situation, and that cant be to often u end up in 5/5 opponents being real slowpokes, but when that happen its just to incresse tha gameamount to 6 or 7, get 2 new games and then reduce it again. Playing 5 games agains fast players takes more effort thab 7 games against slow players so it shouldnt be a problem?

I don't see it as an activity bonus, but as an accuracy bonus

I think this is the best way to think about it. Also, if you look at rating differences on the ladder, especially at the very top, the difference between places is often (though certainly not always) more than 40 points anyway, so you might not lose out in placement based on the accuracy/activity bonus anyway. I think it's a positive thing, and I speak as a person who has somehow been playing even slower on this ladder than Math Wolf! *gasp*

Is there any way the "Best Rating Achieved" can be recalculated factoring in this new rating system?

I agree with this also, though probably don't do it until you finalize the fine-tuning of the rating system. As is, the historical graphs are pretty meaningless, so it would be nice to have it back dated.

Edited 7/31/2017 17:40:28

I don't think the activity bonus will work as an incentive to play more games (and thus inflate the MDL appeal, which I guess is the underlying goal here). As for me, players are already playing the maximum their personal time allow.
Hoever, this bonus will penalyze players whom time for MDL is more limited than other players. As such, this could actually play against MDL appeal.
If anything, 4 points per finished game could be reduced, to 2 or 1, for example. The incentive to play more would still be there (and 20 or 40 points per period can already make a difference versus a close ranked player), and "slow players" (by that I mean those at 2 games at once) would not be penalyzed that much.

Edited 7/31/2017 17:46:25

@Rento,

Well here's where we disagree: 40 or 50 points difference is a big deal if you ask me. I mean, I was never in top of that ladder, but from what I've heard you get literally a few points for every win up there. (Can I ask for confirmation MotD?)

To put things in perspective:
- finishing a game every 2,5 day gives you full 80 points
- every 3 days - 70 points (-10 points already! just half a day difference in playing speed)
- every 5 days - 40 points (40 points behind)
- every 7 days - 30 points (50 points behind!)

Does that really seem fine to you guys?

I can confirm that you do get a lot of points for winning games(which is great!). However, in the old system all of these points would be drained due to the games expiring(which is why it was hard to rise). We have solved that problem, so 40-50 points isn't that big of a deal even for someone at the very top(I could get +40 right now with 3-4 wins against the top 10).

When you say that this is unfair to those with lower activity, you're making an assumption that the rating of the inactive player is as accurate as the active one. Every time you play more games your rating is more accurate as you're putting more points on the line(which will be taken away if you lose). Someone who has played a hundred games to get a 1700 Elo rating has done much more than someone who got to 1700 with just 10 games(but a pure Elo rating system doesn't reflect that). My goal isn't to force everyone to play hundreds of games. Most people should be able to get a reasonable bonus from activity even if they play at their own pace.

Math Wolf's detailed reasoning is something I definitely agree with. However, like he said, we can definitely tweak the system if it is significantly skewed towards active players. Let us observe the behavior over the next week and revisit this conversation.

Edited 7/31/2017 19:01:03

@AG/Beren

Is there any way the "Best Rating Achieved" can be recalculated factoring in this new rating system? Ex. I had 1750+ on the old rating system, but with this new one, my current rating (below my former max in relation to the old rating system) is automatically above the old max rating I had on the old rating system. I'm not sure whether the data has been lost, but I think the conversion of old -> new should also apply to the former max rating achieved.

I agree with this also, though probably don't do it until you finalize the fine-tuning of the rating system. As is, the historical graphs are pretty meaningless, so it would be nice to have it back dated.

The best rating achieved could possibly be recalculated. But the history charts are going to be much harder to calculate. I do not store information pertaining to players joining/leaving the ladder. So I would need a way to reconstruct that using the existing charts. I'm also not sure if it is the right thing to do. If the competition ranked players for the last 9 months using a certain metric, the historical charts should reflect that in my opinion(Even the trophies were handed out using that metric). I'll give it some more thought and get back to you on that.

Edited 7/31/2017 18:31:05

@Mike

I don't think the activity bonus will work as an incentive to play more games (and thus inflate the MDL appeal, which I guess is the underlying goal here).

I couldn't disagree more. The intent of this change is not to "inflate MDL appeal". MDL is as appealing as it needs to be. This change is meant to improve the accuracy of the rating system with regards to estimating the skill level of a player. Someone who plays more has a more accurate rating.

As for me, players are already playing the maximum their personal time allow.
Hoever, this bonus will penalyze players whom time for MDL is more limited than other players. As such, this could actually play against MDL appeal.
If anything, 4 points per finished game could be reduced, to 2 or 1, for example. The incentive to play more would still be there (and 20 or 40 points per period can already make a difference versus a close ranked player), and "slow players" (by that I mean those at 2 games at once) would not be penalyzed that much.

It's unfortunate if this change reduces the appeal of MDL in any way. But I don't think it should influence the decisions made for the good of the ladder(which this change is, in my opinion).

Edited 7/31/2017 18:49:15

I like this update.

Good stuff.

I don't see any issue with the historical ranks staying as is, but the rating chart becomes a bit less meaningful, since you have huge jumps in rating that are simply due to the rating system changing, rather than due to actual results.

Nice update! I agree with the activity bonus, but I feel it is too large.

In general I realls like the update and I think the activity bonus is fine as it is. If it is really to much, we can reduce it later, but I do not think so. I only have one thing that I am not sure about:

This system also introduces an additional component which will converge your Elo rating towards 1500 if you have been inactive for too long. The criteria* is that if you haven't finished a game in the last 50 days, your rating will converge towards 1500 by 1 point every day after the 50th day. For ex - If my rating is 1800, and I've been inactive for 80 days, my rating starts decreasing(if rating was <1500, it increases) by 1 every day after the 51st day. So by the 80th day, my rating would be 1800-30 = 1770. Over time, if I go completely inactive,I will converge to 1500

I do not understand the necessaritiy of that. You are reducing the points within the system. For what exact reason? Why not keeping the rating as it is? And force the player to play games to rank again?

Edited 7/31/2017 19:54:33

As far as I'm aware ratings will converge to 1500. If your rating was higher, the system Will take away points. If your rating was lower, the system adds points, so should be balanced long-term. For the necessity, let's say you play in an era where 2400 rating is possible and you manage to get this. You take place 1 or 2. And you call it quits. Then two years later, the ratings have deflated a bunch and the highest rating is 2100. You start playing with your 2400 rating again. That rating is not accurate anymore. Playing a bunch of games to get ranked again may lower your rating, but with a max of 16 (k/2) points per game, it would take a long time for your rating to converge to an accurate representation of your skill level. Thst way your rating is inflated for some period of time. And that inflated rating isn't nice. The same would be true as well when your rating went back to 1500, but you'd get underrated and this way you can't abuse the rating system to get an overinflated rank. Anyways, I'm no expert on rating systems, so grain of salt with this post and everything

I do not understand the necessaritiy of that. You are reducing the points within the system. For what exact reason? Why not keeping the rating as it is? And force the player to play games to rank again?

That's actually the same "accuracy" argument at one hand, and a practical argument at the other hand:

* accuracy: after a long absence, the ELO rating when the player left is less relevant as his/her skill might have changed. Additionally, even if the skill of the player didn't change, the skill of others might have (e.g. all players may have become better), meaning that the rating does not reflect the correct skill anymore. (EDIT: plus what Master Farah explains, more or less members can also impact ratings.) If variance estimates were used, these could be increased artificially to reflect this this new uncertainty (this is what RTL should do, but doesn't). However, in the absence of variance, the next best thing is to (very slowly) move the rating back to the most neutral point, 1500.

* practical: with games themselves not expiring, people who did bad and left consequently, can stil get a new chance with less baggage similar to game expiration if they leave long enough. Meanwhile, people who did really well, can't just come back and claim a high spot with limited games, they'd have to prove themselves again. Both these effects are desired.

I think this concept itself is very good, but the parameters may be up for discussion. Is a 50 days wait to start this process to slow or too fast? Is the point per day too fast or too slow? These numbers were made up on the spot (50 days = max vacation for non-members, point per day well, it's easy?) and seem reasonable to me, but one could argue about that I guess.
With these numbers, after 5 months (150 days), you are 100 points closer to 1500. Meanwhile, very high ranked players have a cushion of more than a year before they have to start anew completely, which at that point is fair I think.

Edited 7/31/2017 20:22:42

I assume you still need 20 games to get ranked. Since you don't have game expiration, if you rejoin the ladder after having played 20 games will you immediately be ranked?

If so, I can imagine a situation where a player rejoins after a long absence, with their rating having been regressed back to 1500. Are they immediately ranked in this scenario? Then they would effectively be ranked after 0 games.

You still need 20 games in the last 5 months to get ranked. This criteria is just for ranking purposes and has no effect on the rating system.