Ranking up fast in cooperative games

[Ceaseless]

I mentioned the issues with Chess sites trying to rank bots, but I'd find it even harder to sort out for cooperative games when you add in things like teamwork considerations. Having certain players basically carry the game while others reap the rewards can be a real thing for some games. I'd consider have the ratings affected by who the teammates were, the stronger your teammates are, the less you should gain.

There are several ceiling issues, the commonly referenced boosting, but also the lack of a proper challenge ceiling in some cases. If all of the challenges are easy enough everyone's compared rating is how they just forever grind the wins for lack of something to really filter them. Artificial challenges do lack the natural balancing factor competitive games have as players will throw each other's ideas back and them and continue to refine them.

[tarongot]

I mentioned the issues with Chess sites trying to rank bots, but I'd find it even harder to sort out for cooperative games when you add in things like teamwork considerations. Having certain players basically carry the game while others reap the rewards can be a real thing for some games. I'd consider have the ratings affected by who the teammates were, the stronger your teammates are, the less you should gain.

There are several ceiling issues, the commonly referenced boosting, but also the lack of a proper challenge ceiling in some cases. If all of the challenges are easy enough everyone's compared rating is how they just forever grind the wins for lack of something to really filter them. Artificial challenges do lack the natural balancing factor competitive games have as players will throw each other's ideas back and them and continue to refine them.

Do you demand absolute perfection, taking into account every factor, no matter how tiny, that can be taken into account. With perfectly selected weights and calculations with the highest possible accuracy, for competitive games also or only for cooperative ones?

And when that is not done, and from your words Ii seems even for chess, game with rather simple rules and fixed starting conditions its not, you want to whole ranking be canceled?

Will you answer simple question?
What is better for coop games:
1. Having average ranking system, that will have it flaws, abuses, idiocy.
2. Not having system at all, like what is now on BGA.

[ChiefPointThief]

@ceaseless. Firstly just because a dev or bga thinks something is the right way to go for the player base that doesn’t mean it is. But they are the ones w/ the power so we are stuck w/ their decisions. I remember in the huge elo update thread that someone posted the games from every admin and it was a very small amount and only touched a fraction of the games on the site. Meaning they wouldn’t have a clue about how their decisions affect the entire player base on a wide scale. I mentioned ufm and I disagreed w/ them on a subject of fixed team games. He believes all rankings should be abolished to which I argued that fix team games actually represent what elo is intended for more than random teams. He is actually mathematically wrong in his stance but if it were up to him the player base would be affected as a whole.

It is possible for devs to alter the rankings in coops. I’ve seen it in one game in particular and I thought it was cool that the dev got advice from the active players and put extra effort into the ranking process (as well as the game as a whole).

To give you an idea of a ranking system I will use the gang again as an example. This is a game in which the more players there are the harder it is. So the ranking system should reflect that. There are also several different levels so the ranking system should reflect that. So just to throw out some random numbers. If you play the min (3p/ base game) that could give out +3 elo for a victory whereas difficult game (6p/ expert mode) could give out +20. And everywhere in between.

Bga counting abandons as losses did help games like Hanabi because people would intentional start losing to force an abandon. That was an upgrade. Seeing your actual strength level can be fun and lets you know where you stand so getting rid of that was a downgrade. Personally I only play coops w/ friends for fun so I don’t really care. But for someone who takes them more seriously I can see the effects.

[Ceaseless]

I mentioned the issues with Chess sites trying to rank bots, but I'd find it even harder to sort out for cooperative games when you add in things like teamwork considerations. Having certain players basically carry the game while others reap the rewards can be a real thing for some games. I'd consider have the ratings affected by who the teammates were, the stronger your teammates are, the less you should gain.

There are several ceiling issues, the commonly referenced boosting, but also the lack of a proper challenge ceiling in some cases. If all of the challenges are easy enough everyone's compared rating is how they just forever grind the wins for lack of something to really filter them. Artificial challenges do lack the natural balancing factor competitive games have as players will throw each other's ideas back and them and continue to refine them.

Do you demand absolute perfection, taking into account every factor, no matter how tiny, that can be taken into account. With perfectly selected weights and calculations with the highest possible accuracy, for competitive games also or only for cooperative ones?

And when that is not done, and from your words Ii seems even for chess, game with rather simple rules and fixed starting conditions its not, you want to whole ranking be canceled?

I don't demand absolute perfection, just basic standards. Chess can make a rating system, the site just had problems trying to artificially make rated bots. You couldn't reliably get anything realistic about ratings from playing them, you had to play actual people.

I mentioned the issues with Chess sites trying to rank bots, but I'd find it even harder to sort out for cooperative games when you add in things like teamwork considerations. Having certain players basically carry the game while others reap the rewards can be a real thing for some games. I'd consider have the ratings affected by who the teammates were, the stronger your teammates are, the less you should gain.

There are several ceiling issues, the commonly referenced boosting, but also the lack of a proper challenge ceiling in some cases. If all of the challenges are easy enough everyone's compared rating is how they just forever grind the wins for lack of something to really filter them. Artificial challenges do lack the natural balancing factor competitive games have as players will throw each other's ideas back and them and continue to refine them.

Do you demand absolute perfection, taking into account every factor, no matter how tiny, that can be taken into account. With perfectly selected weights and calculations with the highest possible accuracy, for competitive games also or only for cooperative ones?

And when that is not done, and from your words Ii seems even for chess, game with rather simple rules and fixed starting conditions its not, you want to whole ranking be canceled?

Will you answer simple question?
What is better for coop games:
1. Having average ranking system, that will have it flaws, abuses, idiocy.
2. Not having system at all, like what is now on BGA.

You've yet to describe an average ranking system for cooperative games. If you're asking me if BGA is handling it better than your proposition, I would answer yes, I'd rather take BGA's current implementation. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect or that a better idea doesn't exist out there, but that bridge can be crossed when we reach it.

[Ceaseless]

@ceaseless. Firstly just because a dev or bga thinks something is the right way to go for the player base that doesn’t mean it is. But they are the ones w/ the power so we are stuck w/ their decisions. I remember in the huge elo update thread that someone posted the games from every admin and it was a very small amount and only touched a fraction of the games on the site. Meaning they wouldn’t have a clue about how their decisions affect the entire player base on a wide scale. I mentioned ufm and I disagreed w/ them on a subject of fixed team games. He believes all rankings should be abolished to which I argued that fix team games actually represent what elo is intended for more than random teams. He is actually mathematically wrong in his stance but if it were up to him the player base would be affected as a whole.

It is possible for devs to alter the rankings in coops. I’ve seen it in one game in particular and I thought it was cool that the dev got advice from the active players and put extra effort into the ranking process (as well as the game as a whole).

To give you an idea of a ranking system I will use the gang again as an example. This is a game in which the more players there are the harder it is. So the ranking system should reflect that. There are also several different levels so the ranking system should reflect that. So just to throw out some random numbers. If you play the min (3p/ base game) that could give out +3 elo for a victory whereas difficult game (6p/ expert mode) could give out +20. And everywhere in between.

Bga counting abandons as losses did help games like Hanabi because people would intentional start losing to force an abandon. That was an upgrade. Seeing your actual strength level can be fun and lets you know where you stand so getting rid of that was a downgrade. Personally I only play coops w/ friends for fun so I don’t really care. But for someone who takes them more seriously I can see the effects.

I don't agree with BGA on everything; there are multiple things I differ with them on. As for your dispute with Ufm (who, for what it's worth, seems to have played a decent number of games at a decent level), obviously, you're going to say you're right, just as I'd assume they'd say they were right, and at first glance this doesn't look like a topic I'd know enough about to make a proper judgment for myself in a timely manner. Especially with only one of two people in the argument being in this thread right now.

Having cooperative games needing game by game system is going to be a headache for a generic game site like BGA to sort out, this sort of thing works better for a dedicated site. They like their one size fits all approaches, and I can definitely see why they'd have that mindset when handling something as massive as this, where case by case situations could become overwhelming and it would be difficult to sort out the quality suggestions from the absurd. Competitive games don't generally diverge to that degree, that's not to say the rating systems are going to be perfect, but the range of issues is more manageable.

[tarongot]

I'd rather take BGA's current implementation.

And what that implementation is? Can you describe it? Because I don't think you know. Or you don't see difference between "ranking system" and "getting points" that someone called "ELO".

[Ceaseless]

I'd rather take BGA's current implementation.

And what that implementation is? Can you describe it? Because I don't think you know. Or you don't see difference between "ranking system" and "getting points" that someone called "ELO".

Keeping stats obscured and cancelling Arena to reduce the nonsense that was previously flowing through cooperative games. Helps keep players from reading too much into numbers that don't really have the same values that they do in competitive games, at least not in the systems used so far.

[tarongot]

Keeping stats obscured and cancelling Arena to reduce the nonsense that was previously flowing through cooperative games. Helps keep players from reading too much into numbers that don't really have the same values that they do in competitive games, at least not in the systems used so far.

So no ranking at all.
Just a feature that creates new sort of nonsense, absurdities, and hostility, like one described in The Gang, or one that started this topic. Not being able to know what skill represents your teammates. And yet that no system is better for you then something else.

Nonsense, absurdities, hostility and abuses in competitive games are somehow ok. But imagine, not specified one that could be in coop games somehow prevent from even making proposal to create that system.

If you stop thinking that coop games are so much different then competitive ones, in terms of ranking, you could even use ELO one, with obvious modifications. Won't be that good as dedicated one, but much less work and still much better then no system at all.

[Ceaseless]

Keeping stats obscured and cancelling Arena to reduce the nonsense that was previously flowing through cooperative games. Helps keep players from reading too much into numbers that don't really have the same values that they do in competitive games, at least not in the systems used so far.

So no ranking at all.
Just a feature that creates new sort of nonsense, absurdities, and hostility, like one described in The Gang, or one that started this topic. Not being able to know what skill represents your teammates. And yet that no system is better for you then something else.

Nonsense, absurdities, hostility and abuses in competitive games are somehow ok. But imagine, not specified one that could be in coop games somehow prevent from even making proposal to create that system.

If you stop thinking that coop games are so much different then competitive ones, in terms of ranking, you could even use ELO one, with obvious modifications. Won't be that good as dedicated one, but much less work and still much better then no system at all.

The notion that cooperative games are no different from competitive ones is one great reason why I find hiding the cooperative ratings to be better at the present moment. You have people believe those numbers actually mean the same thing, and they end up taking them for something they're not. Cooperative games are a whole different beast from competitive games.

[tarongot]

Keeping stats obscured and cancelling Arena to reduce the nonsense that was previously flowing through cooperative games. Helps keep players from reading too much into numbers that don't really have the same values that they do in competitive games, at least not in the systems used so far.

So no ranking at all.
Just a feature that creates new sort of nonsense, absurdities, and hostility, like one described in The Gang, or one that started this topic. Not being able to know what skill represents your teammates. And yet that no system is better for you then something else.

Nonsense, absurdities, hostility and abuses in competitive games are somehow ok. But imagine, not specified one that could be in coop games somehow prevent from even making proposal to create that system.

If you stop thinking that coop games are so much different then competitive ones, in terms of ranking, you could even use ELO one, with obvious modifications. Won't be that good as dedicated one, but much less work and still much better then no system at all.

The notion that cooperative games are no different from competitive ones is one great reason why I find hiding the cooperative ratings to be better at the present moment. You have people believe those numbers actually mean the same thing, and they end up taking them for something they're not. Cooperative games are a whole different beast from competitive games.

Getting points and not being able to lost them even if you lose is not ranking. And coops games are not only same as competitive ones, you still play to win, you still need skill to play better and face harder challenges. So you can have ranking that give estimation of that skill for you and your potential teammates. Exactly as in competitive games.