New ranking -- inexperienced

[Jest Phulin]

It would be nice to have a ranking below average, but not beginners. Beginners is only for people who have not won a single game. This means that after losing several games (and having an ELO in the 1300s) when someone finally wins their first game, they can only limit by ELO players that have rankings less than "good," or up to 1499 ELO.

While nobody likes to be called poor, by definition half of the people have to be below average.

[senatorhung]

given the season .. the ranking could be 'padawan' instead of inexperienced

[Oso]

Would be around 1400 or below... and a good title would be "apprentice"

[sprockitz]

I do really think the beginner rank needs to be taken out. I've seen so many new people on this site create a game for only beginners and then just sit and never get a game. Sure some figure it out that restricting to just beginners eliminates almost everyone, but I'm sure there are others that get frustrated that they weren't able to play and never come back. Perhaps a provisional ranking for players who've played less than 5 games (which can't be used to restrict a table, but they'd fall under the umbrella of average players).

I also agree everything else under 1600 is a pretty wide range for average. The natural thing to do would be to keep the 200 points per category and a new one at <1400 rating (perhaps Novice). This however would still leave the vast majority of people in average as very few people are below 1400. So the only other conclusion would be to adjust all the ratings brackets as something like a 1450 cutoff would probably be more useful for novice, but then to keep average centered around 1500 you'd have to change that bracket, and it would trickle all the way up to the expert/master cutoff.

[senatorhung]

I do really think the beginner rank needs to be taken out. I've seen so many new people on this site create a game for only beginners and then just sit and never get a game. Sure some figure it out that restricting to just beginners eliminates almost everyone, but I'm sure there are others that get frustrated that they weren't able to play and never come back. Perhaps a provisional ranking for players who've played less than 5 games (which can't be used to restrict a table, but they'd fall under the umbrella of average players).

I also agree everything else under 1600 is a pretty wide range for average. The natural thing to do would be to keep the 200 points per category and a new one at <1400 rating (perhaps Novice). This however would still leave the vast majority of people in average as very few people are below 1400. So the only other conclusion would be to adjust all the ratings brackets as something like a 1450 cutoff would probably be more useful for novice, but then to keep average centered around 1500 you'd have to change that bracket, and it would trickle all the way up to the expert/master cutoff.

taking out beginner makes sense to me.

and instead of everyone starting at 1500 .. they can start at 1400 and novice level.

[sprockitz]

Taking it a step further, people without many games played should not be allowed to have such a big elo impact on the people they are playing against. The initial 1500 rating rarely reflects the true level of play of a new player. If they are truly new they are generally worse than 1500, if they are experienced from playing elsewhere (or under a previous nickname) they are often much better. Give them a provisional rating until they've played 5 (or 10) games. After those games establish a rating based on how they've performed in them. When someone plays someone with a provisional rating it should have less impact on their rating.

[spinphd]

Taking it a step further, people without many games played should not be allowed to have such a big elo impact on the people they are playing against. The initial 1500 rating rarely reflects the true level of play of a new player. If they are truly new they are generally worse than 1500, if they are experienced from playing elsewhere (or under a previous nickname) they are often much better. Give them a provisional rating until they've played 5 (or 10) games. After those games establish a rating based on how they've performed in them. When someone plays someone with a provisional rating it should have less impact on their rating.

I really like this idea. It is frustrating losing so many points to a suppose "beginner" when they obviously are not at that skill level.

[Shaq Jenkins]

Yes. We definitely need a new ranking system because "Average" is currently way too broadly defined. There's a huge difference between a player ranked 1585 and a player ranked 1385.

I get frustrated when I restrict a table to "Average Level and Above" and someone in the 1300s joins. I don't boot the person because it's rude and technically, they're allowed to join. For games like Puerto Rico, that person is almost guaranteed to get last place and/or make moves that imbalance the game. I played a game a few weeks ago where the player who went before me kept choosing the Craftsman role, which allowed me to easily trade my coffee and gain tons of doubloons. I had enough doubloons to easily buy three big buildings with tons of doubloons to spare. I didn't even feel like I won that game fairly because of how the lower ranked player unknowingly tipped the game in my favor.

On the flip side, I also get frustrated when, for games I'm not good at, I restrict the table to "Average Level and Below" and people in the 1580-1599 range join. What I really want are people who are also in the 1300s to 1400s like me to join the table. A game is more fun when I play with someone who is of equal rank.

I also agree that beginners should not start at a 1500 ranking when they first play a game because if you're playing for the very first time, you are not "Average."

[intrepid]

elo and ranking are two bad things ist racism or discrimination, 2nd win or lose and have fun is all that matters

[Silene]

Starting at 1400 will lead to a deflation of the whole ranking pool because new players will take more elo out of the pool when improving. When starting a new game and everyone starts at 1400 instead of 1500 the only thing that changes is that, when the rankings established, everyone has 100pt less than when starting at 1500. That makes 1400 the new 1500 So the question is basically "do you want to have less good players/experts/masters or is the amount just fine?"
(at least i think that elo changes are only based on ranking difference and not on absolute ranking - or am i wrong?)

I like the idea of new players having less influence on your ranking while the game has a big impact of the new players ranking (2nd already kinda implemented). That will help to put new players in the system where they really are in strength.