Changing of rating system [mandatory point]

[zfm]

I suggest changing of rating system, because somehow this rating (that follow the rule from Chess ER system) is a bit annoying...

1) Let's say X has rating 2200, playing against Y having rating 1300, X won, and he got nothing (maybe he got +0 or +1), this is ridiculous, if he lost, he would lose around 55 ratings or so...

2) The same case for 3 players, and even worse, let's say X (2100) play against Y (1500) and Z(1500), X won, Y second, probably the rating goes all to Y, X got nothing...

Because of this, I would like to suggest a mandatory point (MP) like this:
1. For 2 players game, the winner gets +3, the loser gets -3
3. For 3 players game, first gets +4, second +0, third -4
4. For 4 players game, first gets +5, second +2, third -2, last -5
and so on....

So, the rating will be accumulated (summed up) between the calculated rating and the MP. Let's say for the case 1), if X wins, he'll get +3 or +4 and if he loses, he'll get -58, for me myself, losing 55 points and losing 58 points are not big matter, they are almost the same, but getting +0 and +3 are big differences, and it's more likely to happen...

Without something like this, I would never ever play against player with rating more than 600 under mine. Why in the world would I play if the only possibilities losing 50+ and getting nothing...

[Fuzzypickles]

The thing is, if there's a 600 point difference between the two players, it is quite unlikely that the lower ranked player will win. The higher ranked player shouldn't go up in rank for defeating them -- it's the expected result.

You can look at a few extreme cases with this. A high ranked player could beat a low ranked player 10 times and increase his ranking. Does this really make sense? Does beating a poorly skilled player 10 times in a row mean that you're actually higher ranked? No, not really. However, if you lose, it means you're either overranked or your opponent is underranked. This means the system needs to adjust your ranking appropriately.

Think of it like matchmaking. If you beat a weak player, it doesn't necessarily mean you're ready for more challenging opponents, nor does it mean the weaker player deserves to face even weaker competition. The stronger player winning is 'expected', and when the difference in ranks is truly large, the victory is so certain that there's no need to adjust the rankings. However, if the lower ranked player wins, it probably means that they need to start facing stronger opponents, so their rank is increased appropriately.

[zfm]

But without any little tweaking (even a point), I will never never play with player having low rating... Too risky, although in 99% cases I will win (and getting 0 point), if the 1% case happens (usually combined with dice luck) I will really be suffered...

[Oedin]

Without something like this, I would never ever play against player with rating more than 600 under mine. Why in the world would I play if the only possibilities losing 50+ and getting nothing...

While the rating system is useful for determining which players play a game well, I think you are giving it too much weight.
You have a choice to play against someone or not. If you want to base it on their rating and how many points you would win or lose, that's your choice.

I think that most of us just come to play against another human being (although I am just assuming).

Also, note that your rating is effected by the amount times you play a game and return rate:
http://en.boardgamearena.com/#!page/ranking