Changing league repartition.

[.Memories.]

(01-13-2014 05:24 PM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  Memories, now it's my turn: Even after reading my post, you think no change is needed. Why? I don't say everyone should think like me ofc, but I indeed have difficulties to understand how you can just see the problems and say there is none.

Thanks for the reply earlier! I have a better idea of what you think the issue is, now.

I don't see this as a problem, though. Here's the way I imagine it to work, roughly (all assumptions, of course):

There is some "average" hidden rating that OML calculated after the game had been going for awhile. This is the mean hidden rating for all players and there is a normal distribution around it. Well, they took those numbers and came up with a formula for the system. When they said they changed it, and when we saw a big change, is when this would have been implemented.

Have you taken stats? Do you know the 68-95-99.7 rule? Anyway, this rule says that 68% of values are within one standard deviation of this mean, 95% within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within three. I see it that Gifted is that middle 68%, Clever and Master are the 14% on either side, then Fluffy and ST are whatever's left over even further out.

This "mean and standard deviations" way of distributing players seems good to me. There are ranges in each league, sure, but it's mostly noticeable in Gifted because of the amount of "average" players. If you are in Gifted, you are average. You are not bad but you are not great either. If you are Master or Clever, you are better or worse than average. Same with ST and Fluffy. Over time, you will move to where you're suppose to be.

Here's the wiki page for that rule I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%93...399.7_rule

That's just the way the system was intended to be, in my mind. It might make it interesting to have another league (or some other improvements to the league system), but I don't think it's necessary.

*EDIT:
tl;dr I believe the system they chose is based off of an average skill level and is appropriate.

[amoffett11]

(01-14-2014 12:41 AM).Memories. Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 05:24 PM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  Memories, now it's my turn: Even after reading my post, you think no change is needed. Why? I don't say everyone should think like me ofc, but I indeed have difficulties to understand how you can just see the problems and say there is none.

Thanks for the reply earlier! I have a better idea of what you think the issue is, now.

I don't see this as a problem, though. Here's the way I imagine it to work, roughly (all assumptions, of course):

There is some "average" hidden rating that OML calculated after the game had been going for awhile. This is the mean hidden rating for all players and there is a normal distribution around it. Well, they took those numbers and came up with a formula for the system. When they said they changed it, and when we saw a big change, is when this would have been implemented.

Have you taken stats? Do you know the 68-95-99.7 rule? Anyway, this rule says that 68% of values are within one standard deviation of this mean, 95% within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within three. I see it that Gifted is that middle 68%, Clever and Master are the 14% on either side, then Fluffy and ST are whatever's left over even further out.

This "mean and standard deviations" way of distributing players seems good to me. There are ranges in each league, sure, but it's mostly noticeable in Gifted because of the amount of "average" players. If you are in Gifted, you are average. You are not bad but you are not great either. If you are Master or Clever, you are better or worse than average. Same with ST and Fluffy. Over time, you will move to where you're suppose to be.

Here's the wiki page for that rule I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%93...399.7_rule

That's just the way the system was intended to be, in my mind. It might make it interesting to have another league (or some other improvements to the league system), but I don't think it's necessary.

*EDIT:
tl;dr I believe the system they chose is based off of an average skill level and is appropriate.

This is what I've been trying to say.

Mathed

[Mag!cGuy]

You explained how it worked very well! The flaw in your explanation is that, even though it proves why there is 50% of players in gifted, it doesn't say anything about the problems due to it.

By criticizing the fact gifted league represent an incredibly huge part of player base, I meant to warn about the problems created by this. And those problems are inactivity in lower leagues, which could repel new players, and very huge discrepancies in one league. (You said, correct me if I'm wrong, that this range is normal: I don't think it is normal considering the scale of difference I noticed. There are ranges in Master and in ST, but, and that may be only due to my very own perception, it seems that it's "worse" in gifted). Those are real issues, at least issues that I see, and your explanation doesn't say why they would actually not be problems: Thus, I still can't figure out why you think everything is fine.

I may have not completely understood your post though, so I apologize in advance if it's the case.

Sorry if I come off as insisting too much, but to my mind it's a crucial problem, especially for the fact that newcommers currently face inactivity and timing out players.

[lawtai]

I'm not sure changing the league sizes would change that issue. If the bottom 10% only play the game once and then stop playing for whatever reason, the fact that you shift the leagues still results in the same bottom 10% not playing.

You'd have to determine what's causing people to stop playing. If it's the fact that there's games that time out, then changing the league sizes doesn't really address that issue as you still have the hidden ranking which would probably be unchanged.

If people are not playing because they aren't any good, then shifting people down levels to reduce the amount of gifted isn't going to solve any problem either.

If anything, a change to the placement matches or to the hidden ranking could be done. Instead of playing 5 placement matches, every person starts with a hidden ranking of 1000 which would be equal to a gifted ranking. Then as they keep playing, they'll be demoted/promoted to leagues as they lose/win. That way you aren't relegated to fluffy right away if you screwed up a couple placement matches because you had no idea what you were doing the first time you played.

Also, season durations should be kept more consistent as that weeds out the players who don't play anymore from the rankings.

[Setorines]

So i created an account on the forums for the sole purpose of replying to this, the separation does need to change if this game is meant to continue onward in getting new members, i just started a few days ago and am shocked by the fact that the first matches ive played still aren't past the 4th turn. I eventually bout something just have access to play more games, and am still finding similar problems due to the inactivity of clever league. If I didn't pay money and were still at the 5 game limit i guarantee I would have quit already.

With more players in the smaller (and subsequently larger) leagues i feel like the inactivity in leagues that aren't gifted would decrease thus making the game more enjoyable for new players.

[Mag!cGuy]

Thank you for posting setorines! What you said is really confirming my thoughts... Hope other clever or fluffy will come here and say what is the situation they see.

[TheGreatErenan]

I agree with lawtai's assessment, and I really think you guys need to listen to this point. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that changing the thresholds of the different leagues will somehow change the level of activity in the lower leagues.

It won't.

If you raise the bar for being gifted, then a bunch of people who are just barely above that level will be demoted. But these demotions would be purely nominal. These players would still have the same hidden rankings, so matchups would not be affected. Those players would still be matched up against each other and not against the clever and fluffy players who keep getting matched up against inactive players.

To sum up, players with low hidden rankings are matched up against players with low hidden rankings, not players with the same league title. Demoting players won't affect who is matched up with whom.

[Flarp55]

(01-14-2014 12:41 AM).Memories. Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 05:24 PM)Mag!cGuy Wrote:  Memories, now it's my turn: Even after reading my post, you think no change is needed. Why? I don't say everyone should think like me ofc, but I indeed have difficulties to understand how you can just see the problems and say there is none.

Thanks for the reply earlier! I have a better idea of what you think the issue is, now.

I don't see this as a problem, though. Here's the way I imagine it to work, roughly (all assumptions, of course):

There is some "average" hidden rating that OML calculated after the game had been going for awhile. This is the mean hidden rating for all players and there is a normal distribution around it. Well, they took those numbers and came up with a formula for the system. When they said they changed it, and when we saw a big change, is when this would have been implemented.

Have you taken stats? Do you know the 68-95-99.7 rule? Anyway, this rule says that 68% of values are within one standard deviation of this mean, 95% within two standard deviations, and 99.7% within three. I see it that Gifted is that middle 68%, Clever and Master are the 14% on either side, then Fluffy and ST are whatever's left over even further out.

This "mean and standard deviations" way of distributing players seems good to me. There are ranges in each league, sure, but it's mostly noticeable in Gifted because of the amount of "average" players. If you are in Gifted, you are average. You are not bad but you are not great either. If you are Master or Clever, you are better or worse than average. Same with ST and Fluffy. Over time, you will move to where you're suppose to be.

Here's the wiki page for that rule I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%93...399.7_rule

That's just the way the system was intended to be, in my mind. It might make it interesting to have another league (or some other improvements to the league system), but I don't think it's necessary.

*EDIT:
tl;dr I believe the system they chose is based off of an average skill level and is appropriate.

Then Gifted would have a width of 2 standard deviations while all the other leagues would have a width of 1 standard deviations, so it is still imbalanced.

[.Memories.]

Who cares if Gifted has more players? I feel like you guys are saying it's imbalanced just because everything is not equal. You're trying to create an issue where there is not one.

Inactive players is a different thing, but no one can stop people from taking long turns or stopping after a few turns. That's not a problem with the system!

[Chemoeum]

And like I once said, OSN is inaccurate because not too many Fluffies or Clevers post their replays.