[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 05:32, said:

you corrected me in post #97. So I'm left with

In post #98 you stated that I made an assertion that "a completely random match-up of 4 players around a table is likely to be more enjoyable than 4 match made players for any given player". I am still waiting to know where this assertion was made.

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there may be one or two players on BBO who have a poor idea of their own skill level in comparison with others. Some of these would certainly object to playing in games of players at their real skill level, rather than their perceived one, and may play less as a result. I have no idea if zenko would fall into that category, this was merely used as an example while indirectly objecting to the idea that such players were not of an "adequate skill level". I would personally always prefer to play with weaker opponents that were friendly than equal of better opponents who were unfriendly.

Of course the ideal is friendly opponents who are also as good as us or a little bit better. If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge) then you can achieve this by hosting a table yourself and then controlling who plays at the table. The problem is that many players who take this approach boot their partners from the table for their own mistakes whilst simultaneously creating an unfriendly atmosphere. I would personally choose to avoid such tables although perhaps I am also not of an adequate skill level for you or zenko.

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 06:11, said:

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there may be one or two players on BBO who have a poor idea of their own skill level in comparison with others. Some of these would certainly object to playing in games of players at their real skill level, rather than their perceived one, and may play less as a result. I have no idea if zenko would fall into that category, this was merely used as an example while indirectly objecting to the idea that such players were not of an "adequate skill level".

Please define 'game of their real skill level'

Quote

If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge) then you can achieve this by hosting a table yourself and then controlling who plays at the table. The problem is that many players who take this approach boot their partners from the table for their own mistakes whilst simultaneously creating an unfriendly atmosphere. I would personally choose to avoid such tables although perhaps I am also not of an adequate skill level for you or zenko.

This framework is unworkable. DOTA is the largest game (22 million players globally) I can think of that used this model. As anyone who has ever played it can testify, it does not function on any level. Indeed, picking up the game, reskinning it and adding matchmaking, ratings and the ability to reconnect was worth $50 dollars a shot to punters and has since spawned two other similar games (League of Legends and DoTA 2) that both offer the same added features. Drawing from experince with other online games it's pretty clear that punters want automated matchmaking not social controls, which as you mention don't even work properly.

Quote

In post #98 you stated that I made an assertion that "a completely random match-up of 4 players around a table is likely to be more enjoyable than 4 match made players for any given player". I am still waiting to know where this assertion was made.

I may have misunderstood you. Please define what you mean by "the rating system will say." I am not clear how a rating system can say anything.

Quote

Of course the ideal is friendly opponents who are also as good as us or a little bit better. If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge)

If this is the ideal, why not institute matchmaking. I am a beginner, I am NOT good enough to judge. I want a system that does it for me.

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

Please define 'game of their real skill level'

The quote was: "games of players at their real skill level". Consider Adam. He has a skill level of 1000 (low intermediate on some numerical scale) but thinks he has a rating of 2000 (advanced). Adam thinks he should be playing with others of around skill level 2000, his perceived skill rating, but in a game of players at his real skill rating the opponents would be rated approximately 1000. This phenomena (perceived rating higher than real rating) is not unheard of on BBO.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

This framework is unworkable. DOTA is the largest game

I have never played DotA, nor indeed ever heard of it. If we are talking online games then EverQuest and WoW did not do so badly. Neither had skill levels included. What works for one player base does not necessarily work for another.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

I may have misunderstood you. Please define what you mean by "the rating system will say." I am not clear how a rating system can say anything.

Take Adam again. He thinks he is advanced. The rating system says he is low intermediate. OK, if you want to be pedantic, the interpretation of the given rating is that Adam is low intermediate. Naturally the rating system itself does not grow a mouth and say it literally.

If the players that Adam is currently playing with were in the 1300-1700 (high intermediate) range and the definition of "adequate skill level" was within 250 rating points then the rating system is saying that Adam is not of an adequate skill level to play with these players even though in his own mind those very same players are not of an adequate skill level to play with him. This kind of result could upset many players. Most likely they would either leave BBO or create a new account to take the test again and get the "correct" result such that they were assigned to the advanced player group.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

If this is the ideal, why not institute matchmaking. I am a beginner, I am NOT good enough to judge. I want a system that does it for me.

You are lucky in that BBO has introduced a couple of mechanisms especially for you. The BIL is available (for a small fee) and contains only players of approximately your level. What is more, the BIL also offers good quality teaching material which will help you to develop your game. If you do not want to pay for the BIL then an alternative is the Relaxed Bridge Club. Although there are exceptions, the majority of players there are also of your level. The situation is actually harder for advanced players.

[Cthulhu D]

Quote

I have never played DotA, nor indeed ever heard of it. If we are talking online games then EverQuest and WoW did not do so badly. Neither had skill levels included. What works for one player base does not necessarily work for another.

When did you stop playing WoW? When they added 2v2, 3v3 and 5v5 Arenas in 2007, they introduced an ELO based system for PvP matchmaking. It's actually a good example showing that even simple ELO ratings are enough in practice. WoW has another matchmaker (the stones for finding groups) that don't use a rating and are much more widely critiqued.

WoW's K factor is 32 btw.

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 07:48, said:

Most likely they would either leave BBO or create a new account to take the test again and get the "correct" result such that they were assigned to the advanced player group.

This is all predicated on the fact you are going to display the matchmaking rating to users. I dispute this a good idea or even a requirement for implementing matchmaking. I'll note that most companies have stopped doing this in online implementations. If Adam cannot see his MMR, he will just sit opposite a bunch of self rated intermediate, advanced and experts and is unlikely to notice the difference. There is probably an argument not to display a users self rating if he is playing via the matchmaker as well.

Edit: Of course, Adam should also be free to start a custom game and those games would have restrictions at all, functioning exactly like the current 'create a table' button.

[RunemPard]

I like the idea of using a simple Elo system...but...there needs to be a formula that can convert both MP and IMP into a rating #...

This also brings into debate team matches and how they would affect this.

Now we must also consider skill level of other players.

I get a headache just thinking about it, but I would enjoy having a rating system.


I am going to use a game that is very popular and often has rated on sites. (Spades)...
You play a full game to a set score until a winner has been determined. Based on the skill of others, ratings are calculated after and adjusted. I feel that if Elo based ratings were to be done, maybe the best route is to do something new?

You agree to play for example 8 hands of MP or IMP scoring and are taken to a table w/ a partner or a random partner. Two suitable opponents are found based on the rating range you wish to play. After 8 hands, whoever has shown the best results wins the round and rating points are adjusted. Of course, this can be adjusted based on how much you have won by or simply by winning overall...

I prefer keeping how much you won by as a factor in the equation. It allows for a more accurate result based on overall performance.


Example...8 board match...almost like 4-man play but using many results.
The results are a 20 IMP victory for team A over team B.
Both teams are of an equal rating.
A formula taking into account victory, skill levels, and win margin is done and a new rating is given.

Assuming a rating level starts at 1500...two 2000 rating players play against two players at the 1400 level. Based on the calculations, a victory of x must be obtained to gain rating, else a victory for the 2000 players results in no change.

IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where...

4S+2 x1
4S+1 x5
4S== x1 (opponents result)
3S+2 x2

Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

[Zelandakh]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-30, 16:08, said:

IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where...

4S+2 x1
4S+1 x5
4S== x1 (opponents result)
3S+2 x2

Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

Or perhaps your opponents found an incredibly clever way to guarantee the contract 100% while the rest of the field all took a line that might have failed. Why do you think strategies that involve risking a contract for overtricks represents a better way to judge skill than actually being able to bid good games and make them? Why is a 100% safety play less skillful than taking every finesse in sight for a 12% chance to go down but a good probability of overtricks?

[RunemPard]

True as well, but risk/chance evaluation in regards to possible reward is a part of every game. Maybe many of the other pairs were able to keep track of points, suit lengths, etc. to give them a better idea of if the finesse is a good risk.

[RunemPard]

I just feel that in regards to overall skill over a long set of hands that MP shows this better than IMPs. But that is just my opinion and I respect your's as well. One problem with MP however is often in regards to slam level bidding. If one pair tries the risky 6NT auction given 1/3 odds of making and manages to make it, the other pairs who bid the statistically better 6S contract get a punch in the face. Of course, some pairs may realize that the 6NT contract is able to be made easily on the information given, but this is not always the case.

[vasss]

Hi
My opinion is that a rating system like BBO skill is a good thing, but unfortunately impracticable in BBO. There will always be people, who will vitiate any such an idea. Regarding that statement I give as an example the person, known by nick name xxxxx - "xxxxxxReal $Online Lessons" lol

In this case we have a total mockery and negation of the workability of the otherwise clever scheme!
What happens - a table of false, fictional players is set, then we don’t see even the slightest effort to make a proper, relevant announcement, all hands are picked and the game is not even started. The only goal is to reach the desired result as an absolute value.


Any rational human being can look at the “hands” of the person in question and make their own conclusions. No comment is needed.

The main idea of BBO is corrupted, where is the fair play, where is the play itself at all? There is no play and if by any chance there is, it resembles a computer game for 10-year-olds. All this done for the sake of getting a high rating by people with psychological problems and mental derangements


Furthermore let’s admit that the programming of a real rating system as ELO in chess is a hard and unrewarding labour. I don’t believe that any good programmer will waste his nerves, time and efforts to realize such a project, especially having in mind that his work won’t be adequately appreciated.
In the end I want to highlight that a user with such shameful behaviour and who is successful by means of base-minded deceptions must be eliminated from this otherwise wonderful site!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comment

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-June-11, 18:19
Reason for edit: edited to remove reference to player by name as it violtes the TOS

[jcwbridge]

What might be useful is if there were some statistics provided to the user that evaluates their own declarer play, defense and bidding.