I think that’ what people want to know about, isn’t it?
The original complaint appears to be that “this person only wins”. So we want a quick way to see that…
…
4 Likes
Yeah - so this idea doesn’t work - it just encourages sandbagging.
OK.
So as far as I can see, the only surviving proposal is that we do need a way of indicating that we don’t really know the rank of a person.
And I am still waiting to be reminded of what is wrong with increasing the uncertainty of a person over time?
(I mean - I know this has been discussed before, I just can’t remember the objection, in order to even start looking at solutions).
1 Like
it just encourages sandbagging.
I don’t really understand. How does showing the number of wins / total games encourage sandbagging?
On Fox, you clearly see the total wins / total games + the recent wins / games in the form of X & O. That tells me right away whether it’s a strong opponent or not.
Happy to explore other ideas, just don’t understand why this one is bad. 
It encourages sandbagging because there is a great feeling associated with displaying for the whole world to see prominently “I have won 100 games in a row”, as depicted by the above meme.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying that meme was over my head.
Clearly, part of the problem is having unranked games in a context where you don’t need to have ranked games. At my old go club, we’d partake in quarterly club tournament. That’s when your rank was decided. For the rest of the time, you’d play games with others, and know their level to adjust handicap, etc.
Obviously that’s not possible in the context of the web where identities are hidden.
The easy solution would be to abolish unranked games, but I guess that wouldn’t be popular for many…
Does that mean, when the uncertainty passes a threshold, that they would revert to [?] status? If so, that would only be helping the sandbagger. If not, then how is the outcome different than the [7k?] proposal?
It does mean that.
I think that if we were to this, it would increase calls to easily be able to avoid games with [?]
The outcome may not be much different - but at least it would be not introducing another similar symbol and system with a different meaning.
IE if we are going to do something like this, for heaven’s sake lets use what we have rather than tacking on something else.
1 Like
So, helping the sandbagger is okay? Becoming [?] is a sandbagger dream, and they can keep it forever under that system.
Since I am not advocating that or any “something like this,” that comment must be meant for someone else.
FIFY: Becoming [15k] is a sandbagger dream, and they can keep it forever under the current system.
1 Like
I fail to see how telling everyone that we are certain that we do not accurately know a person’s rank is “helping a sandbagger”.
Not everything is about you. That was clearly a rhetorical remark addressing the proposal, which you tabled, of using [7k?]. In response that, I say “let’s have ? mean one thing only, and use it if we can to our advantage”.
Really? Alt sandbaggers start at [?] and when they top out their comfortable rank, they start all over again with a new account. You make it possible for them to achieve a perpetual [?] without even the effort of creating a new account.
Which is it?
My question was how it was different, and instead of saying “for heaven’s sake…” you could have easily said “because we want to ‘have ? mean one thing only, and use it if we can to our advantage.’”
But how is having a [?] helping them in the context that this is proposed?
The context is “people playing unranked would like to avoid opponents who’s rank is not certain”.
What better way to achieve this than correctly indicate whether we are certain of someone’s rank?
Nah, what currently happen is than they play like 4-5 game…get 3-4-5-6-7k whatever rank…and stay forever displayed at their desired rank no matter how much they win because nothings ever force them to play ranked ever again.
You liberally see account than have only ever played 4 ranked game, sometime 2-3 years ago…and then played hundreds and hundreds of unranked game. Often with extremely high winrate, more than often playing again similar ranked opposant who THINK they will get a fair game.
Having a rank displayed for unranked game is pretty much essential…because if there is none you end can end up with dan playing again DDK what can likely not be a pleasant experience for either player. But the fact you can keep the same rank displayed at perpetuity lead so abuse.
They can still take people’s unranked open challenges, or they might decide they like ranked alt sandbagging. As I said, you have exchanged a relatively innocuous sandbagger for a much more damaging one.
To be honest, probably is the better and more simple way.
As reality is than rank displayed in unranked game is pretty much a necessity. I mean, you can see server like KGS where player have the option to completely opt out of ranked and have a {-} rank and being limited to free game only. But lot of poeple don’t actually like that as it is just too wild! You might end up playing a 5 dan or a ddk? You just don’t know. Reality is than there is kind of low value in huge disparity of rank game…wining too easy can be quite boring for stronger player, and being crushed too badly can be unproductive for the weaker player (I mean teaching game are cool and all, but when intended to be teaching and coming with a review…but you generally learn better from just playing when game are close on the slightly challenging side)
But yea, current system allow for poeple to artificially set a desired rank and keep it forever as long they never play ranked ever again, most often than not to fool player actually looking for a decent game.
A simple marker system would at least very visually warn player about potential huge disparity between displayed rank and actual rank. Perhaps some player will not care and just take the challenge anyway (I mean, it’s unranked after all so whatever if they feel like messing around), but other might pass on it and look for a other game instead. I think overall it’s a simple and elegant option.
What I wonder is what would be the best way to determine uncertainty? Based on the amount of game played without a ranked game (I mean, if you played for example 200 unranked in a row…the previously displayed ranked rank is quite likely to be wrong)? Or based on time (like spending 6 month without playing a ranked game for exemple)? Perhaps an algorithm combining both?
I have a hard time how you come to the conclusion than player being unable to perpetually keep a rank without actually playing ranked would somehow cause them to automatically start creating endless alt instead…
I mean sure, alt account spamming is indeed damageable for ranking system (unless the system can give rating back to the victim when player is banned, what I don’t think OGS system do…correct me if wrong)…but does not mean poeple will just switch to that method…and also that method can be punished more clearly. Just like they is way to diminish the impact (but that a totally different discussion)
What is actually much better than perpetual “whatever they want” rank without ever having to start a new account. At least with a ? player know what they are getting intro before accepting a challenge.
There no magical “impossible to see” or “don’t know about” way of sandbagging…
There is one: make a new accounts, try to get as low as possible initial rank and have fun blasting people until you rank up too high where it’s not funny to bully people anymore. I mean, that pretty much it.
From that point it’s either start back at step one with a other account or try to purposely lose game to lower your rank down artificially. And both are generally quite easy to notice.
They can, but poeple can also decline playing the game right from the start…as at the second their challenge is accepted, they will see the ? and can decide to abort right away. And can decide to block the account from accepting their future challenge if they want.
And they might get banned if they decide to take that route.
Bingo!
Bingo!
It is never easy, and sometimes it is impossible.
You can do that now.
Probably not.
Or to abolish ranked games?
1 Like
I’m not aware of any objections to displaying some concise indicator of rank quality, though people might not fully agree on what they consider a good indicator for rank quality (some object to adding a question mark).
I guess the reason such an indicator was never implemented is mostly the length of the OGS development backlog, and this issue not being high on that list, or maybe it’s not even on that list? And maybe it was evaluated to require some backend changes, so only anoek can fix it?
1 Like