My thoughts on the humble rank:
-High DDKs (i.e. around 20k) will end up playing a lot more strong players, since that will be the entry point for everyone.
-Everyone will decrease in rank by 1-2 stones, since that’s about as low as uncertainty gets for anyone. (Fuego, with tons of games, is at +/- 1.4). This isn’t the end of the world, since everything would be internally consistent, but OGS ranks would be out of line with everything else, with OGS 1d corresponding to something between 2d and 6d for other servers and national rating systems.
-This probably won’t inflate any ranks. Initial wins vs. absolute beginners (<5 games) don’t give a large rating boost, so these people losing to 20ks instead of 13ks won’t make much of a difference to ranks. (…although new players have a rating of 1500, so these will be wins against stronger, if uncertain, players for the 20ks. Not sure where that leaves us for how much impact these games will have). On the other hand, strong players will have a lower deviation once they get up to 13k, so they’ll take more rating away from DDKs on their way up the ranks. I suspect the number of games played by reasonably strong (SDK+) players on new accounts is fairly low compared to the total number of games being played, so this probably won’t strongly impact ranks.
If we want to implement the humble rank, but only really have it affect high uncertainty accounts, we could alternately compute rank by saying rank = mean rank - std. dev + minimum mean rank (~1.4?) This would eliminate the second issue, but not the first.
If we wanted to potentially eliminate both issues, we could add a “humble rank, but only for beginners” option. For this, we’d need to add an option to check “I am a beginner” during account creation. Beginners would be ranked based on humble rank + 2 or so, and would revert to a normal rank after their uncertainty dropped to 2 or below, at which point they’d drop into the main rating system, without having their rank jump at all. Ideally, this would mean that strong players would enter the system at a rank of 13k, weak players would enter at 20+k, and both would have the same rating, so as to not mess with Glicko. Weaker players could avoid getting beaten down by 13ks, and fewer 13ks would get matched with ? accounts, hopefully reducing uncertainty at that rank, somewhat.
On a related note, based on the data that we have, can we plot the actual average ranks of people entering the system? My suspicion, if we look at the first 5 games that people will play and compute a Glicko based on those games, is that it’ll be a bimodal distribution, representing a peak of true beginners at TPK somewhere, and a second peak of players with accounts elsewhere, likely closer to 13k. For the “elsewhere” players, we could potentially add a second humblerank-like adjustment to represent their most likely rank, which would similarly be dropped as their rank uncertainty fell.
Likewise, if we know the average ratings of true beginners, we could add a rank adjustment of (stDev-2)*(initialHumbleRank-trueBeginnerRank), assuming a threshold uncertainty of 2 for where players would re-enter the rating system. (initialHumbleRank would be 13k-newAccountUncertainty and trueBeginnerRank would be the actual mean rating of players checking the “I am a beginner” box).