One example is that they are 12k, but only play 5k players.
The weakness exists in both
That’s a good point. Maybe deviation is not the right number to tie a rank-difference restriction to. I am trying to think of a filter that would prevent someone from playing 300 “unsurprising” games.
I’m not arguing that it’s unnatural. By definition, the simulation is just showing what the system will do in various circumstances. In this case, the “natural” thing provides a suboptimal user experience.
I agree, and I like the proposal! However, sandbaggers/airbaggers are a real problem, and we should probably consider how they will act in a new rating system.
The harm is to the experience of their opponents. Even if your rank doesn’t change much, it’s annoying to play a game that doesn’t match what you were expecting. I would like to say this isn’t such a big deal because opponents can restrict rank on custom challenges, but here is the complaint about a “slow descent” player: Glicko entry points and new players - #96 by stone.defender. (If you click through, the slow descent is originally attributed to a few faulty resignations, but the simulation shows that rank mismatches are a much bigger factor)