Competitive games like ladders and Automatic Sitewide Tournaments (AST) would get much more consideration and attractiveness with better rewards.
Let’s double the rating points you may earn or lose in these games.
EGF has a policy to rate the seriousness of their tournaments with different levels of taking in account the rating points of the results. OGS could in the same way differenciate regular rated games from rated ones played in a tournament.
Rating should be a measure, not a reward. @Groin proposal would undermine its accuracy as a measure, so I’m opposed.
I’d like to see round-robin tournaments where the effect on rating for each possible result can be precomputed. That’s how ELO was actually supposed to work, before Swiss format opens started to dominate :frown:
This was my first thought as well.
Reward vs measure aside, this proposal is sort of like tuning the variability parameter in different contexts. So maybe it’s not so detrimental to accuracy. (But I’m still not convinced of the value)
Are you both saying that EGF ratings don’t have a good accuracy then?
I can argue that giving the same value at those different kind of games like here on OGS is already altering the measure instead.
Both are not opposed. Rating is a measure and a reward, that’s how it works.
The value is to give a higher value to tournaments as to everydays games. Which should reflect what a tournament is.
In the european rating a game you play in the club has no value unless it’s included in some local club tournament (which will affect in a low way your rating), then a game you play in a european class of tournament like Paris or London will affect much more your rating.
As long as OGS don’t care of these differences in its own management I think tournaments will stay considered as a kind of joke.
Now we can argue on what makes a tournament game more valuable as a simple rated game. I have a long list waiting for that if necessary given that tournaments are (or better should be?) well designed and managed on OGS. I’m not denying a global policy to integrate all kind of games played here like it is now, I’m just suggesting to push up tournaments.
it rewards better playing quality. If someone will be highest rated in some little tournament, they likely will win, then become airbagger and will have problems in finding correct opponents outside a tournament and will have loss streak. Is it a reward?
Interesting
Great. Seems pretty obvious at first but in fact maybe not, so good to mention
I think things are more complex as this (opponents may be rated in the same way for ex) but anyway the more the quality of your games become a regulator, the better to me.
I don’t think a higher quality will make you especially prone to lose against some other parameters (I dunno exactly which ones you may refer precisely).
Last I’m not sure your rating will be put higher in itself (you lose and win points as usual) but quicker i guess yes.
In all this, tournaments may get back a key role they should have to promote quality.
I would prefer only double the points when you win.
The EGF rating system has four tournament classes:
class A: adjusted time minimum 75 minutes
class B: adjusted time minimum 50 minutes
class C: adjusted time minimum 30 minutes
class D: Tournaments played on Internet, adjusted time minimum 50 minutes,
Tournaments played on the internet are worth less than tournaments IRL because of the possibility of cheating.
The main difference between class A, B and C is thinking time. But in correspondence tournaments, thinking time is almost unlimited so it makes no sense to rate some games differently.
I understand your concern but that would inflate everyone’s ranking. Not so workable.
I’m basically not in the way to change the rating system we have but to give more weight to the tournaments games (be a win or a loss).
Thanks for more on this EGF classification. My main concern here is not to differenciate the kind of tournaments on OGS (or adjusting the EGF system) but just as a first main point, to see if a difference between rated games and tournament rated games would make sense to us.
If so we may debate of the value of each tournament system here and correlated how we could make them better if necessary. The time allowed classification may not be perfectly well adapted although still an important criteria? What about anti cheating, preventing escaping, most restricted use of external help excluding analysis tools and dictionaries, etc… All those things specific to online gaming?
I feel a lot of debates around so I’m not going further until we get a first real good consensus that my suggestion is something of real interest shared by a large majority of players here.
Till now none said double isn’t good enough. Maybe we better divide simple rated game points by 1.5 and multiply the tournament rated games points by 1.5?
A higher rating does carry some sort of prestige and that’s what makes people want a higher rank, even if they don’t actually get stronger. However, that is a misuse of the rating system and should not be encouraged. A higher rating should not be seen as a reward.
Tournaments already give you a “prestige” reward by showing up as trophies in your profile, but they are not prominently featured. Rank on the other hand is displayed next to your name everywhere. Maybe we could achieve what you are looking for by unlocking some little icons for tournament wins that you can put on your profile picture. For example you could put some special badge if you win ten automatic sitewide tournaments. Groups could design their own icons for their tournaments. As a bonus other people would see those badges, be curious, and find out about those tournaments.
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.