that's really good advice about the tourneys

I entered a best of 9 tourney tonight and played my racks right away. I'm sure that I'll come dead last but I'm also sure that I'll learn the most

Welcome to Triplechain!

Just play oodles of tourneys and on the boards you lose, see how your opponent played it and see if you can learn from it (sometimes you will find it they played it worse and got there - luck is certainly a factor in this game).

19 DC winners - is that a record?

5 zoned 4s were equal to 4 zoned 5s and vice versa, it was probably the ideal scenario for a record number of winners

Yes, by a long way. Previous record was 15, in November. Record before that was 12.

GJ on 100 DC wins, Zac.

But I'm still gunning for your #10 spot in the rankings

DC wins have been reset?

Zac posted about it on the website. looks like hes in the process of reruning the totals. said the site will act weird when it's going on. should take a couple more hours still i think

OK I didn't follow that.

Would be good if everybody starts with a same average rating, for example 1400, also new players. With the current system, new players kill everybody's rating, I think.

Hopefully it's going to find all my lost wins.

Also, we're at Gooseshoot 15, although it's the 17th to run, I think I've played 16 and the closest I've come to winning one is twice losing a flip in the semifinal. Looks like I suck a goose.

Quick update..

I added a bunch of changes, some more hidden than others for now. I'll post the comprehensive list after I complete the re-rank. It's an ambitious operation that needs to be done in one shot for some of the stats to be correct, so it may be some time before everything's back to normal.

After that's done I'm happy to hear feedback on the new ratings/color bands. I have some flexibility to adjust them without much effort, so I'd like to get them in a good place before I lock things down for a while.

reset again?

Did you eliminate Spinst? Should gain a win for me and Dynasty IIRC

Hello again all. It's been a while. I'll shortly explain my absence from not only this thread, but 2+2 in general for those who care, others just skip this post, no tc content in it.

So one morning after staying up all night to meet a deadline I came to the conclusion that I need to prioritise my time in a better way. And despite not posting in that many threads, I read plenty of them, and felt I needed to do something about it, as they didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I felt like limiting to one or two threads would just be too difficult with others so easily accessible. So I decided I needed to "self-ban" completely, and since the longest option the site offers for an official self-ban wasn't enough, nor does it actually prevent visiting the site, I just completely stopped visiting it, and that was planned to last a couple of months originally. Then through some unfortunate irl events returning became less of a priority and got delayed for more months.

I was planning on returning soon-ish and bring with me some new tourney stats, but this whole adding tourney ratings etc. made me feel like I should return sooner to see if I could be of assistance with them. So I don't have any stats updates with me, but hopefully they'll maybe be done one day (or not even needed if we get accurate enough official stats), although I do not have any ETA for when such a thing might happen.

So before reading anything, I remember being a strong advocate for adding tourney ratings shortly after the mode was introduced and was confirmed popular, but received no support for it at that time. Nevertheless I recall going through things that would be required for a good tourney ratings system and the conclusion was that something new would be needed and it would be difficult to figure out a system that worked well.

Might not be correct, but I've understood that the rating system that will now be applied will be the same glicko-based that timed and daily use, and it will change game-by-game. I don't think it is suited very well for tourneys, as it ultimately doesn't matter whether you win 9-0 or 5-5 on a tiebreaker, match score is more important than game scores.

But that said it does have some good sides too, first of all having unified rating system through all modes makes things easier to understand, and also it makes all games actually matter something. I know some players have played for goose-egg after losing enough games, and I know that I myself have trouble focusing on games after the result of the match has already been decided one way or another, I assume this applies to at least some other players as well. But most of all, we will finally have a rating/ranking system for tourneys, even if it isn't 100 % accurate of what the mode is about; it will be very much indicative of relative players strengths.

tl;dr

New ratings are fun

A lot of eroded players are back

Ok, so seems like not much info has been given yet. I'm eager to hear what has been done cause atm timed ratings have dropped a lot, and daily ratings don't seem to be accurate. As well as daily colors/accolades, timed should probably be changed at the same time. Is there not a tier above invincible? I thought you once said there would be one, and been under that impression since then.

If it has not been in plans yet, an average score for tourneys like in timed and daily would be nice to have, although this would assume goose tourneys are not included, only standard scoring ones. I assume this shouldn't even be too difficult to add.

As well having some tourney leaderboards would be nice. The problems for those are that people have different average player amount per tourney and different average match length per tourney. So basically for a fair leaderboard it would have to be match win % based, and likely by match length.

So for example something like this could work:


Thoughts?



As I've mentioned in the tc chat, I'm worried about my advanced mode high score of 73800, it seems to have just disappeared, which isn't something that should be happening, as I don't see how advanced scores are related to the changes...

Yes, new players do kill the daily rating by starting out with a bunch of poor results. Of course they would bring more rating if they started out well, but most do not. A quick simplified example.

21 players play 3 DCs, 20 of them are veterans who are at minimum sigma, and all have exactly the 1500 starting rating. One player is completely new.

During first two challenges the veteran players tie for first place and the new player is 21st. On day 3, the new player wins, and veterans all tie for 2nd place.

After this, their ratings are: veteran players 1499.87, new player 1453.04; so a total of almost 50 rating has disappeared from the system.

One solution would be to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the starting sigma, and add the artificial starting penalty in another way, for example each game reduces a set amount of penalty. There is really no reason for a new player's rating to swing for hundreds during one dc. Taking the example above with a starting sigma of 20 instead, the rating disappearing from the system would be "only" about 17. Although there are probably better solutions out there.

Very likely.

I can do a double-check with my previously used spreadsheet should I find it somewhere from the folders of the old computer.

I wasn't really bragging, I mean what was there to brag, being lucky?

The point was to bring attention to an extremely unlikely mathematical anomaly, which some people (at least me) could find interesting. I first noticed having a streak at 23 wins, I decided to make a comment should I reach 30, and I did, after that I didn't update with each new win which is what I would've done if I was bragging, but the only update I made was once I lost. And to those wondering the odds of winning 39 best of 9s in a row with my previous average winrate are 0.000049, so it was truly an incredibly lucky run.

Gonna read back the thread more later, and possibly comment if I see something I feel like commenting on.

Got exactly the same results as waffles for the DCs.

+1

I don't know anything about programming but I suspect it must be really difficult to rerun all the DC ratings and have the inactivity element of DCs calculating as this happens.... might explain why the DC ratings table has lots of players who had previously dropped off due to inactivity....

Also might explain why DC ratings came back very close, but not exactly the same.........which is no big deal....

Just guessing, but if we say that Arjun and knotwork are playing DCs at a 1380 level right now, and maybe I am playing at 1360ish... and none of us are actually at those ratings, then does this situation result in over-penalizing the top players until we and other new players end up at our true ratings??

The inactivity penalty to daily wasn't applied at all, which is why players who have it currently appear on the leaderboard. But I heavily suspect there are some other problems currently going on as well.

The inactivity penalty applied to the players who have been inactive doesn't affect the ratings of other players at all. The inactivity penalty doesn't actually lower raw rating, it just applies an artificial penalty, which means the rating shown on the rankings page will be lower.

Every new player starts with a rating penalty, which is effectively the same as inactivity penalty, once you have played enough games, you will get rid of all of that artificial penalty. However that doesn't necessarily mean you've ended up at your true rating, you might still be climbing towards it after the starting penalty has been removed through playing the games necessary for it to happen.

No use worrying about this, Th10. Zac is working tons of late-night hours on it and will explain all...

I am sure all will be good in time......