Absolutely right!
I loved 4 player when the same points were awarded to the two teammates!
I wholeheartedly agree with this! Developers must revert the rating awarding system to the original system... i dont like the glicko system on 4 player.
Why have you established glicko?
We are not going to switch back from Glicko to ELO currently.
Teams ratings are inflated. At the moment top players have to play 1 game in 2 weeks to stay on the leaderboard. After the new update (which we expect in the nearest days) they will have to play at least 3 games in 2 weeks. Top players will need to play more often, even if they afraid of the rating change. This should refresh the leaderboard and normalize the rating. If we will find that 3 games in 2 weeks is not enough, we may increase it to 5 or more.
In FFA we will divide rating by 2 (instead of 3), this will make rating changes bigger. See https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/poll-ffa-rating-changes-too-small
I don't understand the "hate" against the Glicko rating system to be honest. It's very similar to Elo, but improved in the sense that it takes into account the reliability of a player's rating by means of the standard deviation. I've played 67 games actually and my rating hasn't dropped. If your rating drops, that just means your previous rating was inflated and unreliable. Who cares about the rating anyway? Don't play for rating. Play for fun.
@GDII, I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that due to this fact, some players don't play anymore and that's lame. Glicko is fine for me.
@BabYagun, That's good news ! Thank you for your answer
@GDII
We hate Glicko because if you lose even one game with a high score, you lose about 30-35 points. When you win, you gain less than 1 point. (When I say high rating I mean 2500+).
Hence why previous players with 3000+ pts have dropped below 2000 after the update.
Basically, rating is completely meaningless now.
Teams Top on 07-August-2018, before the update:
Teams Top today (25-August-2018):
Now please tell me which "previous players with 3000+ pts have dropped below 2000 after the update".
The only player in the Top who used to have 3000+, but is not in the top now is @icystun. But he just didn't play for 2 weeks, so he is removed from the leaderboard as an inactive player.
Where is he on the 1st screenshot? I made that screenshot before the update. That is the leaderboard with ELO rating.
@MalayBasak was 2300+ before the update:
Basically, rating is completely meaningless now.
I have to disagree with you there. If anything, the rating is more meaningful now than it was before, since it gives you a measure of accuracy (ratings deviation, RD).
If you play against equal opponents, you don't lose that many points. If you play against players rated 500 below you, it is perfectly normal that you lose 30 points for a loss and gain only 1 point for a win. Such a large rating gap should mean something, namely that you are much better and you should win most of the time — in fact, 95% (logistic distribution) or 96% (normal distribution) of the time. Let's say you play 31 games with a rating difference of 500 points. Then you are expected to win 30 (+30) and lose 1 (-30). So, that should not cause your rating to drop. If it does drop, that means you lost more games than may be expected based on your rating, i.e. your rating was too high and did not reflect your actual playing strength. Those who are dropping simply had a rating that was higher than their actual strength (inflated).
The difference between Elo and Glicko is only the measure of rating uncertainty (RD). Other than that, both systems are pretty similar. The problem with Elo is that you can gain more points than you arguably deserve by playing against players with an unreliable rating. For example, you could be playing against players who just started to play or against players who haven't played in a while or against players who have an inflated rating because they played against other players with an unreliable rating. Suppose your opponent is rated 1500, but his actual strength is 1300, due to one of the aforementioned reasons. You would still gain the same amount of points as if you had played against a real 1500 rated player with accurate rating. As a result, your rating will be inflated. The Glicko rating system takes this into account by basing the rating change on the uncertainties of the players' ratings. So, it won't be as easy to obtain (or maintain) an inflated rating compared to the Elo system. That's why people are dropping now.
Besides, Glicko is also used for regular chess on chess.com. I think it makes sense to have ratings that are comparable, i.e. the ratings in 4-player chess should reflect a similar skill level to the ratings in regular chess, with a maximum around 3000. (And by that I don't mean that one player's rating should be similar in both games, because they are different games obviously and you can be good at one and bad at the other. But the overall rating range should be similar.) If you want the ratings to reflect similar strength as in regular chess, then a rating of 2500+ should be GM level, which most players are not.
ye this discussion shouldn't be in my opinion. It isn't about rating, but just for fun.
glicko rating is baseless though u came up with 1st move in team mode reducing 10 points that is a good option but if we cant score then it doesnt motivate us to play more , i seen a match where gremu lost like 42 points it does hurt very easy to comment but ask players who are losing points so why not bring elo back, take votes m sure ull get minimum 8 out of 10 going for elo
@BabYagun
You're missing the point. Malay has been 3000+ in the past. But not straight before this update.
@GDII You're making my point even easier to put across. You literally just said that if I come across 31 games where my opps are 500 below me, I'd win 30 and lose 1 to maintain my rating. And if I did better than that ratio, I'd gain points. And the thing is, I'd win all those games no problem. The problem is that there's always going to be some partner who thinks they're better than you, and so doesn't follow your arrows (this is usually some player rated 1400-1500 who will bring your rating down drastically). It's not that I can't win those games, because I could win them easily. It's that my partner drags me down.
> You're missing the point. Malay has been 3000+ in the past. But not straight before this update.
I am sure I understand what you said. Look at the facts:
1. @MalayBasak was 3000+ ELO some time ago. (Maybe 2 months ago. You know better, I didn't monitor his rating and we didn't have game archive those days, so I cannot check it.)
2. @MalayBasak was 2316 ELO before the update, on 6th of August 2018.
3. On 7th of August 2018 we switched from ELO to Glicko.
4. Today (26/08/2018) @MalayBasak is 1894 Glicko.
We see that @MalayBasak lost at least 700 points before the update. From 3000+ ELO to 2316 ELO. And then, after the update, he lost 422 points (2316 - 1894) in 18 days.
Do you still think that Glicko is the reason?
Now please look at another player stats. He was 2109 ELO on 07/08/2018 (at the moment of the switch from ELO to Glicko):
And today he is 2111 Glicko:
He played 173 Teams games after the ELO-Glicko switch. And his rating is at the same level.
That means his rating is real, not inflated.
So, please, don't blame Glicko if you lose rating. Try to find the real reason.
The problem is that there's always going to be some partner who thinks they're better than you, and so doesn't follow your arrows (this is usually some player rated 1400-1500 who will bring your rating down drastically). It's not that I can't win those games, because I could win them easily. It's that my partner drags me down.
How does that have anything to do with the Glicko rating system? You can simply avoid that by setting your rating range sufficiently high or inviting your own teammate rather than playing with a random teammate.
@BabYagun ... your example concerning Xari is perfectly valid, and I accept that. But how come I often beat him, yet I am supposedly 300 points worse? I hate to sound like this, I really do, but I defeat leaderboard players regularly. (They, of course, beat me too of course, but not too often).
I've kinda given up on trying to prove my point, but you speak to any decent player and they all agree I should be rated a lot higher than I currently am.
Thanks for putting up with me - haha
yeah... tom should have been on the leaderboard if it was ELO. btw i loved ELO.
lol hehehehee
Hi,
All remarks of this message will be for 4 player chess in team mode. I feel it's important to share my point of view in this forum.
Since the new updates, we know that rating is going down. Nevertheless, the leaderboard is full of old players that have played only one or two games since the update. I believe they have stopped playing so they can sit in the leaderboard, or they are too afraid to loose points. Anyway I'm not here to judge.
In order to fix this issue, I would (if I had the ability to do so) have reset all ratings at the beginning of the update. By doing this, it could have improved the experience on two points : the old players would have certainly been back to playing again (more players in team mode is necessary) and the leaderboard ratings would be relevant with the rating system. Up to now, the top20 is full of people rated in elo, while we are playing in glicko, this is not fair.
Now I call onto the developers so maybe they think about this problem and they fix it. I do not doubt of the superiority of team mode compared to FFA, but there is still a low amount of players in team mode which can make the experience a bit frustrating sometimes. It could be nice to have more active players above 2000 points.
This being said, I wish you a pleasant day and I look forward an answer from the developers.
Le bg