Rating system in matchmaking

[Twinbee]

I'll start off by saying I generally like it, though see room for improvement.

Does anyone know the math behind it? It seems as if it's a generally solid way of scoring, though it would be nice for a longer running average in addition to what we already have (as ratings can fluctuate too quickly otherwise), and obviously there's the 2147 bug which loops back round to 1000 once it's passed.

Personally, I started off around 1100-1300, and gradually, over time increased my rating up to around the 1600 mark. That's why I like it; it gives an overall estimate as to how much you're progressing in terms of skill. It's also good for picking a lobby with similarly rated players (otherwise I often have no idea of the level they are at).

Thoughts and opinions?

[Baby Vaso]

I personally would prefer if the rating system was fixed to go both ways. What do I mean? I mean if you're at 2,000 rating and you beat a player with 1,200 rating, the player with the lower rating will lose little to no rating losing as the player with higher rating gets little to nothing winning. If player with the higher rating loses, they'll lose up to 29 rating just by getting in 2nd and the player with the lower rating will get a very high rating increase. The system should work both ways, if you play against a player whose rating is much lower than yours they should effect little to no rating beating you as you effect little to no rating beating them. This would allow everyone to play against everyone without people worrying about their rating taking a huge hit. This is especially true when people reset leaving someone who is just as skilled as you or better with a low rating demolishing your rating because yours is much higher.

[Twinbee]

Granted, it can be unfair when glitches, cheating, or a bad network can lose a large amount for the higher rated player, but then that's what the -100 cap is for.

However, I'm convinced mathematically the current system will stabilize the 'true' scores quicker, since a +500 rating will actually come ahead most of the time (19/20 races as a guess), so all the little tiny rating additions balance out against the rare loss with a larger rating reduction. My 'proof' is that highly skilled players averaging say, 2000 never seem to go below 1500-1600 (apart from due to the 2147 bug).

Nevertheless, I agree the ratings can fluctuate quite dramatically, which is good in one way (since we play differently according to how tired we are etc.), but if we had (in addition) a longer running average where all ratings went up/down more slowly, we'd both be happy, and it would address your concern without sacrificing mathematical elegance.

[Twinbee]

Btw, I read about the 2147 bug and how 2^31 = 2,147,483,648 and divide that by 1000 and you get 2147. Another fix (as well as the 64bit int support idea, or reducing a decimal place), is simply also to start all ratings from zero instead of 1000. Noone would reach the equivalent of 3147..... would they? ;)