« Back to All Topics
`Price of losing too high for long games`
`Posted in `
`Curling`
`Price of losing too high for long games`
`Posted in `
`Curling`
`Price of losing too high for long games`
```First, I would like to thank the administrators for the recent changes made to the game.  Emphasis on winning games and not difference in the score is exactly what the game needed.  It makes it much more like real curling and eliminates the need for higher ranked players to humiliate lower ranked players to keep their rating.

However I do think that a minor adjustment would make the rating system more fair for all.  I played a 10 end game against an opponent with a rating 21 points less than mine.  It was a tight game all the way, but I won with a single point in the 10th end.  I gained 23 rating points for the game.  I thought that was too generous for playing a nearly equally rated opponent.  It started me thinking about how the ratings are calculated.

I was confused at first, but with some help from TI-KASS, I discovered how it works.  For those of you that are confused with the system, here is how it works:

If you play a 4-end game, If you win the game, REGARDLESS OF THE FINAL SCORE, The systems calculates the new ratings as if you won 1 end by a 4-0 score, with differences in ratings factored in. In a 2-ender, it uses 2-0, 6-ender 6-0, etc.

For the 10 end game I mentioned above, I was awarded a 10-0 single end win, which is why I got the 23 point increase.

I went to the ratings calculator on the FAQ portion of this page and compared the rating increase/decrease based on the number of ends played.  Below are the results for 2 players with the same rating:

10 ends:  +/-25
8 ends:  +/-22
6 ends:  +/-19
4 ends:  +/-14
3 ends:  +/-10
2 ends:  +/-7

If a player is concerned about his rating, this is a problem.  If a players loses a 10 end game, he would lose 11 more points than if he lost a 4 end game.  A player might rather play a shorter game to lower his risk of losing points.

Since the changes in the rating system is supposed to reward winning GAMES, why shouldn't the change of rating be independent of the number of ends played?

I have a minor modification that would get rid of this issue.  As in FIFA football, a win should be calculated as a 3-0 single end win and draws should be 1-1, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF ENDS IN THE GAME.  The ratings change for evenly matched players would be 10 points for a win, which is not excessive.

`Yes NJS has a point, i'd agree with what he said.`
```I see what the administrators are trying to get at. With the recent changes in the calculation of points, the game is more like real curling. It doesn't matter what the score is, it's about who wins.

In order to maintain a high ranking, players need to adjust their strategy accordingly by trying to limit your enemy to 1 when you don't have hammer, trying to score 2+ with hammer and then trying your best to secure hammer for the last end.

I understand some people might not like it, but in real curling it doesn't matter if the score is 10-9 or 10-0. You don't get credit for the points you earned in a loss.```
```If you compare to the other games here. 25 points for a win is just about on par.

I am actually really happy that the new system encourages longer games.

In my opinion 6 ends is the minimum for a fair game.  Anything shorter should be replaced by "One-End-Skins".  The advantage of first hammer is just too big to overcome in short games.

Skins is a tossup.  Some prefer hammer. Some don't. Likely a 50-50 split. ```
```How about this for you guys... This needs to be fixed!

I'm up 7-5 in the 8th end without hammer. My opponent blanks the end, we go to draw to the button??? He wins it, it gives him 4??? This was NOT SKINS I know the difference.

Wtf is that?```
`I don't know about all the other games, but for chess, the ratings change for equal players +/-16.`
`I disagree. If you win a 10 end game, you proved that you are the better player over a whole 10 ends. You deserve a major points increase for your time and focus applied over 10 ends. `
```Agree with erjk here:  longer ends encouragement, more adjusted to real life.
And last but not least: the system is closer to “fly or die” perception.))

```
```Bumping this one!

I'm thrilled that flyordie came to their senses and made the game about winning games instead of ends!

It's enough reason for me to come back after after a couple years on the sidelines. This still is the best curling simulator around.

However, in my opinion there still is one issue about the rating system that needs to be attented to. How big must the rating difference between two players have to be before there is no rating points to win for the higher rates?

It's ludicrous that it still is possible for players to get well into the 400s and higher by solely playing beginners. For the rating system to mimic the actual skill of a player, games between equally rated players must be awarded!

I suggest that games between players with a rating differnce of 250points+ should be called nogames.

Thoughts anyone?```
```Good points snella, but 250 points is too much. As I am 650+ the majority of the time so that would mean I can't play anyone under 400. So considering there about only 10 players consistently 400+  and many don't play at my time. Therefore I would have nobody to play.

Regards, Trout```
```Well trout, I think you aren't really what we're talking about here. Aren't you the one who laughs at people with a smaller rating when you play? You did when you played me, you laughed and laughed when I missed a shot, you are NOT a matter of concern here. Just a kid trying to keep loopholes in the rating system so you can snake inside and outside of the rules.

I think 250+ is TOO much of a difference for a "no game" to be called. Look at the guys who never {before the new scoring system} never got to 350 let alone 400+, now they want to stay up there and feel good about themselves but can't stay there if they play people of equal skill.

I don't mind the new system but if a play can get to 400, 500, 600 playing people far below them, I say change the rules because the rating system doesn't make sense then. What is the rating system used for? To "rate" players, not to get to 1000 by playing brand new people and having their friends lose to them on purpose etc. ```
`Trout, if your rank is higher by more than 250 points of 99% of players maybe it just means it is unreasonably high?`
```I was taking a look at some old forum posts and this one in particular caught my eye. I was not playing this game around 10 years ago so it is shocking to see how flawed the rating system used to be, and it is great news that it got changed for the better.

Two valid points were raised in this thread. Firstly by snella, who is one of many I can see that dislikes high rated players who exploit players less than 100 rated for points. Therefore you shouldn't gain any points by beating someone 240 points or more below you. This is understandable.

Then trout replied to this with another good point that if he is over 600 rated, there is usually no one around that is 240 points or less below him.

I am glad I have seen this thread because I have thought about this matter before. Maybe there is a way of making both parties happy. This could be done by taking into consideration not the points difference between players, but the points ratio.

For example, if a player is 600 rated and they play against a 300 rated player, this is a ratio of 2:1. In more cases than not, this should be a well matched game.

If a player is 300 rated and they try to get an easy win by playing someone 50 rated, the ratio is 6:1, so much greater. In this case, the player would not benefit much, if at all from this points farming mission.

On a final note, it is sad to see that there are a lot fewer players nowadays compared to a few years back. We do still have a community to the game, and it is great to see all the same faces, no matter what rating you are. But it is not what it used to be. So to make these changes to the rating system may be too much effort for what it is worth, especially since the game is pretty dead at the moment.

Apologies if this matter has been raised in the past, but it would be nice to hear your thoughts everyone!```
```Where the ratio logic falls apart is when you have a 1 rater playing a 10 rater. Essentially a dead even match in terms of skill, but the ratio method would screw the 10 rater so much that such a game may never even happen. And what do you do for zeros?
I think the rating system as it is makes a lot of sense, and for what it's worth, referring to the OG post, I would never play 2 ends with anyone (not that I do anyway) if rating swings were so drastic. The rating system should take into account the increase in randomness with shorter games, and does so fairly.
I still maintain the most significant problem with the game is lack of an optional extra end feature, like skins. ```
`No matter how bored I get I never feel the need to come to FOD & go through 8 year old posts lol.`
```Yes Rubiam, I totally agree, there comes a flaw with lower rated players. So maybe the algorithm could be changed once you get above a certain rating. And if 2 players are either side of that boundary, use the original method. This could be too complicated, I'm not sure. Also, the lack of an optional extra end is a pain. Not a good simulation of the real game.

Wullie, we all have our own weird things we like doing to pass the time. I hope I haven't affected your life too much ;)```
`Haha never.`