Why so many negative ratings?

[Kalavinka]

I see a ton of people (about 33%) in the ladder rankings who have negative ratings. Why does this happen? Is it to do with disconnections?

[RealityCheck]

Probably they didn't pass the initial test. They had to play 10-15 games with 500-1200 rated players to prove they are worthy and they failed.

[lextoc]

I believe it shouldn't be possible to have a negative rating, nor hide it by showing 0 rating. It's demotivating for new players trying to join a game ("Wow, he doesn't even have a positive rating, he must suck...").

[Turinturambar]

since rating difference between players shows the chance of one player beats the other one negative rating is definitely possible if the relative value (to which one would compare) is "low enough" essentially it would say sty like a player with 0 rating has a chance of 2 to the power of minus 20 to defeat zlo (in a 1v1) a player with -200 has a chance of 2^-22 etc. .
ppl in ladder usually have a negative rating because they have played less then 10 games and lost many of them (and stopped playing :/). most o' it would disappear if the played more games so the system could judge them better (and they would get better).
ps I think there was a discussion about hiding negative rating somewhere else

[watermelon]

I see a ton of people (about 33%) in the ladder rankings who have negative ratings. Why does this happen? Is it to do with disconnections?

Because you get matched up with (way) better players for a lot of matches, until FAF learns your rating. By that time you have a negative rating and people quit playing ladder matches as they find this demotivating. Or so I think.

[codepants]

Because you get matched up with (way) better players for a lot of matches, until FAF learns your rating. By that time you have a negative rating and people quit playing ladder matches as they find this demotivating. Or so I think.

Indeed. While I understand the purpose/theoretical intent of pitting new players against players of all ranks, I think the real life result is that new players get demotivated and stop playing.

Hence why we have so many negative ranked players with two games that last played two years ago (accepting, of course, that there will always be some of those, since people are entitled to try things out and not like them).

I propose pitting new players against a maximum ranking of 500 for their first few games and not ranking anyone below 0. I think that would encourage new players, and honestly, anything below 0 is no more meaningful than 0 anyways -- all it means is you haven't won many games yet.

[JaggedAppliance]

I propose pitting new players against a maximum ranking of 500 for their first few games and not ranking anyone below 0.

I don't know how many players u500 rating there are playing on any given day so that might make it impossible for some people to ever get games. Having your displayed rating never go below 0 is a good idea imo.