[Attempt at] New PBEM rating system - continued

[Solver]

Correct, I'd propose for that to be abolished.

[quinns]

Originally posted by TheBirdMan
And I still think the greatest (only serious) disadvantage with the old system was, that a player could choose to go unrated in a rated game.

But even if that could be fixed, Blackice is right. Someone could just take their best game, DROP all the other games where they are not doing well, and just continue to be ahead at the *9 point, like Klair did (although, she did it unintentionally, I believe -- That really WAS the only game she was playing), and remain on top. That is the biggest flaw in the old system. This same flaw would exist in the ELO system (if I understand that it is similar to the old system.)

At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either.

I think that Solver should first do a poll to see how many people really would like a rating system -- THEN worry about working out and voting on a good rating system. Don't put the cart before the ox!

But I agree with Birdman on the challenge ladder.... It is a clean, fair, and easy system -- but it won't work with more than two players

[blackice]

All great points and all a combined community effort Great to see the old timers in this debate. Er well some of us are old

Ok so lets summarize we have three systems all with merit. The community liked less rules and no one game wonders. The 10% promoted games so Birdy they want top spot they have to play/ done. Mind you Birdy if people have a choice they play, why because this is the best game period.

Well then it would seem we have and answer here if we look real hard. Yes the 10% needs rules but less to make it work. Yes the challenge ladder works but only for two players, yet it promotes games to be the top dog, right?

Ok so what we have here is a simple rule based on a 10% system, use the challenge system to ensure participation, I see more involvement and more fun with this system.

No one game wonders we set out a rule that you are knocked back a ranking if you do not accept a challenge even by one player in a set time limit.

Now let’s face it hard to keep track of right? Not… come on the top 10 not accepting a challenge by anyone like the ladder it is going to attract attention.

So why not marry the two systems?

I would like to still see the three going though, that way if one only has time for the occasional game they have a choice. That I think is still important, we can not force people to play can we?

So if we really dig hard here I think we can come to some sort of mathematical, social, community, participation, fun based, easy SYSTEM that would incorporate all of what the community needs to thrive, rankings. Or am I just a born optimist with a big ego

We need:

1. fair
2. easy
3. no sucks allowed
4. workable
5. automated
6. minimal rules
7. agreeable

More beer, ok I just tossed that in, mind you, it could be a rule.

Interesting enough if it was done right we could work it out where all systems and gaming IE: Challenge, Multi-player and Online counted towards their individual rankings chart but have one master chart to cover it all?

Brain storming is it workable?

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by blackice
We need:

1. ........
2. ....
3.

.....More beer, ok I just tossed that in, mind you, it could be a rule.
Brain storming is it workable?

That one with the beer is a good rule.

On a regular basis, that certainly makes the game more unpredictable and urge you to do your best ........ just to clean up the mess you did last time.

I still remember one of the first challengegames I had with Quinns, where I in my great wisdom an evening disbanded all my phalanx just to finish some musketeers more quickly. Just to find the next morning, that I had forgotten all about my babarian slaves in several of my greatest cities.


And now a little serious:

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Solver
OK, OK... a few more words about the One-Game wonder. This can be prevented by a rule that, a rated player is obliged to have all his games rated - that will also make him lose points. [/UNQUOTE]




[QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

No one game wonders we set out a rule that you are knocked back a ranking if you do not accept a challenge even by one player in a set time limit.[/UNQUOTE]

Much more


[QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

So why not marry the two systems?[/UNQUOTE]

Let those two systemparents have a little bright-brained systemchild as soon as possible.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by blackice

Brain storming is it workable?[/UNQUOTE]

Depends on time of the day and what one is using to storm his ( there are now "she's" 'round here those days ) brain with. But generally I would say

YES

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by quinns

But even if that could be fixed, Blackice is right. Someone could just take their best game, DROP all the other games where they are not doing well, and just continue to be ahead at the *9 point, like Klair did (although, she did it unintentially, I believe -- That really WAS the only game she was playing), and remain on top. That is the biggest flaw in the old system. This same flaw would exist in the ELO system (if I understand that it is similar to the old system.)

from my experience with the 2 player ELO ranking, i would say that resting your butt on 1 leading game wont do it. someone else would only need 2 leading games to overtake you, and so on.
so, the higher your number of games, the higher also the risk that you will not lead them all. one reason, btw, to allow a player to lose points in a game, like it is the case if all players' points in a game sum up to 0.

also, that flaw can be worked around by a simple rule, e.g. you would need to have at least one running game to not lose any penalty points. so, if all players in your only one running game think that you have too much of a lead they could simply drop out of this game - and if all other players dropped out of the game, the game automatically is finished and you have to start another one if you want to keep your rating.

At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either.

another argument why we need rating based point gains and higher risks (=losing points) versus weaker players.

i would also like to suggest that everyone clearly states what they expect from a possible ranking system.
likely, no system will fit all these characteristics, but seeing which system fits which, it will be easier to decide on one system.

[Mathemagician]

also, someone please tell me more about the 10% system...

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by blackice
Ok so what we have here is a simple rule based on a 10% system, use the challenge system to ensure participation, I see more involvement and more fun with this system.

No one game wonders we set out a rule that you are knocked back a ranking if you do not accept a challenge even by one player in a set time limit.

good point, but the penalty would need to be a point adjustment, as the ranking is directly point based.

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Mathemagician
i would also like to suggest that everyone clearly states what they expect from a possible ranking system.
likely, no system will fit all these characteristics, but seeing which system fits which, it will be easier to decide on one system.

alright, i make the start.

criteria that are important to me:

- rating differences to influence rating gains by the winner(s), meaning the weaker your opponents the less you gain and vice versa.

- points CAN be lost in a game, that is the sum of all points gained and lost in a game is zero.

- rating updates by replacing the old score from that game every X turns, so no cumulative point gains from the same game.

- automated system to calculate the ratings, like Solver.exe or Math.excel

- system does NOT need to be simple, just managing the ranking table needs to be simple (by automated program). that means, combining more good traits is more important to me than an understandable system - as seeing the ranking table evolve will probably satisfy most people's desire for a 'just' system better than understanding the formulas.

[quinns]

Originally posted by Mathemagician
also, someone please tell me more about the 10% system...

Originally posted by blackice

PLAYERS
2..1ST..67%..2nd..33%
3..1ST..54%..2nd..31%..3rd..15%
4..1ST..46%..2nd..29%..3rd..17%..4th..8%
5..1ST..41%..2nd..27%..3rd..17%..4th..10%..5th..5%
6..1ST..36%..2nd..25%..3rd..17%..4th..11%..5th..7% ..6th..4%
7..1ST..33%..2nd..23%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8% ..6th..5%..7th..3%
8..1ST..30%..2nd..22%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8% ..6th..6%..7th..4%..8th..2%


In the tweeked system the leader was capped and so was the loser. In that way thier was no need to quit a game for bad land reason's.

Each player waged 10% of thier ranking per game.
It was suggested that that 10% would remain static throughout the game. After testing it I concure it resolved the only bug in the system.

[Solver]

Very good points thus far.

For solving the One-Game issue, I recommend, as said, that every PBEM game is rated or not, and ALL players in it are then rated or not. And, the suggestion about penalty if not accepting a challenge.

Thinking ahead, we may want a participation level modifier for every player, in case it seems that playing many games is a disadvantage, to give a bonus for many games, but that's unlikely we need it.

I agree with Math's points, especially the last. It doesn't have to be necessary for the players to understand the system, a program is all we need.

How do we want the starting ratings? By highest AI beaten (as originally), or same for all? I prefer the former, as it gives a rough indication of player's skills, and creates a fair situation where Deity players (majority) get few points by beating a Prince player (someone new at the game).

And yes... definitely GREAT to see old-timers here .

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Solver
How do we want the starting ratings? By highest AI beaten (as originally), or same for all? I prefer the former, as it gives a rough indication of player's skills, and creates a fair situation where Deity players (majority) get few points by beating a Prince player (someone new at the game).

i prefer same starting points for all.
provided the system is running for a while, a natural balance will automatically exist.
if dependent on BAID level players will only lie about their BAID level or wait till they beat a higher AI level before they join.

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by blackice

PLAYERS
2..1ST..67%..2nd..33%
3..1ST..54%..2nd..31%..3rd..15%
4..1ST..46%..2nd..29%..3rd..17%..4th..8%
5..1ST..41%..2nd..27%..3rd..17%..4th..10%..5th..5%
6..1ST..36%..2nd..25%..3rd..17%..4th..11%..5th..7% ..6th..4%
7..1ST..33%..2nd..23%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8% ..6th..5%..7th..3%
8..1ST..30%..2nd..22%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8% ..6th..6%..7th..4%..8th..2%


In the tweeked system the leader was capped and so was the loser. In that way thier was no need to quit a game for bad land reason's.

Each player waged 10% of thier ranking per game.
It was suggested that that 10% would remain static throughout the game. After testing it I concure it resolved the only bug in the system.

All players in the game except for the loser of course gained points. (Go figure )

alright i still didnt get this part of it..

what is 'capped' here ?
what is meant by 'static' ?
and why did everyone gain points except for the loser ? it rather appears that the 7th place finisher of 8 would lose points as well.

[Solver]

Just for the record, where BAID determined the starting ratings, there was apparently no cheating... many players said they got prince and such.

[Solver]

Just for the record, where BAID determined the starting ratings, there was apparently no cheating... many players said they got prince and such.

[Mathemagician]

okay okay, agreed. i just dont like it.