[Attempt at] New PBEM rating system

[Mathemagician]

hi everyone

as promised i now started a new thread to propose and discuss new ideas for PBEM rankings.

according from what i read in the previous thread, i conclude that the most important and most desired priorities for such a rating system are these:

1.)
depending on the course of a PBEM MP game, the points gained from it should be subject of change, in order to keep players interested in continuing a game as long as they believe to have any chances.
this was formerly tried with the 9x turns evaluation, which had the problem that the points not just changed but even accumulated. so..

2.) the points from a game should not be depending on the duration of the game, especially not on the past turns in that game, but only on the current situation in the game, most probably only measured by power graph.
this is to prevent players from staying on top of the list just by one long game instead of maybe several games where they win rather quickly. also, there's no need then anymore to stretch a game for the points only.

3.) if possible, the race for x9 turns lead should be fought.

4.) newer players should not need to fight their way up from way down the ladder but rather start somewhere in the "average zone" of the rankings. (my personal opinion).

according to these requirements/wishes i suggest the following system:

- each player starts in the list with 100 points.

- if a player enters a new game that should be part of the ranking, he antes a certain amount of points, for example 10. if the player has less then 50 points he simply antes a fifth of his points.

- the game has to be entered into the ranking when it starts and not retroactively somewhere in between.

- the total points anted are put into one 'pod' associated with the started game. each players ante share is remembered with the pod and game.

- at each 10th turn (10, 20, 30, ...) a screenshot of the player's power graph is sent BY the game initiator TO the person managing the ranking list (possibly me) at that time and according to the power graph the game is re-evaluated into the ranking.

- this is done in the following way:
1.) the players points currently associated with the game are deducted from his ranking.
2.) the total pod points are divided among the players according to a special system. gavrushkas tables look good for that purpose. also, that saves me a lot of additional work.
3.) the re-calculated points are added to the players rating and then associated with the pod in the new way instead the old one.

- a player who quits the game is simply regarded as last for the next rating calculation. he takes the points that the last player at that time would have, gets them back for his rating and is then withdrawn from the game. then the remaining points in that game are distributed according to the table with one less player in the game.

- if the game ends, the ratings are recalculated like in the 3 steps above (that is like it was an evaluation turn), only that the points gained for the rating are now definite and cannot be redistributed via this game.

so much for the description.
if i imagine this right (and im quite sure i do) this system will have the following characteristics:

- x9 turn rush wont exist anymore because the gained points will be retaken and redistributed at the next x9 turn anyway. (only that x9 turn will then be x0 turns, which is effectively the same)

- you wont gain massive amounts of points by stretching the game and staying in the lead all the time.
the maximum number you can EVER gain from a specific game is clear at the start of the game via the appropriate tables. the duration of the game will only redistribute the same points anted at the very start of the game.
this is because at each x0 turn, the points are RETAKEN before they are given out again.

- newer players will start somewhere in the middle with 100 points. player who consistently lose (talking about many games here, not the same one over and over again) will drop down in the rankings. on the other hand players who consistently win, will rise in the rankings.

- no player will ever lose all points he has, cause he at best antes one fifth of his points and he gets some of them back even if he performs badly in the game.

- points you gain are always points someone else loses so the total number of points in the ranking list will be #number of players# times 100.00 points (except for a few rounding faults)

a typical ranking list, after including a healthy number of games, might look like this:

PLAYER #1 / 123.65 points / 12 games
PLAYER #2 / 118.45 points / 13 games
PLAYER #3 / 115.69 points / 8 games
PLAYER #4 / 108.60 points / 11 games
PLAYER #5 / 106.33 points / 9 games
PLAYER #6 / 103.47 points / 5 games
PLAYER #7 / 101.66 points / 3 games
PLAYER #8 / 100.00 points / 1 game (running that is)
PLAYER #9 / 97.65 points / 4 games
PLAYER #10 / 96.44 points / 16 games
PLAYER #11 / 95.38 points / 10 games
PLAYER #12 / 93.45 points / 7 games
PLAYER #13 / 88.70 points / 8 games
PLAYER #14 / 85.21 points / 11 games

so what do you think ?

as long as the game initiators send in the power graphs regularly i would be willing to organize the rankings.

also, if someone knows an EASY and FAIR way to incorporate the power graph difference (very far ahead or just a little) into the rating i would be grateful and probably implement that as well.

[quinns]

Looks good and fair to me, Mathemagician. I will support it.

[checkMate]

Is the redistribution of points based only on the relative ranking PG ranking for each x0. Or does it depend somehow on the players most recent delta in the Power Graph?

If the players leads for the first two x0 for example doe his rating rise twice? But the rising some how saturates after so many wins at x0.

Perhaps a simulation showing power graph settings for three or four turns and the rating results would help see how it is working? But it sounds good.

[Mathemagician]

no, once the new rating day comes around, the previous ratings would be forgotten

[checkMate]

So for example if on turn 10 players 1 2 3 are ranked
as 1 2 3.

There ratings might be (just for example)
1 2 3
105 100 95

If the order in PG stays the same for the next 100 turns
the rating at the end will be
1 2 3
105 100 95

Then suddenly at turn 110 player 2 goes in the lead
so that the order is 2 1 3. Now the PG will be

1 2 3
100 105 95

?

[Mathemagician]

exactly. thats the idea. only that the total rating gets modified also by the other games a player is in.
but right !

[ricketyclik]

I like it

[M. Darkheart]

What happens if someone takes over someone elses game? For example if you are a very bad player and you take over a nr.1 spot from someone else do you get his ranking? Or vice versa.

[Mathemagician]

hmm. good question m.darkheart.

i guess we can either find a mathematical system to incorporate this (which would be rather hard i guess) or we simply dont allow overtaking someone else's position in "official" games.

[Solver]

dont allow overtaking someone else's position in "official" games.

That would cause much trouble.

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by Solver

dont allow overtaking someone else's position in "official" games.

That would cause much trouble.

im open for suggestions though.

[Solver]

Sure . But for some reason I am not going to be erupting with suggestions. Good luck, though .

[Mathemagician]

well, here are some ideas:

- you cannot take over someone else's position

- the leaving player takes his points when he leaves, the joining player isnt rated

- the leaving player takes his points when he leaves, the joining player antes the same number of points the leaving player gained, so his break even point is the position where he joined (that is, more risk for the joining player)

...more ideas to come...

[checkMate]

I', not sure I ee what would be the point in rating the game at each x0 using this system.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Mathemagician
well, here are some ideas:

- the leaving player takes his points when he leaves, the joining player antes the same number of points the leaving player gained, so his break even point is the position where he joined (that is, more risk for the joining player)

...more ideas to come...

I support you Math. And I like the third idea .

But players have to agree to be rated BEFORE the first turn is launched. Else we would have the same "problem" as always: Bad starting position = cold feets = I do not want to be rated in this game .

I would like it more these way: Bad starting position = cold feets = Ok, I can't loose more point than I already have put into the pot - so let's play the game.

Edit and added:

Even all challengegames could be included here - though it would cost me lots of points