|
Re: SE4 Rating System
K.O.T.H. Lord Chane vs Asmala will be rated game.
Hey this is the 100th message in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not sure which is easiest. This board seems to be the "center of the universe"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . It's easy to insert a board or forum into the site...done it before in a Mechwarrior site I had. The downside, I think, is that each person would have to register (on yet another forum) and check it regularly. Don't want to cause that kind of additional trouble. Also, keeping this forum the "center of the universe" (which it already is as far as SE4 is concerned... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ), would seem to serve as an ongoing "advertisement". I was looking for the easiest way for a person to indicate their desire to have their game be rated. KOTH, one of the most active threads, seems to do well with posting all the requests to take a break from the game as well as wins and losses. Perhaps this thread could serve the same purpose. What I DON'T want is having to find game Ratings request and reports of wins and losses to be in various other threads...too easy to miss something. And, wondering if requiring the loser to report is the only way to go...meaning that taking a report of a victory by the victor standing as a "report" unless contested by the loser. But, I'd hate to set up a situation where there might be a controversy. Given the KOTH people, I can pretty much assume good sports all around. But one can't count on that behavior forever. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.
Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
On the other hand, sometimes, teams are made later in the game when people are seeking to suck up, so to speak... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . Nevertheless, though, there is some advantage to teamwork and all of it counting toward a victory for all. Perhaps special games like that from the beginning, like the "Pairs" game? So, if something like that happened, what if a guy with a rating of 1200 teamed with a guy who had a rating of 900? If I averaged the rating of the team (1050) and computed Ratings, would the person rated high be upset? Also, since the formula is based on individual comparisons, would a "team" rating skew things the wrong way? Finally, would the players be willing to agree to this? Maybe lower-rated players would be willing agree to that but would higher-rated players agree? For example, in the Challenge Match you and several of us started a while back...Asmala is the dominant empire...and I know he is a great player but, (for example), I offered advice, produced the most research, and "sat in the back seat" helping him be so strong. NOT to take away from his playing ability but, would he be willing to "average" his rating with mine (and Lord Chane's) for some sort of team rating computation? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Ok, putting aside for the moment the discussion of team wins, how will you calculate the points for games with more then 2 players? Say we have a three player game. How many points does the winner get? Does the second place person get any points? I read the rules but don't see anything about this.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
You can assign a rating as individual, team, and pairs, or rather rate a player in each catagory. I for one would like to know how a player rates in team play. Keep up the good work guys.
Gozguy |
Re: SE4 Rating System
[I tried to post this earlier but my connection was down]
Quote:
Four people are in a multi-player game who are being rated. Players A B C and D. Player D is the first person put out of the game. Remember, if the game consists of 8 players, for Ratings purposes, only player A B C and D matter. So, player D is first out of the rated players. I take that information and compute his rating against the other players (A B and C). Player D loses to player A B and C. I post those new Ratings for everyone. Player A B and C may still be playing but that's no problem. When the next (rated) player is elliminated (say, player C), I will compute the following: his loss against player A and B. Remember, his point gain from beating player D has already been computed. As has player A and C. This approximates a chess tourney as best as possible. Which is what the whole Ratings system is based upon. The only problem is getting people to let me know in a multi-player game that someone has been eliminated. Even then, if reported after the game has finished completely and the finishing places are reported, I will compute the results in the sequence as I have described. In other words, given all the finishing places at the conclusion of the game, I will compute the scores from the loser on up. So, in the above example, if the players win in order of their name, A B C and D, then I will compute the Ratings for player D first, then the Ratings for player C, and so on. Does that make sense? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif = 1,000th message... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No need to apologize. It seems to be a common ailment... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . I want to make it as easy for people as possible and perhaps emailing me from the site is a few extra clicks to go through. What do you think about adding an email link in my siggy line, Geo? Seems a lot of people want to use this thread for notification...I could accept notification here and in an email (and therefore have a confirmation to use should anyone say they never agreed to have a certain game rated). Also, the rules say the losing player should report the loss but I've been accepting any results posted here. What do you think would be easiest, Geo? After all, you're good at organizational things like this...what do you think would be easiest for all concerned? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
We currently have 8 games in progress that have Ratings computations being conducted.
We also have 23 players in the Ratings list. I KNOW there are several players out there who are good (and competitive) players who should join the list (but I won't name any names this time). The way I see it is this: If you know you are good, the sooner you join, the sooner you can start working toward a rating above the starting 1,000 points. If you worry that you are not so good, look at it this way...it's a good way to see how you grow and learn as a player. Yes, you may lose some games and your rating might go lower but, to me, it is a good way to measure growth. AND, as far as I know, EVERY player gets better. Also, a few other tidbits... I mentioned sponsoring a tournement for rated players. I think the winner of this tourney should receive a copy of SE5 when it comes out. There would be no cost to enter the tourney--it would just be a prize I purchased and sent. It doesn't mean a person can't join the rating system right before this tourney and still have a chance at the win...but if you're going to join just to play in the tourney, why not join now? Also, another suggestion was to specify some categories for different Ratings. They could be specified every 200 (or 250) points (example: 750 = "Crewman", 1000 = "Squad Leader", 1250 = "Ship Captain", 1500 = "Formation Commander", 1750 = "Fleet Commander", 2000 = "Admiral" etc.) Since this is an activity for everyone here at the forum/PBW, I'm open to suggestions and comments. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Slynky, that does make sense, and it's probably the easiest method. I am not sure I like it though. For this reason mainly, the eventual winner of a large multiplayer game will geta huge number of points. And the players knocked out early will lose a LOT of points.
I think that it's not really the way chess tournaments are scored is it? I thought that you didn't actually get points in a chess tourney for each win or loss, but you got points at the end based on your ending tournament placement compared to your expected tourney placement based on your ranking going in. I don' treally like that either for SE4 though becasue of the time involved in completing a game. Here's what I suggest. Feel free to use it or not. It's a little more complicated, but not all that much more. Take your same game with A,B,C, and D being rated. Once a player is knocked out of the game it gets reported to you. You take the eliminated players rank, and compare it to the average ranking of the other three players to calculate the number of points to subtract from his rating. Then take that number of points and divide it by the number of players left. Each player in this case would get one third of the points. This way winning or losing a large game doesn't grossly inflate or decimate your ranking. It's still just one game after all. Losign wouldn't hurt you any more then a regular one on one game. Being the ultimate winner of such a game would get you more points, but not a tremendous number more. In the case of a 4 player game the winner would get 1/3+1/2+1, just shy of two times the normal 1v1 points. In fact I think that no matter how many players the most the winner would get would be fractionally less then 2 times a 1v1 game. The more players would just get you closer to 2. Geoschmo [ September 03, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
That would only be true if you were going 1/n<sup>2</sup>
As soon as you hit five players, you get 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4. That's a bit more than 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 2 Still OK. What about the 2nd place player? 1/4 + 1/3 +1/2 - 1 = 0.083 barely any gain at all. 3rd place gets 1/4 + 1/3 - 1 = -0.417 4th gets -0.75 5th gets -1 [ September 03, 2003, 02:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I like Geoschmo's reasoning on the points scored for the large games, but any way you deciede to do the scoring Slynky, I'm behind you.
I'll post any "Pairs" empire deaths either here (or in the Pairs forum) I also take it that the Ratings taking in the valuation are the time you calculate the Ratings, not when our games starts, Yes? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
If all four players had the same rating going in it would be pretty easy to calculate. 1st place would get 29 points 2nd place would get -3 points 3rd place would get -11 points 4th place would get -16 points Change any of the Ratings going in though and things vary wildly. I suppose you could set the range. The most you could possibly get would 116. To do this you'd have to be in a 20 player game and be ranked way below all the other players going into the game. [ September 03, 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
It's a difficult decision. I certainly see the merit of the discussion on rating multi-player games. Here are some thoughts on this "problem":
(1) As I posted much earlier in this thread (I think), one must be aware of multi-player games and the impact the outcome could have on one's rating. Given a game with 6 players competing for a rating, surely one person will suffer a big (depending on the Ratings of the people in the game) loss in points. Conversely, there are bunches of points to be had...assuming a person can manipulate themselves into 1st or 2nd place. Given 6 players, 2 will suffer some point loss, 2 will turn out about the same and the winning 2 will realize a point gain. I don't think that's too much. By "too much", I'm thinking 4 out of the 6 will NOT have much of a detriment to their rating. But remember, as I said, think long and hard about multi-player games and the chances you take when joining one and having it count as a rating. (2) As far as making this rating system compare to a tried and true rating system (used for MANY years the world over), it's not far from what is done. Certainly, without much consideration, a one-on-one game comes the closest to simulating a chess match and score. When we get to a multi-player game, things change a bit. BUT, not too much, I think. In a chess tourney, let's say 30 players for 4 rounds, Ratings computations are NOT computed for how one placed in the tourney but the number of wins and losses as computed against the people played against and their Ratings. The actual formula that I use is the same as the formula the USCF (United States Chess Federation) with the exception of this: the formula calculates all the player Ratings that one played against, the number of wins and losses, and figures the score based on one computation. That's not much different than calculating each person's loss or win against each person they won or lost to. I think the USCF does it the way they do to make it easy (and quick) to calculate all the Ratings that they have to process each day from all the results that are pouring in each day. (3) Lord Chane wrote the program to do the calculation. I hesitated to ask him to write me something to do the computation but he sometimes has the available time and interest to help out. Certainly, he's very busy at work writing programs to help our agency out all the time (currently, he's working on a full-fledged helpdesk program that will be spread over the US in our agency). The program uses the database table of players and their Ratings to compute the new Ratings and post those results in the player table as well as the games table. All I have to do is click on the program, enter the winning player (from a "drop down"), enter the losing player (from a "drop down"), and the date. The logic necessary to incorporate multiple-player games and their respective results would be quite an undertaking, in my opinon (based on my outdated knowledge of programing logic in Clipper and Pascal). (4) The suggested adjustment to the points calculation deviate a bit from what is practiced in chess matches. It looks good on the surface but I worry it deviates too much so that we don't get the true results that the USCF has been getting for so many years. In other words, I'd hate to tinker with a formula that seems to work for chess even though we calculate multi-player games a bit differently than the chess federation does. But remember, 5 people in a multi-player game is not so much different than a chess tourney of 5 players...someone will win and someone will lose big. And everyone's score in that 5-person tourney will be adjusted just about the same as in our computations. (5) Finally, not to be obtuse...applying the USCF Ratings formula to our SE4 games will not be perfect. But, it is a verified formula that takes into consideration the expected win probability and calculates points awarded accordingly. THAT formula works very well. I played competitive chess for many years. I played in Germany and in the US. And when I played against an opponent with a certain rating, the results were pretty much on target...in other words, if I was paired against a player with a higher rating than me, I usually lost. And, the inverse was also true. BTW, for anyone interested, my highest chess rating in the USCF was 1777...these days, though, I figure I'd play around a 1300 rating. Though not directly related to the suggestions for a computation "adjustment", my sincere thought is this: given enough players, given enough time for the Ratings to "smooth out", a person should be fairly confident of their chances for a win or loss by looking at their opponent (or opponents in a multi-player game). I'd like to see 50 or more people in the Ratings system. Heck, I'd like to see everyone there (well, except for the work...hehe). But, people might not join because they don't think they can be rated near the top. I look at it this way: I think chess is the best game in the world! I'm not the best and never will be a Bobby Fischer. BUT, I wanted to see how I DID rate with other players. So, if people love this game as much as I do and others do, they would want to do the same thing...see how they measured up. Perhaps they might have a low rating BUT, if I were in their place, I'd like to see if my rating got higher...to see if I was getting better. That's what I did in chess. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
That's fine. As I said it was just a suggestion. I think you are going to find the current system will limit the number of people willing to get rated in large games though.
If you think about it, a player with a high rating is taking a large risk for relativly little to gain by getting involved in a game with several other players. The other players will want to gang up on him because the difference in Ratings makes him a more valuable target. And if he loses early he gets the full force of all the losses to several players below in the rankings. By playing the same number of lower ranked people in 1 v 1 games, he has the same potential gain and much better prospects at achieving victories as his enemies wont be able to cooperate against him. That's where the comparison to chess breaks down unfortunatly. Because no matter how many players in a chess tourneament, you still get to face them one at a time. The myleague ladder that I suggested get's around this problem by not having the loser move down, only the winner move up. So then the good player might not gain anything still, but at least he's not losing big ground. But it's not a perfect system either. It's got other problems. Geoschmo [ September 03, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
We I already mentioned this maybe I was not clear enough.
Have a seperate rating system for Singles, doubles, and multiplayer that way an indivdual gets three scores. I think that will ease your calculation problems. And make an interesting Ratings system. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Multiplayer game Ratings. Take the first looser and match them to the top winner, calculate rating for those two. Take the second person out and "team" him with the second place winner and caculate them to find a rating adjustment. If there are an odd number of players, the exact middle gets no change in score. This would make all multiplayer games equivalent to single player matches. (I think) It would be possible for the second place player to get more points than the first place player (Like if the first guy eliminated was really low rated, but the next guy out was a high rated player) But this sounds like it could still be fair and in the spirit of chess. What do you all think?
[ September 04, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: Parasite ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
The problem with this is, no-one would get any Ratings until the entire game is finished.
The first person could be kicked out at turn 20, while the game continues onto 200+ turns. Fine for quick games, but if the turn time is 3-7 days... |
Re: SE4 Rating System
(bump)
Just letting you guys know I'm thinking still. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Yeh ganging up is a problem, but hasn't it been a problem before Ratings too? High rated players might gangup against lower rated if they feel a threat of early destruction of their empires. I think SE4 rating System is good as it is. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
SE4 Ratings Game I
BBegemott wins. I was lucky that you divided your fleet into two parts- one was sitting on the warp and other- retrofitting(?). The outcome could be different at all, if you have kept your ships in one place, and protected the warp with sats and fighters. After the warp deffence was penetrated, your inner planets became an easy target. Thanks for the game Geo. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Just finished the yard. Gotta put groceries away and shower...THEN site update http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
Geo over Deccan; BBegemott over Geo Geo (verified) vs Gandalph (unverified...but I will list him for the game since it's kind of unlikely someone would join such a game and NOT count it as a rated game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ); Grandpa Kim (verified) vs Phoenix-D (unverified) There, have I missed anything? [PS: To Geo, I received both game results in the same message, so I did calculations based on the one listed first as the first one.] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
You can consider the KOTH game verified.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Parabolize!
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
OK, multiplayer game Ratings (what about this?):
Say A B C and D are in a game. Say they lose in this order: D C B and A. D loses to everyone. Calculation: I average A B and C's rating and run it through the formula against D's rating. D's rating is updated with the number from the formula. A B and C's gain in rating is divided by 3 (the number of players that got the win) and posted to their stats immediately. Then C is killed. I average A and B's rating and run it through the formula against C's rating. C's rating is updated with the number from the formula. A and B's gain in rating is divided by 2 and posted to their stats immediately. Finally, B is killed. Here, I just run the regular formula. Without going through all the calculations for 4 people rated at 1,000 exactly (figuring in my head where 1,000 vs 1,000 results in +16 and -16 points), this would be the results after the game: A = +29 points B = -3 points C = -11 points D = -16 points The game count goes up 1 for every player. And, unless Lord Chane can modify the program, I'll be doing this on a spreadsheet. So, what's good about this? (1) Only slight modification to the chess formula and hopefully one that won't skew results. (2) I can update results as people are eliminated from multiplayer games (someone mentioned that as being desireable). (3) Losing won't have a "killer" impact on one's rating. In fact, you have to be in Last place to lose the same amount of points as losing in a one-on-one game. What's bad about it? (1) From the looks of it, only the winner gets points. Not a terrible problem, after all, he was the winner (but surely he had some help along the way). I'd like to see 2nd place get some points. Perhaps, 2nd place will get points if there are 5 or more rated players (I haven't checked it out but it looks like it). I'll leave the game on the website until it has been completed. Suggestions/comments? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Why not do it the easy way. Do as originaly planned, but add a "reduction-factor" to lessen the effect of the many win/losses.
With 40 % reduction for a 4 man game (and all keeping their 1000 points throughout the game): A = +29 points B = +10 points C = -10 points D = -29 points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
A = +32 B = +16 C = 0 D = -16 E = -32 Right? (if I understand you). |
Re: SE4 Rating System
That was the idea (if using 40 and 50 % as factors). But in hindsight, I don't think I like it very much http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Coming Last or second to Last shouldn't really be much different scorewise, so your formula is better there. There should however always be a positive score for coming 2nd, so a little tweak may be in order. The "perfect" formula for a 4 player game should give something like: A = +30 points B = + 5 points C = -15 points D = -20 points And for 5 players: A = +35 points B = +15 points C = - 5 points D = -20 points E = -25 points Now thats a challenge for the math geniuses http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Slynky your idea is very similer to what I suggested Last week, so of course I kind of like it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However, you fell into the same trap that I did when calculating the outcome. Your results are only correct if all four players have the same score going into the game. When I started running some numbers using different Ratings going in I got quite different results. I believe it's even possible, given the proper distribution, for the second place player to collect more points then teh first place player. At least I think I had one that came out like that. I may have messed up though. You formula is kind of complicated. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'll try to run that again tonight.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Well, Geo, your suggestion had some merit. I'm rushing this off before I leave work, so bear with me.
If I remember (which might not be the case), you didn't average (I'll check later). Averaging MAY smooth things out a bit in the second place gaining the most points. On the other hand, IF second place has such a low score and the others are high scores, finishing 2nd SHOULD garner that person more points. Just as in a tourney when someone has several great games and does much better than expected...beating higher-ranked players. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I believe I did average them.
I agree with your Last post. My comment about the second place player getting more points wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that what you saw as a flaw in the system, ie the 2nd place player not getting enough points, might nto be a flaw at all since so much of it is dependant on the player Ratings going in to the game.. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
In the example I used, everyone was @ 1,000 points. I used it as a "flat line" example. Yes, at different Ratings, point gain and loss would differ but would be hard to get an idea of how well the adjustment to the formula was working...so I used 1,000's. And with 4 rated players at the same score, to have come in second should have yielded something, IMO. Looking at the other side of the coin, 2nd place DID lose. But coming in second in 4 people isn't bad. I'm not too worried about an adjustment to a multiplayer rating game "disturbing" the formula too much, after all, in a multiplayer game, the number of events (and players) affecting the outcome are more than what is found in a one-on-one game. So, the multiplayer game results already will be skewed a bit due to those circumstances. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I will get to the site tomorrow. Had work (from work) to do tonight (CD label design and print and 50 CDs to get ready for distribution).
In summary, no new members... New "Ratings" games to list... And final agreement on a multiplayer formula. This should be it, I think. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Adjust Last post:
Site updated with new games in progress. Be sure to check and make sure I didn't miss anything. Also ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ), new space graphic on the index page...a better space scene, methinks. (hey, I gotta have fun somewhere, right?) |
Re: SE4 Rating System
So any takers for the four player challenge that Geo has open??? Especially now that multiplayer game points have been worked out?
Go on you know you want to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
We have 2/4 - just two more needed!
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
3/4 Come on - one of you must be up for the challenge!
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Coregonas!
That makes 25 people joined up. So, curious how you measure up: How Good Are You? I know there are some really good players left out there. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Update to the site.
Now, it's easier to see what games you are in. Sort on the left is by Game Name and sort on the right is by Player Name. Take a look and see if you are not listed in a game you think you should be listed in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Some (boring) statistics:
11 games currently being rated. 20 different players in Ratings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Game news:
Added rated game: KOTH Asmala vs Steal Dragon - I have added this game but have no confirmation from Steal Dragon that he is willing to have it rated. As a matter of fact, he's not a registered player. I suggest he contact me. (I have added the game and him tentatively) SE4 Ratings Game IV - Added RexTorres (learned about it by accident...tsk tsk http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). KOTH Gandalph vs Joachim - Though both players are in the Ratings system, this game was never reported as a Ratings game. I hope this is correct (assuming from the length of the game, it probably started before the Ratings system did) Have I missed anything? Finally, there are a few multi-player games going. Please keep me informed of players who lose out as the game progresses. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I believe that Lord Chane wants our KOTH game to be rated. I've sent you an e-mail about it, Slynky.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.