|
SE4 Rating System
We all play SE4 to have fun. I can't think of a game I have had more fun at for so long.
But, if you are like me, you long to test your skills against others. And, if you are of a competitive nature like me, you long to see how you measure up. Here is, in my opinion, the best way to date to do so: The SE4 Rating System. Why is it a good way? Because it's roughly the same rating system used to rank world chess players. It's based on points. Win, you get points. Lose, well, you lose points. But, if you are playing against a player rated higher than you, you are (kind of) expected to lose. If it turns out that way, then you don't lose many points. But, if you win, you get more points. It's based on a formula that considers the rating of the person you are playing against. It's a way of gaining and losing points (and how many points) depending on the rating of the player you play against. So, you ask, what is the difference between this and all the other ways we have in the forum and on the PBW site to see how well you do? Simple. It measures your playing ability over all the games you play! Not just a tourney (where you may have gotten lucky for a round or two). And it's different from KOTH. In KOTH, you may have drawn some weak opponents and gotten lucky positioning for enough games to give the King a challenge. Another thing you need to consider: This rating is independant of any game you want to play in. Just because you are an SE4 rated player doesn't mean every game you play will be rated. A rated game must be agreed upon by other rated players in the game. So, you are free to play fun (and sometimes weird) games without worry about it affecting your SE4 rating. I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations. The website is already paid for (for a year) and there are no ads. So, take a look (at least) and consider joining up. (and feel free to make suggestions for consideration) |
Re: SE4 Rating System
sounds good.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Just a thought: chess is pretty much exclusively a one-on-one game, while SEIV isn't. The chess scoring model will either need some adaptation to deal with multiplayer games, or forbid multiplayer games. Should alliance victories reduce the amount of points recived by the victors, as they didn't eliminate all competition (perhaps divide the "spoils" between the winners; if so, should the "spoils" be divided evenly? How to determine the divinsion if not?), should rated games be exclusively the Last-man-standing variety, or should all victories be figured equally, regardless of the number of winners? What about multiple losers? Should all losers take the standard hit computed as a one-on-one loss to the winner, or should it be divided somehow? Should the first to fall get a more extreme score loss than the Last to fall, or should it be even across the board? Or should the chess model be left as-is by keeping track of who falls to whom and treating those as one-on-one matches (more paperwork, and leaves the chess rating system intact, but allows someone to lose the game overall yet gain in rating - in some circumstances, more than the actual winner. Moreover, it can't exactly deal with the situation of empire A weakens B to the point where C plucks B out with little effort - who should be considered the victor over B?)?
Just some things to think about, as they have the potential to cause arguments if not addressed up front. As long as the rules are consistant, clear, and not slanted, a game is fair. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Hi Jack, and thanks for the interest and concerns.
"Just a thought: chess is pretty much exclusively a one-on-one game, while SEIV isn't. The chess scoring model will either need some adaptation to deal with multiplayer games, or forbid multiplayer games. Should alliance victories reduce the amount of points recived by the victors, as they didn't eliminate all competition (perhaps divide the "spoils" between the winners; if so, should the "spoils" be divided evenly? How to determine the divinsion if not?)" While not perfect, I think this rating system will be the best way to rate players "across the board". That means multi-player and one-on-one. So, I think we agree that one-on-one is no problem since it mirrors chess. In this regard, KOTH could serve a dual purpose...try to get to the top of the hill AND try to boost your rating. Now, in multi-player games, we have a different situation. Again, though not a perfect resemblence, a multi-player game isn't much different that a chess tournement with 5 rounds. So, if there are 5 rated SE4 players in a multi-player game, just as Geo proposed in the Ladder system, you report wins against some people and losses against others. For example, if I was in such a game and was the 3rd to be killed, then I'd report a win against 2 others and a loss against the remaining 2. But you DO make a good point...I should modify the rules to say the mulit-player games with players playing for a rating MUST be "Last man standing". This doesn't prohibit alliances...but as has been discussed in many other threads, you make those alliances knowing one day you must fight against your allies for the final determination of victor. "Should the first to fall get a more extreme score loss than the Last to fall, or should it be even across the board? Or should the chess model be left as-is by keeping track of who falls to whom and treating those as one-on-one matches (more paperwork, and leaves the chess rating system intact, but allows someone to lose the game overall yet gain in rating - in some circumstances, more than the actual winner" A person doesn't have to have his multi-player game be a rated one. But, if I understand your question and concern, it works both ways: If you are the first out, you will lose points to every rated player still in the game. Conversely, if you win, you will get points for every victory. Not much different than a person who went to a chess tournement and never won a game or one who won the tournement. Those in the middle will win some points and lose some points. "Moreover, it can't exactly deal with the situation of empire A weakens B to the point where C plucks B out with little effort - who should be considered the victor over B?)?" This is true. But, once again, not much different than the multi-player games and results Geo explained in the Ladder proposal. In ANY multi-player game, someone might be upset about appearing to be the first rated player to lose (and therefore try to run and hide as long as he can). But, with the good sportsmanship I have seen displayed in KOTH, I would hope people would look at their situation and do what the chess masters do...resign. More to your point, though, in the above example, B is plucked. B reports a loss to EVERYONE in the game. I'll run B through the calculation program against every other rated player who is competing as a rated player. And, that's the way it should be...since, in your example, every other player played a part in his "plucking". I hope this answers your questions somewhat. And remember, should the multi-player battlefield be a place you are worried about with your ranking, you can still be a rated player but just not want a certain multi-player game to count toward your rating. To clarify, there can be 3 other people who have agreed to a certain game being a rated game for them but that doesn't mean you have to join in...you can just play the game without consequence to your rating. One problem MIGHT be that a multi-player game starts and there are 5 people in it who agree for it to be a rated game (for them). Let's suppose the current points leader is in that game. As a point leader, do you worry that others will gang up on you? Or as a person in the middle of the Ratings...do you try to ally with the point leader? It, in my estimation, can go either way. Now, in closing, the obvious best situation is one-on-one. And that is why it's perfect for KOTH. Also, if we get enough people with Ratings, GrandpaKim and I plan on sponsoring a classic Swiss-system tourney just the way it's done in chess tournements all over the world (well, as much of the world as I have played in...I've only played in rated games in the US and Germany). AND, barring problems, I plan to offer a money prize to the winner. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
You've been added, E3. Welcome aboard.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
This is very interesting to me and I might considering joining, but what about mods? I love mods personally and I was thinking about making a personalized mod that is very balanced in terms of weapons and systems. Whould this rating system have its own set of "offical" mods that must be used?
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
money prize will draw more people in but there will be no fun anymore - maybe andromeda poster signed by aaron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the Ratings system, georgig!
(So, now I must ask, you want our KOTH game to be a "rated" game?) |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings. [ August 17, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: BBegemott ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for the info, BBegemott (though the link doesn't seem to work for me for some reason). Lord Chane did the program in about 4 hours. While the site you posted may help with computations, I had plans to post 2 sets of statistics to my site: 1 for all the Ratings (sorted by rating, then by games played) and another list of the games people have played (with the date and win or lose). Those reports will come out of Access and sent to Word and then published on the site. So, I'm not sure the site you posted would have helped with that. The formula, now posted at the SE4 Ratings site is essentially the same as used in the USCF with modifications that disregard the 20-game provisionary rating formula. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the Ratings system, Rextorres! You bring a lot of talent to the field.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
I may join, but I have one question first...
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
I'm definitely interested. In regards to Multiplayer games that are not Last Species Standing, why not simply have an agreement before the game begins that the allies can decide who the official winner is, instead of being forced to fight one another?
In other words: Three allied players win the game. Player A was considered to be the most instrumental player, B the next, and C had just a minor role (one of those players in the corner who helps with tech and resources:) Then C resigns (turns his empire over) to B, and B resigns to A. If I understand the scoring correctly, Player C should still gain points in his/her/its rating, but just not as much as Players B and A. When there is a disagreement as to who did more in the game, there is still the Last Species Standing option. Just my two cents |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
But, the way I see it, without a clear victor/winner, it will be hard to calculate the Ratings. Let me give an example that uses an "alliance win": Game has 8 players. 5 have agreed to have it a rated game (counting, of course, only to them). We'll call them players A B C D and E. Player A gets whooped (and is out of the game). Then player C dies. Clearly, Player A loses to everyone and his rating will reflect it. Player C loses to everone except player A. So, his rating goes down (and up a bit for the one win). NOW, the remaining players, who have opted for a rating game, decide they need to form an alliance to beat all the other players that are left. BTW, those other players aren't in the Ratings system (and it doesn't really matter since they aren't). BUT, let's say the game ends with the alliance of player B D and E winning. That's fine for the purposes of the game...and they should feel good for winning the game with their alliance. BUT, which one of them gets a win against the other? Player B D and E clearly won against the other 2 (rated) players who were beaten earlier. But did player B beat player D or F? I don't know. What if player B was the overwhelming force in the alliance win? What if the other two members of the alliance were just small support? How can I say player B ALSO beat the other 2 rated members? I can't. Why? Because they COULD form an alliance against him and knock him out of the game and therefore get their own victory against him. So, I hope that explains it. Having said that, here is a very possible solution: (using the sample above and assuming the rated alliance of player B D and E won the game in an alliance victory) IF, at the conclusion of the game, player E says, "Well, we won...good game guys...now for the rating calculation. I was obviously the smallest empire and therefore, I concede victory to you 2 other guys." And then, player D says, "Yes player E, I agree with you and since I am so much less powerful than palyer B, I will also concede to him for Ratings purposes." If all the players who are in the Ratings system can agree to this "gentleman" way of deciding who was the winner (among the rated players), then Ratings could be calculated. HOWEVER, I'm not sure I want to get into that situation in games. So, hopefully, I've explained my reasoning. And remember...joining the Ratings system doesn't have to affect ANY game you play! You can join and NEVER play a rated game. Maybe it's because of the type of games you like to play in. BUT, it doesn't hurt to be a member of the Ratings system in case you find yourself in a game with other rated players and you want have it count toward a rating for yourself. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Anyway, take a look and see what you think about what I said. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
I suppose this would eliminate the need for the myleague ladder I had setup. I wish I had known you were doing this before I did that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
(1) I certainly didn't intend to "step on anyone's toes", most especially yours, Geo. If it seems like that or if, after consideration, it appears to be the case, I apologize. (2) The Last post the the League Ladder thread was on the 7th. Around that time, you posted a message saying (paraphrasing) that perhaps it wouldn't work and you needed to rethink it. Someone else (Chronon?) posted a message that "talked you down" and you said something about letting it ride and see how it goes. Now, I realize PBW has been down since August 1st and that THAT could have played a part in the thread languishing a bit. But, who knows. The questions stopped and Posts to the thread stopped. So, I just wondered if the idea was losing enthusiasm or interest. (3) Unless the players who frequent this forum and PBW have an aVersion to being "bombarded by different rating/competition systems", I don't see why this method of rating a player can't work in conjunction with any other system of ranking players. Especially, for those of us who like all sorts of statistics, it gives opportunities for different bragging rights (e.g., "Hey guys, look at me! I'm in line to play the King in KOTH, ranked 4th in the PBW Ladder league, and the 6th highest rated player in the SE4 Ratings system!"). Or something like that, you get my point. (4) I proposed this system because it's a tried and true system for many many years now. Though based in chess, it seems like it could work in SE4. One of the GOOD things about it is the points being calculated for winning or losing is based on an "expectancy to win" algorithm. So, losing to a highly rated player doesn't result in as many points lost as losing to one rated exactly the same as you. (5) Two people messaged me and indicated support for this system, so I thought there may be some merit in it. And with PBW down, used the spare time to try and get it rolling http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . Those are my thoughts on it. Again, I didn't mean to "muscle in" on the PBW League. For either of the systems to work well, there really needs to be a lot of players signed up so that the chances for a Ladder game or a Rated game to be available are better and better. Sadly, my proposal has only met with limited success (7 players) while the Ladder currently has 17 signups. So, if you think having 2 "ranking" systems is detrimental to each of them, I'll dismantle it. And, not wanting to put you on the spot, perhaps it's a question for all the players here. Perhaps some input from them would be good. Besides Lord Chane's time and my time, all else I have in it is $50 ($10 for the domain name). I used a generic domain name so that if it DID fail, I could use it for some other SE4 purposes. Or share it with others who want an advertisement-free location to post stuff. I dunno. And, ultimately, I could just get another domain name transferred to it and use it for my own purposes. So, no biggie. Perhaps we should sit back and listen to some comments (pro and con). And, in closing, my apologies, Geo. Never intended to "infringe" on the guy who has done the most for us SE4 addicts. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
No appology is neccesary Slynky. I don't have a strong love for the ladder system. I think there is probably room for more then one, and if there is not and yours ends up being the prefered method of ranking I am not going to be offended in any way. My choice of the ladder my league ladder system was due to two points.
1. There has been a persistant feeling expressed among many people that some rating system was needed. 2. The My league ladder seems to fill that need while being relativly easy for me to administer. However, if your Ratings system takes off so much the better. Having someone else run a Ratings system is even easier for me then administering the Myleague system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the Ratings system, Tesco samoa! (I'll update the site with your name this evening).
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
It needs a catchier name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Geo suggested the name might not be catchy enough. Which would infer a catchier one might be needed. So, first thought that popped into my mind was the man of many Messages and words (and, therefore, ideas) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Fyron is good at coming up with names.... Adm Mod is a classic example of how Fyron uses dicussion , poles and his own research to come up with names.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Umm... flip to a random page in the dictionary and see what words look like catchy names. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Tesco: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif [ August 20, 2003, 21:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, tesco samoa, Primitive, Geoschmo, and Jimbob!
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the Ratings system, BBegemott!
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Hey Georgig and Rextorres are in SE4 Rating System too. We could make the 2024 game rated game, couldn't we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oops, its full name is 20 Players, 24 hours, I remembered only the name of the savegame file. I didn't really mean to make that game a rated game, we've played it over 100 turns. I think Georgig and Rextorres don't want to make that game a rated game because I'm a little bit one up on them. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Georgig and Rextorres don't want to make that game a rated game because I'm a little bit one up on them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm, why am I NOT surprised? Of course, I think Rex, and Georgig are good players. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Oh, and BTW, you know we are both in "Ankle Biters"....hint, hint. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Oh, and BTW, you know we are both in "Ankle Biters"....hint, hint.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Geo, you, AND I are in that game. Anyone care to take a chance on this new type of game for a Ratings event? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
i will do it for ankle biters
and 2024 as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I'm a bit surprised that some of the competitive people and good players I am familiar with haven't joined.
1FSTCAT, Stone Mill, DavidG, Cheese, Gandalph, Mark the Merciful, and Rags...to name a few. In fact, I don't understand why everyone who has joined the PBW Ladder hasn't joined here also. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Well, I wouldn't have joined the rating system if I didn't intended to have my games rated. I'd be willing in any and every game that hasn't already started.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Now...shall we promote the PBW League and get that thread to the top for viewing again? 17 people at Last count that were interested. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Synky, I suggest using a more readable font in that image in your sig. I can not make out what the first word is supposed to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Actually, didn't figure anyone would give enough of a darn to even try and read it. On the other hand, if they had played a game with me, then they might know without a lot of work that it stood for the Trithian Empire. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Gozguy and Phoenix-D !
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
On board and willing to be rated in Ankle Biters... What about the rest of you?
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Joachim !
I believe we have 4 confirmed now for Ratings in the "Ankle Biters" game! |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Looks like the game 'Pairs' will be a rating system game.
Grazic and Gecko are in. Primative is also playing the game and might join as a rating player. Other members might follow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Baron Grazic and Gecko !
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.