[Slynky]

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.