SE4 Rating System

[Slynky]

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Parabolize!

[Slynky]

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?

[primitive]

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

[Slynky]

Originally posted by primitive:
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

And a 5-person game @ a reduction factor of 50% (5 x 10%) would result in:

A = +32
B = +16
C = 0
D = -16
E = -32

Right? (if I understand you).

[primitive]

That was the idea (if using 40 and 50 % as factors). But in hindsight, I don't think I like it very much

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

[geoschmo]

Slynky your idea is very similer to what I suggested Last week, so of course I kind of like it. 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. I'll try to run that again tonight.

[Slynky]

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.

[geoschmo]

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..

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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..

If you say your suggestion called for averaging, I won't bother going to look .

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.

[Slynky]

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.