SE4 Rating System

[BBegemott]

I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations.

I think you and Lord Chane should check http://www.swissperfect.com
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings.

[ August 17, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: BBegemott ]

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Slynky:
Here is, in my opinion, the best way to date to do so: The SE4 Rating System.

You can sign me up. I think it adds an interesting dimension to know the caliber of an opponent or potential opponent above and beyond what you may have heard about them.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by BBegemott:

quote:

---

I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations.

I think you and Lord Chane should check http://www.swissperfect.com
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings.

---

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.

[Slynky]

Welcome to the Ratings system, Rextorres! You bring a lot of talent to the field.

[Mikeyman]

I may join, but I have one question first...

The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing").

Does that mean only Last man standing games can be rated? I am kind of unclear on that.

[Excimer-500]

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

[Slynky]

Originally posted by mikeyman:
I may join, but I have one question first...

quote:

---

The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing").

Does that mean only Last man standing games can be rated? I am kind of unclear on that.

---

The rules and guidlines I have written are my best guess at what will work the best. But, I'm always open for suggestions.

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.