SE4 Rating System

[narf poit chez BOOM]

my opinion? don't.

[Baron Grazic]

Originally posted by Parasite:
My evil twin brother is asking what if someone had a small low maintance ship hiding in a red nebula. Therefore he would not be "Killed", yet he has clearly lost. Are there rules/gentlemans agreements on this that I have missed?

But if he had no planets, then he has 'lost contact' and is effectively out, so I would consider that "Killed".

I vote for Geo's method too. Seems fairly straight forward and points awarded as you go, seems to best way.

[Alneyan]

I tend to agree with the Primitive One about third and fourth places. However, if players were to agree, an agreement could be reached between them to determine who is third and who is fourth. (The same went true for 1st and 2nd position in the first 2vs2 rated game) And if you assume a team game, the second player, provided she is in the winning team, should deserve some points for the victory.

Let's do the calculations for the aforementioned 2vs2 game with the system you proposed Slick.
- Gecko: 4rd, rating 990
- Belisarius: 3rd, rating 1050
- Slynky: 2nd, rating 1104
- Alneyan: 1rd, rating 1000

So, assuming I plugged the right figures in the formula, we have the following:
- Gecko:-16-11-13=-40 points
- Belisarius:-18-14+13=-19 points
- Slynky: -26+14+11=-1 point
- Alneyan: +26+18+16=60 points

While it would be very nice for me to gain 60 points (what an unbiased opinion!), I don't feel I deserve such a jump in the Ratings. Likewise, Slynky should win a few points and it does seem harsh for the poor Gecko. I will likely plug the numbers in your own system Slynky to see how it would come out, even if the only example we currently have is a bit peculiar.

All in all it does look like a complicated matter, and I do not envy you Slynky for having to sort it out.

[Alneyan]

I second Geo's proposal for the reasons given below. (It isn't as if I could add anything)

I would consider a loss as having no more fighting potential. That is, if a player has no planet left but if he has troop transports/colony ships she should be considered as still being (barely) alive. However, lurking a single fighter in a red nebulae does not qualify as having any sort of military power. And likewise, parking a few warships in the same nebulae should not allow a player to remain alive when the game is obviously lost. (Granted, the case of a player being almost crushed but still able to gain a colony or two is a bit extreme and is unlikely to occur, unless you do want to fight to the bitter end)

[Slynky]

I would hope we don't have people like that but I suppose there is always a surprise.

But before we get too involved in a discussion like this, IF there is a person like that, I suspect he would act that way in ANY of the scoring formulas we have suggested. Geo's makes it less likely.

[Grandpa Kim]

Primitive said:

Winning a Huge game is a major feat, and should be richly rewarded.

But being knocked out first is just bad luck?

Preposterous!

I disagree with Geo's and all similar proposals. You take your lumps or laurels as the numbers dictate. For goodness sake what could be fairer? Surely fudging the numbers to encourage play is not the intent of the rating system. Shoot, why not go whole hog and give no loss in points for losing, just add points when you win.

Criminy, this this fudging around is all fudged up.

In case I wasn't clear, I say stick with the basic FIDE system and avoid these systems that will create artificial inflation.

[primitive]

Emperor ….. I bring both good and bad news.
First the Bad; the Primitve Hordes are moving in on our Homesystem as we speak, conquering our planets, emasculating our men and committing unspeakable acts with our women. Their leader will stop at nothing less than your head on a pike and the total destruction of our race.
- And the good news ?
- It seems like all other races have already bowed to the Primitive Hordes and we are the Last to fall.
- And this is good in what way ?
- We will be awarded a huge amount of points for coming second, making us look like a winner

GP:
There is no inflation in Geos system. The Idea is that coming 9th or 10th is really not that different and should be awarded approximately the same amount of (negative) points, while there is a huge difference between coming 1st and 2nd.

[geoschmo]

Grandpakim, I totally disagree with you when you say my suggestion is somehow fudging the results. On the contary I believe my suggestion is much more accuratly indicitive of the difficulty in winning or losing a large game. What you are propsing in fact is the system with the point inflation. (What does FIDE mean btw? ) Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game? Then why give the ultimate winner of the 20 person game 19 times the points? On the other hand, why is the first person out of the 20 person game disportionally penalized to the tune of 19 times what they would lose in a 2 person game. Was the larger game easier so they should have been expected to do better? Does the large game exsist in some alternate reality where its simultaneously easier for those that lose and harder for those that win? It makes no sense to me to inflate the points artifically like this.

Also, why should everyone in the 20 person game get full credit for a win each time someone gets knocked out. Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all, then I would for beating him head to head in a 1 on 1 game.

No artifical point inflation, please. Just give me the points I have earned thank you. Don't give me extra points just because I chose to play in a large game.

[Slynky]

Site updated:

1 game completed

(notations made beside 4 players to indicate a pending adjustment to score when we can come to a reasonable agreement on how to rate multi-player games)

[Slynky]

Site updated:

1 game added