SE4 Rating System

[geoschmo]

The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.

Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense?

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.

Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. Not sure the best way to go about it but what you said makes sense. After all, when people are working together for a victory, they all share in the rewards.

On the other hand, sometimes, teams are made later in the game when people are seeking to suck up, so to speak... .

Nevertheless, though, there is some advantage to teamwork and all of it counting toward a victory for all. Perhaps special games like that from the beginning, like the "Pairs" game?

So, if something like that happened, what if a guy with a rating of 1200 teamed with a guy who had a rating of 900? If I averaged the rating of the team (1050) and computed Ratings, would the person rated high be upset? Also, since the formula is based on individual comparisons, would a "team" rating skew things the wrong way?

Finally, would the players be willing to agree to this? Maybe lower-rated players would be willing agree to that but would higher-rated players agree? For example, in the Challenge Match you and several of us started a while back...Asmala is the dominant empire...and I know he is a great player but, (for example), I offered advice, produced the most research, and "sat in the back seat" helping him be so strong. NOT to take away from his playing ability but, would he be willing to "average" his rating with mine (and Lord Chane's) for some sort of team rating computation?

[geoschmo]

Ok, putting aside for the moment the discussion of team wins, how will you calculate the points for games with more then 2 players? Say we have a three player game. How many points does the winner get? Does the second place person get any points? I read the rules but don't see anything about this.

[Gozra]

You can assign a rating as individual, team, and pairs, or rather rate a player in each catagory. I for one would like to know how a player rates in team play. Keep up the good work guys.
Gozguy

[Slynky]

[I tried to post this earlier but my connection was down]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, putting aside for the moment the discussion of team wins, how will you calculate the points for games with more then 2 players? Say we have a three player game. How many points does the winner get? Does the second place person get any points? I read the rules but don't see anything about this.

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly but this is what I had in mind on the way it will work in a multi-player game:

Four people are in a multi-player game who are being rated. Players A B C and D.

Player D is the first person put out of the game. Remember, if the game consists of 8 players, for Ratings purposes, only player A B C and D matter. So, player D is first out of the rated players. I take that information and compute his rating against the other players (A B and C). Player D loses to player A B and C. I post those new Ratings for everyone. Player A B and C may still be playing but that's no problem. When the next (rated) player is elliminated (say, player C), I will compute the following: his loss against player A and B. Remember, his point gain from beating player D has already been computed. As has player A and C. This approximates a chess tourney as best as possible. Which is what the whole Ratings system is based upon.

The only problem is getting people to let me know in a multi-player game that someone has been eliminated. Even then, if reported after the game has finished completely and the finishing places are reported, I will compute the results in the sequence as I have described. In other words, given all the finishing places at the conclusion of the game, I will compute the scores from the loser on up. So, in the above example, if the players win in order of their name, A B C and D, then I will compute the Ratings for player D first, then the Ratings for player C, and so on.

Does that make sense?

[geoschmo]

Slynky, that does make sense, and it's probably the easiest method. I am not sure I like it though. For this reason mainly, the eventual winner of a large multiplayer game will geta huge number of points. And the players knocked out early will lose a LOT of points.

I think that it's not really the way chess tournaments are scored is it? I thought that you didn't actually get points in a chess tourney for each win or loss, but you got points at the end based on your ending tournament placement compared to your expected tourney placement based on your ranking going in. I don' treally like that either for SE4 though becasue of the time involved in completing a game.

Here's what I suggest. Feel free to use it or not. It's a little more complicated, but not all that much more. Take your same game with A,B,C, and D being rated. Once a player is knocked out of the game it gets reported to you. You take the eliminated players rank, and compare it to the average ranking of the other three players to calculate the number of points to subtract from his rating. Then take that number of points and divide it by the number of players left. Each player in this case would get one third of the points.

This way winning or losing a large game doesn't grossly inflate or decimate your ranking. It's still just one game after all. Losign wouldn't hurt you any more then a regular one on one game. Being the ultimate winner of such a game would get you more points, but not a tremendous number more. In the case of a 4 player game the winner would get 1/3+1/2+1, just shy of two times the normal 1v1 points. In fact I think that no matter how many players the most the winner would get would be fractionally less then 2 times a 1v1 game. The more players would just get you closer to 2.

Geoschmo

[ September 03, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Suicide Junkie]

That would only be true if you were going 1/n²

As soon as you hit five players, you get 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4.
That's a bit more than 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 2

Still OK.
What about the 2nd place player?
1/4 + 1/3 +1/2 - 1 = 0.083
barely any gain at all.

3rd place gets 1/4 + 1/3 - 1 = -0.417
4th gets -0.75
5th gets -1

[ September 03, 2003, 02:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]