SE4 Rating System

[Slynky]

Site updated:

1 game completed

[Slynky]

Site updated:

1 game added

[Baron Grazic]

I hope you haven't forgot to add:-
2x2 Challenge
Challenge: Baron Grazic vs Fire

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
I hope you haven't forgot to add:-
2x2 Challenge
Challenge: Baron Grazic vs Fire

Seems like I always forget mine

[Slynky]

Site updated:

2 games added
1 game completed (first multi-player game...score not yet computed)

[Slynky]

OK, we need to come to an agreement on the best way to rate a multiplayer game. I re-read the thread portion that discussed it and I don�t think there was a consensus. So�here we go again:

(1) I think everyone agreed a multiplayer game needed to result in a rating that yielded (or lost) more points than a regular 1 x 1 game.
(2) But, I think, most also agreed that the gain or loss in points shouldn�t be so great that it would discourage entry into multiplayer games.

With this in mind, I worked on a formula based on the formula we use for 1 x 1 games and added a dimension to, hopefully, reflect the fact that a winner beat more than one player and a loser lost to everyone. And those in the middle got a variation in between. It goes like this:

4 players (for simplicity sake, all rated 1000). Players A B C and D (who finished in alphabetical order).

Player A beat everyone. So, we average the scores of the people he beat, in this case, 1000. Compute points based on the formula which we all know comes out to +16 for him and �16 for the others. But, we disregard the losers. We only compute the points for player A. HERE is the adjustment: Player A beat 3 other players so we square the number of players he beat (3) to get a total of 9 and subtract the square of the number of players who beat him (0) to get 0 and add that to his score. This yields a total of 25. FINALLY, we add a point for every person he beat (3) for a final score of 28.

Player B beat everyone except one person. So, we average the scores of the people he beat, again 1000, and he gets 16 points. Then we average the points of the person who beat him (1000). He loses 16. So far, he is even. Then we do the multiplier. He beat 2 people, so 2 squared is 4 and then subtract the square of the total number who beat him (only a 1). The resulting score is 3. And we add 2 points (for the number of people he beat giving a FINAL score of 5.

Player C, without being verbose, should be a FINAL score of -2.

And player D should wind up with a loss of 25 points.

This is for Ratings of 1000 (to make it easy). Here, we can see the people in the middle of this 4 x 4 didn�t win and didn�t lose. Hence, not a lot gained or lost. Of course, this changes a bit based on Ratings that aren�t 1000. (well, DUH!)

Let�s look at 5 people and see if the person exactly in the middle comes out about even:

A B C D E (this is the shortened Version and same winning order):

A=
+16 points from rating computation (beaten players)
-0 points from rating computation (players beating him)
+16 points for the square of beaten players (4 squared)
-0 points for the square of players beating him (0 squared)
+4 (for each victory)
Total = 36

B=
+16 points from rating computation (beaten players)
-16 points from rating computation (players beating him)
+9 points for the square of beaten players (3 squared)
-1 points for the square of players beating him (1 squared)
+3 (for each victory)
Total = 11

C=
+16 points from rating computation (beaten players)
-16 points from rating computation (players beating him)
+4 points for the square of beaten players (2 squared)
-4 points for the square of players beating him (2 squared)
+2 (for each victory)
Total = 2

D=
+16 points from rating computation (beaten players)
-16 points from rating computation (players beating him)
+1 points for the square of beaten players (1 squared)
- 9 points for the square of players beating him (3 squared)
+1 (for each victory)
Total = -7

E=
+0 points from rating computation (beaten players)
-16 points from rating computation (players beating him)
+0 points for the square of beaten players (0 squared)
-16 points for the square of players beating him (4 squared)
+0 (for each victory)
Total = -32

Remember, we are using points based on everyone being at 1000. This would fluctuate with various Ratings plugged in. We all see that the winner got about as many points as if he had played in 2 and a quarter games. And the loser lost about as many points as if he had lost 2 games. The others inside are a mixture.

Though not as exact a formula as the 1 x 1 rating, remember, rating a multiplayer game is not ever going to be perfect. There is no way a formula could account for ganging, bad position, etc. With those imperfections in mind, the goal is to come up with a pretty good award (and subtraction) of points for a game that should count more than a 1 x 1 game but not so bad as to deter anyone from joining one.

I know it seems a bit complicated but comments are invited. The fault I see in this is that the winner and loser seem to get a bigger number than the others (of course, this could be changed some depending of Ratings of other than 1000). Or, revisit the thread below to look at other suggestions, too. But we need to arrive at some sort of rating agreement.

Note, this requires the computation to be done after the game has been totally completed (as it relates to rated players).

[Slick]

I'm not in the rating system, just an outside observer. But I follow KOTH and the Ratings site just for fun. After having read that proposal, one thought kept running thru my mind: "keep it simple". Just my $0.02

[edit: Here's an idea. If there were 4 players as you describe, just score it as 3 1vs1 games. A beat B, C and D. B lost to A, but beat C & D, etc. This would mean no new formulae. Yes, it would suck to be D, but he did come in Last...]

Slick.

[ March 09, 2004, 03:08: Message edited by: Slick ]

[Grandpa Kim]

Slynky, essentially, I agree with Slick. Merely treat it as a round robin between the players involved. Yes, you would get larger point swings, but that's the whole idea... at least to me. You play against four others and are out first, you should take a beating in the Ratings! But if you win...!! That's the risk (and the fun) of multiplayer.

[primitive]

Coming 3rd or 4th in a 4 player game is really not that different. It would really make it quite annoying if players refuse to surrender when they are down beyond repair just to salvage some points. With your system the difference between 3rd and 4th position is a whopping 23 points. Well worth to hang in there even if you only own a few rioting planets and some minefields.

A better (IMHO) system would give something like +25 / 0 / -10 / -15.
After all; only the winner is a winner, even second place is a looser.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Slick:
I'm not in the rating system, just an outside observer. But I follow KOTH and the Ratings site just for fun. After having read that proposal, one thought kept running thru my mind: "keep it simple". Just my $0.02

[edit: Here's an idea. If there were 4 players as you describe, just score it as 3 1vs1 games. A beat B, C and D. B lost to A, but beat C & D, etc. This would mean no new formulae. Yes, it would suck to be D, but he did come in Last...]

Slick.

This was the original proposal by myself. One of the good things about it was the ability to compue scores as people were eliminated.

However, some people objected to it because the first person out in a 5-rated-player (for example) game would lose 4 x 15 (to use an example calculation). Some thought that was excessive and might make players stay away from multiplayer games. For my own purposes, it's easiest to keep track of and as long as the person is aware ahead of time what they are getting into when they join a multiplayer game they shouldn't complain if they get "bitten" .