New ranking system (?)

Well, following ti some remarks in the message log of several of my games, I decided to work on a new ranking system, taking into account your remarks. But before going ritgh through the problem, I have some questions for you players :

1° - I firstly ask for the allowance of the master of the masters, Achiles : I was thinking about writing a little doc explaining how it works, with XLS examples.

2° - For all players : do you have any suggestions/remarks concerning what the new ranking system should take into account (bugs of the actual one, specificities of the future one, ...)

3° - Following an animated discussion between Askalab and I, the main problem is : should be the final position of a player in a game be taken into account ? For instance, if A (30 points) wins a game against B (27 points) and C (19 points), should B have bonus point(s) because he can be considered "better player than C" ? In this case, should the number of points be significant (if A wins with 10 points than the second player, he gains more that if he'd won with 2 points) ?

As for me, I think this would be good to take the POSITION at the end of the game into account, but not directly the NUMBER OF POINTS. What about you ? Thanks

RoKeN

I don't think that the final position in a game should be taken into account. When I play, my only aim is to be the first one; nothing else matters.

If i'm confronted with a choice (two options in a game) :

- an action whith a little chance to win the game and a big chance to loose a fair amount of points (and then be the third or fourth player);

- another action that gives me no chance to win, but i would be sure to be the second player ;

then today I would choose the first option. If the ranking takes the position into account, i would have to choose the second option, which i don't like so much...

Anyway, IMHO a problem in the actual ranking system is the way the ties are ruled : it is unfair for the looser of the game to have to cary the burden of a dubble wictory. I think it would be better if the victory points would be shared by the winners.

I agree with Benwa, taking the final position in account could lead to a situation where players would make others loose points just to score better.

The actual system is quite good and fair, why do you want to propose a new one RoKeN?
Perhaps if you tell us wich problems are you trinying to address, we could help you more.

----
Loise: No pasa nada Superman. No es culpa tuya. El sistema funciona así, no puedes hacerte cargo de los problemas de todos.
Superman: Podría hacerme cargo de los problemas de todos si gobernara este país. Y a decir verdad, no hay ninguna buena razón por la que no debiera hacerlo.
Superman Red Son

An exemple of what I don't like (as said Benwa) :


3 players game, Askalab and I were tie, Bub lost. The winners won something like 2 or 3 points, Bub lost 11 points !!!!

More generally in several other games, I saw that the sum of won points wasn't equal to the sum of lost points (I think that only happened for tie games, but I'm not sure).

I think that the main goal of each player is to win the game. But if I see in the last turn that I won't win, I think that if I try everything to be the second, I deserve having a little bonus point(s). Of course, the system won't give a lot of bonus points, what could lead to the situation that the second player will win more points than the first, totally absurd (er... is that clear ? ;op)

For instance, this bonus could be a percentage of the max won points. Thus, the second player may loose less that the third, ... according to the global ranking of course !



Editado 2 vez/veces. Última edición el 06/04/2005 18:43 por (n/a).

You have the allowance of the master of the masters, Achiles. (copy-paste).
(i like this sentence...)
But i cant assure you that i want/can implement your system.
I i like it, i'll "want".
I i have time, i "can".
But ,for the beggining, the idea of the final position in a game will account in the ranking dont like me. I like the idea that a second place is a looser one.
I wish you luck (;

(master of the masters, sounds good... i like it)

Achiles(X)

Hello all.

Here are my own two cents worth of advice... First, I tink something is wrong with the current ranking system itself. Let me give some examples of my own games:

First game: Chépo 5 players ranking between 80 (Bub) and 146 (Askalab) Bub wins.
I lose 1,25 points bub Wins 6,075

Second game: Same players except Bub replaced by Tollet (100 point) Askalab wins.
I lose 1,39 points Askalab wins 6,206 points

This looks wrong... I should be loosing more points to Bub that is lower ranking that to Askalab. Askalab should win less points than Bub.

Second... OOOPs I have to go to work... I have a few things to answer to Benwa and Kynes' points... My brilliant (I hope) thoughs I'll communicate this evening

I think that a good idea concerning bonus points would be something like :

 if (RoKeN) score += 5 ;

for each game I think I REALLY need this these days...

Of course, Achiles, you can do this for you if you want !

Here I am back after one busy afternoon to explain why I respectflly disagree with Benwa and Kynes.

I fully agree with them on one point: it is wrong if a player that has lost the game tends to make others loose points just to score better...

And my friends this is allready hapening now! More than once, I've been in a position where I would lose the game but could choose who would win (thanks to the mighty powderhouse for example)...

And more than once have I recieved a message such as: Destroy him! I you will loose less points if I'm the winner.

In a game where I was in a tight match with a top ranking player, another player who was totally out of the race decided to blow one of my districts with his powderhouse...

I had no idea why he did this, because his situation worsened badly, then someone pointed to me he would loose less points to a top ranking player than to me... I sure hope this was not his reason.

If it was, I think a system that encourages this kind of unfair play is wrong!

On DoW web site, they apply a system that makes this much less attractive...

They are using a variant of the ELO ranking system used in chess. It is a very mature system as it benefits fom the experience of chess players all around the world.

However, it is made for one to one matches, so DoW have adapted it for multi player games as follows. Each payer is considered as playing 1-2-1 matches against all his oponents. Therefore, if you end up first you gain points against ll other player player. If you end up second, you lose points against the first and gain agains all other, etc.

The great point is if you know you are going to end up Fifth, it will do you no good to harm one the players who fights for victory, you will still loose points all of them...

Granted people would still be inclined bring others down in order to make second, but I find this less against the spirit of the game....

What's your feedback?

Sanjuro, you are talking about "kingmaking" (a third person deciding which of 2 other people win), which is a very important part of Citadels, the boardgame that this online game is based on. It is actually a reason why some people don't like Citadels, but it is still DESIGNED into the boardgame, so shouldn't be changed. When playing the game in person, some people OFTEN lose just because they act like jerks while playing....so that when someone has to make the kingmaking decision....the jerk loses out.

Now, I'm not sure u are all talking about the same thing when we say "position at the end of the game". The game takes into account everyone's position (RANKING) at the beginnign of the game. By the time the game is over (which could be several weeks) every1's position in the rankings has changed. As such, changing whether our ranking is counted at the beginnign or end of the game amy be an issue for some. I would LEAVE IT AS IS for consistency, but both arguments make sense.

Now, if you are talking about changing the point distribution based on whether someone came in first, second, or third (as an example) that completely changes everything. I am AGAINST that change, because in 3 player games (which are the bulk of my games) the player in lats place would be caught "holding the bag" and there would be a large chance of it happening.

I vote to KEEP the scoring AS IS.

Personally, the system function peferctly. Only there is one thing which worry me, the trickster. When one person make two or more accounts, or when he/she is loosing a game and then don´t play the turn, or destroy the game. These acts unbalance the ranking but can we prevent it?. If exist tricks, then the possition in the ranking be wrong.

Friends, we play to amuse oneself, the ranking system, as statistic, are merely anecdotal (almost for me, sure).

(sorry, my english is very bad)

Cada civilización debe contender con una fuerza inconsciente que pueda anular, desviar o revocar casi cualquier intención consciente de la colectividad. --- Teorema tleilaxu (no confirmado)

To me every bad Greek is a Barbarian and every good Barbarian is a Greek --- Alexander the Great, as quoted by Eratosthenes of Cyrene

Couldn't IP addressed be tracked to catch "the trickster"?

Personally I think the ranking system is alright as is, I don't think any system is perfect but as long as it is consistant then everbody will just get used to it.

One thing I would like to see is a penalty for not finishing a game. This would stop the people who decided not to finish a game so they wont loose points. I know sometimes it can't be helped but thats the risk you take if you join a lot of games.
What I am thinking is that the person whos turn it is when a game expires loses 0.5 points to each other person in the game.

Kiwi, that is an AWESOME idea! I might even stop deleting week old games if this was enacted. 2 weeks would be my suggestion for game expiration. But, the person should get charged for losing the game....3 points....destributed between the winners (every1 else).

I'm reposting this seperately.

foodgeek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, I'm not sure u are all talking about the same
> thing when we say "position at the end of the
> game". The game takes into account everyone's
> position (RANKING) at the beginnign of the game.
> By the time the game is over (which could be
> several weeks) every1's position in the rankings
> has changed.

And this could explain some of the problems mentionned above...
Well in my opinion, there is/are bug(s) in the actual system and this would be good to correct them. Concerning the idea of penalities for not finishing a game : YEP GREAT ! 1 point by opponent !
And finally, the problem of the multi accounts could be pseudo-resolved by a ranking system with which the initial score is 0, and it can't be less. For example, if I lose my first game, I don't lose any points. Thus, the multi accounts method will work at the beginning but will be useless atfer a few games. I don't think we can do better (IP control is impossible/crackable).

I think that the ranking system is ok.
The master of the masters (Achiles): I like the idea that a second place is a looser one. This is ok, i think.

PD: Sorry for my english.

My 0.02c

on my first games, i did consider finishing 2nd was worth some kind of reward.
Right now, i do disagree with myself . This game is just around victory, 2nd place is just the first loser. Wars in the real world doesn't recognized 2nd place either. Actual ranking recognizes this.

On the other, JadedKiwi's idea is great. If some game timeouts, the timeout player should be penaltied as if losing the game. No one win points, just he/she loses points, aplying ranking system as is now.

Mariano

A voice from far beyond:

Personally, i dont like that the ranking system will be mixed with the social or moral system. But one thing is unthinkable. If the abandon player loose points, the rest of the player cannot obtain the points. The idea of the bot for this subject is a better one (but very hard to implement, sob...).
I am prefer to leave the ranking system as now (I am too lazy... (: ), but i think it can be improved, but i dont know how. Hope we can discover it between all of us.
(i hope to discover soon the ranking system bug...)

Achiles(X)

Hello all,

Thanks for your feedback... And Achilles, Ô master of masters, thanks to cope with ideas and suggestions of players who always want more ... This will be counted in your favor on judgement day...

I guess we have a general agreement that second should be loosing position... All right... I yield to the majority...

I also agree with everyone that there should be a punishment for not completing a game. On DoW site (you know I'm ticket to Ride freak) They came out with a devilish punishment. If you leave the game you get replaced by a Robot. The Bot's result does impact your ranking!...

Since they implemented this unexpected disconnects have vanished...

Why not ? A *VERY* simple bot which chooses the first character (i.e the one with the smallest number), which takes 2 golds and even doesn't built nor uses the character's ability ! Gniark gniark gniark