I just finished reading the Bree section on the proposed player rating system. I must say, I'm quite impressed! I think this takes into account most possibilites as to how a game can end and how a player should be rated.
The question is posed in the article: what is a completed game. Let me propose the following:
1. Player is active when his side wins
2. Player is active when his side loses
3. Player's nation is eliminated
(Those are the easy ones)
4. Player concedes along with his side (entire side drops)
5. Player drops before game is completed, but in the decision of the judges, the game has reached a point where the outcome has already been determined, barring an unforseen occurance.
I know #5 will be controversial, but I don't want to cost someone a competed game just because one or two holdouts are delaying the inevitable. There is a cost involved, and I'd hate for that money to cost someone victory points. Doing so will not accurately reflect a player's history.
Hope that's a good start!
jason
ยทยทยท
--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord