KISS (Player Ratings)

corsairs_game_101 · September 16, 2002, 5:35am

I'm sorry to be negative,

I, on the other hand, have no problem being negative of what I see as a really bad idea. I have no problem being negative on my ideas, and don't even require people tell their name to anyone on the planet that wants to sign up for the group.

and I do appreciate the large amount of work that
someone's put in. BUT, I think you've drowned the baby in a bathtub of
arcane algebra. For a player ratings system to work, it needs to be
popular, and to be popular, it needs to be easy to understand.

Understand this. You'll gain about 35-55 points for each game you win, and lose that many points for each game you lose. Win against high ranking opponents, gain at the top end. Lose to weak ranked opponents and you lose at the top end. Losing to high ranked players, or beating low ranked, results in the low end.

The result is, if you win 4 of 6 games in a year against similar opponents, and you'll have a score of about 1590(1500 start + 4*45 - 2*45). If you only completed 2 games in that amount of time, and won them both, you would also have a 1590 rank (1500+2*45).

So, the highest ranked players will be the players that have the highest difference in wins and losses (wins-losses).

So, you can be the best player, winning every game, but if you only play 1 game at a time, each taking a year, you'll have a horrid score. If you win 2/3rds of your games, but play 4-5 at a time, stomping weak opponents in a dozen turns, you'll have a great score.

Unlike some, I did see "stacking" going on in the bad old days of VCs. Heck, I even wrote an article about it way back in the days of Mouth of Sauron. There was lots of talk of how many players would drop Woodmen on turn 1. I had several games where I'd request Corsairs or an elven nation (being tired of Rhudaur and Woodmen), only to be greated with another sucky nation setup.

VCs did effect how players selected nations, which side neutrals chose, and how they played the mid to end games. I prefer how it is now, and would hate to see anything come along that changes the current "what would be fun" way of selecting nations, choosing sides, and playing a nation.

As I said in prior emails, at best, I'll ignore these ranking. At worst, they will adversly effect the game. Instead of "fun", some people would be using the game as a tool to effect their player ranking.

Signed,
Darrell B. Shimel Jr. (He who refuses to give his real name, becuase ME Games knows who I am, and it should not be anyone elses business who I am.)

···

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

jasonab · September 16, 2002, 5:48am

corsairs game 101 wrote:

So, you can be the best player, winning every game, but if you only play 1 game at a time, each taking a year, you'll have a horrid score. If you win 2/3rds of your games, but play 4-5 at a time, stomping weak opponents in a dozen turns, you'll have a great score.

But that's a good thing! The only way to prove that you're the best player is to win consistently. There's no rating system in the world that can give you an accurate score with an incomplete sample space.

You're looking at it in just the first year. Over five years, those players' scores will approach appropriate numbers. There's no way to find the correct rating, though, without enough games having been played.

VCs did effect how players selected nations, which side neutrals chose, and how they played the mid to end games. I prefer how it is now, and would hate to see anything come along that changes the current "what would be fun" way of selecting nations, choosing sides, and playing a nation.

There's no evidence, though, that such a thing will happen with these rankings. There's no money at stake for a high individual rating. Clint has already said that the VC ratings are there mostly for backwards compatibility, and the team rating is what matters.

jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

Harlequin_Games1 · September 16, 2002, 3:19pm

VCs did effect how players selected nations, which side neutrals chose, and
how they played the mid to end games. I prefer how it is now, and would
hate to see anything come along that changes the current "what would be fun"
way of selecting nations, choosing sides, and playing a nation.

Cool a postive remark... In all seriousness I am trying to understand why you would choose nations that give you more VPs. The nations that are already picked are such nations. 14,10,21,22,9 are such nations and they are almost always 1st to go (oops missed 20). Whereas the low VP scoring nations such as 1,2,3,16,18,24 are last to go. (Note I am aware that this is not 100% accurate but it's pretty close). I don't see how this would change things. Let's say that we scrapped the Istari rating (the ONLY one which has VPs as an aid to your overall Rating) what are players thoughts on the others?

As I said in prior emails, at best, I'll ignore these ranking.

*** Sure thing - that would be fine. I think they will be the closest present approximation to what is a good player though...

At worst,
they will adversly effect the game. Instead of "fun", some people would be
using the game as a tool to effect their player ranking.

** ... and lots of fun (based on my experience where I have played in other such Ratings related games). When I moved from Board 3 to board 2 of my school chess team it was great... When I beat an opponent in MtG who had a higher rating it was such a high, and losing to a spod was such a low.... Same here I would say when your team does well against a good team - and loses badly to a bad team. (I compare this with the groups of ME players that when we get together there's not much "bragging/enjoyment" in saying my economy improved by 2% this turn, but "heh I killed Din Ohtar in a 3-1 challenge! Yeh!!!" both might have the same dramatic impact on the game but you know which one is the more exciting.) I think this type of rating would add to the excitement (as seen in the World Champ games and the GM team playing against various other teams as a point of honour [on both sides]) of the game overall.

Clint