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.
Incorrect. A player that wins 6 of 8 games a year, will continue to have the same score as a player that wins 4 of 4 every year.
A player that wins 5 of 8 will have the same score as someone that wins 2 of 2. Multiplied out 5 years, 25 wins in 40 games is equal to 10 wins in 10 games.
It will be better to drop a game that is looking grim, and jump into a game that you have a better chance of winning. You will get what you reward, and this system will reward more/shorter games against sub-par opponents.
Corsairs (ooops, Dwarves and Cardolan 101)
AKA Darrell Shimel (just so that my opinion is more some how valid)
···
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>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.
Incorrect. A player that wins 6 of 8 games a year, will continue to have
the same score as a player that wins 4 of 4 every year.
A player that wins 5 of 8 will have the same score as someone that wins 2 of
2. Multiplied out 5 years, 25 wins in 40 games is equal to 10 wins in 10
games.
It will be better to drop a game that is looking grim, and jump into a game
that you have a better chance of winning. You will get what you reward, and
this system will reward more/shorter games against sub-par opponents.
Not sure how it does that. But if you don't like the system what would you suggest as an alternate system? I've not checked your maths here, but assuming your case is valid what weighting method would work?
AKA Darrell Shimel (just so that my opinion is more some how valid)
*** Just so that I will take into account your opinion. I won't otherwise. Your name has no correlation to the validity of your point.
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.
Incorrect. A player that wins 6 of 8 games a year, will continue to have the same score as a player that wins 4 of 4 every year.
A player that wins 5 of 8 will have the same score as someone that wins 2 of 2. Multiplied out 5 years, 25 wins in 40 games is equal to 10 wins in 10 games.
All of that is true, assuming you always play exactly the same level of opposition. While Clint's formula is vastly simplified over chess ratings (although apparently still not enough for some), if you always play the same opposition level in chess, you can never hope to have a rating much higher than your opponent.
With these ratings, I agree that the player who is 6/8 against 1600 point opposition should have a lower rating than a player who goes 4/4, but only slightly. And the 4/4 player should never have much more than a 1600 rating himself, since he only plays that level of opposition.
It will be better to drop a game that is looking grim, and jump into a game that you have a better chance of winning. You will get what you reward, and this system will reward more/shorter games against sub-par opponents.
It certainly won't reward play against sub-par opponents, as your rating will increase slowly or even decrease if you play low-rated opponents.
I agree that players should be penalized for dropping (either in ratings, or in a drop count).
With these ratings, I agree that the player who is 6/8 against 1600
point opposition should have a lower rating than a player who goes 4/4,
but only slightly. And the 4/4 player should never have much more than a
1600 rating himself, since he only plays that level of opposition.
We can modify the equation so that there is more bias to the scores between players over that of the fixed points score of Win/Loss. (At present it's, for Valar, 45 for a win modified by a variant score depending on the number of nations on your side, Ratings of players on both sides with a normalising factor. We can change that normalising factor (of 150) to something else if you feel that would be more appropriate. What would that be?
I agree that players should be penalized for dropping (either in
ratings, or in a drop count).
*** Okay what score? The score of a factor x the Eventual Losing score? We could do that? Say 50% of the Losing score? (Eg If I drop the game then I lose 20 points as the Losing team loses 40 points when the numbers are worked out?)
