KISS (Player Ratings)

mepbmlist
#1

In response to one of my many positive emails, ME Games wrote

Cool a postive remark... :slight_smile:

WOW, I'm surprised ME Games would make so emotive and combative comment to a paying customer. Guess putting my name to my emails hasn't made my money any more valuable to ME Games.

Too bad more time wasn't spent in finding the VERY BIG flaw in my prior comments, and less time reacting violently to the message.

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?

Still gives too much weight to how many games are completed. Places the emphasis on winning. Discourages people from playing in randomly assembled games.

As stated above, there was a big flaw in my very first email on this topic. Had that flaw been found by the proponents fo the system, it would have helped the conversation move along.

I mad an error in my math by skipping a step.

Assuming all 1500 rank players in the game, the number of points awarded for a 14 v. 11 game is 45 + [(11*1500 - 14*1500)/150]. I forgot the 45+. I calculated a change of 30, when in fact, you would only get a change in 15.....

So, while gaining ranking for lots of very short, unbalanced games, the gains would come a lot slower than I'd previously calculated.

Still, the rankings DO reward victories over lesser opponents. They reward lots of games vs. long games against great opponents.

I'd much prefer to see no ranking system over a ranking system. I'd prefer a ranking system that ranked a player that is 10 of 10 over a player that is 25 of 40.

I'd prefer a ranking system that truely ranked the skill of a player, over one based on wins and losses. I've done poorly in games and won, then had games where I personally played well, but lost. I have no idea of how to design the ideal (or even a good) ranking system, and thus I prefer not having one over having one.

Darrell Shimel

路路路

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world锟絪 largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

#2

In response to one of my many positive emails, ME Games wrote
>Cool a postive remark... :slight_smile:

WOW, I'm surprised ME Games would make so emotive and combative comment to a
paying customer. Guess putting my name to my emails hasn't made my money
any more valuable to ME Games.

Sorry I thought that the smiley face was attempting to decrease tensions. My apologies if it did not do that. Note I have responded to your emails where I felt I had a valid point to make where you have signed them. Thanks for joining the debate.

Too bad more time wasn't spent in finding the VERY BIG flaw in my prior
comments, and less time reacting violently to the message.

*** Sorry - I don't think I reacted violently. T'was not my intention.

I mad an error in my math by skipping a step.

*** Sorry as I mentioned I haven't had time to check that. This is a hot topic and going over someones maths is time consuming and it was on my agenda to work on.

Assuming all 1500 rank players in the game, the number of points awarded for
a 14 v. 11 game is 45 + [(11*1500 - 14*1500)/150]. I forgot the 45+. I
calculated a change of 30, when in fact, you would only get a change in
15.....

So, while gaining ranking for lots of very short, unbalanced games, the
gains would come a lot slower than I'd previously calculated.

Still, the rankings DO reward victories over lesser opponents. They reward
lots of games vs. long games against great opponents.

*** Why are long games more important? Long games generally mean DS victories so one would be biasing the score in favour of DS wins over FP wins in such circumstances. I agree that game endings is a major factor of this. So the more you play the more opportunity to alter your score you have. I don't see that as being necessarily a bad thing. (Professional sportspeople put more effort into a game - ie play more - than amateurs and the "rewards" are greater for it.)

I'd much prefer to see no ranking system over a ranking system. I'd prefer
a ranking system that ranked a player that is 10 of 10 over a player that is
25 of 40.

How to do the second?

I'd prefer a ranking system that truely ranked the skill of a player, over
one based on wins and losses. I've done poorly in games and won, then had
games where I personally played well, but lost. I have no idea of how to
design the ideal (or even a good) ranking system, and thus I prefer not
having one over having one.

*** How to do that allowing for what I think will happen in that players won't vote. (From past experience). Note bringing attention to the fact that players won't vote will certainly motivate some to do so - but only for a short period of time (unless they get into the habit of doing so. We had a long haul to get players to put their account number with their emails - most of the time they do now, but still...)

BTW thanks for the input it's help clarify a number of points in my mind and helped a lot to sort out some niggly bits. We have our disagreements on many aspects of this but I have found your input invaluable.

Clint

路路路

At 18:01 16/09/02, you wrote: