Personally, I think straight win% is completely bogus, since it doesn't
take into account the quality of the team you play with or beat. That's
especially true with the low number of games "Darrell" is talking about.
Clint's rating gives a much better picture.
jason
How? A newbie with 0 games under his belt has a 1500 ranking. An 8 year veteran that is 2 of 4 vs. other 8 year veterans has a 1500 ranking. Stomping a newbie in his first game gets the same "boost" to your ranking as narrowly beating the vet that hasn't gone out of his way to boost his ranking.
You get max boost to your ranking for winning 4 10 turn games against newbies. A 40 turn game against equal opponents is a waste of money as far as rankings are concerned.
How? A newbie with 0 games under his belt has a 1500 ranking. An 8
year veteran that is 2 of 4 vs. other 8 year veterans has a 1500
ranking. Stomping a newbie in his first game gets the same "boost" to
your ranking as narrowly beating the vet that hasn't gone out of his
way to boost his ranking.
Except games are not played against one player. Straight win% is meaningless because they quality of your opponents isn't included. We might want to tone down the starting rating, but it seems that you are more interested in getting a high rating for never playing than you are for getting a more accurate rating. A player who is 3/4 is a better player than one who is 1/1, if only because he's proven himself more.
How? A newbie with 0 games under his belt has a 1500 ranking. An 8 year
veteran that is 2 of 4 vs. other 8 year veterans has a 1500 ranking.
** Incorrect. In the Maia system this could be the case but would be a VERY (for emphasis) unusual situation. The Valar, Istari and the other 2 ratings would be different.
Stomping a newbie in his first game gets the same "boost" to your ranking as
narrowly beating the vet that hasn't gone out of his way to boost his
ranking.
*** Not the case in many situations. (See above). Also the win/loss ratio would be available for a clearer indication.
You get max boost to your ranking for winning 4 10 turn games against
newbies. A 40 turn game against equal opponents is a waste of money as far
as rankings are concerned.
*** I would claim that winning 4 games (against similar opposition) would certainly need to be reflected in your rating. Your Experience rating would be bigger in the 40 turn game for that particular game. Your Win/Loss ratio would be relevant.
A discussion on the merits of the 4 quick 10 turn wins vs 40 turns 1 game win might be relevant. How would you advise that that be taken into account in the equations? From experience most games end under a year nowadays. So the 40 turn game is an aberration. The 4 wins on turn 10 is a much bigger aberration of game slews. To have played in 4 games where you lose on turn 10 (or similar) would be enough of incentive for players to give up the ghost of playing as it is I think....
I have not seen such an example of the 4 quick win games. Taking equations to extremes often bring out extreme numbers - but in this example I think not pertinent. One of the uses of collating the informaion is that we can then analyse the shift of the game if we had the time, and work out standard lengths for games etc.
I have a been following the discussion on ratings and
would like to contribute my two cents. I like the
idea of having them, and can't think of anything
intrinsically wrong with them. The ones proposed by
Harly seem fair and multi-dimensional.
For the same reason that I get a chill when I see
"Marshal Ecthelion" or "Sorcerer Goromil" on my turn
report, a player ranking could add an element of drama
to the game.
Chess has rankings with powerful names like 'Grand
Master', so why shouldn't we? The comparion can't be
pushed too far without it being absurd, but I would
like some kind of gauge to show the relative skill,
experience, and degree of cooperation a player has
demonstrated.
Sure there are ways to "fake" rankings by all sorts of
cunning manuevers. But how much more enjoyable to
beat a phony, supposedly expert player fair and square
when you meet them!
And that's my rant. Rankings are fine, just make them
grand.
Nick
···
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
For the same reason that I get a chill when I see
"Marshal Ecthelion" or "Sorcerer Goromil" on my turn
report, a player ranking could add an element of drama
to the game.
Chess has rankings with powerful names like 'Grand
Master', so why shouldn't we?
Thanks - we're thinking of names but feedback welcome.
Thanks to "Illuvator/White Council" from Mr Oldridge, "Donkey" from Laurence and "Nazgul, Uruk-Hai, Balrog, Dragon, Hobbit" from Darren for their 5th Rating name. Any more out there?
Quick check for today showed that 82% of the players used AM to send their turns in - higher than I expected. 5% of the others (roughly) used AM to create their turn but did not send the attachment in. Leaving 13% not using AM at all.
The reason that it is used is that it does help you to do the orders and we have had a lot more compliments (where compliments to businesses are relatively rare) than complaints by a long way. It frees up some time for us - not a major amount but some, which we can use for the other projects mentioned. BUT it still is not totally automated at our end. Anything that reduces our costs means a subsequent saving for players. Ie it means we don't hike the prices in future (or by a lesser %).
Whatever the argument about how we advertised it - it works, it's good and it helps you guys. Your call if you want to use it or not.
Quick check for today showed that 82% of the players used AM to send their
turns in - higher than I expected. 5% of the others (roughly) used AM to
create their turn but did not send the attachment in. Leaving 13% not
using AM at all.
The reason that it is used is that it does help you to do the orders and
we
have had a lot more compliments (where compliments to businesses are
relatively rare) than complaints by a long way. It frees up some time for
us - not a major amount but some, which we can use for the other projects
mentioned. BUT it still is not totally automated at our end. Anything
that
reduces our costs means a subsequent saving for players. Ie it means we
don't hike the prices in future (or by a lesser %).
Whatever the argument about how we advertised it - it works, it's good and
it helps you guys. Your call if you want to use it or not.
I don't comment often on the boards but will this time. I have been playing
GSI games for 27 years. Automagic is one of the best things to come along.
It does not help me make the right orders for the circumstances but does
help me get the order right. I can't tell you the number of times i have
left something off or in the wrong order and it has saved me time. Thank
you again for automagic.
