SE4 Rating System [Archive] - Page 3

Alneyan

March 10th, 2004, 02:43 AM

I tend to agree with the Primitive One about third and fourth places. However, if players were to agree, an agreement could be reached between them to determine who is third and who is fourth. (The same went true for 1st and 2nd position in the first 2vs2 rated game) And if you assume a team game, the second player, provided she is in the winning team, should deserve some points for the victory.

Let's do the calculations for the aforementioned 2vs2 game with the system you proposed Slick.
- Gecko: 4rd, rating 990
- Belisarius: 3rd, rating 1050
- Slynky: 2nd, rating 1104
- Alneyan: 1rd, rating 1000

So, assuming I plugged the right figures in the formula, we have the following:
- Gecko:-16-11-13=-40 points
- Belisarius:-18-14+13=-19 points
- Slynky: -26+14+11=-1 point
- Alneyan: +26+18+16=60 points

While it would be very nice for me to gain 60 points (what an unbiased opinion!), I don't feel I deserve such a jump in the Ratings. Likewise, Slynky should win a few points and it does seem harsh for the poor Gecko. I will likely plug the numbers in your own system Slynky to see how it would come out, even if the only example we currently have is a bit peculiar.

All in all it does look like a complicated matter, and I do not envy you Slynky for having to sort it out.

Alneyan

March 10th, 2004, 12:47 PM

I second Geo's proposal for the reasons given below. (It isn't as if I could add anything)

I would consider a loss as having no more fighting potential. That is, if a player has no planet left but if he has troop transports/colony ships she should be considered as still being (barely) alive. However, lurking a single fighter in a red nebulae does not qualify as having any sort of military power. And likewise, parking a few warships in the same nebulae should not allow a player to remain alive when the game is obviously lost. (Granted, the case of a player being almost crushed but still able to gain a colony or two is a bit extreme and is unlikely to occur, unless you do want to fight to the bitter end)

Slynky

March 10th, 2004, 01:16 PM

I would hope we don't have people like that but I suppose there is always a surprise.

But before we get too involved in a discussion like this, IF there is a person like that, I suspect he would act that way in ANY of the scoring formulas we have suggested. Geo's makes it less likely.

Grandpa Kim

March 11th, 2004, 06:08 AM

Primitive said:

Winning a Huge game is a major feat, and should be richly rewarded. But being knocked out first is just bad luck?

Preposterous!

I disagree with Geo's and all similar proposals. You take your lumps or laurels as the numbers dictate. For goodness sake what could be fairer? Surely fudging the numbers to encourage play is not the intent of the rating system. Shoot, why not go whole hog and give no loss in points for losing, just add points when you win.

Criminy, this this fudging around is all fudged up.

In case I wasn't clear, I say stick with the basic FIDE system and avoid these systems that will create artificial inflation.

primitive

March 11th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Emperor �.. I bring both good and bad news.
First the Bad; the Primitve Hordes are moving in on our Homesystem as we speak, conquering our planets, emasculating our men and committing unspeakable acts with our women. Their leader will stop at nothing less than your head on a pike and the total destruction of our race.
- And the good news ?
- It seems like all other races have already bowed to the Primitive Hordes and we are the Last to fall.
- And this is good in what way ?
- We will be awarded a huge amount of points for coming second, making us look like a winner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

GP:
There is no inflation in Geos system. The Idea is that coming 9th or 10th is really not that different and should be awarded approximately the same amount of (negative) points, while there is a huge difference between coming 1st and 2nd.

geoschmo

March 11th, 2004, 01:22 PM

Grandpakim, I totally disagree with you when you say my suggestion is somehow fudging the results. On the contary I believe my suggestion is much more accuratly indicitive of the difficulty in winning or losing a large game. What you are propsing in fact is the system with the point inflation. (What does FIDE mean btw? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game? Then why give the ultimate winner of the 20 person game 19 times the points? On the other hand, why is the first person out of the 20 person game disportionally penalized to the tune of 19 times what they would lose in a 2 person game. Was the larger game easier so they should have been expected to do better? Does the large game exsist in some alternate reality where its simultaneously easier for those that lose and harder for those that win? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It makes no sense to me to inflate the points artifically like this.

Also, why should everyone in the 20 person game get full credit for a win each time someone gets knocked out. Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all, then I would for beating him head to head in a 1 on 1 game.

No artifical point inflation, please. Just give me the points I have earned thank you. Don't give me extra points just because I chose to play in a large game.

Slynky

March 12th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed

(notations made beside 4 players to indicate a pending adjustment to score when we can come to a reasonable agreement on how to rate multi-player games)

Slynky

March 12th, 2004, 04:30 AM

Site updated:

1 game added

Grandpa Kim

March 12th, 2004, 05:38 AM

Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game? Yes, Geo, that is exactly what I'm saying. And vice versa. Are you saying that if you have a 50% chance of winning a one on one game, you have a better than 5% chance of winning a 20 player game?

Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all, Simply because you did outLast him! Either diplomatically or militarily or in some other way you were better. I feel you do deserve the full measure of points.

On the other hand why should the guy who finished second, beating out 18! count 'em, 18 other players get so much less than the winner? The power struggle at the end may well have been a close thing. The final result may have been decided by luck.

Unfortunatley we don't know all the factors. Was it a no-contest and the winner really should get all the points while all the others lose points, or was it anybody's game right to the end and even the first man out should have received some points for his outstanding effort? The fact is we just don't know and, after all, the rating system is all about winning and losing not about how hard it was.

Now apology time. I was incorrect in saying there is inflation in Geoschmo's system. I have no excuse for missing this fact and apologize, especially to Geoschmo as well as any others I may have offended.

FIDE: Federation Internationale de Echecs (any of our French speaking contributors feel free to correct my spelling)

Or in english, The International Federation of Chess.

FIDE uses the rating system upon which our own SEIV rating system is based. This system is so good you can accurately compare yourself to someone long dead... as long as you both have (had) a rating. Ratings range from about 2900 for a world champion to about 500 for a tyro who continually loses. The average is somewhere around 1500. A typical Master would be around 2200 points, a Grandmaster 2500.

Some years ago, if memory serves, the whole system (or was it just Canada?) had an adjustment because of deflation! This happens because people stop playing but while playing they got better and gained rating points. When they quit or died, those points were lost to the general pool ergo the deflation.

Now, back to Geo's system. Not inflation, not deflation, but stagflation. Geo's idea tends to keep Ratings bunched close together. (I for one am disappointed how closely bunched the Ratings still are. I fully expected someone to have achieved 1500 points by now.) It also makes playing rated multiplayer less attractive. No matter how well or poorly you do, there won't be much change. Why bother? After playing for a year and winning, you find you gained 18 points! Well whoopdedoo! Think I'll stick with KOTH!

I still can't see any good reason to fiddle with the Ratings in multiplayer.

narf poit chez BOOM

March 12th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Some years ago, if memory serves, the whole system (or was it just Canada?) had an adjustment because of deflation! This happens because people stop playing but while playing they got better and gained rating points. When they quit or died, those points were lost to the general pool ergo the deflation.
i havn't really been keeping up with this debat, which may be why i can't wrap my head around that.

geoschmo

March 12th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game? Yes, Geo, that is exactly what I'm saying. And vice versa. Are you saying that if you have a 50% chance of winning a one on one game, you have a better than 5% chance of winning a 20 player game?<hr /></blockquote>
Uh, huh? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. It's probably me though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The point I was trying to make though was in a 1v1 game it's easy to figure out the points. He lost, you were 100% responsible for him losing, so you get 100% of the spoils. If you have 20 players and one loses it's not so easy to say who is the most responsible. We could try to come up with some system to cover that, but it would be hopelessly complicated and very subjective. So the fairest thing in my mind is just divide the points up. Over the course of the game, the better player should Last longer and end up with more points anyway.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all, Simply because you did outLast him! Either diplomatically or militarily or in some other way you were better. I feel you do deserve the full measure of points.
<hr /></blockquote>Even if you never met him? Even if you never met anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You could be stuck in a corner and not meet anyone before 2 or three players get knocked out of the game. That's fine. It's the luck of the draw and all. But you haven't exactly earned anything. Certainly not three victories.
On the other hand why should the guy who finished second, beating out 18! count 'em, 18 other players get so much less than the winner? The power struggle at the end may well have been a close thing. The final result may have been decided by luck.I don't think there is a huge difference between 1st and 2nd in what I am suggesting. In a 20 player game first would get close to 3x points. 2nd would get around 2x points. The farter down you go the lower the points get until you end up at -1x for the Last player. It's not a linear progression of course, The largest gap is between 1st and 2nd. But it's not that out of whack I dont't think.

No offense was taken, no appology is neccesary. Were simply having a lively debate on a subject we disagree on.

I am not totally sure the Chess system correlates directly to SEIV. You don't have 20 player games in chess after all. If the Ratings system were limited to 1 on 1 games, and we were talking about a 20 player round robin SE4 tourney then I would agree 100% with using that system. But in my mind there is a significant difference between a 20 player tournament of 1 v 1 games and a single 20 player game of SE4.

I can see your point about the lack of movement in points with my suggestion. And I did consider one factor that makes it not so bad. Since 20 player games take so long to complete, and players get knocked out one at a time over the course of the game, the winner isn't going to get a one-time 300+ point jump in their standings. It will happen gradually over the course of the game 16 or so points at a time. So in this regard it's not so bad.

But frankly human nature is what it is. You can't deny it or try to fight it. No matter how ideal we'd like to think people act, there will be a tendancy for players once they get near the top of the Ratings to "do the math" and have second thoughts about whether joining a 20 player game is worth the risk of getting ganged up on early and taking a 300+ point drop in their Ratings. Do you honestly see no problem at all with this?

I just can't think of an acceptable solution to what I see as two separate problems. It's not like we can give the winner credit for 19 victories and only give the loser credit for one loss, can we?

Wait, can we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It sounds kind of top heavy, but what if we do that. As each person loses they get a loss equal to the average of the points of the players remaining in the game, and each player gets a win against them. So the ultimate winner gets 19 wins. The 2nd place guy gets 18 wins and one loss. 3rd place gets 16 wins, and still just one loss. 4th place, 15 wins, still one loss. et cetera.

What effect would such a top heavy system have on the Ratings. Would it cause serious point inflation?

Geoschmo

[ March 12, 2004, 13:25: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

narf poit chez BOOM

March 13th, 2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i havn't really been keeping up with this debat, which may be why i can't wrap my head around that. Try, maybe, wrapping your ears instead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 12, 2004, 23:04: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Slynky

March 13th, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i havn't really been keeping up with this debat, which may be why i can't wrap my head around that. Try, maybe, wrapping your ears instead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Well, they looked floppy enough...LOL!

Slynky

March 13th, 2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Some years ago, if memory serves, the whole system (or was it just Canada?) had an adjustment because of deflation! This happens because people stop playing but while playing they got better and gained rating points. When they quit or died, those points were lost to the general pool ergo the deflation.
i havn't really been keeping up with this debat, which may be why i can't wrap my head around that. <hr /></blockquote>Try, maybe, wrapping your ears instead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

March 13th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Well, they looked floppy enough...LOL! *waggles his ears, twitches his wiskers and scratches an ear with a hind leg*

[ March 13, 2004, 01:34: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Grandpa Kim

March 14th, 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:

quote: Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game?

Yes, Geo, that is exactly what I'm saying. And vice versa. Are you saying that if you have a 50% chance of winning a one on one game, you have a better than 5% chance of winning a 20 player game?

Uh, huh? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. It's probably me though. I can be obscure at times. The point I was making is that it is proportionately more difficult to win against 19 opponents than against one and the winner should receive full credit for this. I think he should get credit for 19 victories not a mere 3- victories. The rewards do not match to performance.
There is precedent though for your idea. In business it is common to add a fancy title and a slew of new duties but only a 10% raise in pay (or sometimes none). Not fair? Of course not, but it happens all the time.

The point I was trying to make though was in a 1v1 game it's easy to figure out the points. He lost, you were 100% responsible for him losing, so you get 100% of the spoils. If you have 20 players and one loses it's not so easy to say who is the most responsible. We could try to come up with some system to cover that, but it would be hopelessly complicated and very subjective. So the fairest thing in my mind is just divide the points up. Over the course of the game, the better player should Last longer and end up with more points anyway. Here I agree with everything but the solution. In my mind since it is impractical to determine who really is most deserving (or least deserving) we shouldn't even try, but rather, just let the chips fall where they may.

Warning: The following is not intended as a slight or insult but only to help me make a point.

The system you describe penalizes the good players while rewarding the poor players. To me this sounds like communism or a welfare state. You've probably guessed, I'm not a big fan of either.

Even if you never met him? Even if you never met anyone? You could be stuck in a corner and not meet anyone before 2 or three players get knocked out of the game. That's fine. It's the luck of the draw and all. But you haven't exactly earned anything. Certainly not three victories. Luck? Geo, luck has played a part in every single KOTH game I've played. Minor in a couple, moderate in most and the determining factor in at least two. In my very first game against Gozguy, I utterly creamed him without breaking a sweat yet I consider him my equal. I had plenty of systems with planets on my side of the map while Goz's was littered with empty systems. He didn't stand a chance and I walked all over him. ...But I did receive full credit for the victory while Goz took his lumps with a smile. Should a panel judge the game to determine an appropriate point adjustment? I think we will all agree that's not wanted after all this ain't figure skating.

The very nature of SEIV makes this inequity inevitable and has led yourself and others to find ways to eliminate the element of luck-- a project I heartily endorse! But make no mistake, you will never eliminate luck without changing the essential character of the game.

The chess rating system works perfectly for any solo (as opposed to team) competition that is scored by win/draw/loss. It would work great for tennis but not so well for the 100 meter dash (the time clock is best here) and very poorly for hockey (where personnel changes taint the result). It works better for chess then SEIV because of the luck factor. In chess there is no luck. In SEIV luck tends to keep Ratings close by allowing a very poor player to win more games than he should.

But frankly human nature is what it is. You can't deny it or try to fight it. No matter how ideal we'd like to think people act, there will be a tendancy for players once they get near the top of the Ratings to "do the math" and have second thoughts about whether joining a 20 player game is worth the risk of getting ganged up on early and taking a 300+ point drop in their Ratings. Do you honestly see no problem at all with this? Alas, I see no foolproof solution to this. For practical purposes, it is unlikely to find a 20 player game with 20 rated players. Even 10 would be unlikely. Also, as a lower rated player, do you really want to grab the tiger by the tail? How reliable are your cohorts? And where the heck did the game hide his empire? No, these are not solutions but I for one, would be up for the challenge... if I had that high rating to go along with the bravado. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Finally, your latest suggestion would be very inflationary. New players joining the system would have an impossibly steep hill to climb.

Geo, I went into such detail regarding the FIDE system to emphasize the large point spread. Currently SEIV has less than 200 points between best and worst. What that means is our best player against our worst in a 16 game match would have a 10/6 result. Hardly remarkable.

The system is young, the spread will grow. A personal, 300 point drop does not scare me. Does it really scare any of you?

Slynky

March 14th, 2004, 05:16 AM

I see both points here and I must say, I fall inside them. That is to say, somewhere in the middle of what Grandpa Kim and Geo are discussing. Alas, I'm not sure of a solution.

On one hand, a multi-player game is like a tournement of several games yet it is unlike it. Of course, due to luck, SE4 is unlike a chess game. It becomes a bit more unlike a chess match in a multi-player game. More luck and more events to "upset" a good player. And, in multi-player games, it's the only place to add the dimension of diplomacy (not found in 1 x 1 games) and this is yet another side of a skilled player. (that AND team coordination).

If we made scoring like a series of 1 x 1 games for each to be rated, I fear there would be no one joining in them. After all, even the best diplomat would be at a disadantage if starting in the corner where a lack of empires to "chat" with would be a bit of an unfair start. (but, that is the "luck" discussion we have had several times...yet, who would want to chance the loss of a 100 points?) In contrast, 5 (for example) different games would "balance" out bad starting positions...assuming a person wasn't unlucky for 5 games in a row http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

To make it a personal example, I'd much rather play (and get the rating from) 5 1 x 1 games than take a chance on being Last in a game with 5 rating players. While I recognize I might possible end in first place, I wouldn't want to wager a bad starting position on it.

Without looking back at the formula Geo has suggested, I would propose a "final adjustment" to it that goes like this: after all the points have been computed, we add (and subtract) 1 point for each person beaten (and lost to). A variation of this would be, instead, to add (and subtract) the number of points equal to the number of rated players in the game TIMES the number of players beaten (or lost to). So, in a 5-player game, the loser would get an adjustment of -4 or (considering the second suggestion) -20.

Just some food for thought.

Grandpa Kim

March 14th, 2004, 05:31 AM

Quoting myself:

A personal, 300 point drop does not scare me. Does it really scare any of you?

Slynky

March 14th, 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Quoting myself:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A personal, 300 point drop does not scare me. Does it really scare any of you? <hr /></blockquote>Well, to answer (gulp), yes, it does. Though my score reflect victories against opponents near my skill level (and losses to people I consider better than my skill level), I've spent quite a few games getting it that high. Not wanting to sound over protective of my score...I'd have to say I would be a bit apprehenisve risking "it all" on one multi-player game where I might have a bad position that, despite my debatable diplomacy skills, would result in a position I could not overcome. As an example, in Anklebiters, the first 3 people I met had the same colony type as me! While others might have been trading colony types, I had no such opportunity. To add to the misery, 2 had methane (so there was not wide ability to trade "breathers") and the other had NONE as I do. There are 7 rated players in that game competing. If I come in 7th among them, I would feel like it was a bit unfair to lose (estimating) around 100 points.

When it all comes down to it, fitting square pegs in round holes ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) like we are trying to do when we adapt a chess formula to a different sort of game, it's ONE game, not a Swiss System pairing of 7 rounds.

Having said that, I'd be willing to go for a 50-point gain (or loss).

I MIGHT feel differently IF all multi-player games were played on Geo's Balance mod with an uninterested party positioning all the players in fair starting positions (etc.) but that is probably not going to happen on the majority of multi-player games. Nature of the "beast" and all.

Another "addition" to rated games might be to add a rule that says: Before game start, if a player has changed his mind about having himself rated in any particular game, he may withdraw his request to be rated. This would give a person the chance to change his mind if the number of players requesting to be rated surpassed the limit of what he was willing to gain/lose.

Again, I just don't know...tossing out ideas.

geoschmo

March 14th, 2004, 06:30 AM

Scared, no. But I'd be a little ticked off about it probably. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am not sure how we got off on the issue of fairness of starts. I guess that is a factor for some, but not so much for me. I think all that evens out in the long run.

Slynky

March 14th, 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Scared, no. But I'd be a little ticked off about it probably. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am not sure how we got off on the issue of fairness of starts. I guess that is a factor for some, but not so much for me. I think all that evens out in the long run. I think I started the "fairness of starts" comment. Fairness of starts over a series of, say, 10 games of 1x1 would tend to even out. But, in one game of a 10-player rated game, a bad starting position equates to having 10 bad starts in 10 separate 1x1 games.

Well, that's my thought, anyway... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Grandpa Kim

March 14th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Since my Last post I've come to realize there is quite a difference between one on one and multi-player.

Consider 2 scenarios:
 20 rated players in a multiplayer game 20 rated players in a 19 game, one on one, round robin
In the first, there will always be one player out first effectively losing to all 19 opponents and one winner effectively beating all 19.

In the round robin the chances of one player winning (or losing) all 19 of his games is absurdly small. No-one in KOTH has put 19 victories together back to back, and I don't think it will ever happen.

This makes it both easier to win and easier to lose in multiplayer.

To accomodate this fact, I suggest computing the new Ratings normally then dividing by 2. This still leaves a substantial change in Ratings but recognizes that the same feat is much harder in one on one.

Slynky, remember that while you are playing that rated multi-player game you could easily play 20 one on one's. This should help smooth out the element of luck. Also you could be playing several, rated multi-player games and as Geo points out, things tend to even out. Some will give you a good start, some bad.

By playing many games, the element of luck diminishes. It is players like I, who play a small number of games who should be worried about luck.

Joachim

March 15th, 2004, 11:07 AM

Heh ya,
I really dont mind what system we end up with. But, it needs to be decided with the number of multi-player games going at the moment.
I would prefer a system that penalises the 1st loser in a 20 player game at around 3 times the loss of a one on one - so there is some extra penalty but not enough to stop people rating big games.

P.S, Slynky, I won my KOTH v Warlord Ragnarok, can I have some points so I have more to give you when you get a chance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ragnarok

March 15th, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Joachim:

P.S, Slynky, I won my KOTH v Warlord Ragnarok, can I have some points so I have more to give you when you get a chance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yeah, I forgot to report that one Slynky. Take away me points! It's all fun and games, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

March 16th, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

P.S, Slynky, I won my KOTH v Warlord Ragnarok, can I have some points so I have more to give you when you get a chance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yeah, I forgot to report that one Slynky. Take away me points! It's all fun and games, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>I'll get to it tonight.

Still needing to come to an agreement on multi-scoring before we "cast the die".

geoschmo

March 16th, 2004, 03:27 PM

In the insterest of compromise though, I think Gpa's "Round Robin/2" suggestion is a step in the right direction. I also think Joachim has a decent point that losing a 20 player game should cost more then just losing one game, as the "fractional" system allows for.

The problem is how do you come up with a modifier that works for all number of players in a game? Dividing by 2 might give you a number you like for a 20 player game, but what about a 5 player game, or a three player game?

Here's a suggestion. Let's call it the "2/N" system. Take a 20 player game. The first player eliminated, you calcualte the points lost to each player as you would in the round robin system. But then you multiply each of those by a modifier which is equal to 2/number of players. In a 20 player game the modifier would be .1. So assuming equal rankings the player would lose 1.9x points. Each of the 19 winners would get .1x points. This is twice the amount gained in the fractional system. Plus keep in mind each player isn't getting an equal share here. x in this system would be a different number for each player, unless they all have the same ranking.

In this system assuming equal rankings the points would range fomr -1.9x for the loser, to +2.2x for the winner. Less on the high end but more on the low end then the straight fractional system.

The advantage of this system over a straight x/2 modifier is that the formula works for any number of players. 2/2 (1x1 game) = 1.

This system also has no point inflation since 100% of the points awarded to the winners comes from the losers. It has a little multiplication, but that's what we are wanting, to give a winner of a big game a little more then a 1x1 game.

primitive

March 16th, 2004, 03:38 PM

Reading down only Gramps seems to be against the principle of the �fractional� system, all the other reservations seems to be on the number of points on offer.

The easy way to increase the point-spread of the "fractional" system is by multiplying the results with a fixed number based on the game size. This can be just an easy formula like (1+ gamesize/20) or we could make a fixed table.

Or we could just go totally non-mathematical and make a table for different gamesizes. A little work to set up, but very easy for Slynky to use later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

March 17th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

I can compute the Last game (it is dependent on nothing else) but if I compute the second game without doing the first one, Prmitive gets less points (possibly...and probably only 1 point less).

So, should I wait for what appears to be an agreement on rating multi-player and then do the second game or go ahead and go ahead and compute the second game (which, I suspect, is mostly up to Primitive).

geoschmo

March 17th, 2004, 02:50 AM

Point inflation is a problem with the "unequal" system I suggested most recently. Point inflation is bad because you are giving ome players more points then you are taking away from other players. This makes it harder on new players to climb the rankings.

The "round-robin" style on the other hand has point multiplication. It's not inflation in the sense that you aren't generating points out of ether, but the massive point swings generated by such a system are an unfair and potentially damaging factor. If you play two games, lose one, and win one, you should basically be back close to where you started. Not exactly of course, becasue it will be factored by the the relative abilities of the players you played. But if you play a 20 player game and lose, you will have to play and win 20 1x1 games to get back close to where you started. That's just not fair IMHO.

Gpa's recent suggestion, call it "Round-Robin/2" has the same problem, only to a lesser degree because of the artifical manipulation of the results.

My original "fractional" suggestion doesn't have any point inflation or point multiplication. Gpa's point that it doesn't allow for enough rank movement isn't really accurate. The reason there isn't much rank movement isn't because of the point system being used, it's because SE4 games take a long time to finish. It's inherantly slow. Much slower then chess of course.

I am not wedded to the "fractional" system at all. I would welcome an alternative suggestion. I just haven't seen one yet that isn't what I wouldn't call seriously flawed.

Grandpa Kim

March 17th, 2004, 06:05 AM

How about this

Rs = standard rating change
Rm = modified rating change for multiplayer
n = number of players

Rm=Rs(1.5 root [n-1]/[n-1])

For three players

1.59/2 or .794 of a one on one game

For 10 players

4.33/9 or .481

For 20 players

7.12/19 or .375

Just to simplify things I will consider that a victory over a single player will give a victor a 16 point jump in the Ratings.

In a three player game the victor would currently get 32 points. With this system he gets 25.

In a ten player, instead of 144, he gets 69.

In a twenty player instead of 304, he gets 114.

I could live with this. I tried it using square root but the final numbers were just too low for my taste.

I don't know if anyone likes this or if Slynky is willing to use it, but it seems like a good compromise to me. Is a hundred point loss to the first man out in a twenty player game too much? I think it's okay. What does everyone else say?

Edit: Note this works for one on one games too since any root of 1 is 1. I don't know how your calculating program is set up but you could possibly just insert this into the formula.

[ March 17, 2004, 04:13: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Alneyan

March 17th, 2004, 09:39 AM

Not only Primitive will lose points (several, depending on the formula), but I will gain more Slynky. If you compute my score for the 2vs2 game with 985 (after my defeat with Primitive) instead of my current 1000, I will win several points in the bargain.

And obviously, you do not want to compute Primitive's game first, lest he takes over your nice seat at the head of the Ratings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif (And with Asmala coming, you ought to be wary Slynky, as this seat might become slippery. *Chuckles*)

primitive

March 17th, 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

I can compute the Last game (it is dependent on nothing else) but if I compute the second game without doing the first one, Prmitive gets less points (possibly...and probably only 1 point less).

So, should I wait for what appears to be an agreement on rating multi-player and then do the second game or go ahead and go ahead and compute the second game (which, I suspect, is mostly up to Primitive). Feel free to calculate, this can take a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

primitive

March 17th, 2004, 10:43 AM

Too get the ball rolling, maybe we could put this to a vote:

A: Linear system: Equal point spread between the positions.

B: Some sort of Logarithmic system: Significant difference between 1st and 2nd, Small difference between Last and second to Last.

C: Something completely different.

I�m all for B http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

parabolize

March 17th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Baron Grazic

March 18th, 2004, 03:19 AM

Once Geo & Kim started talking Mathematics, they lost me.

I'll abstain from the Vote, but am if forced will lean towards B. Just no-one ask me to do any calculations.

Grandpa Kim

March 18th, 2004, 04:52 AM

Yeah, you can always tell when the Baron is playing with his socks off: he has 20 ship fleets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Primitive, this part doesn't matter to me; it's the truncation I'm interested in. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Edit: And possibly more important. How easy will it be for Slynky to implement?

[ March 18, 2004, 02:55: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Slynky

March 18th, 2004, 05:12 AM

Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

Primitive vs RexTorres

(reading all comments on a group rating system...still looking for something that doesn't "skew" the Ratings too much and doesn't result in 20 minutes of computations...I think, if I understand Geo's Last suggestion, that it would result in a lot of manual computation/adjustment. Let's not give up yet.)

primitive

March 21st, 2004, 11:32 PM

Multiplayer Ratings

I've been messing with a spreadsheet and some formulas and are half way to a system with a table. The value from this table should be multiplied with the score from the standard calculation, using loosing players ranking vs the average of the remaining players rankings (or if Slynky is lazy, the average of all players).

There is a lot of factors to play with, but I would like some input before I spend more time (And yes, I have noticed there are less points lost for coming Last in the 20 player game than in the 10 player game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

The table so far gives these values for:
3 players: 1,51 / -0,08 / -1,44
4 players: 2,04 / 0,29 / -0,74 / -1,59
10 players: 3,73 / 1,58 / 0,71 / 0,17 / -0,25 / -0,60 / -0,91 / -1,20 / -1,48 / 1,75
20 players: 5,26 / 2,56 / 1,59 / 1,05 / 0,68 / 0,40 / 0,18 / -0,02 / -0,20 / -0,36 / -0,52 / -0,66 / -0,80 / -0,93 / -1,06 / -1,19 / -1,31 / -1,44 / -1,56 / -1,68

Too high ? Too low ? Stupid idea to start with ?

And if anybody has the time for a crash course in displaying tables, it would be highly apreciated http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Electrum

March 22nd, 2004, 12:53 AM

Slynky,

Please make the Koth game Electrum v Primative a rated game.

Thanks

Grandpa Kim

March 22nd, 2004, 03:00 AM

Primitive, that looks okay to me, though I think the winner in a three player should get a bit more. I understand what you are trying to do, but...

using loosing players ranking vs the average of the remaining players rankings ...but could you explain this a little better.

(Still like my 1.5 root formula better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Slynky

March 23rd, 2004, 04:33 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed (Baron Grazic vs Fire)
1 game added (Electrum vs Primitive)

(If I have missed a posting other than what is listed below, please let me know)

Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

Primitive vs RexTorres

primitive

March 25th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ?

Slynky

March 25th, 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ? The subject may have become, hmmmm, annoying http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Baron Grazic

March 25th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ? The subject may have become, hmmmm, annoying http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . <hr /></blockquote>Some of us are just too busy trying to find a strategy that will work against you guys, let alone work out what all those mathematical formulars mean. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Joachim

March 25th, 2004, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Some of us are just too busy trying to find a strategy that will work against you guys, let alone work out what all those mathematical formulars mean. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ditto!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As to my two cents, again I dont mind what system as long as it is not too much to completely discourage large rating games.

Grandpa Kim

March 25th, 2004, 05:08 AM

Personally, I'm just waiting for you to decide, Slynky. After all, you're the one who has to deal with it. If I can't live with your decision, that's my problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

March 25th, 2004, 05:42 AM

I think I am in favor of Geo's formula with a twist. Let me see if I can explain it easily.

His original formula (a few pages down) was (to summarize) to average the score of the people who beat the first person out (and so on) and apply points. This resulted, as some people disagreed with, a result that simulated a single game.

So, my twist would be to adjust this "straight" score to vary the spread so that losses and wins would spread out more. And this is what people have been trying to do with other suggestions.

So, the best I can figure and the easiest on me would be to figure it the way Geo said and then multiply the points gained (or lost) by the square root of the number of players in the game being rated. So, (duh!), if 4 players were in the game, the square root modifier would be 2. This is probably a common number of people for a multiplayer game. But, if 9 (to make it easy) were in a game, the multiplier would be 3. One has to see 16 people in a game before the multiplier became 4. This, in my opinion, would lesson the effect (both on winners and losers) in a big game...while giving a pretty fair representation for the most common game. In other words, the bigger the game, the less chance that a loser would suffer a huge loss from a bad position (and less the chance a winner would gain a huge amount of points based upon his lucky starting position).

I think I will go with this, which I think is a fair representation of the suggestions we have read and attribute any disparity in such a rating to a "true chess" rating formula to luck, and a lack of true comparison to any chess tourney/game.

Slynky

March 25th, 2004, 05:56 AM

Thanks, Grandpa Kim. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am convinced of a few things:

(1) Nothing we have talked about will be as precise as is measured in a chess game/tourney.

(2) Luck will even itself out over a number of games but it is more apparent that it will equal out over 1 x 1 games more as, was pointed out, than multi-player games as they Last for so long.

(3) No one would like being rated in a game of multiple players that would result in a possible loss of 100+ points even though there is a possible gain of 100+ points.

(4) Generally, I think people believe a multi-player game should result in more points lost or gained than a single game but not as much as equal to a single game times the number of players in a multi-player game. (I hope that makes sense)

(5) We want a way to compute scores as people are eliminated from a multi-player game.

narf poit chez BOOM

March 25th, 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Thanks, Grandpa Kim. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(4) Generally, I think people believe a multi-player game should result in more points lost or gained than a single game but not as much as equal to a single game times the number of players in a multi-player game. (I hope that makes sense)
I think what you mean is that multi-player games should give out more points overall than a singleplayer game, but not as much for the individual player?

Slynky

March 25th, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Thanks, Grandpa Kim. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(4) Generally, I think people believe a multi-player game should result in more points lost or gained than a single game but not as much as equal to a single game times the number of players in a multi-player game. (I hope that makes sense)
I think what you mean is that multi-player games should give out more points overall than a singleplayer game, but not as much for the individual player? <hr /></blockquote>I think a game of, say, 4 players should result in points to the winner (and away from the loser) equal to what they would have gotten if they had won (or lost) 2 one-on-one games. The guys in 2nd and 3rd somewhere in between. And if there were 9 players, equal to 3 one-on-one games won or lost. And so on.

primitive

March 25th, 2004, 09:31 PM

Some response after all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Slynky, your adendum to Geo's formula is not bad, but it still gives a bit strange results. What my little table do is to mix the logaritmic of Geos formula with some linear components. By changing some simple factors I can get it to give (almost) the results I want. The computation of the actual game results could be done just the same way you propose using your formula (with a little fix of the table), calculating the knocked out players points first and dividing the result among the remaining players.

Just som examples (remember the table can be twisted to give both higer values and more/less spread):

3 Players
Slynky/Geos formula: 2,60 / -0,87 / -1,73
Primitives table: 1,51 / -0,08 / -1,44

4 players:
Slynky/Geos formula: 3,67 / -0,33 / -1,33 / -2
Primitives table: 2,04 / 0,29 / -0,74 / -1,59

10 players:
Slynky/Geos formula: 8,95 / 2,62 / 1,04 / -0,01 / -0,80 / -1,44 / -1,96 / -2,42 / -2,81 / -3,16
Primitives table: 3,73 / 1,58 / 0,71 / 0,17 / -0,25 / -0,60 / -0,91 / -1,20 / -1,48 / - 1,75

Anyway, Its your call Slynky. If you want me to make a table I will do so. If you will go with the formula I'm okay with that too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Grandpa Kim

March 26th, 2004, 05:19 AM

Primitive's calculations are not quite what I envisioned you mean, Slynky. Is he right? If so, I heartily endorse your plan.

Sorry Primitive, but I still find the numbers in your table a tad low. Just my opinion.

primitive

March 26th, 2004, 05:27 AM

As I said, they can be tweaked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But if everybody is happy with the Slynky/Geo formula then there should be no need http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fire

March 27th, 2004, 03:59 AM

I am looking to get a rated game going. I just finished up a game with Baron Grazic. He worked me over pretty good but that is how you learn. Great game Baron I learned alot. I am a newby with just a little experience. If anybody is interested let me know.

Joachim

March 27th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Fire:
I am looking to get a rated game going. I just finished up a game with Baron Grazic. He worked me over pretty good but that is how you learn. Great game Baron I learned alot. I am a newby with just a little experience. If anybody is interested let me know. I'm always up for more games.

Atrocities

March 27th, 2004, 11:04 AM

What I like is when you can schedule a turn fest with your opponent. Then the game become really interesting really quick.

Fire

March 27th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Hi Joachim,

I was thinking of a game like this:

No Events
No Intel
No Anchient Race
No Religion
3 Lg Planets
2000 Race Points
Geos Balanced Map
Standard KOTH Settings

If you have any preferences let me know.

Fire

Slynky

March 27th, 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Fire:
Hi Joachim,

I was thinking of a game like this:

Geos Balanced Map

If you have any preferences let me know.

Fire Just a reminder to both, to prevent a bad start, you cannot take NONE atmosphere with this mod.

Joachim

March 28th, 2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Fire:
Hi Joachim,

I was thinking of a game like this:

No Events
No Intel
No Anchient Race
No Religion
3 Lg Planets
2000 Race Points
Geos Balanced Map
Standard KOTH Settings

If you have any preferences let me know.

Fire Thats all good. I am happy to let you choose the settings.
Could someone be so kind as to set it up for us please?

Asmala

March 28th, 2004, 09:42 AM

I've set it up.

Joachim

March 28th, 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Asmala:
I've set it up. Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fire

March 28th, 2004, 04:50 PM

Thanks Asmala. Which patch did you use to set the game up. 1.91, etc?

Fire

March 28th, 2004, 05:58 PM

I got the patch # from the game. I am using the Jraenar stock ship set.

Electrum

March 28th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Slynky,

Regarding the KOTH Electrum v Primaive game. The Electrum surrenders. Please adjust the Ratings accordingly.

Thanks

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 01:56 AM

Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

Primitive vs RexTorres

Parabolize vs Joachim

Electrum vs Primitive

(looking at the list, I'm trying to understand what I was thinking when I assumed Joachim and Rags' rating was dependent on something above...and if there is no dependency there, then there should be no problem with going ahead and computing Parabolize vs Joachim.)

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
As I said, they can be tweaked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But if everybody is happy with the Slynky/Geo formula then there should be no need http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I haven't heard much disent on formulas lately. I suspect the subject is getting old and as we say "down south", it's time to "---- or get off the pot!".

So, having said that, I will attempt the multi-player game that is causing the hold up and we'll just see how it comes out in a RL example. And, of course, post the info here afterwards.

Baron Grazic

March 29th, 2004, 02:28 AM

So if we are now doing the Ratings of the multi-rating games before the end of the match...

For the Pairs game, the following people are still in:-

Primitive
Grazic
Asmala
Tescosamoa
Parasite

Gecko Last (6th) place
Cybersol Pulled out early. Not counted.

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 02:30 AM

Thanks, Baron! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 04:51 AM

OK, here is the "GeoSly" formula in a real game. Remember, Geo's base formula was intended to lessen the effects of losing while rewarding a person able to pull off a win in a multi-player game.

Game Players in order of finish (with ranking at the time they entered the game):

Alneyan - 1000
Slynky - 1104
Master Belisarius - 1050
Gecko - 990

Round 1:

Gecko out receiving -26 points
Remaing players receiving +8 each
All Ratings adjusted

Round 2:

Master Belisarius out receiving -32 points
Remaining players receiving +16 each
All Ratings adjusted

Round 3:

Slynky out receiving -42 points
Alneyan receiving +42 points
All Ratings adjusted

Net results:

Gecko: -26 points
Master Belisarius: -24 points
Slynky: -18 points
Alneyan: +66 points

Here are the points layed horizontally as we have been seeing them in examples:

+66, -18, -24, -26

At first, this looks a bit unbalanced from what we have been looking at in other examples that used the sample rating of 1000 for all players. In the above, we see that the person with nearly the lowest score won the game! And the person with the highest score (me) came in second. This should explain the (kind of) wild swing in what we have been seeing when explaining the formula in the earlier Posts...the person who should have won it came in 2nd and was beaten by the person with nearly the lowest rating. Also, the person with nearly the lowest score won the game over some higher rated players.

Here is the "horizontal" for 4 players rated at 1000 points each:

+58, - 6, -22, -32

This looks a bit skewed, also so I tried to figure out why and I think the Last computation (when only 2 players remain) should not get the modifier (# of players squared) applied and just be a straight out computation as in a 1 x 1.

This would change the "horizontal" for 4 players rated at 1000 points each to:

+42, +10, -22, -32

So, what do you guys think? Does this look fair? (and your vote doesn't count, Alneyan... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ).

parabolize

March 29th, 2004, 04:57 AM

sounds good to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Grazic

March 29th, 2004, 05:41 AM

If 4 equaled rated players play, 2 should gain points, 2 should lose them.
This seems to do this, and your post didn't have any mathematics, so you didn't confuse me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Test it out for 6 players, all with 1000 points, and let me know what place I have to get in the Pairs game so I don't loose points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 29, 2004, 03:43: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

geoschmo

March 29th, 2004, 05:58 AM

If the examples you give are typical, it will probably work out fine. My only concern would be that it doesn't appear to be "point neutral", that is there are not an equal number of total points gained as lost. It's not extreme in these examples though. In fact in these examples it appears there are a couple less points earned then lost. As long as it doesn't end different in real games. You don't want to have a bunch of point inflation, for reasons already stated in the thread.

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If the examples you give are typical, it will probably work out fine. My only concern would be that it doesn't appear to be "point neutral", that is there are not an equal number of total points gained as lost. It's not extreme in these examples though. In fact in these examples it appears there are a couple less points earned then lost. As long as it doesn't end different in real games. You don't want to have a bunch of point inflation, for reasons already stated in the thread. I didn't want to bore people with all the math. I suspect final results and what the prospects might be if entering a rated multi-player game would be of the most interest.

I think, though I have not bothered to calculate decimals, the slight disparity in points lost and gained (overall) was due to my rounding when I divided the computations by the "gaining" players. Rounding up and down.

More importantly, I was looking for some opinion as to NOT using the "square root of number of players" modifier in the final computation (between 1st and 2nd place)...it seems to put a big gap in there.

primitive

March 29th, 2004, 06:58 AM

Yo da man Slynky. Looks very good for 4 players.
However; Does it work 3 players or for larger games ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Two suggestions.
A: Try using the Square of Players - 1 instead of Square of players as the factor. That way it will work for all sizes (even 2 players).

B: The same adjustment you did between first and second should be done for every calculation:
3rd player get whatever points he has accumulated - a 3 player loss (square of 3 or square of 2, see A)) and so on.

Using both suggestions would give these results (all 1000 point players):
37 / 5 / -13 / -28

But, as I said before: Its your call Slynky, these are just suggestions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Joachim

March 29th, 2004, 10:30 AM

Fire v Joachim Rated Challenge

Can you kick us off when you get a chance please Asmala.
Cheers.

P.S good luck Fire.

primitive

March 29th, 2004, 03:34 PM

Okie Dokie.
This work for all games. For easy use:
A: Calculate the points for the knocked out player towards the average of the remaining players
B: Multiply with the Square root of the number of remaining players.
C: Distribute the winning points evenly between the remaining players.
D: Repeat until game over.
Nothing to it.

Example 4 (1000 points) players:
Loosing player (4th in example) = 1 loss * Root (3) = - 28 points
Second Last (3rd) gets 1/3 rd of the points from the loosing player + (- ?) 1 loss * Root (2) = -14 points
Third Last (2nd) gets 1/3 rd from the looser, + � from 3rd + (-?) 1 loss = 5 points
Winner gets 1/3 rd from the looser, + � from 3rd + 1 win = 36 points

Should be an easy formula in here, but its been 20 + years since I�ve done any math so I have no idea how to write it down http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 05:14 PM

Thanks, "Big P" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

To sum up...if I understand, our formulas are exactly the same except you compute the "multiplier" based on the amount of people left in the game at the time a loser is being computed when I was using the same multiplier (in the case of a 4-player game...the root of 4) for EACH round of computations. Perhaps that was why it was swinging wildly as it got down to the Last computation.

Do I have it right, now?

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 05:15 PM

[EDIT] Piece of crap board..."sit back, we are taking you back to the forums"

And there it sits. One never knows it has been posted...so this is my way of deleting the double post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif .

[ March 29, 2004, 15:17: Message edited by: Slynky ]

primitive

March 29th, 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Thanks, "Big P" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

To sum up...if I understand, our formulas are exactly the same except you compute the "multiplier" based on the amount of people left in the game at the time a loser is being computed when I was using the same multiplier (in the case of a 4-player game...the root of 4) for EACH round of computations. Perhaps that was why it was swinging wildly as it got down to the Last computation.

Do I have it right, now? Yes,.
Just remember its the Square of the remaining players (n-1), not total number of players. So the looser in a 4 player game will get the root of 3 as the multiplier, not the root of 4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 29, 2004, 17:20: Message edited by: primitive ]

Slynky

March 29th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Thanks, "Big P" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

To sum up...if I understand, our formulas are exactly the same except you compute the "multiplier" based on the amount of people left in the game at the time a loser is being computed when I was using the same multiplier (in the case of a 4-player game...the root of 4) for EACH round of computations. Perhaps that was why it was swinging wildly as it got down to the Last computation.

Do I have it right, now? Yes,.
Just remember its the Square of the remaining players (n-1), not total number of players. So the looser in a 4 player game will get the root of 3 as the multiplier, not the root of 4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Good. Just so we understand it. When I get some time, I'll run it through the "new" formula. I think it looks a bit better.

Thanks for the feedback and we'll get these Ratings caught up soon.

Gotta run right now...was just checking the board before I signed off.

primitive

March 30th, 2004, 02:10 AM

Hope I have understood your proposal properly Slynky. If I am right it will not work well on larger games.

Example, 10 (1000 point) players :

Slynky: 108 / 76 / 17 / 0 / -13 / -23 / -31 / -39 / -45 / -51

Mine: 75 / 43 / 25 / 11 / -1 / -12 / -22 / -31 / -40 / -48

If the numbers of points is to low, the easiest way to fix it is to just multiply everything with some percentage (based on gamesize of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Slynky

March 30th, 2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
Hope I have understood your proposal properly Slynky. If I am right it will not work well on larger games.

Example, 10 (1000 point) players :

Slynky: 108 / 76 / 17 / 0 / -13 / -23 / -31 / -39 / -45 / -51

Mine: 75 / 43 / 25 / 11 / -1 / -12 / -22 / -31 / -40 / -48

If the numbers of points is to low, the easiest way to fix it is to just multiply everything with some percentage (based on gamesize of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I appreciate the interest and suggestions. Truth be told, I was trying to find a nice spot between what Geo suggested and what Grandpa Kim would like to see. But, looking at your spread(s), I think it looks a bit better over all as my exponential stuff seems to create too wide of a spread.

So, if I may ask, how about a detailed math example of your approach for a 4-person game where all players have 1000 points (where we all know 16 points is the gain/loss)? I just want to make sure I understand it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fire

March 30th, 2004, 04:03 AM

Hey Joachim,

I think Asmala forgot about our game LOL. I hope he didnt go on vacation.

Slynky

March 31st, 2004, 04:51 AM

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 01:47 AM

Working on the Ratings now. Here is the re-work using the "GeoSlyPri" formula henceforth referred to as the Geo-Slippery formula:

Alneyan +40
Slynky -2
Belisarius -14
Gecko -22

I think this looks much better as the spread looks similar to the "1000" point baseline calcs BUT we note that Alneyan was nearly the lowest rated player (and therefore got quite a few points for his 1st place finish). Beating me alone gave him 21 points on the Last computation (besting Geo's record of getting 20 points from me)!

Again, points would be nearly the same as won and lost but because of rounding...we have a 2-point disparity.

I'll be making all the other updates now that this "roadblock" is out of the way. Thanks for the interest and input.

Incidently, I will count a multi-player game as one game...as people leave, their game count will be upped by one while the players still in a game will not get an additive. When all is done, everyone will have one game added.

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 02:50 AM

Working on the site now...there is a new points leader!

geoschmo

April 2nd, 2004, 03:05 AM

Uhhh, could we maybe come up with a better name? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uhhh, could we maybe come up with a better name? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You mean for the formula? LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 03:20 AM

Site updated (big update):

First, all Nodachi games deleted...it turns out the game that was assumed to be in progress was being played by the computer. So all games of his have been deleted.

All games that were awaiting computation have been computed. Even the loss of Gecko in the Pairs game.

There may have been some date disorder (particularly with the Pairs game) so the points may be skewed by doing it Last.

You will see on the site that a lost in a multi-player game shows the winner as "Multi" and the loser, well, as the loser's name. The winner of the Multi-player game will be listed as the winner and the loser will be called "Multi". Better than keeping up with various abbreviations of those games that might not mean a lot to people.

Important:

I may have missed posting a game in progress that is being rated. PLEASE review and let me know as soon as possible.

Finally (and not Lastly), congrats to Primitive, who has been eyeing the fart cushion on my "points throne" for some time now...may it emit the same melodious sounds as it did for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 03:37 AM

Also, apologies for the delay in posting updates. My goal is to update the site around 24 hours from the time of notifications. I may let a new game go for a bit longer but I realize people are anxious to see the results of a completed game.

The delay was due to the discussion on a fair way to rate multi-player games that resulted in a "middle of the road" agreement between making a multi-player game equivalent to an equal number of single-player games and "slimming down" a multi-player game so that it didn't seem to result in a "huge" amount of points lost and gained. Hopefully, this will be a happy median.

Also, I have had to bring graphics work home in the past several weeks for 2 projects that had very high visibility and deadlines. Between working on those and keeping my game turns up-to-date, I didn't have a lot of time to spend on seeking out a computation solution.

Again, my apologies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Baron Grazic

April 2nd, 2004, 03:48 AM

A solution has been reached and we are moving ahead again, so all is well.
I'd also like to thank you Slynky for managing the Ratings systems, something that I would never be able to do, so Thanks... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
A solution has been reached and we are moving ahead again, so all is well.
I'd also like to thank you Slynky for managing the Ratings systems, something that I would never be able to do, so Thanks... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You are quite welcome, Baron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Like others, I enjoy the game immensely. And it seemed like a way to "give" something back to the community that has answered my questions, been subjected to my attempts at humor, and, well, just plain being friendly.

PS: I'm sorry the Nodachi game had to be "nixed".

primitive

April 2nd, 2004, 08:38 AM

Luv the new look on the statistics page. Very beautiful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thanks for doing this. Great service http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

April 2nd, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Luv the new look on the statistics page. Very beautiful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
You've been kicking serious butt lately...you deserve to sit there (well, for a while, anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Good job! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Slynky

April 5th, 2004, 12:22 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed

Slynky

April 9th, 2004, 12:44 PM

Site updated:

2 games added.

Joachim

April 9th, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Fire:
Hey Joachim,

I think Asmala forgot about our game LOL. I hope he didnt go on vacation. Fire surrenders to Joachim, turn 24.

Fire, you were completely screwed by our start positions. I offer an immeadiate re-match - I hope you take this up. We started next to each other!! but lucky for me I had most of the galaxy to colonise. Fire needed an immeadiate victory rush to work, but mines stoped it. A game decided by the start regretably.

Slynky

April 9th, 2004, 06:53 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to Joachim for hoping above the starting line!)

Fire

April 12th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Hey Asmala,

Could you please delete the SE4 rated game: Fire Vs Joachim. The game is finished.

Thanks

Asmala

April 13th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Fire:
Hey Asmala,

Could you please delete the SE4 rated game: Fire Vs Joachim. The game is finished.

Thanks Ooops, I missed the earlier post. The game is now deleted.

Joachim

April 14th, 2004, 02:39 PM

Heh ya Slynky,
We have had a player drop out of rated game IV. Whats the deal with people pulling out?

Slynky

April 14th, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Joachim:
Heh ya Slynky,
We have had a player drop out of rated game IV. Whats the deal with people pulling out? The site has something on it. Basically, there needs to be a good reason (RL, etc.). If a player is losing, withdraws from the game, and then continues posting around the forum or playing other games, I would be safe in assuming the withdrawel counts as a loss. (as an example)

tesco samoa

April 14th, 2004, 10:05 PM

Update.

Rating Bash - Gozguy vs Tesco samoa has ended

Tesco wins. Please update Ratings system. The Ratings tourny... Georgig and I play each other.

Slynky

April 14th, 2004, 10:11 PM

Congrats, Tesco!

I'll work it up tonight and post.

You mean there is STILL a round to play? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

parabolize

April 14th, 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Congrats, Tesco!

I'll work it up tonight and post.

You mean there is STILL a round to play? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif And one after that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Bad Goz bad! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Slynky

April 15th, 2004, 02:44 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed (nice position jump, Tesco!)
1 game added

Slynky

April 16th, 2004, 02:38 AM

Site updated:

1 game added

Fire

April 17th, 2004, 05:57 AM

Hey Asmala,

Could you please delete the game:

SE4 Rated Game Nodachi Vs Fire

Nodachi hasn't played in quite awhile. I have been playing against the computer. Thanks!

Fire

Fire

April 17th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Hey Asmala,

Could you please delete the game:

SE4 Rated Game Nodachi Vs Fire

Nodachi hasn't played in quite awhile. I have been playing against the computer. Thanks!

Fire

Asmala

April 17th, 2004, 04:03 PM

I'll delete the game when PBW is back up again.

Slynky

April 18th, 2004, 03:22 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed

1 donor added to the PBW fleet (special thanks to Tesco samoa)

tesco samoa

April 22nd, 2004, 12:36 PM

add - Tesco vs Gandalph Koth game

Delete - Nodachi vs Tesco.

Slynky

April 23rd, 2004, 03:29 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Congrats to Parabolize for joining the "above 1000" club (I knew you had it in you!).

Note: I'll be away on a Girl Scout camping trip till Saturday afternoon.

parabolize

April 23rd, 2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Congrats to Parabolize for joining the "above 1000" club (I knew you had it in you!).

Note: I'll be away on a Girl Scout camping trip till Saturday afternoon. Again I am above 1000 and again your going to take my points away! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

April 23rd, 2004, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by parabolize:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Congrats to Parabolize for joining the "above 1000" club (I knew you had it in you!).

Note: I'll be away on a Girl Scout camping trip till Saturday afternoon. Again I am above 1000 and again your going to take my points away! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Well, I'M certainly not counting on it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Alneyan

April 23rd, 2004, 03:55 PM

You know Parabolize, if you surrender at once it might be possible to work out about this problem for you. Granted, Slynky may have a problem with this, but... We shall find a way to convince him! (In case anyone is actually wondering, I am merely kidding, though I wouldn't mind if you did surrender. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Incidentally, I will upload my turn as soon as Slynky and myself have agreed on some decision, so there will be yet another delay in this game. *Grumbles* In truth, I am becoming more careful when playing, hence some of these delays as we have to set up our schemes. (Not to mention being very wary when involved in a big battle, since I lost too many such battles because of silly mistakes. You do feel silly when you send warships whose orders are not to get hurt, and... Erh, I digress.)

Slynky

April 23rd, 2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
You know Parabolize, if you surrender at once it might be possible to work out about this problem for you. Granted, Slynky may have a problem with this, but... We shall find a way to convince him! (In case anyone is actually wondering, I am merely kidding, though I wouldn't mind if you did surrender. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Incidentally, I will upload my turn as soon as Slynky and myself have agreed on some decision, so there will be yet another delay in this game. *Grumbles* In truth, I am becoming more careful when playing, hence some of these delays as we have to set up our schemes. (Not to mention being very wary when involved in a big battle, since I lost too many such battles because of silly mistakes. You do feel silly when you send warships whose orders are not to get hurt, and... Erh, I digress.) If you are waiting on email about where we should put our small fleets in order to (try to) stop his 62 ships, I have sent you an email. Good luck!

Ragnarok

April 23rd, 2004, 09:01 PM

Slynky,
Alneyan beat me in our KOTH/Rated game. Please adjust records and points accordingly.

Thanks

Slynky

April 24th, 2004, 04:40 PM

Just got back from camping...I'll fetch it up in a bit.

Slynky

April 24th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed.

(Hang in there, Rags, if it's any consolation, you lost to a pretty crafty player)

Slynky

April 26th, 2004, 01:47 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Stone Mill!

Stone Mill

April 26th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Thanks, Slynk. Remind everyone to go easy on a rusty grizzled vet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

April 26th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Thanks, Slynk. Remind everyone to go easy on a rusty grizzled vet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Given what I've heard about you, I say squash him before he squashes you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ April 26, 2004, 19:59: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Slynky

May 1st, 2004, 12:51 AM

Site updated:

Player Loser removed from Anklebiters game (due to RL)
2 games added

Please review the site and let me know if I have missed listing a game... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

May 1st, 2004, 04:55 AM

Site updated:

Rules page updated to explain multi-player computations

Baron Grazic

May 6th, 2004, 07:55 AM

Slynky, I know you are busy, but you forgot to add our game to the Ratings page.
If that means you don't want our game a rated one, because you are scared, then perhaps you should just surrender in our KOTH game now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

May 6th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Slynky, I know you are busy, but you forgot to add our game to the Ratings page.
If that means you don't want our game a rated one, because you are scared, then perhaps you should just surrender in our KOTH game now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Naw, not it at all. I know it's rated but, as I have explained to others for my game slowdown...I've had to get ready for a big event...and it was completed today (whew!). Just a matter of time.

Slynky

May 8th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Site updated:

2 games completed

Homepage graphic changed

Alneyan

May 8th, 2004, 08:46 PM

Unless I am browsing the Cache, the KOTH game Alneyan vs Master Belisarius has not been added to the list. (For reference purpose, I sent to you an e-mail tuesday asking for it. Or rather, an e-mail is supposed to have been sent, since Yahoo has run into a problem or two with sending e-mails of late)

It isn't a big problem obviously, since our game isn't going to end in the days to come. And given how nice this update was for me, you won't hear me complaining for a long while. *Smirks*

parabolize

May 9th, 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

2 games completed

Homepage graphic changed I like it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

May 9th, 2004, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
Unless I am browsing the Cache, the KOTH game Alneyan vs Master Belisarius has not been added to the list. (For reference purpose, I sent to you an e-mail tuesday asking for it. Or rather, an e-mail is supposed to have been sent, since Yahoo has run into a problem or two with sending e-mails of late)
Nope, my mistake...I was running on memory instead of checking emails. I checked and have an email where you said you were crossing your fingers... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Slynky

May 9th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by parabolize:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

2 games completed

Homepage graphic changed I like it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Tks...didn't like it as much as the other one but change makes for variety.

Slynky

May 9th, 2004, 12:54 PM

Site updated:

1 game added

Slynky

May 15th, 2004, 12:02 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed

Slynky

May 15th, 2004, 01:53 AM

Site updated:

1 game added

Baron Grazic

May 24th, 2004, 11:59 PM

Slow month for rated games completed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Slynky

May 25th, 2004, 12:52 PM

I have a game to post that completed but my cable was down most of yesterday and I didn't get a chance to post it or do many of my turns. I'll try to get to it today (tonight).

Slynky

May 26th, 2004, 01:48 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Slynky

May 27th, 2004, 11:22 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed

Slynky

May 28th, 2004, 12:09 AM

Please welcome Mark the Merciful to the SE4 Ratings System!

(I will never forget the KOTH game I had with him...one of the few KOTH games I've heard about where both players resorted to openers and closers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif and I got the worst of it!)

Slynky

May 28th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Site updated:

1 multi-player game completed

Slynky

May 28th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Please welcome Katchoo to the SE4 Ratings System!

Alneyan

May 28th, 2004, 04:50 PM

Welcome to the madness Katchoo and Mark!

Slynky

May 29th, 2004, 09:34 PM

Site updated:

1 game added

Slynky

May 30th, 2004, 03:35 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to Joachim for a good jump in position!)

Slynky

June 9th, 2004, 03:36 AM

Site updated:

1 game added

Slynky

June 11th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Site updated:

1 game added

Slynky

June 19th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed

PS: A comment on web hosting by ICDsoft. I've never tried to update or visit the site that it was NOT available. They boast 99.9% uptime and I am starting to believe them.

primitive

June 19th, 2004, 01:33 AM

24 games completed AND running the site.

Do you have ANY spare time Slynky ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Great work BTW

Slynky

June 19th, 2004, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
24 games completed AND running the site.

Do you have ANY spare time Slynky ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Great work BTW Site's not that hard to run...running from you is a bit harder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . BTW, I'm getting down to my real rating (above average).

Slynky

June 19th, 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
24 games completed AND running the site.

Do you have ANY spare time Slynky ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Great work BTW Oh, and as to spare time...I'll be going to Dragon*Con again this year. You drooling over any new prospective pics (or you gonna be your "picky" old self again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ?)

Alneyan

June 19th, 2004, 08:42 AM

Speaking of DDragon Con Slynky, didn't we mention something like updating said thread in case of a victory in our game with Electrum and Slynky? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oh, and about your hosting, would you be so kind as to turn off your anti-Alneyan script, which prevents me from seeing all pictures linked from your site and also makes checking for updates quite an annoying process? Thanks in advance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Kidding aside, it is indeed a very nice work, and Primitive seems to be enjoying the view up there. *Smirks*

Slynky

June 19th, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
Speaking of DDragon Con Slynky, didn't we mention something like updating said thread in case of a victory in our game with Electrum and Slynky? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oh, and about your hosting, would you be so kind as to turn off your anti-Alneyan script, which prevents me from seeing all pictures linked from your site and also makes checking for updates quite an annoying process? Thanks in advance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Kidding aside, it is indeed a very nice work, and Primitive seems to be enjoying the view up there. *Smirks* ...with Electrum and Slynky (how soon we forget our allies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

"Anti-Alneyan script"? I think you're the only one who has problems (which makes it harder for me to convince you I DON'T have such a script http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Slynky

June 21st, 2004, 02:53 PM

Site updated:

1 game added

Slynky

June 25th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed (nice Ratings jump, Master B!)

Master Belisarius

June 26th, 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

1 game completed (nice Ratings jump, Master B!) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thanks, but think would be only until Alneyan will come back after his vacations... because think he will win our KOTH game!

Slynky

July 4th, 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

1 game completed (nice Ratings jump, Master B!) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thanks, but think would be only until Alneyan will come back after his vacations... because think he will win our KOTH game! <hr /></blockquote>Yes, Master B, it appears you were correct...

Site updated:

1 game completed

Congrats to my young friend for passing me by to gain 3rd place! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Alneyan

July 4th, 2004, 07:07 PM

Why, thanks, but I do not expect to hold there for long. After all, there is the small matter of a 2vs2 game and an upcoming KOTH game to make me go down a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Nonetheless, I hope you won't mind if I shove you from your comfortable chair Slynky. And who knows? Primitive may bring down Asmala before I go down as well, securing me a nice second position. Oh, I should really give up daydreaming one of these days. (Unless I somehow manage to win the day in KOTH, and Primitive overthrows the Fiendish King. Hmm...)

Slynky

July 4th, 2004, 07:47 PM

Well, I can't get TOO upset...the new seat that has a big "4" on it was really kind of comfortable. And warm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

July 6th, 2004, 09:37 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Slynky

July 23rd, 2004, 02:24 AM

Site updated:

3 games added

(please review your games and let me know if I have missed posting one)

Slynky

July 30th, 2004, 03:04 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to GrandpaKim, another codger makes it to the coveted 1000-mark! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Grandpa Kim

July 30th, 2004, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to GrandpaKim, another codger makes it to the coveted 1000-mark! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) LOL Couldn't find my name in the stats at first. What the H? Was I kicked out? ...Till I looked in the highlighted section. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

August 6th, 2004, 09:52 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed
1 game added

Electrum

August 10th, 2004, 12:03 AM

re: Koth game, Electrum vs Rand
Rand will be requesting to join the rating system. When he does, please make this game a rated game.
Thanks

primitive

August 15th, 2004, 01:58 PM

Asmala is still the King. Guess he deserves the cushy seat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

BTW:
Can't find any links to the site. Your sig is down and the site is not listed in ATs stickyfied post.

Asmala

August 15th, 2004, 02:27 PM

SE4 Ratings (http://se4-gaming.net)

Slynky

August 15th, 2004, 02:32 PM

primitive said:
Asmala is still the King. Guess he deserves the cushy seat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

BTW:
Can't find any links to the site. Your sig is down and the site is not listed in ATs stickyfied post.

Darn! Hadn't noticed it went away. It WAS there after the changeover but, well... :confused.

Of course, we expect details http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Slynky

August 15th, 2004, 02:33 PM

(well, it seems to be there on NEW things I post but not on old stuff...hmmmm)

Asmala

August 15th, 2004, 03:05 PM

Slynky said:
Of course, we expect details http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Well, there is some details now in the Koth thread. Do you want more? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Slynky

August 15th, 2004, 05:46 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to the new leader, Asmala who leads the Ratings System and is still King of the Hill!)

1 game added (I took the liberty of putting the Asmala/Joachim game on...let me know if this is not a desire)

Asmala

August 16th, 2004, 02:01 PM

Slynky said:
1 game added (I took the liberty of putting the Asmala/Joachim game on...let me know if this is not a desire)

I want the game to be a rated one and I think Joachim wants too, considering his post to Koth thread.

Alneyan

August 16th, 2004, 04:48 PM

The KOTH Slaughter between Rex and myself will be rated as well Slynky. I would have gladly sent you an email, but I have lost your mail after my hard drives crash (is there an hyphen or not in your mail address?).

I repeat I am buying a sword of Kingslaying for a goodly sum, so if anyone has such a weapon to sell, feel free to contact me. Rex was king some time ago, wasn't he? (BBegemott was, but I am not so sure about Rex) The Primitive One failed in his mission to steamroll Asmala, and so I have no choice but to make a run for the crown on my own, which implies to figure out a way of repelling Rex. Grr. At least, Adamant 011 might avenge me. *Evil chuckle*

Slynky

August 16th, 2004, 05:21 PM

Alneyan said:
The KOTH Slaughter between Rex and myself will be rated as well Slynky. I would have gladly sent you an email, but I have lost your mail after my hard drives crash (is there an hyphen or not in your mail address?).

With a bit of luck, it appears in my siggy (from time-to-time) where it says to report Ratings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Alneyan

August 17th, 2004, 08:25 AM

Oops. I swear it wasn't here when I first saw your signature; I surmise it is a clever ploy to trick me. The other, more likely alternative, is that I should buy eyeglasses and/or pay more attention, but I cannot even consider such a thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Grandpa Kim

August 19th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Slynky, my stay in thousand point club was a might short. Master B. clobbered me in our KOTH game. Put me back where I belong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Slynky

August 19th, 2004, 10:47 PM

Site updated:

2 games completed (a few shifts in rankings)
1 game added (assuming RexTorres wants his KOTH game rated)

Slynky

August 22nd, 2004, 01:28 PM

Site updated:

1 player completed a multi-player (4-player) game
1 game added

Slynky

August 25th, 2004, 11:52 PM

According to the rules of the SE4 Ratings System, Mark the Merciful has not adhered to the rules (#6 - Ratings Site (http://www.se4-gaming.net/SE4-Rules.htm)) and he will be removed from the game and an adjustment made to his rating. He has failed to submit his turns according to the turnaround time specified in the game, failed to respond to emails from his teammate, and continues to browse the forum and submit turns for other games he is engaged in. Therefore, it has been decided that his inability to participate in the game he has enrolled in is NOT due to RL concerns.

In order NOT to penalize the remaining players, who may or may not achieve a win (and resulting Ratings gain), the remaining players have agreed to allow a substitute player of a lessor rank to continue in his place. The "substitute" player will be playing "gratis" and the game, as it relates to Ratings, will be computed against the remaining 3 Rated players.

I dislike taking this sort of action but considering the circumstances and the remaining players, it is unfair to declare the game "null and void" for Ratings purposes.

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 09:19 AM

Site updated:

2 games completed

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed

(keep getting forum post error that I "cannot proceed" because the post already exists! Go figure!

Alneyan

September 10th, 2004, 10:10 AM

Thank you for reminding me I have forgotten to tell you something: I have withdrawn from the TGE3 game due to the DSL problems of a few weeks ago.

A sidenote: unless my headache gives me hallucinations as well, there seem to be a small typo in the rankings.

13 E3 1009 1
15 Parasite 990 1
16 Geoschmo 988 16
17 GrandpaKim 988 5
14 Parabolize 988 20

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 10:18 AM

Alneyan said:
Thank you for reminding me I have forgotten to tell you something: I have withdrawn from the TGE3 game due to the DSL problems of a few weeks ago.

A sidenote: unless my headache gives me hallucinations as well, there seem to be a small typo in the rankings.

13 E3 1009 1
15 Parasite 990 1
16 Geoschmo 988 16
17 GrandpaKim 988 5
14 Parabolize 988 20

I'll update the site later with your withdrawel. Considering your connection problem AND the fact that it is generally felt you are so powerful as to be nearly omnipotent in the game, there will be no penalty for withdrawing.

Also, you need to be a bit more explicit on the problem you listed above as I can't see what you're referring to in the list you posted (perhaps my eyes should be retired).

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 10:19 AM

Never mind, I see it...Parabolize at 14.

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Site updated:

Site corrected
1 player withdrawn

Slynky

September 10th, 2004, 02:46 PM

Site updated:

1 game added...

Slynky

September 25th, 2004, 11:52 AM

Site updated:

2 games computed
1 game added

Slynky

September 27th, 2004, 04:34 PM

Site updated:

New Welcome/Splash screen (no big deal...just fooling around a bit).

parabolize

September 28th, 2004, 06:06 PM

Are we rating Everything and Nothing?

Slynky

September 28th, 2004, 06:50 PM

parabolize said:
Are we rating Everything and Nothing?

Yep, I hope you knew that. That's why it appeared in the Rated Challenges thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

parabolize

September 28th, 2004, 08:02 PM

Slynky said:

parabolize said:
Are we rating Everything and Nothing?

Yep, I hope you knew that. That's why it appeared in the Rated Challenges thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Cool with me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Electrum

October 3rd, 2004, 10:27 AM

Slynky,

Please rate the Parabolize vs Electrum Koth game. P & I have discussed it & agree on it being rated.
Thanks

Slynky

October 3rd, 2004, 01:25 PM

Electrum said:
Slynky,

Please rate the Parabolize vs Electrum Koth game. P & I have discussed it & agree on it being rated.
Thanks

Sorry...got your message and will be updating the site today.

Slynky

October 3rd, 2004, 01:53 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed (congrats to Asmala for staying on top!)
2 games added

Slynky

October 3rd, 2004, 03:50 PM

Site updated:

One game completed

Electrum

October 3rd, 2004, 07:17 PM

Slynky said:

Electrum said:
Slynky,

Please rate the Parabolize vs Electrum Koth game. P & I have discussed it & agree on it being rated.
Thanks

Sorry...got your message and will be updating the site today.

Not a Problem. No need to apologize. It's just that I have developed an extreme distrust of E-mail.

Slynky

October 11th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Site updated:

2 games completed...

Slynky

October 30th, 2004, 01:30 PM

Sited updated:

2 games completed
1 game added (I took the liberty, Parabolize, since you aren't scared to give it a go against any rated player)

Parasite

November 13th, 2004, 10:18 PM

Sorry all, but my outgoing Email is messed up. New DSL and all. To Slinky...

Matt Helm, who is not rated, and I, Parasite, surrendered in the game Pairs.
Two people were destroyed before I was, and one person dropped, but his empire lives. Please use this information to recalculate my rating, and others also rated in the game. Thanks!

Parasite

Slynky

November 14th, 2004, 12:24 AM

Site updated:

3 games computed/completed
1 game added
2 games deleted*

*Ratings Bash games: Georgig vs Tesco and Gozguy vs Steal Dragon. I can't find any reports of the outcome (though, for some reason, it seems like I saw something from Gozguy but I can't find it now).

geoschmo

November 14th, 2004, 12:56 AM

Georgig Y Tesco never got finished. There was a problem with the game and needed a restart, but we never got going with it. You can cancel it, and if they ever get around to playing I'll let you know.

Goz v Steal never happened either. Steal left PBW alltogether.

Slynky

November 14th, 2004, 01:34 AM

Thanks, Geo. So, I didn't miss anything.

Alneyan

November 14th, 2004, 10:52 AM

Since I distrust mails, I will post this message here.

Kwok may be willing to enter the Ratings system, but he should confirm if it is so. His message on the KOTH thread before the game started was as follow: "I suppose this can be a rated game as well" .

I do not know if he joined the Ratings or not however, and it is his first KOTH game, so I am fine with either a rated game or not. Besides, the game is already well underway at around turn 40, and I should have asked for clarification earlier, so.

Hmm, a most ominous post count (1415 and Agincourt), though fortunately Kwok is not from England. Oh, I am digressing again.

Slynky

November 14th, 2004, 11:30 AM

Let me check it out. ( <---- good example of not digressing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)

Slynky

November 14th, 2004, 11:51 AM

Alneyan said:
Since I distrust mails, I will post this message here.

Kwok may be willing to enter the Ratings system, but he should confirm if it is so. His message on the KOTH thread before the game started was as follow: "I suppose this can be a rated game as well".

I have checked with Kwok and he has confirmed he intended it to be a rated game.

Alneyan

November 15th, 2004, 10:32 AM

Thanks for your swift answer Slynky. (<--- example of a not so swift post, albeit a post without any kind of digressing; at least until this point of the message, where I am going far beyond my point and...)

Baron Grazic

November 15th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Parasite said:
Sorry all, but my outgoing Email is messed up. New DSL and all. To Slinky...

Matt Helm, who is not rated, and I, Parasite, surrendered in the game Pairs.
Two people were destroyed before I was, and one person dropped, but his empire lives. Please use this information to recalculate my rating, and others also rated in the game. Thanks!

Parasite

Parasite - Thanks for notifing Slynky.

Slynky my records for the Pairs game is as follows:-
PBW Rating Members. (6 Rated members)
Primitive Still in.
Grazic Still in.
Asmala Still in.
Tescosamoa Still in.
Parasite 5th place
Gecko 6th place
Cybersol Pulled out early. Not counted.

Captain Kwok

November 15th, 2004, 10:54 PM

Do I still get some sort of rating points even if I play as sour as the lemon icon that accompanies this post? /threads/images/Graemlins/icon37.gif

Captain Kwok

November 16th, 2004, 09:22 AM

The best I can figure from the Ratings site is that we start at 1000 and work our way down - well at least I will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Slynky

November 17th, 2004, 09:15 AM

Captain Kwok said:
The best I can figure from the Ratings site is that we start at 1000 and work our way down - well at least I will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Some do and some don't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Captain Kwok

November 24th, 2004, 12:11 AM

Slynky, FYI, the match between Alneyan and I has been completed. I lost. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

Slynky

November 25th, 2004, 12:10 AM

Captain Kwok said:
Slynky, FYI, the match between Alneyan and I has been completed. I lost. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

Site updated: 2 games completed (Alneyan/Kwok and Ragnarok/Brianeyci)

(I think this is all the updates I need to make)

Slynky

December 6th, 2004, 09:00 AM

Site updated...

2 games completed

Slynky

December 11th, 2004, 07:35 PM

Site updated:

2 games added...

Slynky

December 11th, 2004, 07:36 PM

BTW, weird thread...more replies than views. Go figure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Asmala

December 12th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Slynky said:
BTW, weird thread...more replies than views. Go figure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

It's because views have been count only since the forum upgrade.

Slynky

December 12th, 2004, 12:06 PM

Asmala said:

Slynky said:
BTW, weird thread...more replies than views. Go figure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

It's because views have been count only since the forum upgrade.

Possibly but the KOTH thread has more views than Posts. But maybe it has a lot of views since the forum upgrade...this thread is not that popular http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/yawn.gif.

Slynky

December 15th, 2004, 10:50 PM

Site updated:

2 games added
2 games completed

Slynky

December 15th, 2004, 10:51 PM

Oh, and let me know if I've missed anything.

Slynky

December 19th, 2004, 06:45 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed......

Slynky

December 26th, 2004, 12:37 AM

Site updated:

2 games completed: Slynky vs Geoscho / Alneyan vs Geoschmo

Alneyan

December 26th, 2004, 10:53 AM

I like that update. No more Rex right beside me. Now, there is merely that Asmala to take care of, and the world shall be mine. Hopefully.

Now that you have taken care of Geo, and Christmas is over, could I interest you in a game Slynky? It does not have to start right now, however. Grudges can be taken care of at any time after all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif *Displays some more bravado*

Slynky

December 26th, 2004, 12:16 PM

I think I can handle another game. Besides, it's that time of year when I feel generous and in a giving mood, as in, giving you some points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

So, 7-card stud, 1-eyed jacks are wild, 3 bump limit... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif ...oops, wrong game.

Uh, Balanced mod (a small medium spiral or a large small spiral map), 3 good starting planets, no openers or closers.

Now, your turn. Bid/counter bid?

Slynky

December 26th, 2004, 12:20 PM

Oh, what the heck! Post # 3000.

Off to visit family soon, so will check back this afternoon (my time) for details of the challenge my little escargot!

Alneyan

December 26th, 2004, 12:58 PM

Hmm, I could use a few more points: Asmala is still out of my reach, and I am not far enough from Primitive or Rex. So feel free to give them, even before the game starts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

So, I would prefer a single good homeworld start, mainly because I have just done three homeworlds with Geo. I have nothing against three if you insist, however.

What about Empire setup? In other words, do you want Racial traits (read, Talisman and CA)? The Ancient trait? I am thinking of going with 0 point, and no Talisman/CA. The Ancient trait would be fine for me, as there are 2,000 fewer points here. Alternatively, we could agree to both take either CA or Talisman.

A minor nitpick: I would also ban the Storm Creators, as they might otherwise allow to set up deadly ambushes; it would otherwise be possible to put the storms lowering shields and to-hit chances on all the chokepoints, which would be fairly nasty for any invader.

I am fine with everything else you offer. Hone your sword. Steady your arm. Don't worry about my two blades; the white one doesn't have any poison on it.