SE4 Rating System [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 01:15 AM

We all play SE4 to have fun. I can't think of a game I have had more fun at for so long.

But, if you are like me, you long to test your skills against others. And, if you are of a competitive nature like me, you long to see how you measure up.

Here is, in my opinion, the best way to date to do so: The SE4 Rating System.

Why is it a good way? Because it's roughly the same rating system used to rank world chess players. It's based on points. Win, you get points. Lose, well, you lose points. But, if you are playing against a player rated higher than you, you are (kind of) expected to lose. If it turns out that way, then you don't lose many points. But, if you win, you get more points. It's based on a formula that considers the rating of the person you are playing against. It's a way of gaining and losing points (and how many points) depending on the rating of the player you play against.

So, you ask, what is the difference between this and all the other ways we have in the forum and on the PBW site to see how well you do? Simple. It measures your playing ability over all the games you play! Not just a tourney (where you may have gotten lucky for a round or two). And it's different from KOTH. In KOTH, you may have drawn some weak opponents and gotten lucky positioning for enough games to give the King a challenge.

Another thing you need to consider: This rating is independant of any game you want to play in. Just because you are an SE4 rated player doesn't mean every game you play will be rated. A rated game must be agreed upon by other rated players in the game. So, you are free to play fun (and sometimes weird) games without worry about it affecting your SE4 rating.

I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations. The website is already paid for (for a year) and there are no ads.

So, take a look (at least) and consider joining up.

(and feel free to make suggestions for consideration)

narf poit chez BOOM

August 17th, 2003, 02:14 AM

sounds good.

Jack Simth

August 17th, 2003, 02:35 AM

Just a thought: chess is pretty much exclusively a one-on-one game, while SEIV isn't. The chess scoring model will either need some adaptation to deal with multiplayer games, or forbid multiplayer games. Should alliance victories reduce the amount of points recived by the victors, as they didn't eliminate all competition (perhaps divide the "spoils" between the winners; if so, should the "spoils" be divided evenly? How to determine the divinsion if not?), should rated games be exclusively the Last-man-standing variety, or should all victories be figured equally, regardless of the number of winners? What about multiple losers? Should all losers take the standard hit computed as a one-on-one loss to the winner, or should it be divided somehow? Should the first to fall get a more extreme score loss than the Last to fall, or should it be even across the board? Or should the chess model be left as-is by keeping track of who falls to whom and treating those as one-on-one matches (more paperwork, and leaves the chess rating system intact, but allows someone to lose the game overall yet gain in rating - in some circumstances, more than the actual winner. Moreover, it can't exactly deal with the situation of empire A weakens B to the point where C plucks B out with little effort - who should be considered the victor over B?)?

Just some things to think about, as they have the potential to cause arguments if not addressed up front. As long as the rules are consistant, clear, and not slanted, a game is fair.

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 03:38 AM

Hi Jack, and thanks for the interest and concerns.

"Just a thought: chess is pretty much exclusively a one-on-one game, while SEIV isn't. The chess scoring model will either need some adaptation to deal with multiplayer games, or forbid multiplayer games. Should alliance victories reduce the amount of points recived by the victors, as they didn't eliminate all competition (perhaps divide the "spoils" between the winners; if so, should the "spoils" be divided evenly? How to determine the divinsion if not?)"

While not perfect, I think this rating system will be the best way to rate players "across the board". That means multi-player and one-on-one. So, I think we agree that one-on-one is no problem since it mirrors chess. In this regard, KOTH could serve a dual purpose...try to get to the top of the hill AND try to boost your rating. Now, in multi-player games, we have a different situation. Again, though not a perfect resemblence, a multi-player game isn't much different that a chess tournement with 5 rounds. So, if there are 5 rated SE4 players in a multi-player game, just as Geo proposed in the Ladder system, you report wins against some people and losses against others. For example, if I was in such a game and was the 3rd to be killed, then I'd report a win against 2 others and a loss against the remaining 2. But you DO make a good point...I should modify the rules to say the mulit-player games with players playing for a rating MUST be "Last man standing". This doesn't prohibit alliances...but as has been discussed in many other threads, you make those alliances knowing one day you must fight against your allies for the final determination of victor.

"Should the first to fall get a more extreme score loss than the Last to fall, or should it be even across the board? Or should the chess model be left as-is by keeping track of who falls to whom and treating those as one-on-one matches (more paperwork, and leaves the chess rating system intact, but allows someone to lose the game overall yet gain in rating - in some circumstances, more than the actual winner"

A person doesn't have to have his multi-player game be a rated one. But, if I understand your question and concern, it works both ways: If you are the first out, you will lose points to every rated player still in the game. Conversely, if you win, you will get points for every victory. Not much different than a person who went to a chess tournement and never won a game or one who won the tournement. Those in the middle will win some points and lose some points.

"Moreover, it can't exactly deal with the situation of empire A weakens B to the point where C plucks B out with little effort - who should be considered the victor over B?)?"

This is true. But, once again, not much different than the multi-player games and results Geo explained in the Ladder proposal. In ANY multi-player game, someone might be upset about appearing to be the first rated player to lose (and therefore try to run and hide as long as he can). But, with the good sportsmanship I have seen displayed in KOTH, I would hope people would look at their situation and do what the chess masters do...resign. More to your point, though, in the above example, B is plucked. B reports a loss to EVERYONE in the game. I'll run B through the calculation program against every other rated player who is competing as a rated player. And, that's the way it should be...since, in your example, every other player played a part in his "plucking".

I hope this answers your questions somewhat. And remember, should the multi-player battlefield be a place you are worried about with your ranking, you can still be a rated player but just not want a certain multi-player game to count toward your rating. To clarify, there can be 3 other people who have agreed to a certain game being a rated game for them but that doesn't mean you have to join in...you can just play the game without consequence to your rating. One problem MIGHT be that a multi-player game starts and there are 5 people in it who agree for it to be a rated game (for them). Let's suppose the current points leader is in that game. As a point leader, do you worry that others will gang up on you? Or as a person in the middle of the Ratings...do you try to ally with the point leader? It, in my estimation, can go either way.

Now, in closing, the obvious best situation is one-on-one. And that is why it's perfect for KOTH. Also, if we get enough people with Ratings, GrandpaKim and I plan on sponsoring a classic Swiss-system tourney just the way it's done in chess tournements all over the world (well, as much of the world as I have played in...I've only played in rated games in the US and Germany). AND, barring problems, I plan to offer a money prize to the winner.

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 04:26 AM

You've been added, E3. Welcome aboard.

Magnum357

August 17th, 2003, 08:44 AM

This is very interesting to me and I might considering joining, but what about mods? I love mods personally and I was thinking about making a personalized mod that is very balanced in terms of weapons and systems. Whould this rating system have its own set of "offical" mods that must be used?

eorg

August 17th, 2003, 11:03 AM

money prize will draw more people in but there will be no fun anymore - maybe andromeda poster signed by aaron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 05:41 PM

Welcome to the Ratings system, georgig!

(So, now I must ask, you want our KOTH game to be a "rated" game?)

BBegemott

August 17th, 2003, 06:01 PM

I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations. I think you and Lord Chane should check http://www.swissperfect.com
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings.

[ August 17, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: BBegemott ]

Lord Chane

August 17th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Here is, in my opinion, the best way to date to do so: The SE4 Rating System.
You can sign me up. I think it adds an interesting dimension to know the caliber of an opponent or potential opponent above and beyond what you may have heard about them.

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by BBegemott:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm still working out the details of the rules and Lord Chane is working on a program to do all the computations. I think you and Lord Chane should check http://www.swissperfect.com
There is a program that calculates ELO Ratings.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the info, BBegemott (though the link doesn't seem to work for me for some reason).

Lord Chane did the program in about 4 hours. While the site you posted may help with computations, I had plans to post 2 sets of statistics to my site: 1 for all the Ratings (sorted by rating, then by games played) and another list of the games people have played (with the date and win or lose). Those reports will come out of Access and sent to Word and then published on the site. So, I'm not sure the site you posted would have helped with that.

The formula, now posted at the SE4 Ratings (http://www.se4-gaming.net) site is essentially the same as used in the USCF with modifications that disregard the 20-game provisionary rating formula.

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 07:14 PM

Welcome to the Ratings system, Rextorres! You bring a lot of talent to the field.

Mikeyman

August 17th, 2003, 07:20 PM

I may join, but I have one question first...
The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing").Does that mean only Last man standing games can be rated? I am kind of unclear on that.

Excimer-500

August 17th, 2003, 07:43 PM

I'm definitely interested. In regards to Multiplayer games that are not Last Species Standing, why not simply have an agreement before the game begins that the allies can decide who the official winner is, instead of being forced to fight one another?

In other words: Three allied players win the game. Player A was considered to be the most instrumental player, B the next, and C had just a minor role (one of those players in the corner who helps with tech and resources:) Then C resigns (turns his empire over) to B, and B resigns to A.

If I understand the scoring correctly, Player C should still gain points in his/her/its rating, but just not as much as Players B and A.

When there is a disagreement as to who did more in the game, there is still the Last Species Standing option.

Just my two cents

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by mikeyman:
I may join, but I have one question first...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing").Does that mean only Last man standing games can be rated? I am kind of unclear on that.<hr /></blockquote>The rules and guidlines I have written are my best guess at what will work the best. But, I'm always open for suggestions.

But, the way I see it, without a clear victor/winner, it will be hard to calculate the Ratings. Let me give an example that uses an "alliance win":

Game has 8 players. 5 have agreed to have it a rated game (counting, of course, only to them). We'll call them players A B C D and E. Player A gets whooped (and is out of the game). Then player C dies. Clearly, Player A loses to everyone and his rating will reflect it. Player C loses to everone except player A. So, his rating goes down (and up a bit for the one win). NOW, the remaining players, who have opted for a rating game, decide they need to form an alliance to beat all the other players that are left. BTW, those other players aren't in the Ratings system (and it doesn't really matter since they aren't). BUT, let's say the game ends with the alliance of player B D and E winning. That's fine for the purposes of the game...and they should feel good for winning the game with their alliance. BUT, which one of them gets a win against the other? Player B D and E clearly won against the other 2 (rated) players who were beaten earlier. But did player B beat player D or F? I don't know. What if player B was the overwhelming force in the alliance win? What if the other two members of the alliance were just small support? How can I say player B ALSO beat the other 2 rated members? I can't. Why? Because they COULD form an alliance against him and knock him out of the game and therefore get their own victory against him.

So, I hope that explains it.

Having said that, here is a very possible solution:

(using the sample above and assuming the rated alliance of player B D and E won the game in an alliance victory) IF, at the conclusion of the game, player E says, "Well, we won...good game guys...now for the rating calculation. I was obviously the smallest empire and therefore, I concede victory to you 2 other guys." And then, player D says, "Yes player E, I agree with you and since I am so much less powerful than palyer B, I will also concede to him for Ratings purposes." If all the players who are in the Ratings system can agree to this "gentleman" way of deciding who was the winner (among the rated players), then Ratings could be calculated. HOWEVER, I'm not sure I want to get into that situation in games.

So, hopefully, I've explained my reasoning.

And remember...joining the Ratings system doesn't have to affect ANY game you play! You can join and NEVER play a rated game. Maybe it's because of the type of games you like to play in. BUT, it doesn't hurt to be a member of the Ratings system in case you find yourself in a game with other rated players and you want have it count toward a rating for yourself.

Slynky

August 17th, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Excimer-500:
I'm definitely interested. In regards to Multiplayer games that are not Last Species Standing, why not simply have an agreement before the game begins that the allies can decide who the official winner is, instead of being forced to fight one another?

In other words: Three allied players win the game. Player A was considered to be the most instrumental player, B the next, and C had just a minor role (one of those players in the corner who helps with tech and resources:) Then C resigns (turns his empire over) to B, and B resigns to A.

If I understand the scoring correctly, Player C should still gain points in his/her/its rating, but just not as much as Players B and A.

When there is a disagreement as to who did more in the game, there is still the Last Species Standing option.

Just my two centsLOL...I just cross-posted with you on your very point, I think. Funny, huh.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think about what I said.

Slynky

August 18th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Magnum357:
This is very interesting to me and I might considering joining, but what about mods? I love mods personally and I was thinking about making a personalized mod that is very balanced in terms of weapons and systems. Whould this rating system have its own set of "offical" mods that must be used?Modded or unmodded games would make no difference.

Slynky

August 18th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by georgig:
money prize will draw more people in but there will be no fun anymore - maybe andromeda poster signed by aaron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeah, I wish! Like that's going to happen!

geoschmo

August 18th, 2003, 04:34 PM

I suppose this would eliminate the need for the myleague ladder I had setup. I wish I had known you were doing this before I did that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

August 18th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I suppose this would eliminate the need for the myleague ladder I had setup. I wish I had known you were doing this before I did that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Couple of things:

(1) I certainly didn't intend to "step on anyone's toes", most especially yours, Geo. If it seems like that or if, after consideration, it appears to be the case, I apologize.

(2) The Last post the the League Ladder thread was on the 7th. Around that time, you posted a message saying (paraphrasing) that perhaps it wouldn't work and you needed to rethink it. Someone else (Chronon?) posted a message that "talked you down" and you said something about letting it ride and see how it goes. Now, I realize PBW has been down since August 1st and that THAT could have played a part in the thread languishing a bit. But, who knows. The questions stopped and Posts to the thread stopped. So, I just wondered if the idea was losing enthusiasm or interest.

(3) Unless the players who frequent this forum and PBW have an aVersion to being "bombarded by different rating/competition systems", I don't see why this method of rating a player can't work in conjunction with any other system of ranking players. Especially, for those of us who like all sorts of statistics, it gives opportunities for different bragging rights (e.g., "Hey guys, look at me! I'm in line to play the King in KOTH, ranked 4th in the PBW Ladder league, and the 6th highest rated player in the SE4 Ratings system!"). Or something like that, you get my point.

(4) I proposed this system because it's a tried and true system for many many years now. Though based in chess, it seems like it could work in SE4. One of the GOOD things about it is the points being calculated for winning or losing is based on an "expectancy to win" algorithm. So, losing to a highly rated player doesn't result in as many points lost as losing to one rated exactly the same as you.

(5) Two people messaged me and indicated support for this system, so I thought there may be some merit in it. And with PBW down, used the spare time to try and get it rolling http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Those are my thoughts on it. Again, I didn't mean to "muscle in" on the PBW League. For either of the systems to work well, there really needs to be a lot of players signed up so that the chances for a Ladder game or a Rated game to be available are better and better. Sadly, my proposal has only met with limited success (7 players) while the Ladder currently has 17 signups. So, if you think having 2 "ranking" systems is detrimental to each of them, I'll dismantle it. And, not wanting to put you on the spot, perhaps it's a question for all the players here. Perhaps some input from them would be good. Besides Lord Chane's time and my time, all else I have in it is $50 ($10 for the domain name). I used a generic domain name so that if it DID fail, I could use it for some other SE4 purposes. Or share it with others who want an advertisement-free location to post stuff. I dunno. And, ultimately, I could just get another domain name transferred to it and use it for my own purposes.

So, no biggie. Perhaps we should sit back and listen to some comments (pro and con).

And, in closing, my apologies, Geo. Never intended to "infringe" on the guy who has done the most for us SE4 addicts.

geoschmo

August 20th, 2003, 04:55 PM

No appology is neccesary Slynky. I don't have a strong love for the ladder system. I think there is probably room for more then one, and if there is not and yours ends up being the prefered method of ranking I am not going to be offended in any way. My choice of the ladder my league ladder system was due to two points.

1. There has been a persistant feeling expressed among many people that some rating system was needed.

2. The My league ladder seems to fill that need while being relativly easy for me to administer.

However, if your Ratings system takes off so much the better. Having someone else run a Ratings system is even easier for me then administering the Myleague system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

August 20th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Welcome to the Ratings system, Tesco samoa! (I'll update the site with your name this evening).

geoschmo

August 20th, 2003, 09:06 PM

It needs a catchier name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

August 20th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It needs a catchier name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe so. Where's Fyron when you need him http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Slynky

August 20th, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It needs a catchier name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Racking my brain, "What could POSSIBLY be more catchy than 'SE4 Ratings System'?"

Fyron

August 20th, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
It needs a catchier name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe so. Where's Fyron when you need him http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .<hr /></blockquote>Eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Slynky

August 20th, 2003, 10:30 PM

Geo suggested the name might not be catchy enough. Which would infer a catchier one might be needed. So, first thought that popped into my mind was the man of many Messages and words (and, therefore, ideas) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

tesco samoa

August 20th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Fyron is good at coming up with names.... Adm Mod is a classic example of how Fyron uses dicussion , poles and his own research to come up with names.

Fyron

August 20th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Umm... flip to a random page in the dictionary and see what words look like catchy names. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Tesco:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ August 20, 2003, 21:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 12:50 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, tesco samoa, Primitive, Geoschmo, and Jimbob!

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 01:10 AM

Welcome to the Ratings system, BBegemott!

Asmala

August 21st, 2003, 12:55 PM

Hey Georgig and Rextorres are in SE4 Rating System too. We could make the 2024 game rated game, couldn't we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Asmala

August 21st, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Asmala:
Hey Georgig and Rextorres are in SE4 Rating System too. We could make the 2024 game rated game, couldn't we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe I'm blind, but I can't find a PBW game by that name.

If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too.<hr /></blockquote>Oops, its full name is 20 Players, 24 hours, I remembered only the name of the savegame file. I didn't really mean to make that game a rated game, we've played it over 100 turns. I think Georgig and Rextorres don't want to make that game a rated game because I'm a little bit one up on them.

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Asmala:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Asmala:
Hey Georgig and Rextorres are in SE4 Rating System too. We could make the 2024 game rated game, couldn't we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe I'm blind, but I can't find a PBW game by that name.

If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too.<hr /></blockquote>I think Georgig and Rextorres don't want to make that game a rated game because I'm a little bit one up on them.<hr /></blockquote>Hmmm, why am I NOT surprised? Of course, I think Rex, and Georgig are good players.

tesco samoa

August 21st, 2003, 05:42 PM

Asmala heh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Asmala heh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I hear ya, Tesco.

Oh, and BTW, you know we are both in "Ankle Biters"....hint, hint.

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Asmala heh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I hear ya, Tesco.

Oh, and BTW, you know we are both in "Ankle Biters"....hint, hint.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, Geo, you, AND I are in that game. Anyone care to take a chance on this new type of game for a Ratings event?

tesco samoa

August 21st, 2003, 09:00 PM

i will do it for ankle biters
and 2024 as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 09:03 PM

I'm a bit surprised that some of the competitive people and good players I am familiar with haven't joined.

1FSTCAT, Stone Mill, DavidG, Cheese, Gandalph, Mark the Merciful, and Rags...to name a few. In fact, I don't understand why everyone who has joined the PBW Ladder hasn't joined here also.

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i will do it for ankle biters
and 2024 as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Bravo for the courage! Actually, I fear I will lose out in this "experiment" but I still like to play for points.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

August 22nd, 2003, 12:07 AM

Well, I wouldn't have joined the rating system if I didn't intended to have my games rated. I'd be willing in any and every game that hasn't already started.

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well, I wouldn't have joined the rating system if I didn't intended to have my games rated. I'd be willing in any and every game that hasn't already started.Thanks for giving it a chance, Geo. Really.

Now...shall we promote the PBW League and get that thread to the top for viewing again? 17 people at Last count that were interested.

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Asmala:
Hey Georgig and Rextorres are in SE4 Rating System too. We could make the 2024 game rated game, couldn't we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe I'm blind, but I can't find a PBW game by that name.

If the game has already started and very many turns have been played, my guess is one of you three is in the lead (and therefore, others may not want the game to be rated). But, if all three of you inform me that you want it to be rated for each of you, then that is fine. Remember what else I have said, it doesn't even have to be all three of you. If 2 of you indicate you want the game to be rated for each of you, that is fine, too.

Fyron

August 22nd, 2003, 01:34 AM

Synky, I suggest using a more readable font in that image in your sig. I can not make out what the first word is supposed to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Synky, I suggest using a more readable font in that image in your sig. I can not make out what the first word is supposed to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Tks, Fyron.

Actually, didn't figure anyone would give enough of a darn to even try and read it. On the other hand, if they had played a game with me, then they might know without a lot of work that it stood for the Trithian Empire.

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 03:15 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Gozguy and Phoenix-D !

Joachim

August 22nd, 2003, 03:23 AM

On board and willing to be rated in Ankle Biters... What about the rest of you?

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 03:28 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Joachim !

I believe we have 4 confirmed now for Ratings in the "Ankle Biters" game!

Baron Grazic

August 22nd, 2003, 04:49 AM

Looks like the game 'Pairs' will be a rating system game.
Grazic and Gecko are in.
Primative is also playing the game and might join as a rating player. Other members might follow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 07:08 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Baron Grazic and Gecko !

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 09:21 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Parasite !

Fyron

August 22nd, 2003, 09:53 PM

You should look into storing the stats in a database (such as MySQL) so that Users can sort them by various means (via a scripting language such as PHP).

Slynky

August 22nd, 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You should look into storing the stats in a database (such as MySQL) so that Users can sort them by various means (via a scripting language such as PHP).I wish I had the education to do so, the time to do so, and the money to buy Dreamweaver. Oh, and a wife who wasn't irritated when I embarked on yet another item that takes time away from us.

But, one of these days... *looks off into a distant golden sunset...*

Jack Simth

August 22nd, 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
I wish I had the education to do so, the time to do so, and the money to buy Dreamweaver. Oh, and a wife who wasn't irritated when I embarked on yet another item that takes time away from us.

But, one of these days... *looks off into a distant golden sunset...*PHP (http://www.php.net/) and MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/) are both open source, which means you can download PHP (http://www.php.net/downloads.php) and MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/downloads/index.html) free of charge, as well as readily finding the official MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/documentation/index.html) and PHP ducumentation (http://www.php.net/docs.php) Online, also free of charge. As you can write PHP in just about any plaintext editor, and embed it into the HTML you already have, all it would take is the time to download, install, learn enough to produce the DB and interface, and then the time of actually setting it up (which would be subsumed in the task of learning).

Time is about the only thing you'd need to come up with.

[ August 22, 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

geoschmo

August 22nd, 2003, 11:45 PM

I believe your webhost has to support php also for it to work on your pages. Yours might and you just aren't aware.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I believe your webhost has to support php also for it to work on your pages. Yours might and you just aren't aware.It's supported (1 DB limit).

I didn't realize it was open-source (shows how much I know about it). But, as I said, spending the time to learn it and incorporate the changes is something I don't have time to do right now. Also, please see note about wifey (or, the "sergeant major" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
I wish I had the education to do so, the time to do so, and the money to buy Dreamweaver. Oh, and a wife who wasn't irritated when I embarked on yet another item that takes time away from us.

But, one of these days... *looks off into a distant golden sunset...*PHP (http://www.php.net/) and MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/) are both open source, which means you can download PHP (http://www.php.net/downloads.php) and MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/downloads/index.html) free of charge, as well as readily finding the official MySQL (http://www.mysql.com/documentation/index.html) and PHP ducumentation (http://www.php.net/docs.php) Online, also free of charge. As you can write PHP in just about any plaintext editor, and embed it into the HTML you already have, all it would take is the time to download, install, learn enough to produce the DB and interface, and then the time of actually setting it up (which would be subsumed in the task of learning).

Time is about the only thing you'd need to come up with.<hr /></blockquote>Tks loads for the links, Jack! I'll go take a look.

Jack Simth

August 23rd, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Tks loads for the links, Jack! I'll go take a look.Have fun.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 01:16 AM

I'll add a page to the site tonight to show games in progress that have players being rated. This will serve to echo confirmation.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 02:05 AM

Attention players who have indicated they are playing for a rating in a game:

I have gone through all the threads where people have indicated an agreement for the game to count as a rated game. Please check the site to make sure your game is listed. I have quickly thrown together an extra page to show rated games in progress (button on the Statistics page) or "Here" (http://www.se4-gaming.net/SE4-Games.htm) for your convenience.

Let me know if I missed anyone/any game. (not everyone sent me an email... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

PS: I'll add another report to sort by player name later and take a look at a 4-button layout for the pages. Right now, wifey is waiting for us to watch "Daredevil".

Baron Grazic

August 23rd, 2003, 02:46 AM

Slynky - The games page looks good. You might need a link to it from the main page.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Slynky - The games page looks good. You might need a link to it from the main page.Yeah, I was in a hurry. That's why I mentioned a 4-button page design for later. Tks, though.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 04:15 PM

Before I add this next player...let me see if I understand:

"Roanon", whose real name is Joachim, wants to join but he's NOT the same person as a "Joachim", whose real name is James. Have I got that correct?

tesco samoa

August 23rd, 2003, 05:28 PM

you can add pairs to the rating as well for tesco..

and i will report all future games against people in the rating as a game...

also perhaps you would like to make a page on your website where we can submit games that were playing in to be rated, and then the outcome....

Grandpa Kim

August 23rd, 2003, 05:50 PM

Slynky, there are games already underway with ratable players in them. Could they be used as rated games if the players agree?

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Slynky, there are games already underway with ratable players in them. Could they be used as rated games if the players agree?Well, the SE4 Ratings System "belongs" to everyone and though I started off the rules, I will listen to (and consider) what everyone has to say to improve it and make it work well (and prohibit any cheating).

I don't see any reason why players in a game in progress who agree to have it count toward a rating should not be allowed to do so. So, unless I hear a reason why not, I think it's OK. I just need the game name and a confirmation from each player agreeing.

Grandpa Kim

August 23rd, 2003, 07:46 PM

Tesco! Whaddya say? Shall we enter ourselves to be rated in "Rifts"? I'm willing.

Slynky

August 23rd, 2003, 09:20 PM

The site has been updated to reflect:

Tesco being rated in the "Pairs" game; and
4-button pages to make navigation a bit more direct/easy.

Please check the Games page (games in progress that are being rated) to make sure I haven't missed a notification that you have a rated game underway.

Work in progress: A different sort on the games in progress to list games by the person. Makes it easier to find your name and see which games you are being rated in.

Gozra

August 23rd, 2003, 10:37 PM

Gecko and Gozguy are starting a KOTH game and both of us are in the Ratings system.
BTW I did not see/observe/or notice and way to indicate that you are in a rating game. Or is this the way to make notification?

And just a thought now that we have a Ratings system won't that affect in some way how players play in a game? The situation I was thininking about is when a much higher rated player takes on severl 'lower' rated folks and they gang up on the higher rated player. The reason I mention this is because I have seen it happen and that situation gets old fairly quick for the higher rated player. OTOH oh well thats the way the Space Empire crumbles.

Just an observation

Jack Simth

August 23rd, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Gozra:
Gecko and Gozguy are starting a KOTH game and both of us are in the Ratings system.
BTW I did not see/observe/or notice and way to indicate that you are in a rating game. Or is this the way to make notification? Originally Posted by Slynky in Rules section of SE4 rating page (http://se4-gaming.net/SE4-Rules.htm):
(4) For validation that a rating competition is being conducted, a simple email message to me (chuck_evans@charter.net) from each participating player stating the the name of the PBW game is all that is required. If I don't receive a message from a particular player, any computation involving that player will not be conducted. It only needs to look like this:

"I, (enter your PBW nickname here) agree to be rated in (enter the PBW game name here)."
Note that the "me" in the above quote refers to Slynky (I think), not myself.

Slynky

August 24th, 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Gozra:
And just a thought now that we have a Ratings system won't that affect in some way how players play in a game? The situation I was thininking about is when a much higher rated player takes on severl 'lower' rated folks and they gang up on the higher rated player. The reason I mention this is because I have seen it happen and that situation gets old fairly quick for the higher rated player. OTOH oh well thats the way the Space Empire crumbles.

Just an observationIt's a good observation. I would hope it wouldn't happen like that and that positioning in the game would be what dictated what players did. Certainly, if the 2 highest rated players in the game are across the map from each other, it's difficult for them to gang up on, say, you if you are beside one of them.

Also, notice that I mentioned (well, if I didn't mention it, I meant to... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) the best situation to play a rated game under was one-on-one. But, I didn't want to prohibit multi-player games. One must make the decision about whether to have a multi-player game count toward one's rating when one enters such a game. So, playing a rated game is entirely up to each person.

Thanks for mentioning it, however.

Slynky

August 24th, 2003, 12:46 AM

Geckomlis

August 24th, 2003, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gozra:
Gecko and Gozguy are starting a KOTH game and both of us are in the Ratings system.
BTW I did not see/observe/or notice and way to indicate that you are in a rating game. Or is this the way to make notification?To make sure you (and anyone else) understand the notification about being rated, if you and Gecko are starting a game and both of you would like it to count in the Ratings, then all I need is a message informing me from you and him. I prefer email but I have been using this thread as notification as well.<hr /></blockquote>I am OK with K.O.T.H. GozGuy vs Gecko being a rated game, assuming I win of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Asmala

August 24th, 2003, 09:59 AM

I joined to the Pairs game and I'd like to be rated of course.

Slynky

August 24th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Added Asmala to Pairs and a KOTH game for Gozguy and Gecko. Have I missed anything?

Just a reminder:

(1) The loser must report the loss; and
(2) For multiplayer games, remember there must be one clear winner (either by death or by mutual agreement in cases where players have worked together to achieve victory.

We only have 18 players in the rating system. I was hoping for 25-30. There are a lot of good competitive players out there who I thought would jump at the chance to see how they rate. It's not KOTH (which has its own special magic) but it's a good way to see you skills rated.

Well, anyway, give it some thought, guys.

tesco samoa

August 24th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Grandpa Kim Rifts... are you crazy.... its 100 turns in.... ( I will have to think about that one )_

Slynky

August 24th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Think Loooooonnnnngggggg and hard, Tesco. There are plenty of opportunities to get rated.

Slynky

August 25th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Roanon and Chronon.

Added Primitive to be rated in the Pairs game.

Good luck to all !

Baron Grazic

August 26th, 2003, 12:08 AM

Don't forget Cybersol for the Pairs game, as per the email I forwarded to you.

Slynky

August 26th, 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Don't forget Cybersol for the Pairs game, as per the email I forwarded to you.Yeah, I'm going to add him in just a bit. I saw you message about him after I had done the update this morning.

Slynky

August 26th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Cybersol !

Also, have added you the list of players in the Pairs game competing against each other for Ratings.

Slynky

August 28th, 2003, 02:37 AM

To anyone concerned:

I�ll be unable to update the site and process Ratings-related information from Friday till Monday afternoon (I�ll be at Dragon*Con all weekend).

I'll get them when I get back.

Slynky

August 29th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Since I "frequent" the KOTH thread a lot, I took note of the Geoschmo/Primitive game and posted the results to the site.

geoschmo

August 29th, 2003, 04:54 AM

Right were I belong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Slynky

August 29th, 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Right were I belong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Just the first game, Geo.

Besides, if Georgig has his way, I'll be down there with you. Hard to tell, though. He did some damage to me in our game but hasn't decided to come through the hole to my next system, I guess, till he's sure of having enough ships.

Atrocities

August 29th, 2003, 09:32 AM

You can turn off the rating display if you wanted to.

Slynky

August 29th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You can turn off the rating display if you wanted to.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

BBegemott

August 29th, 2003, 05:01 PM

Slynky, include the "SE4 Ratings Game I" into rated games list, please.
Players: BBegemott and Geoschmo.
Thanks.

cybersol

August 30th, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Before I add this next player...let me see if I understand:

"Roanon", whose real name is Joachim, wants to join but he's NOT the same person as a "Joachim", whose real name is James. Have I got that correct?Yeah, and to make it more confusing Roanon real name Joachim did me a favor and took over my empire while I was on vacation after Joachim real name James asked me to stay in the game. I was just as confused as you for a bit.

Originally posted by Slynky:
Welcome to the SE4 Ratings System, Cybersol !

Also, have added you the list of players in the Pairs game competing against each other for Ratings.Thanks Slynky and Baron Grazic. Hehe, my Pairs partner is the #1 rated player http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Maybe that will make it even against Asmala and Tesco...

Cybersol

Slynky

September 1st, 2003, 08:58 PM

I'm back from Dragon*Con.

I'll update the Ratings site with new members and games today (9/1).

Slynky

September 1st, 2003, 10:05 PM

Please check the site to verify I have all the updates posted.

Note: I added the "SE4 Ratings Game I" to the list though it's not be verified by Geo. I'm assuming Geo intends it to be rated by virtue of joining such a game with such a name ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I do prefer acknowledgement by both players to avoid any problems when the game has been resolved. But I trust Geo to be an honorable player and NOT say later that he never agreed in a message.

Slynky

September 1st, 2003, 10:06 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Gandalph and Deccan!

primitive

September 1st, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Please check the site to verify I have all the updates posted.

KOTH Roanon vs Primitive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

September 1st, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Please check the site to verify I have all the updates posted.

KOTH Roanon vs Primitive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>My mistake. Apparently I'm trying to recover from the 3 days of Dragon*Con and can't remember to use the info from the message in my inbox! Too many scantily-clad girls in fantasy costumes took its toll and now I'm delerious.

primitive

September 2nd, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Too many scantily-clad girls in fantasy costumes took its toll and now I'm delerious.Pictures, we want pictures. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Slynky

September 2nd, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Too many scantily-clad girls in fantasy costumes took its toll and now I'm delerious.Pictures, we want pictures. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>Dude! It was awesome! Perhaps I should do a tease and see if anyone else is interested.

Slynky

September 2nd, 2003, 12:52 AM

I've updated the site to show the latest change in Ratings: Primitive and Roanon.

Here, you'll notice how the formula works. At a rating 1000, Primitive received 16 points for winning his first game against a player with the same amount of points. Then, playing as a player with 1016 points against a player rated at 1000, he only received 15 points. That's the beauty of this rating formula. Higher Ratings are expected to win and if that occurs, there are less points earned (and lost). On the other hand, if a lower rated player wins, both will win/lose more points.

While we know there is more luck involved than chess Ratings, where the formula comes from, in the long run, better players will generally have a higher score. And, when these high-rated players play someone with a much lower score, BECAUSE they are expected to win, they gain less points.

primitive

September 2nd, 2003, 01:21 AM

While you are hard at work, you can add KOTH Baron Grazic vs Primitive.

And please stop reminding people that there is an extra bonus for whacking me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Baron Grazic

September 2nd, 2003, 02:41 AM

I'll give whacking Primative a go... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

September 2nd, 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Note: I added the "SE4 Ratings Game I" to the list though it's not be verified by Geo. I'm assuming Geo intends it to be rated by virtue of joining such a game with such a name ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I do prefer acknowledgement by both players to avoid any problems when the game has been resolved. But I trust Geo to be an honorable player and NOT say later that he never agreed in a message.Sorry, I always forget to notify you. But yes I do intend it to be rated. And Bbgemont does as well as that was the precondition I set for whomever wanted to join the game against me.

Geoschmo

Asmala

September 2nd, 2003, 11:12 AM

K.O.T.H. Lord Chane vs Asmala will be rated game.

Hey this is the 100th message in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

geoschmo

September 2nd, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
...what do you think would be easiest for all concerned?How hard would it be to add a little message board to your website? If that's too hard I could set you up a forum on PBW. People could start a new thread whenever they want to join, or start a rating game, or post results. Or maybe Fyron could setup up a special forum for you on his site. His forum works a little better I think. Then you could link to whichever forum from your webpage.

Geoschmo

Slynky

September 2nd, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
...what do you think would be easiest for all concerned?How hard would it be to add a little message board to your website? If that's too hard I could set you up a forum on PBW. People could start a new thread whenever they want to join, or start a rating game, or post results. Or maybe Fyron could setup up a special forum for you on his site. His forum works a little better I think. Then you could link to whichever forum from your webpage.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Not sure which is easiest. This board seems to be the "center of the universe"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

It's easy to insert a board or forum into the site...done it before in a Mechwarrior site I had. The downside, I think, is that each person would have to register (on yet another forum) and check it regularly. Don't want to cause that kind of additional trouble. Also, keeping this forum the "center of the universe" (which it already is as far as SE4 is concerned... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ), would seem to serve as an ongoing "advertisement".

I was looking for the easiest way for a person to indicate their desire to have their game be rated. KOTH, one of the most active threads, seems to do well with posting all the requests to take a break from the game as well as wins and losses. Perhaps this thread could serve the same purpose.

What I DON'T want is having to find game Ratings request and reports of wins and losses to be in various other threads...too easy to miss something.

And, wondering if requiring the loser to report is the only way to go...meaning that taking a report of a victory by the victor standing as a "report" unless contested by the loser. But, I'd hate to set up a situation where there might be a controversy. Given the KOTH people, I can pretty much assume good sports all around. But one can't count on that behavior forever.

geoschmo

September 2nd, 2003, 03:51 PM

The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.

Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense?

Slynky

September 2nd, 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.

Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense?It makes sense. Not sure the best way to go about it but what you said makes sense. After all, when people are working together for a victory, they all share in the rewards.

On the other hand, sometimes, teams are made later in the game when people are seeking to suck up, so to speak... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Nevertheless, though, there is some advantage to teamwork and all of it counting toward a victory for all. Perhaps special games like that from the beginning, like the "Pairs" game?

So, if something like that happened, what if a guy with a rating of 1200 teamed with a guy who had a rating of 900? If I averaged the rating of the team (1050) and computed Ratings, would the person rated high be upset? Also, since the formula is based on individual comparisons, would a "team" rating skew things the wrong way?

Finally, would the players be willing to agree to this? Maybe lower-rated players would be willing agree to that but would higher-rated players agree? For example, in the Challenge Match you and several of us started a while back...Asmala is the dominant empire...and I know he is a great player but, (for example), I offered advice, produced the most research, and "sat in the back seat" helping him be so strong. NOT to take away from his playing ability but, would he be willing to "average" his rating with mine (and Lord Chane's) for some sort of team rating computation?

geoschmo

September 2nd, 2003, 07:26 PM

Ok, putting aside for the moment the discussion of team wins, how will you calculate the points for games with more then 2 players? Say we have a three player game. How many points does the winner get? Does the second place person get any points? I read the rules but don't see anything about this.

Gozra

September 2nd, 2003, 09:30 PM

You can assign a rating as individual, team, and pairs, or rather rate a player in each catagory. I for one would like to know how a player rates in team play. Keep up the good work guys.
Gozguy

Slynky

September 3rd, 2003, 12:02 AM

[I tried to post this earlier but my connection was down]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, putting aside for the moment the discussion of team wins, how will you calculate the points for games with more then 2 players? Say we have a three player game. How many points does the winner get? Does the second place person get any points? I read the rules but don't see anything about this.Perhaps I didn't state it clearly but this is what I had in mind on the way it will work in a multi-player game:

Four people are in a multi-player game who are being rated. Players A B C and D.

Player D is the first person put out of the game. Remember, if the game consists of 8 players, for Ratings purposes, only player A B C and D matter. So, player D is first out of the rated players. I take that information and compute his rating against the other players (A B and C). Player D loses to player A B and C. I post those new Ratings for everyone. Player A B and C may still be playing but that's no problem. When the next (rated) player is elliminated (say, player C), I will compute the following: his loss against player A and B. Remember, his point gain from beating player D has already been computed. As has player A and C. This approximates a chess tourney as best as possible. Which is what the whole Ratings system is based upon.

The only problem is getting people to let me know in a multi-player game that someone has been eliminated. Even then, if reported after the game has finished completely and the finishing places are reported, I will compute the results in the sequence as I have described. In other words, given all the finishing places at the conclusion of the game, I will compute the scores from the loser on up. So, in the above example, if the players win in order of their name, A B C and D, then I will compute the Ratings for player D first, then the Ratings for player C, and so on.

Does that make sense?

Slynky

September 3rd, 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Asmala:
K.O.T.H. Lord Chane vs Asmala will be rated game.

Hey this is the 100th message in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif I've added the game to the Ratings list. I'll need some confirmation from Lord Chane.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif = 1,000th message... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

September 3rd, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Note: I added the "SE4 Ratings Game I" to the list though it's not be verified by Geo. I'm assuming Geo intends it to be rated by virtue of joining such a game with such a name ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I do prefer acknowledgement by both players to avoid any problems when the game has been resolved. But I trust Geo to be an honorable player and NOT say later that he never agreed in a message.Sorry, I always forget to notify you. But yes I do intend it to be rated. And Bbgemont does as well as that was the precondition I set for whomever wanted to join the game against me.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>No need to apologize. It seems to be a common ailment... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

I want to make it as easy for people as possible and perhaps emailing me from the site is a few extra clicks to go through. What do you think about adding an email link in my siggy line, Geo? Seems a lot of people want to use this thread for notification...I could accept notification here and in an email (and therefore have a confirmation to use should anyone say they never agreed to have a certain game rated).

Also, the rules say the losing player should report the loss but I've been accepting any results posted here. What do you think would be easiest, Geo? After all, you're good at organizational things like this...what do you think would be easiest for all concerned?

Slynky

September 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM

We currently have 8 games in progress that have Ratings computations being conducted.

We also have 23 players in the Ratings list.

I KNOW there are several players out there who are good (and competitive) players who should join the list (but I won't name any names this time). The way I see it is this: If you know you are good, the sooner you join, the sooner you can start working toward a rating above the starting 1,000 points. If you worry that you are not so good, look at it this way...it's a good way to see how you grow and learn as a player. Yes, you may lose some games and your rating might go lower but, to me, it is a good way to measure growth. AND, as far as I know, EVERY player gets better.

Also, a few other tidbits...

I mentioned sponsoring a tournement for rated players. I think the winner of this tourney should receive a copy of SE5 when it comes out. There would be no cost to enter the tourney--it would just be a prize I purchased and sent. It doesn't mean a person can't join the rating system right before this tourney and still have a chance at the win...but if you're going to join just to play in the tourney, why not join now?

Also, another suggestion was to specify some categories for different Ratings. They could be specified every 200 (or 250) points (example: 750 = "Crewman", 1000 = "Squad Leader", 1250 = "Ship Captain", 1500 = "Formation Commander", 1750 = "Fleet Commander", 2000 = "Admiral" etc.) Since this is an activity for everyone here at the forum/PBW, I'm open to suggestions and comments.

geoschmo

September 3rd, 2003, 01:57 AM

Slynky, that does make sense, and it's probably the easiest method. I am not sure I like it though. For this reason mainly, the eventual winner of a large multiplayer game will geta huge number of points. And the players knocked out early will lose a LOT of points.

I think that it's not really the way chess tournaments are scored is it? I thought that you didn't actually get points in a chess tourney for each win or loss, but you got points at the end based on your ending tournament placement compared to your expected tourney placement based on your ranking going in. I don' treally like that either for SE4 though becasue of the time involved in completing a game.

Here's what I suggest. Feel free to use it or not. It's a little more complicated, but not all that much more. Take your same game with A,B,C, and D being rated. Once a player is knocked out of the game it gets reported to you. You take the eliminated players rank, and compare it to the average ranking of the other three players to calculate the number of points to subtract from his rating. Then take that number of points and divide it by the number of players left. Each player in this case would get one third of the points.

This way winning or losing a large game doesn't grossly inflate or decimate your ranking. It's still just one game after all. Losign wouldn't hurt you any more then a regular one on one game. Being the ultimate winner of such a game would get you more points, but not a tremendous number more. In the case of a 4 player game the winner would get 1/3+1/2+1, just shy of two times the normal 1v1 points. In fact I think that no matter how many players the most the winner would get would be fractionally less then 2 times a 1v1 game. The more players would just get you closer to 2.

Geoschmo

[ September 03, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Suicide Junkie

September 3rd, 2003, 03:36 AM

That would only be true if you were going 1/n2

As soon as you hit five players, you get 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4.
That's a bit more than 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 2

Still OK.
What about the 2nd place player?
1/4 + 1/3 +1/2 - 1 = 0.083
barely any gain at all.

3rd place gets 1/4 + 1/3 - 1 = -0.417
4th gets -0.75
5th gets -1

[ September 03, 2003, 02:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Baron Grazic

September 3rd, 2003, 03:37 AM

I like Geoschmo's reasoning on the points scored for the large games, but any way you deciede to do the scoring Slynky, I'm behind you.

I'll post any "Pairs" empire deaths either here (or in the Pairs forum)

I also take it that the Ratings taking in the valuation are the time you calculate the Ratings, not when our games starts, Yes?

geoschmo

September 3rd, 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Still OK.
What about the 2nd place player?
1/4 + 1/3 +1/2 - 1 = 0.083
barely any gain at all.
Not exactly. That is just the multiplier. You still have to factor in the difference in Ratings going into the match. The total points gained or lost for a 1v1 game can be anywhere from 1 to 32 depending on Slynky's formula. It's impossible to calculate the exact points the 2nd player would get without knowing the Ratings of the players going in. But you are probably correct that it wouldn't be very many. Maybe somehwere in the neighborhood of 0 to 4 points. But that's not bad considering you didn't win. And you won't be losing any points even though you lost at the end.

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
... but any way you deciede to do the scoring Slynky, I'm behind you.
I second this. However you decide to do it I will support it. I am just making suggestions.

geoschmo

September 3rd, 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But you are probably correct that it wouldn't be very many. Maybe somehwere in the neighborhood of 0 to 4 points. Actually it could be much mroe then this. It all depends on the Ratings really. And the 2nd place player could possibly end up negative.

If all four players had the same rating going in it would be pretty easy to calculate.

1st place would get 29 points
2nd place would get -3 points
3rd place would get -11 points
4th place would get -16 points

Change any of the Ratings going in though and things vary wildly. I suppose you could set the range. The most you could possibly get would 116. To do this you'd have to be in a 20 player game and be ranked way below all the other players going into the game.

[ September 03, 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slynky

September 3rd, 2003, 06:26 PM

It's a difficult decision. I certainly see the merit of the discussion on rating multi-player games. Here are some thoughts on this "problem":

(1) As I posted much earlier in this thread (I think), one must be aware of multi-player games and the impact the outcome could have on one's rating. Given a game with 6 players competing for a rating, surely one person will suffer a big (depending on the Ratings of the people in the game) loss in points. Conversely, there are bunches of points to be had...assuming a person can manipulate themselves into 1st or 2nd place. Given 6 players, 2 will suffer some point loss, 2 will turn out about the same and the winning 2 will realize a point gain. I don't think that's too much. By "too much", I'm thinking 4 out of the 6 will NOT have much of a detriment to their rating. But remember, as I said, think long and hard about multi-player games and the chances you take when joining one and having it count as a rating.

(2) As far as making this rating system compare to a tried and true rating system (used for MANY years the world over), it's not far from what is done. Certainly, without much consideration, a one-on-one game comes the closest to simulating a chess match and score. When we get to a multi-player game, things change a bit. BUT, not too much, I think. In a chess tourney, let's say 30 players for 4 rounds, Ratings computations are NOT computed for how one placed in the tourney but the number of wins and losses as computed against the people played against and their Ratings. The actual formula that I use is the same as the formula the USCF (United States Chess Federation) with the exception of this: the formula calculates all the player Ratings that one played against, the number of wins and losses, and figures the score based on one computation. That's not much different than calculating each person's loss or win against each person they won or lost to. I think the USCF does it the way they do to make it easy (and quick) to calculate all the Ratings that they have to process each day from all the results that are pouring in each day.

(3) Lord Chane wrote the program to do the calculation. I hesitated to ask him to write me something to do the computation but he sometimes has the available time and interest to help out. Certainly, he's very busy at work writing programs to help our agency out all the time (currently, he's working on a full-fledged helpdesk program that will be spread over the US in our agency). The program uses the database table of players and their Ratings to compute the new Ratings and post those results in the player table as well as the games table. All I have to do is click on the program, enter the winning player (from a "drop down"), enter the losing player (from a "drop down"), and the date. The logic necessary to incorporate multiple-player games and their respective results would be quite an undertaking, in my opinon (based on my outdated knowledge of programing logic in Clipper and Pascal).

(4) The suggested adjustment to the points calculation deviate a bit from what is practiced in chess matches. It looks good on the surface but I worry it deviates too much so that we don't get the true results that the USCF has been getting for so many years. In other words, I'd hate to tinker with a formula that seems to work for chess even though we calculate multi-player games a bit differently than the chess federation does. But remember, 5 people in a multi-player game is not so much different than a chess tourney of 5 players...someone will win and someone will lose big. And everyone's score in that 5-person tourney will be adjusted just about the same as in our computations.

(5) Finally, not to be obtuse...applying the USCF Ratings formula to our SE4 games will not be perfect. But, it is a verified formula that takes into consideration the expected win probability and calculates points awarded accordingly. THAT formula works very well. I played competitive chess for many years. I played in Germany and in the US. And when I played against an opponent with a certain rating, the results were pretty much on target...in other words, if I was paired against a player with a higher rating than me, I usually lost. And, the inverse was also true. BTW, for anyone interested, my highest chess rating in the USCF was 1777...these days, though, I figure I'd play around a 1300 rating.

Though not directly related to the suggestions for a computation "adjustment", my sincere thought is this: given enough players, given enough time for the Ratings to "smooth out", a person should be fairly confident of their chances for a win or loss by looking at their opponent (or opponents in a multi-player game). I'd like to see 50 or more people in the Ratings system. Heck, I'd like to see everyone there (well, except for the work...hehe). But, people might not join because they don't think they can be rated near the top. I look at it this way: I think chess is the best game in the world! I'm not the best and never will be a Bobby Fischer. BUT, I wanted to see how I DID rate with other players. So, if people love this game as much as I do and others do, they would want to do the same thing...see how they measured up. Perhaps they might have a low rating BUT, if I were in their place, I'd like to see if my rating got higher...to see if I was getting better. That's what I did in chess.

geoschmo

September 3rd, 2003, 06:48 PM

That's fine. As I said it was just a suggestion. I think you are going to find the current system will limit the number of people willing to get rated in large games though.

If you think about it, a player with a high rating is taking a large risk for relativly little to gain by getting involved in a game with several other players. The other players will want to gang up on him because the difference in Ratings makes him a more valuable target. And if he loses early he gets the full force of all the losses to several players below in the rankings. By playing the same number of lower ranked people in 1 v 1 games, he has the same potential gain and much better prospects at achieving victories as his enemies wont be able to cooperate against him. That's where the comparison to chess breaks down unfortunatly. Because no matter how many players in a chess tourneament, you still get to face them one at a time.

The myleague ladder that I suggested get's around this problem by not having the loser move down, only the winner move up. So then the good player might not gain anything still, but at least he's not losing big ground. But it's not a perfect system either. It's got other problems.

Geoschmo

[ September 03, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Gozra

September 3rd, 2003, 09:38 PM

We I already mentioned this maybe I was not clear enough.
Have a seperate rating system for Singles, doubles, and multiplayer that way an indivdual gets three scores. I think that will ease your calculation problems. And make an interesting Ratings system.

Asmala

September 4th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Gozra:
We I already mentioned this maybe I was not clear enough.
Have a seperate rating system for Singles, doubles, and multiplayer that way an indivdual gets three scores. I think that will ease your calculation problems. And make an interesting Ratings system.I don't like this one. SE4 games are so long that if there are three separate score tables the variation in scores are way too low for me.

Parasite

September 4th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Multiplayer game Ratings. Take the first looser and match them to the top winner, calculate rating for those two. Take the second person out and "team" him with the second place winner and caculate them to find a rating adjustment. If there are an odd number of players, the exact middle gets no change in score. This would make all multiplayer games equivalent to single player matches. (I think) It would be possible for the second place player to get more points than the first place player (Like if the first guy eliminated was really low rated, but the next guy out was a high rated player) But this sounds like it could still be fair and in the spirit of chess. What do you all think?

[ September 04, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: Parasite ]

Baron Grazic

September 5th, 2003, 01:25 AM

The problem with this is, no-one would get any Ratings until the entire game is finished.
The first person could be kicked out at turn 20, while the game continues onto 200+ turns. Fine for quick games, but if the turn time is 3-7 days...

Slynky

September 7th, 2003, 01:48 AM

(bump)

Just letting you guys know I'm thinking still.

BBegemott

September 7th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Geoschmo:
By playing the same number of lower ranked people in 1 v 1 games, he has the same potential gain <...>That's not true, I think. You don't take into account that the more you win 1 v 1 games, the less increases your rating after each game. That's because of rating difference of players is taken into account (your opponents rating drops down). It will take more games to get the same increment than number of players in one multi-player game. And a single loss increases that number...

Yeh ganging up is a problem, but hasn't it been a problem before Ratings too? High rated players might gangup against lower rated if they feel a threat of early destruction of their empires.

I think SE4 rating System is good as it is.

BBegemott

September 7th, 2003, 07:00 PM

SE4 Ratings Game I
BBegemott wins.

I was lucky that you divided your fleet into two parts- one was sitting on the warp and other- retrofitting(?). The outcome could be different at all, if you have kept your ships in one place, and protected the warp with sats and fighters.
After the warp deffence was penetrated, your inner planets became an easy target.

Thanks for the game Geo.

Slynky

September 7th, 2003, 07:17 PM

Just finished the yard. Gotta put groceries away and shower...THEN site update http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Slynky

September 7th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Site updated:

Geo over Deccan;
BBegemott over Geo

Geo (verified) vs Gandalph (unverified...but I will list him for the game since it's kind of unlikely someone would join such a game and NOT count it as a rated game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif );

Grandpa Kim (verified) vs Phoenix-D (unverified)

There, have I missed anything?

[PS: To Geo, I received both game results in the same message, so I did calculations based on the one listed first as the first one.]

Phoenix-D

September 7th, 2003, 09:33 PM

You can consider the KOTH game verified.

geoschmo

September 7th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
[PS: To Geo, I received both game results in the same message, so I did calculations based on the one listed first as the first one.]Anyway you want to do it is fine with me. As long as I am not in Last place anymore. Woo Hoo! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

September 7th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
You can consider the KOTH game verified.Tks, Phoenix. (asterisk removed)

Slynky

September 8th, 2003, 02:01 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Parabolize!

Slynky

September 9th, 2003, 09:09 PM

OK, multiplayer game Ratings (what about this?):

Say A B C and D are in a game. Say they lose in this order: D C B and A.

D loses to everyone. Calculation: I average A B and C's rating and run it through the formula against D's rating. D's rating is updated with the number from the formula. A B and C's gain in rating is divided by 3 (the number of players that got the win) and posted to their stats immediately.

Then C is killed. I average A and B's rating and run it through the formula against C's rating. C's rating is updated with the number from the formula. A and B's gain in rating is divided by 2 and posted to their stats immediately.

Finally, B is killed. Here, I just run the regular formula.

Without going through all the calculations for 4 people rated at 1,000 exactly (figuring in my head where 1,000 vs 1,000 results in +16 and -16 points), this would be the results after the game:

A = +29 points
B = -3 points
C = -11 points
D = -16 points

The game count goes up 1 for every player. And, unless Lord Chane can modify the program, I'll be doing this on a spreadsheet.

So, what's good about this?

(1) Only slight modification to the chess formula and hopefully one that won't skew results.
(2) I can update results as people are eliminated from multiplayer games (someone mentioned that as being desireable).
(3) Losing won't have a "killer" impact on one's rating. In fact, you have to be in Last place to lose the same amount of points as losing in a one-on-one game.

What's bad about it?

(1) From the looks of it, only the winner gets points. Not a terrible problem, after all, he was the winner (but surely he had some help along the way). I'd like to see 2nd place get some points. Perhaps, 2nd place will get points if there are 5 or more rated players (I haven't checked it out but it looks like it).

I'll leave the game on the website until it has been completed.

Suggestions/comments?

primitive

September 9th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Why not do it the easy way. Do as originaly planned, but add a "reduction-factor" to lessen the effect of the many win/losses.

With 40 % reduction for a 4 man game (and all keeping their 1000 points throughout the game):
A = +29 points
B = +10 points
C = -10 points
D = -29 points

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Slynky

September 9th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Why not do it the easy way. Do as originaly planned, but add a "reduction-factor" to lessen the effect of the many win/losses.

With 40 % reduction for a 4 man game (and all keeping their 1000 points throughout the game):
A = +29 points
B = +10 points
C = -10 points
D = -29 points

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif And a 5-person game @ a reduction factor of 50% (5 x 10%) would result in:

A = +32
B = +16
C = 0
D = -16
E = -32

Right? (if I understand you).

primitive

September 9th, 2003, 10:38 PM

That was the idea (if using 40 and 50 % as factors). But in hindsight, I don't think I like it very much http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Coming Last or second to Last shouldn't really be much different scorewise, so your formula is better there. There should however always be a positive score for coming 2nd, so a little tweak may be in order.

The "perfect" formula for a 4 player game should give something like:
A = +30 points
B = + 5 points
C = -15 points
D = -20 points

And for 5 players:
A = +35 points
B = +15 points
C = - 5 points
D = -20 points
E = -25 points

Now thats a challenge for the math geniuses http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

September 9th, 2003, 10:53 PM

Slynky your idea is very similer to what I suggested Last week, so of course I kind of like it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However, you fell into the same trap that I did when calculating the outcome. Your results are only correct if all four players have the same score going into the game. When I started running some numbers using different Ratings going in I got quite different results. I believe it's even possible, given the proper distribution, for the second place player to collect more points then teh first place player. At least I think I had one that came out like that. I may have messed up though. You formula is kind of complicated. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'll try to run that again tonight.

Slynky

September 9th, 2003, 11:22 PM

Well, Geo, your suggestion had some merit. I'm rushing this off before I leave work, so bear with me.

If I remember (which might not be the case), you didn't average (I'll check later). Averaging MAY smooth things out a bit in the second place gaining the most points. On the other hand, IF second place has such a low score and the others are high scores, finishing 2nd SHOULD garner that person more points. Just as in a tourney when someone has several great games and does much better than expected...beating higher-ranked players.

geoschmo

September 10th, 2003, 12:07 AM

I believe I did average them.

I agree with your Last post. My comment about the second place player getting more points wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that what you saw as a flaw in the system, ie the 2nd place player not getting enough points, might nto be a flaw at all since so much of it is dependant on the player Ratings going in to the game..

Slynky

September 10th, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I believe I did average them.

I agree with your Last post. My comment about the second place player getting more points wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that what you saw as a flaw in the system, ie the 2nd place player not getting enough points, might nto be a flaw at all since so much of it is dependant on the player Ratings going in to the game..If you say your suggestion called for averaging, I won't bother going to look http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

In the example I used, everyone was @ 1,000 points. I used it as a "flat line" example. Yes, at different Ratings, point gain and loss would differ but would be hard to get an idea of how well the adjustment to the formula was working...so I used 1,000's. And with 4 rated players at the same score, to have come in second should have yielded something, IMO. Looking at the other side of the coin, 2nd place DID lose. But coming in second in 4 people isn't bad.

I'm not too worried about an adjustment to a multiplayer rating game "disturbing" the formula too much, after all, in a multiplayer game, the number of events (and players) affecting the outcome are more than what is found in a one-on-one game. So, the multiplayer game results already will be skewed a bit due to those circumstances.

Slynky

September 10th, 2003, 05:09 AM

I will get to the site tomorrow. Had work (from work) to do tonight (CD label design and print and 50 CDs to get ready for distribution).

In summary, no new members...

New "Ratings" games to list...

And final agreement on a multiplayer formula.

This should be it, I think.

Slynky

September 10th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Adjust Last post:

Site updated with new games in progress. Be sure to check and make sure I didn't miss anything.

Also ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ), new space graphic on the index page...a better space scene, methinks. (hey, I gotta have fun somewhere, right?)

Joachim

September 12th, 2003, 05:15 AM

So any takers for the four player challenge that Geo has open??? Especially now that multiplayer game points have been worked out?

Go on you know you want to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Joachim

September 14th, 2003, 05:56 AM

We have 2/4 - just two more needed!

Joachim

September 14th, 2003, 12:36 PM

3/4 Come on - one of you must be up for the challenge!

Slynky

September 14th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Coregonas!

That makes 25 people joined up. So, curious how you measure up: How Good Are You? (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009911)

I know there are some really good players left out there.

Slynky

September 14th, 2003, 05:08 PM

Update to the site.

Now, it's easier to see what games you are in. Sort on the left is by Game Name and sort on the right is by Player Name.

Take a look and see if you are not listed in a game you think you should be listed in.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

September 15th, 2003, 12:16 AM

Some (boring) statistics:

11 games currently being rated.
20 different players in Ratings.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Slynky

September 20th, 2003, 04:29 AM

Game news:

Added rated game:

KOTH Asmala vs Steal Dragon - I have added this game but have no confirmation from Steal Dragon that he is willing to have it rated. As a matter of fact, he's not a registered player. I suggest he contact me. (I have added the game and him tentatively)

SE4 Ratings Game IV - Added RexTorres (learned about it by accident...tsk tsk http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

KOTH Gandalph vs Joachim - Though both players are in the Ratings system, this game was never reported as a Ratings game. I hope this is correct (assuming from the length of the game, it probably started before the Ratings system did)

Have I missed anything?

Finally, there are a few multi-player games going. Please keep me informed of players who lose out as the game progresses.

deccan

September 20th, 2003, 08:12 AM

I believe that Lord Chane wants our KOTH game to be rated. I've sent you an e-mail about it, Slynky.

Slynky

September 20th, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
I believe that Lord Chane wants our KOTH game to be rated. I've sent you an e-mail about it, Slynky.My mistake...I updated the site with it (tks for the email) but forgot to list it here with the stuff I did Last night. So, it's already on the site.

Joachim

September 20th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Game news:

KOTH Gandalph vs Joachim - Though both players are in the Ratings system, this game was never reported as a Ratings game. I hope this is correct (assuming from the length of the game, it probably started before the Ratings system did)

Started the game way before the Ratings system began. I never reported it and I assume Gandalph did not as we never discussed it.

geoschmo

September 21st, 2003, 01:51 AM

Yeah, put me down for another loss in the Ratings game 2 against Gandalph.

I really don't understand how I got so bad at this game. I was never the best player, but I was at least competative. Any more in every game I play I am way behind in tech and econ from the start. I suck at every aspect of the game and get my butt handed to me almost every time. The only way I win is if I get a primo starting position, and even then I find a way to lose unless the opponent has a really sucky starting spot.

It's very discouraging. I don't think I am going to play SE4 much longer.

Slynky

September 21st, 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Yeah, put me down for another loss in the Ratings game 2 against Gandalph.

I really don't understand how I got so bad at this game. I was never the best player, but I was at least competative. Any more in every game I play I am way behind in tech and econ from the start. I suck at every aspect of the game and get my butt handed to me almost every time. The only way I win is if I get a primo starting position, and even then I find a way to lose unless the opponent has a really sucky starting spot.

It's very discouraging. I don't think I am going to play SE4 much longer.Geo, dude, I know how you feel. Play a game with Asmala. Then, when he beats you, he'll show you how he did it. I learned a lot from him.

Don't get discouraged...the game's too good! And you may just be having a bad run.

primitive

September 21st, 2003, 02:46 AM

Congrats to Slynky: The new no. 1 ranked player in the world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Our Challenge match, with these rules:
- 5 planet start
- Full tech
- No intel
- No Stellar Manipulation
- No Talisman
- 3,000 racial points
was played on a grid map without any obvious chokepoints.

The short story: I colonized like mad. Slynky was smart enough to go straight on the attack. Game over at turn 33. Well played by Slynky.

Edit: Cosmetics

[ September 21, 2003, 01:47: Message edited by: primitive ]

geoschmo

September 21st, 2003, 02:53 AM

So Primitive since you are free you want to give me a rematch? The wife is watching the Miss America pagent tonight so we might get the first dozen turns in quick. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

primitive

September 21st, 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
So Primitive since you are free you want to give me a rematch? The wife is watching the Miss America pagent tonight so we might get the first dozen turns in quick. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif LOL,
Its 3.30 in the morning over here, let a poor guy sleep.

Seriously, I would love to play you again, but I have just challenged Slynky to a rematch (full tech game) on a special map. He has first choice for that game (its already on PBW). If he declines, your next in line http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'll post the details on the game in a bit (then I go to bed, I really need my beautysleep)

Slynky

September 21st, 2003, 02:17 PM

It's a wicked game, Geo! I got lucky (I think). I knew he was out-colonizing me, so I only had one choice...build warships and make the colony count even again (if I could). I think people know I'm a bit methodical and defensive...perhaps it caught Primitive off guard to have me go on the offensive.

I was a good game and had good anticipation level.

Slynky

September 22nd, 2003, 04:30 AM

Site updated:

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Alneyan!

Three game results posted.
Two games added.

11 Games in progress.
21 players being rated.
27 players in the system (still waiting on Stone Mill and DavidG to join http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Reminder: Check this thread after joining a rated game or completing one to make sure your results have been posted. It usually happens within 24 hours of reporting.

Remember, this rating system is a fair estimate (I say estimate because luck sometimes plays a part of the outcome) of one's ability in a great game. A player can have fun AND see how well they stack up. After all, aren't we all out to have fun AND see how good we are?

Slynky

September 22nd, 2003, 04:39 AM

Note for all Ratings members:

I've added my email address below to make it easier to report Ratings matters (instead of having to find it or go to the Ratings site).

Cheers!

Slynky

September 22nd, 2003, 07:22 AM

Site Updated:

Game completion (Parabolize vs Deccan)

Ratings (boring) stats:

Site has nearly 700 hits. Shows (at least) some interest.

deccan

September 22nd, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Site Updated:

Game completion (Parabolize vs Deccan)

Ratings (boring) stats:

Site has nearly 700 hits. Shows (at least) some interest.*Sigh*. Now I'm officially the worst player in the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Slynky

September 22nd, 2003, 04:33 PM

Let me look into it a bit. Not sure I've captured all the info I need for that but I think I've captured some of it.

geoschmo

September 22nd, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Let me look into it a bit. Not sure I've captured all the info I need for that but I think I've captured some of it.With only a dozen or so games completed I am sure we can recover any information you might need if we do it now. Later it will be a problem though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

September 22nd, 2003, 04:51 PM

Well, right now, I'm looking into mowing the grass...hehe...doppler says it's gonna rain in about 2 hours.

geoschmo

September 23rd, 2003, 01:13 AM

Slynky,

Three suggestions.

First, instead of all new people showing on the list as ranking of 1000, put them at the bottom of the list and label them as unranked. Personally I think someone like Deccan or myself that have earned our Ratings, low as they may be, deserve to be placed above someone who hasn't recorded a score yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Secondly, how about listing the won loss record somewhere. It's not as important as the rating score, but it might be nice to see.

Finally it would be cool to have a record on the site somewhere of recorded games. Who beat who, that sort of thing. Like the Koth page has.

Slynky

September 24th, 2003, 04:10 AM

Site updated:

One game completion.

Two games added.

As always, let me know if I missed something.

[ September 24, 2003, 03:12: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Baron Grazic

September 24th, 2003, 05:07 AM

Query -
I won 1 game with both of us have a rating of 1000 - I earn 16 points, the most you can win/lose in any game.
I loose a game against Primative who had a higher rating than me, and lose 16 points.
Your maths equation stumps me, or I'd do it myself but I thought that because I lost a match to a higher rated player, I would lose less then 16 points.
I am assuming that it was because our Ratings were still close enough to gain/lose the max of 16 points, but I just want to confirm it with you Slynky.
Thanks.

Parasite

September 24th, 2003, 11:09 PM

I did a little math, and it looks like your score must differ by 22 points to get off the 16/16 split. I am not sure how the rounding works, so call it (22 +/- 11)

Slynky

September 25th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Query -
I won 1 game with both of us have a rating of 1000 - I earn 16 points, the most you can win/lose in any game.
I loose a game against Primative who had a higher rating than me, and lose 16 points.
Your maths equation stumps me, or I'd do it myself but I thought that because I lost a match to a higher rated player, I would lose less then 16 points.
I am assuming that it was because our Ratings were still close enough to gain/lose the max of 16 points, but I just want to confirm it with you Slynky.
Thanks.Actually, I think you had a higher score than Primitive at the completion of your game. I had beaten him on the 20th (which lowered his rating to somewhere around 1013... I can't remember exactly) and if you lost 16 points (and now have 1000 even), then you must have had 1016 before the game with Primitive came to an end (you won a game on the 21st).

So, I believe you were just a few points higher than him...(remember to check the site after your games have been completed).

Cheers!

[ September 24, 2003, 23:52: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Slynky

September 25th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Query -
I won 1 game with both of us have a rating of 1000 - I earn 16 points, the most you can win/lose in any game.
I loose a game against Primative who had a higher rating than me, and lose 16 points.
Your maths equation stumps me, or I'd do it myself but I thought that because I lost a match to a higher rated player, I would lose less then 16 points.
I am assuming that it was because our Ratings were still close enough to gain/lose the max of 16 points, but I just want to confirm it with you Slynky.
Thanks.I'll check it out. But, I would suspect that's the explanation. I don't know what the "span" (or difference) can be before the losing player gets 15 instead of 16.

To clarify something else, I think the max a rating can change is 32 points, not 16. Most of them are around 16 (or 15 and 17) at the moment because most of the scores are still around 1,000. But if someone rated 100 beat someone rated 2,000, there would surely be a 32 point addition and subtraction.

Slynky

September 25th, 2003, 01:27 AM

Site updated:

Welcome to the SE4 Rating system, Loser!

4 games added.
1 game completed.

Baron Grazic

September 25th, 2003, 01:29 AM

Thanks Slynky, that has put my mind to rest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

September 25th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Thanks Slynky, that has put my mind to rest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif NP, Baron.

PS: Added another column to the statistics page to make it easier to see your positional ranking.

Gozra

September 26th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Gecko Has beaten me in our game. It was an easy victory for him. I did count coup and destroyed one of his planets at the end.
Gozguy

Baron Grazic

September 26th, 2003, 01:18 AM

No biggy Slynky, but you have missed adding the "KOTH - Alneyan vs Baron Grazic" onto the list of games I'm currently in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

September 26th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
No biggy Slynky, but you have missed adding the "KOTH - Alneyan vs Baron Grazic" onto the list of games I'm currently in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I just looked and see it. Hmmmmm.

[EDIT] - Actually, it's under the Games sort but NOT under the PLAYER sort...'cause I mispelled your name...I'll get it fixed and I apologize for the typing error.

[ September 26, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Geckomlis

September 28th, 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Gozra:
Gecko Has beaten me in our game. It was an easy victory for him. I did count coup and destroyed one of his planets at the end.
GozguyIt is always important to count coup. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Grazic

September 28th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Thanks Slynky. I didn't even notice any spelling error in my name.

Slynky

September 30th, 2003, 01:52 AM

The site was updated recently to add more information.

Also, people who haven't completed a game yet (and have the starting 1,000 points) are not listed on the Ratings page. I'm thinking of listing EVERYONE on a members list somewhere.

geoschmo

September 30th, 2003, 01:58 AM

Better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

September 30th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Site Update:

1 game finish.
1 Game added.

Slynky

October 2nd, 2003, 02:09 AM

Site update:

1 game added.

Some miscellaneous statistics:

Site visted by 18 different countries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
43 people added the site to their Favorites http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
More visits in September than in August (well, I hope so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Slynky

October 4th, 2003, 01:23 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed.

Slynky

October 5th, 2003, 03:27 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed.
1 game added.

Azselendor

October 5th, 2003, 07:51 PM

I like the site! I think I'll take part in a game or two this winter when I'm cooped up.

But otwo suggestions, Can you make the front banner smaller and make a wall paper Version for us all!

Slynky

October 6th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed.
1 game added.

(1 game canceled).

parabolize

October 6th, 2003, 02:15 AM

slynky put falling icons under my name please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

October 6th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by parabolize:
slynky put falling icons under my name please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Wasn't aware that it was a multi-player game. Did I miss an email from you? (I hate it when that happens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif ).

parabolize

October 6th, 2003, 03:18 AM

yes it is multi plr
if you want you can look at the game forum for who wants to be rated (some dont is that ok?)

btw i am not 2 people please put falling icon parabolize and koth/challenge parabolize under one name http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

edit: the spelling was what did it. parabolize not parobolize http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ October 06, 2003, 03:08: Message edited by: parabolize ]

Slynky

October 6th, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by parabolize:
yes it is multi plr
if you want you can look at the game forum for who wants to be rated (some dont is that ok?)

btw i am not 2 people please put falling icon parabolize and koth/challenge parabolize under one name http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

edit: the spelling was what did it. parabolize not parobolize http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Just you mind your tongue or I'll start spelling it, "Parbolize"! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

PS: Having non-rated players in a multi-player game is fine.

Slynky

October 7th, 2003, 01:20 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed.
1 error fixed (yoo-hoo, Paraboloze http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

parabolize

October 7th, 2003, 01:52 AM

ahh.. fixed...
please look again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

October 7th, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by parabolize:
ahh.. fixed...
please look again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ?

parabolize

October 7th, 2003, 03:45 AM

nevermind (for some reason when i go to the site its not up to date but if i hit F5 key it is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif )

Slynky

October 7th, 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by parabolize:
nevermind (for some reason when i go to the site its not up to date but if i hit F5 key it is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif )Yeah, someone smarter than I will need to explain that to me as well. It seems to need to be refreshed to pick up the changes. Other sites don't work that way, so I'd like to know what FrontPage has done on this one... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Slynky

October 8th, 2003, 02:07 AM

Site updated:

2 games completed.
1 game added.

[ October 08, 2003, 01:12: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Slynky

October 10th, 2003, 04:15 AM

Site updated:

1 Game added.

Geckomlis

October 13th, 2003, 04:06 PM

Update:

K.O.T.H. Gecko vs Parabolize
Gecko defeats Parabolize 10/13/2003.

Slynky

October 14th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Site updated:

2 games added.
1 game completed.

Please check to make sure the site is correct if you have had some "action" to be posted (to make sure I didn't miss anything).

Slynky

October 16th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Site updated:

1 game added.

(still need confirmation from you, Geo, on your KOTH game being rated http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

geoschmo

October 16th, 2003, 03:06 AM

Confirmed

Grandpa Kim

October 16th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Slynky, did you get my email to add KOTH Grandpakim vs Parabolize? I don't see it listed...

Slynky

October 16th, 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Slynky, did you get my email to add KOTH Grandpakim vs Parabolize? I don't see it listed...Other than me having used upper/lower case in the game name, it was the reason for the update Last night.

For some reason, when you go to this site, you need to refresh the page to pick up changes. Try that.

Grandpa Kim

October 16th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Yup! That did the trick.

You'd mentioned that problem before but since I had never had any troubles, it didn't occur to me to try it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Slynky

October 20th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Welcome to the SE4 Ratings system, Excimer-500.

That makes 30 players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

October 21st, 2003, 02:41 AM

Site updated:

1 game added.

Slynky

October 29th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Site updated:

1 game added.

Slynky

November 22nd, 2003, 01:48 PM

Site updated:

1 game completed.

Slynky

November 22nd, 2003, 08:17 PM

Last item on the "Rules" page reads:

"(6) If you fail to finish a game for any reason, it will be considered a forfeit/loss unless the victor agrees to the reason for the failure to complete the game."

First, we need to decide if Cybersol's drop should be counted as a forfeit. From what I'm guessing, it is believed that real life caused the drop and not a losing position. The other players being rated in this game should state if they feel the drop should be allowed without it counting as a loss for Cybersol.

That's the first item to be dealt with.

Second, whether to allow Alneyan to count the game as a rated game for himself. My personal feeling is that (after 27 turns) Cybersol played enough of the game that it's a bit difficult to give all the credit of any potential win to Alneyan. Or say that Alneyan deserved the loss if it happened. So, my thought is that the game should continue without Alneyan's position being rated. BUT, I think it's fair to hear some other thoughts on this problem as well.

Sooo...?

Alneyan

November 22nd, 2003, 08:56 PM

So it is a complicated matter. Erh... I see, it wasn't exactly the sort of input you expected. If you do want to complicate matters even more, you could consider Cybersol was not the only one responsible for the current situation (and for the outcome of the game, whatever it is), but Primitive as well played a major part. For the sake of simplicity, this shouldn't be taken into account though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So. I can see your concerns, I do have an asset by taking over a developed position with a strong ally. So it would not be exactly fair for me to earn all points from a potential win. I think I shouldn't be rated in this game then, which will only leave the problem of Cybersol withdrawal for the other rated players to solve.

My two mineral cents worth.

Slynky

November 22nd, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
If you do want to complicate matters even more, you could consider Cybersol was not the only one responsible for the current situation (and for the outcome of the game, whatever it is), but Primitive as well played a major part. That is certainly true but that aspect is the same in every multi-player game. What is not the same is someone dropping and someone else wanting to take the position and have it rated.

Thanks for bowing out of the rating request. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It makes matters more simple now. Hope you aren't upset...but if you are, you have the golden opportunity to get even now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Asmala

November 22nd, 2003, 09:21 PM

I think we should just wipe off Cybersol from Pair's rated players list. Only a few people have met other people yet so it would be too easy points.

Alneyan

November 22nd, 2003, 09:25 PM

Yes you are right, but I believe it is even more important in this game, as coordination in the team is much more needed than in other games. But I digress, as we agree on what to do with my suggestion so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Why would I be upset? It was merely a suggestion rather than a request, in case it would have helped you. Of course, either it would solve the problem, or it would make matters that more complicated. And given your argument, it makes sense that I am not allowed to "take over" his rating. So I am perfectly fine with your decision, but I will still trying to convert this opportunity into a win. Wishful thinking on my part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

primitive

November 23rd, 2003, 02:36 AM

Cybersol had to prioritize RL over SEIV and has dropped out of the Pairs game.

The game is still early (turn 27) and he was well placed (we was partners). Getting victorypoints for his dropout will be the cheapest points ever awarded http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So what does the rules say ?

Alneyan

November 23rd, 2003, 02:58 AM

If Slynky allows such a change, I could be rated instead of Cybersol, as I took over his Empire. I would not mind, this game being still in its early stages.

Baron Grazic

November 24th, 2003, 01:16 AM

I was actually going to suggest just dropping Cybersol from the rating. I'd like to take victory points over Cybersol, but we never actually meet, so doesn't sound fair.

I'd be happy for Alneyan to count this as a rating game, since it is still early, he is taking over a rated empire and I can't see the game ending this year anyway, but this is just my 2 cents. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

November 24th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Site updated:

1 player removed due to drop
2 games completed *
2 games added

Some statistics:

13 games in progress
22 rated players **
20 players currently in rated game

As always, please review your interests and make sure I haven't forgotten (or made a mistake) anything.

* Although RexTorres and I never asked about our KOTH game being a rated game, I have decided the best way to represent scores would be to count our game for score. Hopefully, Rex won't be upset.

** Players having completed at least one rated game

Asmala

November 24th, 2003, 04:50 PM

I almost posted that you've made a mistake, my KOTH game isn't over yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . But then I read KOTH thread and noticed Gecko has surrendered to me. I have to say it was a surprise.

Slynky

November 24th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Asmala:
I almost posted that you've made a mistake, my KOTH game isn't over yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . But then I read KOTH thread and noticed Gecko has surrendered to me. I have to say it was a surprise. Welcome to first place and highest rated player!

tesco samoa

November 25th, 2003, 09:01 PM

i noticed i was not on the rankings page... do you have to finish a game before you make it on the rankings page ????

Alneyan

November 25th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Slynky answered in the KOTH thread you need to finish a game before making it to the Ratings system. (He explained why in this other thread)

Slynky

November 26th, 2003, 01:00 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed;
1 new player added to the Ratings system: Fire

Welcome to the fun and madness, Fire! Fire is a longtime friend of mine (well, if you can count us knowing each other nearly 3 years on the Internet a long time. We met in an SE4 game then later he joined me and others in the Mechwarrior Gaming Zone). He's been playing for a while, off and on, and wants to try his "luck" against some real mean people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

Alneyan

November 26th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Welcome to Fire then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Is he as mean and as tough as you Slynky? Or is he even better? *Smirks*

About the rating pages, you forgot to remove the DevNull Deccan vs Alneyan game. It ended a month ago or so. (You altered the rankings accordingly though)

tesco samoa

November 26th, 2003, 05:37 PM

does anyone want to have a one on one rating game so i can get up on the page ??? Or even a quick 4 player game.... All vs All just fight no treaties.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

November 26th, 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
About the rating pages, you forgot to remove the DevNull Deccan vs Alneyan game. It ended a month ago or so. (You altered the rankings accordingly though) Site corrected.

Baron Grazic

November 27th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa :
does anyone want to have a one on one rating game so i can get up on the page ??? Or even a quick 4 player game.... All vs All just fight no treaties.... Confident aren't we. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tesco samoa

November 27th, 2003, 01:42 AM

and hit reply here down below what will post first

tesco samoa

November 27th, 2003, 01:42 AM

hmmm hit reply in the reply thing

Slynky

November 27th, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
Welcome to Fire then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Is he as mean and as tough as you Slynky? Or is he even better? *Smirks*

About the rating pages, you forgot to remove the DevNull Deccan vs Alneyan game. It ended a month ago or so. (You altered the rankings accordingly though) Tks, I'll fix it tonight! *slaps self*

Slynky

November 27th, 2003, 06:09 AM

Site updated:

8 games added.

Slynky

November 27th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Site updated (not that you can actually see the change):

New player added. Welcome to the Ratings system, Electrum!

Slynky

December 1st, 2003, 07:47 AM

Site updated:

2 games completed*
1 game added

* Though it shows sorted differently, Geo, I computed Ratings points for you based on your game ending with Phoenix-D first then our game.

PS: As always, please review your games and make sure I didn't miss any postings. Also, thanks to Phoenix-D for email notification of your game completion... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slynky

December 1st, 2003, 08:04 AM

Proposal:

To keep the Ratings system as fair as possible while making sure it represents the abilities of the Ratings members, I'd like to propose there be a sort of committee to resolve any unforeseen "problems" with rated games. There was one in the past (where a member of the Ratings system took over for another rated member and asked if the rating would count for him). I had to resolve it the way that I thought was fair. But, I had to make that decision myself and I'd rather have other opinions for any future questions that may arise.

So, I propose the following:

That a committee be formed consisting of the following:

1. Myself (I started this idea... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif and I think I'm objective and fair)
2. Geoschmo (one of the most honest players I know and one who wanted to start the "Ladder" system but changed to this system)
3. Asmala (who runs the KOTH system now and who has demonstrated good leadership decisions in that area)
4. One other player (currently) below 1000 points in rating who members feel would be a good representation to add a bit of "equality" to the system.
5. And finally, a member recommended the most by other members.

That would make 5 members...enough to avoid a tie and to get a good opinion.

So, let's hear what you have to say about my proposal.

PS: The Ratings site will be updated with the names and rules to reflect this change.