SE4 Rating System

[Slynky]

Originally posted by BBegemott:

quote:

---

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.

---

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 site is essentially the same as used in the USCF with modifications that disregard the 20-game provisionary rating formula.

[Slynky]

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

[Mikeyman]

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]

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]

Originally posted by mikeyman:
I may join, but I have one question first...

quote:

---

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.

---

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]

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 cents

LOL...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]

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]

Originally posted by georgig:
money prize will draw more people in but there will be no fun anymore - maybe andromeda poster signed by aaron?

Yeah, I wish! Like that's going to happen!

[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.

[Slynky]

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.

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 .

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.