New rating system - suggested values

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:26 pm

What do you mean, asked? Al, asking would involve saying "I would like the GMs to keep track of these numbers." No, what you said was, and I quote, "all GMs are required to rate games that have officially started in 2004." Just because a few folks think this is a good thing that will improve WOK doesn't mean the rest of the community shares this view. Not to mention that you haven't even come up with the final proposed rules for the system!

Granted, I personally do happen to think a rating system isn't necessary (that's what Kaohalla is for, no?) but I certainly don't see the harm in creating one if it is well-constructed. I happen to think any system that gives out random bonuses (as with your RIP-bonus idea) is not well constructed. I know that somehow you have it associated in your head that people who RIP other players are more aggressive than others, but that's not always true.

And Al don't even start whining about me not wanting to change or improve anything here. You know that's not true. Simply because I happen to disagree with you here doesn't mean that I am against making WOK a better community. I swear, you are starting to sound more like TK all the time.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:24 am

I prefer sounding more like TK then sounding more like Daemon.

Frankly I suggest you go ahead and come up with YOUR rating suggestion. Im pretty sure you will have the perfect system, just what everyone else is dying to get. Or hey, maybe you will have NOTHING at all ? Lovely timing in "joining" our discussion by ruining it btw. Very constructive.

...and I quote, "all GMs are required to rate games..."

Uhh, I dint really FORCE anyone. It needs games to be tested, you know ? But of course I will not enforce this. And please remind me to be that picky on every word you say. Need a new nick-name ? How about "Mr. Perfect" ?

Granted, I personally do happen to think a rating system isn't necessary (that's what Kaohalla is for, no?)

And here I am, thinking he had been playing this game for years....

From now on Ill just be quiet. Do as you wish people, Im simply tired to make suggestions and trying to come up with new things. Another job well done, Nick.

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:38 am

i happen to like the idea of ratings

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:14 am

Al, get serious. I personally think that if you are going to implement a rating system, fine, and in fact the one that you Sal and Bjorn have worked out is pretty good. I just think that one facet of it is bogus. But, every single time I disagree with you on ANYTHING, you overreact and start going off the hook.

If I suggest we don't need this system, suddenly I'm against progress for the community and change. If I say I think that the RIP bonus isn't a good idea, I have somehow ruined your discussion completely. Pull yourself together and submit this idea to the WSC already if you feel it is ready and stop being so darn melodramatic. I am sure that when you propose this idea to the WSC and I speak out against the RIP bonus you are going to probably go into hysterics. I don't know what it is about being so 100% opposed to any changes I submit, but I suggest you get over it already.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:28 am

Nick, Do everyone a favor and go back to not reading the boards.

I have stayed out of this because I thought the idea was a good one and the sugestions are good. I am more than happy with what is there so far. I especially like the idea of stopping the RIP bonus after 5 players are gone from any game.

Everyone who has played for awhile knows that the person who actually RIP's someone is not necessarily the person who did the most damage to that person, but in the long haul I suspect it will even out pretty well. I suspect the ratings may take awhile to be an accurate description of who the better players are but I think in the long run the better players will show themselves. Even the sleepers will do well without getting many RIP bonus's since they will usually not be 1 of the first 5 players out so will not lose those points very often But I like the idea of recognizing the players like Smashface and Bjorn who don't like to sit around and wait for the endgame. I suspect it will also get those players in WOK4 game to rip that player instead of leaving the 1 province to spy on for the EFF.

I have never liked the idea that a player could just declare that they quit and have the GM list them that way. Since some GM's revert that players provinces back to neutral it can REALLY ruin some well laid plans. I hope that does go the WSC to be removed. I have no problem with it the player has to go through the m-1, m-2, m-3(quit) levels, at least it gives you a chance to do something about it. the GM IMHO should not let the other players know that the player has quit either. Let them figure it out for themselves.

Oh BTW that will be just one more thing to start FLAMERS on the boards.
I can see it now. "That should have been my RIP but someone else came in and took the last province just because he went before me in the OOP."

Can't think of any good way to stop that one but something else for people to think about in their NAP negotiations.
Lets try to stop that one before it happens folks.

OK I have put in my thoughts on this subject, now I will go back to quietly lurking.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:24 am

First of all I fully agree that we should remove the QUITs and force anyone looking to leave to go through the M-1/2/3 process. Im ready to put that into a WSC vote anytime (supporters ?)

Second suggestion would be on how to treat Players that went M-3. I think we might need a definite rule on how GMs should handle them. Id suggest NOT turning them neutral, but just leaving them as they ended.

Third, a last word on the ratings. We need experience with seeing the system in action, and therefore it will take some time and games (and support from all GMs) to judge what effects it has. Only the we can refine it, and only then it makes sense to make it official through a WSC vote.

The only thing Im getting hysterical at is when someone pops in AFTER we have established a set of rules and claims "we dont need that, shut it down". Next time try to speak up before we put things into motion. And as usual I would like to see some new suggestions when you claim the ones we worked out dont make sense - its rather easy to be critic, and much harder to get something new developed and accepted by a majority of participants. And the pure fact you are not even willing to test the system speaks for itself.

Ever heard of goodwill ? Jumping over your shadow sometimes can help.

Post by **korexus** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:15 pm

There is one thing that's been bugging me slightly. It's not hugely important but i guess I should say it before this goes to a WSC vote...

I don't think that Champs games should affect the rating. Probably Vice Champs and Clan Champs shouldn't either...

The reason for this is pretty simple. The way the ratings change is set up assumes that there will be a fairly average lineup. Admittedly sometimes a game will have a strong set of players and sometimes a weak, but that will average out. In the champs it is guarenteed that there will be a strong line up so it seems a bit unfair to punish people for going out first there.

It's just my opinion, and I'm not going to decide to quit GMing (before I've even started!) if people disagree

, but I thought I should mention it really...

korexus.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:38 pm

Just a few comments before I return to work. I probably won't have time to update anything until Wednesday. Lots to do at work.

1) Dameon and I have discussed rating systems before and his opinion of them is well known. Our group is so small that they really are not necessary for determining who the good players are. I feel that they do add some flavor to the game and I think he believes that also. As long as we collect the data we can play with it to see what makes sense.

2) By the way, didn't someone volunteer to collect this data? Raw? Validon? I maintain my own rating system which only rewards gaining VPs since my personal opinion is that winning is what matters. To me there is no difference between a 3rd place finish and a 10th place finish. You either win or you lose. I know that many people feel differently about this, so I have no problem with a sliding scale based on order of elimination.

3) I agree with Dameon (and others) that adjustments to your rating based on RIP is questionable. There are merits to both sides of that arguement. While the award may be capricious at times, it may encourage players to get into action sooner to reap those rewards. The better players are going to be able to RIP opponents early. The concern I have here is getting GMs to credit the RIPs to the proper players on their group pages so whoever is tracking this can record it when the game ends.

I would prefer to see the RIP bonus tracked separately from the players rating. In addition to your rating based on order of elimination, each player would have some sort of rank based on the difference between the number of players they RIP and the number of times they have been RIPed. No stars if the number is negative, one star if they are equal, two stars if the difference is between 1 and 5, etc. Something to think about.

4) I will change the page to indicate that players who go quit/M3 will be placed behind someone who is RIPed the same turn. By the way, if we do require a player to go M3 rather than quit, which turn should we use for this determination? The turn they went M3? The turn they went M1? The last turn they submitted orders?

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:39 pm

Careful Bjorn, you know that agreeing with me might well get you on Al's bad side. Al, I simply said that I didn't think that ratings system was needed in ONE post. Most people came back and supported it, and after that I didn't belabor the point by posting on it.

What I DID focus on what you requiring all GMs to use the system without a vote. Also, from what I saw on the boards, the discussions on the system were clearly NOT finished, at least between you and Sal, so I brought up my own suggestion, the RIP bonus removal. Actually, it wasn't even me who brought up that suggestion, it was somebody else and I simply championed it.

I think the real reason you are mad is because I said that GMs shouldn't use this system till it was approved by the WSC. You obviously want GMs to start using it NOW, to "test" it. I am of the belief that we shouldn't even test the system till the rules are 100% set (which I don't believe they are now) and the WSC has had a chance to look it over. I understand your desire to get it going ASAP but I am a firm believer in using the proper channels to change WOK, that's all. I am sorry if that puts me opposite of you in this case- I certainly don't get mad and make personal attacks like you are prone to do, I really wish you wouldn't either.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:30 pm

Lol. well it doesn't look like you guys have been sitting around idlely whilst i was on a little holiday.

Like i said before...any rating system is questionable. That's why i agree strongly with Bjorn...collect as much data from games as you can. Even if we don't use it now we one day actually might want to know some of this stuff (ok so i like statistics...sue me!).

So if nobody has any more adjustments they would like to propose i propose that one of the WSC members sets up a proposal for this system to be officially approved by the WSC and that it will be reviewed on a seasonal basis and adjusted if needed (adjustments to be approved by the WSC again). Also could some WSC members back up Al's idea about the quit option being taken out of the game so that can go to a vote as well?

Come on WSC...get some voting going!

Post by **gm_al** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:46 am

Back me up in both cases and Ill submit them. I need two more WSC guys to do this.

1. use the rating system as we have established it so far and review it on a yearly basis (maybe every 6 months for a start).
2. no more QUITs, but just M-3s

To answer Bjorns question: its the turn the Player goes M-3 for real that counts for the rating imho.

JaDed · Post by **JaDed** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:17 am

I think that a rating system for GM's should also be pot in place. Where a simple online vote from the players after each game can voice thier input

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:26 am

gm_al wrote:Back me up in both cases and Ill submit them. I need two more WSC guys to do this.

1. use the rating system as we have established it so far and review it on a yearly basis (maybe every 6 months for a start).
2. no more QUITs, but just M-3s

To answer Bjorns question: its the turn the Player goes M-3 for real that counts for the rating imho.

I'd like to see a related issue discussed. Different GMs do different things with the M-3 rule:
1. Players are regarded as M-3 at the end of the 3rd missed turn in a row.
2. Players are regarded as M-3 at the start of the 3rd missed turn in a row.
3. Players are regarded as M-3 once they have missed 3rd turn anytime in the game (not necessarily in a row).

There is a very slight difference between 1. & 2. If a player has already missed 2 turns in a row, then when they fail to submit orders for the 3rd turn, a GM using option 2. will wipe them from the game immediately and other players cannot RIP them. Under 1., the remaining players do have the opportunity to RIP them on the 3rd turn.

While it only seems like a slight difference, it repurcussions both for a VPs as well as a ratings system - whereby some players may be regarded as RIP instead of M-3 depending on which GM is running the game. For awarding VPs, it could have an effect on the "5 players quit" rule; for ratings, it could mean different points awarded.

I think that if we are going to have a ratings system using M-3 as a factor, then we should standardise what it means, and now is the opportune time.

My feeling is that the 1. option is best, but I'm sure some people (esp GMs that use the other systems) have other ideas.

Any thoughts?

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:36 am

Well i always use option 3. But i agree that option 1 would be the best option if we have to standardise the rules.

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:54 am

Fully agree that option 1 is what we should aim for as a standard, to also allow for RIPping them before they leave.

Good call here. We should add this to the next bunch of WSC votes.

Im sure GH likes to formulate things and warm them up for the vote

Supporters please ?