New rating system - suggested values

[Bjorn]

What about stopping the RIP & being RIPed bonues after turn 20 (or turn 15 for WOK4) to remove the possibility of games going on endlesslessly while the stronger people run around after the game is "decided" just to get a few bonus points, or to inflict damage on a hated enemy. Anything to help finish a game and start a new one.

WOW! So obvious, yet it never occured to me. I would suggest we stop the RIP loss/gain after turn 15 for WOK5 and turn 10 for WOK4 just to compel people to act earlier if they want the points. I will put it down as turn 20 and turn 15 for now. It has the added benefit of helping the ratings of those finishing 3rd through 6th so that they may not lose any points at all.

It's a simple system, but seems laborious for GMs.

I agree with Al here. We are asking the GMs to do two things.
1) When a player goes RIP/Quit/M3, just list the turn it occured with his status.
2) As players RIPs opponents before the turn limit, note it on the group page.

At the end of the game the person (or program) only needs to add the following information to the data base for each player.
1) Order of finish.
2) How many players did they RIP.
3) Were they RIP/Quit/M3 before the time limit.

I already record more information than that in my data base. In addition to the above I will probably add the number of turns the game went and the number of turns the player was alive to the data base. I don't need it for the current rating system, but it might be interesting information to have.

[Goat Herder]

I also see the problems in games where only 8 play. In order to keep the overall rating changes balanced (as proclaimed to be "essential") we will probably not be able to rate these games.

A 6 or 8 player game is not much different to a 10 player one where you get a few early dropouts. You could progressively delete the bottom/top/middle scores when you have <10 players.

[gm_al]

@GH: Read again, we cannot skip any places without having an inbalance in the total ratings given out (balance between "+" and "-")

@Bjorn: make that Turn#20 for WOK4 and WOK5 ? Or maybe Turn#18 (whats the average game lenght in Turns ?) - just make sure not to make it too short and be equal for both game types.

[Goat Herder]

...we cannot skip any places without having an inbalance in the total ratings given out (balance between "+" and "-")

What does it matter???? It's only 0.3 pts a game (Maximum).

In any case, when people go M-3 (at the rate of 1 or 2 a game), you lose 0.3 from the overall score anyway, so that creates a net -ve effect. I'd rather see a net +ve rather than -ve trend.

[Saladin]

@GH: Read again, we cannot skip any places without having an inbalance in the total ratings given out (balance between "+" and "-")

There are seldom games with a lower number of players. I don't think that by having 4 or 5 of these games per year the rating system will be 'messed up'.

@Bjorn: make that Turn#20 for WOK4 and WOK5 ? Or maybe Turn#18 (whats the average game lenght in Turns ?) - just make sure not to make it too short and be equal for both game types.

I always thought that WOK 5 games took longer than wok 4. Is it possible to find out what the average length of a standard wok 4 and wok 5 game is?

I'm still left with the question if the winners of the game get a rip bonus for players that have surrendered on a vote to them before the turn deadline? How about giving half of the original rip bonusses (+0.10 / -0.10) for people who surrendered on a vote?

[Bjorn]

There are seldom games with a lower number of players. I don't think that by having 4 or 5 of these games per year the rating system will be 'messed up'.

This is true. There is going to be a natural trend upward in ratings as new people try the game, do poorly and drop out. The people who remain are those who take to the game and usually do well. The average rating of active players will always be more than the starting. This is not really a big deal. I feel any game with 8 or more players should be rated. No one is going to get RIP points for taking out a player who does not exist. Note that GM Mike had a fake player named "Phil's Rock" in one of his games. Should we award rating points for the elimination of such a position? How is this different from someone who signs up for a game and never sends in any orders?

The AREA rating system saw this problem after about 10 years. All players started with a rating of 1200. After 7 or 8 years the average score of active players was about 1500. After about 10 years the starting rating was raised from 1200 to 1500 to reflect this.

Bjorn: make that Turn#20 for WOK4 and WOK5 ? Or maybe Turn#18 (whats the average game lenght in Turns ?) - just make sure not to make it too short and be equal for both game types.

OK. With people building level so much in WOK4 the games do go a bit longer. One thing we might get from keeping these records is some idea of the average length of a WOK4 game.

I'm still left with the question if the winners of the game get a rip bonus for players that have surrendered on a vote to them before the turn deadline?

The RIP rating points are only awarded or lost during the first 20 turns of a game. If the game has NOT completed 20 turns, then the answer is yes. The winners would get the rating bonus and the survivors would lose it. If the game HAS completed turns, then the survivors would not lose any and the winners would not gain any additional rating points for RIP.

Here is another possibility. Rather than have a turn limit, maybe we limit the RIP gain/loss to the first 5 players out of the game?

[Saladin]

Here is another possibility. Rather than have a turn limit, maybe we limit the RIP gain/loss to the first 5 players out of the game?

Also a good suggestion. This would favour the players who start of aggressive. Sleepers wouldn't get any rip bonusses even if they ripped 3 at the end because they will wait till the end of the game to start ripping players. But on the other hand a rip is a rip and ripping somebody who's been building up for 10 turns is much harder than ripping somebody on turn two (especially if his name is Trewqh ), so i think it should be rewarded. Actually we don't need the turn limit either as player's won't drag out the game too long if they get the same bonusses when a players surrenders on a vote.

So with that cleared up...let's get things rolling!

[gm_al]

We are getting there !

Maybe we can agree on the following:

1. lets keep the 20 Turns limit for RIPs this year and see how it goes
2. all games with at least 8 Players will be rated. If less then 10 Players start I suggest to substract -0.010 level for all given ratings per Player that doesnt play (ie. 8 people play = all ratings awarded will get lowered by -0.02)
3. if a game ends, there will be no more RIP awards for surviving Players

PS: short typo on the ratings page - RIP/QUit should read "-0.020" / "-0.030"

Cheers !

[korexus]

In the case of Mike's specific game. The diference is that Phil's armeis were only Level 1 and everyone knew his spycode. Generally, the only difference is that players will know which player it is that won't do anything and can act accordingly. So I do think such players are easier to RIP and shouldn't be used for ratings.
As a side point, is it necessary to use them at all? I know in Taker's elimination game there where only 9 players and no 10th "Dummy" player, but that map only has 40 provinces so maybe player 10 is in provice 41... Can someone who knows the manager better than me clear that one up?

Also, on the idea of Non Ripped players. What about the Turn Max rule? As far as I know no one's used it yet. But if it is used I'd suggest that players still alive at the end don't get penalties for being RIPed, even if the last turn is before 20. (Or wherever the final boundary is set.)


Think that's everything for now.

korexus.

[Saladin]

3. if a game ends, there will be no more RIP awards for surviving Players

? Is this different from what Bjorn said?

The RIP rating points are only awarded or lost during the first 20 turns of a game. If the game has NOT completed 20 turns, then the answer is yes. The winners would get the rating bonus and the survivors would lose it.

[gm_al]

Its not different, I just wanted to put things down again.

I think we are ready to see things in action now: Ill add a link to Bjorns page on the main WOK page.

[Saladin]

Perfect...i might even change my playing style to get as many rips as possible...or not.

[gm_al]

One last thing that buggers me: when someone goes M-3 Bjorns page says:

"If no one eliminates the quit/M3 player before the end of the game then the rating points for their elimination will go to the winner of the game."

I dont agree here. M-3 Players still need to be RIPped. Id like to say that RIP points only are given out for REAL RIPs (in the first 20 Turns, we agreed to that), not just by winning a game.

This means someone could go M-3 and never be penalized for it, because he might not get RIPped before the game ends. I can live with that, mainly because I believe that Players will now be much more eager to RIP leftovers for their rating bonus.

Again, let me recapitulate what Bjorn needs to add to his page:
1. 20 Turns limit to RIP other Players (including M-3s !)
2. all games with at least 8 (human) Players are rated. If less then 10 Players start we substract -0.010 level for all given ratings per Player that doesnt play (ie. 8 people play = all ratings awarded get lowered by -0.020)
3. if a game ends, there will be no more RIP awards for surviving Players

[Saladin]

So it is different than what Bjorn has been saying.

I tend to strongly disagree. Most games are shorter than 20 turn already. So instead of giving a rip bonus because you actually defeated a player (because the other player agreed to surrender to save the GM from running a bunch of useless rounds), you get nothing. So people will drag on games just to get that bonus.

An artificial solution like the turn limit won't stop games from dragging on unnecesarily because most games are not 20 turns long.

Basically your saying that if somebody surrenders because there's no way that they will be able to defeat the winners, they haven't lossed and the winners haven't won, because they didn't kill him.

[trewqh]

As a side point, is it necessary to use [dummy players] at all? Can someone who knows the manager better than me clear that one up?

There's no need for that, you can change province's Owner to PL#0 which'll make it a neutral. Changing other stats (ie. number, level of armies) will also be needed.

Phil in my group 1 was just an idea I had. You were in the game so you know how I used that character.

trewqh

[gm_al]

@Saladin: I never said "the winners haven't won, because they didn't kill him" (the Player who went M-3), all Im saying is that you should only get the RIP bonus for Players you RIP for real. You still get your ratings increase when you win the VPs.

20 Turns is imho a good, although "high" value. We could set it to something like 15 or 17, but I doubt it would make many games shorter. People should not drag games on to gain the RIP bonus - every kill could reduce your power, and draw away forces from frontlines where they are needed.

Again, lets just see how things go, ok ?

[Saladin]

@Saladin: I never said "the winners haven't won, because they didn't kill him" (the Player who went M-3), all Im saying is that you should only get the RIP bonus for Players you RIP for real. You still get your ratings increase when you win the VPs.

LOL...I feel we're talking about two different things here AL.
I don't mean people who go QUIT/M3, but players who stay in the game and concede the game through a vote.

[gm_al]

Same applies to them imho: no RIP - no bonus, easy as that.

We can really put the RIP Turn limit down a bit if 20 soundz too much though.

[Saladin]

Well i do disagree. I see no reason why a player should not get the bonus he deserves for defeating another player, just because it's the end of the game and they want to save the GM some time by not continuing the game unnecesarily. It's only a positive thing, as the GM can start on a new game sooner.

[Bjorn]

I guess I should chime in here. There are still some things we have NOT agreed upon. We being Sal, Al and Bjorn. I suppose the lurkers out there are just waiting to see how this plays out before commenting.

First, it sounds like Al feels that players who quit a game should lose more rating points than those that are RIPed. I disagree. If you quit a game on turn 05, then you have been eliminated at that point and your standing is determined then. It does not matter if you are RIPed on turn 05 or quit on turn 05, you will lose .02 rating points for that plus whatever effect your place of finish has on your ratings. I see no merit in increasing the loss of rating points for M3/Quit over RIP. Rating points should not be based on submitting moves or not submitting moves. The rating system should attempt to reward those players who do well and take the initiative to RIP opponents. How you exit a game makes no difference. RIP/M3/Quit players prior to the turn limit will lose .02 rating points for WOK4 and .03 rating points for WOK 5. Just one man's opinion.

Again, let me recapitulate what Bjorn needs to add to his page:
1. 20 Turns limit to RIP other Players (including M-3s !)
2. all games with at least 8 (human) Players are rated. If less then 10 Players start we substract -0.010 level for all given ratings per Player that doesnt play (ie. 8 people play = all ratings awarded get lowered by -0.020)
3. if a game ends, there will be no more RIP awards for surviving Players

1. OK, I will update the page to make it a 20 turn limit for both WOK4 and WOK5. Since the length of a game will vary, I still believe it would be better to limit the RIP/quit/M3 loss to the first 5 players eliminated from a game. This would both reward successful early aggressive play and not drag the game out when you get down to the last 5 players.

2. Frankly, what you propose here is too difficult to implement in my spreadsheet. No matter how many players there are I need to award the same number of rating points for a first place finish. I don't believe it does serious damage to just consider the first person out to have finished in 8th place. Alternatively, since there is no rating point impact to finishing 5th or 6th, we could just drop the 5th and then the 6th place finishers so that the eight starters finish 1-2-3-4-7-8-9-10.

3. This runs smack into Sal's complaint. If players are not awarded rating points unless they RIP opponents, then they will extend the game to the turn limit in an effort to get the points. The only way to prevent this is to inflict the RIP/Quit/M3 rating point loss on the survivors and award them to the victors if the game has not reached the turn limit. Of course, now you have the rather interesting condition that the survivors will extend the game in an effort to prevent the victors from getting points for eliminating them!

It seems to me that the suggestion of limiting the RIP/M3/Quit effect on rating points until there are only five players left in the game (in the event of having fewer than 10 players) is a neat solution. Please consider it. This also puts some time pressure on players to get going and be one of the lucky ones to score an RIP before the game is down to five players. When you get down to 5 players the sides are pretty well set anyway.