Ratings

BigJOzzy · Post by **BigJOzzy** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:28 pm

Now I am not here to debate the use of rating, I am more interested in how the total (combined) score is drived.

I think all games WOK 4 and WOK 5 should be added together and diveded by the number of games played, instead of averaging WOK 4 games total and WOK 5 games total. Lets face it the only person this is fare to, is someone who score the same in both.

anyway that is my two cents worth and I guess a start on this idea again.

Massielita

Lord Fredo · Post by **Lord Fredo** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:11 am

This does make sense.

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:53 am

The problem people usually mention with this idea is the person who plays one game, does really well and ends up at the top of the ratings page for evermore because he doesn't play again. While this is a possibility, averaging in some way is probably worth while. I would suggest averaging WoK IV and WoK V ratings seperately and then keeping them seperate Under the current setup, the ratings show you who is doing well in WoK V because it's worth more points. The WoK IV players are scattered throughout the table.

Also, if the ratings get averaged, there should probably be some drift towards the average once a year, so that inactive players can't lead the scoreboard.

Finally, maybe the RIP bonus for WoK IV ratings should be taken out. I know some people like the idea of rewarding players for playing an active game, but in reality it's just a bit silly...

korexus.

BigJOzzy · Post by **BigJOzzy** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:43 am

Well the first thing is, first time player do not usually end up with high rattings on there first and only game, and the problem I have is TK and Nick who only play WOK5 games have there games averaged the same as everyone else and so end up with have the score they should have.

Now I don't know about any changes to numbers I am just talking about the simple fact that the WOK4 and WOK5 ratings are taken as half the combined score no matter how many games you have played in each.

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:05 pm

Not so sure. I won my first game and I think with a couple of RIPs. I doubt I'm the only person to get good help from a clan mate in the first game. All it would need is one person to do the same after the average had been introduced, then disappear and they'd bein the top 10 pretty much forever.

I'm not arguing against averaging the rating somehow. Already the current system is starting to go the way of Kaohalla. A new player would have serious trouble catching up with the people at the top. But I think some sort of shift once a year should be introduced too. This is common in lots of ranking systems, to ensure that players have to keep working in order to stay at the top...

As for the combined rating, it's a nice statistic, but it doens't really mean anything. WoK IV and V are different games after all and it's quite possible to be good at one and not the other. Also, to take for instance, TK. If we used the system I think you're suggesting, his rating would be calculated as 1 + (0.45 + 0) / 4 = 1.1125. Imagine he were then to play a WoK IV game and do well, getting say a solo win and one of the first 5 RIPs for a +0.1 bonus, his rating would become 1 + (0.45 + 0.1) / 5 = 1.11 so the rating would actually go down!

However you work it, the combined system wouldn't make too much sense but as it stands, in order to get a high combined rating, you have to have a high rating in both games, which seems fair to me...

korexus.

BigJOzzy · Post by **BigJOzzy** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:27 pm

No I don't think you understood what I was saying so I will use some numbers here.

Lets take TK with a rating of 1.500 for all WOK 5 games. Now lets say he has 1 WOK 4 games at 1.100 so his average is then (1.100 + 1.500)/2 now this would give us his total as 1.300. This is my problem, from most of his games his total is 1.500 but because he plays very few WOK4 games he is for some reason rated lower then his game totals.

What I am suggesting is if he plays 1 WOK 4 game and 4 WOK 5 games and has a ratting of 1.100 in the WOK 4 and a ratting of 1.500 in the WOK 5 games then his combined score would be 1/5 (1.100) + 4/5 (1.500) to give a total combined score of 1.420. Now this is a realistic score for a combined score.

Massielita

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:08 pm

Current system:
TK has 0 WoK IV games, and a WoK IV rating of 1.000
TK has 4 WoK V games and a WoK V rating of 1.500
TK's combined rating is 1.250
TK plays a WoK IV game and increases his rating to 1.100
TK's new combined rating is 1.300

Your system.
TK's combined rating starts at 1.500
TK's new combined rating is 1.420

Currently a player's combined rating goes up if he does well in a game he hasn't played much of. In yours his rating will go up if he playes enough, be it will go down first regardless of how well he plays. Not much of an incentive to start really...

The point is, that if a player doesn't play one game at all (or only plays it a tiny bit) then their combined rating should be lower. I'm sure TK and Nick are very good at WoK IV, but as they never play it we can't expect the rating system to show that. Let the rating for the game they do play speak for them.

korexus.

Post by **Donut** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:42 pm

Most people don't like the fact that WOKIV and WOKV are averaged together straight-up. Most say that WOKV is harder and should be weighted. Well... it is. WOKV games are worth more; If you do good in a WOKV game it'll affect your score much more that the same finish in a WOKIV game.

I think that the numbers are fine for the most part. Averaging WOKIV and V together wasn't done at first for those who hadn't played in both games yet. I then did it because I think the reason for the rating system is to show who is the best WOK player. Both games need to be played to represent that. I also believe most would agree that the best players are at the top.

1 thing I would like to see is getting rid of only giving RIPs to the 1st 5. Not only is it a pain in the arse for the GM to figure out who does and does not get a RIP bonus. RIPs in the end of the game are generally harder and should be worth something. Most would only not like this because of the idea that it could extend a game for turns on turns... I don't think so. At most it would extend the game 3 turns; with 2-3 people playing turns go quicker (at least in my experience as I quit putting deadlines in the end game and just tell the players remaining to send orders as soon as they can). With WOK:ON coming extending it 3 turns will also not be a problem.

I also have 1 other thing I would like to see but as typing it I found a big hole so I'll revise it.

Donut

Post by **Dameon** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:38 pm

I personally could care less what my rating does or looks like, to be honest. HiScore is really all that matters, everything else is just gravy.

BigJOzzy · Post by **BigJOzzy** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:20 am

LOL....that does say it pretty much Dameon. For me also, I don't care to much where I am rated, it will not effect the amount of games or the type of games I play. However, when I see something unfair I say it and I know the combined scores is unfair.

Someone can play just WOK 5 and be a good representative of the game of WOK you shouldn't have to play every single aspect of the game to be rated the highest, but that is just my opinion and what ever is decided will not effect those on top much at all I don't think.

Massielita

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:05 pm

LOL i'm placed 62nd out of 66.

Well at least trewqh is below me.

I'm a bit confused which games are added, because it lists that i played 5 games and i know that i won at least one of those, wouldn't that at least give me enough of a boost to not be in the bottom 5?

I really would like to see the original Excel file instead of just this summary.