New rating system - suggested values

[Saladin]

I guess Bjorn is right. The turn limit doesn't solve the problem it was supposed to solve, because either the victors or the losing team will drag the game out for the rip bonusses.

So there are only two solutions left.

1. If a player wins on a vote than he gets the rip bonus and the losing player(s) the negative rip bonus. THis will stop the need for the game to continue unnecessarily, because it will not bring any extra bonusses to anybody when they continue.

2. Bjorn's idea of only giving the rip bonus to the first 5 players ripped. On the one hand this rule isn't quite fair on the remaining players, but it does promote aggressive play from the start, which is a good thing.

So my preference would be option 1, but i can live with option 2 as well.

[gm_al]

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

Excuse me ?? I never said that ! In my eyes any Player that either QUITS, goes M3 or gets RIP should lose the same amount of rating. Indeed, how you exit a game makes no difference !
The difference is on who gets the reward when a Player is put out of the game - thats what I was talking about all the time, doooooooh.....
We are not discussing a RIP - Player A RIPs Player B, so A gets the bonus and B gets the rating loss - easy.
If someone goes M3 or quits right away the situation is different, in the sense that no one really merits any rating bonus for that. Giving the bonus to the winners of the game is not really "fair". But then I have to admit I see no better solution to this (At least no easy one - we could split the +0.020/+0.030 reward between all remaining Players in the Turn the Player quits, but that would be too difficult I guess)

However I can well live with the suggested change to only count the 5 first RIPs/M3s/Quits (instead of 20 Turns) as it makes the early game more interesting, and hopefully prevents endless games as well.

I also agree that if only 8 Players participate we can skip the 5th and 6th place. In case only 9 play we might skip the 6th only.

You see, you convinced me !

Now put it down into the rules plz.

[Saladin]

Ooh, we actually agreed on it...and within the month!

Looking forward to seeing it in action guys!

[Hannibal]

There's an oddity about points for RIPing that I guess we'll just have to live with if you can't find a way round it.....

The player who EFFECTIVELY puts another player out isn't always necessarily the one who takes his last province, which can sit there alone and empty on the far side of the map.

If you think this is rare, take a look at current Matt #06 Penta, currently on its turn #10. Raw ripped Trewqh's main area last turn, but there's one Trewqh province miles away. I reduced Lardmaster to one empty province, but that's on the far side of another player. We've all left AG's lonely province alone for 5 turns, ditto Warp's, but he quit with 3. I guess those who are really after rating points will watch for such situations and polish off the last prov to claim the rip before the nearly-ripped player goes AWOL for 3 turns......and a Ripping player will have to be careful he doesn't leave one easy prov for others to take.....Might change tactics a bit, for good or ill, if players are keen on their rating points.

[Bjorn]

There's an oddity about points for RIPing.....The player who EFFECTIVELY puts another player out isn't always necessarily the one who takes his last province, which can sit there alone and empty on the far side of the map.

In fact, we all know this to be quite common. It is more common in WOK4 than in WOK5. In WOK 5 the person who takes the last province of an opponent (or the last city if using the "no player without a city") gets all of his stuff in stock, including gold. Good WOK5 players are careful about this. No such reward awaits the WOK4 player.

Quite often the player who defeats the bulk of an opponents forces and consumes the most resources is not the one who RIPs him. There really isn't much we can do about that without putting undue burden on the GMs.

[gm_al]

Bjorn, I think you could re-formulate the point on 5 RIPs, to me its a bit complicated to read for people that just see it.

How about....

"Only the first 5 RIPs in a game will be taken into account when it comes to rating. M-3s and QUITs do not count towards that limit."

and just because Im a nitpicker Id like to mention the last column numbers still miss a zero at the end....

Thx man.

[Bjorn]

I am still not sure how to word the RIP bonus limits. After considering some possibilities on recording the information and workload on the GMs, I am still not sure how we want to handle it.

If we say that no RIP rating points can be awarded or lost once the number of active participants is '5', then if 2 players are RIPed and 3 quit you are down to 5 active players, but only 2 players have gained rating points for RIPing opponents while 5 participants have lost points.

The simple solution is to say that the first 5 participants out of the game lose rating points, while the first 5 to actually RIP opponents, even Quit/M3 positions, earn the bonus. This produces the rather odd scenario where one player could eliminate an opponent and gain the bonus, but the defeated player would not lose any rating points because there are quit/M3 positions still in play which already lost rating points for finishing 6th - 10th.

I have changed the wording a bit to reflect this. I will keep working on it while the year progresses and specific cases pop up.

[gm_al]

I have another suggestion as Id like to clear this up asap. In fact its the simplest solution at all.

How about we say that someone that QUITS/goes M-3 immediately falls to the LAST available position in the games ranking (an no RIP bonus is awarded) !

This would solve our problems I think.

An example:
- 10 Players
- 2 have been RIPped, RIP bonuses have been awarded
- then one player goes M-3. He is therefore ranked 8th, no RIP bonus for anyone
- 2 more get RIPped and take the 6th and 7th place
- then one Player goes M-3. He is therefore ranked 5th and no RIP bonus
- 2 more Players get RIped and are placed 3rd and 4th
- shared VPs and ratings between the two winners, game ends

This way we wouldnt need to limit this to 5 dropouts/kills and someone leaving the game later on gets more then someone that never sent in a Turn. Of course it means we do not penalise the single fact that someone goes M-3 or QUITs - to make this at leat a bit more penalising, I suggest as addition that if a RIP and a M-3/QUIT happens on the same Turn, the M-3/QUIT gets always ranked at the LOWER position.

Example:
- 5 Players have already been RIPped or left otherwise
- on Turn 13, one player gets RIPped and one goes M-3
- the M-3 is placed 5th and the RIP is placed 4th

I kinda like the solution, whats your take ?

PS: this leads us (around in circles we go !) back to either a Turn limit or to accept games may take a bit longer because everyone wants to bring home one more RIP to boost his rating.

Id also like to clear up another thing that came to my mind: actually a Player CANNOT just declare "Im quitting", he HAS to go M-3, because otherwise everyone that stands at M-2 simply quits to avoid being RIPped and giving away some more rating. So QUIT = M-3

[Dameon]

I think that the RIPping bonus just needs to be eliminated alltogether. It's highly fickle and really not always reflective on a player's ability if they just happen to take somebody's last province. For (another) example, in Andy 6, Raw was effectively beat down by Fredo with some help from Yarosund, but because he knew he was on his way out, encouraged his clanmate Korexus to RIP him. Now, I am not trying to take anything away from Korexus, but he clearly does not deserve a rating bonus for RIPping his clanmate there. That's just silly. Also, in the same game, Trewqh was (apparentely) beaten up by an Allister/Massie co-op. Why should ONE of them get the RIP bonus and not the other simply because they took the last province? They both worked together to RIP him.

I do think it may place an undue burden on a GM to ask him to determine WHO did most of the work when it comes to RIPping somebody, and I can just imagine the arguments that would arise from asking a GM to do so. There's also other the other issues with RIP bonuses that have been discussed here that make them a bad idea overall, IMO.

I realize it's good to encourage aggressive play styles in WOK, but I don't think we should do that if it means players are going to be able to artifically inflate their rating simply by RIPping a player who is on death's door when they may have had nothing to do with putting them there in the first place. If we are going to award rating points randomly like this using the RIP rule (and there's no other way to describe it, really) then I don't see that ratings would mean that much, and I guarnetee that this issue WILL cause bad/hard/negative feelings on down the line if we ignore it now, which would be counter to the purpose of ratings, no?

[trewqh]

If we are going to award rating points randomly like this using the RIP rule (and there's no other way to describe it, really) then I don't see that ratings would mean that much, and I guarnetee that this issue WILL cause bad/hard/negative feelings on down the line if we ignore it now, which would be counter to the purpose of ratings, no?

Isn't it the same case with VPs, Nick? To win games you don't have to kill other players you have to sleep and mop up in the end. It's a common thing that players who did nothing for most of the game win the VPs and there isn't much distress about that.

Also, in the same game, Trewqh was (apparentely) beaten up by an Allister/Massie co-op. Why should ONE of them get the RIP bonus and not the other simply because they took the last province? They both worked together to RIP him.

Massie held me while Allister beat me up.
The bonus should go to AF

trewqh

[korexus]

Not quite the same, trewqh. To win a game most of the other players have to be eliminated. Some people (mentioning no names! ) Play by trying to convince other people to fight so that they can save their own strength for the endgame. IMHO if you're diplomacy is good enough for you to get away with this without the other players catching on then it's a perfectly acceptable way to win VPs. You would however get no Rating points at all for RIPing people.

In the specific case of Andy's 6 I RIPed Raw and Yarosund. I definitely wouldn't deserve any ratings points for Raw. He literally cleared a path for me so that neither of the other two guys could get him. That only worked though, because I went before both Yarosund and Lord Fredo in the OOP. I know I've been in the same sort of situation myself and asked a clan mate to finish me off. I think it would even out over time...


korexus.

[gm_al]

We could talk endlessly on who "deserves" what. In the end its more a philosophical question.

Its rather what we want to achieve with introducing rating. The aim was (as stated before) to increase the liveliness of games (with the RIP-bonus) and make Players care not to miss Turns.

So its not about if someone really deserves a RIP bonus even if he just took one last Province from his opponent (even that I see it differently - in sports its always the one that scores that brings home the prize) its making the games more interesting and put a little more action into them.

In the end ratings are just that - a number. Only VPs count towards who goes into the champs. Some players will put more importance on being the "best-rated" Player, others wont.

Lets just get this whole thing rolling. Bjorn, Sal, can we agree on my latest suggestion ?

[Saladin]

I have another suggestion as Id like to clear this up asap. In fact its the simplest solution at all.

How about we say that someone that QUITS/goes M-3 immediately falls to the LAST available position in the games ranking (an no RIP bonus is awarded) !

This would solve our problems I think.

An example:
- 10 Players
- 2 have been RIPped, RIP bonuses have been awarded
- then one player goes M-3. He is therefore ranked 8th, no RIP bonus for anyone
- 2 more get RIPped and take the 6th and 7th place
- then one Player goes M-3. He is therefore ranked 5th and no RIP bonus
- 2 more Players get RIped and are placed 3rd and 4th
- shared VPs and ratings between the two winners, game ends

But in almost all games players win on a vote. Hardly ever are all players ripped of quit/m3.

For me the easiest solution would be to have a

This way we wouldnt need to limit this to 5 dropouts/kills and someone leaving the game later on gets more then someone that never sent in a Turn. Of course it means we do not penalise the single fact that someone goes M-3 or QUITs - to make this at leat a bit more penalising, I suggest as addition that if a RIP and a M-3/QUIT happens on the same Turn, the M-3/QUIT gets always ranked at the LOWER position.[/quote

Ths is logical because if somebody doesn't send in his 3rd turn then he is 'out of the game' before the turn is officially run.

Example:
- 5 Players have already been RIPped or left otherwise
- on Turn 13, one player gets RIPped and one goes M-3
- the M-3 is placed 5th and the RIP is placed 4th

I kinda like the solution, whats your take ?

I find it quite complicated to be honest.

Easiest system would simply be:

There will only be a rip bonus for the first 5 players that get ripped or go quit/m3. So if 2 players go quit/m3 and 3 get ripped that mean that all the following rips do not get a bonus.

Now i do agree with Al that players that go M3/quit should get some form of punishment. Because otherwise people in a bad position will just quit so that others do not get a rip bonus.

So if a player goes m3/quit he'll get the negative bonus (-0.020). Where the +0.200 bonus should go i'll leave for you to decide. You can give it to the winners of the game or give +0.004 to the last 5 remaining players.


PS: this leads us (around in circles we go !) back to either a Turn limit or to accept games may take a bit longer because everyone wants to bring home one more RIP to boost his rating.

Id also like to clear up another thing that came to my mind: actually a Player CANNOT just declare "Im quitting", he HAS to go M-3, because otherwise everyone that stands at M-2 simply quits to avoid being RIPped and giving away some more rating. So QUIT = M-3

This can be countered by my proposal of giving m3/quit the same negative bonus as getting ripped (because usually it's the same thing). What i would also like to add is that a M3/quit player can still be ripped later on in the game by a player. So that player than gets the + rip bonus (of course if there aren't 5 players already out of the game.

EXAMPLE:

first player goes M3 (10th)
5 players get ripped (9-5th)
another player goes M3 (4th)

Now if somebody rips that first M3 player they will get the rip bonus for ripping that player, because that player is part of the first 5 players ripped.

If somebody rips that second player that goes M3 (4th) he doesn't get the rip bonus because the player he rips with the first 5 players out of the game.

[Dameon]

All right, well, if this rating system is being installed because a few folks are willing to do the work, more power to them. I am not opposed to the idea, however, when you include random factors in the system like RIP bonuses I view it as a mostly arbitrary system with no real meaning. I may restart GMing soon (working on getting that done by the end of this month), but I for one am not going to keep track of rating points when I think the system is inherently flawed. If others want to do the work, I will not stop them, but I refuse to contribute to a system which I had no say in implementing and think is basically flawed. Since Al says that ratings won't really matter and it's only VPs that are tracked for the important stuff then it shouldn't make too much of a difference anyway.

The only thing that would change this is if there were a WSC vote on the issue. As far as I am concerned, I don't see how an official rating system can be installed without one. I would, of course, suggest that Al/Sal/Bjorn have a final set of rules they like in place before y'all bring it up for a vote. If the WSC approves this system as official, I'll heed the will of the community, but it seems to me there is enough dissent here that I am not going to contribute to this system just because Al says so.

[Saladin]

Nick:

I agree that nothing is official untill the WSC makes it official. Therefore this is not an official rating system right now.

Secondly all a GM has to do is add a column which lists a players rip count for that game and a column saying which turn a player was ripped of went M3. Now these are stats which can be used for all sorts of things. And basically even if we never implement a rating system these kind of stats should be kept track off.

Thirdly...any system we use is flawed. The bottom line is we want to make the game a little more fun for the players, as then even if they don't win any vps there is still some sort of rating with whichthey can meassure their progress.

Now why rips are counted in this is quite simple...we want to promote more aggressive play. It's not like players like Eggie or that guy from TKG who sleep all the time, but for players who just go out and enjoy ripping several players per game (go Smashie! ) eventhough that would mean they probably won't win.

So i agree with you that once we've got a good proposal for a rating system, we should get a vote on it from the WSC to make it official.

The WSC has been kinda quiet lately anyway!

[gm_al]

Well said Sal.

We are still in the TESTING phase of the rating, to see if it helps our games and makes them more active. Once we believe it will please the majority of the Players (exclude Nick here) we really should and will bring this forward to a WSC vote to make it an official new WOK add-on. Until then its all TESTING.

Again, if you prefer to have only the first 5 RIPs/QUITs/M-3 have lose rating points I can live with that. Gives the initial turns and even the mid-game more dynamics.

A RIP should be "worth" just as much rating as an M-3/QUIT, I agree to that. Players that QUIT/M-3 within the 5-Player limit may give the winner(s) of the game a rating bonus, or it is simply split between all remaining Players on the Turn the Player did QUIT/M-3.

Id go with the second option, so here is an example (WOK4):
- one Player gets RIPped (10th, loses -0.020 to the guy that RIPped him)
- next one goes M-3 (9th, 8 guys left, so the 0.020 are split between them)
....

Id still like to point out that if an M-3/QUIT and a RIP happen on the same Turn the RIP should be placed better in the final ranking then the M-3/QUIT.

"....just because Al says so." *LOL* I cant change my sig all the time, man.

[Saladin]

Yeah i've got no problems with splitting the bonus over the remaining players either.

Looking forward to seeing this in action.

[Dameon]

Sorry Al but you were the one asking all GMs to start keeping track of all these ratings when you really don't have the authority to do that without the WSC. Really I just call it like I see it. As long as it's clear that this is a totally optional system right now and that we will have a chance to debate the final rules once they are worked out in the WSC for those of us that don't read the boards, I will save my arguments for when it counts. So for now, GMs, don't feel you need to do this because you quite simply don't.

[gm_al]

Now really, I feel soooo guilty to have asked the GMs to keep track of 2 numbers so we can test some new rating system.... Im so sorry, Nick, no, really !

Keep your spirits high. Better not change anything or try to IMPROVE something, huh ?

*looks up to see if its already full moon again*

[ThinKing]

Al.....you really don't have the authority to do that.....

Muppet.