player ratings

Blinky · Post by **Blinky** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:03 am

I was checking out player ratings and noticed something strange.
You get less rating when you play wok4, but the ratings of wok4 and wok5 are added up. So this means that someone who plays a lot of wok4 has less chance of being on top than someone who plays wok5. I don't think that is right. Thoughts anyone?

Warped Angel · Post by **Warped Angel** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:03 am

Blinky you have a good point, the thing is here in the world of kaomaris all of us dim witted wok 4 players just dont count for as much as the brilliant wok 5 masters. yea it does seem skewed that a player should be rated higher on the tottem pole for playing one game over the other. Elitism at it's finest I guess. I'm sure Dameon will have to come in here and proclaim the virtues of blah blah blah.............

Blinky · Post by **Blinky** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:38 am

still it's not fair. If you're going to have less rating in a wok4 game, you should separate the ratings for wok4 and wok5. At least I think so.

Post by **ThinKing** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:42 am

Separate ratings ARE available.

The combined rating is just another interesting statistic which Donut is good enough to provide for us.

TK

Blinky · Post by **Blinky** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:06 am

that's true, but they are sorted by total rating. Try and found a top 10 in that one. But that's not the main issue. The main issue was that wok5 games have a greater impact then wok4 games.

Post by **Duke** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:10 am

That is because WOK5 is based on skills and WOK4 is based on errr other things.

See it like this. WOK4 is a STO (Standard Training Op) and WOK5 is when your dropped over enemy lines in real combat. Both will boost your adrenaline but the true kicks comes from the real deal.

I wouldnt start a flamer if I was covered with fur....

Warped Angel · Post by **Warped Angel** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:02 pm

Yes maybe so but you are supposed to be rating a player's ability to play a game, not rating a game.

Post by **ThinKing** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:51 pm

OK, I'll be the one who says it....

WOK5 takes more skill to play than WOK4.

ALL the players who win WOK5 VPs with any sort of regularity are very good WOK4 players. The opposite is not true. Some people are good at WOK4 but just cant handle WOK5.

Nowadays I see WOK4 as the "beginner" game to prepare people for WOK5. It wasnt made to be that way, but I think that is what it has become. The only downside is that it teaches people to sleep, which fails miserably in WOK5.

Post by **Dameon** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:43 pm

ThinKing wrote:OK, I'll be the one who says it....

WOK5 takes more skill to play than WOK4.

ALL the players who win WOK5 VPs with any sort of regularity are very good WOK4 players. The opposite is not true. Some people are good at WOK4 but just cant handle WOK5.

Nowadays I see WOK4 as the "beginner" game to prepare people for WOK5. It wasnt made to be that way, but I think that is what it has become. The only downside is that it teaches people to sleep, which fails miserably in WOK5.

TK said it, so I don't really have to now do I?

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:42 pm

Anyone notice how often TK and Nick agree on things these days

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:13 pm

Just wait until Nick joins the Family

, You want to talk about VP's, I don't think any other clan will get any when he does join us.

Any questions?

Allister

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:42 am

AF if you could get Nick to join the Family I want the Under for how long it take before you guys throw them both out for bickering. even if it is only 5 minutes.

I would have to put it at about 2 days MAX before you disbanded the clan just to try to save your sanity.

And yes I have noticed they are agreeing more but I am absolutely certain they could not co-exist in the same clan.

And yes the rating system is flawed we all knew that from the start but since people wanted it, it will take probably close to a year before there are enough games played to make it even close to anything resembling a system that will rate players according to their skill. As proof I submit that the last time I looked I was on top and TK was right behind me. Now I am certain that I am not the best player here as evidenced by the fact that I have never even come close to winning a champs game, and the 3 time defending champ I don't remember even seeing. I figure that I might be a top 10 or so player but not the best by any stretch of the imagination.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:55 am

OK now that I look again it is even WORSE Korexus is on top now.

Come on even Lorg Kragg was a better player than Korexus.

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:40 pm

Underdog wrote:AF if you could get Nick to join the Family..........

Wait and see my friend, wait and see...........

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:04 pm

Underdog wrote:OK now that I look again it is even WORSE Korexus is on top now.

Come on even Lorg Kragg was a better player than Korexus.

I guess that's the problem with small sample sizes. It's quite possible for one easy game to push somone to the top. And, of course, I did have it easy. I only had win a two on one against Massie and Dameon early on, and once those clowns were out of the way, I had the slightly bigger challenge of trewqh. Fortunately AF helped me out, but I'm sure my rating will drop again if I ever come up against any *decent* players.

One other question that I'll throw into the ratings mix though, is how to deal with players who quit. Currently, they count as going out on the turn they count as leaving the game on the turn which they went M-1. This is fine in most cases, but there are two exceptions which should be highlighted.

Firstly, some GMs (Taker is the only one who comes to mind) keep a total of turns missed, so the M-1 turn can be a long time before the M-3 making this a bad representaion.

Secondly, what should happen if a player simply quits? -As a GM, I'd just let them go M-3 but, in the Tenaria game, GM Josh counted Dameon as quit straight away, removing any chance of a player getting ratings points for removing him. Whilst this case biases me slightly as it would be fun for me to get an even higher rating by counting that RIP I do think it should be looked at.

I would suggest;
a) Players cannot "quit" they must "go M-3"
b) If a player goes M-3, they count as being eliminated 2 turns before that event.

This would then be fair across GMs personal house rules. Any thoughts?

korexus.

Post by **Donut** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:47 pm

I can see where quitting straight out could be bad. If a player is beaten they can simply Quit, taking the rating bonus but taking the RIP bonus from another player. But, generally, I would consider M-3 and Quit different (M-3 could have circumstances that are unavoidable).

As for the current ratings, Korexus pointed it out well... Small sample sizes make for skewed numbers. Just imagine if we reset Kaohalla to 0 at the same time we started the Rating system... It would probably mirror the rating system. But over time the numbers will work out... I'm sure most would agree that Eggy and Massie are at least among the top 5 players around.

Donut

Post by **Dameon** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:15 pm

I don't think there is anything wrong with quitting without going M-3. I quit because I disagreed with a decision a GM made in a game, not because I was losing. Admittedly, when Josh reran the turn and gave Korexus his victory, it lessened my chances of victory significantly, but I would not have quit had that happened the first time through before Josh decided to give Korexus a second chance- I would have kept fighting to the bitter end. Bottom line, it's up to the GM how to handle QUITs, and for all that I disagreed with Josh's decision that led to my quitting I approve of the way he handled it. House rules allow for variation between GM games, I have always been against standardization of them.

Also, if a player quits, he's an easy mark- I've always disagreed with players getting a bonus for RIPping a QUIT player, as I have seen happen, it makes zero sense. Too, if a players survives to the end to RIP his final opponents, he gets NO bonus, when it's least likely to be random. The argument is that it would extend games if later RIP bonuses were awarded, but you can also make the argument that if players concede then they should be considered RIPped by the victors, as that is what they are admitting would eventually happen. Take all that and tack onto it that the fact that the RIP bonus is often random, especially early on, and it's clear that everything that is wrong with the rating system stems from it.

And in the grand scheme of things what does it matter? My games aren't rated, and I don't think Mike's are either, as his Guatemala ended awhile back now and never showed up in the ratings. Larry has said if he comes back his won't be either, and I know others agree with me on the RIP bonus (Taker, for one), and might be against mandatory rating. Even many of those in favor of the bonus see the folly of mandatory rating. The bottom line is ratings would just lead to a reduction in the amount of games GMd, unless GMs can reach a unanimous agreement on the system. The RIP bonus is the great divide which I think we'd find hard to reach a compromise on. At least I have suggested a compromise only to get it shot down, as opposed to the pro-bonus side, who is unwilling to negotiate at all it seems, meaning the rating system will always just be fascinating sidebar to WOK with no real meaning.

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:51 pm

One more time for posterity. The reason no one agreed to your suggestion was because it didn't fix the problem you were talking about. We weren't saying that it wasn't a valid issue, just that a system to cover all eventualities would be horribly complicated and any simplified vrsion, such as your suggestion, ran into exactly the same problem anyway.
As for all your other points, I've seen ratings information on at least one of Mike's games, I can't speak for Larry and I don't know who the many others are so again, I can't judge. But "in the grand scheme of things" it still matters. It's quite feasible in some games for a player to miss a turn on say turn 3, then out live a few people, then miss two more turns and count as the first death. Clearly this is not right and my second suggestion,
"b) If a player goes M-3, they count as being eliminated 2 turns before that event. "
Deals with it in a concise and easy manner.

As for quits, under the current system a player gets the RIP bonus for elliminating a player on the turn that they would have gone M-3. Either we should remove that or force players to go M-3 instead of quitting. Either suits me, but the system needs consistency if it's going to have a shot at making sense.

Anyway, I have an exam tomorrow, so I can't stick around to make that any more comprehensible. Hopefully something of my point got across...

korexus.

Post by **gm_al** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:23 pm

I would suggest to split the rating page into three separate scores: WOK4, WOK5 and COMBINED. This way we could easily see the top-rated WOK4 player, the top-rated WOK5 player and the overall top-rated WOK player.

Put it in the order:
COMBINED
WOK5
WOK4

Maybe thats even more motivation (and information to bicker about) for some players.

PS: the fact that only the first 5 RIPs are counted has overall good effects on the gameplay, keeping games short and dirty

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:07 am

As you all can see, Dameon made no reference to not joining The Family.

Now you can argue that he made no reference to joining TFF but hey, it's looking positive so far.

AF