I find it's a not a bad idea that the calculation of rankings takes into account the skill of the players to allow beginers to get more points and avoid that they get discouraged.

But there should be limits.

I recently played a 2 player game against Aluminia. I won but I could have lost it as luck is an important issue in these games. I got only 4 points in my Global Ranking (382/1621*20). If I had lost, I would have lost 85 points (1621/382*20).

In the case of Waldo (best player with a GR of 2470) against Jason1091 (worst player with a GR of 310), the calculation is 3 against 159 !!!

This is unjust.

This is the reason why most of the good players refuse to play 2 player games against weak players and thus they don't create games as it's impossible to select who will join.

In my case, the game I created was named "ONLY 1500+GlobalRanking Please". Who joined it ? Aluminia of course.

I suggest a ceiling of 5 points in the calculation. Thus you could win/loose a maximum of 25/15 points, which is already a lot.

I also suggest that when you create a game, you can add a limit on the ranking of the players that would be allowed to join.

Pardon my english, I'm french. And sorry for being so long.

Please react and say if you agree or not.

I think there is a cap/limit on how much you can gain or lose.. If I'm not mistaken, we've had that discussion before.   The specific examples Toto gave don't bother me so much, but his/her point about better players being loathe to start 2 player games when the ratios start to become wacky is a good one.

In trying to come up with a solution I thought it might be interesting to have a Pseudo-Stratified game option, perhaps where the originator of the game can chose to only allow players within 25% of his/her rating to join.  For example, only players between 1200 and 2000 could join a  player with a rating of 1600 who starts a PS game.   Mind you, this would be entirely optional, and who knows? ..lesser players and newbies might actually use it to keep the hot-shots from coming in and cleaning up.

At 25%, the range of points given and taken would be between 15 and 25 per player.  If that seems a little too tight, you could bump it out to 33%, putting the range at ~13-30 points.

I pretty much disagree with both posts.

I don't know people with high rankings that don't create/play 2 player games other than the fact that on a lot of boards 2 player games are not balanced.

There is a ceiling of losing 100 points. In a game other than 1vs1 you would normally win a lot more than you lose and normally in a 1vs1 game players with higher rankings have more experience which usually leads to a gameplay advantage on the board.

I'm against pretty much all restrictions for who can join a game.

Players who have low rankings aren't normally good, so you already have an advantage over them ;). Players who aren't good probably aren't going to get better by playing bad players.

Yertle wrote:

I don't know people with high rankings that don't create/play 2 player games other than the fact that on a lot of boards 2 player games are not balanced.

What does this mean?  ..that you know (or are sure) that high ranking players don't create 2 player games because the games are not balanced?  Or that you're not sure? I don't doubt that unbalanced games are part of the problem/reason, but maybe they also wouldn't want low ranking players to join for the reasons that Toto claims.

Players who aren't good probably aren't going to get better by playing bad players.

This may be true, but they also don't want to be slaughtered when they are trying to figure a game out.

On boards where skill is a large factor, a better player shouldn't mind playing a much lower ranked player.  I don't care what I'd get for beating a grandmaster at chess, I'm going to get pummeled every time I play. On the other hand, with boards where luck plays large part, better players are going to stay away from initiating games; why risk their rating?

Yertle wrote: I pretty much disagree with both posts.

I don't know people with high rankings that don't create/play 2 player games other than the fact that on a lot of boards 2 player games are not balanced.

There is a ceiling of losing 100 points. In a game other than 1vs1 you would normally win a lot more than you lose and normally in a 1vs1 game players with higher rankings have more experience which usually leads to a gameplay advantage on the board.

I'm against pretty much all restrictions for who can join a game.

Players who have low rankings aren't normally good, so you already have an advantage over them ;). Players who aren't good probably aren't going to get better by playing bad players.

I second this, against both suggestions for similar reasons.
Also, I do not create/play two-player games on most boards because the first player usually has an advantage (something like 3:1).  I don't like to win those games or lose those games (it's just not fun to be ahead all game or behind all game). 
I can say that for the most part I do not take ranking into account when I join a game and really do not pay attention to the global ranking score as it is too volitile as was pointed out above.  It does tell you something and I wouldn't change it, but it just isn't important to me.  I want to participate in games I find fun to play and really am not too concerned about the rankings at all.  This probably makes me a minority.

For once I agree with Yertle.

If you're worried about losing a 2-player game on a standard map because the outcome is primarily influenced by luck, the obvious answer would be not to play those games.

I believe Tom has mentioned that there is a cap on rating change somewhere at the margins, like you can't lose more than 100 points on one game or something. I think that's more than sufficient. You should have to be really ####### good to get a rating as high as Dud's, and if there's one thing you notice about Dud it's that he absolutely does not care who he plays against. He got to where he is by consistently winning games, whether they be against a packed roster of top players or against 6 people with global scores under 1000.

Alpha wrote: This probably makes me a minority.

Not the only one - which is prolly why my rating isn't any higher than it is! But I too don't take stock in the ratings at all. i play to play not play to be ranked.

weathertop wrote:

Alpha wrote: This probably makes me a minority.

Not the only one - which is prolly why my rating isn't any higher than it is! But I too don't take stock in the ratings at all. i play to play not play to be ranked.

Agreed, I don't care that much about my score...ratings increase by winning games.  I tend to join games more than create them because I look for players that are fun to play against. 

Example: I joined a game of Space Lines with Alpha and Nygma, most exciting game I have played on that board.
I set up two games on the same board that were ruined by strangers that can't even play tic tac toe correctly.  I didn't care about the rankings and frankly have no idea what those players had, I just like to have smart opponents that know what they are doing.

asm wrote: For once I agree with Yertle.

If you're worried about losing a 2-player game on a standard map because the outcome is primarily influenced by luck, the obvious answer would be not to play those games.

..true.  What an unfortunate solution.

I believe Tom has mentioned that there is a cap on rating change somewhere at the margins, like you can't lose more than 100 points on one game or something. I think that's more than sufficient.

I acknowledged that there was a cap in my first post.. A five to one ratio seems steep but apparently folks don't seem to care that much, but then many of these are people who profess to not care about ratings in the first place ..the irony.

You should have to be really ####### good to get a rating as high as Dud's, and if there's one thing you notice about Dud it's that he absolutely does not care who he plays against. He got to where he is by consistently winning games, whether they be against a packed roster of top players or against 6 people with global scores under 1000.

I disagree with your conclusion, and especially with your use of the word "absolutely". A quick look at Dud's list of games points out that he avoids 2 and even 3-player games.. and the ones that he does play look to be private games, because they are consistently played against high quality opponents like Bake.  This suggests that he very much cares who he plays against.  In 6 player games, it is much more likely that there will be 1 or 2 opponents who will rank well above 1000, and in games with more players, he probably feels that he has a little more control of his destiny.

I think it quite unlikely that most of the top ratings players aren't aware of how the game types they join and certainly which ones they initiate are likely to affect their scores.

M57 - Have you played a game with 2 or 3 people on the standard world map? It really isn't fun. The early leader will win the game 99% of the time and 80% of the time the early leader is the first player. This is why I will not play 2 or 3 player games on the standard map.
Further a game with 4-6 players is far different from a game with 7-10 players.

Dud creates endless games on the standard map with 6-10 players and all are free to join (many of the top players do) and still he consistently wins 50% of those. Look at his stats. This is why his global ranking is so high. He also joins every open table on the standard world map with more that four players, just look at the game list. I have never played a game on a standard board that didn't have Dud in it so I don't see your conclusion.

M57- You are being silly with your conclusion in how I play. I just set up public games and join the ones that are available. It just isn't more complicated or designed than that. What can I say, I enjoy the site and just play (probably too much).
I don't know of many 2-3 player games that ARE set up. But I certainly don't avoid playing anyone.....(I sometimes worry that I am intruding too much on public games. See "Pechin")
As far as scoring, Shit, I don't know. LOL

Just won a 2 player game and received 7 points. Could have lost a ton. I don't think I'll enter into those waters again. We all know that the luck factor in 2 and 3 player games is greatly exasorbated. You know also that it is the 'American way' to strive to improve on everything. Every point of view expressed here has merit. But lets face it, there really has to be a better way to calculate rankings. A lucky newbie should not receive more than ___ (fill in the blank). Even a limit of 100 points is way too much for a lucky win. And by the way, if any newbie beats Dud, it truely is nothing but luck. I think the word is 'tweek'.

Alpha wrote:

M57 - Have you played a game with 2 or 3 people on the standard world map? It really isn't fun. The early leader will win the game 99% of the time and 80% of the time the early leader is the first player. This is why I will not play 2 or 3 player games on the standard map.
Further a game with 4-6 players is far different from a game with 7-10 players.

I agree.  This is why I tend to avoid them as well.

Dud creates endless games on the standard map with 6-10 players and all are free to join (many of the top players do) and still he consistently wins 50% of those. Look at his stats. This is why his global ranking is so high. He also joins every open table on the standard world map with more that four players, just look at the game list. I have never played a game on a standard board that didn't have Dud in it so I don't see your conclusion.

This is exactly my point.  He's very particular (as are many of us) about how many players he plays against.  As for my conclusion, it may be premature, but I'm tempted to guess that if we all played 2 and 3 player games and avoided 4+ player games, the variance of points wouldn't be as pronounced, precisely because it takes less skill to win a 2 a 3 player game.  Better players instinctively know this and therefore prefer games with more players.

Dud wrote: M57- You are being silly with your conclusion in how I play. I just set up public games and join the ones that are available. It just isn't more complicated or designed than that. What can I say, I enjoy the site and just play (probably too much).
I don't know of many 2-3 player games that ARE set up. But I certainly don't avoid playing anyone.....(I sometimes worry that I am intruding too much on public games. See "Pechin")
As far as scoring, Shit, I don't know. LOL

You don't post much, so it's good to see you posting here.  Apparently all it takes is to invoke your name.

OR...Go BSU!
(Works the same)
To cash in my 2 cents worth: The more players in a game usually provides more need for strategy and that is a draw for all of us. Also, with the smaller games I have seen too many times when I get teamed up against, kind of kills the fun. But, on the other hand, it appears (with the volume of games I play) I Just-Play-Baby.....

M57 wrote:

This is exactly my point.  He's very particular (as are many of us) about how many players he plays against.

This is actually such a huge backpedal that you're almost contradicting yourself.

asm wrote:

M57 wrote:

This is exactly my point.  He's very particular (as are many of us) about how many players he plays against.

This is actually such a huge backpedal that you're almost contradicting yourself.

Most of us "care" about the numbers of players and other circumstances regarding the games that we play in, albeit perhaps for different reasons.  At the very least, better players are looking for (and at the very very least subconsciously looking for) circumstances where they perceive the game will be "fair".  They may not equate that to ratings or rankings (or claim to), but it impacts on their ratings nonetheless.  The claim that anybody (including Dud) "absolutely does not care" makes no sense to me.  And I don't see how my comments could be construed as "backpedaling"

M57--I don't know what you would want different of my play. I have such fun with the site and the players, can't you just realize that and there is no other sinister sub-plot? AND, I do care. Some players tag team too much and I don't wish to jump into their games as much. I think that is the only filter I really have.
But I will take from this: A compliment. You give me more credit in choosing games/points strategy than I give myself.

Now set up a game and let's go!
;)

I will back-pedal a little. I do care about my rankings on two boards.

The first is Spy vs. Spy where Mongrel, Hugh, and I battled for the top coveted first ranked spot there for a long while. It was the board that I became really addicted to when I first came over.

The second is on Vertigo where Master Bratac started a ranking war with Mongrel and I (we know each other is real life).

However, in both cases, I do not use any selection criterion (at least not ranking related) when I play games on those boards. I join them when I see an open table and do not care who has what ranking there when I join or create a game. In general, the only ranking that I don't like to see is the perfect 1000, as this indicates a new player, who really should not be playing on those boards for the first time, but more importantly, new players are more likely to be booted then a player who has finished games.

Across the site, from my experience, being a player of high rank on a board with lots of players is usually detrimental as you become an early target since you are perceived as the biggest threat.

Thank's to all the bigwigs for debating on this issue.

According to what you said, if I sum up (and caricature a lot) :

- almost nobody cares about his ranking,

- the ranking system is perfectly just and needs no improvement,

- almost nobody is interested in choosing who will join his games.

So I am coming up with a new idea.

Let's anonymise completly the joining (and even the playing).

Would you like that ?