Toto, There can be no doubt that there are many people who play here who do not care about their ratings, but do care very much about who they play with.   Take for instance people who play with family and friends.  On the other side of the spectrum, I don't doubt that there are people for whom every game they play at least some thought is given to that game's impact of their ratings.

I don't think anyone here would claim that the system is "just".  In fact, there is no such thing as "perfectly just".  The system itself is arbitrary.  Someone could argue that additional points should be allocated based on the proportion of armies killed in each game. 

I don't know the specifics, but the system used here in WarGear is modeled on existing systems that are in used in other game playing communities, and if I'm not mistaken is not too dissimilar from the one used in the world of professional chess.

Your idea is not new.  It has been discussed here before, and as people here have pointed out, there is a cap on the number of points that you can win or lose, which was meant in part to address this issue.  I happen to think either that the cap is too high, or that some other way could be used to deal with the seeming disparity that high ranking players seem to face (I even suggested one), but there are many here who believe that the system is working just fine and their evidence is that high ranking players do exist.  There is certainly lots of room for disagreement.  Nothing wrong with that.

Toto wrote:

- 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 ?

Disagree entirely,
Disagree with 'perfect,' but I don't see this as a problem demanding immediate attention,
Disagree entirely,
And no.



M57: I said Dud doesn't care who he plays against because he not only joins seemingly any game on a standard board regardless of who's already in it, he starts large games on those boards and takes his chances (something I basically never do because I am vain and desperately concerned with being #1). You claimed to have reviewed his games played and come to the opposite conclusion, which I still don't understand. The fact that he plays very few (or no) small games doesn't have any bearing on my claim in my opinion.

The point w/r/t Dud being that he's a perfect example of why the points calculations are not unjust: If you're good enough, it doesn't matter who you play. Looks like a system that works to me.

EDIT: The warrant being offered is more than simply 'highly ranked players exist'. It's that you can do it without gaming the system the way I do.

I think the anonymous play thing is interesting, not as a rule but as an option. A blind tournament could be fun, if you knew the players in the tournament but not who was in your game. Not necessary by any means, but it could make for some intriguing games.

Sounds complicated. Can I just roll 6's?

Sort of like how BSU rolled 6's on their last drive against Virginia Tech?

Yeah, I guess that would work. By the way, as a Nevada fan, I'd like to thank you guys for the upcoming BCS paycheck to our athletic department in advance... assuming, of course, that you don't choke against Oregon State or, umm, us.

There is no shame in rolling 6's in your last drive. Couldn't have come at a better time. Choking aside, it will be a pleasure to provide you with stimulus, via our check from (dare I say) The Orange Bowl. We will have a few bucks left over and BSU is a generous University.....
On a lighter/sacrastic note, maybe Nevada can start to win the WAC....
;)

Nah - we're following you guys to the MWC, remember? The only way we're going to be in the WAC next year is if Benson wins his court case and is able to strong-arm us and Fresno State into sticking around for another year.

I actually saw Reagan speak at UNR back in the day.....Either pounding the pavement or JUST elected...

Interesting! Maybe he was visiting Paul Laxalt or something - seem to remember the two of them being rather close.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/The%20French%20Resistance/Ranking%20History

No idea how to make that come up with MY profile. But the point is, if I win 1 out of 4 8 player games I lose points. And you don't see me complaining.

What a discussion! =D
Here's my opinion. I think the ranking system (RS) works fine. I don't even see any reason to improove it, but I admit I can't see any good option, so probably I'm just missing it.

But the reason why I think the RS works fine is that good players have high score and, as far as I saw, they're able to keep it (aside from little "fluctuation" which are normal).

As for Dud, he played against me some times in 1-on-1 games, when my score was lower than now.

And finally, I personally don't join too many 2 players game because they're not funny as n-players games, with n equal or greater than 4.
I do care about the ranking score (my GR reached 2000 today! Yeah!!! =D) but not when joining a game, since I'm convinced that a strong player is strong just because he/she wins in any condition, and not because of the opponents he/she play against.
Opponents only determine how much you can improove your ability, as the stronger they are, the more you have to focus and think. Hence, to increase the score, at some point it'll be necessary to face strong players, and that's when the truth will come out!
(=


ps: see Dud? The young grasshopper's growin'....

Oh my, I agree with everything young Tesctassa has stated! (Now, quit kicking my butt so I can improve my score....)
;)

Dud wrote: (Now, quit kicking my butt so I can improve my score....)
;)

Mmm... I'll see what I can do. For now I'll just go back in AU sitting on a rock, minding my business, drinking a sweet and cool Iced Mocha

(=

Oh, you dog!

asm wrote:

Toto wrote:

- 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 ?

Disagree entirely,
Disagree with 'perfect,' but I don't see this as a problem demanding immediate attention,
Disagree entirely,
And no.



M57: I said Dud doesn't care who he plays against because he not only joins seemingly any game on a standard board regardless of who's already in it, he starts large games on those boards and takes his chances (something I basically never do because I am vain and desperately concerned with being #1). You claimed to have reviewed his games played and come to the opposite conclusion, which I still don't understand. The fact that he plays very few (or no) small games doesn't have any bearing on my claim in my opinion.

The point w/r/t Dud being that he's a perfect example of why the points calculations are not unjust: If you're good enough, it doesn't matter who you play. Looks like a system that works to me.

EDIT: The warrant being offered is more than simply 'highly ranked players exist'. It's that you can do it without gaming the system the way I do.

That post sums it all.

The system is fair, and it is the best system that makes possible ranking accurately a wide number of players but also gives any two of these players the possibility of playing together.

Of course, if Player A (ranking: 2000) plays Player B (ranking: 900), the variance will be bigger because A will win few points when he wins, and lose more when he loses the game. But that's how it works. On the long run, the system is as fair as it can be. And if the game was repeated 1000 times and in the end Player B ended up with a totally different ranking (say 1600) it would simply mean that his previous ranking was undervalued, and Player A's was overvalued.

This system is a great invention and is used in many forms of competitive games to determine ladders, and in chess too. I think those who don't find it fair don't fully understand it.

PS: I think if several of the top-ranked players don't play 2 or 3 player games it's not because of the points they are affraid to lose, but more because those games are not played much, and this is because most boards on this site play better with a number of players being 4 or higher.

ecko wrote:

This system is a great invention and is used in many forms of competitive games to determine ladders, and in chess too. I think those who don't find it fair don't fully understand it.

What I fully understand is that the comparison with chess is not relevant. If I play 1000 times against Kasparov, I know I will lose 1000 times. But in a 1 vs 1 Global Warfare game I am confident I can win 300 or 400 games even against Kasparov. All this because of luck.

Anyway, I have never said the idea of the calculation system was bad in itself, only that the ceiling was much too high (100 points !).

I wouldn't be happy if I won 25% of the games I should only win 12.5% of, and be losing points.

It is true about some small boards being rough for luck factor being a determinant. But if it equals out and you are skillfull, that might compensate.

Some small boards are not much about luck.

I start the games and don't care who joins. I lost one early due to not adapting well to capital scenario (played it too much old school) and another was just screwed by the dice. I'll also not often care if I play antastic 1v1 with heavy fog and go 2nd. Other than 5RC and a few other players, it feels almost automatic (I learned lots from TK Dave early on!).

But the amount of work, games it takes to recover from losing to a very low ranked player is pretty brutal. I remember on warfish, beaubody would start endless antastic games. I think his rank was like 5 wins and 70 losses (6-10 players or so). It was brutal. But losing wasn't so scary. It was unlikely you'd lose points, and he didn't care either. Is just for fun.

So yeah, I know it sounds like I disagree with myself. So to sum up, I agree it would be pretty frustrating to lose big piles of points. Ideally you would only want to join with players in your range. But it's hard to create a perfect system and this isn't bad.

There are other examples of tourney elements that aren't fair that have been around a while. In Olympic Hockey, the order of winning losing matters. In semis, if you win and then lose, you get a silver at worst. If you lose then win, the best you can get is 3rd place. Same # of losses and wins, just the timing makes the difference between a chance for gold, and a fight to avoid 4th.

That is a pretty unbelievable record that you have on bomb factory.  I feel even better about the win I had against you in the tournament now.

As for the cap on points lost/gained, I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will ever lose 100 points (you need a score 5 times higher) so I think that we are effectively working with a no cap system currently.  I do not know if one is needed or not.  All I can say is that the players I think of as really good have really good scores and the players I think of as bad have bad scores so the system seems to be working fine (Please don't turn those statements around).

I don't need to turn those statements around Alpha. I just saw them jack a Jaguar and do a U-turn at 80mph. It was very impressive, but sadly they are already turned around. They heard about the 10cent hot dogs at Walmart.

Alpha wrote:

As for the cap on points lost/gained, I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will ever lose 100 points (you need a score 5 times higher) so I think that we are effectively working with a no cap system currently.  I do not know if one is needed or not.  All I can say is that the players I think of as really good have really good scores and the players I think of as bad have bad scores so the system seems to be working fine (Please don't turn those statements around).

Global Ranking Score Change
Genesis: 95/2268 x20 = 0
bch: 941/2268 x20 = 8
benjie: 1221/2268 x20 = 10
morethanmachine: 920/2268 x20 = 8
Slade: 974/2268 x20 = 8
Paulville: 1350/2268 x20 = 11
hawaiianhomegrown: 1047/2268 x20 = 9
New score = 2268 + 54 = 2322

Look at the first player in that result....and if you look at his games played, he has won some. That means it is definitely possible for someone to lose 100 points. And really....the bottom cap is 0.....I don't even get 1 point from him......