I did not want to hijack the other thread so I have started a new one.

I wanted to present the reasoning behind why I propose a Point Range (min - max) addition to the scoring system.

I have listed below the ratio of players scores and the resulting points to be awarded using the current formula.  The Break Even column lists what % of games you must win versus that opponent to not lose any points (break even) over the course of many games.  So, for example, if a player has a rating of 2000 and is pitted against a 1000 rated player, he must win 80% of the games versus that player to prevent his rating from dropping.

You can chose any %, but the sake of the post I will assert that given the influence of luck in the game it is extremly unlikely that you can win more than 80% of your games against any opponent regardless of how superior your skills are.  If that is the case then the point system should not allow a scenario where you must win more than 80% of your games to break even - hence a cap is necessary.  If the best players can win 80% of their games at most, a system without a cap can have players performing at a maximum level and still lose points. For example a 3000 rate player can win 80% of their games versus a 1000 rate player and still lose point.  The system forces players to avoid playing any whose rate is less than 1/2 their own.  A point range whould fix that.

So would a progressive system.

SquintGnome wrote:

I did not want to hijack the other thread so I have started a new one.

I wanted to present the reasoning behind why I propose a Point Range (min - max) addition to the scoring system.

I have listed below the ratio of players scores and the resulting points to be awarded using the current formula.  The Break Even column lists what % of games you must win versus that opponent to not lose any points (break even) over the course of many games.  So, for example, if a player has a rating of 2000 and is pitted against a 1000 rated player, he must win 80% of the games versus that player to prevent his rating from dropping.

You can chose any %, but the sake of the post I will assert that given the influence of luck in the game it is extremly unlikely that you can win more than 80% of your games against any opponent regardless of how superior your skills are.  If that is the case then the point system should not allow a scenario where you must win more than 80% of your games to break even - hence a cap is necessary.  If the best players can win 80% of their games at most, a system without a cap can have players performing at a maximum level and still lose points. For example a 3000 rate player can win 80% of their games versus a 1000 rate player and still lose point.  The system forces players to avoid playing any whose rate is less than 1/2 their own.  A point range whould fix that.

Player / Opp	POINTS		BREAK EVEN
Ratio	Win	Lose	WIN %
0.1	200	2	1%
0.2	100	4	4%
0.3	67	6	8%
0.4	50	8	14%
0.5	40	10	20%
0.6	33	12	26%
0.7	29	14	33%
0.8	25	16	39%
0.9	22	18	45%
1.0	20	20	50%
1.1	18	22	55%
1.2	17	24	59%
1.3	15	26	63%
1.4	14	28	66%
1.5	13	30	69%
1.6	13	32	72%
1.7	12	34	74%
1.8	11	36	76%
1.9	11	38	78%
2.0	10	40	80%

This logic is valid for two player games.  As your number of opponents go up, your reward vs. risk goes up as well.

Also, this is the reason most top ranked players don't create a lot of 2-player games on boards that are mostly luck-dependent.

So, then, does a ranking cap make sense to apply to all games if it's really mainly intended to thwart problems with two-player games?

ATH, I would have to think about it some more, but I believe luck is just as much a factor in multiplayer games.  I think though it is not as obvious since expectations are different.