 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
 Iron does a body good...except when it is dropped on one's head from cyber space. 
I think math if you work out the elo system here in this forum with examples you will find the one game wonder still exists. Try it out you will see the problem.
Baid is good as a start point but I think everyone at the same is fairer. I also think that for the weaker players it gives them a better starting zone. No sense in continuing if all you are is at the bottom.
View it this way you are playing some of the top players in the world. You are new here and just picked the game up. You jump into a rated game against number one. You do not do well understandable, but now you drop even further. It will take what 1-2 years to match their skill. In the mean time your baid put you at the bottom to begin with....
Now if you had the same scenario but started in the middle of the rankings...Hope more fun and by year’s end may be back in the middle, not at the bottom and up a few ranks.
quote:
This can be prevented by a rule that, a rated player is obliged to have all his games rated - that will also make him lose points. |
I really do not think it is important to force people to be rated some just come out for the fun of it. We have people that just jump into games and fill roles for missing players, more rules... These rules can be avoided if like the challenge ladder you are rated in games because you were challenged and have to accept or lose your spot. I like to play games for the fun of it I would hate to see that dropped. The 10% system allows for a five-player game and only two rated players playing it. Simple.
quote:
That one with the beer is a good rule. |
Solver make it a law I mean put it in the topped post for how to play this game well 
quote:
from my experience with the 2 player ELO ranking, i would say that resting your butt on 1 leading game wont do it. |
Well toss it out because we did this and it does, but lets see it spanned in the thread again…
quote:
someone else would only need 2 leading games to overtake you, and so on. |
That would entirely depend on the opponents in the game, if you play two games against weaker opponents then no. If you play one game against strong ones you win that example, simple as that. In this game unless you pick your opponents and you will if your rankings matter we go back to the flaws in the elo system.
The 10% rankings took this pick and choose out of the equation to a degree. You can not force people to play all games they are challenged either, simply because we all have lives.
This lead us to you must be active in at least one game, back to picking the game and the opponents to maximize your points gain. The 10% rankings took this out too by allowing picking your game for maximum points but! That did not assure you top spot in fact it was not going to happen for long if you got it.
quote:
they could simply drop out of this game |
That we must avoid at all cost, be honest one by one they drop off. Do you moderate? What a freak’in nightmare… This was a major problem with the old and elo systems. We simply do not want this to happen do we? Nope that is a bad idea. We want people to continue to play the game and finish it with some hope of bonus points for finishing it. We want players involved and we want a fair system. Making a rule such as this simply shows the flaws and the nightmare we have been there did that. The 10% system allows for continued play with the assurance it of a bonus at games end. Participation not dead game’s long delays and endless recruitment.
quote:
At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either. |
This was covered and does not wash, if all you want is rankings playing the 10% system this way is a sure way to end up in last. Do the math all you would be doing is wasting your time.
quote:
good point, but the penalty would need to be a point adjustment, as the ranking is directly point based. |
Oh it is point adjusted all right you drop back below the player below you…one ranking what ever those points may be…
quote:
It doesn't have to be necessary for the players to understand the system, a program is all we need. |
I disagree in order to maximize your fun, time and rankings you need to understand the system. That said the simpler the system the more fun it is to maximize it…We all agree I bet, simple is better…
quote:
what is 'capped' here ?
what is meant by 'static' ? |
Game is capped as far as how much one can gain from a game based on the combined wagers read on.
You would get a win the game, finish the game bonus though.
Static ok you have a 10 ranking score wise, 10% is 1. So each and every 9th turn ranking your wager is 1. Not the cumulative rankings from the last turn too. Example turn 9 you get 1 now your ranking is 11. You do not use 11 for turn 18 you use 10 or 1. This is where the cap comes in, when you start the game at 10 your ranking is at 10 your wager for that game will always be 1. You start a new game at 11 your wager until the finish of that game is 1.1 period. Capped, this way people can use the system to their advantage win some lose some but still play from the bottom or the top spot. What we will see is a very active rankings and very aggressive game system. We already did for that matter it was proven tried tested and true.
Thas means very tight rankings, no one game wonders and a newbie who is good as some are ( Paul as an example) would still have to play in order for him to get and keep top spot.
It also means you could not play all newbies and expect to be in top spot. Or for that matter all good players in one game as the rankings change so would the odds of that happening.
Last edited by blackice on 24-07-2003 at 09:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
-- Off Topic --
Solver the Running Beer,
What does this mean: "I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man"
My guess is that you do not like smokers. My second guess is that you believe second hand smoke is very deadly. Are those good guesses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
To answer your question Steve with regards to Solvers "Smoking Man"
For nothing can seem foul to those that win.
Edited in good taste...
Last edited by blackice on 26-07-2003 at 17:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
 |
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
Explain to us all here how Math is to compare systems to which he does not fully understand?
Now explain to us all here why when he asked to explain a system which you know you did not assist him?
|
err. sorry ice  in the defence of solver, i must say that i was mostly referring to the 10% system and your explanations there.
quote:
The mere fact we have done this three times already and Solver said the past is irrelivant is enough for me let alone the community. We have voted and it appears Solver would rather forget that fact by puting it in the past....
|
at least i cannot remember a poll on this since im subscribed to any thread on this topic, and definitely not since i opened this thread to bring the suggestion up again.
quote:
Math could you send me details of your system?
|
well, as i said, i (for now) gave up on the attempt to incorporate as much of the ELO 2 player system into an ELO-based multi-player system.
do you want to see my unsuccessful attempts on the system, or the excel sheet where i programmed the now dismissed formulas ?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
quote:
the actual score gained from a game would be replaced every time a scoring turn (9' or whatever) comes around.
so if you got 1.54 points at turn 9 and then 0.31 points at turn 19, you'd effectively get +1.54 at turn 9, then -1.23 at turn 19 to make the effective score +0.31... |
So if you won each and every round 9 turn until the end of the game? Which was your query so lets talk apples to apples.
|
my query ? as far as i understood it, you stated that each system would have the problem (i see it as a problem) that the leading player would gain massive points and thus the length of the game would let him lead the rankings more than the number of his games.
i simply stated that this wasnt so.
quote:
So if you got 1.54 on turn 9 and won with 1.54 in turn 19 you would get 1.54 until the end of the game if you won all rounds?
|
you would GET 1.54 once (the first time you make place 1) and would KEEP it for the rest of the game (as long as you retain place 1).
quote:
That being the case then each game would be capped at a maximum loss and win amount, correct?
|
there would be a maximum number of points you could gain or lose, yes.
quote:
And we would end up with the "Klair" factor.
|
sorry, i dont know what that is.
quote:
So I guess we conclude all systems if you won or lost each and every turn would end up with status quo points. While yours does not cumulate the score remains the same from start to finish if you win or lose all rounds.
|
yes. as long as you 'hold' your position, be it positive or negative, your score wouldnt change.
quote:
Capped in other words, explain the advantage of this capped method? |
the advantage of the points not being cumulatively collected, if you meant that, is that
1.) your actual score in the ranking reflects, and only reflects, the number of games you play and the positions you have in these games.
in some variants your rating would also depend on the strengths of your respective opponents in one or the other way, like my attempt at an multiplayer ELO system, or Solver/quinns's proposal of calculating a MP game as several SP games using an ELO or quadratic formula with the player scores as input.
2.) to make sure to lead the ranking table, you need to play more games, ergo you have more risk to not win them all, ergo someone else with a similar number of games and a higher winning percentage would overtake you.
also, depending on the specific system and the player numbers of your games, several 2nd places would sum up to be worth one 1st place, several 3rd's would be worth a 2nd and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
how about this suggestion...
everyone who likes to can propose ONE rating/ranking system.
each of those people starts a ranking table according to his own system. the to-be-ranked games start.
once a a certain amount of results are in that meet certain criteria (for example: 10 total ranked games, 5 of which have reached turn 30, 2 of which have reached turn 60) the table of each ranking system is presented and all participating players vote for their most liked candidate.
this might have the effect that one votes for the system most benefitting himself, but the differences in that shouldnt be too severe as all systems would use the same game results...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
yip !
i gave the MP ELO system a second chance, and i succeeded !!
my formula (which is remotely based on the exponential ELO 2 player system) now is:
Drat = K1 * ( r(i) - s(i) )
or more precisely:
Drat = K1 * ( r(R(i)) - ( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / (n - 1) ) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2 )
where:
i = the pure index of the current player (=you)
Drat = your rating change due to this game
n = number of players in the game
K1 = constant that determines how many points can be won or lost in that game
K2 = constant that determines how important the rating (=point) difference of the participating players will be for the outcome
R(i) = the rank in the power graph that player i had on the last rated turn (9*)
r(R(i)) = the modifier associated with player i's rank in the game (-1 to +1)
P(i) = the current rating of player i, counting only his base score and his finished games
Pmax = the score of the best player playing in this game
Pmin = the score of the worst player playing in this game
thus:
s(i) = ( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2 = everything right of r(R(i)), your modifier for your expected result, based on your rating, ranging from -1 to +1, though a little bit more leaning towards 0.
Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1 = the average score of all players in the game except you
( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2
the difference between your score to the average player score in this game, weighed towards the total score difference of the game, plus a little surplus, so that the total result varies roughly from -1 to +1
i assumed both K1 and K2 to have value 10.
so here is the explained, hopefully more comprehensive, version:
your rating change =
10 * (rank modifier - rating modifier)
each modifier ranges from -1 to +1, so the total score variation might possibly be between -20 and +20
assuming a base rating of 1000.00 for new players, this should be appropriate.
constants K1 and K2 can easily be changed to adjust the characteristics of the system.
here is an example:
in a 3 player game, A(dam), B(rian) and C(hris) are playing.
the ratings before the game:
A : 1050
B : 1020
C : 980
Adam, as the best player, will gain only +4 points if he wins (the winner always comes out positive). if Adam places second, though, he loses (-)6 points, as his expected result, being the best player, was a win.
if he totally scrubs out and loses (3rd place) he would lose (-)16 points.
Brian, on the other hand, is expected to finish 2nd (microscopic tendency towards 1st place, due to averaging).
if he wins, he gains +9 points. second place means -1 (due to the slightly positive expectation tendency mentioned above), if he places 3rd he will make -11 points.
Chris, as the total outsider, will always win points, unless he loses the game.
1st place: +17
2nd place: +7
3rd place: -3
(points are rounded for whole values)
so, for several finishing orders:
ABC : +4 / -1 / -3 // SUM = 0
ACB : +4 / -11 / +7 // SUM = 0
BAC : +9 / -6 / -3 // SUM = 0
BCA : +9 / +7 / -16 // SUM = 0
CAB : +17 / -6 / -11 // SUM = 0
CBA : +17 / - 16 / -1 // SUM = 0
Last edited by Mathemagician on 28-07-2003 at 05:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
 |
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mathemagician
yip !
i gave the MP ELO system a second chance, and i succeeded !!
my formula (which is remotely based on the exponential ELO 2 player system) now is:
Drat = K1 * ( r(i) - s(i) )
or more precisely:
Drat = K1 * ( r(R(i)) - ( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2 )
where:
n = number of players in the game
Drat = your rating change due to this game
K1 = constant that determines how many points can be won or lost in that game
K2 = constant that determines how important the rating (=point) difference of the participating players will be for the outcome
i = the pure index of the current player (=you)
R(i) = the rank in the power graph that player had on the last rated turn (9*)
P(i) = the current rating of player i, counting only his base score and his finished games
Pmax = the score of the best player playing in this game
Pmin = the score of the worst player playing in this game
thus:
r(R(i)) = your score modifier due to your rank in the game, ranging from -1 to +1
s(i) = ( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2 = everything right of r(R(i)), your modifier for your expected result, based on your rating, ranging from -1 to +1, though a little bit more leaning towards 0.
Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1 = the average score of all players in the game except you
( P(i) - ( Sum{ P(j); j != i } / n - 1) ) / Pmax - Pmin + K2
the difference between your score to the average player score in this game, weighed towards the total score difference of the game, plus a little surplus, so that the total result varies roughly from -1 to +1
i assumed both K1 and K2 to have value 10.
so here is the explained, hopefully more comprehensive, version:
your rating change =
10 * (rank modifier - rating modifier)
each modifier ranges from -1 to +1, so the total score variation might possibly be between -20 and +20
assuming a base rating of 1000.00 for new players, this should be appropriate.
constants K1 and K2 can easily be changed to adjust the characteristics of the system.
here is an example:
in a 3 player game, A(dam), B(rian) and C(hris) are playing.
the ratings before the game:
A : 1050
B : 1020
C : 980
Adam, as the best player, will gain only +4 points if he wins (the winner always comes out positive). if Adam places second, though, he loses (-)6 points, as his expected result, being the best player, was a win.
if he totally scrubs out and loses (3rd place) he would lose (-)16 points.
Brian, on the other hand, is expected to finish 2nd (microscopic tendency towards 1st place, due to averaging).
if he wins, he gains +9 points. second place means -1 (due to the slightly positive expectation tendency mentioned above), if he places 3rd he will make -11 points.
Chris, as the total outsider, will always win points, unless he loses the game.
1st place: +17
2nd place: +7
3rd place: -3
(points are rounded for whole values)
so, for several finishing orders:
ABC : +4 / -1 / -3 // SUM = 0
ACB : +4 / -11 / +7 // SUM = 0
BAC : +9 / -6 / -3 // SUM = 0
BCA : +9 / +7 / -16 // SUM = 0
CAB : +17 / -6 / -11 // SUM = 0
CBA : +17 / - 16 / -1 // SUM = 0 |
Ya know.. I deal with Theoretical Values on a dailey basis and specific gravities to deal with yield to produce 27 cubic feet for each cubic yard of concrete.
I now see that not only do I need to learn a lot more about this game I love, but on TOP OF THAT I gotta be a Calculus/Algebra/and MEGA MATH MAJOR!!
I gotta tell ya, Ill play you tell me if I get any points or if I lose any..because I sure as heck dont how in the heck anyone thinks THIS SYSTEM meets criteria known as "SIMPLE"
I am for real..you guys are A#-1 in mathematics but for real cant we just have a simple method..this is crazy to try to figure out..
BUT..I know i know..I dont HAVE to play..if i dont like it..  
Peace
Grandpa Troll
a.k.a. The Dumb@$$-who-aint no-math-major!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
@blackice
so could you please tell me understandably where exactly you see a flaw in this system. your prior statements are just insinuations and dont really help me.
@ricketyclik
retiring players would be handled in that the player takes up the last slot (but ahead of any previously retired players) for the rest of the game.
i admit, i didnt think about replaced players yet, but im sure this can be incorporated, like everything can if one wants it. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2003 02:00
.
.
|