Civil Disorder Take-overs

[kestasjk]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Dip Points don't mean a thing. I actually found them very confusing when I joined the site and I'm still a little perplexed by them. You can't lose them all, you can get them from bot games (I think?), and you can accumulate a ton of them at once if you get lucky in a high stakes game. I can't think of any other competitive game that uses rankings + some other random system like Dip Points. If some people are fussed about the points they've accumulated, give them a little badge to that clarifies they earned a bunch of points before the system was improved lol.

GR is a much better measure of skill. It would be better if games had GR requirements rather than Dip Point requirements, as it would better match skill level.

And GR is only a little flawed right now. On average, for most players, it's a pretty accurate accounting of their ability. For a handful of players like myself who did a lot of open positions under the current system, too bad so sad, make a fresh account if you find it very troubling.

Right; so if everyone on the site thinks the same way why not replace points with GR.

The only important difference between the two is that with GR the rating you stand to lose in a game (the "bet", in points terms) is relative to your current rating (multiplied by a factor based on the game type / press type), instead of a set amount that's set when the game is created and is the same for all players.


So say you took everyone's GR and replaced people's points with their GR, call it "rating" instead of "points", and replace custom points bets with "rating" bets based on the current GR formula.
The GR system then is only rating system, points are no more, you see people GR rating next to their username instead of their points, players who CD lose the GR rating they put into the game, and players who take over a CD don't risk their GR but can still gain if they win.


Probably not explaining it well: The main thing to get across is that the only difference between how GR and points work is that points require all players to risk the same amount, GR requires players to risk an amount that's relative to their current rating.

[sweetandcool]

I'm indifferent so long as there is a way to set a GR requirement for a given game.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The only important difference between the two is that with GR the rating you stand to lose in a game (the "bet", in points terms) is relative to your current rating (multiplied by a factor based on the game type / press type), instead of a set amount that's set when the game is created and is the same for all players.

This is a feature, not a drawback. Experienced players should gain very little from stomping noobs. Noobs should move up the ranks quickly if they can dominate high-ranked players. This is how other competitive online games work (e.g., the Glicko-2 system used for Chess tournaments and Dominion Online). Letting players set GR max/min requirements would greatly improve skill matching.

[kestasjk]

The only important difference between the two is that with GR the rating you stand to lose in a game (the "bet", in points terms) is relative to your current rating (multiplied by a factor based on the game type / press type), instead of a set amount that's set when the game is created and is the same for all players.

This is a feature, not a drawback. Experienced players should gain very little from stomping noobs. Noobs should move up the ranks quickly if they can dominate high-ranked players. This is how other competitive online games work (e.g., the Glicko-2 system used for Chess tournaments and Dominion Online). Letting players set GR max/min requirements would greatly improve skill matching.

I didn't say it was a drawback :| I know there's a reason all major rating systems use an Elo style system

That's why I'm proposing replacing points with GR; if the consensus is that points don't matter lets get rid of points, replace your points score with your GR score, put everyone's GR front and center where points are currently displayed, remove the custom bet size option that points uses and replace it with the GR calculation.

As a bonus it would take care of the CD takeover issue where you can CD and not affect your GR, but if you take over a CD in a bad position it will affect your GR:
- When you CD the GR rating you're risking would already be removed from your account and put into the game, so you would lose that.
- When you take over a CD you wouldn't be risking any of your GR rating and would only stand to gain.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The only important difference between the two is that with GR the rating you stand to lose in a game (the "bet", in points terms) is relative to your current rating (multiplied by a factor based on the game type / press type), instead of a set amount that's set when the game is created and is the same for all players.

This is a feature, not a drawback. Experienced players should gain very little from stomping noobs. Noobs should move up the ranks quickly if they can dominate high-ranked players. This is how other competitive online games work (e.g., the Glicko-2 system used for Chess tournaments and Dominion Online). Letting players set GR max/min requirements would greatly improve skill matching.

I didn't say it was a drawback :| I know there's a reason all major rating systems use an Elo style system

That's why I'm proposing replacing points with GR; if the consensus is that points don't matter lets get rid of points, replace your points score with your GR score, put everyone's GR front and center where points are currently displayed, remove the custom bet size option that points uses and replace it with the GR calculation.

As a bonus it would take care of the CD takeover issue where you can CD and not affect your GR, but if you take over a CD in a bad position it will affect your GR:
- When you CD the GR rating you're risking would already be removed from your account and put into the game, so you would lose that.
- When you take over a CD you wouldn't be risking any of your GR rating and would only stand to gain.

Sorry, I see now that you weren't listing points against adopting this system, which I think would be a vast improvement. I hope others agree this would be better.

[CaptainFritz28]

I have only just noticed this thread, but I will say - I entirely agree that replacing points with GR would be quite the positive development.

It makes a lot more sense to have a strength-of-schedule based system, rather than the points based one.

[JECE]

The only important difference between the two is that with GR the rating you stand to lose in a game (the "bet", in points terms) is relative to your current rating (multiplied by a factor based on the game type / press type), instead of a set amount that's set when the game is created and is the same for all players.

This is a feature, not a drawback. Experienced players should gain very little from stomping noobs. Noobs should move up the ranks quickly if they can dominate high-ranked players. This is how other competitive online games work (e.g., the Glicko-2 system used for Chess tournaments and Dominion Online). Letting players set GR max/min requirements would greatly improve skill matching.

I mean, with the points systems it's also hard to gain a lot from stomping n00bs since they have a total of just 100 .

[VonEconomo]

Tbh- I personally enjoy the points system. I think using GR solely might get hairy with Sum of Squares scoring as well. With points its more simple to see how much people will gain from the game, how much a loss would mean to them, etc.

[kestasjk]

Glad to see people seem generally in favour of this.. Always hard to know whether the forum reflects what the majority of players think, I suspect if I made the change I'd get at least some people up in arms, but it's feeling at least plausible.

Tbh- I personally enjoy the points system. I think using GR solely might get hairy with Sum of Squares scoring as well.

Let me know what the concern with SoS scoring is. To me the fact that SoS vs regular only comes into play in draws makes it feel not super consequential, but let me know.

Personally I do like how the points system lets you set how important the game is by setting a bet etc, but I think I'm in the minority there and if most people aren't paying attention to points I think it makes sense to replace it, get some of the points functionality / visibility, but keep the rating system that people pay more attention to.

With points its more simple to see how much people will gain from the game, how much a loss would mean to them, etc.

Well by replacing points with GR, so that your ranking appears where the points currently does, you would see what each game's total rating value is just like how you currently see what each game's points value is.
It would appear the same as it does now, the only difference is instead of there being a fixed bet per player the "bet" is relative to your "points"/rating (it'd be renamed from points, but appear in the same place).

So if someone with a ranking of 10000 created a game the "pot" / rating value would be 10x that of someone with a ranking of 1000 creating the same game, and as each player joins the "pot" / rating value would visibly increase just like it does now when additional players join.


One thing to be clear; if we made this change GR would lose multiple categories: There would just be a single category as there's just one points value per account (without making fairly extensive modifications), so just want to be clear on that in case people really value having multiple categories.

[VonEconomo]

My main point is that it just seems less intuitive than the points system, but maybe that is just because I don't fully understand GR.

It also just seems that the changes that'd be made to GR would make it at least somewhat more analogous to the point system itself. If it just becomes the new currency with which you join games and place bets, I feel that the points system already does that simpler.

On SoS: I'm also unsure about the idea that the bets going into each game would not be equal. The idea of equity is often discussed in draw negotiations:
(I did x, they did y, so we should have an equal share of the draw).
But, with GR becoming more and more prominent, the negotiation might be something more like:
(I did x, they did y, but I contributed much more to the game pool so I
should try and get a higher share of the draw)
The size of the GR stake would likely become a point in negotiation, and this is not the case with the current system where each stake is equal. So, if points and GR become more similar (GR becomes more visible, used to bet, etc), then the main difference is that the bet size would become different between each player. I'm worried that it would affect games more than it should.

[VonEconomo]

I also think that people do pay more attention to points than the forum believes. Its a very simple, intuitive system, and it's very prominent. When I first started playing on this site (before GR was integrated), I paid a lot of attention to points. There were some games I wouldn't (or couldn't) join because the bet is too high. If people in the general community didn't care about points, we wouldn't have such a vast span of bet amounts in the new games tab.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Maybe someone who likes the dip point system can explain something to me:

Am I supposed to try harder in a game where the pot is 500 instead of 20? Seems like I should just always play to win and then, if I do score well, how well I score should be relative to the skill level of the players involved, not an arbitrary pot amount chosen by the game's creator.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The size of the GR stake would likely become a point in negotiation, and this is not the case with the current system where each stake is equal. So, if points and GR become more similar (GR becomes more visible, used to bet, etc), then the main difference is that the bet size would become different between each player. I'm worried that it would affect games more than it should.

This seems unlikely to me. Once the pool is established there's no changing it. Every player has an incentive to score as much as possible once they enter the game regardless of the pool size or who contributed what. It would be a funny press strategy to try to say "I contributed more, therefore give me centres x, y, z" but it wouldn't actually make more sense than "cede the game to me, I'm a more experience player than you" would. No one who is any good at the game would indulge such a demand unless it were actually otherwise warranted by the state of the map.

[VonEconomo]

Maybe someone who likes the dip point system can explain something to me:

Am I supposed to try harder in a game where the pot is 500 instead of 20? Seems like I should just always play to win and then, if I do score well, how well I score should be relative to the skill level of the players involved, not an arbitrary pot amount chosen by the game's creator.

This is a good point. Maybe my attachment to points comes from the fact I started playing before GR was integrated into the site. I think it's less that I try harder when the point value is higher and more that I care more if I lose. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I do think that there is one.

[VonEconomo]

The size of the GR stake would likely become a point in negotiation, and this is not the case with the current system where each stake is equal. So, if points and GR become more similar (GR becomes more visible, used to bet, etc), then the main difference is that the bet size would become different between each player. I'm worried that it would affect games more than it should.

This seems unlikely to me. Once the pool is established there's no changing it. Every player has an incentive to score as much as possible once they enter the game regardless of the pool size or who contributed what. It would be a funny press strategy to try to say "I contributed more, therefore give me centres x, y, z" but it wouldn't actually make more sense than "cede the game to me, I'm a more experience player than you" would. No one who is any good at the game would indulge such a demand unless it were actually otherwise warranted by the state of the map.

I guess that makes sense, but I think that having a scoring system more complicated than it currently is may have adverse reactions on in game play. Sure, that'd be a bad press strategy, but it's one that I think would begin to exist. If you give different people different stakes in the same game, those players with higher stakes will obviously have more on the line. If most games are usually populated by newer accounts anyway, what incentive is there for better players (not myself, obviously) to join games where they could only hope to stay relatively stable ratings-wise.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Sure, that'd be a bad press strategy, but it's one that I think would begin to exist.

That people will reference the point system in their press strategies seems unavoidable. Whether or not it actually makes any sense should determine if it affects the game, assuming the players know how to play.

If you give different people different stakes in the same game, those players with higher stakes will obviously have more on the line. If most games are usually populated by newer accounts anyway, what incentive is there for better players (not myself, obviously) to join games where they could only hope to stay relatively stable ratings-wise.

I strongly believe the stakes should be different in this case. WebDip would be better if it could stratify by skill more clearly. Extremely experienced players often join games with "noob" or "beginner" in the title even though it's clearly not meant for them. The current system can lock noobs out of some games with high Dip Point bid requirements, but it can't prevent experienced players from just dominating the newest player on the site. It's good when players of different skill levels mix to some extent (at least if the game's creator wants that), but right now there's no way to safeguard beginner-friendly games on the site.

Dominion.games, Chess.com, and basically every other competitive online game uses GR alone to match skill. Good players can still play with bad players, but that the skilled player is not heavily rewarded for beating someone with a much worse record than them is a feature, not a bug.

[UnknownHero]

One thing to be clear; if we made this change GR would lose multiple categories: There would just be a single category as there's just one points value per account (without making fairly extensive modifications), so just want to be clear on that in case people really value having multiple categories.

I'll just share my opinion that GR categories have a lot of value. The ongoing full press and gunboat GR Challenge games were organized using them. Even if it were a calculation that only appeared on the user profile, just like it is currently set up, having a gunboat or press specific rating available is very valuable.

I'm supportive of the other changes being discussed.

[BrianBaru]

Two things:
1. I would like to see the scoring system encourage playing for the win, not a draw. Negative points for 4, 5, 6 or 7 person draws. Say each game is worth 400 points for the win. A two way would give each 100, three way 35 each, negative after that. I find people here go for the draw just when the game is starting to get interesting. And the points would be adjusted for the average strength of players
2. You have to fix the dis-incentive for taking over CDs. In another thread, I was referenced as a ‘top 3’ in takeovers. My GR was 3,000 at the time of the last GR challenge. I am now 73,000! Yes, I lose a lot of games taking over poor positions. I am a top 50 player on another site, where I do care about points and rank. But there, you can take over a game and be immune from loss, one for each regular game you start. I will never have a good rating here.

[Yonni]

Well, if we're going to redo the scoring system, can I suggest that we take this moment to improve GR. I've written about it before:

https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=285

tldr of is currently not done with GR but can be done with a new rating system:

1. Winning against stronger players is more beneficial than winning against weaker players

2. Losing against stronger players is less detrimental than losing against weaker players

3. Playing against new players on the site affects your rating less. New players are often much better or much worse than the initial rating they start with. You shouldn’t be penalized as much for losing to some pro who just joined the site but doesn’t have a high rating yet.

4. Your rating fluctuates more quickly in your first few games. Unfortunately, people don’t play a ton of Diplomacy games. That means that it takes quite a while for people to reach their “true rating.” GR2 allows for people to rise or drop to their true rating more quickly. This also alleviates some of the issues addressed in point (3).

[tideshome]

One difference between the current points and GR is that if points go below 100 they are topped up so the player can carry on taking part in games. Would there be something similar to the GR if points were scrapped?