That's why the win percentage (or whatever chosen indicator of greatness) should be displayed along side of points. In fact, points don't really matter, they can be hidden.

Win percent and points are awarded without discrimination of the standard of players. A poor player becomes rich by playing poor players, then other mediocre players become very rich off him, and the plague spreads.

Ratings, like the Elo system used in chess or Leagues, like has begun trials already, are the way to tell the good players to the lucky.

How about a sort of "Points Per Game" system? (These points are just for an example and would obviously be heavily modified if this system is implemented) So for example 3pts for a win, 2pts for a draw, 1pt for surviving and nothing for being eliminated. Then these would be averaged out into your average points per game into a sort of GPA. So for example, Treefarn (sorry for putting you on the spot, you started the thread and I'd obviously have just 0.00) would have 1.88PPG, Rait would have 2.10PPG, and poor nooblets like me would have 0.00.

The only flaw in this system that I can think of is that it ignores the number of games played, but we could put either the Diplomacy points or simply number of games played after the PPG value.

- anxiously awaits his idea being shot down -

Also, I think once you've played more than 20 or so games then you should have a pretty accurate representation of your abilities, so you could also maybe set it so no PPG value is shown until after a certain number of games have been completed

It's not a bad idea jarad, but I think our current point system is better. It simply and easily utilizes the principles of economics. Yours doesn't take into account the differing skill of the other players in a game, whereas the current system covers that with the option of high stakes games, with only players that have proved themselves worthy. A tougher game, but more rewarding to the victors.

I had no idea veterans took part in the inflation. I have hardly bet any of my points, haha, so have never approached 0.

The inflation problem is real, but a new point system should not be adopted. Instead, a new way to reimburse new players when they lose should be initiated.

I am not sure I understand... So if you are down at 0 point and one of your games end, you get 100 point free? I thought you only get up to 100 if you are below 100, and you do not play any games.

yes im confused about that too, and surely these so called "veteran" players are all in the (at least) 300 plus dpoints by now. i know some players seesaw a bit due to investing in big pot game.

What is needed is to have a proper rating system rather than the dip-point system, should we want to improve the system in any way.

There are very many factors needed to create an effective system, and so it would be very difficult to make one, however I enjoy these things and so will likely give it some thought. The Elo system has developed to cope with Chess. Adaptations should make it work for diplomacy.

i believe we already have a perfect system. thanks kestas!! i must admit you were genius to develop the current point system. it does not mean we shouldn't inforce stricter rules for noobs - like getting only your bet back if you're below 100, and only when the game finishes

Jarad, try joining one of our leagues then... That gives a different way of assessing performance.

All technical questions directed to The Ghostmaker... ;)

We could set up a thing like the NCAA football rankings, where the computer takes your win/draw/survive/loss/leave rates and factors in the rates of all your opponents (and maybe your opponents' opponents!) This way, survival in a game with Rait, MarekP, etc would be worth more than survival against a bunch of noobs, and possibly better than winning over a bunch of noobs.

Of course, then we'd have to kick out anyone who ever played for money, screen for drugs and GPA-eligibility, and have big arguments over who's "really" the best around, because the system is so bizarre no one understands it.

flashman, I would except I don't like the idea that you pretty well have to be at a computer at least once a day for many months on end (however long a "season" lasts) I'm not joining any new games after this next week for that reason, simply because I'm going to be away from any computers for one weekend in the beginning of July. It's the one major problem with Diplomacy (though not a complaint as I see no way to fix it)

I like the Elo rating system, but I'm not sure how it would work with a multi-player game like diplomacy. With the Elo system that I am familiar with (chess) the points in equals the points out. So if I lose a game and my score drops -10.3 my opponents rating will raise 10.3. I'm not sure how that would be implemented in diplomacy without some obscure, and not necessarily illuminating, mathematical formula (just like the NCAA football rankings).

I am intrigued by jarad's suggestion though. I would suggest the following modifications: 1. If you get eliminated you still 0 points for being eliminated. 2. If you survive but don't win you get 1-17 points depending on how many supply centers you own. 3. If you win the points are variable depending of the level of competition. 20 points if the average of your opponents score is in the bottom 25%, 25 if it is in the bottom 50%, 30 if it is in the bottom 75% and 35 if it is in the 75%-100% range. When a new game is started a minimum rating could be set to join the game. That would allow the games between only players who have proven themselves to continue.

Augh! The endorsement of differentiated game results beyond "victory," "draw with x players," and "loss" in a supposedly authoritative system! It burns! It burns!

*covers eyes*

Belsheri, what we need to do to modify the Elo system is find a value to assign to the skill of all 6 loosers (take the mean), then calculate the profit in the usual way, multiply by 3.5 to adjust for the greater number of players, and give that to the winner, and then distribute the losses to the other players with even % loss.

TheGhostmaker, that (or something similiar) would be a workable option. However, it would make every game WTA and do away points-per-supply center though. I personally enjoy the distinction between surviving and being eliminated. Although once I actually win a game I might feel different.

Sorry, I am very WTA-minded.

There is no such thing as a draw in the Elo system, it is counted as half a win and half a loss for each player.

This means that we can easily translate into PPSC, with having x supply centres being x/34 of a win etc.

The formulae would be a bit long winded, but very easy to work out for this.

i think it is easy to resolve, just give 100 points if somebody reaches 0, but take them back as soon as he has 200 points, alowing only one game at a time untill then.
like a bank

I like this idea of mamuchka.

That wouldn't work, because there would be people who would have to borrow and borrow and borrow, plus limiting people to one game would break the site, stopping people from persisting.

The dip-point system has the inherent flaw of inflation, a problem to which there is no quick fix for as long as you have hand-outs that are necessary.

If Kestas decides that there is a need for change, there is no point in trying to patch up what is a fairly rudimentary system (it had to be- there was no point wasting time on it at the expense of the game itself). Either we make a new system entirely, or we make do with what we have.

I am more than happy to design a way to complete ratings based on the Elo system, and will do so anyway. If kestas wants to have a look/ use it, then he is more than welcome to do so.

but that is so complicated,
just as long as you haven't repaid, you can only play one game
even if it is 1.000.000
points should be valuable and not an easy this to get
because the game is not just winning, that is why the game is so interesting

every economy must have inflation, i don't see a problem with it

@alamothe - or deflation; but true that entropy will ensue and those that worry about it are the same sorts who compare automobile horsepower and penis length.

crisa, you must be REALLY unworried about your equipment at zero then ;)

I say that if the system counted all games you had bet in and are still surviving to see if you got 100 points, there wouldn't be the problem.
Basically, if someone wanted to spend their fortune in a Bank account then those poitns would be counted too in the reimbursement...
and make it so that you receive only the bet you put into the game.
Should do the job.

Howzabout this formula:

Rg = (Tg * (Wp)) ^ Wp

Where Rg is the rating (not displayed, just higher the number means higher ranking), Tg is total number of games played, and Wp is the win percentage (i.e. 60% would be .6).

This makes it so that win percentage is weighed against the number of games played. The exponential part ensures that, the more total games are played, the less relevant that becomes.

Here are a few practical examples:

Total games: 1
Wins: 1 (100%)
Outcome: (1 * 1) ^ 1 == 1

Total games: 4
Wins: 4 (75%)
Outcome: (4 * .75) ^ .75 ~= 2.28

Total games: 10
Wins: 6 (60%)
Outcome: (10 * .6) ^ .6 ~= 2.93

Total games: 100
Wins: 36 (36%)
Outcome: (100 * .36) ^ .36 ~= 3.63

Total games: 100
Wins: 12 (12%)
Outcome: (100 * .12) ^ .12 ~= 1.35

Total games: 1000
Wins: 360 (36%)
Outcome: (1000 * .36) ^ .36 ~= 8.32

Total games: 1000
Wins: 120 (12%)
Outcome: (1000 * .12) ^ .12 ~= 1.78


Lol and yes, I just realized I could simplify the equation by replacing (Tg * Wp) with just Wg (total games won).

As I said, the resulting number would make no sense to anyone looking at it so it's pointless to show it, but rather could be used to sort the rankings. The highest number is top ranking, and so-on.

Typo correction: On the 4 games example, the games won is suppoesed to be 3, not 4.

Another typo correction: On the previous typo correction, "supposed" is supposed to be "supposed", not "suppoesed".

....Perhaps Kestas should add an "edit post" feature to this forum....

Nah...no need of such deliberations.
Fixing the faulty point reimbursement system so that players only get their bet back if all of the bets in their other games plus their score is lower than 100. Even then, they only receive their original bet back, not back up to 100. Also, the reimbursement cannot raise the total value of the plater above 100.