I'd probably start by putting my ratings up for the last month ;)

how about the variant called WTA? Hehe ... :)

You wanna fight, Rancher?

In my head, I'd set it up similarly to the Elo rating system in which each game you play against 6 other players.

In a WTA game it would look like this (who plays PPSC anyways?). If you solo, it's a win over the 6 other opponents. If you draw, it's a win over everyone that was defeated and draw with everyone else in the endgame. Of course, the mathematics would have to be tweaked to better fit the number of games and the range of skill in diplomacy. But, in theory, this system wouldn't be too complicated to implement.

For PPSC things get murkier. You could still treat games as wins and losses as before. (i.e. A 6 centre finish beats a 3 centre finish in the exact same way that a 11 centre finish would beat a 3 centre finish). That would be simplest but would not accurately reflect the way that PPSC is played. Alternatively, you could treat the previous example as 6 wins for one power 3 for another and then normalize the result to have the weight of a single game. In truth, I don't play PPSC enough to get a feeling for what would be most appropriate

I'd also go further and separate gunboats, live games, and 'normal' games but I'm sure that would have a lot of contention. Especially from people like PE who rack up a ton of live games.

I wouldn't mind separate live and nonlive ratings, so long as they're rated relatively equally.

That said, I do prefer the current system.

@abgemacht -- why don't your people call my people and they can fight by proxy for us? Much more civilized, I'm pretty busy ...

The difference in using an Elo-like rating system to the current one isn't so apparent when someone wins. You get more points for beating better opponents. That's fair.

But when you lose, the quality of your opponent isn't taken into account currently. For instance, if MM loses one of his games in the masters it shouldn't be too much of a shock. He was played high quality opponents and even the top rated player is expected to lose sometimes. However, in one of the anon games he recently started, he may be playing a bunch of schleppers that don't know their ass from their elbow. Letting someone solo there should have a much greater effect on his rating. And Elo system would reflect this but the current one does not.

Not true, Yonni. Everyone contributes the same percentage of their points to a game, not the same number of points, therefore the risk versus reward punishes a loss against noobs and doesn't provide nearly the reward against the same noobs for a win, same as Elo. In fact, Elo was the inspiration for GR.

I'd add a negative multiplier to anyone I have muted

Yeah, the risk vs. reward ratio is reflected in the current system but the risk, in true numbers, isn't.

For instance, in Chess, if I lose to someone who is ranked far higher than me - I will lose very few points compared to if I lose to someone who is ranked the same or lower than me. With the GR, I would lose the same regardless.

It would be nice if the site kept a variety of stats for each person on their profile that were sortable

Yeah, it would be. I've tried to manually separate my gunboat and non-gunboat records but it would be more of a pain if I had more games under my belt.

Tell me about it. -__-

I keep my own stats and maintain them on my flashdrive. Eventually I plan to create a website and upload all of the stats I've computed over the years so that there's someplace public for people to visit.

I know Ghosts gets the database to run the ratings, how big is that file?

And how does he do all of them? and when will novembers be up? and will they ever be incorporated into our profile?

No idea how big the file is. If I had more computer savvy, I'd definitely try play around the database. Unfortunately, it's a little beyond me at the moment and I don't have enough motivation to learn.

@D33 - You're an impatient fuck, aren't you...

Ghost ran them (it's a automated process once he gets the data down) but found a problem so took them back down while he waits on Kestas to get him correct records to run the GR from.

They'll never be integrated because Ghost does them independently of the site and Kestas doesn't want them integrated in. He only established the points to keep games from getting screwed up with noobs CDing all the time because they were getting involved in more games than they could handle when they first joined up.

I am not Dra$$nar, I just wondered.

Diplomat33, you can add them to your profile manually if you like. I saw someone else do it and I've taken to doing the same.

Draugnar, do you get what I was saying about how the skill of competition is not as completely reflected in GR as it is the Elo system or am I misunderstanding how GR works?

@Yonni - I understand now. I didn't realize that your contribution to the game varied based on your relative rank to your opponent. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was, much like here, a simple percentage of your current rating.

I already add them, but i have only one to add.

@Draugnar- Im pretty sure what yonni is getting at is that you DO put in the same amount of "ghost rating points" no matter your opponent. If you lose to someone that is playing for the first time or if you lose to madmarx, your change in ghost rating will be exactly the same. In chess if you lose, the rating of the opponent determines how much rating you lose.

Yeah, I got that already FZ.

I'd scrap the points system and the ghost rankings and introduce a system that tries to measure how good or bad a person is at diplomacy. At the end of every game every player would have points to award to his playmates; 6-for the best and 1 for the worst A player's ranking would then be total number of all points awarded to him/her divide by the number of games multiplied by 100. Players cannot join new games unless they vote. New games are set up stating they are for players of a certain ranking or above (or between two ranking points) and a player can join as many or as few as they wish to.

Mods can take away voting rights of people multi-accounting without having to ban them; they can demote players for CDing or NMRing.

As limits are now set - people can't go above 600 it does away with points inflation

That brings in an emotional factor and isn't a valid rating system. If you got your ass kicked by someone who played it differently than you think it should have been played (maybe your one of the fools who believe in honor in Diplomacy and didn't read that it's a game about lying and stabbing and cheating in any way possible in the rule book) then you might give a low rating to a great player.

PPSC goes against the nature of the game which is to win or draw not survive with a lot of scs...
PPSC is for noobs only.

@draugnar - the only way a rating system is going to be anyway accurate is if every player plays every other and countries are allocated so as to reduce bias and only 1 type of game eg WTA 24hr turns - any other rating system is simply guesswork where luck is still a substantial factor.

I accept that a system that gets players to rank their foes is far from perfect but it has many advantages. (1) It can reward good diplomats that have to fight a defensive game from 1902; (2) it focuses on diplomacy rather than how good someone is tactically; (3) it eliminates points inflation. (4) it allows good new players to compete with seasoned veterans; (5) it allows people to play as many games as they like

In addition if a mod is uncertain about someone being a multi they can downgrade them rather than expelling them. Perhaps people would also be less inclinded to NMR and CD knowing their actions will get them marked down.

I am aware that it could also change the dynamic of the game somewhat - people will have to properly diplome as they would if they were on a real world stage rather than just slinging insults around - but is that a bad thing?

ive won 16 out of 55 odd games, yet have shit number of points....

no recognition of my awesomeness

It really isn't that difficult to figure out if someone is a good player or not. While it is true that none of the systems currently in effect are perfect, when they are all viewed side by side one can get a good indication of another players skill. For example, Cockney, you have 1222 and a 60% win/draw ratio. Your ghostrating is currently 78 and your all time gr is 147. This tells me you've played against some good players and won games against decent competition. You're win/draw percentage is excellent so everything combined, I'd come to the conclusion you are a good player, and would probably be fun to play with. This is not something difficult to do and I don't see where the problem in figuring this out comes from. In tournaments I would think that having several criteria would solve any problem of competency.

Ex. To join this tournament you must have a (GR over 200+a W/D of 55%) or (GR over 100 + a W/D of 45%) or (750 total plus a GR over 250 and a W/D ratio of 60%)
I'd say something like that would cover pretty much any decent player and exclude any dumb ass competition that's managed to gain either a lot of points by playing all noobs or anyone who just got lucky in 1 game against a lot of pros. Feel free to alter the #'s as you see fit. I see no need for a new type of rating system. And yes I realize that some people are anti-gunboat and anti-ppsc but both of those versions require skill.

fair point jmo

thanks for the nice comments.... look forward to a game soon!

@Maniac - A voting system is ripe for gaming. People don't actually vote for the better player, but for whom they like. Look at survivor. It's a popularity game. The best player should be the winner. It means they combined the best diplomacy along with strategy and tactics.

@Draugnar - "The best player should be the winner" - have you never been in a game as Turkey where Russia and Austria go after you from the get-go and won't respond to any communication? Just surviving those situations which I'm sure happen to us all is all we could ever realistically hope for.

Well, yes, but those games are more rare than the ones where I'm Austria holding back a jug all on my own and end up being part of the draw or the game where I take a 1 SC Russia and turn it into a strong second then force the draw...

And I still say having a vote brings in emotion to the rankings. That means the rankings are automatically tainted. Can you not see how a noob Turkey that gets crushed early by a solid Austria/Russia which turns into a threeway with France would put Austria and Russia at 1 pt and 2 pts and might even put Germany or England at 6 pts to spite the ones who killed them? What do we say about the game? Win, if you can't win then draw, if you can't draw then survive, if you can't do *that* screw the guys who screwed you. This is one more way to screw the guys who screwed you.

One final point on the vote system. Maniac, you are being naive if you think everyone will be honest in their evaluations. People like (and mind, I like this person) hellalt will be vindictive. Other's would let personal feelings (say I played with maple and won, he'd still give me a 1 out of spite) for things outside of the game drive their votes.

If you think it woul dbe otherwise even amongst a simple majority, you are more than just naive. Just like in business and politics, emotions *always* drive votes. In business, "friends" are who we do business with and therefore "friends" get the contracts. Friends *will* vote for their friends here. IT is human nature and a subconcious action. It may only be sliding the friend a spot or two up in the game, giving them an extra point here or there, but the majority of people *will* do it.

@Draugnar - I agree with everything you say, but that doesn't distract from the fact that overall the great players will end up at the top of the rankings and lesser players will end up in the bottom bands.

I disagree. The greatest player could end up at the bottom because he win through some pretty nasty diplomacy everytime and pissed everyone off. Agent K is a good example. He lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top (I don't mean cheat in an official sense) and is a great player as a result. But most people would be so pissed at the end and he would stay at the bottom because of that. But he could continue to win that way with anon games, like Babak insists on playing.

Now, a vote system could work as a supplemental rating system. But it shouldn't replace the existing three (percentages, GR, and points).

@Draugnar - I agree with everything you say, but that doesn't distract from the fact that overall the great players will end up at the top of the rankings and lesser players will end up in the bottom bands.

"@Draugnar - I agree with everything you say" coming from Maniac...
What else am I about to witness here??