oh hell

http://tinyur.net/PPSC

This is a pair of tables, giving the point yields as a proportion of the pot for PPSC vs the hybrid.

Here we see clearly how:
1. A draw is always better than the survival in the hybrid, you need to sacrifice alot of SCs to break it.
2. In standard PPSC, a big player is really damaging themselves by going for the draw.
3. The win is much more important in the hybrid.
4. In general, the hybrid rewards gaining centres and getting draws/wins, meaning that every player has something to go for, no matter how small they are, but that solo will get threatened.

http://tinyur.net/PPSCdif

This makes clearer that, in comparison the PPSC, big players letting wins happen are penalised, big players forming grand alliances are rewarded, and winners are rewarded.

Having small players in draws hit isn't really much of a change, because they are unimportant.

Note: I've not had the equal split in draw kept for the PPSC side of things in these, the effect of that is just to make everything the same within the draws, meaning that only the Survival and Win columns are interesting. They do not change because of it.

When I say "They are unimportant", I mean that they cannot run the game, and they are better off with the draw anyway, albeit by a smaller amount.

Sorry about the 6 posts in a row (now 7)

To add an eighth, I've just run WTA games only, and there aren't enough of them to make people's ratings sensible. I'd have to move up the variance big-time. In addition, being good at PPSC does indicate skill in WTA to a good degree, so it does make sense to use both.

"In addition, being good at PPSC does indicate skill in WTA to a good degree,"
I'm a lot worse in PPSC than WTA :P

I had suggested some changes to the way points are awarded in PPSC to try to compensate for the differences. I think what I had suggested was putting aside a part of the points and awarding them to the winner, but still including them in draws. So, if 1/7th of the points were taken out of the game, and only awarded to the winner, you could change the math some. Right now, if you have around 12 supply centers, you would rather lose than draw in both the points system or the ghostratings. If you take 2/7th of the points and put them aside, it changes the math. Then, to do as well as you would in a 3 way draw, it would take around 16. It kind of changes PPSC to be a little closer to WTA.

Problem is, as someone said above, I have played as if it were PPSC. In 2 games, I have lost and did better than I would have in a draw. So, no change like this could be done.

Tantris: That's the hybrid system, just with different proportions of WTA and PPSC.

I have never seen the hybrid system described, where is it? I looked through the posts, but then thought you were talking about something else.

Basically, half the pot is allocated according to PPSC, and half according to WTA.

ah, that makes sense. I picked it based on 7th's to make the math cleaner. Heh.

You can see some comparison between PPSC and WTA above.

PPSCWTA hybrid rather.

It would also increase the win, when you win, which I have always seen as a problem with PPSC. I like that idea, wish it had been in use for the time I had been playing.

Sadly, I didn't understand the tables, but I think I do now. The first column, labeled survival, is if someone wins. The others are for the number of people in a draw, I think. Though, you have 1 as one of the options. Guess the top is how many people are in the draw, or 1 if someone wins?

Ok, no, that can't be it, because then that would mean the hybrid awards draws by number of supply centers. Does it?

ok, it does...interesting. Finally found the description. Interestingly, I believe you could do ghostratings on a hybrid system as if it were WTA, because it doesn't actually encourage different behavior.

Survival means that you get a survive with somebody winning, 7,6,5,4,3,2 are if you are part of a 7,6,5,4,3,2 way draw. 1 is if you solo.

They hybrid can either award n-way draws by 0.5*(Supplycentres/34)+0.5/n
Or as 1/n.
I did the first in the tables because what the second way does is to make the draw columns identical, so we don't really need to be told that.

I'm inclined to say that the first way is better, myself.

RE Ghostratings, it still has a problem, because the reward differences are warped: even if you have the same sequence, people still have to weigh up risk in going for a solo with reward from it, and those decisions will change between hybrid and WTA.

ghost why is the WTA-only ghost rating system non-functional? I can imagine it will reduce the number of players who are included in the rating system down to the hundreds maybe even as low as 3 or 400 but that is still preferable to including thousands of players who have played only a few PPSC games.

if you already ran it, I'd love to see the results in some fashion, would that be possible?

that is - WTA-only games rating.

I would like that too.

very few people have played enough WTA games to make it give reasonable results with a small variance.

Can't find me... been up and down that damned list...?

I had to trim the bottom to reduce file size, and couldn't be bothered to upload page 2.

11640 obiwanobiwan 2575 40.64571695 28

Ghost - i'm still not getting it... are you saying that with so 'few' players having played even a single wta game its not worth it? i'd imagine the variance will get significant in the top-100 spots as there at least that many pleayers that have played 10+ WTA games just among the tournament/league/masters players right?

and really - thats all the WTA purists care about anyways ;-P

If you've only played about 10 games, that isn't going to give a realistic Ghost-Rating. Modelling suggests that a player with a G-Rating of 500 takes around 30-40 games to get to a realistic rating. Of course, people in the middle section (50-150) take a lot less.