Yes it will. Alderian is incorrect. If he always wins his rating goes up.

@Draug: no, gunboaters have more points (top 50 players) because there ARE more gunboaters. 1200 players in that list compared to the 400 int the full press list. So the dustribution curve is the same. the top player has 380 rating, and while the 160th has 100pts rating in WTAFP, the 480th has 100pts rating in gunboats, because there are 3 times as many players. That's that simple.

Roka - Its just that I think you can play a diversity of games and not have that affect your standing in the current overall ratings system. There's nothing to change. I go into an ancient med game expecting the same results I do when I enter a full press classic game, or a public press classic game. I think GR measures your ability at diplomacy, which is conveyable across all variants, thus, there is no punishment for trying out different things.

As for your example, there must be a reason in the calculation as for why Lando is behind jmo overall, but beats him in full press classic. If you go game by game, you'll be able to find it, but there must be a reason that isn't encompassed by the categorical rating.

Also, you surely haven't played a game with me then if your plan remained intact that far ahead haha

"IF" he always wins, but he doesn't And with a 3-way draw, if he plays noobs only he loses points.

Example, playing with 6 newbies
(380+6*100)*2/35 = 56 GR points at stake. (Split risks 21 pts.)

With a 3-way draw Split earns 18.6 pts. Meaning he loses GR with a 3-way draw. You are wrong. Alderian is right. And he hardly wins all the time.

goldfinger: the problem is, what you "beleive" and what that list does are two different things. Category GR does measure that, what you beleive, overall doesn't.

What do the two top players have? How abpt the top 10? And the reason thevlist is longer is because active players occassionally fall off the full press list do to a false imactivity (games take.months so someone in several games may fall off if none of them.end).

I said it could be played, not that it would be easy. And if he plays it as PPSC live gunboat, then he just helps some.noob to the win and stays a strong second every game.

There will reach a ppint where a draw or strong second doesn't account for enough points to cover what he contributed, but that is at roughly him having 600 GR in PPSC.

@Draug: if you were right (which you aren't) then why haven't Split's rating changed at all in the last 5 months? That's bullshit

About players falling off, those players fall off all across the distribution curve, resulting the top 10% (not top10) have the same GR average. You have to compare that fucking curve, not the top 10 players.

They fall off unequally though. Play one live game in a month and you stay on the list. Play one non-live game at a time and you will likely fall off because two consecutive months without a completed game results in removal.

And SD doesn't GR farm. That is why he hasn't grown so much.

But I still ask what the GR is of each leader in thosr two categories. If number of games played doesn't matter, then their GR should be statistically equal (a couple sigma different is all).

They are equal, I wrote it, both dejan, MM (in FP) and split (in GB) have 380 pts., live rating is at 460pts., president eden.

But the curve at the ends isn't good to watch, becuase it gets steep, a little movement makes big GR jump. If you compare the middle 50% (from bottom 25% till top 25% barrier) then it will be totally equal in all cetegories.

OK, so Live is statistically significantly higher, which actually *makes* my point. The more games equal caliber players play in relation to each other, the higher their GR.

In fact, MM and SD are better than Eden, yetr Eden has the higher GR because he plays so many games.

I don't care anymore. I'm tired. All I get back is why sg. I way is wrong instead of how to make it better, how to correct it.

It's useless. I'm just wasting my time. I consider this thread closed.

To be clear, if a player always plays newbies and always wins, that player's ranking will continue to go up and up and up. But they lose one game and they've lost the ranking they gained over many, many wins. And even a 3 way draw will lose them ranking. So theoretically a person could go up and up, but practically there is a plateau.

thank you Alderian for backing it up

He backed up what I said too. I said that it could be gamed. At the point where he the gaming player reaches 600 GR, then he shifts to playing games with 200 GR players. Then when he reaches 1200 GR, he shifts to the 400 GR players. As long as new fodder keeps feeding the ones below him and he has fresh fish, he can do that until he reaches the players who are his equal and he can't just push them around.

And if he could solo against noobs every time then he could keep growing with WTA no matter how many points of GR he had.

you cant shit to 200GR players, because there arent enough of them. You can hardly put together a game with 200GR average. Also those guys will have a 3-way draw with the 600GR guy, making him lose points. As Alderian said, it will plateau.

In practice, yes. In potential, no. And, as I pointed out. If he never loses in WTA, he will continue to grow forever as he will get everything everyone in the game contributed. So solo a WTA game with 6 100 point noobs and you go up about 35 GR points regardless of how many GR points you have.

Yes, but he CANT solo all the time, that's practically impossible, also if he draws when he is like at 1000 pts. GR then he will lose a shitload of points, which takes a hell lot of game to get back.

At 1000 pts. GR, you can earn 600*2/35= 34 GR pts., but with a single 3-way draw you lose 27 . At 2000 pts. GR you have to solo 2 out of 3 games to stay stable.

Eventually it will plateau.

A solution could be, the bigger the GR spread in a game is, the smaller the stake gets.

So if the game's GR average is 150, but there are 100pts. and 400pts. GR players in that game, than the stake should be lower, as there were players only from 120-180 pts. Basically this would punish you if you play out of your league (both way)

practically impossible =/= absolutely impossible.

@Alderian: what do you think about lowering GR stake of a game depending on players' points spread against GR average of the game.

So if a 300 pts. rated player joins a 150 pts. average GR rate game, the GR stake is smaller than if the highest rated player would have the rate of 200 pts. (closer to the average)

This would result GR will plateau if you try to harvest noobs, but wouldn't seriously affect "in your league" games.

Actually, making the game count the same, but adjusting the risk such that a player who plays below his skill contributes more of his GR than he would is he were in his league would make a lot of sense. It would encourage new but talented players to risk it with a group of experienced ones (more to gain) yet discourage farming by taking advantage of a group of noobs.

But first we need to fix the fact that take over positions suffer GR loss just for being nice.