Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Through the Ages» Forums » General

Subject: This Game needs a Rating System rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
I sincerely have no idea, why the app has not integrated a proper rating system like ELO.

People who try to host games are trying to midgiate the risk of running into a worthless game (stomp) by posting things like "lvl 20+" or similair, but one doesnt have to be the brightest bulb to realise that skill in the game doesnt actually scale well with lvls.

Arguments for a rating system:
- Strong tool in order to create balanced and intense games (this obviously is the biggest and most important point)
- Evaluate your own skill lvl without any room for doubt..
- .. and compare yourself and compete with the rest of the TTA world
- starting games and abandoning them (which isnt punished in any way at the moment)would be punished by losing rating
(it happened to me more than once that people, who start being hopelessly behind, just abandon the game, even with the rudeness of letting the timer run out)

Arguments against a rating system:
- Wherever there is a rating involved, people might get "salty" in games and tend to rude behaviour. (this is easily fixed be the block mechanic and the way the game handles abandons of games, + you allready have rude behaviour at the moment as mentioned above)

´
Obviously, people should be able to decide whether to play a ranked or unranked game. On finish id like to point out that when i bought the app, i was 100% certain a rating system would be included as it seems to be a fairly reasonable step in a skill based game like this. (Imagine a chess game/app without any rating and random opponent strength ninja )

(I just realised im in the wrong forum, i'm sorry. maybe it can be moved, it belongs to the app-forum)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Different ranking system based on player count?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
Pardon? i dont understand
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eudoxus wrote:
Pardon? i dont understand


sorry, I probably used too few words.

Do you agree that there should be a different rating system based on player count?

I feel playing a 2 player game is far different from a 3-4 player game. I also feel there are kingmaking type concerns in a multiplayer ranked game. I prefer multiplayer games that only award wins to 1st place (as I think the game works much better if you don't play for positions other than first).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
mfl134 wrote:
Eudoxus wrote:
Pardon? i dont understand


sorry, I probably used too few words.

Do you agree that there should be a different rating system based on player count?

I feel playing a 2 player game is far different from a 3-4 player game. I also feel there are kingmaking type concerns in a multiplayer ranked game. I prefer multiplayer games that only award wins to 1st place (as I think the game works much better if you don't play for positions other than first).


i definetely agree
2p games are vastly different to 3p/4p games
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eudoxus wrote:
mfl134 wrote:
Eudoxus wrote:
Pardon? i dont understand


sorry, I probably used too few words.

Do you agree that there should be a different rating system based on player count?

I feel playing a 2 player game is far different from a 3-4 player game. I also feel there are kingmaking type concerns in a multiplayer ranked game. I prefer multiplayer games that only award wins to 1st place (as I think the game works much better if you don't play for positions other than first).


i definetely agree
2p games are vastly different to 3p/4p games


I think these kinds of difficulties make establishing a system hard, which is why I wasn't expecting one. (though I like realtime playing, so I wasn't really looking for too much online play, though I'm sure I could find realtime opponents)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jablonovsky
Slovakia
flag msg tools
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi folks,

Thanks for your feedback!

We are actually considering adding an option to play Elo-ranked games in one of the future updates. We are trying to find a balanced system that would work in all types of online games while reflecting the higher uncertainity levels of 3p and 4p games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Unknown Might
msg tools
You can derive a bit of rating by looking at games finished and level
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Stumpp
Germany
flag msg tools
David4242 wrote:
We are trying to find a balanced system that would work in all types of online games while reflecting the higher uncertainity levels of 3p and 4p games.

Take the average ELO of your opponents for the calculation of the ELO-delta but when you lose divide that value by the number of opponents.

So for example a 4 player game could result in 1 player gaining 21 ELO and 3 players losing 7 ELO each. The balance is retained. No need for a seperate system depending on player-count.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xilmi wrote:
David4242 wrote:
We are trying to find a balanced system that would work in all types of online games while reflecting the higher uncertainity levels of 3p and 4p games.

Take the average ELO of your opponents for the calculation of the ELO-delta but when you lose divide that value by the number of opponents.

So for example a 4 player game could result in 1 player gaining 21 ELO and 3 players losing 7 ELO each. The balance is retained. No need for a seperate system depending on player-count.


Why would you necessarily lose points for coming in 2nd place in a 4-player game? What if players in 3rd and 4th place were ranked much higher than you?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could look at the way the AREA rating system handles multi-player games. They have games that have "winner takes all" formats, and other games that have "race" formats, where you lose points to everyone who finished ahead of you and gain points from everyone who finished behind you (all of course modified by difference in ratings.)

https://area.kww.us/area/calcexp.html#_
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
In fact, the only really reasonable system meta game wise (especially on war/forfeit mechanic) is a race for places, not for first place. Especially regarding wars and the forfeit mechanic, only a race for places would provide reasonable decision making options.

Still, the fact that in 3p/4p games poeple have kingmaking options (like not upgrading their military when a war is waged against them), provides enough reason for a seperated rating system for 1on1 and 3p/4p games.

There still could be a combined rating alongside these 2, why not. In the end, these ratings will globally be pretty much dependant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eudoxus wrote:
In fact, the only really reasonable system meta game wise (especially on war/forfeit mechanic) is a race for places, not for first place. Especially regarding wars and the forfeit mechanic, only a race for places would provide reasonable decision making options.

Still, the fact that in 3p/4p games poeple have kingmaking options (like not upgrading their military when a war is waged against them), provides enough reason for a seperated rating system for 1on1 and 3p/4p games.

There still could be a combined rating alongside these 2, why not. In the end, these ratings will globally be pretty much dependant.


I'd argue that playing for places results in a different game altogether. Racing for places would provide you the chance to make a decision to stop playing for 1st place to lock up 2nd place.

IMO, that is a bad thing. If you don't think you can win, you should try some form of hail mary to win. (And of course there will be times where you can't win either way, in which case people can play as they want (if that happens to be for 2nd place, go for it.)

Whatever rankings exist should have the first goal of not doing anything to change how the game is played. (though I'm sure plenty could argue if the goal is to win or place the highest )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfl134 wrote:
though I'm sure plenty could argue if the goal is to win or place the highest

To make it concrete, we can ask "would you rather have a win and two 3rds, or three 2nds?"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xilmi wrote:
Take the average ELO of your opponents for the calculation of the ELO-delta but when you lose divide that value by the number of opponents.

So for example a 4 player game could result in 1 player gaining 21 ELO and 3 players losing 7 ELO each. The balance is retained. No need for a seperate system depending on player-count.

I think this isn't right. Suppose that in the 4-player game, there are 3 players rated 2000 and 1 player rated 1000. One of the 2000-rated players wins. Under the approach you propose, all of the losers will lose the same number of points, but in practice the 1000-rated player should lose a lot less (in fact, they should lose almost nothing, given that all of their opponents were 1000 points higher than they were.)

What the AREA system does if it's the "winner take all" format is compute what the point changes would be if each loser had lost a 2-player game to the winner (getting three separate sets of adjustments,) and then divides each of those adjustments by the number of losers (in the example, by 3.)

So, to take an example from AREA (and I'm not saying the details of AREA are important,) in a 2-player game with a player rated 2000, a winner rated 2000 would gain 100 points and the loser would lose 100 points. But against a loser rated 1000, the winner would only gain 50 points, and the loser would lose only 50 points. So the losers rated 2000 would lose 100/3 = 33 points, and the loser rated 1000 would lose 50/3 = 17 points. The winner would gain 33 + 33 + 17 = 83 points.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Stumpp
Germany
flag msg tools
Eric Brosius wrote:

I think this isn't right. Suppose that in the 4-player game, there are 3 players rated 2000 and 1 player rated 1000. One of the 2000-rated players wins. Under the approach you propose, all of the losers will lose the same number of points, but in practice the 1000-rated player should lose a lot less (in fact, they should lose almost nothing, given that all of their opponents were 1000 points higher than they were.)

What the AREA system does if it's the "winner take all" format is compute what the point changes would be if each loser had lost a 2-player game to the winner (getting three separate sets of adjustments,) and then divides each of those adjustments by the number of losers (in the example, by 3.)

So, to take an example from AREA (and I'm not saying the details of AREA are important,) in a 2-player game with a player rated 2000, a winner rated 2000 would gain 100 points and the loser would lose 100 points. But against a loser rated 1000, the winner would only gain 50 points, and the loser would lose only 50 points. So the losers rated 2000 would lose 100/3 = 33 points, and the loser rated 1000 would lose 50/3 = 17 points. The winner would gain 33 + 33 + 17 = 83 points.

I agree. This sounds more sophisticated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
mfl134 wrote:
Eudoxus wrote:
In fact, the only really reasonable system meta game wise (especially on war/forfeit mechanic) is a race for places, not for first place. Especially regarding wars and the forfeit mechanic, only a race for places would provide reasonable decision making options.

Still, the fact that in 3p/4p games poeple have kingmaking options (like not upgrading their military when a war is waged against them), provides enough reason for a seperated rating system for 1on1 and 3p/4p games.

There still could be a combined rating alongside these 2, why not. In the end, these ratings will globally be pretty much dependant.


I'd argue that playing for places results in a different game altogether. Racing for places would provide you the chance to make a decision to stop playing for 1st place to lock up 2nd place.

IMO, that is a bad thing. If you don't think you can win, you should try some form of hail mary to win. (And of course there will be times where you can't win either way, in which case people can play as they want (if that happens to be for 2nd place, go for it.)

Whatever rankings exist should have the first goal of not doing anything to change how the game is played. (though I'm sure plenty could argue if the goal is to win or place the highest )


Okay lets try to break this down.
Offcourse, the first goal of every player is to win the game, this is obvious. So you only have to evaluate possible behaviours when it is (almost) certain that you cant win. I say (almost) because it is not easy to be very certain of a possible game outcome a few turns before the end of the game, but if it is 'almost' certain (lets say99%), it should induce the different game goal for the player.

Now we can ask ourselves what this goal should be.
Quote:
If you don't think you can win, you should try some form of hail mary to win.

What does that mean? If theres a chance to win, you go for it. I cant imagine many cases where trying to go for the win will make it less likely to place 2nd. If theres a possibilty for that, you should weigh the chances for yourself, but i really find it unlikely.

Quote:
(And of course there will be times where you can't win either way, in which case people can play as they want


If poeple play "as they want", that could also include making someone else win/lose for random reasons. Thats why i say, in this case only a race for places makes sense meta game wise, in a sense that everyone in the game can make decent decisions.
If you run into an an (almost) certain last place, you have to forfeit. Thats what you would do in a 1on1 game as well.

Lets try to give an example: Imagine a close 3p game. A few turns before the end, everyone has decent chances to win.

Lets say player 1 declares a war on player 2. PLayer 2 finds himself in the situation, that he cannot defend against this war, i.e. he will end last place because of this war (almost) certainly.
If he continues playing "as he wants", for example to maximise his own culture at the end of the game, he will make 1 of the other 2 players win, in this case:
-Building as much military as he can (while still losing the war) will almost certainly make player 3 win (because this player can maximize culture while 2 other players fight an almost pointless war).
-Not building any military and maximizing his own culture points (for pointless reasons, since he will end last anyway) will allmost certainly make player 1 win because of the war.

It makes no sense that a player has the power to decide the winner for random reasons. If he loses, he has to forfeit. And now the crucial argument: Since player 1 knows that player 2 will (almost) definetely lose , he will have to think twice before declaring the war. Is his political action worth the 7 culture he will win from the forfeiting player? Is declaring this war really the play that maximises his own chances to win?
Probably not. 7 culture gain against player 3 for one political action sounds undecent.
So, only this approach places decisions like declaring wars (but also weighing military against culture in the first place) on a reasonable base, everything else seems to be completely random.

Offcourse, any given player group can handle this as they want.
But if you try to create a decent rating for 3p/4p games, you need to chose a way that creates the most reasonable meta game. Only giving the winner points certainly doesnt do this.
Probably, it has to be something like: players win/lose rating based on places directly compared to opponents (2nd loses a 1on1 against 1st, but wins a '1on1' against 3rd and 4th) with some extra weighing of first place (first place gains some flat extra % elo)

Yeah, i had some spare time, sorry for the wall of text

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eudoxus wrote:

Quote:
If you don't think you can win, you should try some form of hail mary to win.

What does that mean? If theres a chance to win, you go for it. I cant imagine many cases where trying to go for the win will make it less likely to place 2nd. If theres a possibilty for that, you should weigh the chances for yourself, but i really find it unlikely.


If I want to go for 2nd place, I'm going to focus on culture production. If I want to go for 1st place I'm going to focus on military for the goal of big swings in culture from 1st place.

If I know I can't win, sure, this discussion is trivial.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfl134 wrote:
Eudoxus wrote:

Quote:
If you don't think you can win, you should try some form of hail mary to win.

What does that mean? If theres a chance to win, you go for it. I cant imagine many cases where trying to go for the win will make it less likely to place 2nd. If theres a possibilty for that, you should weigh the chances for yourself, but i really find it unlikely.


If I want to go for 2nd place, I'm going to focus on culture production. If I want to go for 1st place I'm going to focus on military for the goal of big swings in culture from 1st place.

If I know I can't win, sure, this discussion is trivial.


In some cases it can be the flip where i'm going to focus on culture production and ignore military and hope I avoid wars/aggression. (this will be the option when I'm nowhere near a military powerhouse)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eudoxus wrote:

Quote:
(And of course there will be times where you can't win either way, in which case people can play as they want


If poeple play "as they want", that could also include making someone else win/lose for random reasons. Thats why i say, in this case only a race for places makes sense meta game wise, in a sense that everyone in the game can make decent decisions.
If you run into an an (almost) certain last place, you have to forfeit. Thats what you would do in a 1on1 game as well.

Lets try to give an example: Imagine a close 3p game. A few turns before the end, everyone has decent chances to win.

Lets say player 1 declares a war on player 2. PLayer 2 finds himself in the situation, that he cannot defend against this war, i.e. he will end last place because of this war (almost) certainly.
If he continues playing "as he wants", for example to maximise his own culture at the end of the game, he will make 1 of the other 2 players win, in this case:
-Building as much military as he can (while still losing the war) will almost certainly make player 3 win (because this player can maximize culture while 2 other players fight an almost pointless war).
-Not building any military and maximizing his own culture points (for pointless reasons, since he will end last anyway) will allmost certainly make player 1 win because of the war.

It makes no sense that a player has the power to decide the winner for random reasons. If he loses, he has to forfeit. And now the crucial argument: Since player 1 knows that player 2 will (almost) definetely lose , he will have to think twice before declaring the war. Is his political action worth the 7 culture he will win from the forfeiting player? Is declaring this war really the play that maximises his own chances to win?
Probably not. 7 culture gain against player 3 for one political action sounds undecent.
So, only this approach places decisions like declaring wars (but also weighing military against culture in the first place) on a reasonable base, everything else seems to be completely random.

Offcourse, any given player group can handle this as they want.
But if you try to create a decent rating for 3p/4p games, you need to chose a way that creates the most reasonable meta game. Only giving the winner points certainly doesnt do this.


I disagree what a reasonable meta game is. I also think for the most part these changes will effect the game more than just these trivial scenarios when a person knows they can't win. One problem with most discussions about "playing for something other than winning" is people often have timing issues with when they realize they can't win. So people will make suboptimal (if the goal is to win) even when they still can win.

Figure out how to win the game. That should be your goal. All players will handle the "no win" situations differently. Navigate that. Learn how people behave, it surely isn't random. If you declare war on me late in the game and that war is going to assure my defeat and secure your victory, you can be assured that I will withdraw causing us both to lose. You can be sure some people will never use the withdraw option. Individual people approach it in different ways, that doesn't make it random.

Secondary goals just cloud that first goal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
msg tools
mb
Quote:
I also think for the most part these changes will effect the game more than just these trivial scenarios when a person knows they can't win. One problem with most discussions about "playing for something other than winning" is people often have timing issues with when they realize they can't win. So people will make suboptimal (if the goal is to win) even when they still can win.


I am not talking about changes, only about what a reasonable rating system for multiplayer should be like and the meta game that a rating system can induce. Again, a rating that would only reward a first place would lead to people being able to make random kingmaker moves without any consecquence for themselves.

Still, you are right in saying that people will be bad at deciding whether they are still able to win or not. But this doesnt matter. I am not talking about ginving a specific rule for these kind of situations. People will play as they want, your are right, and offcourse they should be allowed to. I am saying:
IF the rating is done correctly it INDUCES that the race for places is the optimal choice of action in specific (described) situations (rather than random personal preference), which then induces that people who follow this kind of behaviour will have a higher rating, which induces that the higher the rating you have, the more likely you will find yourself in games where people act accordingly (and also can judge their own chances of victory more precisely).

Offcourse, there is a lot of situations where even a really good player cannot judge correctly whether he still can win or not. Thats why i allways wrote (almost) certainly. But offcourse i would allways give myself the benefit of doubt: if i see any small chance, ill play. Thats kinda obvious.

Quote:
Individual people approach it in different ways, that doesn't make it random.


How is that not the definition of random behaviour
If someones approach is to disband every military unit to honour the guy who gave him defeat, wouldnt you call that a little random in regard to the other player(s)? For himself, it wouldnt make any difference rating wise, if rating wasnt place-based.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is certainly not random. Very few players roll a die to decide what to do in these cases. What it may be is unpredictable if you don't know much about the player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.