From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Rating systems.
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:29:18 GMT

In article <Sep.14.20.31.15.1992.15063@dropout.rutgers.edu>, mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) writes:
> 
> 	fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu (James Zuelow) writes:
> 	You get more points for beating someone above you in ability
> 	level, less for eating up fodder. i.e. i beat up, say,
> 	Langerhans in a war.  i get bunches and bunches of points,
> 	because i've beaten a superior opponent.
> 
> ... hmmm... well, I'm not so sure that scheme will actually work well,
> since who gets points if three players gang up on a fourth, regardless
> of rankings?  What if I beat on someone for 3 days, and then someone
> else comes along and administers the coup de grace in 20 minutes?
> (Your examples are also quite valid.)  The reason I put forward the
> first/second/etc placings as criteria is that it evades (hey, I'm
> honest! :-) all that.  In the short term, your way would probably be
> better (though very difficult to administer), but in the long run,
> both would give a rough ranking of a player's ability.
> 
 
OK, how about this:
 
 You get x many points for being at y position on the power charts at the end
of the game.  (but then, define `End of Game'.)   If rankings are kept and
archived, one could then multiply x by a multiplier (z) according to the average
ranking of the players that started the game.  For example, a game like the
slow Alaska game i'm in now.  Some people might remember Voor, but all the
other names are new exept Otterland and Stewart Hall.  None of us profess to be
any good. So z=.75 or so.  On the other hand, you get Redline, Ultima, Afrika
Korps, etc. etc.  Then z=2.75 (or higher).
 
This is much easier figuring of points at the end of a game, without
worrying about multiple kills or coup-de-grace kills.  And it also allows for
figuring in the quality of your opposition. (important for me)

> 	1) setting up rules for points, agreed on by everyone that
> 	wanted to be ranked.
> 
> ... quite.  The implication that people who don't want to be ranked
> aren't is a very good point (perhaps a valid ranking would be
> 'unranked', as in "I don't need no steenking points").  Those who
> wish to not be ranked would not be penalized.
> 
There would have to be some mechanism for ``ranking'' significant players who
could affect game outcomes, but chose not to be ranked.  If i beat Redline into
a pulp, but he chose not to be ranked, i wouldn't be happy with my
accomplishment not being `official'.  (but then again, i wouldn't want to call
my obvious cheating to attention either...)

>     The "ranking board" would be required only to sanction a
> game as a "ranking points game".   That's all they would do.
> 
>     The deities would only have to submit a list of players to the
> ranking board (or maybe just a number of players -- what criteria
> sanctioning would require would be a matter of discussion, with the
> "ranking board" making decisions.  At the end point of the game
> (determined, just like always, by the deity, or the players, with the
> deity concurring), the power chart is shipped off to "records hall",
> and points awarded.
> 	
>     The players just play, bless 'em.
> 
good 'nuf for me.  :)  'xept i think there needs to be a definate end of game
rule.  Otherwise you'll always have someone saying that if you had just waited
two more updates...

> 
> 	3) archiving everyone's current ranking, and updating the
> 	archives.  You would need someone completely `neutral'- (a non
> 	player?).
> 
> ... I'm willing to play this role, though I am not willing to give up
> playing Empire to do it.  I may flatter myself that I don't have too
> much of an ego (in Empire, anyay :-), certainly I would welcome
> someone else doing it, rather than myself.  I can also provide an ftp
> area for retreiving the rankings and game-results.
> 
> 
> 	probably never happen.
> 
> ...probably you're right, but I'd like to see it get a shot...
> 
it's workable, it just needs to get accepted by a big enough audience.  A few
technical points to work out first, then put it up.  As soon as someone could
post that they are the ``official'' best Empire player, the Ego demonstrated in
the past few days would probably force people to get ranked.  (gotta prove that
upstart he's wrong, right?)  :)


> Charles

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
(if we post it, it will come?)