forum.webdiplomacy.net

webDip dev coordination forum / public access todo list
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:43 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:00 am
Posts: 44
Hi Churchill, thank you for the quick answer.
My comments in-between your answers.

Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
At the moment the D-Points work as ranking system (not based on skill, but they still provide a rank people feel motivated to climb), matching system (there is a post to games that makes impossible for a number of people to join) and address problem A. Contrarily, D-Points encourage multi-accounting, as a multi-accounter will have tangible advantages in doing so.

DipPoints are not an effective ranking system, which is why there's such a positive side to bringing ELO into the game. What the DP are good for is their original use, matching. DP serve their original purpose faultlessly. We shouldn't take points away, especially as the current inflation allows players to move higher and higher as newcomers and those who lose add to the pot.

I think you missed my point here. D-Points are effective in that they provide a rank AND most of the people seems gratified to climb that ladder. If you read the other threads and if you have followed the threads on the general forum, you should know that I am one of the strongest proponents of introducing an ELO-like system exactly because D-points do not give an indication of a player skill. I will not repeat myself here, but if you skim the threads you can explore more of what I mean.

Beside, I disagree from the fact that "DP serve their original purpose faultlessly". I think - again - they are a matching system (as they are a ranking one) but the fact is that the matches have little if nothing to do with players' skills. More on this further down.

Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
The ranking system should be a system that is "pondered" (in the mathematical sense), i.e. that gives the chance for all players to have the same chance to reach the top, regardless to the amount of games played or to the time since they have been enrolled in phpDip. D-points dramatically fail at this. I personally would use a ranking system based on skills (so that the best players are also the top players) but I would find acceptable to have a system based on something else, provided that all players would be given the same possibility to climb the ladder to the top.

Points can be accumulated if a new player plays well quite easily. This is a subtle strength of the inflation, as new points get added, they will never be scarce. ELO should still not be disabling, a measure such as a raw score floor of 60 might be introduced to ensure a player never regressed further than where they start. This would create an inflation in raw ELO, but since the idea is that no-one will see it, it will all be relative

Again, I am not sure my point got across. If you re-read my post you will see yourself as your answer is unrelated to the problem I raise. To keep it short I just make one example to explain my point better: assume there are two players who have exactly the same skill and play only games with a pot of 100. Statistics say, they should get - in average - the same amount of points per game. Now imagine a player plays two games per month, while another play only one. The first player will be much higher in the D-points ranks, although he has no real "merit" over the second. The same "injustice" would be introduced if the two players had the same number of games/month, but one had enrolled in the community in 2007 and one in 2008.

The problem is not scarcity of points, the problem is that whatever the D-points measure (a mixture of skill and ability to bet, at best), the ranks are not "pondered" and therefore are essentially useless for comparing players. This can be addressed quite easily though, for example: dividing the capital of D-points by the number of games played would already make the system fairer.

Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
The matching system should be strictly based on skills. This is based on my perception that players are gratified by winning games that challenged their skills, and are fair across the gameboard, rather than by games in which the final outcome is based by some players having had a dramatically quick expansion due to a totally inept player, and another player having been locked in-between two masters...

This is where points are good, as they allow a player to choose how much they'd like to wager. ELO serves the function of rewarding depending on opponent strength. Again the marriage of the two systems is by far ideal, as it will give rank incentive to play with the big-leaguers, but the pots can still be whatever the players choose.

I am confused here. Why do you think so? (Or maybe you got confused and wanted to mean the other way around?). D-points do not measure a player's skill, so why do you think that players matched by the amount of the bet would be good at "gratifying through challenging skills"?

Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
Preventing newcomers to flood games and then CDing can be achieved with "ad hoc" measures. In another post I presented a simple idea to implement, where the number of games one can join is determined by the number of games finished and by the number of games "CD'ed".

The phrase "Preventing newcomers" is never the start to a point we like around here. Although the spirit of your argument is the spirit behind points. Don't use ELO to match games (or have it as an option), continue to use points. If you want to make sure that someone has put some effort into a game before they join yours, make a game with an entry fee of 101.

LOL. Pure rhetoric here but if it is important for you I shall rephrase in "Supporting a system that will discourage new members of this honourable community to involuntarily making the mistake of joining a number of games beyond the amount they can actually follow". As for the concrete proposal about how to match players, I can happily live with the optional approach: the point for me is not to oblige people to do anything in particular, but to give the possibility to those players interested in challenging their skills to set up games with same-strength players.

Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
Discouraging people to perform multi accounting can also be achieved by "ad hoc" measures. One simple idea (to be explored) is to limit the percentage of games two player can play together. However if the ranking system would be based on skills, multi-accounting would bring little advantage, as repeatedly beating a "mock player with a low rank" would minimally increment the "real player" ranking score.

Again: bad. Don't prevent players from legitimate behavior of playing with someone else. We have IP checks, etc... that can be added to a list of suspicious behavior regulated by moderators. You are correct on the rank issue, except that the difference would have to be very large for the expected result to be >18 SC's; you're also forgetting that other player's rank could be in the mix.

I am not attached to the idea I threw in. It was just an example. IP checking and mods are in fact another form of "ad hoc" measure. I did not fully understand your point though: from "...except that the difference" onwards, it's obscure for me. Do you mind to rephrase?

Churchill wrote:
All in all you worries are quite valid. Most of your issues can be answered by keeping the points system around (which is my full suggestion).

It depends from what you mean by your sentence. If you imply that D-points answer my concerns, my answer is no, that's mathematically unsupported, in fact. If your sentence that my concerns can be answered without taking out the D-points from the system, my answer is yes, I do agree with you.

Churchill wrote:
I'd encourage an optional rank matching feature (both max and min), so that if Rait wants to play a 50DP game with fellow attachés (suggested example rank) he can, rather than putting his ELO rating at risk of a bunch of n00bs (of course he's likely to win against novices).

I very much disagree with this: a rank established on the base of the player's skill will become more and more accurate with the amount of games increasing over time, if a good player would have his rank decreased by playing with noobs there are only two chances: 1) The system is poorly designed/tuned 2) His previous rank was too much for his real skills.

The present ELO implementation needs a lot of tuning, indeed (we are in case 1, as pointed out in the other forum), but I am sure that the system can be brought to be more accurate with the interaction between various members of the forums.

The possibility to have "non-rated games" could however still be there, in order to allow for variants and custom games to be played without affecting the ranks.

Churchill wrote:
Some might say that this will create groups that players cannot earn themselves into, it's not a new problem. DP are no better, and we also have pasworded games, closed groups of experienced players have not been formed yet, so I'm sure they won't be formed in the predictable future.

Maybe, I never thought about that. I find this not to be a big problem though: indeed it is not necessary for a player to challenge the top-ranking colleagues to overtake them (neither with a skill-based ranking system like ELO, nor with D-points).

Looking forward for your clarifications on the few points I did not get! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 22
Wow... I'm confused where you don't understand what I'm saying.

DP -> great for matching
ELO -> great for ranking

That's why we need both!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:00 am
Posts: 44
Quote:
You are correct on the rank issue, except that the difference would have to be very large for the expected result to be >18 SC's; you're also forgetting that other player's rank could be in the mix.


This sentence is totally obscure to me.

Quote:
DP -> great for matching
ELO -> great for ranking
That's why we need both!


Whether I agree or not (in fact I don't, but this is irrelevant), the point is:
ELO -> even better for matching
ELO -> perfect for ranking on the base of players skills

So, while we can have the two system in parallel, we actually do not need the two of them.

PS: Anyhow, this is pure academy, as kestas - no later than 24 hours ago - confirmed that for him the discussion on ranking systems is closed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:24 am
Posts: 892
Even if it wasn't closed you're completely ignoring the thread which lists what a replacement system has to do, many of which conflict directly with what you say the Elo system should do, and ignoring my earlier post in this thread which lists problems with the ranking system. Why should I bother responding when my counter-points will be ignored?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 22
mac wrote:
PS: Anyhow, this is pure academy, as kestas - no later than 24 hours ago - confirmed that for him the discussion on ranking systems is closed.


Where?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:00 am
Posts: 44
Churchill wrote:
mac wrote:
PS: Anyhow, this is pure academy, as kestas - no later than 24 hours ago - confirmed that for him the discussion on ranking systems is closed.


Where?


Private Message, but he also stated that on public forum in the thread I opened time ago (and that is now gone).

@ Kestas. I will re-read your points later (now I am a bit tight in time), as I believed I addressed them all in the general forum, sorry if I missed some. Beside: don't take me wrong about recalling your position on the ranking system... I totally think that you are right in choosing where to invest your time and establishing priorities. If changing the rank system were really THAT important, somebody would have done a fork of phpDip... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group