Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans
-
@trojanrabbit said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
@Babbuc49 said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
@trojanrabbit Sorry but I really don't get your second point, why should you gain more ELO when winning in lower player counts? since it's a lot harder to win a 4p game than a 2p it seems to me more fair the other way around, also that would incentivize even more what i said above about people only playing 2p games against weaker opponents just to skyrocket their ELO
What I mean is that when you treat the Elo gains from a 4p game as 6 separate matches between all possible pairs of opponents, you should modify the K value to be slightly smaller. If you keep K the same then you'll gain 3x for winning a 4p game since you'll gain against each of your opponents. I've actually done a lot of research in this area and studied multiplayer ranking systems a lot. If K is 60 for 2p games, then it should be about 45 in 3p and 35 for 4p. For example, if everyone was evenly matched, you would gain 30 Elo points from winning a 2p game, 45 for winning 3p, and 53 for winning 4p. If you don't reduce the K you would get 30/60/90 which overvalues 4p games.
Usually 4P games are treated like a 2P game against an average ELO of your opponents, so there's no need to apply different K or repeat Elo formulas multiple times for multiplayer games.
Anyway, no matter which system you use you should enforce activity for top rated players or they will no longer be motivated to play games in order to risk losing Elo. So you should decrement Elo of players with rating above a certain number if they don't finish a game within X days/months.
-
If the activity problem does come up, we can use a "decay" mechanism: displayed ELO in profile / ranking is reduced by X% depending on lack of recent activity, but the underlying ELO (used in formulas) would not be decreased.
The decay would be completely removed after a few games
-
I'm not sure how fair it is to drop someone's ELO for inactivity, I mean there are reasons that may cause someone to stay away from the game for some time other than just wanting to sit on top of the ranking ( also it would mean that that someone will stop playing a game he/she really likes just for that reason which seems a bit weird).
Anyway ELO ranking is very volatile by nature, so I still think that the most rewarding thing for competitive players would be to organize tournaments!
-
@Babbuc49 said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
I'm not sure how fair it is to drop someone's ELO for inactivity, I mean there are reasons that may cause someone to stay away from the game for some time other than just wanting to sit on top of the ranking ( also it would mean that that someone will stop playing a game he/she really likes just for that reason which seems a bit weird).
Anyway ELO ranking is very volatile by nature, so I still think that the most rewarding thing for competitive players would be to organize tournaments!
I agree with @Babbuc49 on this.
Also, I think many of the proposals that @Robert-Shepherd was making are worth considering. Separate rankings for 4/3/2p games, and a ranking that takes into account the final position (1st, 2nd, etc.).
-
@zuli said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
@El-Temblo : you are not abusing. We love to hear your feedback, suggestions, and ideas!
Could you please elaborate more on groups?Well, thanks; I'm not a true expert on clans and such, but a simple system to create and join teams would be fun (stuff like displaying [your team name] in square brackets before your nick, your know); there could be a parallel ranking for clans, nothing too complicated, a simple sum of all ELOs or an average, or whatever you want. Most important, this opens the way to a loto of different possibilities for the future.
-
I'd listen to trojanrabbit on ELO stuff 100%.
-
My only doubt is, if you have a single ranking which makes no distinction between 2/3/4p games, isn't it automatic that somebody who really likes 2p games and plays a lot of those will get a higher ELO? (simply because, on average, you should have a win ratio of around 50% when playing 2p).
-
@Molfo said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
My only doubt is, if you have a single ranking which makes no distinction between 2/3/4p games, isn't it automatic that somebody who really likes 2p games and plays a lot of those will get a higher ELO? (simply because, on average, you should have a win ratio of around 50% when playing 2p).
Not necessarily, the values W and p(D) in the formula Zuli posted are usually adjusted accordingly to the number of players at the table.
-
What do you think about option for players to add the description of the game? For example:
'please - don't join if you make only 1-3 moves per day'
'only Friday and Monday - speed live game'
etc...I know, is not a perfect concep... But some persons don't want play with players who make 1 move / day.
-
@ariallito : Do you think that the time settings are not enough to understand your commitment to the game?
-
@zuli Thanks for reply. Right, it's enough. For you, for me... but not for all.
Peoples use their telephones, they have 'online' status... and nothing. Maybe the "description" will help them to understand that this is just a game, not a date with Rihanna. -
@ariallito :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
-
@trojanrabbit Do you have a more generic formula, for games with 5, 6, ... 10 players?
Maybe something like K = K * 3 / (N + 1), where N is the number of players? That would give the winner a global K of K * 3 * (N - 1) / (N + 1), tending towards a max of 3 times the elo gain. (It fits with your example: 60 for 2p -> 45 for 3p -> 36 for 4p).
-
@coyotte508 said in Auction, Player Status, other changes & Plans:
@trojanrabbit Do you have a more generic formula, for games with 5, 6, ... 10 players?
Maybe something like K = K * 3 / (N + 1), where N is the number of players? That would give the winner a global K of K * 3 * (N - 1) / (N + 1), tending towards a max of 3 times the elo gain. (It fits with your example: 60 for 2p -> 45 for 3p -> 36 for 4p).
Yes, that is the formula I use. It's a pretty good fit up to 5 players. Haven't done experiments with more than that.
