@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.

Yep, it was the PI power kicking in.

@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.

My opinions on Elo:

• There should be one value, not separated by player count. Separating it will mean lower game counts in each category and so values will be less accurate/useful
• K value should be smaller at higher player counts (you should gain more for winning 3 2-player games than 1 4-player game)
• It should not take score difference into consideration (much easier to abuse, some setups and player counts naturally give higher overall scores than others). Also, auctions might cause bigger swings if people are bad at judging value.
• I think it's ok to have it for both auctions and not. Everyone's on equal footing in both types, so there's no reason your skill rank would be skewed in one case.

For live play, I think you would want something like 5min + 1min/move. Or maybe 30sec. Otherwise games will take longer than playing in person, which is what you want to avoid.

I was thinking about this, but because of the strategy of timing your federation forming, I think there will be several times that you don't want an automatic acceptance. It's not exactly like TM where accepting power was the default good play. I think we could make the brainstone movement automated (why wouldn't you want to advance it if possible?) but auto accepting as a default option has drawbacks. Maybe you might use it for the first few rounds, but after that I think I'd always want to review my situation.

Like the new look on desktop. There are still lots of display issues on mobile- player boards sometimes don’t display completely and top banner is partially hidden, etc.