As many have said... and IMHO: If GR points were deducted from the original players, the incentive to CD would be removed. The distribution of GR points at the end of the game is fine as is.

As someone who at least a few times a year misses deadlines for move inputs and CDs - I fully support this, and think it might be as effective in curbing intentional CDs as the RR drop (referring to double bet penalties and so on).

I can't think of a way to define what is accidental and what is intentional though so I think it would have to be adopted across the board for CDs - except maybe for < 24 hr cycle games. A couple of time I accidentally filled in on 12 and 14 hour cycle matches and CD'd as a result because I am a dumbass.

we really need to PUNISH quitters. It's become an epidemic. People routinely quit just before they actually lose. I see this in every game. CDs should count as a loss on your ghost rating, cost you TWICE your bet, anything to pummel quitters. Alternatively, we could reward people sticking it out to the end with a 20% refund of their bet for dying and not quitting. There should be severe consequences for quitting, worse than losing.

This thread got a little sideways on specific scoring issues, but to bring it back to the more interesting question of GR vs. Dip Points:

Maybe a simpler solution would be to just add the potential for game creators to use GR minimums/maximums win the "Advanced Settings"? Noob and/or expert games could be more accurately safeguarded in this way without asking anyone to give up the dip coin system that some seem to prefer.

It strikes me that the GR-bid system to enter a game is something that's already happening in the background right now. I guess it just makes people uncomfortable when the GR consequences of a game are explicit rather than just calculated in the background. I really don't have much sympathy for this position lol, I still strongly believe it would be better if people knew the exact GR consequences of a game rather than the Dip Coin consequences, but if the current system prevents riling people up I guess let them focus on their coins - I'll be looking at their GR ranking, not their dip point balance, to see if they're any good at the game.

Of course, GR can still be fixed up a bit (CDs count as losses + some elegant solution for CD-takeovers that is beyond me lol)

A while back I posted to Feedback/Bug Reports
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4831#p356479
to say that (for SoS I should have made clear):

https://webdiplomacy.net/ghostRatings.php states:
expectedScore = yourGR / sumOfEachPlayersGR

yet the code to be found at
https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomacy/blob/master/ghostratings/calculations.php
uses GRs SQUARED.

Just had to stop being lazy and actually read the FAQ lol: https://webdiplomacy.net/ghostRatings.php

Upon seeing this, I *think* the analysis above is actually right (i.e., after removing the erroneous 8)

Okay I think I bullied GPT into giving me the right answer lol, the 8 was erroneous and these new values make a lot more sense. That said, I'd still appreciate more info on how GR is calculated on WebDip in case this still suffers from some profound misundertandings - maybe I'm missing it, but extra info on GR is not where I'd expect to find it (e.g., https://webdiplomacy.net/points.php)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variables Explanation:
P_GR: The initial Ghost Rating of the player in question.
O_GR: The initial Ghost Rating of each other player.
n: Total number of players in the game (7 in classic Diplomacy).
d: Number of players surviving to the draw, including the player in question.
s: Number of supply centers controlled by the player in question at the end of the game.
S: Total supply centers in the game (34 in classic Diplomacy).

[b]General Formulas for GR Adjustments:
[/b]
Draw-Size Scoring (DSS):
GR Adjustment_DSS = ((P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR) / 17.5) * (1/d - P_GR / (P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR))

Sum-of-Squares (SoS):
GR Adjustment_SoS = ((P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR) / 17.5) * (s^2 / (s^2 + (S - s)^2 * (d - 1) / (n - 1)) - P_GR^2 / (P_GR^2 + (n - 1) * O_GR^2))

[b]Illustrative Scenarios:[/b]

[u]Four-way Draw, Player Has Fewer Centers (Player controls 4 centers):
[/u]P_GR O_GR DSS Adjustment SoS Adjustment
200 100 0.00 -1.29
100 100 4.29 0.56
50 100 6.43 1.06

[u]Solo Win by the Player (Player controls 18 centers for a solo win):
[/u]P_GR O_GR DSS Adjustment SoS Adjustment
200 100 34.29 42.86
100 100 34.29 39.18
50 100 34.29 36.92

[u]Two-way Draw, Player Has Half the Centers (Player controls 17 centers):
[/u]P_GR O_GR DSS Adjustment SoS Adjustment
200 100 11.43 36.33
100 100 14.29 33.47
50 100 15.71 31.62

[quote=echidna post_id=364734 time=1699663194 user_id=23680]
Ah, I may have inadvertently misled you. Since I was reporting only the case of six players each with equal ghost ratings of G, and a seventh with a ghost rating twice as much, 2G, I instantiated the "$grSum" in the code with 8G (1*2G + 6*1G).
In your formulae, you have both that factor of 8, AND the factor formed of sum of GRs "(P_GR + (n-1)*O_GR)".
A clue is if you look at your computed results, an SOS adjustment of over 200 if a 100 rated player solo'd a single SoS game against 6 other 100 rated players would result in that player's rating jump to 300 - wow!
[/quote]

I would love if there were some definitive formulae out there for this and some examples. Would be good to know how GR actually works here then lol.

Ah, I may have inadvertently misled you. Since I was reporting only the case of six players each with equal ghost ratings of G, and a seventh with a ghost rating twice as much, 2G, I instantiated the "$grSum" in the code with 8G (1*2G + 6*1G).
In your formulae, you have both that factor of 8, AND the factor formed of sum of GRs "(P_GR + (n-1)*O_GR)".
A clue is if you look at your computed results, an SOS adjustment of over 200 if a 100 rated player solo'd a single SoS game against 6 other 100 rated players would result in that player's rating jump to 300 - wow!

There could totally be an error, but I believe that the eight in the "(8 * (P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR)" term is the same as your "8G", it just allows for the player in question to have a different initial GR than their partners (though their partners' GR scores all have to be the same, = O_GR).

Nice! A possible correction - I think there is an unnecessary factor of 8 in both your adjustment formulae.

[quote=echidna post_id=364700 time=1699591385 user_id=23680]
A strange difference between the ghost rating adjustments of the scoring schemes:
In a classic game where 6 of the players have the same Ghost Rating (G, say), the seventh, player P, has a rating of 2G, and the game ends in a 2-way draw with one of the 6 and the other player P, with exactly 17 centers each, then it seems with Draw Size Scoring player P will get a larger ghost rating adjustment than with Sum of Squares scoring:
Based on how I THINK the code in https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomacy/blob/master/ghostratings/calculations.php works:
In DSS: P's ratingAdjustment = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 2G/8G) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 1/4) = 2G/17.5
In SoS: P's ratingAdjustment = 8G/17.5 * (17*17/(17*17 + 17*17) - 2G*2G/(6*G*G + 2G*2G)) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 4/10) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 2/5) = G/17.5
[/quote]

I have the intuition that it's harder to achieve this outcome in a DSS game than an SoS game, so it should provide a bigger GR uplift. Of course, a more experienced player / someone with access to game outcome data might be able to prove me wrong on this point.

I played around with the code in GPT and I think I have an accurate analysis of some of illustrative GR change examples, which are pasted in detail below the line.

In short, the GR consequences of a game vary a lot based on the scoring system used:
- To your earlier point, two-way draws in SoS are always better than in DSS.
- It is much better to just survive with just a few centres in a DSS game than in an SoS game.
- It can be a bit better to solo under SoS than DSS, but only if you're the underdog.

I think each of these disparities can be justified by the difficulty of achieving these outcomes given the incentives of each scoring system, but of course more experienced folks / real player data could definitely change my mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Variables Explanation:
[/b]P_GR: The initial Ghost Rating of the player in question.
O_GR: The initial Ghost Rating of each other player.
n: Total number of players in the game (7 in classic Diplomacy).
d: Number of players surviving to the draw, including the player in question.
s: Number of supply centers controlled by the player in question at the end of the game.
S: Total supply centers in the game (34 in classic Diplomacy).

[b]General Formulas for GR Adjustments:
[/b]
Draw-Size Scoring (DSS)
GR Adjustment_DSS = (8 * (P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR) / 17.5) * (1/d - P_GR / (P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR))

Sum-of-Squares (SoS)
GR Adjustment_SoS = (8 * (P_GR + (n - 1) * O_GR) / 17.5) * (s^2 / (s^2 + (S - s)^2 * (d - 1) / (n - 1)) - P_GR^2 / (P_GR^2 + (n - 1) * O_GR^2))

[b]Illustrative Scenarios:
[/b]
[u]Four-way Draw, Player Has Fewer Centers[/u] (Player controls 4 centers)

Assumption: Other players' centers are evenly distributed.
P_GR | O_GR | DSS Adjustment | SoS Adjustment
200 | 100 | 0.00 | -133.73
100 | 100 | 34.29 | -34.73
50 | 100 | 51.43 | -1.68

[u]Solo Win by the Player[/u] (Player controls 18 centers for a solo win)

Assumption: Remaining centers are evenly distributed among other players.
P_GR | O_GR | DSS Adjustment | SoS Adjustment
200 | 100 | 274.29 | 219.43
100 | 100 | 274.29 | 274.29
50 | 100 | 274.29 | 285.26

[u]Two-way Draw, Player Has Half the Centers[/u] (Player controls 17 centers)

Assumption: Player controls exactly half of the total centers.
P_GR | O_GR | DSS Adjustment | SoS Adjustment
200 | 100 | 91.43 | 167.18
100 | 100 | 114.29 | 228.57
50 | 100 | 125.71 | 242.81

A strange difference between the ghost rating adjustments of the scoring schemes:
In a classic game where 6 of the players have the same Ghost Rating (G, say), the seventh, player P, has a rating of 2G, and the game ends in a 2-way draw with one of the 6 and the other player P, with exactly 17 centers each, then it seems with Draw Size Scoring player P will get a larger ghost rating adjustment than with Sum of Squares scoring:
Based on how I THINK the code in https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomacy/blob/master/ghostratings/calculations.php works:
In DSS: P's ratingAdjustment = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 2G/8G) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 1/4) = 2G/17.5
In SoS: P's ratingAdjustment = 8G/17.5 * (17*17/(17*17 + 17*17) - 2G*2G/(6*G*G + 2G*2G)) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 4/10) = 8G/17.5 * (1/2 - 2/5) = G/17.5

[quote=tideshome post_id=364690 time=1699569569 user_id=23815]
One difference between the current points and GR is that if points go below 100 they are topped up so the player can carry on taking part in games. Would there be something similar to the GR if points were scrapped?
[/quote]

I'm sensing some confusion about what GR is and how it works.

We already have GR scores on this site. It's not an exhaustible resource like Dip Coins, it's a ranking system. Your bid would be proportional to how well you're ranked vis-a-vis your opponents. If there were a game open to all skills levels, then even the lowest-ranked player on the site could join.

One difference between the current points and GR is that if points go below 100 they are topped up so the player can carry on taking part in games. Would there be something similar to the GR if points were scrapped?

Well, if we're going to redo the scoring system, can I suggest that we take this moment to improve GR. I've written about it before:

https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=285

tldr of is currently [i]not[/i] done with GR but can be done with a new rating system:

1. Winning against stronger players is more beneficial than winning against weaker players

2. Losing against stronger players is less detrimental than losing against weaker players

3. Playing against new players on the site affects your rating less. New players are often much better or much worse than the initial rating they start with. You shouldn’t be penalized as much for losing to some pro who just joined the site but doesn’t have a high rating yet.

4. Your rating fluctuates more quickly in your first few games. Unfortunately, people don’t play a ton of Diplomacy games. That means that it takes quite a while for people to reach their “true rating.” GR2 allows for people to rise or drop to their true rating more quickly. This also alleviates some of the issues addressed in point (3).

Two things:
1. I would like to see the scoring system encourage playing for the win, not a draw. Negative points for 4, 5, 6 or 7 person draws. Say each game is worth 400 points for the win. A two way would give each 100, three way 35 each, negative after that. I find people here go for the draw just when the game is starting to get interesting. And the points would be adjusted for the average strength of players
2. You have to fix the dis-incentive for taking over CDs. In another thread, I was referenced as a ‘top 3’ in takeovers. My GR was 3,000 at the time of the last GR challenge. I am now 73,000! Yes, I lose a lot of games taking over poor positions. I am a top 50 player on another site, where I do care about points and rank. But there, you can take over a game and be immune from loss, one for each regular game you start. I will never have a good rating here.

[quote=kestasjk post_id=364609 time=1699432642 user_id=2]

One thing to be clear; if we made this change GR would lose multiple categories: There would just be a single category as there's just one points value per account (without making fairly extensive modifications), so just want to be clear on that in case people really value having multiple categories.
[/quote]

I'll just share my opinion that GR categories have a lot of value. The ongoing full press and gunboat GR Challenge games were organized using them. Even if it were a calculation that only appeared on the user profile, just like it is currently set up, having a gunboat or press specific rating available is very valuable.

I'm supportive of the other changes being discussed.

[quote=VonEconomo post_id=364622 time=1699455610 user_id=7603]
Sure, that'd be a bad press strategy, but it's one that I think would begin to exist.
[/quote]

That people will reference the point system in their press strategies seems unavoidable. Whether or not it actually makes any sense should determine if it affects the game, assuming the players know how to play.

[quote=VonEconomo post_id=364622 time=1699455610 user_id=7603]
If you give different people different stakes in the same game, those players with higher stakes will obviously have more on the line. If most games are usually populated by newer accounts anyway, what incentive is there for better players (not myself, obviously) to join games where they could only hope to stay relatively stable ratings-wise.
[/quote]

I strongly believe the stakes should be different in this case. WebDip would be better if it could stratify by skill more clearly. Extremely experienced players often join games with "noob" or "beginner" in the title even though it's clearly not meant for them. The current system can lock noobs out of some games with high Dip Point bid requirements, but it can't prevent experienced players from just dominating the newest player on the site. It's good when players of different skill levels mix to some extent (at least if the game's creator wants that), but right now there's no way to safeguard beginner-friendly games on the site.

Dominion.games, Chess.com, and basically every other competitive online game uses GR alone to match skill. Good players can still play with bad players, but that the skilled player is not heavily rewarded for beating someone with a much worse record than them is a feature, not a bug.

[quote="Esquire Bertissimmo" post_id=364626 time=1699457719 user_id=25229]
[quote=VonEconomo post_id=364622 time=1699455610 user_id=7603]
The size of the GR stake would likely become a point in negotiation, and this is not the case with the current system where each stake is equal. So, if points and GR become more similar (GR becomes more visible, used to bet, etc), then the main difference is that the bet size would become different between each player. I'm worried that it would affect games more than it should.
[/quote]

This seems unlikely to me. Once the pool is established there's no changing it. Every player has an incentive to score as much as possible once they enter the game regardless of the pool size or who contributed what. It would be a funny press strategy to try to say "I contributed more, therefore give me centres x, y, z" but it wouldn't actually make more sense than "cede the game to me, I'm a more experience player than you" would. No one who is any good at the game would indulge such a demand unless it were actually otherwise warranted by the state of the map.
[/quote]

I guess that makes sense, but I think that having a scoring system more complicated than it currently is may have adverse reactions on in game play. Sure, that'd be a bad press strategy, but it's one that I think would begin to exist. If you give different people different stakes in the same game, those players with higher stakes will obviously have more on the line. If most games are usually populated by newer accounts anyway, what incentive is there for better players (not myself, obviously) to join games where they could only hope to stay relatively stable ratings-wise.