I think its total BS. I spent half my diplomacy career playing PPSC games thinking it was actually PPSC. I took survives because it made sense to do so, and you can't punish me for doing it now.

I hear what you are saying Centurian, and I can see where you are coming from. But I think this idea has merit.
Points have nothing to do with the rules of diplomacy. PPSC or WTA it is still the same game. The different cultures of the two scoring systems is unintended consequence. In the rules of diplomacy all you have is Win, Draw or Lose. That's all GhostRatings need to measure.
Points are just method for helping players find games with other players at their level, and a way of encouraging players not to join to many games. We do not have to view points as a measure of a players success. If we do want a measure then we have GhostRatings.

I like the idea. It's more aligned with the spirit of the game.

I have to agree with Centurian. Secondly spyman, this is online Diplomacy and PPSC is popular among many players. This means that the Ghost Rating should measure your ability in ALL your games. I have to disgree with you that PPSC is not real diplomacy. It may be a variant but it is still Diplomacy in my eyes. No matter how you try and percieve the differences of both types (PPSC and WTA) they are miniscule.

Pre-WTA and Pre-points PPSC games are another kettle of fish, too

Wow, what's up with my English today? Perhaps that was a bit confusing....

What people forget is don't play for points but stats my game style is the same regardless.
Try and win
if that fails try and draw
if that fails try and survive...

@spyman, I'm sorry but its not a fair way to rate people, because people who play more PPSC are rewarded for the easier wins that they get from it, while others who take strong survives are punished.
You can't expect people to follow you "right" way to play, when the reward system of points encourages a different style of play.
If you want to make this, the make a list that ignores all PPSC games.

When I first started there were no ghost ratings. Points were, or atleast I thought they were, the measure of success.

If you want to do a WTA rating system then you should measure how people do in just WTA games.

The fact of the matter is, I made perfectly rational choices in my playing career, and according to this rating system that makes me a much worse player. Much worse than players I'm in reality even with, but since they haven't been around as long as I have they benefit from this ranking. If the list doesn't properly reflect diplomacy skill then its not truly a rating system.

"easier wins that they get from it"

Easier because the GR are lower?

Oh and yeah, thanks Dave.

If you want to succeed using this system you should play *all* ppsc games. Because its alot easier to win those games, but you get the same pay out as the much more difficult wta games.

"people who play more PPSC are rewarded for the easier wins that they get from it"

Can you please tell me how PPSC games are easier to play other than points wise? I see the difficulty as the same in both types.....

Wins are easier when they don't preclude others from doing well, Acosmist, ie in PPSC.

Its a) alot easier to convince people to help you win in ppsc b) alot harder to convince people to coalition against a leader in ppsc.

WTA results in much less wins.

"Wins are easier when they don't preclude others from doing well, Acosmist, ie in PPSC."

That assumes people with the same GR will take PPSC solos less seriously...is that empirically justified? I know I can barely muster the energy to give a damn about points.

I repeat my statement from the earlier thread on this basic subject - if you want to fold, spindle, and mutilate the numbers in a way that is pleasing to you, by all means go ahead. I don't care one way or another if you have another algorithm, nor do I exceptionally care how I place on it. As long as you are not asking someone else to do the work for you, and as long as you don't think your new numbers obligates me to play in a way that is more pleasing for *you* than for me, more power.

I've always felt people who care more about their rankings - be that points or Ghostratings or the whispering of the voices in your head - than the games in front of them are doing themselves a disservice, and I'm not going to shift the way I play just because someone feels they are 31337 due to some ranking system.

I will take great joy, as I always do, in exploiting any weakness, and if people are going to behave more predictably due to a new set of metrics, that just works in *my* favor.

Thanks for clarifying, Centurian....

This is my point though, when it comes to *measuring* games, forget PPSC or WTA - the game is Diplomacy. Regardless of which point scoring system you are using the goal of the game is the same: you play to win.
I am not advocating getting rid of PPSC, I am just think we should reevaluate what the points system means to us. I don't think it should be thought of as a measure of success. It's just a method for helping players find games with other players.
The main benefit of using this one algorithm system is it will help create a consistent game culture on this site. At the moment it is a bit confusing. Some players play PPSC games and actively play to come second, while others play PPSC but are more true to the original idea of the game - that is they play to win, and if they can't win they play to draw. This cognitive dissonance between players is often the source of much tension.
I can understand why players want to play PPSC - to conserve points. Fair enough you might want to save them for a big game. But we should let the points system distort the true spirit of the game. The GhostRatings helps it to stay on track.

stratagos +1

Gosh quite a few posts appeared when I was typing that. I was replying to StevenC.

Acosmist, there is a difference now, though when WTA first started, there wasn't. The WTA mentality developed quite alot. Tournament games have influenced the high draw WTA culture too, by putting together top players who don't make mistakes.

Spyman, I agree with you. You should play to win. But when the only scoring system I knew encouraged doing something else, then you need to consider that. This system measures players motivations, not their skill level.

RE my previous post, I did a study into it a while back, and the data did fit my description.

Yeah, Ghost. It wasn't always like this back in the day when the win was everything. But that culture has come through recently.

If we just based everything on stats and GR and threw out points none of this would happen...

"But we should let the points system distort the true spirit of the game. The GhostRatings helps it to stay on track."

But, what this site doesn't need is two different rankings (WTA and PPSC/WTA) that tries to measure only your WTA games and PPSC games separately. It just makes things more confusing. This site has BOTH types and one unified ranking makes everything simpler and measures how well you are doing with ALL of your games.

We're exploring ideas here. That's all. I've put forward my thoughts, and I am taking in the alternative points of view, and granted some valid points have been made.

Now, I'm not saying this game isn't played to win because it is. But, all this slander of PPSC has created too much of a debate over little differences.....

except points still prove a very useful limiting mechanism when it comes to allowing those who have proved their mettle from being forced into games with those who have not. It does a disservice both to the vets - who get bored with beating on easy targets - and the newbies - who get bored with always losing