Kestas, the reason that the dpoints acheive what they do is because of the illusion that they are a good indicator of ability.
Basically, the reason it remedies things is because people loose points for loosing games or going into CD.
I shall talk about ELO and the various requirements you make:
- Seperate civil disorder players from players who rarely go into civil disorder
In Elo Civil disorder counts, just as in this system, as a loss, so there is the incentive not to.
- Allow players of more skill to play with each other and exclude players of lesser skill
You need to just have a way of allowing people to set outer limits on the skill levels in a game. This is what the league system is for.
- Allow players to choose between playing many insignificant games, or few big games
There is no point inflation in Elo rating, so even if you play relatively few games, after you have done enough to be "registered" on either system, you wouldn't be penalised for not playing enough games to keep up with everyone else.
- Don't allow a group of players to gain points just by playing amongst themselves
Elo has no inflation. If you develop a closed economy, there is no way for it to gain points.
- Provide a way to rank players
This is, of course, the whole point with the Elo system.
Whereas, with the present system:
- Seperate civil disorder players from players who rarely go into civil disorder
A player who is below average standard, is not separated from players who enter Civil disorder- both groups hover at around 100 points. (::::::::::::) and Qing Shi both played games, loosing very badly in all of them. In this system, they are the same as any other below par player.
- Allow players of more skill to play with each other and exclude players of lesser skill
This can be done except when a player is underrated. Take flashman as an example of that. When a player player people of the same or higher skill, rather than weaker players than himself, his rating remains stationary or drops. Inflation means that this results in a rating drop, and so you end up without the points to play your peers. Essentially, the system, any system, only acheives this if it correctly guages ability.
- Allow players to choose between playing many insignificant games, or few big games
This is certainly acheived
- Don't allow a group of players to gain points just by playing amongst themselves
If I play with six others and we only play with each other, those of us who are better will have our rating increased as those who are worse get rebates, so this is not acheived in all cases.
- Provide a way to rank players
There are obvious discrepancies between our opinions of players' skill and the dippoints. Elo seems to agree with our assesments
Kestas, the current Elo-rating system is very near total completion: PPSC, WTA and draws are all dealt with correctly, as is falling into civil disorder. Playing with a civil disorder nation is yet to be dealt with, however within an hour's that could be sorted also.
Chrispminis, The Spearmans' rank correlation game a result of about 0.55-0.6 which is a strong correlation, but you can see that it is a long way of 1.0 And the way it manifests itself is that some people a woefully underrated. This is the core of the problem.
One more player needed!!!!
)
)
)
)