"and let people make their judgements solely on the Win, Draw ratio."

That's the problem - not everybody does. In the absence of a defined criteria for success, people will just pick whatever they want.

People are just going to pick what they want anyway. Why belabour the point.

(I'll never agree with a system that ignores draws for example, and jcbryan seems more than happy to. Rather than trying to create a system that pleases both of us (It won't) why not just let us make out own judgements?)

Because if the system (be it WTA or PPSC or some other variant) defines the terms of success for you, there isn't any room for argument. You either upper your GR/points, or you you didn't. There is nothing wrong with changing the metric of success, but if everybody on the board isn't playing with the same metric in mind, it's a rather silly game.

WTA and PPSC, are both frames upon which we rest our individual metrics. We all have different ways of deciding if a draw, survive or defeat is worth more given the circumstances.

We don't really have to try and force it. Sure we might occasionally be frustrated by others with a different metric for success, but that happens anyways.

Take a page from football (soccer) ... 3 for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss/survive. Maybe correct with -3 for a CD as well, and express it as a ratio to games played. My score would be 18:32. Is that good?

Sure, damian, but the GR judges against them. You won't make it into high caliber games if you're the type who insists that holding St. Petersburg is your personal metric of success. In other words, you can enter with whatever metric you want, but if it's not the defined metric, who really cares?

And players with odd metrics for success won't have a high WinDraw ratio. So players can judge against them, and high caliber games can still occur.

If we are reworking points... 7 for a solo (or maube even 8), 1 for a draw, and -15 for a cd.

Why so much for a solo? Because you beat six other people. In soccer, you only beat 1 other team. But beating 6 is even.harder and deserves the extra points.

Sure ... I could see 8/1/0/0/-15 for W/D/S/L/CD ... still would want to express it as a ratio to games played, though. My score just increased to 28:32 ... and any ratio below 1:1 in this scheme is probably bad, so I guess I suck.

On the other hand, Draugnar is 133:172, so maybe I am not too horrible after all. :)

I actually like that. I disagree that below a 1:1 sucks. I woild say more like below 2:3 sucks. 3:4 to 2:3 is pretty good. Up to 1:1 is really good and over 1:1 is incredibly awesome.

And I used 3:4 because that is approximately where I am and I don't consider myalef really good, just pretty good.

I think you're over valuing solos and under valuing draws. Especially small draws. I would prefer something where its 7per solo and 4/#of players in the draw for draws. But hey I'm 122:106 by your system so I can't complain too much. :-P

Which is why I'd rather do away with scoring altogether. I clearly have a different metric than you.

87:34 for me. Or 77:34 depending on 7 vs 8 for the win.

Not bad.

Interesting thought: the 4/n idea. A 4 way gets A point. A 3 way gets more than a point. And a 5 way gets less. But doesn't that then reward eliminating the little guy?

Eliminating the little guy is reward enough ;-)

No different than a traditional WTA draw in that regard. And because the difference is fairly small you should see the same results. Some people will try and shrink draws others will not.

But by fixing the points at one per drawee, the elimination isn't rewarded and it makes next to no difference as the most point 4/n could get is 2 and it woild always get more than .5 (4/7).

Would this just be another option for scoring when creating a game?

A fair point. To be honest the more I think about it the more I like a 7for solo 7/n for draw. Its how WTA works now and it jives pretty well with my expectations for the game. That said I still think we be best just getting rid of scoring.

You could aet a minimum score and ratio. That would keep out lucky noobs or bad players or both.

I still don't understand Damian, your GR is high, right, and you are a solid player? What about the game do you feel GR isn't capturing that is better captured by win/draw?

Doesn't the point in choosing a point system is a) increase reliability and b) give indications over a players ability to group the players by these measures?

If so, I see the second point better reflected in GR, because it takes the demonstrated ability into account and does not increase with wins over inexperienced or bad players.

The first point unfortunately is badly reflected in the current point system – most resigners will get their lost points back anyways. I can't see how Draugnar's proposal would improve over this problem.