Glad to hear it TGM, I definitely hadn't ruled out a misunderstanding on my part, I'll check out that Perl script and try and figure out how it could be reworked into an event based system

@MM (& others): The reason I'm interested in also implementing GR is that it has carved out its own valid niche, and that it'd be good to open the code up to allow people to use alternate ranking systems and run tournaments etc

That would be very cool kestas! I'm not sure if everyone can handle GR being updated after every game finishes rather than monthly, it may be too much excitement for everyone to handle. Seriously.

Well, except for flash that is!

@Kestas, it would be great to see the GR on the profile somehow, whether updated monthly or after each game or whatever system you want.

Doing it every game is easier than doing it monthly

@MM

I probably phrased the wrong. I meant people don't seem as excited about using it as the main form of ranking as I thought. People do want it along with points, but I didn't initially think that would be the case.

Yes, if it was integrated into the site (which would be awesome, btw), having it update after every game would make a lot more sense than updating once a month.

Well just to make clear: if GRs become standard, I will politely withdraw from the site.

I would not be the first. We have already lost some well-respected players because of perceived problems with the rankings and game play.

Just out of interest: I wonder how many players would accept starting a new rating system from scratch - only future games counting? I believe the deep answer to this question goes to the heart of my own misgivings.

I'd accept a new rating system, although it'd be rather silly to throw away information already collated.
In his defence, Ghost's aim on GR was to make the most balanced system he could, that would be only lightly damped and thus reflect ability over a shorter rather than total length of time.

@flash
Perhaps you've stated this earlier in the thread, but how does GR distort play?

That seems extreme, flashman. I'm having a hard time thinking of any changes that could be made that would cause me to leave the site. Even if something terrible happened, I would still know great people here that would make me stay

flash thinks GR results in most people playing more conservatively because they are hyperfocused on their GR and don't want to risk doing poorly and thus are less likely to be creative in their play.

Another interpretation of that is that flash considers himself a relatively honest/loyal ally and feels others should accept this view of him and put themselves in compromising positions, that others should try "creative" things with him even though those "creative" things would get them stabbed by most people on this site. Thus, people caring about their GR is one more hurdle flash must clear to get people to agree to joining him in a high-risk/high-reward style of play.

These are my words, not flash's, I'm sure he'll offer his own version of his reasons shortly.

@MM

But, the same can be said of points, and even more so.

Well, I say there's a difference between creative and stupid. And if flash were honest, loyal, AND persuasive, people would try move creative things with him =)

Really, I think the way GR affects play by making those with high ranking unwilling to play those who don't. And doesn't flash's complaint apply to the points as well?

@abgemacht - Don't shoot the messenger! ;-) Just kidding. I do see flash's point about GR and the same can be said about points, but somehow people have a lot of negative chatter about "point farming" and the like and that kind of talk has not had time to attach itself to GR, probably because most people think GR is more accurate and thus much more acceptable to care about compared to points.

If you really want to see point farming (and to see people actually take replacement positions!) make it so that replacements can gain points (or GR) but not lose them. That's the way it works on BOUNCED, and replacement positions for ranked games are usually taken within an hour, if not minutes. Of course, the downside is that many of the top-ranked players got there by only playing those positions.

@peterwiggin - Personally, I value competetive games with people that don't NMR or CD. A great qualifier for those types of people is a high GR or a game with a huge pot. I've never though of myself as a GR Snob, but I suppose I am, with so many people on this site and it being so easy for one person to ruin an entire game for everyone, I feel a need weed out some people and points(i.e. ~experience)/GR (i.e. ~skill) are the best way if I don't know the person from Adam.

Actually, we don't want to see point farming.

I wasn't implying that you wanted to see point farming . . . BOUNCED has to do it that way because they don't believe in letting games proceed until somebody takes the abandoned position.

Points correlate to experience only if the player is good!

Sure, let's get rid of points. But what happens to Marx's and mine?

You get compensated one cent per point. Hey, look, $35!

...er, make it $50...

Flashman, I am all in favour of an unrated game option, particularly if people want to play an unofficial variant. (Such as touch).

Those of us who have been on here for a long time will have a large bank of games that were played before GRs were applied. One take on this issue is that had the ratings existed from the start, these players would have done things differently.

I mean, how many games did I pick up from poor positions because someone had dropped out; how many were lazy gunboats that were supposed to be of no consequence; how many did I offer the draw in when in a winning position simply because it was a winning position - just as we do in face-to-face to close a game quickly and get on with another one, or more booze etc...?

I would say that if a new ratings system were adopted, or if GRs were added as a permanent feature, at least two scores should be shown: one for all games played, and one that starts with games after the function is enabled.

But, above all else, I would play only non-rated games. Sure, the entry could be based on a reasonable record, for which GRs have value, but the games themselves would not add to or subtract from the GRs. That way the ratings would not influence game play. Back to basics.

The same could have been said about the points system when it was introduced. However, despite any drawbacks, current Ghost-Rating remains a better measure of skill than the assumption of "everyone is equally good" that would be what starting again would be.

But a second GR, one where every game has been played under the knowledge that ratings were applied, would soon become a more reliable stat.

I am not into ratings for games that include more than two players, but I do believe that a fresh approach with a respected system would be a fair way to proceed. The crowd seem to like GRs, so why not let them see what happens if the ratings were based on everyone knowing that their games would count?

And maybe to mention it, I wish GR would only be calculated from the standard map.

Your article on GR was published in Diplomacy world April 2009.
By this point you'd already run it for a few months, so most people were clear what it was about.

Please would you run the script with games ending April 2009 or later, and put the list up so that and the main list can be compared.
I don't know what it would show up, but might help clear up this argument

Flash, I'm confused - are you stating your main beef with GR is that it includes historical games? I though games dropped off after a certain period anyway...

If the GR was reset from a clean slate, would that somehow fix all your concerns? I thought you disliked that GR because it affected the risk calculations people made, and starting from scratch isn't going to solve that in the long run...

My suggestion to reset, or at least show two ratings, was to allow for a more accurate comparison. I personally do not like the idea of ratings where more than two players are involved: any system of ratings, as one player cannot do anything to stop a game being fixed by the remaining players.

I have stated above that I would stop playing Webdip if the GR system becomes a standard feature for all games in here. I have pretty much stopped already ever since I got an acceptance in principle that non-rated games would be okay but that there was no time to code for them. I can wait. I suspect I will have to.