I think kestas and I are capable of ruffling each other's feathers though :P

i think i want to start a uruguay bashing thread after that match.

Haha, nice way to steer away from a ban Draug :P

First name terms are the way to go...

...Can't just have any old Tom, Dick or Harry in here can we? ; )

Um, careful. Ghost is a Tom (well Thomas anyway).

Exactly, that's why he returned my nod with Roy.

I was about to use Harry, but realised that I wasn't really thinking there.

So, we have a Tom, we have a Harry... Who's the Dick?

Draugnar. :P

FU, Ghost ;-)

If the tournaments are not set to the appropriate game type, WTA or PPSC, they further skew the GR. Why? Because the GR rates WTA games higher. The structure of both the GFDT and the Leagues promote meta-gaming and advancement through teams playing for draws. As such these games are played like PPSC games but scored as WTA games.

Oh, and I'm a Rob...

I know your a Rob.

@TMG, "GR rates WTA games higher" is simply false.

A wta solo would b worth more than a ppsc solo, just the same as the dip points. Right? But a draw would be equally rated either way, no?

Draws would be very similar. WTA wins are stronger, but that is cancelled by the increased chance of defeat.

If a WTA solo is worth more points than as PPSC solo with the same players etc, then the GR does rate a WTA game higher and simply true.

No, because WTA makes the win harder to achieve because you cannot offer anyone a second place etc.

The fact that something is harder to do doesn't change the fact that it gives more points.

Where this skews the rating system is in the GFDT and the Leagues as those games should be PPSC due to the meta-gaming nature of their particular rule sets which encourage a PPSC play style over a WTA play style.

We've discussed this before. The argument that PPSC is for draws is bogus as more draws come out of WTA where strong second means nothing. In the leagues, the only way to get points is win or draw. Second only counts in the SC count in case of a points tie. So WTA *is* the proper setting for the leagues.

@Draugnar, I believe you are missing my point. In the GFDT, the points are primarily determined by the number of SC's you hold when the game ends. In the Leagues, the points are a percentage of 12 . As it is far easier to play for a draw than to play for a win, and that winning is not significantly more points than drawing, these tournaments encourage a PPSC play style.

TMG - I think you're looking at it wrong - draugnar is correct. WTA games are the ones that make people play for a draw more - this is not PPSC style - not sure why you call it this way.

How would you like this corrected - make the League PPSC? I don't think this will change much.

There is a big difference between playing for a draw from the outset and accepting a draw after the game has reached a mature position.

In high pot PPSC games, the strategy can be to eliminate one or two players quickly and then take a draw - even though the map positions in no way indicate the necessity or desirability of a draw. GR games can go like this as well. In these cases, careful, safe play with a strong country is the way to go to make sure that you are in the remaining five. It is a form of point farming that has been debated in here - especially pre-GR days.

Accepting a draw is a common outcome in WTA games after it becomes clear that you will not be able to win yourself. This is a situation that can arise naturally and after one or more countries have tried to get into a winning position. Actually starting a WTA game with the intention to draw is somewhat perverse in single games but is accepted as good strategy in the League.

Perhaps we need a more extreme definition of WTA such as winner takes all, yes, and for any other result a player gets nothing.

TMG, you are correct that leagues skew results, but it is not true to say that being WTA makes this a bigger deal. GFDT is worse for skewing, because it is near to PPSC and yet games are WTA, but if the leagues were PPSC games, that would have the same effect.

One only has to look at the rarity of a league win to see that it does not, in fact, matter that the "payout" from a WTA win is high.

"Perhaps we need a more extreme definition of WTA such as winner takes all, yes, and for any other result a player gets nothing"

Hence the masters. However, if you used that for rating, nobody would choose to play that system because you'd so rarely get a result.

The Masters is a closed tournament. I was advocating extreme WTA for all standard games.

TGM, if you have agreed that the Leagues and GFDT skew the GR results and that WTA games are worth more points than the same game as PPSC, how is this not a significant issue?

Ivo_Ivanov, I believe you and Draugnar are looking at isolated games. I am specifically looking at "tournament" type series where "winning" the tournament alters the rules of "winning" a game.

Draugnar, while it is likely that there would still be more draws in WTA than PPSC, it would be interesting to see how those numbers would change should all the League and GFDT games, and games from other tournaments of similar nature, were to be placed in the PPSC category.

I don't know - I remember when we had no WTA and no GR there were again problems - then it was the points and people playing for strong second finishes. Whatever system you have people will use it for comparison - the fact that GR are now considered the best one is because it is. It might not be perfect ( arguably nothing will be - as we all have different perspectives of what should be rated and how) but it surely is better than any alternative currently existing. Plus, noone has even formulated a good alternative?

I think you're blaming the system for normal human behavior. I remember the first 'heavyweight' game I played in - with Marek, Rait, etc. I had played a done games at that point - more than half wins - but in this game I was ecstatic to get a draw and i did play for it. There was no GR back then - and whatever system there were it would not have changed anything - a draw against the best was good enough for.

I guess my point is that the GR system is irrelevant - it is not the main motivation factor - I'd bet most of the people here don't even know/care about GR - many play for points or for win/draw/lose ratio - me included.

As far as the tournaments go - well, yes, that's the idea of a tournament by design - to be a serie of games. Any league, in any sport, does have an element of metagaming.

Finally, if you are profiling games and people (e.g. not playing in the League or people with low GR) then how can you come out and complain others are also doing it.

I play in all tournaments and have to deal with these issues while you left and play easier games so that your GR is not adversely affected... not really sure who can complain about the GR being inaccurate and in which direction :)

Btw, maybe the best solution will be to design a tournament with rules that promote play clean of GR influence (whatever that is) - I believe the Masters was intended with this aim, but didn't really work. If someone can come up with a perfect scoring system and format we can then reuse it globally. I don't believe such a thing exists for this game.

“TGM, if you have agreed that the Leagues and GFDT skew the GR results and that WTA games are worth more points than the same game as PPSC, how is this not a significant issue?”

Leagues and GFDT skew GR results, but so do people’s time-zones, NMRs, the powers people play etc. The skew is not so significant as to set tournament games apart from standard games.

I did not say that WTA games are worth more points than PPSC games. I said that WTA wins are worth more than PPSC wins. The games are worth the same amount, but the way the value is distributed is different (in draws, the same, in wins, and survivals, very differently)