I suppose were it the case that the were no GR system, and you saw similar effects but with points, you would be equally troubled, flashman?

Flash - two things to point out.

The forum is where the few get heard, but the people posting in that thread, being the vocal few, are not representative of the site as a whole.

Just because someone is interested in learning their rating doesn't mean they'll alter their play just to improve it. This is a logical fallacy and a projection of your view on others.

TGM: I do not like points either but they are, at least, part of this site: GRs are not.

Ghost, how about this for a league format. Still have Premier, A, B1, B2, C1-3, and D1-4 type of setup. Start one game per month for the level you are currently in. No seasons though, you just keep going with the occasional month off for various breaks.

If you win, then when the next set of games is set to start, you move up a level. The person at that level with the most eliminations/survives gets bumped down.

Or you could stick with the seasons and you only move up if you got a win during the season and the number of wins at each level determines how many players are moved up or down.

Draug: I was not projecting, I was referring to my own experience. I have offered, here and in another thread, reference to my own experiences in actual games where explicit references to GRs have been made as the reason for certain decisions.

I am not in the slightest trying to tar and feather a whole community, but the thread about the latest GRs is a nice example of what we get.

Why are we talking about altering the leagues? They are fine the way they are. They scoring is great (12 divided by the number of "winners" in each game) and the way the positions move around between seasons is fine. Adding more seasons is demanding too much of Ghost.

It was pointed out that in league games players often are shooting for a draw from the very start rather than a win. I think this is especially so with the first game. I know it is how I played the first game. In any case, Ghost then asked for alternatives.

I have played occassionally where, when I'm about to lose, I make the comment to get the person to spare me, but considering that a survive and a defeat are the same effect in WTA GR changes, it is me BSing to survive. Unless it is a PPSC, there is no such thing as playing for GR. So don't play PPSC...

Must have been a few pages back, cause I don't see it on this page.

Exactly. Start with Italy in Game One, play careful - no Three Fleets! and when some poor sod gets stuffed early, jump at any draw offered.

I could have the "Ghost asking for alternatives" part wrong. I know I got that impression but looking back I'm not finding it so maybe someone else suggested it.

“TGM: I do not like points either but they are, at least, part of this site: GRs are not.”

But presumably that doesn’t make it any better or worse?

My point is that the alternative to GR conscious play is a different rating-conscious play or no rating system at all. And the latter would certainly be a disaster.

@flash - and my point is that it's mostly people at the top who really care about this (not all if them). Let me put it this way - and this is not meant as a dig on anyone - just a different point of view:
1. If you're playing only a game or two at a time (having in mind the volume of press is a key factor), no different maps of variants, no noobs, no tournaments
2. If you are looking at the GR and questioning how accurate it is and how it affects play
3. If you need Ghost to specifically exclude a game so that you can play freely without your GR being affected

then, chances are, it's not really the others that are too focused on GR.

And what happened to anon games - what is the problem with those? Anon WTA is as 'clean' as it gets?

I'm really surprised to see so many top players arguing against a scoring system. It's equal for all - and what exactly does "playing for GR" mean - the way I see it this means playing for a win, if not possible a draw - why is this a bad thing???

Any scoring system will affect play - arguing on this point is useless - this is not a bug but a feature - ratings provide info on how you're doing and people will use it as a measure of their improvement. GR is the best system out there - again nothing to discuss. So what should we do - have no ratings of any sort (GR, points, ratios)?

Well TGM, the model suggested as my opener to the other thread and reflected by Alderian is one in which we can choose which games are rated. I like the title 'social games'. That sums up my feeling exactly.

I really find it odd that I play games on this site, GRs are not part of it yet players I come up against seem particularly affected by it. If I want to ignore it, I can from a personal point of view (and have for a long time) but I am still being included for every game I play.

I don't want a rating and I don't want to be in games where someone will not risk something - be it an opening or going for a solo expressly because they are concerned about their rating.

An alternative would be to have levels instead of a ranking. You start at level 1 and you only get to play in level 1 games. After a certain amount of success you become level 2 and can play in level 1 and 2 games. level 1 = beginner, 2 = journeyman, 3 = expert, 4 = master. So if you want to play in a game with other good players, start a level 4 game. The only way to lose "experience" would be by CDing.

To be clear, my proposal is a scoring system that doesn't really affect play because you don't lose anything if you lose. You just don't advance.

Ivo:

One reason I have shut down on games is because of the GR influence;

and as for anon WTA? The risk of cheating is very high and I like to play with players I respect as decent opponents, so true anon is a non starter for anything serious (pun + 1).

If I get seven together and we agree to be anon within the game - fine, but that game is still rated for the GR system and I have still had experiences where one or more of these players start to get edgy about their record.

I would really like to play at the highest level in a social game on here where nothing counted for the record: no win %, no points and no GR. The game itself would be the reason for playing and nothing else.

Zero point social with password capabilities sounds like the perfect option. It would allow Ghost to alter the code that compiles the numbers to filter them out and would provide (via password) the integrity/safety of knowing you weren't playing noobs, multis, and metas.

I think what you're looking for is a setup where people are free to play as if this was the last game they'll ever play. Yes, you cannot get this as part of any rating system - or any community where people can compare to each-other.

Non-rated games would be one option. This I would definitely be on favor of and use :)

@Alderian, that proposal wouldn't get past kestas, beyond doubt. His fear about GR was that people would only play players of a similar ability, and never play just "normal" games.

I just made the following post in the thread about having games that don't count towards GR/stats/points, which seems to now apply to this thread as well:

"Hmmm, very odd... Guess I see the point of people wanting to be freed up to play however they want, but why have statistics (like win, draw, survive, defeat) if people get to hand pick which games count, that is equally odd.

I would think the GR encourages people to play better. Why encourage players to make a crazy stab that has a 5% chance of long-term success in a non-rated game, that will only encourage poor play, won't it? This kind of reminds me of when I first joined the site and had some games with people that tried some silly stabs that ultimately resulted in me walking away with a pretty easy victory. Sure, an easy victory is fun and all, but a hard-fought draw can be much more rewarding.

Isn't PPSC a solid option for a more relaxed/fun game that encourages taking chances a bit more?"

FYI - Sometimes in games I'll through out an argument related to GR, but like Draugnar, it's just me grasping at straws and trying to find an argument, any argument, that would be accepted. That said, I can imagine the opposite being true, that someone may argue that they don't want to try something risky because of GR, when in reality they just can't think of a better way (or care to take the time) to get you off their back for your suggestion to do something silly, so they blame it on GR when in reality they just don't want to do it and it has nothing to do with GR.

Yes, you are correct. In the bug scheme of things ratings help. However the idea to be able to play a game 'in a vacuum' has it's advantages also. Both should be allowed to coexist - can't be so hard to make it happen sone way - sending people to other sites is not the way for sure.

@TGM, I was referring to wins in WTA as per a previous post. My question if something doesn't work right (it is skewed) and you can fix it, then why not fix it?

@Ivo. Yes, I have withdrawn from playing in the tournaments. No, I haven't been playing in "easier" games. Other than the one world map, I haven't played in anything other than the TMG Masters for quite some time. When that is done, my time on this site is likely done. No, my leaving is not due entirely to the GR, this discussion or my disagreement with it, although it did factor into the other causes and my final decision. I am leaving primarily because I prefer games without meta-gaming, or in my own words, cheating.

The trouble with your analogy to sports and other leagues is that the only other competition I can think of that has multiple teams on in the same game at the same time would be other board games. None of them that I recall have the option to draw like Diplomacy does.

The main reason for discussing the GR here is that that is subject of the topic of discussion which btw I did not start.

"@TGM, I was referring to wins in WTA as per a previous post. My question if something doesn't work right (it is skewed) and you can fix it, then why not fix it?"


Because the whole system is a compromise. I could filter out all games with NMRs, and then rate the 3 games that get left over, but that would be clearly silly. Games with cheats, I should be able to start removing soon now.

It isn't a fix to just ignore the games, in other words.

Random Comment: Edi Birsan once said that he pretty much will accept a draw any time one is offered. I'm sure most people he plays with don't vote to draw in the first year or two, but in general if Edi thinks a draw is a very valid outcome, that says a lot. I'm not sure how much this has to do with Edi playing F2F Tournaments and the games rarely see a solo since games are often over before 1910 so another round of the tourney can begin, but still.

TMG, where do you plan to go where there is no metagaming, or are you giving up diplomacy altogether? I'm not sure if I'm just in a pissy mood or what, so sorry in advance, but are you just frustrated that you don't win as often as you used to and you are blaming it on something else other than you? I see your win rate is right around 50% and that your results from your Masters Tournament appears to be three draws and five defeats, which are your most recent games and thus frustrating.

Anyway, if you go to another site to play anonymous games, is that really changing anything since you could stay at this site and maintain your current amazing stats?

I believe TMG comes closer to my position than any other player on this site. Let me give you a tale...

Where I live, the kids have to take an exam, an oral exam. After all their years of schooling they get a chance to show how good they are at English by using it. The exam comprises a discussion with three others. Great.

Not exactly, because to have a good grade you must have a good discussion: one person doing all the speaking is not a discussion and gets penalised.

A common problem is that one or more of the kids in a group fails (for whatever reason) to speak up. If the situation is even two don't speak, you have problems. If three remain quiet, you are dead and your exam result - irrespective of your true ability, is completely screwed.

I have always objected to this - openly, in my lectures, notes and published materials. It is a truly unfair system. It is therefore entirely consistent for me to apply the same thinking to any ratings system that is affected by external factors - or, as in the case of Diplomacy, things like meta-gaming.

TMG has often used the Chess example as his standard for a fair ratings model or ideal. It works in Chess because there is no interference from other players.

I respect his position because I too believe that the only assessment anyone should be given is an assessment based on their own qualities.

Any suggestion that he is running or hiding is, quite frankly, a disgrace. He is certainly one of the best game players I have come across and I consider it to have been one of the best parts of this site that I could meet and play with people like him. He sat for me at one time while I was travelling and gave the fullest attention to my instructions and his 'duties'. A gentleman of the board if you like and probably better than his stats suggest given the problems I have alluded to.

Perhaps if we had non-rated games, expert players like him would be encouraged to stay. How can it be a good thing for a site to lose its best players?

"TMG has often used the Chess example as his standard for a fair ratings model or ideal. It works in Chess because there is no interference from other players."

Not really. I used to play chess, and I know that I accepted draws in winning positions because it would allow me to qualify for another tournament (but a defeat would not have done) or because I am 1 game clear going into the last round, so a draw will win the tournament for me etc.

The implications of your comments are that it is impossible to rate diplomacy. In fact, it is just *harder* to rate diplomacy players than chess players for a variety of reasons. the Ghost-Ratings do, however, give the task a very good shot indeed.

I would support an unrated game option on the site, and I would port that into Ghost-ratings too.