Massive Assault :: View topic - Glicko Scoring results for all players

My beef with the small maps is not so much that they require a different skillset (and they do), but that they are more subject to luck in ally setup. Even the best players can be brought down by slightly experienced people on one of these maps with an unfavorable setup.

Because of this, I thought it was a good idea to weight the maps so that those maps that are less subject to chance (the larger ones) have more bearing on a scoring system that relies on the games being fair. Besides that, PL advantage comes into play with the smaller maps as well (though not as much as bad placement).

Generally you can play several Emerald or Bizzaria games during the time you need for a New Paradize or Wasserland game and this should also be rewarded.

What I try to say is that larger maps require more thinking (strategical and tactical) to play and more playing time.

1. The larger the arena the less it relies on tactics and the more it requires strategy. This is true for any combat situation. If I can outproduce you by 3 to 1, then it doesn't matter if my tactics suck. People like Tiger don't win by getting every damage point they can, they win by having the right units on the right fronts.

2. You say more doesn't equal better, then come up with a system to balance more equals better. It either does or it doesn't. Until you lose points for losing then more will always equal better. Weighting is nothing but a crutch for a flawed system.

3. Filters are the only way to do this. You have an overall rank, but then let people break this down by side and map. There is no other way.

Author:	Sky Keeper [ Mon May 03, 2004 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:
A question to everyone: how do you rate an average game on each map(without taking all other factors into consideration)? Example: A game on Bizzaria is 1 point. New Paradise, Wasserland - 6 points Anubis... Antarticus... Noble Rust Emerald Brimstone Crateus

Author:	Mrakobes [ Mon May 03, 2004 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:
if bizzare is 1 point i think brimstone costs no more than 1 point emerald and antarktikus - 2 points noblerust 3 points anubis 4 points wasserland 5 points new paradize 6 points

Author:	VaNO [ Mon May 03, 2004 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:
I have 2 following variants: Emerald, Bizzaria, Brimstone - 1x Antarticus, Crateus - 2x Anubis, Noble Rust - 3x New Paradise, Wasserland - 4x or Emerald, Bizzaria - 1x Antarticus, Brimstone - 2x Anubis, Noble Rust, Crateus - 3x New Paradise, Wasserland - 4x They differ only Brimstone and Crateus scoring.

Author:	Maelstrom [ Mon May 03, 2004 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:
I like VaNo's 1st variant the best of these proposals. Crateus is good sized as far as number of Allies go, but the game is so quick with the small size of the countries and the lack of water that I think it fits more with Antarticus.

Author:	Artanis [ Mon May 03, 2004 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:
I like the first variant as well. Edit: I like the rankings in the first version, not necessarily the ratios. Having any pair of maps with one being worth 4x the other is a little steep....perhaps something more like a ratio of 5:6:7:8 instead? As it is now, it would tilt the balance towards big maps more than it's already tilted towards little ones.

Massive Assault http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/

Glicko Scoring results for all players http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=811	Page 5 of 6

Author:	Quitch [ Mon May 03, 2004 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:
As long as you can lose points as well as win them, I'd say a score system which is weighted by size will always be a nonsense, unless MA is supposed to be more about strategic skill than tactical. If this is so, then go for it (and make more than one large map!), if not, then stop trying to pretend that the larger maps are some sort of elite club, rather than a different skillset.

Author:	Maelstrom [ Mon May 03, 2004 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
My beef with the small maps is not so much that they require a different skillset (and they do), but that they are more subject to luck in ally setup. Even the best players can be brought down by slightly experienced people on one of these maps with an unfavorable setup. Because of this, I thought it was a good idea to weight the maps so that those maps that are less subject to chance (the larger ones) have more bearing on a scoring system that relies on the games being fair. Besides that, PL advantage comes into play with the smaller maps as well (though not as much as bad placement).

Author:	Artanis [ Mon May 03, 2004 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Also, don't forget that big maps take much longer than little ones.

Author:	Quitch [ Tue May 04, 2004 3:06 am ]
Post subject:
Maelstrom wrote: My beef with the small maps is not so much that they require a different skillset (and they do), but that they are more subject to luck in ally setup. Even the best players can be brought down by slightly experienced people on one of these maps with an unfavorable setup. Because of this, I thought it was a good idea to weight the maps so that those maps that are less subject to chance (the larger ones) have more bearing on a scoring system that relies on the games being fair. Besides that, PL advantage comes into play with the smaller maps as well (though not as much as bad placement). But small maps don't take as long and thus can be played more often, which in turn out-weighs the greater effect that luck has.

Author:	Sky Keeper [ Tue May 04, 2004 4:19 am ]
Post subject:
IMO: we need to weight games depending on maps to take the following factors into consideration: 1) length of an average game in turns. 2) length of making an average turn (large maps = more tactical and strategical issues to consider) 3) impact of random SA placement. Small map can be played faster due to lower number of units, strategical choices and lower average turn count. They also require less time to think per an average win and that's why that win matters less. Generally you can play several Emerald or Bizzaria games during the time you need for a New Paradize or Wasserland game and this should also be rewarded.

Author:	Quitch [ Tue May 04, 2004 6:06 am ]
Post subject:
I fail to see how a large map has more tactical worries than a small one? In fact I would say this is a nonsense. People like Tiger don't win because they perfectly use every unit (and simply replaying a small map battle with a good player will show you that they're not used to doing perfect micro), they win because they came up with a strategy which gave them fifty more units than you. This is a nonsense. What it boils down to is that the more active players prefer the large maps, and thus play pretty powerful strategic games. We then start arguing that because they prefer strategy to tactics, it should be worth more... not sure where the logic for that came from, but there it is. Why should strategy be worth more than tactics, when there are maps which favour strategy and those which favour tactics. Quote: Generally you can play several Emerald or Bizzaria games during the time you need for a New Paradize or Wasserland game and this should also be rewarded. No, a system whereby playing more games = better score, is stupid and should be moved away from. Once this has been done, then this ridiculous idea of playing lots of games = good for score, can be buried once and for all.

Author:	Sky Keeper [ Tue May 04, 2004 7:08 am ]
Post subject:
1) I don't think that large maps are more strategical than tactical. (I don't want to argue about this either because that won't help anyway.) 2) By no means simply playing more games means that you play better. You should be rewarded for a New Pradise game the same way as for several Emerald games 3) I try to come up with a way to compare 2 different games between 2 players(same in each game) with equal sides, outcome, but on different maps. What I try to say is that larger maps require more thinking (strategical and tactical) to play and more playing time. Situation: 2 games were played between 2 people - 1 on Biz won by the first and the other on Wass - won by the second. To my mind it's obvious to assume(we know only the outcome) that the second one demonstrated more skill than the first one. IMO: the only way to split it into tactics and strategy is to set up 2 different leagues - for small maps and for medium-large. Or a separate league for each map. But we'll need an all-map league anyway.

Author:	Quitch [ Tue May 04, 2004 7:25 am ]
Post subject:
1. The larger the arena the less it relies on tactics and the more it requires strategy. This is true for any combat situation. If I can outproduce you by 3 to 1, then it doesn't matter if my tactics suck. People like Tiger don't win by getting every damage point they can, they win by having the right units on the right fronts. 2. You say more doesn't equal better, then come up with a system to balance more equals better. It either does or it doesn't. Until you lose points for losing then more will always equal better. Weighting is nothing but a crutch for a flawed system. 3. Filters are the only way to do this. You have an overall rank, but then let people break this down by side and map. There is no other way. Quote: What I try to say is that larger maps require more thinking (strategical and tactical) to play and more playing time. Why should time have anything to do with anything? A score system shouldn't care if the game took five seconds or five days, only the skill of the opoonents and the outcome. I see Glicko as being far superior to any proposed, and the flaws pointed out would mainly be corrected by some filters which allowed you to manipulate the data so you could create leagues that you felt had meaning. I also think that basing the final score on the players STARTING score is a bit dodgy, after all if they start as 2300 but a month later when the game is over they're at 1700, then the chances are the later score, not the former, is the more accurate, and this is where we should be (and don't) drawing the score from.

Author:	Maelstrom [ Tue May 04, 2004 11:01 am ]
Post subject:
Quitch wrote: 1. The larger the arena the less it relies on tactics and the more it requires strategy. This is true for any combat situation. If I can outproduce you by 3 to 1, then it doesn't matter if my tactics suck. People like Tiger don't win by getting every damage point they can, they win by having the right units on the right fronts. I disagree with this. I think that tactics are highly important on these maps, as good unit use can change the battle quickly. By being able to take an enemy ally one round earlier with good tactics, you truly can change the flow of the game. Not to say that ammassing massive forces with sound strategy wouldn't win the game, just saying both layers of skill are important. On New Paradise, I lost a game to Pitor because of his superb tactics. He beat me on every front, though every front was nearly equal. Quitch wrote: 2. You say more doesn't equal better, then come up with a system to balance more equals better. It either does or it doesn't. Until you lose points for losing then more will always equal better. Weighting is nothing but a crutch for a flawed system. Hehe, I was thinking the whole time that the weighting system would be applied to Glicko, not the MA "experience" rating . This topic is about the Glicko rating after all... Quitch wrote: 3. Filters are the only way to do this. You have an overall rank, but then let people break this down by side and map. There is no other way. Totally agree! Filters would definately help the usefullness of this rating system.

Page 5 of 6	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sky Keeper [ Tue May 04, 2004 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:
I was also talking about Gliko and other systems where you loose points if you have been defeated. The built in system is just an "experience" and that's all. Filters is one way to solve the problem. But if we have several separate rankings people would ask us for a "global" ranking.

Author:	Maelstrom [ Tue May 04, 2004 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Everyone wants to see a filter that sets them in a better light

Author:	Deestan [ Tue May 04, 2004 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:
I want a filter that removes all players with better score than me: Yay! I'm #1!

Author:	Quitch [ Wed May 05, 2004 2:59 am ]
Post subject:
A weighting system in Glicko rather destroys its meaning.

Author:	redfox [ Wed May 05, 2004 5:03 am ]
Post subject:
Good points all around. Maybe the solution is to have it both ways: 1) Have a "raw" glicko ranking based on unweighted games, as is currently listed, and 2) Have a "weighted" glicko ranking to take into account the additional time required for the larger maps. I agree that both large and small maps require both tactics and strategy. Large maps are definately more complex, just as a comparison, playing a game on Noble Rust is like playing 2-3 seperate games on Biz, except that you can transport troops from one continent to another depending on your SA spread. I do not agree that SA placement matters any more on big vs small maps. I've been screwed over just as bad, if not worse, on NP as I have on Biz. Having adjacent SAs matters a lot, especially for FNU, but I've won games against very good players as FNU without adjacent SAs on Biz, whereas on PL, if my SAs are all over the map, and my opponent has the middle, then it's pretty hopeless. EDIT: Perhaps what we also need is a sanctioned tournament ranking, where games are played tournament-style (two simuntaneous games, each player plays as FNU in one game and PL in the other) to eliminate the PL advantage, and to allow serious players to not worry so much about non-sanctioned games negatively affecting their score. This would probably require some work on the back-end tho, as I'm not sure whether they have a way to flag tournament vs non-tournament games. They could build an option into the Challenge system, to send a "Sanctioned" challenge that would create two games if accepted. I'd heard this idea being tossed around before, and it's a good one.

Author:	Artanis [ Wed May 05, 2004 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Going for a moment back to Maelstrom's list, which actually exists right now... Would it be possible to get a second list that filters out all of the people who are completely inactive? Not a whole new set of rankings like the per-map ones are, but more like my list of guys with low RD. It'd be nice to see where we all stand without wading through all the players who haven't played a game in a month and a half.