"seems crazy, to maintain first place one would have to play non-stop, that is definitely not the point of this system. "

That's a ridiculous conclusion. Considering that for someone in 100th, they must play ten times as often. What in the world takes you from that to "first must play non-stop". First will -always- have to play less than others.

"but 100th place getting .1 to rank is way too high. "

Why? What about it is too high? Explain that.

"considering 10th place is usually 90+ elo points from first. And those 90 are CRAZY-HARD to get, when a first gives you +29 and a 4th gets you -20."

Which is precisely why the optimal system would take the actual number of points into account. You know, EXACTLY what I said before? As is, however, the difference in skill between 1st and 25th surely does not justify devaluing 25th's achievements to the point that he must do 25 times what 1st must.

I think I see a misunderstanding.

Some people are saying its too hard to compete with the top 25 because lower ranked people have to play a lot more. What I think they don't realize is that the rating-rank determines their score, NOT their score-rank.

"the difference in skill between 1st and 25th surely does not justify devaluing 25th's achievements to the point that he must do 25 times what 1st must"

The person who is ranked 25th does not get 1/25 per game. You have to look at the players rating. If he improved his rating-rank to be 10th then he would gain 1/10 per game and climb faster.


"
"but 100th place getting .1 to rank is way too high. "
Why? What about it is too high? Explain that. "

This meas that all players around 100 would just need to play 10 games to match 1 game of the first player and become first. This is ridiculous. Its not about how many games you play.

Unless you can get your rating-rank to 1st you shouldn't have an actual rank of first. Why should someone who's never been above 1800 get first for simply playing more games?

In short, the misunderstanding is that points are given for rating-rank not actual rank. The best way to get a high score is to play with a high rating NOT to play more games at any rating.

Actually, Ryan, you are misunderstanding me. When I say rank, I generally mean rank by points, not score.

and what's this about "just ten games". Ten well-played games is not something one simply does on a whim, and one game from the player in first is, at most, equal, if not less. So it's only reasonable it be rewarded as such, though I wouldn't expect it's occurrence.

"Unless you can get your rating-rank to 1st you shouldn't have an actual rank of first. Why should someone who's never been above 1800 get first for simply playing more games? "

Do you understand the implications of this statement? That you should only get first in this system if you get first in the old one? Why not just rank by the old system? In essence, "With this new system, only people who would be in first will be in first". I'm trying to make sure this gets through, you're just saying your system is redundant.

So wolf, why should someone with the 25th highest rating have a shot at 1st place rank by simply playing more games?

And to respond to the 10 game thing: you don't get more score for only well played games... 100th would get 1/10 for EVERY game that he kept 100th rating. 1/100 for every game is better.

"you're just saying your system is redundant"
The two systems work together.

I'm not saying that. I think you're understanding it that way. Here's an explanation of what they do and why they work together:

The rating system attempts to categorize players based on their ability. It also gives better players the motivation to play other good players. This means that they don't get extra score/rating from playing new players which can be more fun and a lot easier.

The rating system does not take into account history and luck.

The new rank system attempts to make a more accurate rank than rating rank. In a sense it has a memory and gives points to players that maintain a high rating over more games. This motivates players with high ranks to keep playing and takes bad/good luck streaks out of rank.

Hope this helps.

"This meas that all players around 100 would just need to play 10 games to match 1 game of the first player and become first. This is ridiculous. Its not about how many games you play."

The same goes for the 1st in rating though. Although of course it takes skill to gain 1st, there is a decent amount of luck involved too.
A lucky #1 who stays there a decent number of games will dominate the scores.
I don't believe the difference in skill in say the top 25 in elo is that much different that one game played as #1 should have such a large increment, compared to the other 24 places.

Imho it takes way more skill to stay steadily at 10th for 50 games than to be lucky, gain 1st and stay there 5 games.

"And to respond to the 10 game thing: you don't get more score for only well played games... 100th would get 1/10 for EVERY game that he kept 100th rating. "

It would take more than dumb luck to maintain 100th, they actually need to play, and likely reasonably well.

As for maintaining rank. Maintaining a spot in the top twenty-five requires a distinct amount of skill. And really, maintaining better -does- mean playing more games. Someone maintains first, playing a few times a week, and another maintains 10th, playing two or three games a day. I imagine the latter takes much more.

After all, you say specifically "gives points to players that maintain a high rating over more games". More games, I hear. Do you deny that 25th is a high rating?

25th place deserves a shot at first because I don't believe (and I truly doubt you or anyone else believes) that it takes a twenty-fifth of the skill required to maintain first to maintain his position of 25th.

"Imho it takes way more skill to stay steadily at 10th for 50 games than to be lucky, gain 1st and stay there 5 games. "

This first place player was once 10th and even less. The difference is that the 1st place player when 10th won more games and became first... and then played more games as was able to keep first. Even if this 10th place player plays 10 times more games if his relative rating doesn't change then why should he get 1st? They guy in first was better since he was able to improve his relative rating.

"Someone maintains first, playing a few times a week, and another maintains 10th, playing two or three games a day. I imagine the latter takes much more."

Same point i suppose. One thing to point out here is that as you look down the relative rating ranks the number of players around a certain rank increases. Its like a pyramid. Which also means that there are more people competing for a rank as rank goes down. Which also means that if you're only maintaining your rating you need to play a lot more games. Its much more profitable to improve your rating than maintain it.


" Do you deny that 25th is a high rating?
25th place deserves a shot at first because I don't believe (and I truly doubt you or anyone else believes) that it takes a twenty-fifth of the skill required to maintain first to maintain his position of 25th. "

Ok, you need to be more specific which rank you're talking about. It sounds link you're confusing the two ranks. There are two ways I can interpret this:

1) 25th RATING-RANK deserves a shot at 1st ACTUAL-RANK. Look at the current stats. Doobius has an ACTUAL-RANK of 3rd and a RATING-RANK of 102nd. In this case 25th has a decent shot at 1st ACTUAL-RANK.

2) 25th ACTUAL-RANK deserves a shot at 1st ACTUAL-RANK. Ok, take a look at 13th TripleHelix, (who I believe has the same point). He has a RATING-RANK of 3rd so he gets 1/3 per game. He definitely has a chance at 1st ACTUAL-RANK.

Quite simple, Ryan. The person who currently get .04 points for maintaining his rating-rank, should get something better, because he currently earns .04/1 (one twenty-fifth) of what the person who earns 1 point for maintaining his raking-rank gets. If he's earning .04, then that means maintaining that rating rank is worth one twenty-fifth of what maintaining the rating rank of 1st is. Let me repeat again, the guy with the 25th in parentheses is rewarded as though his efforts to maintain position are worth 1/25 the efforts of the guy with 1st in parentheses.

This doesn't seem to be right.

Ryan, do you think it the skill it takes to maintain rating rank 25 is one twenty-fifth of the skill needed to maintain rating rank 1?

There is no such thing as a perfect ranking system, and the fact that there is an elo scoring system for Multiple-Players (more than 2) is indeed a feat in itself, in that it accurately gives elo points out fairly well at the end of a game.

First off, we have to think about how the previous system worked. There were very few games in the top 25 / people were preciously guarding their elo / and people could fall out rediculously fast and the climb was scary (3rd could be 28th in one unlucky game).

Now, it records how well one does over the long run and finishes in the top 100 do add to ones rank value, which is good.

The gains, however, are minimal compared to someone who plays in 1st, defends with a +0 game and maintains the highest elo, cuz then they get 1 game divided by 1st place in elo = 1/1 = 1 point to rank (0.00) value.

Thing is, getting +0 or so when you have THE #1 elo in the game is extreeeemely difficult, seeing as you usually have to come in 2nd place to gain 5-11 points, or play a very dominanting 3rd place performance to get any + points.

So basically, 1st in elo has to play a game and finish top 3 with a very decent showing (vs high ranked elo opponents, who will neverthless all be lower in elo than that player, by virtue of the fact they are #1 (so obviously everyone has lower elo and they risk more points to be lost in the game)

It takes skill to do that. Getting a +1 or -1 or +0 game when you are #1 in elo equates to a top 3 finish with a solid showing. Often times, #1 in elo comes in 2nd and LOSES points, which I have seen happen surprisingly often)

Getting +0 to elo in a game when you have the 25th best elo means you have to play vs very good opposition but you might get that with a solid 4th place performance. Point being -
first place elo had to finish better just to get that same +0 game.

so that player in 1st elo gets +0, stays first, and gets 1 whole point to their rank 1/1 = 1

that 25th player gets +0 in a game, keeps 25th best elo, and gets 1/25 = .04

I hope that makes some sense. As for your point that getting to #1 in elo takes some luck - ABSOLUTELY. But dont ever think you will strip the luck factor out of this game anytime soon, there are dice! hehe

Here's the key thing. How come players like Tzisc, Comik, Lothros, and a bunch of others manage to climb to the top 10 in elo or to the #1 spot in elo SO OFTEN? yes, the answer is they get on a lucky streak

BUT - the key thing is, they put themselves in a position where a lucky streak of stringing 5 1st place finishes in a row puts them there BECAUSE they are constantly skilled enough to hover in the top 100.

meaning, if a 1500 player strings 6 1st place finishes in a row they do well, but they wont be on the top 25

if a top 100 elo player strings 6 wins in a row they very well might just make #1 in elo because they have played well enough to be IN POSITION to climb if the lucky streak should arrive.


Lastly, the values HAVE TO be as 'steep' as they are because of the points I made earlier. (that mainting 1st elo in a game, vs mainting 100th best elo in a game requires less work) *meaning a 3rd place finish is enough for +1 or +0 in a game whereas maybe 1st in elo needs 2nd place! just to keep +0


a lot here but I hope this helps