Scoring system

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 07:47

OK, so just curious then, why only reward partial credit with draws instead of factoring in how long a player lasts in the game and by how many units they have at the time their game ends? If people get a "B" for effort why not reward/penalize less all effort in the game (minus surrenders of course) Obviously being eliminated in 1923 is different than being different than in 1903. Having control of 17 SCs is different than 1 when facing a loss.

Why is the non winning outcome of a draw better than an almost win of 17 SCs when every other possibility for the team that drew with 18 SCs individually performed inferior to the player that had 17 SCs? Why are draws 'special'?
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby Petunia » 20 Aug 2013, 07:56

VegaMan wrote:The problem with rewarding draws is that instead of people rushing to ally with the weaker powers, you have (our current system) games where people seek to eliminate as many people as possible.

This just isn't true.

VegaMan wrote:OK, so just curious then, why only reward partial credit with draws instead of factoring in how long a player lasts in the game and by how many units they have at the time their game ends?
...
Why is the non winning outcome of a draw better than an almost win of 17 SCs when every other possibility for the team that drew with 18 SCs individually performed inferior to the player that had 17 SCs? Why are draws 'special'?

I know that you don't care, but you keep asking the question so I can't resist providing the answer: because this is specifically provided for in the rules of the game.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 09:46

Petunia wrote:
VegaMan wrote:The problem with rewarding draws is that instead of people rushing to ally with the weaker powers, you have (our current system) games where people seek to eliminate as many people as possible.

This just isn't true.

VegaMan wrote:OK, so just curious then, why only reward partial credit with draws instead of factoring in how long a player lasts in the game and by how many units they have at the time their game ends?
...
Why is the non winning outcome of a draw better than an almost win of 17 SCs when every other possibility for the team that drew with 18 SCs individually performed inferior to the player that had 17 SCs? Why are draws 'special'?

I know that you don't care, but you keep asking the question so I can't resist providing the answer: because this is specifically provided for in the rules of the game.



Well considering the rules state that all players with pieces on the board share equally in a draw yet DIAS isn't selected by default on this site and ranked games without it are still played as well as with all the other non-official variants and maps, that doesn't seem like a very good reason why draws are 'special'.

Again, NOTHING in the rules for the game mention ranking points for the site. The ranking points and system were set arbitrarily. Simply stating that "because it's in the rules" is insufficient because it's not in the rules.... at all..... in ANY version.

If the point is to win (as stated in dipsy's FAQ 13) it would make sense that winning should be the only stat considered. He brings up good points about people getting discouraged, as not every diplomacy player has the same level of commitment and competitiveness as me. But the scoring system dips into the not-winning category. So why aren't all not-winning outcomes factored in appropriately? Simplicity of the algorithm? Time spent to program and test? Or is there a specific gameplay reason why 1 person having 17 SCs is weighted less (not at all in the current system) than 3 people mutually agreeing to quit the game even if none of them break 7 SCs?
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby super_dipsy » 20 Aug 2013, 10:08

VegaMan wrote:So why aren't all not-winning outcomes factored in appropriately? Simplicity of the algorithm? Time spent to program and test? Or is there a specific gameplay reason why 1 person having 17 SCs is weighted less (not at all in the current system) than 3 people mutually agreeing to quit the game even if none of them break 7 SCs?

I am afraid that the answer does indeed reflect back to the rules, despite the fact you are not comfortable with that. The rules acknowledge three possible results for an individual country; it can get to 18SCs, it can be 'part of a draw', it can be defeated. Therefore we recognize those three states differently. There is nothing in the rules about using SCs as a measurement of rating one player against another. As you fairly point out, the rating system is completely outside the rules anyway, but we try to be guided by the rules. There are a number of places where we deviate from the written rules, but these are all places where we believe the deviation contributes to the online Diplomacy gaming experience.

So given that we try to stick to the rules wherever possible, we decided to recognize a solo win, a draw and a defeat in the scoring. We also decided to recognize a higher value in a 2-way, then 3-way etc draw because intuitively most people would see that as being what might be expected.

On the point of electing to include numbers of centres when the game finishes, or turns for which you survived, we absolutely decided consciously NOT to do that. We did not want to graduate defeats, and anyway it would encourage completely different playing characteristics which in an online community we judged as not desirable.Face to face tournaments use SCs as part of the scoring because in a few rounds they have to differntiate everyone, and the only way to achieve that is to take into account extra factors. But it does change the play significantly. The point is that the current objectives of the game recognized in the scoring system are getting to 18 SCs or being involved in an agreed draw, as stated in the rules.If you start scoring based on turns survived or SCs controlled, then the objective become different which changes the game and deviates from the rules with no good reason.

We can discuss changes to the scoring, rating or whatever (we have done that extensively in the past and will no doubt do so in the future :) ) but certain things are not going to change at playdiplomacy.com no matter how much debate there is.
- The solo will ALWAYS score more than draws
- Draws will always score more than defeats
- The number of turns a country survives or the number of SCs it controls at the end will never be an objective (excepting the case of reaching 18)
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12104
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Scoring system

Postby Aeilko » 20 Aug 2013, 10:11

No, the ranking system isn't in the rules of Diplomacy, but doesn't it make total sense if you add something to the game you follow the rules that are specicified in the game?

You bring a good point with the DIAS system, the rules indeed state all surviving players should be included. But then again, this is an option. If you don't want to play this you don't have to. So maybe a solo only option should be added to the options to satisfy the people that only want play for solo's
Silver member of the Classicist
User avatar
Aeilko
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 12:59
Location: Netherlands
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1213)
All-game rating: (1378)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 17:59

I just don't understand why quitting individually (surrender) is discouraged and punished, but mutually agreeing to quit (draw) is encouraged and rewarded. It doesn't make any sense to try to discourage people from surrendering when draws are perfectly acceptable.

The fact the scoring system in tournaments affects play significantly to me would be even more of a reason to standardize the scoring system across the board....

But I come from a place where "Tournament Standard" is exactly that. Since tournaments are the competition that matter most, everything else outside the actual game rules is based off those rules. In fighting games (I know this isn't a fighting game but I'm making a relevant analogy), most competitive people train for the purpose of entering Tournaments (because those are the ones that matter). It makes sense to deviate from that as little as possible (i.e. not using banned controllers, using same set and match numbers, playing without sound because you can't hear the game over background noise, etc). So this tells me that for diplomacy either:

A. Tournaments are not the competition that matters most
B. This site's objective is not Tournament related
C. The scoring system is essentially meaningless.
D. Some combination of A, B, and C.

A. only makes sense if there really isn't a competitive scene
B. only makes sense if it is expected that most people that play here are casual
C. doesn't make sense at all, otherwise why spend the time, money, and effort to develop a scoring system

So what is it that I'm missing here?

The reason I bring the question of scoring up isn't really to try to convince any of you guys to change the system. I'm simply trying to understand the logic behind these decisions that were made. Of course I'll throw ideas into the hat just like everyone else, but I'm not saying "Change the system or I'll quit the site" or "Change the system because my way is the right way!" I'm saying "This doesn't make sense. Why are we doing it this way? Why are we not doing it another way?" Obviously, I come from a different place and mindset than most of you which is why it doesn't make sense to me, yet it does to most of you. If the object of the game is to win, then it makes sense to vilify, shun, discourage, and punish ALL outcomes that do not include winning, not just arbitrarily picking and choosing which types of losses are okay with polarized results for the same type of loss simply because a team wanted to quit the game at that time (draw) or because only 1 person wanted to quit at that time (surrender).

Edit:
I get why you guys don't like surrenders (ruins the game)
I get why you guys like draws (mentioned in the rules)

To me these statements are like saying "I love water, but I hate rain!" It's the same thing.
Last edited by VegaMan on 20 Aug 2013, 18:10, edited 1 time in total.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby gareth66 » 20 Aug 2013, 18:06

What you are missing is that your fundamental premise (agreeing to a draw is equivalent to quitting) is incorrect. Properly used, agreeing to a draw is coming to a mutual agreement that the game is stalemated and cannot proceed any further.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 18:11

gareth66 wrote:What you are missing is that your fundamental premise (agreeing to a draw is equivalent to quitting) is incorrect. Properly used, agreeing to a draw is coming to a mutual agreement that the game is stalemated and cannot proceed any further.


"Rain is not water!"

Ok so how are they different then?
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Scoring system

Postby gareth66 » 20 Aug 2013, 18:27

I think the answer to that has already been given in this thread numerous times.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Scoring system

Postby VegaMan » 20 Aug 2013, 18:39

gareth66 wrote:I think the answer to that has already been given in this thread numerous times.


I assume simply because it's mentioned in the rules where surrenders are not (even though they are technically).

So again we're back at the beginning of "This doesn't make any sense."


I give up.... I've come to the conclusion that there is no logical reasoning behind the scoring system meaning that it was not meant to actually have a relevant purpose.

So C. it is!
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest