InterMPC wrote:Like most rating systems across the world, I think the rating system should be based on performance, not just skill. Some might say that's semantics however;
Performance means you have to work for your position - you have to go out and perform. You can't rest on your laurels.
Just because you have all the skill in the world doesn't mean you perform the best every game. Consistency is important. Player A might display more skill in 1 game than player B, however Player B is more consistent. Who deserves a higher ranking?
If you play lots of games but don't perform, your results should go backwards. So a system where, you lose you go down, you don't play you stay the same, and if you win you go up makes sense.
I guess my concern is about players maintaining a high rating, even if they haven't played a game in months. In my opinion, that means they haven't performed. I'm not saying we should give incentive to play 5 games at a time, but at least make sure people have at least 1 active game going, or if they just finished have a small window to allow them to join another. What's the best way to encourage this without encouraging people to play 20 games at once increasing the chance for an NMR.
Think of tennis as an example, If I'm ranked number 1 and then don't play for a year should my ranking remain? Or Imagine a heavyweight boxing champion remaining the champion without any fights.
Yes, but you can do this with a 0-sum method (i.e. skill focused), with added point-injections for playing. One method of doing this that I'm familiar with: Starcraft II uses this principle (I think) pretty well. Basically, it's normal ELO, but then you get something like 1 point added to your "bonus pool" every two hours (this number probably would need adjustment for Diplomacy). The catch is, you only get the bonus pool when you gain points by winning (you can never lose points to the bonus pool). And you can only take the number of points that you won.
So say I have an ELO of 100, and 20 bonus points. I will play as an ELO 100, and gain and lose points as such. Say I now have a victory that nets me 12. Now I add 12+12 to my ELO, which is now 124, but my bonus pool is reduced to 8. Another 12 point win without increasing the pool will give me 20 (ELO 144), as I get 12+the remaining 8.
This addition should fit with your point 5, since you could just go to excell every month and run a simple function to increase the bonus pool of every player by X. It should also satisfy 3, to a large extent, and I completely disagree with point 4 (yes the ELO does not require 0 sum, but then it ceases to be a very accurate measure of skill. If each game on average nets an increase, sevenoaks will be at the top of the list. We can't have that... besides the fact that he'd never get accepted

)
Combining this with option 1 satisfies your points as follows:
1. Solos get more than 3x a 3 way draw, 3 way draws get more than 4/3x 4 way draws, etc., encouraging going for the solo, and reducing players in draws.
2. The win/loss ratings are based on ELO, thus meaning beating up on n00bs/morons is less valuable to your point total. The only thing is, getting (say) a 7-way draw even if you are favored, under this system, will not hurt you (It won't help you either, though).
3. You only get the "free" bonus-pool points if you play, encouraging players to keep playing (and winning).
4. Again, I don't think this is a good point. This system preserves 0-sum behavior, which I and some others consider important.
5. Shouldn't be too bad to code.
6. Not that hard of a system. I could write the official summary if people want.
7. (mine) Preserves "a loss is a loss" behavior.