whoever detests this current rating system SPEAK UP!

[Gaius_Marius]

I know people are disgusted with the current rating system. I for one do not enjoy playing UL anymore. I've played the most games and won the most times but yet I'm friggin 4th! Boy I hate it with a passion. I haven't played here in a while because this system is very demotivating. Some guy can play 20 games against a weak person and not play anymore and he will remain number one, I HATE IT! This place should be based on the OLD WSC rating system, where a player gets points for winning. So he can at least move up! Its fair because a very high ranked person only gets 2 points for beating a weaker opponent. A player should be rewarded for playing many games and if he wins them he should be the highest ranked!

[cosmo]

I myself do not mind what rating system is used although i did like the wsc system more than any other and i can understand why you would feel demotivated guias , it seems no matter how many you win you never gain more than a few points which kinda - actually after all the games you played and with win % you retain after so many games you probably should be ranked #1 regardless if you are the best player or not the same applies to gpeto in classic hes played an amazing 868 games with 63.8% win record yet he finds himself in 20ish when he probably should be at #1 this only shows the system has some flaws but doesnt everything i myself know im not the best here and yet i have #1 by my name thats not my choice But my rating is dropping gradually where as wsc warrior keeps improving so whos to say he wont be #1 soon people hes beaten he deserves it same as you do , thing is this is the rating gravon uses so until better one is invented there isnt much that can be done
fact is there are around 20 players who could all beat each other as easy as one another so in reality all 20 are equal #1 if you ask me .
perhaps if spion does have 2004 rating as well with hall of fame your motivation to be #1 of 2004 will bring back your motivation

cos

[spion]

Hi UL players,

there are a few thing i want to say:

If so many UL players prefer the old WSC system, i will talk to Lonello (who knows it) and implement the WSC system instead of Kleiers System.
UL is different than Classic and perhaps Kleiers system is not the best to rate UL players.

On the other hand, Kleiers system does exactly what it was made for:

It calculates players playing strength, not points or something else.
Even if gpet0 has played 868 points, this does not mean he is the best stratego player. It just means he plays very often.

The same applies to UL: Not the one who plays the most games is the best player..

This is Kleiers System as it is used for the world rankings in Stratego real life tournaments.

Of course, if you say, a player should also be rewarded for playing very often, Kleiers system is the wrong one.

As i said before: it is no problem to implement the old WSC ranking/rating system, i will talk to Lonello about that.

Best regards
spion

[cosmo]

there is one drawback with wsc rating system however and it was shown in the past , thanks to the rating calculator that once high rating was reached the lower ranked players stood little chance of getting games against the high ranked guys due to the fact before playing most would check points lost or won depending on opponent and i was guilty as were many of not playing sometimes due to not seeing the point in risking losing 25 points to gain say 2-5 ,but if everyone is happy to change system then like i said prior i dont mind either way maybe few more players views would help just incase they prefer the way it is just a thought

balls in your court as they say so whatever u do is fine here

cos

[snelloc]

Personally, I find the current rating system perfectly satisfactory. Just because you can beat a 10 year old 100 times in a row should not make you #1. ( -, I am not implying you play 10 year olds). That said the old WSC rating system gives positive reinforcement with each win and all in all is pretty accurate, although I think this one is more accurate.

I be happy with either one.

[Agresor]

ABOUT KLEIER RATING SYSTEM:

MY ENGLISH IS NOT SO WELL,SO I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAN WHAT I EXPLAIN.
ALSO IS THIS REPLAY ON GAIUS_MARIUS TOPIC.

I read in last mnth all about Kleier rating system,but still have only
approximately view about system moust based on experience and some
experiments that i made,but some interesting behavior still was
possible to determine.

1.Kleier system does to NOT be suitable from psichological view of player.
If somebody get points playing weak players and intend to be looking good
player ,he has only to avoid playing stong players.And consequence is that
players are not more interesting to play all peaple,what is drop of quality
and interest of players.
Who like to play and learn to be better , will find here many times too much
tactics who will play who.

2.kleier system has obviously week definition of what in Kleier page write
as "good player definition" and meen that player is good define if he has
enough games
20..or maybe more.This definition is WEEK,while on basis of quantity of
games is impossible to decide if player is good or not so good,while that all
games are not statisticaly satisfactory for that hypothesis from mathematicans
point of wiev. Consequence is that somebody who has played many games as
Gaius_Marius in UL,is unfair well defined and is always about some rating value
,unable to make some changes.
You can see that this meen drop down of motivation to play (Stratego) game.

3.I think al players come here to PLAY and MAKE FUN,OR SERIOUS be better and
RATING POINTS ARE REWARD for all what happens.
If reward is not CORESPOND ,the interest and motivation get down for such
GREAT GAME AS STRATEGO AND I THINK THIS IS NOT THE GOAL OF YOUR
GREAT STRATEGO(games)PROJECT!


So i meen that you must change Kleier rating system,maybe only some small
improvements in seanse what i explain.

Moust important is folowing:

Who win MUST BE REWARDED,but NOT while he often play,only while he won.That
is possible to implement on proper mathematican way.
Who lost shall be NOT PUNISH too much ,to be motivated
for next games.
Rating system must be dynamic,but also limited.

If you need help to make rating system better ,i am in your service.

sincerily Agresor

[Gaius_Marius]

OK Spion why don't u try this. Every player should have two ratings. One rating is for player strength and one rating should be for a player's accumulated points. The strength rating can tell other players how strong u are and the point rating can be a numerical representation for the times u have won and lost. Your rank can be determined using a player's points.

What do u think?

[lonello]

Hi all,

let I start to stay I'm really flattered by all hails to bring back the
rating I created a few years ago. But I really do need to say it was quite a
simple one. It doesn't take that much into account as Kleier's does. Sure,
I've commented on Kleier several times the last couple of years as I find
his rating too static. But it is still much better a basis than the one I
created and Zedd and Freak implemented.

I do see your points though more flexibility should rule the rating. Why
does Kleier not recalibrate the internetversion of his rating? By turning
the buttons, you can create more flexibility, though losing some integrity.
Another option is the one I created last in my governance back in WSC-days: creating a Ladder. There was much enthousiasme about that back then.

One will always win points and playing a lot will get you up big time. This
will give the highraters the need to play more and not 'sit' on their
ratings because otherwise they will be catched up. Sure a lot of highraters
will not bother for this different rating. But others will and will strive
to become the nr. 1 there. More ratings and more nr. 1's will only benefit
Gravon!
_________________
Greetz,
Lo

[wsc_warrior]

My Opinion of this is O-># hmmm.
Bring back the WSC Rating ..

I ve always favored the WSC system

[Guest]

Hi Strategists,
lI've read your discussion with geat interest. Let me drop some comments.

All rating systems I know of (Elo's, mine, ..., and even WSC) are static in the sense that they assume players with timely constant playing strength. The rating varies only by moving a peephole over tha data which covers outdated stuff und unveils new results. A couple of years ago I planned to implement a dynamic rating which assumes that the rating of players changes. Don't expect too much from it! It will help young players who improve by 200 points a year. But actually adult players do not change their rating too much. According to Elo the rating of professional adult chess players changes by no more than +/- 100 points within 30 to 40 years. This may be boring and frustrating. But this is the nature of men (''). And it agrees perfectly with the experience of the ISF rating. Anyway, I will implement a dynamic rating which --for technical reasons-- will consider busy players only.

I have writte an short text comparing the WSC- and the Kleier-rating. You can find the stuff at http://www.kleier.net/gravon.