Two questions worth answering about the new rating system

gentleben · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 103

Geez Ace calm down. You are overreacting. To play more high ranked players is not BS. It is the truth. That is all you have to do and it does not sound like there are many more games for you to play. You say you and NC play plenty of high ranked players but if that were true then your rank would show, like NC's does now. I have not done anything special this year (or any other) but play whoever was around when I was and I have never had a problem finding enough adequate players.

And as for enjoying my rank, I know you and NC are legitimately higher than I am. Even when I was there by myself I knew it was only a short matter of time before you and he would be on top again or someone else like Esquire for example would pop up. I try to improve my rank score and winning percentage no matter what my rank is. I will be honest, I do play for rank. I like to win like most people. But I do not take my ranking too seriously and I know I am not the best player here. There is always room for improvement.

Also Ace, while we are hurling accusations, you know very well that in the past 1500 players made up roughly 33% of the ranking so typically having a rating system based on a 1/3 ratio is just fine. This year happens to be different for some unknown reason. But frankly your playing percentage against 1500+ has always been lower than most high ranked players, check it and see. Therefore, to be honest, I have frequently thought you were cherry picking to a lesser degree, but never anywhere close to what Dozer is doing.

I do agree that playing the same players all the time is not as fun and I agree with your assessment of zach and ed, but I still say there are alot more players available frequently, like: Rapunzel, Gpet0, noes, fouche, bom, edbomb, psychonaut and Brass. I do not see why finding adequate players is an issue. I see you logged on frequently when I and many of those others are on. Two suggestions though, don't smoke so much and set up faster.

stratego · Posted: 22.05.2010 11:17 Post subject:

hi ace,

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

It is an awesome system. The only downside for me personally is that I can only play Art 21 games tomorrow. LOL

wait a sec, Art is adequate right now so maybe a lot more than 21

skilgannon · User Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 11

Hi everyone,
I feel a little obliged to say a word on this matter since I am obviously part of the problem ...

First: I appreciate the new system, it is great and all arguments on that have been said.

As was stated by GB and NC, their ration sank considerably since my ranking went below 1500.

Fact is that I (usually) do not take the whole to serious and so it happens often exactly as Samuel says, I do not always take lower ranked players as serious as (maybe) I should. But again that is BECAUSE I do NOT take the game to serious - and I am very happy about it.

On the other hand - and there lies part of the problem playing me -WHEN I am focused I am very well able to beat anyone, as I have shown in the past often enough. I am - please forgive me - normally better than 1500, but on a day like yesterday I play a lot of games without being focused at all and I am consequently losing most of the games. It will give me a hard time to climb above 1500 again, and most likely I will not manage to do so this year.

What I want to say is that it is nonsense that people especially like NC fall out of the rankings because they never refuse to play me and on the contrary play me very often. So, as was suggested before, set down the 1500 rule to 14something (1470?), because so there are some more good (and adequate!) players more. But do not go down to far, because then we will end up in the Dozer system again (he also refused to play me while he was in the top 10).

It is of course absolutely correct to say that some time is needed to find out how the new system works. And in this regard my proposal is a little contraproductive at this stage of the discussion, please forgive me that.

Lastly one thing on my own behalf: People who played me had to learn sometimes that I react aggressive when they start to "lotto" with high pieces (the 9 or the 10) from the beginning and - and that is the problem - without need. I react that way because for me it simply spoils the game, that is not why I play game, even not when I am not focused. To me this is NOT a question if there is something like lotto at all or if it is part of the game or not. It spoils the game for me and that is why I do not like it, no mater if I am likely to win the games (what happens mostly then) or lose them (happens too). So plese to everyone, if you intend to play me do not start the game with your 9 or 10 hammering into my unscouted first line...

And again, thanks to everyone for the many great games I enjoyed here and a special thanks to everyone onvolved in keeping the gravon site rolling - you are doing a great (and often difficult!) job.

Skilgannon

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Something to note here is that NC's problem went away pretty quickly and right now he can play a non adequate player 16 games before having to play an adequate dude (not that he's want to). 1500 is a nice round number and how nice it would be to keep it there to avoid any confusion over "hey was it 1465, 1470 or 1485. LOL

nochance · Posted: 28.05.2010 15:37 Post subject: How many adequate people?

- interesting to see, that skilgannon is a "newbie"

- 1500 is a round number and something like 1482 sounds very strange.
But the point is: How many players are above this line?
At the moment, there are 27 players shown with more than 1500 points, + AceRimmer, Dozer, wellington (?) and DerMeister (?) it could be 31.

But 8 players of the shown players played only 50 games or less this year. 2 of them between 51 and 100. So its not fair to say, "you can play against so much players".

so at the moment, I can play against:

17 players (the 16 shown players without me + AceRimmer) for my ad.bilance

Is this enough?

Should it be: 15, 20, 25 ???

I think, this is the right question.
_________________
DontMissTheChance

stratego · Posted: 29.05.2010 12:29 Post subject:

hi nochance,

i think this is the same question.

the only reason to smaller the limit from 1500 to 14xx is to raise the no. of adq.-players.

but we should ask some different questions:

- what does "challenge" mean?
- what ranking has a player, if we would delete all games against unadq.players - is this significant different?
- is it fair that a no.1 of the ranking (or lets say the top 3) must look a little harder for opponents?
- further to the above questions: is it fair that not so tough players have
always to play against better players?
- why have only very few players a ratio% under 1? (6 out of 111)
- beside all stats, ratio% etc etc - do the players "feel"that this system is better?
- does the new system smaller the no. of games?
- are there personal or system reasons, if a player doesn`t find enough adq.-players?

stratego

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

The system looks awesome to me in my short time back from a stratego break. Like today for example; I signed in and saw olaf, Ace and gentleben online during the slow time. Back a few years ago, I'd see a guy like "warhammer" sign on and me and Ace would scramble to see who could get to him first (warhammer was a 1000 ranker or lower). This system makes me realize that playing warhammer doesn't help my game much. I can't imagine how it could help a powerhouse like Ace. But now the challenge is to play high rankers and build up a buffer so you can play low rankers if that's what turns you on. So I took on gentleben as he was playing a white name; I guess Ace was on gravon but stepped away from the computer for an hour or so whilst gb was ready for action. But there was a golden opportunity for Ace to play a few with GB, a more than adequate player.

art · Alter Hase Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 325 Location: USA

I like it the old way. Or at least a link to the old way.
It is great to wait for the day to come when Dozer and posies like him finally lose to a weak player.

I find it disheartening that if I do get the courage to play Ace, that he is more likely to say no to me because of these conforming restrictive rules.

In any case the game has brought me less satisfaction, than it did 3-4years ago. Losing has much to do with that. Playing rave55 and unbias for dozens of games in a row is very boring to me. At least in Malefiz I've managed to bring my lifetime rating of being in the bottom 10, up to the upper middle of the pack. The game has much luck to it, yes, but as in Stratego good play brings good luck to you. Its not all the dice. Strategies are ever changing in malefiz, but in Stratego, the strategy you start with is what you are stuck with. Either you hit paydirt against your opponents placement of pieces, or you do not luck out this way. The game is decided to early on , either a piece ahead or behind. If behind, then you hope for a better endgame. I want quick results and satisfaction, and if those are not present, then boredom sets in.

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Wow, yes I see that this system is a major concern. My case and point is Zach21. He could get booted out of the rankings if he plays 614 games more vs non adeq. opponents. This system may well be too lenient. How about going to 1 out of every 2 games are required. That would be a rounder number. 1 in 4 in ludicrous

Wait, there's even a more insane problem. PsychicWarrior can play 1503 more games!! yes you heard that correctly. 1503 more games vs non adeq. opponents!!!!

samuel · Posted: 01.06.2010 00:16 Post subject:

You can also be a bit picky regardless of availability. I never play ed (p.warrior) because his style does annoy me and I don't believe he plays within the spirit of the game - because in the past when we've played and I've moaned about his lottoing, he's made snide and sarcastic remarks and obviously loves the fact it winds people up. Well now I wind him up by refusing to play him even when he whisper to me for games.

However, I do sometimes play Zach21, and I go into the games knowing full well what to expect, but at least he doesn't comment on it and I feel I have an edge because he lottos even more than Ed, and its all about strategic bomb placement. Result = I tend to beat Zach more than he beats me, but if he does win I knew what to expect going into battle. Quite often I choose not to play him, it just depends what mood Im in.

Anyway as for you art, you should play more barrage - there isn't time to get bored with that! It's one of the reasons I began playing, sometimes I don't have time for a classic game (which could potentially last 30, 45 or even 60 minutes) but barrage rarely takes more than a few minutes and is fast and furious!

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Barrage is great for perfecting your end game. I'll never forget a regular stratego game I had with Ace a few years ago where it came down to pretty much barrage pieces at the end. I had a slight advantage but ace pulled off the victory due to his Barrage expertise I think. I don't think I would lose that same game today. Barrage can surely help your regular tego end game. I never played much of it but should play it more

unbiasbob · Alter Hase Joined: 21 Jun 2005 Posts: 604

Oh hey regarding Skilgannon; nice to see him weighing in with a post on this system. He may be a factor with some over 1700 guys but certainly not Ace. In 5 years those 2 guys have played each other a mere 20 times in classic games.

psychicwarrior · Fortgeschrittener Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 63

Well Regarding Samuel's comments and his extremely poor sportsmanship/crying every-time he loses a piece. Like a Girlscout who just dropped her cookies. He thinks he can hurl insults without any retribution. Such we usually term as an "idiot".

He seems to forget the rules and prefer all play the way he likes or he avoids them. We call that childish in English. Sissy is another oft term that is used. What's the German word for people like that?

Personally, I think someone who ducks games as often as he does should be out of the ranking all together. He is so busy playing unranked and non-adequate players and so afraid play people at his level and lose that its clear he really shouldn't even qualify to be ranked! The facts are clear.

Maybe you can have a special Girl Scouts league just for people like Samuel who think they know the spirit of the game and want all to play their way despite the International rules that are well established. A league where crying and complaining everytime they lose a piece is ok. Where an admin can come and console their sensitive feelings. That should make people like Samuel feel better, along with some warm milk and cookies everytime someone doesn't play the way he wants.

samuel · Posted: 01.06.2010 14:02 Post subject:

Thanks for proving my point about your attitude.

Its only you I don't play Ed, for the reasons outlined. Why would I play a game that I finish thinking 'what a load of crap' to? If everyone did your style Stratego would be a terrible game.

Oh and before I realised you'd changed names I did play you and won all 3 of them, so I'd hardly say I need to duck you, I just choose to.