The System Oli just released introduces 2 great news:
1) CDs have the same weight whoever you are, no matter how much you played here.
2) Taking Over is encouraged since it makes you recover your RR
Although this is an impressive innovation, as well as now we got a page explaining the System, I expressed in the first post a couple of doubts that here I summarize:
Doubt #1 - NMRs are still basically unpunished, while some of them are even worse¹ than a CD;
Doubt #2 - Giving to TOs the same weight as CDs makes too easy abuse the system: I could CD a bad position and TO a better one, getting a meaningless penalty (only 2 missed phases) and basically my RR would't change if played enough phases.
So, following a sqrg's idea, I propose a little-big change to current formula in order to minimize these issues.
- - - - HOW THINGS ARE NOW - - - -
First of all, let's make clear what happens into your stats when you miss a phase.
1) You miss a single phase in the middle of the game (NMR).
Your stats count: missed phases: +1
2) You miss the first phase of a game (First turn CD)
Your stats count: missed phases: +1 and Left: +1
3) You miss the phase for the second time in a row (CD)
Your stats count: missed phases: +2 and Left: +1
Now, let's give a short name to each stat (our data):
MP = # of missed phases
CD = # of left games
G = # of played games
TO = # of taken over games
P = # of played phases
Give the weights (parameters). Into the current formula they are:
p = 200% | weight for a single Phase missed
l = 100% | Weight for a Left game
t = 100% | weight for a TO
h = 10% | Harshness parameter (how much the unbalancing [CD-TO] decreases the RR)
This is how the current formula looks like [Oli please correct me if I'm wrong]:
RR = [100 - p*100*(MP/P)] * [1- h*(l*CD - t*TO)]
(not to be lower than 0 or higher than 100)
Notice that being l = t = 100% = 1, in the original Oli's formula l & t are probably not even mentioned (and wisely, too).
- - - - A SMALL CHANGE - - - -
As sqrg said "The old system did not work because the ratio of phases missed to phases played is always very small."
True! The ratio of phases missed to GAMES played is much more meaningful. Players should miss a phase once in 50 games "because sometimes you're an idiot" and for no other reasons.
So I believe we should substitute P with G into the formula. ONLY this. Then:
RR = [100 - p*100*(MP/G)] * [1- h*(l*CD - t*TO)]
When you'll have played 1,000 games a NMR will be a very small issue for you. But it will take time and, after all, we'll really know if/how reliable you are then.
- - - - THE RIGHT PARAMETERS - - - -
If the Formula is the heart of the RR System, Parameters (p, l, t, h) are the blood. They are the tools we use to make the system fair. Hence they're widely debatable and I put here just my ideas.
Well, it looks self evident that, after the change, p can't be 200% anymore or a newcomer with only 2 games played will be wiped out after the first NMR (RR'd be 0%).
We should decrease it. With p=120% a player who completed 2 games and NMRs will have RR=40%, he'll be able to join 4 games and as he complete the 3rd game he'll jump at RR=60% being able to join 6 games. After the 4th game has ended, RR=70%.
Now Doubt#1 looks fixed.
The l & t parameters are strictly linked to each other as they measure if and how CDs and TOs have a different weight. Also, they're both linked to h, that measures how the whole CD&TO matter weights on the final RR.
As stated before, I believe that you should need at least 2 TOs to recover a CD. This can be translated in different ways, setting l t h parameters.
The simplest way is: l = 100% and t = 50%, keeping h = 10% that looks fair enough. Also Doubt#2 looks fixed now.
The new Parameters could be:
p = 120% | weight for a single Phase missed
l = 100% | Weight for a Left game
t = 50% | weight for a TO
h = 10% | Harshness parameter (how much the unbalancing [CD&TO] decreases the RR)
Let's see what happens with sqrg's examples:
>>Examples: you've played 60 games and missed just 1 phase because sometimes your an idiot. Calculate chance = 1 - ( 1 / 60 ) = .983 so a rating of 98%.>>
RR= [100-1.2*100(1/60)]*[1-0.1*(1*0-0.5*0)] = 98%
>>But what if you're really unrealiable with 3 missed phases in 4 games? Chance = 1 - ( 3 / 4 ) = 0.25 so a rating of 25%. We can call it asshole rating too.>>
RR= [100-1.2*100(3/4)]*[1-0.1*(1*0-0.5*0)] = 10%
>>Another example rating. If you missed 5 phases, left 1 game and finished 80 games the rating would be:= 95%>>
A CD inside? Nononono.
RR= [100-1.2*100(5/80)]*[1-0.1*(1*1-0.5*0)] = 83.25%
Notice that the latter example really encourages you to take over some CD. With a couple of TOs you'd be back to group "A" again:
RR= [100-1.2*100(5/80)]*[1-0.1*(1*1-0.5*2)] = 92.5%
- - - - IS IT COMPLEX ? - - - -
No, not really. The "What is the reliability rating?" page would have only a few changes:
Your rating is dependend on 2 important factors. How many phases you missed to enter orders in comparison to your total GAMES played, and how many games your country went into CivilDisorder, because you didn't even check the gamepage for 2 turns in a row.
The first part is 100 minus phases missed / games played * 120, not to be lower than 0.
Example: If a user missed a phase in 5% of their games, rating would be 94 (6 lost), 10% would be 88 (12 lost), etc
From this rating we substract 10% for each game you left bevore the end.
The penality for the "Left" games seems a bit harsh, but many games get totally screwed if a player does not play the game till the end. Most of the time some countries gain really big unearned advantages. But you can even out your lost reliability by taking 2 open spots from games [link here] other players left.
Simple, no?
- - - - A DEBATE? - - - -
Please tell me what you think.
Make your own examples², perhaps you'll find parameters' values better than mine.
NMRs are too penalized? Decrease p!
TOs are still worth too much? Decrease t or increase l! :-)
Finally, if it would be possible, I believe that the "half buy-in" rule would make this system really effective, encouraging TOs. A CD should cost you in Reliability, not in D-money.
- - - - § § § - - - -
______notes________
¹Consider these examples:
A) a player misses the first Autumn Diplomacy Phase of a game and in consequence of that he didn't either grab one more SCs he could grab or contest a SC to an opponent, letting him in.
He won't be able to build all the units he was expected to, or some neighbour will build more than he was expected. Or both. From second year on, this player will play in a very harsh position and his neighbours will be very advantaged.
Only because of a single NMR.
B) A game is coming to an end since 2 players can set an unbreakable stalemate line against a 3rd biggest Power. One of the first 2 players miss a crucial turn and the SM Line can't be made up anymore. The game ends in a Solo and not in a Draw.
C) Last year of a game in which, unless the biggest power makes some incredible mistake, the Solo is clear and everyone's just trying to survive, a Player with unit 1 unit disappears and CDs. Winner needs his SC and he can easily take it, nobody could support him, he could support nobody, he can't move anywhere useful.
All bad stories, but I don't think that the 'C' CD is worse than 'A' or 'B' NMRs.
- - -
² For Excel addicts:
Put data and parameters values into these cells:
C1 = MP
C2 = CD
C3 = TO
C4 = G
C5 = p
C6 = l
C7 = t
C8 = h
And somewhere else this formula:
=(100-((C1/C4)*C5*100))*(1-(C6*C2-C7*C3)*C8
Now change values into cells from C1 to C8 and make your tests!
To test current system just put into cell 'C4' the value of P and not of G (total phases instead of total games).
Some changes to the Reliability rating...
)
)
)