One of those games possibly suspicious if I read the comments (one of which is from me).

It's the first Divided States game where that happened.

I believe this was the first occurrence:

https://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=15993

(The game that made cypeg jump from 2k vRating to 2k7 vRating.)

And led to cypeg’s leaving the site.

@ Dr. Recommended :
Are you saying that cypeg left the site because of a question related to vdip points ?

Actually, that wasn't even cypeg's biggest gain, as evidenced by this:
https://vdiplomacy.com/hof.php?userID=1459
It's actually this game: gameID=4587

Goes to show how skewed some of the vDip points can be on the HOF. Take away Cypeg's 3 biggest games (772+680+191) and suddenly he drops to 976 points, below the 1000 everyone started at for baseline! Granted, he wouldn't have necessarily been zeroed out in those games, but still, just 3 games makes a player go from #1 to basically middle of the pack.

Side note: I"m sure it's been talked about before, but is there anyway to update the HOF so that people who haven't played games in years don't just sit at the top of the leaderboard forever? Kinda like webdip does with Ghostrankings?

@ drano019 :

You wrote :

"Take away Cypeg's 3 biggest games (772+680+191) and suddenly he drops to 976 points"

That is FALSE. You are reasoning as if "ceteris paribus sic stantibus", which is a reasoning mistake applied so many times in so-called "demonstrations" in economics.
"Ceteris paribus sic stantibus" means "All other things being equal". But things never stay equal when you change one parameter in a multifactorial system. In the case of the vpoints, if cypeg had not played those three games, his other wins would have rewarded him many more vpoints and his defeats would have cost him many less vpoints.

All those who have played with him know that cypeg was one of the strongest players of this site, and he certainly deserves to be reckonned and remembered as such.

You mention the possibility to remove from the rankings players who haven't played in years. I am not sure that it is such a great idea. For example, what would happen to the scoring of a top player who has quit playing for a couple of years and who would come back again ? Would he start all the way from the bottom again ? Would he then be discouraged to ever play again here ? Do we have so many Diplomacy players (especially strong ones) that we want to discourage some of them to play here ? I do not care at all about points and I have always stated that we should get completely rid of the vpoints system. I have even advocated, before it was adopted, that we should not adopt that scoring system. However, most players care about their points, yourself included as your previous message indicates.

Anyway, if you do not take into account the biggest gain in vpoints of a player, his resulting vpoints will NOT be simply his old number of vpoints minus that gain, it would be much more.

@Retillion -

You are correct. I oversimplified. It is clearly much more complex than that.

That said, take away the two solos, and Cypeg's score would drop drastically. Even assuming he would have gained more points in other games, and lost less in other games, it wouldn't make up the 1400+ point gains he made in those two games. If there was some way to calculate it, I'm sure we could mathematically prove it (side note: Is this possible anyone?).

And I'm not denying Cypeg was a solid player. I'm just pointing out that 2 games (well, I said 3, but it was mostly the 2) took him directly to the top spot. Without those two games, he certainly wouldn't be in the top spot, and likely wouldn't even be in the top 10. It's well known that the big maps have the ability to drastically increase player's vDip point count since there's so many players, and usually a handful of higher rated players. Manage a solo, whether earned, or through luck of the ill-timed CD or NMRs, and you immediately look like one of the best players on the site...even if that's not the case.


As far as removing rankings - If you notice, I mentioned Ghostrankings. IIRC, you get removed from the Ghostranking list if you are inactive for awhile. But when you come back, you retain the score you had. It allows people to get back into the game without the temptation of stopping playing to enshrine your top position after a massive win.

"But if you come back, you retain the score you had".
Maybe you have to complete a game to retain that score.

At the time, I believe, cypeg became the top-ranked player. He did not want to risk dropping from there and simply quit while he was ahead.

@Sky Hopper -

I think your idea is actually how it works. I'm not 100% certain though.


@ Dr. Recommended -

Just another reason to have people go "invisible" on the rankings if they stay inactive too long.

Or we could have a separate "top 100" of all the players currently active.

How do you see this list of the top players on the site? I haven't figured that out.

"Hall of Fame" in the "Help" tab.

Thanks. I recognize quite a lot of the names from my long time at Redscape.

"3 games makes a player go from #1 to basically middle of the pack"

Just noticed: I've only played three games total, yet I rank 155th on vDip points and 122nd in webDip points. So after one more game with tough enough opposition I could enter both Halls of Fame?

Cypeg was a bit fixated on the ratings. At the same time, he was also a very good player. Unfortunately he fell into the trap of being consumed by the ratings, and being on top. He began to play games with the sole purpose of gaining the top spot, and then fading off into the sunset. This was both because he craved the top rating spot, but also because he learned the hard way that holding such a position makes you an automatic target in every game you play in. Essentially the system is set up so that eliminating such a player is so lucrative in terms of ratings points, that players cannot pass it up. Making matters worse when you lose a game from the top position you lost exponentially more points than the 50th ranked player would. When this happens you cannot get a clean game. Even many respected players here get sucked into taking down the top guy.

The worst part about this is that we have known this for over five years, and still nothing has been done about it. I'm not a huge fan of ratings systems, but this one has been a shit show from the start. Measuring strength of opposition should matter. Losing should matter. But the negative factors being applied in this algorithm are are disaster. The problem is our good old buddy Guaroz either designed it, or blessed it off, and no one can convince Oli to revise it. So instead of playing Dip here, we're playing King of the Hill.

@RUFFHAUS 8: Isn't that what Anon is for?

@ RUFFHAUS 8 : +1

@ Sky_Hopper :
There is no such a thing as anonymity here. Most players who have played with me would immediately recognize my writing and of negotiating style. That is one of the reasons why I never play anonymous games. Also, every once in while, I manage to recognize the true identity of some players thanks to what they write in the global press of anonymous games in which I am not even playing !

Because of the current rating system, I have decided that I will only play unrated games. I don't care at all about points, but I do not want to play games in which I would automatically be one of the priority targets simply because defeating a player with more vpoints rewards more vpoints.

@Retillion: Is it that difficult to disguise yourself?

Sorry for double post: that's what anon gunboat is for.

@Sky_Hopper -

So you're saying the solution to people targeting higher ranked people is to give up two of the things that a lot of people find to be very enjoyable about Diplomacy?

These would be:

1) Getting to know your opponents and developing real relationships and a real community feel <- I get this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but for some people, myself included, it's a big draw, and you don't get that with anonymous.

2) Giving up on the whole "Diplomacy" thing in Diplomacy. Yes, I know gunboat has its own form of "diplomacy" with reading the orders and inferring what people are trying to tell you with them. But I don't even think that gunboat advocates would claim that gunboat has the same level of Diplomacy as regular press.

@ drano019 : +1
I too enjoy very much the social aspect of the game : getting to know my opponents and developing real relationships and a real community feel. That is one of the reasons why I am not interested in playing anonymous games.

@ Sky_Hopper : It is very easy to disguise oneself. Nonetheless, like I wrote, I manage every once in a while to recognize the true identity of some players in anonymous games in which I am not even playing.
Diplomacy is a communication and negotiation game, and, as far as I am concerned, my strength at Diplomacy comes precisely from my own communication and negotiation style.

Skyhopper, yes, I suppose playing anonymously is an option, and it can be fun sometimes and in some circumstances. It ignores the fact that many players can easily identify players from there writing style, leaving games as anything but anonymous. That's really irrelevant though. You're sweeping aside the problem of the severely flawed rating system. Let's do nothing about it because some players can play anonymously. I'm saying this as someone who was once ranked at the top, and witnessed this behavior against me and others. I'm saying this as the top active player on that scale. Retillion and Drano are near the top too, and they both see the issues. Why would three of the top ranked players decry the very rating system that put them there? Why have Cypeg and Matthew stopped playing entirely?

I've been playing mostly anonymously or unrated games. To years ago I played in a WW4 game where at least six players actively conspired from the very start of the the game to kill me specifically and only because of the ranking boost they would get, and because my ranking would plummet dramatically. Four of them admitted it bluntly, and two others not involved cheered them on for it. I played in a special rules game which Kaner graciously devoted many hours to where one of the players openly told me that he could score more ranking points for killing me, so he refused to even talk to me anymore. He admitted this to enough people hat the game had to be scrapped.

But hey, you know better I'm sure, because we can just play anonymously.

Let me start by saying that I am not against rating systems. Often, though, the implementation of rating systems has unintended consequences. They should encourage the right type of behavior and discourage the wrong type of behavior, but not everyone always manages to predict how they will affect behavior.

One aspect of vRating that I like more than the GhostRating that is used on webDiplomacy is how it treats Civil Disorders and takeovers of them. On webDiplomacy, players who care about their rating will never take over losing positions in games, but in vDiplomacy, it is safer to do so because your vRating won't be hurt as bad if you take over a position.

I do like GhostRating more than vRating, though, because of the following simple fact. Your change in GhostRating after completing a game is ONLY dependent on the following two factors:
- Your result in the game;
- How your rating compares to the other players in the game.
As such, for your GhostRating it doesn't matter if you draw with lower ranked players and eliminate higher ranked players or vice versa. For your vRating, though, it does, and I think it shouldn't.

One consequence of this is what many people in this thread are complaining about: headhunting. If you draw in a game, you get more points if the players eliminated are higher ranked players. However, I do like to point out that a reverse effect exists, too. If you are losing a game, you lose less rating the higher ranked the winner, or the drawers, of the game are. As such, if you are losing a game and care about your rating, it may be a good idea to throw all of your centers to high ranked players in the game. I have no personal experience of this happening, but neither do I have personal experience with the headhunting - I only play few games and they are all anonymous, so I don't think anyone ever knew my identity.

I read that Ruffhaus wrote: "Making matters worse when you lose a game from the top position you lost exponentially more points than the 50th ranked player would." By my understanding of vRating, it is not exponential. In the limit where your vRating goes to infinity, you only lose twice as many points as compared to someone whos rating is dead average compared to the other players in the game. However, if you win or draw a game, your gain in vRating goes exponentially down the higher your vRating already is.

This last fact can have ridiculous consequences in large games. Suppose that there are two WTA Divided States games being played. In one of the games, everyone has a vRating of 1000. In the other game, 49 players have a vRating of 1000 but one player has a vRating of 2000. Both games end in a solo; the player with an initial vRating of 2000 is one of the soloists. According to my calculations, the new vRating of the player with an initial vRating of 1000 will be equal to 3320, which is insanely high and which would make him the #1 of the site by a mile. Some other calculations tell me that the new vRating of the player with an initial vRating of 2000 will be roughly equal to 2450, which is WAY lower.

I have been thinking about solutions to improve vRating. (Disclaimer: I am not a developer, just a math student with some free time, and no one has asked me to do this.)

I think the problem I outlined in the paragraph about the Divided States solo example could be solved if the calculation of the new vRating worked in an 'incremental way'. Currently, the solo of the 1000 vRated player would be interpreted as a full, instant win against 49 opponents. You could also interpret it as a fractional win (similar to how a draw is interpreted) against 49 opponents, then calculate his new rating, then interpret it as a fractional win again, etc. Basically you are approximating an integral. Then his new vRating wouldn't be so ridiculously high, and should never get above what someone with a higher vRating would end up with.

As for implementing a system that does not encourage headhunting, I think that that is hard if you want the ratings to work across all variants. GhostRating, which does not encourage headhunting, works in an easier way than vRating and I do think it is the better rating system for webDiplomacy. I don't think that adopting GhostRating for vDiplomacy would be a good idea, though. In GhostRating, a high ranked player can lose rating in a draw if the draw is too large; he then simply has a worse result than would be expected for someone of his rating. This is a necessary requirement for a rating system that does not encourage headhunting and that works in a somewhat easy way. In vRating, this is never the case. I like GhostRating more on this front too, but I do think that vRating better translates across multiple variants. If you can lose points in a draw when the fraction of players eliminated is too small, then higher rated players who care about their rating would do better in large variants, and lower ranked players would, by symmetry, do better in small variants.

It should be possible to create a system that does not encourage headhunting and works well across all variants, though. I have some ideas in my head that may work but I haven't taken the time to work them out fully.

may you have the time someday, Mercy. +1 is not enough for this great, compared, illustrative and ellucidative analysis!

There are lots of people in the Hobby, me included, who have opinions of rating systems ranging from indifference to outright disgust. A minority, but a significant one.

So why, why, why are there absolutely no large, active communities (yeah, there are a couple of very small, not very active ones) that do not have rating systems?

P.S. Cat23, I mourn your passing. :(

@CCR: Well thank you! :)
@David E. Cohen: If a scoring and rating system is such that any player who tries to optimize his rating, plays in a way that is in line with how most players want the game to be played, would there be a problem?