Page 1 of 1
Ratings Results
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:01 pm
by Dixicrat
We have our first results for ratings! Please keep in mind that both games must be played before the first Provisional Rating is determined. I'm calculating the ratings for the first half of the set to let y'all see the developing trends.
Manstein 1018
Kjstrand 1017
Runyan99 0983
PKPowers 0982
Both of these games were fairly quiet: no NM objectives taken, no particularly lopsided battle results, and no sudden death.
Coffee Sergeant vs. Aphrodite Mae ratings
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:27 pm
by Dixicrat
At the conclusion of Coffee Sergeant's game with Aphrodite Mae, their ratings become:
Coffee Sergeant 1018
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Of course, these ratings are preliminary until each plays the other side of the set.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:32 pm
by tagwyn
Havely got a bad rating???!!! You'll never hear the end of this?! t
Ratings Report 13Dec08
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:36 pm
by Dixicrat
New ratings are in bold.
Johnnycai 1026
Manstein 1018
Coffee Sergeant 1018
Kjstrand 1017
Runyan99 0983
PKPowers 0982
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Daxil 0974
Again, please keep in mind that both games must be played before the first Provisional Rating is determined. I'm calculating the ratings for the first half of the set to let y'all see the developing trends. A dissappointing loss can be offset by a brilliant victory, in the second game of the set!
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:21 pm
by Daxil
You notice with all these so far the US player generally has the advantage./
Noticed the USA favor
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:36 pm
by josh4bs
I would be surprised if anyone could actually take St. Louis as the CSA. Not saying that is it impossible...but it is impossible. Plus with the advantage of size of military that the USA gets and maintains/strengthens it is not IF the CSA loses, but how close they can make it.
Just my opinion.
Josh
Ratings report 16Dec08
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:44 pm
by Dixicrat
We have our first provisional ratings!
Manstein 1040
Johnnycai 1026
Coffee Sergeant 1018
Kjstrand 1017
Runyan99 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
As before, new ratings are in bold. "Official" provisional ratings are underlined.
After three rated game sets (playing both sides of a scenario), the ratings will become "standard". The difference between "standard" and "provisional" ratings is that with a standard rating, your opponent's rating strength is factored in. In a provisional rating, your opponent is assumed to have a rating of 1000.
Ratings report 18Dec08
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:27 pm
by Dixicrat
New ratings are in bold.
Manstein 1040
Johnnycai 1026
Aryaman 1024
Coffee Sergeant 1018
Kjstrand 1017
Runyan99 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Bertram 976
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
"Official" provisional ratings are underlined.
Ratings Report 06Jan09
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:32 pm
by Dixicrat
New ratings are in bold.
Manstein 1040
Johnnycai 1026
Aryaman 1024
Coffee Sergeant 1018
Torca 1017
Kjstrand 1017
Runyan99 0983
Jabberwock 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Bertram 976
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
Underlined ratings have completed both games of the first round.
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:10 pm
by Daxil
I think my ratings may be off. We got the POWs backwards in game 1. I'm guessing it was like 200/600, john with the 600 taken.
Ratings Report 12Jan09
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:48 pm
by Dixicrat
New/revised ratings are in bold.
Manstein 1040
Johnnycai 1026
Aryaman 1024
Dixicrat 1018
Torca 1017
Kjstrand 1017
Coffee Sergeant 1000
Runyan99 0983
Jabberwock 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Bertram 976
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
Underlined ratings have completed both games of the first round.
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:11 pm
by runyan99
I don't know what forumula you use, but the ratings don't make any sense. I won my match against kjstrand, and took a few thousand less casualties over the two games, and yet he is rated higher.
Clarification
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:22 pm
by Dixicrat
Your rating hasn't been updated yet, Runyan99.
When I post a rating report, the new ratings are are always indicated in bold, and ratings which are derived from both games of the bracket are underlined.
After I finish this post, I'll scan the threads of the tournament forum to see if the information which I requested has been posted, so that I can update other ratings beside my own.
EDIT 13Jan09: Here is a link to
the ratings equation
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:27 pm
by runyan99
Oh ok.
Ratings Report 13Jan09
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:09 pm
by Dixicrat
New/revised ratings are in bold. Players who's rating reflects playing
both games of the first bracket are underlined.
Manstein 1040
Johnnycai 1026
Aryaman 1024
Dixicrat 1018
Torca 1017
Runyan99 1010
Coffee Sergeant 1000
Kjstrand 990
Jabberwock 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Bertram 976
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
The equation used to determine ratings is
here.
Ratings Report 14Jan09
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:39 pm
by Dixicrat
New/revised ratings are in bold. Players who's rating reflects playing
both games of the first bracket are underlined.
Manstein 1040Johnnycai 1026
Dixicrat 1018
Torca 1017
Runyan99 1010Aryaman 1000
Bertram 1000Coffee Sergeant 1000Kjstrand 990Jabberwock 0983
Aphrodite Mae 0982
Daxil 0974
PKPowers 0960
The equation used to determine ratings is
here.
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:08 pm
by Dixicrat
Daxil wrote:I think my ratings may be off. We got the POWs backwards in game 1. I'm guessing it was like 200/600, john with the 600 taken.
Interesting! I remember wondering specifically about that at the time, although I don't remember why.
To avoid any confusion in the future, let's all agree that POW figures will be reported just as they appear on the Objectives page.
I've re-evaluated the calculations for your rating, and it has changed!
By one point. LOL
Newly revised ratings are: Daxil 973, Jonnycai 1027
To whom it may concern...
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:15 am
by Dixicrat
My apologies to you, if you've been disappointed because I haven't updated the ratings in many weeks. I dropped the project because I assumed that nobody was particularly interested in the idea. Why work on a project of little interest to anyone?
However, lately I've received new motivation to update the ratings, primarily from the encouragement of my wife. If you're interested in developing a rating which reflects your playing strength, then please PM me whenever you've completed a game. It would be helpful if you could include a link to the "results" post of your final turn.
I haven't looked over the changes since the last ratings report yet, but I'll commit to having all ratings updated no later than next Wednesday, 18Mar09. If there are problems due to a lack of critical data, I'll post a notice in this thread to that effect.
Thanks for your support and patience.
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:06 am
by Daxil
Thanks. Ratings are a good way of knowing you're going to be playing someone of similar strength to maximize the challenge. I encourage you to keep it up. If it catches on it could be used in the PBEM forum also.
Ratings report for the end of Round 1
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:35 am
by Dixicrat
These ratings reflect player strength ratings at the completion of the first bracket. They do
not reflect the results of any games in the second bracket.
I've done these rather hastily, and while I've exercised what I consider to be due diligence, there may be small errors. Any revisions will only be by a few points, however.
Names in bold are either new or have had their rating change since the last report; underlined names have
not completed a set of games (i.e., playing both sides of a scenario).
Johnnycai 1051
Yellowhammer 1045Manstein 1040
Benway9 1019Dixicrat 1018Runyan99 1010
Torca 1002Aryaman 1000
Bertram 1000
Coffee Sergeant 1000
Jabberwock 0998Kjstrand 990
Aphrodite Mae 0982W.Barksdale 0981PKPowers 0960
josh4bs 955Daxil 0949
As an afterthought, it appears that those of us who have only played one game can get "caught up" in the march toward establishing a "standard" rating by playing each other: it looks like Benway9 and I should play; and I'm
positive that a game between W.Barksdale and Aphrodite Mae would be interesting, no matter
what happened.
Yellowhammer-Runyan99 match
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:07 am
by Dixicrat
I have preliminary results for the first game of the Yellowhammer-Runyan99 match up in the second bracket.
Runyan's rating goes up to 1032, while Yellowhammer's rating drops to 1023.
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:29 am
by Manstein
My thoughts are the same that those from Daxil.
I think that if this work doesn´t cost very much effort to you, you should continue doing it.
Why?? For three reasons:
First.- Because it is something which you believed in it.
Second.- Because the newest players need to know versus who play them. And they can go challenging to higher positionated players.
Third.- As a continuation about the previous point, at the Forum there is a wrong opinion about the players: the more post somebody has the better player he is.
Thank you for your efforts.
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:44 pm
by Dixicrat
Manstein wrote:My thoughts are the same that those from Daxil.
I think that if this work doesn´t cost very much effort to you, you should continue doing it.
Why?? For three reasons:
First.- Because it is something which you believed in it.
Second.- Because the newest players need to know versus who play them. And they can go challenging to higher positionated players.
Third.- As a continuation about the previous point, at the Forum there is a wrong opinion about the players: the more post somebody has the better player he is.
Thank you for your efforts.
You're welcome, Manstein!
The calculations take very little time; I simply enter the numbers into a spreadsheet.
However,
finding the numbers and making
sense of them takes more time than I like! I think that soon, I may create a "form" which can be filled in by the players and then sent to me. If this is done, then this will make my work
much, much easier.
I appreciate your support for the "ratings" idea! I would like to see this idea spread to all PBEM games, for exactly the reasons you specified. However, this will take many, many months of actively playing rated games among
many players, before this can become a useful tool for matching players.
As for your third point, I
strongly agree, and so does my wife. We
never look at how many posts have been made by someone, when deciding who to "listen to" for advice; we look at their reputation, to determine the
quality of their advice, as perceived by other forum members. When someone provides excellent playing advice, we tend to think that the player is strong on the game battlefield, as well.
In closing, I'd like to congratulate you on the medals that Aphrodite Mae has made for you... but that nobody else knows about yet!
The rating of an "Iron Tiger"
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:03 am
by Dixicrat
I was going to post all of the updated ratings together, but one game stands out so distinctively that I think that it deserves its own entry. It's an excellent example of how extremely strong play can dramatically affect your rating.
After the first game of the second round, Manstein's rating increases from 1040 to 1349. Yes, you read that right: his rating increased by over 300 points.
Here are the primary considerations of how this happened.
National Morale figures very heavily in awarding points. At the end of the game, Manstein's NM was 167, and his opponent's was 35.
Manstein took 24700 POWs. His opponent took none.
Manstein suffered 60120 casualties. His opponent suffered 88194.
Manstein had 1153 VP at the end of the game. His opponent had 503.
All of this, considered together, resulted in a ratings jump that shocked me.
Well done, Manstein!
You are indeed an Iron Tiger. Let there be no doubt.
Iron Tiger Proviso
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:03 am
by Dixicrat
I'm adding a proviso to my ratings method, since it has suddenly become crystal clear that Tigers can maul your rating.
It's simply this: for now, if you're mauled by a Tiger, your rating will only be decreased by a fixed percentage (which I haven't yet decided upon), no matter how catastrophic your loss would have been otherwise.
That "fixed percentage" will probably be somewhere between 5 and 15%.
EDIT 04Apr09: After consideration, I've decided to define a "catastrophic defeat" as one in which you would lose more than 100 points from your rating. Suffering such a defeat will only reduce a rating by a maximum of 100 points.
Ratings report: 04Apr09
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:09 pm
by Dixicrat
These ratings reflect player strength ratings at the completion of the first game of the second bracket.
Ratings which have changed
Manstein 1349
Benway9 1080
Torca 1054
Runyan99 1032
Yellowhammer 1023
Johnnycai 951
Aryaman 948
Coffee Sergeant 939
Ratings which have not changed
Dixicrat 1018
Bertram 1000
Jabberwock 0998
Kjstrand 990
Aphrodite Mae 0982
PKPowers 0960
josh4bs 0955
Daxil 0949
For purposes of acquiring and developing a rating, I define a "rated match" as a two game set, during which the player plays both sides. I strongly recommend that the games of the match be between the same two players, but that will not always be possible.
At least one match is required to establish a provisional rating. The following players have not yet fulfilled this requirement, and so their provisional rating is not yet valid.
Dixicrat
Reason: played only the USA in the Far West scenario. Must play CSA side, in order to complete the match for the scenario.
Benway9
Reason: won by default as CSA; Must play USA side, in order to complete the match for the scenario.
Aphrodite Mae
Reason: played only the CSA in the Far West scenario. Must play USA side, in order to complete the match for the scenario.
I am discarding W.Barksdale's rating data. Apparently, something occurred which prevented him from being able to participate in the tournament. He defaulted a game that he was winning in the first game of the first bracket, and lost the second game of the bracket due to default. If and when he decides to pursue a rating, his rating will be initialized at a strength of "1000".
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:03 am
by benway9
Hi Dixicrat,
although i'm not well versed in your ratings system, i wanted to update you on the status of my games. i have completed both sides of the 2nd round West Campaign. i defeated Coffee Sergeant to move forward to the next round. i'm not sure if that will have any effect on my rating, but just for your information.
thanks
Pete (benway9)
Ratings report: 19Apr09
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:12 am
by Dixicrat
These ratings reflect player strength ratings at the completion of the second game of the second bracket. We are still awaiting the results of the second Manstein-Johhnycai game.
Ratings which have changed
Benway9 1094 (+14)
Torca 1093 (+39)
Runyan99 1063 (+31)
Yellowhammer 992 (-31)
Coffee Sergeant 925 (-14)
Aryaman 909 (-39)
Combined List
The following list shows each player's rating, followed by the number of games which have been used to calculate that rating.
Aphrodite Mae 0982 / 1
Aryaman 909 / 4
Benway9 1094 / 3
Bertram 1000 / 2
Coffee Sergeant 925 / 4
Daxil 0949 / 2
Dixicrat 1018 / 1
Jabberwock 0998 / 2
Johnnycai 951 / 4
josh4bs 0955 / 2
Kjstrand 990 / 2
Manstein 1349 / 3
PKPowers 0960 / 2
Runyan99 1063 / 4
Torca 1093 / 4
Yellowhammer 992 / 4
Update for Manstein - Johnnycai
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:36 pm
by Dixicrat
The host of the Mastein - Johnnycai game finally contacted me yesterday and provided the information that I was missing.
Manstein's rating increases to 1370;
JohnnyCai's rating drops a few points, to 930.
EDIT:
kjstrand wrote:Johnnycai has surrendered to Manstein. Round 2 over. Congratulations Manstein!
I'll leave it to the players to post the details -- I'll have to reboot out of OS X to get into AACW.
kjstrand apparently got it backwards: it was
Manstein who resigned. He did so on turn 21, when he saw that his victory for the bracket was assured no matter what.
This changes the ratings which I posted yesterday. My original calculations had Manstein as the victor, but with Johnnycai as the victor of the second game, the ratings become
Manstein 1328
Johnnycai 972
Ratings update for Manstein & Runyan
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:41 pm
by Dixicrat
This is an update to reflect the results of the game between Manstein and Runyan.
Manstein 1235/5Runyan 1156/5
The "/5" indicates that both men have played five rated games, so far.
At the conclusion of the 6th rated game, their ratings will become "standard", rather than "provisional", as they currently are.
The difference is that "standard" ratings take into account your opponents rating, while provisional ratings do not. For comparative purposes, if the game had been rated as "standard" rather than "provisional", Manstein would now have a rating of 1212, and Runyan's rating would be 1179.
As a final note, Provisional ratings are rather vicious: any points that you gain have been lost by "the other guy". For example, it two players with ratings of 1000 play a provisional game, and Player A ends up with 1050 points, Player B's rating is going to be 950. If player B wins the second game of the match, and gains back 25 points, B will have a rating of 975, and A's rating will become 1025.
@Daxil: I really like your idea of assigning "General Ratings" to players!
Maybe the idea can be developed further, later, somehow in conjunction with a ratings system.