kdice 101 quiz

Q1: 7 players sit around a table. Each has a rating of 1500. One by one they are eliminated and the game ends with a winner. What are the rating adjustments for each player based on the ELO equations previously given?

A1:
7th: -96
6th -64
5th -32
4th 0
3rd 32
2nd 64
1st 96

The problem occurs Ryan when I work hard and get my rating up to 1750, and I sit at a table and don't even get a turn, or I'm knocked down to 1 territory with 2 dice by the time I get my turn. You then get killed when you honestly have no chance of winning - let alone even gaining any position - and you take a huge hit on your rating. You then lose 100+ points - which will take you four or five games to earn back.

There are games where you have no real chance, and then there are games where you get absurdly lucky, it all does balance out.

If you play with other players of a similar rating, winning is just as good as losing is bad. If you play with others of lower ratings, you risk losing many points, and if you play with others of higher ratings you have a chance to gain much.

"And, I still don't understand what makes sense about someone in first or second getting less than the person in third. Explain how that makes sense?"

The rating system is designed to give a rating of the player's skill at Dicewars, as accurate as it can.

When you move in the rating, the system is saying "Oh, that person must be better/worse than I realised." So if a highly rated person gets first, it does not move them up much because it expected them to do well. It already knew they were good enough to beat those lower ranked players.

And if a player with a very low rated wins, or gets second or third, or if a very highly rated players loses, they get moved up/down a great deal. The rating system is adjusting its assessment of the player's skill.

To use an analogy, if a professional tennis player wins the Wimbledon, he gets rewarded a great deal because he beat other skilled players. If he beats some random beginner tennis player, no one cares because we already knew he could do that.

Oh and one more thing, about cheating. I haven't noticed anything particularly suspicious so far. Often you don't need to talk to the other power to make an alliance. Two experienced players will know when it is in their mutual interest to ally, and when it is not.

chris, stop it!
i just looked up my statistics, and guess what: i am 7th. the thing is that nobody of the first 150s was placed last more often then me (in % of course)!!!
what does that tell you? it means that allthough i seem to have bad luck more often then the other players, i'm skilled enough to win games if there's a tiny chance... that's why i'm 7th and you are 389th...

you should start playing with the big guys so you don't have to cry all the time for your precious points if you lose against some 1300s that you usually seem to be playing with

(sorry if anything of this doesn't make sense, my grammar tends to get fucked up by ignorance like this)

Its a game of luck. The only thing you can try to do, is estimate your chances and try to identify treats and weaknesses you can exploit.

And sure, there will be games you can't win, but thats part of the game. It happens to other players as well.

dice_horst,

Just because you aren't cheating doesn't mean others aren't. Good for you that you are doing so well. I have played at the bigger tables plenty of times. The only time I play at the small tables anymore is when I get tired of waiting for 20 minutes for enough people to join a 1700 table.

You know, the purpose of this message board should be to express your thoughts on this game. How come if anyone wants to complain about an aspect of it - people want to gang up on them? I mean..... what is the point of even suggesting things?

I'm trying to point out what I feel is a flaw in the game. I for one would like to see my good play rewarded. I would understand if I was a super-shitty player and lost every game. If you look at my stats - you will see that is not the case. Mine are pretty evenly spaced, with 46% of my games third or better. Why am I not ranked higher?

Example, I just sat at a 1700 table (leucaruth). I started with 4 spaces and by the time I got to my first turn I had 1 space with 2 dice on it. I didn't even have enough to attack and was taken out before my second turn. I lost 87 points. However, the game before, I played at a 1700 table and finished 2nd. My score went up 8 points. In other words, I would have to finish 2nd 10 times to "balance" (as you guys say it) with a game I had no chance and lost.

Listen, I love this game (I've played over 100 games so far). I think some of you think I'm bitching just to be an asshole. I'm simply trying to bring up some issues that it seems like many others have.... but they don't seem to have the balls to put it bluntly. Don't any of you read the chat at the tables? I'm watching a table right now (not playing or chatting) and the discussion is people trying to figure out the scoring system and talking about how stupid it is.

The other issue I have is the mixed interpretations of what this game is... is it a "skill" game - or a game of "chance" or luck? I mean.... if it's strictly skill - then in every instand the best player should win right? Then how come there is nobody with a 100% win rate? If it's a game of chance - then how can you award points with such an unusual scale? Shouldn't the reward for winning be the same as losing?

I am just trying to bring up some legitimate points that I think need to be addressed if this is going to be a successful game. I am NOT the only person to complain about the scoring system. In fact, very few people understand it. And to say that "good" players do well is not entirely accurate. There is much more luck involved than anything.

Maybe instead of spending so much time trying to attack me for bringing this stuff to this forum - some of you should read the chat during games, or take a look at the number of people that are only playing a couple times and then leaving because of the scoring system.

Ok, Chris, look...

If you are losing large amounts for early exits and making small gains for wins, then on average you are playing people ranked significantly below you. The system does not reward beating up on lesser players, and it punishes you harshly for losing to them. I know that people near the top of the table have trouble finding games with equal or higher ranked players, but at 1700 or so you generally should not. And the fact that you are playing at a 1700+ table doesn't change the need to pay attention. Playing with people ranked in the low 1700s and playing with people ranked in the high 1800s are likely to give you very different points for the same results. So have a little patience, choose your opponents better (more courageously) and you should see things even out for you.

Is it a game of chance or skill? Both. Just like backgammon or Risk or poker. The rankings show how well you tend to cope with the hand you're dealt, and over time everyone will get good and bad hands to cope with. If it were purely chance it seems unlikely that I would have had two nicks consistently in the top 25 (aside from the occasional bad day).

I do hate the luck that isn't meant to be part of the game in the first place - like "will I get to play when my turn comes up this time, or will the server screw me again?" But risking a bad break or a bad roll just keeps things interesting.

:/ Figures I'd barely be in the top 100 when I post that. One of those bad days.

Anyway, I meant to say that the system doesn't _greatly_ reward beating up on lesser players, you usually still get something if you win.