I just want to point out that while, theoretically, yes, you could stomp noobs endlessly for infinite rating, that would take a lot of time to do. Subterfuge isn't like Pokemon. You can't just grind out experience, since each game takes so long. And after a certain point, the increase in rating that you get is fairly minimal. It's like betting on the favorite. Sure the odds are in your favor. But you don't get much in return it you win.
In one of my conversations with TheStash while he was #1 on the leaderboards, he said that he basically had to come in first in every single game in order to keep gaining points. And that's the way it should be.

kevlargolem wrote:"And how do you know this?"

While in the Intelligence Reports tab, tap on the column under Neptunium and instead of showing you Nep, it will show you how many rating points each player gains or loses if they were to finish in the position they are right now. I think for everyone, it'll show increments of 20, +\-, regardless of anyone else's rating.

For the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what you are saying. But ELO is a pretty time-tested, standardized algorithm. They use it in chess, and lots of matchmaking systems in video games (sometimes behind the scenes).

Yes I'm familiar with it because I play chess competitively.
What I'm saying is that basically you play 'chess' against a person who is the average rating of the player of the game, and that the result also becomes affected by what position you are, so middle counts as a draw, 1st counts as a win, 2nd counts as slightly less than a win, etc.

Re: roadkill

Ohhhh, ok. So it is actually ELO based, but is very strange. So it looks like Subterfuge pools all other player's ELO into an average, and the point result is based on that. After doing some research, I've learned that ELO is designed for 1v1 match-ups, which explains why the system we have in Subterfuge is not as clean as 1v1 ELO.

This is a decent start, but this "averaging pool" has some clear problems (if I understand correctly). Imagine an extreme example of a 10 player game, where the top 2 are extremely highly rated, while the bottom 7 are brand new noobs, and you yourself have average rating. If you beat the odds and come in 1st place above the 2 amazing players, you don't the amount of points that your feat deserves, because the weak ratings water down the pool of ratings.

Also it seems like the rigid 20pt variation creates an artificial (non-ELO) result. So if a pro comes in first place above a game full of noobs, his score is 20pts better for each spot above 4th achieved, OR artificially limited in penalty if he finishes dead last (can only be a limited factor of 20 downward).

I'll withhold judgement until I have a better understanding. ...but interesting food for thought.

I have an idea. Why don't we simulate an all v all and make the rating adjustments needed for each one. So in a 9 player game you're basically playing 8 1v1's in a row, and so if you came third you've effectively lost against 1st and 2nd but you've won against everyone else? I think that would be a better way of doing it. And to prevent 1st place getters from obtaining to much ELO in a single game (and also making the amount from games with different players relatively similar), maybe the total change in ELO should be divided by the [numbers of players] - 1 (yourself)

That's kinda what I had in mind, but I'm clearly not a math or ELO expert, so had no idea if it would work better than this pooled average thing.

kevlargolem wrote:That's kinda what I had in mind, but I'm clearly not a math or ELO expert, so had no idea if it would work better than this pooled average thing.

I think it would, because then, in the situation you described, the person who won would have also beaten player 2 and player 3, who are very highly rated, so you get lots of points for that, and then since you'll still get some points for beating the rest, the you'll still go up quite a bit in your ELO

Road and Kevlar.

I agree. At a certain point you have to come in first to get a decent rating boost and second gets you like +4. It doesnt matter if half the payers have a high rating, the average rating of the game is what matters.

I think part of the problem is that there arent enough "good" players yet. What I mean by this is that the game is young, and it takes a long time to finish a game. Therefore, someone who is actually pretty good may have a lower rating than they deserve just because they havent played enough games to reach their "true" rating yet.

Is that really true though? I have played 3 rated games and am top 50. I accidentally got caught in a game with "new" players and am facing a potentially large hit to my rating if I don't manage a medal.

Someone who is good at the game should be managing to win most of the time regardless and I think the rating system as it stands is generally good.

To the original points, I like the idea of splitting the rating systems between game types including the overall rating as well.

Definitely multi-game deals and boxing should be prevented. Instead of match-making, perhaps a cool-down period of a week or two? I know that won't eliminate it but it would encourage less instances of it. Frankly, I have nothing against being respectfully beaten. Whether it is a cunning feat of subterfuge or just being outmaneuvered, I can not be expected to win them all. I have suggested to friends I met here to purposefully work against each other in game to inspire another dimension of competition.

5. Anonymity (in ranked/tournament)
(this is from another thread, but just wanted to include it for completion's sake)

6. Limit Pre-Game Chat (in ranked/tournament)
Much(if not most) diplomacy is made before the game starts. Sometimes it can take more than a day for a game to start. The first people to join therefore get significantly more time to make diplomacy than those who join later. They might make plans to gang up on a player who hasnt even joined the game yet.

a. Public chat pre-game could remain. Its useful for killing time and getting a sense for players. Anyone who joins later has access to it and get caught up on what was said.

b. Private chat should only be available once the 4 hour countdown window opens. You could pre-write opening messages, but the recipient wouldnt receive them till the 4 hour window.

tw2000 wrote:I have an idea. Why don't we simulate an all v all and make the rating adjustments needed for each one. So in a 9 player game you're basically playing 8 1v1's in a row, and so if you came third you've effectively lost against 1st and 2nd but you've won against everyone else?

This is the current system being used in the game.

Currently your rating is changed based off how you did in 1v1 battles with everybody else in the game. In these individual games the Elo is calculated using a base kValue of 20 and the delta of all the 1v1 games is calculated to end with your final Elo change.

The kValue of 20 means that if you win/lose against somebody with the same rating as you then you will see a movement of +/-10 rating. Whilst if you win/lose against somebody with a massive ratings difference you will see a gain of either +/-19 or +/-1 (depending on which way the difference is).

The only difference between the system Subterfuge uses and the system most games use for a multiplayer Elo system is that all of these changes are added up instead of being averaged. Other games use a larger kValue and then average out your ratings before applying the change.

So if you are winning a 6 player game with people of the exact same rating then you will get: +10,+10,+10,+10,+10 = +50. However if everybody in the game is 100 rating better than you it will look something more like this: +13,+13,+13,+13,+13 = +65. (aprox numbers)