The World at War ELO Tournament

[ThunderLizard11]

[ELOs Ended]
ThunderLizard11 (axis) [WIN] v. arikogut (allies) [LOSS] - Allies resign June '44. Allies make strong landing in Normandy as Allies focus all resources on Germany. Russia on the rocks with Germans closing in on Perm and Moscow with help from Japan. Japan allowed to run amok in Pacific and took down Australia, New Zealand and much of India and China. Great turn returns from arikogut with 3-4 moves a day at times.

ThunderLizard11 (allies) [WIN] v. MerlinXL (axis) [LOSS] - Axis resigns Dec '44. Russia moving into Germany proper with Poland, Romania and Italy in Allies hands. Axis tried invading Russia through the Urals but progress was bogged down. Japan holds DEI after several succesful counter attacks but losing ground in China and the Phillipines. ALmost daily turns from Merlin with a few breaks.

[ELOs Started]
ThunderLizard11 (axis) v. boudi (allies)

[DmitryN]

I have missed why this topic is under discussion, but if someone plans to create and support new rating I have an idea how to make the games between different level players more interesting.

Instead of win/loss result we can use scores. E.g. Axis: 1 country survived 1947 – 1 score, 2 countries – 2 scores, axis survived and either USSR or China+India is surrendered – 3 scores, one of the above + UK surrender – 4 scores; kill everybody including USA – 5 scores.
For allies: kill all axis 1947 – 1 score, kill all axis 1946 – 2 scores, kill all axis 1945 – 3 scores, 1944- 4, 1943 -5.

It can stimulate weaker players not to resign in the early game, but try to resist till the end. Above the descripted scores could be applied the existing mechanics of different value of win depending of players rating.

It is just the idea to think about.

[HarrySmith]

I have missed why this topic is under discussion, but if someone plans to create and support new rating I have an idea how to make the games between different level players more interesting.

Instead of win/loss result we can use scores. E.g. Axis: 1 country survived 1947 – 1 score, 2 countries – 2 scores, axis survived and either USSR or China+India is surrendered – 3 scores, one of the above + UK surrender – 4 scores; kill everybody including USA – 5 scores.
For allies: kill all axis 1947 – 1 score, kill all axis 1946 – 2 scores, kill all axis 1945 – 3 scores, 1944- 4, 1943 -5.

It can stimulate weaker players not to resign in the early game, but try to resist till the end. Above the descripted scores could be applied the existing mechanics of different value of win depending of players rating.

It is just the idea to think about.

Actually this looks like a very easy and straight forward system of scoring. To me it will encourage players to go the distance. Perhaps it needs to be available also for winner to post to keep it totally up to date.
The thing i would add is that your score is divided then by games played to give you a rating, otherwise someone who plays a number of games quickly could be on top of the ladder purely for that reason of having overall the highest score. For example if someone(a) plays 5 games for 10 points their rating is 2. Another person(b) playing 2 games for 8 points their rating is 4. Another person(c) plays 10 games for 15 points their rating is 1.5.
If it was based on highest score ranking would be c (15), a(10) and then b(8)
If based on rating the ranking would be b(4),a(2) and then c(1.5).
Rating would give a better indication of skill.

[ThunderLizard11]

Would like to hear from EarlyDoors but looks like he hasn't been around since March. At some point we'll need to start a new ladder or figure out how to update the current one. With any new system, we should have at least 3 people who can maintain.