Player Ratings
Games between members are automatically recorded and updated at the conclusion of each game. The central game server also calculates and maintains player ratings for all players.
Each new player begins competition with a player rating of 100. When two members play one another, each player risks a percentage of his rating. This point value is calculated by the server and represents 2.5% of the player's current rating.
At the conclusion of the game, the winner gains the "points wagered" by the loser. These points are deducted from the loser's player rating and added to the rating point total of the winning player. All ratings are dynamic in nature, with the server updating player ratings as each game concludes.
One of the principal functions of this rating system is to encourage competition between similarly rated players. A very good player has little to gain by defeating a player with a much lower rating.
Every game played, whether in tournament competition or in individual matches, affects the player ratings of the two players. (The only exception to this is when members elect to play the free version against other non-members. Those games have no impact on player ratings.)
Player ratings are also used to determine the sequence of play in the game.
The lowest rated player is always set to be player one, giving him a slight playing advantage over the higher rated player.
When two players have identical rating, the game server will randomly select the playing order for the game. (The playing sequence will always be randomly determined in the free version of SpiritWars.)
Note: Player ratings and won-loss records only apply to members playing SpiritWars on the Kellogg Creek Software server.
No player records are maintained for games played using the free version and no player ratings are supported.
A Few Comments From Randy About Ratings: Player ratings are a key element of the over-all game design of SpiritWars.
The two primary concerns when making decisions about the rating system for the game were: 1) it had to be fair for all players, from the good to the "less good"; 2) it had to be something that everyone could understand without using a slide rule.
I'm sure that there are a variety of ways we could have designed the ratings that would be closer to some abstract level of mathematical perfection. However, I didn't want a rating system that no one could understand. Too many of the systems I've seen used in other games are just too complicated for the average person to understand.
The secondary goal was to develop a system that would encourage the best players to seek out other players of a similar skill and experience level instead of preying on the new and weaker players. The rating system we are using is simple in design and execution, but it also accomplishes this second critical goal.
A very good player playing someone with a very low rating has very little to gain from a victory.