The people behind StopKillingGames.com have launched a European Citizens’ Initiative as part of their cause.

This is essentially a petition that if sufficiently supported, would require an official response from the European Commission. Based on the reasons in my previous post, I urge all EU citizens to sign.

At the time of writing, it has reached 355,503 of the 1,000,000 required signatures, and a minimum threshold in 6 out of 7 countries. It must reach its target by 31 July 2025.

A new campaign has started to try and preserve video games that become unplayable when the developer and/or publisher no longer wishes to support them.

This post is mostly a collection of random commentary on games that I have tried to order as coherently as possible.

For a more succinct description of the problem and what you can do to support, visit StopKillingGames.com.

Growing up with games

This is a topic that I feel strongly about. I grew up playing video games. The first games I remember playing were on a Commodore 64. The first that were my own were on a Nintendo GameBoy and Sega Master System. Since then I’ve owned many consoles and computers. I’ve owned a few that were essentially “before my time” like an Atari 2600. In fact I first got into programming on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum.

This means I have a lot of memories playing video games, and for most of that time I knew that those games would remain playable indefinitely. The reality of hardware degradation means that for practical purposes most people would have to resort to emulation, but in theory someone who owned the original game would always be able to play it.

That is no longer the case for many modern games.

New games

There are some games that fundamentally require server resources to run. For some those those can be run by individuals - many early MMOs like Ultima Online have private servers for instance. Others like EVE Online might never be reasonable to run locally. And despite the fact that I would like these to remain playable indefinitely, these are not really the games that concern me the most.

Live service games

The games for which this is a problem is live service games, especially ones with a significant single player component. I think if a practical solution is to be found, then the “single player” aspect is going to have to be important - after all a mostly multiplayer live service game is pretty close to an MMO.

One sticking point is disagreement between the people running the game and the people playing the game what kind of game it is. Both Diablo III* and Diablo IV require an online connection to play, and the latter certainly adds quite a lot of content that only really works online. But a large number of players, including myself, only play it solo. But I have also played both Star Trek Online and Elder Scrolls Online (which are definitely MMOs) predominantly alone.

* Interestingly, Diablo III on console did not require an online connection. The result was hacked save files, which meant choosing to play with strangers online was awkward. But playing alone was fine.

Ubisoft and The Crew

This issue has come to prominence recently after Ubisoft decided to shut down The Crew. This is not a game I have played but it sounds like it falls to the sticking point I mention above. A lot of the game is based around being online and playing with others, but not all of it.

Ubisoft are making the opinion of the problem quite clear though, apparently taking things a step further and revoking digital licenses. This seems like a crazy move - I can imagine people making well reasoned arguments about companies not having to put resources into supporting games, but that doesn’t really hold any water when considering removing all access to people with digital games.

What to do

StopKillingGames.com is probably the bast place to go for information on how you can help. I would also suggest being as selective as you are able in the developers and publishers you support. For me, I personally spend more time playing single player indie games which generally don’t have this problem (being the digital license issue).

My games

For my own games (currently this means Tic-Tac-Toe Collection but I intend it to apply to anything else I ever make) I will always follow the principle of not requiring an online connection unnecessarily. That means that core functionality should not require it at all, and any features that do require it should not impact the rest of the game.

I have accidentally proven this a few times by managing online resources badly and allowing services to go offline. The game continued to work fine.

One final feature my expanded Elo rating needs (or at least the last I can think of) is the ability to deal with ad hoc teams.

By “ad hoc teams”, I mean teams of individual players with their own ratings that are on the same team for a specific game, but don’t generally stay as a team (established teams that always play together should be treated as their own “players” with their own rating).

This is not a common requirement, but the specific use case I had was an office ping pong table. Some times people would play singles and some times they would play doubles, but with no really established teams.

Necessary features

Firstly, the two key ratings operations need to work:

• Estimate the result of an unplayed game
• Updating ratings after an actual result

And all the existing features should be supported:

• Two or more teams
• Unfair games
• Ties

Additionally, it should support teams of arbitrary (and mixed) sizes, including teams of size one. This brings us to one of our first less-obvious requirements - since this is expanding an existing system, it should be compatible with the existing system where it overlaps. So the following additional requirement makes sense:

• Teams of one should give the same result as just using individuals

Simple solution

Just like with unfair games in which an adjusted rating is calculated first, and then used in the rest of the algorithm, and adjusted rating should be calculated for a team. This would trivially allow all the existing features to just work.

The most obvious way to calculate such a rating would be a simple arithmetic mean of all the players. This would definitely support our key requirement, but would it produce meaningful results?

At this point I think simplicity has to win out over sophistication. The most general solution would allow players to be weighted on each team (perhaps different roles in a team have different impacts on the result) but I think those situations are more likely to be handled with a per team rating.

In my previous post, I described an extension to Elo that could handle multiple players. The next restriction to overcome is that Elo assumed players of equal skill have an equal chance of winning.

In most games, players don’t actually have an equal chance of winning a single game. Chess overcomes this by having a match consist of several individual games with players switching who goes first. This is a good solution for two player games but gets awkward for multiplayer games. It is also inconvenient if having a multi-game match is undesirable for any reason.

Adjusted rating

Elo is fundamentally designed to handle players of different skill levels and produce a probability of them winning. The approach is therefore to determine an adjusted rating for someone such that the probability of winning is as desired.

The formula to work out an Elo expected score is:

In our case we have an expected score (the win probability) and want to work out a rating difference, so we can just rearrange to get:

$R=\mathrm{400}\times {\log }_{10}\left(\frac{1}{E}-1\right)$

We then subtract this adjustment from the player’s actual rating to get their effective rating to use in the rest of the Elo calculations.

The reason we subtract it is that for players A and B, the rating difference is calculated as R_B - R_A which is the opposite way round to what we want.

Here are the rating adjustments for some sample win probabilities:

Win probability	Rating adjustment
0.01	-798
0.10	-382
0.25	-191
0.49	-7
0.50	0
0.51	+7
0.75	+191
0.90	+382
0.99	+798

If you try to calculate the adjustment for a win probability of 0 or 1, you get -∞ and +∞ respectively.

This means, for example, if you beat someone of an equal rating at a game you only have a 10% chance of winning, it’s the same as beating someone rated 382 points higher at a fair game.

Putting it all together

After explaining the theory of how to expand an Elo rating to support all the variations in Tic-tac-toe Collection, it’s time to put it into practice.

While writing this I’ve also been working on an implementation.

As well as adding it to Tic-tac-toe Collection, I’m planning on creating some kind of site and/or app just to work out Elo ratings for various results (and hopefully even to maintain ratings for players in any kind of competition you might want to run).

One of the features I have planned for Tic-tac-toe Collection is a player rating system.

One such common rating system is the Elo rating system, most famously used in chess. There is a lot of discussion about how good it is, but for my purposes it seems fine - at least as a starting point.

There are two fundamental restrictions on Elo that I would have to overcome though:

• It is limited to two players.
• It assumes each player has an equal chance of winning if they have equal skill.

Elo

First an introduction into how Elo rating works. There are two parts:

Given two player ratings, calculate an expected result.

The expected result is essentially the chance of winning, given as a decimal between 0 and 1, in which 0 represents a guaranteed loss and 1 a guaranteed win.

Given a player rating, an expected result, and an actual result, calculate how much the rating should change.

If you do better than expected then your score will go up. If you do worse then your score will go down. With a bigger difference there will be a bigger change.

Multiplayer

Simple Multiplayer Elo

I found an existing implementation of Elo for more than two players by Tom Kerrigan called Simple Multiplayer Elo.

In SME, players are ordered by performance, and then a simulated match is played between pairs of consecutive players, with the players’ ratings updated using the normal Elo method for two players.

This is certainly acceptable, and Tom includes some tests to show it works well. One oddity is if you get a victory over someone with a much higher rating than you, but also beat them by more than one place, you essentially don’t get the benefit for it. For example, consider the following result:

Position	Player	Initial rating	vs player above	vs player below	Total
1st	A	1000		+24	+24
2nd	B	1200	−24	+27	+3
3rd	C	1500	−27		−27

Here, Player A with a rating of 1000 has beaten Player C with a rating of 1500, but essentially hasn’t gotten the credit for it.

My unnamed Elo

My solution is to conceptually run the algorithm on every pair of players (in this case there would be A v B, B v C and A v C). There is a straightforward optimization so that the estimating part of the operation does not directly depend on the other players, just the difference between a single player’s expected and actual scores. So the algorithm is actually:

1. Calculate the expected scores for each pair of players.
2. Sum the expected score for each player.
3. Divide each score by the number of players to normalize back to the range 0 to 1.
4. Calculate the rating change for each player using their actual score and the combined expected score.

The details

With the same data as above, the results are as follows:

Player	Initial rating	Expected score
A	1000	0.097
B	1200	0.304
C	1500	0.599

Which is made up of the following score pairs:

Pair	A	B	C
A v B	0.24	0.26
B v C		0.15	0.85
A v C	0.05		0.95

This results in rating changes of:

Position	Player	Initial rating	Change
1st	A	1000	+29
2nd	B	1200	−9
3rd	C	1500	−19

• Player A has gained more which is good. That was basically the goal of the change.
• Player B has now changed a small gain into a moderate loss. That’s a little odd and probably not desired, after all the victory against C should be more significant than the loss against A
• Player C has changed a big loss into a slightly smaller (but still big) loss. After some thought, that is probably reasonable. Although C is expected to win just having more players should generally reduce your expectation of winning and therefore how much you are penalized for failing.

Improvements

So why did these results happen? It might be better to look at a table also including expected and actual results, which reveals a choice that has to be made that I have not yet mentioned:

Position	Player	Initial rating	Expected score	Actual score	Change
1st	A	1000	0.097	1	+29
2nd	B	1200	0.304	0	−9
3rd	C	1500	0.599	0	−19

Notice the actual scores used. Player A has a score of 1 indicating a win. Players B and C have a score of 0, which indicates a loss, but an equal loss.

If we instead use different values for the actual score we get a more sensible result

Position	Player	Initial rating	Actual score	Change
1st	A	1000	0.67	+18
2nd	B	1200	0.33	+1
3rd	C	1500	0	−19

In this case, the “actual score” for a player placed Nth out of C is:

$\frac{2N}{C\times \left(C-1\right)}$

Explain this formula

This formula is conceptually simple, but a bit opaque when simplified.

Think of it as each player getting a number of shares of the total score. The person in last gets 0 shares, the person second from last gets 1 share, then next player gets 2 shares, and so on. The person in first place gets C−1 shares.

That means each player gets N shares and the total number of shares is equal to the C−1th Triangular number.

The formula for a triangular number is:

$T\left(x\right)=x\times \frac{\left(x+1\right)}{2}$

Substituting C-1:

$T\left(C-1\right)=\left(C-1\right)\times \frac{\left(C-1+1\right)}{2}$

This simplifies to: $T\left(C-1\right)=\frac{C\times \left(C-1\right)}{2}$

Therefore each player gets:

$N/\frac{C\times \left(C-1\right)}{2}$

which simplifies to:

$\frac{2N}{C\times \left(C-1\right)}$

Handling ties

To be as general as possible (and because it actually happens in some of my multiplayer Tic-tac-toe variants) we need to handle arbitrary ties.

The simplest way is to evenly distribute the score to all the players that are tied. So if the top two players in a three-player game tie, their scores of 0.67 and 0.33 are summed and split between them (0.5 each).

As a more complex example, consider:

Position	“Raw” score	Actual score
1st	0.286	0.262
1st	0.238	0.262
3rd	0.190	0.143
3rd	0.143	0.143
3rd	0.095	0.143
6th	0.048	0.048
7th	0	0

Final thoughts

I’ve addressed the first restriction of Elo, only supporting two players. As for unfair games, that will have to wait as this post is long enough as it is.

Over the weekend I was playing around with Blazor and created a little number game based on part of a popular British TV show.

In the future this may expand in functionality as part of my exploration into Blazor.

You can try the number game full screen.

I’ve started making videos of the AI-only games of Tic-tac-toe Collection with interesting settings. More information available at the Tic-tac-toe Collection Showcase

Playlist.

You can now enjoy all the features of Tic-tac-toe Collection, including cross-platform multiplayer on your iPhone and iPad.

Tic-tac-toe Collection has a new website: [https://www.tictactoecollection.app/].

I switched from using Wordpress.com to using a static site generator, specifically Hugo.

Tic-tac-toe Collection is now available on Android on the Play Store. Additionally, I’ve started a new blog to host random content about the game (initially just release notes, but I actually keep thinking of interesting things to write).

Tic-tac-toe Collection Blog.