 |
|
quinns
|
|
87. Chlg 87 Dimytes vs. TheBirdMan; Started Mar-2004 -- In progress.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
Dimytes email me with details, remember to chew your food slowly... That way you know when you bitten off more than you can chew... ;0)
Challenge accepted, on the condition we agree on game settings.
Protoss72000 while Quinn has set the record straight, I also have questioned the ranking over the Civ score.
I too have witnessed countless games, late in the game usually. In these games the 4x pg ranker has lost, it may have taken 10 turns or 100, but the top pg has lost.
I think, assume, the pg ranking win here would be based more on the obvious. If your opponent say has SOLS and you have tiremes, or they have mills and 10 techs on you... Your dead for the most part obviously.
Now if in fact you have made contact and see these senarios and know in your heart your toast. Pg win is for you and your challenger. There is always the rematch.
But if in your heart you know, for instance you have 2x the cities or great land, or better science once you grow abit... Protest it I would.... Meaning we should have a member commity or revolving volunteers to rank the games. Thumbs up, thumbs down, no more no less. Either you win the appeal or not.
I would also challenge you to a game but the ranking will be the civ score not the ranking, PG. Your settings and lets test the civ score option.
Just a thought, this revolving volunteers on a per sittuation base could also be useful for resolving player quits in mid game. If in fact the quiters civ sucked we could rule a win for the victim.
If in fact they were losing two choices one for the die hards, wait until resumed, or take it in the chin and conceed...
Food for thought. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
 |
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
Dimytes beats me around turn 96, although he had 4xPG on me long before.
also, id like to suggest a few changes to the ladder rules:
- 4xPG only after turn 100 
- make it standard to have the players not take positions 1 and 3 or further down because of the difference in starting positions (river and such).
an idea would be for both players to check at the start of the game if they have either both river or both no river.
- for the dual duel i would like to address one thing:
the current rule is that in case of each player taking one game the faster win counts.
however, considering the case where a militaristic player plays versus a perfectionistic player, even if both players win one game each the militaristic player will usually win faster.
as this gives and advantage to the militaristic player i suggest finding another way of determining the winner, for example winner's civ score divided by final turn number.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Also, I’d like to suggest a few changes to the ladder rules:
- 4xPG only after turn 100
- Make it standard to have the players not take positions 1 and 3 or further down because of the difference in starting positions (river and such).
An idea would be for both players to check at the start of the game if they have either both river or both no river.
- For the dual duel I would like to address one thing:
the current rule is that in case of each player taking one game the faster win counts.
However, considering the case where a militaristic player plays versus a perfectionist player, even if both players win one game each the militaristic player will usually win faster.
As this gives and advantage to the militaristic player I suggest finding another way of determining the winner, for example winner's civ. score divided by final turn number. |
All good idea’s Math, the land has to be equal or one player has an advantage. The last game I had sent to me the other guy had rivers and mountains, I had trees, more trees and more trees. I had few goods also. Would have been a quick unequal game. The main advantage of restarts is equal footing, it makes for a better game.
I have noticed online that position 2 usually gets the choice land, four and six do well too. With the N.O.A.I. mod., we can now find the best, most equal starting positions. We can start with 4-7 civ’s because they would all die would they not?
But why turn 100? In the scenario where the perfectionist plays the militaristic player the perfectionist may beat the militaristic on turn 200. They could defend because of better science and growth, or land. That could be the same in reverse.
Another way to do the same thing would be to build cities very close to one another. Your PG will soar but you will not be able to win in the long haul. At least not against a science guy with room to grow.
Just say “uncle” people we all know when we have been beaten don’t we? Just a thought.
I would be interested in seeing the civ score of games that have been won with the 4x rule.
In the case of dual duel the civ score is a great idea, but why divide it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Congrats, Dimytes!
*73. Chlg 73 Dimytes def. Mathemagician; Started Nov-2003 -- Finished Mar-2004; Turns 96.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
Dimytes challenged again for a revanche.
conditions to be decided later on...
a dual duel would be nice, but i still have the problem i mentioned above with the dual duel format.
---
also, here is another suggestion of how to handle the "both players (e.g. aggressive/peaceful) win one game each" situation for the dual duel format:
option #1
when one of the two games is won, not the turn number is taken as the criterion for the winner, but rather the civ scores are compared.
for example if player A wins game 1 on turn X, but has a lower civ score in game 1 than player B has in game 2 on turn X, player B would win the match.
overall criteria:
player A wins game 1 on turn X -> higher civ score (A: game 1, B: game 2) on turn X wins the match
option #1b
as player A may have the higher civ score in game 2 too, in which case it would be unfair for him to lose the match, the sum of civ scores in both games may be used alternatively.
overall criteria
player A wins game 1 on turn X -> higher sum of civ score on turn X of both games wins the match
option #2
instead of player B instantly winning the match, game 2 is finished as well. if player A wins this one too he is the winner of the match. however, if player B then wins game 2, in order to avoid a draw, the civ score comparison of option #1b is made, with the relevant time being turn X.
overall criteria:
player A wins game 1 on turn X -> if he has the higher (>=) sum of civ scores of both games on turn X, he instantly wins the match, as even if if player B won game 2, player A would win the match. else game 2 continues as normal.
player A wins game 2 -> player A wins the match (2:0)
player B wins game 2 -> player B wins the match, as he had the higher civ score on turn X when player A won game 1.
---
thank you for reading and im looking forward to hearing opinions on that. 
Last edited by Mathemagician on 31-03-2004 at 04:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Math, I think we should leave the dual-duel "standard" format the way it is -- that is first to win a game, wins the match. However, you may set up your victory conditions in whatever fashion you like, that is agreed upon by both the players before the match begins.
Same with the 4xPG. Players should agree beforehand when the 4xPG should take effect in their particular game -- whether it is turn 20, 40, 100, or 200, or never.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Protoss72000
I have always wondered why you guys just don't use the basic wins: build alien life, destroy your enemy or force there surrender. Then a win is a win. |
yes, but if you play two games in a match (dual duel) and both players win one game, who wins the match ?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2004 01:44
just need your e-mail address. 
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
..hmmm..not bad..that is if you saw the movie and can remember the old banker whom ran the town of Bedford Falls....
|
|
