 |
|
Hunkpapa
|
|
Philly, PA
Feb 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
This is my first posting ever in this forum. I am very interested in playing in a PBEM game of Alpha Centauri X-fire. I have never played in this format before but would like to get acquianted with it. So I will need some help setting it up and recieving/loading/sending turns b/c I really have no idea what to do. I will be able to do at least 1 turn/day. And would just like to start with one game for now.
email: pmarc_wcpa@msn.com
[This message has been edited by Hunkpapa (edited February 04, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zsozso
|
 |
of Chiron
Oct 1999
time: 00:13
|
|
I would like to reward faster victories more - although your point is good about being able to beat a weaker opponent faster, so opponent rank also has to be taken into account.
In my example, Y would get higher score for slower victory over the good player X, if we follow the scoring system you or Korn469 suggested and compute the scores at game completion based on rank. That was the argument against those - otherwise good - scoring systems. My conclusion is, that any rank-based score system has a time related problem with parallel games regardless of the fact that you determine the score at the start or at the end of the games.
However, there is one solution, which would overcome this problem: we have to use a rank based scoring system, which recomputes all the ranks and all game scores after every game completion. I.e. player A beating player B may reward him a certain score at the time when that game competed, but the score for that game may change in light of later games of both A and B, e.g. if player B wins many games later, then the score A gets for that earlier played game would increase!
I suggest a score-stealing system:
- All scores are re-computed after every game completion, even the scores gained in earlier completed games.
- The score computation is done in two phases: score awarding and score stealing.
- In first phase, each winner is awarded a certain score for each game won. E.g. it could be based on M.Y. of the victory, let's say (2600-M.Y.), i.e. each win is worth at least 100 points, theoretical maximum being 499 for winning in 2101, but practically you could expect around 200-400 points per win.
- Second phase is the stealing, where the awarded points of each winner are divided for all the games the player completed. E.g. if a player completed 5 games and won 2 of them, then the sum of the 2 awared points would be divided by 5. The player keeps 2/5 of his awarded points, but loses 3/5, 1/5 stolen by each player who beat him. On the other hand, he steals some points for the 2 games he won (from both losers there).
The stolen points are computed purely on awarded points, you do not lose again from stolen points, so it is not an iterative process, only 2 phase.
This way beating a good player who won (or going to win - order doesn't matter!) a lot of games is more beneficial, because you can steal a lot of points. On the other hand beating on newbies who do not win any games, will only grant you the awarded points, nothing is stolen.
I think this is a simple enough system, but still contains the ranking factor and also the faster win better factor. On the other hand, winners will want to play other winners to be able to steal more points, so we get the benefit of the level-based system. In fact, we could even introduce an extra rule to include the level system, i.e. games would be scheduled between players who won the same number of games so far.
Another advantage is, that players, who play a lot of games but only win a few, would not be scored above good players who play few but win all. E.g. one player who played 10 games and won 3, probably not better than one who won 2 out of 2. A simple level-based system would rank the 3-winner/7-loser player higher than the 2-winner player.
Any thoughts, counter-arguments ?
[This message has been edited by zsozso (edited February 04, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pagan[CyC]
|
|
Zsozso:
I was not explicit enough in my explanation of the scoring system I proposed; it would completely recalculate scores after every additional game completion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Paul
|
 |
Zwolle, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
zsozso, just let me see if I understand that scoring system of yours. For example, there are four players: A, B, C and D.
1st game: A, B, C -> A wins in 2300 -> A gets 300 points
2nd game: A, B, D -> A wins in 2360 -> A gets 240 points
3rd game: A, C, D -> D wins in 2420 -> D gets 180 points
4th game: B, C, D -> C wins in 2240 -> C gets 360 points
A has 540 points, won two out of three, so he keeps 360 points and the remaining 180 points are stolen by D who beat him in game 3.
B has 0 points, so there are no points to be stolen and he stays at 0.
C has 360 points, won one out of three, so he keeps 120 points and loses 240 points which are split between A and D who steal 120 points each.
D has 180 points, won one out of three, so he keeps 60 points and loses 120 points which are split between A and C who steal 60 points each.
This leads to the following final scores:
A: 360+120+60=540
B: 0
C: 120+60=180
D: 60+180+120=360
Did I get that right? Or did I misunderstand anything?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zsozso
|
|
of Chiron
Oct 1999
time: 00:13
|
|
Yes Paul, you got it all right. Your example also nicely illustrates how the stealing works to switch places between C and D.
C and D has beaten each other, so it is not clear which one better from that point. On the other hand, A was clearly the best and B is the worst player. The straight scores would've put C ahead of D due to its faster victory. However, C has beaten the weakest B, while D has beaten the champion A (even though in a longer battle), so D deserves the second place!
Pagan[CyC], sorry that I did not understand that in the first place. In that case, your system is in basic principle equivalent to this 'stealing' system, but yours goes further by iterating the process - we could try that and see how it works...
Zsozso
[This message has been edited by zsozso (edited February 04, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Interesting thoughts on scoring systems, but I don't think these games will take that long, depending on the players - with the map layout, accellerated start, and three player no-AI format, I have a hard time seeing these games go past 150 turns.
In my PBEM experience, I've found elite X Shard Fusion Choppers hard to resist - my longest running PBEM (with five plaers and 2 AI) is 155 turns, on a much larger map, and is 5-10 turns from completion, depending on my last victim's appetite to play to the bitter end.
On this map, with each island in PB range of it's neighbors, the rush to Spaceflight and MMI is going to be decisive. If players resign when their situation is hopeless, we should see most games resolved in the 3-6 month range.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Genaciv, since I'm a collateral descendent of Maj. Gen'l Fitz Lee (Rob't E. Lee's nephew), I'll invite you not to sully the Lee name, despite what Jimmytrick says.
You're right, I'm doing terribly in the CvG game. Industrial automation by 2116, a pair of 4-3-2 rovers on the way to visit Jimmytrick's 4 alien artifacts and their escorting scout patrols, and 2 of 3 enemy factions infiltrated and mapped. When I'm elected governor in the next turn or two, I won't need to waste a probe on infiltrating you. Since I've also got Cent. Empathy, I'm switching to a green economy so I can do 100% research, that way, I'll make sure that my needlejets are flying your way by MY 2150. Have a nice day. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Genaciv
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
DOH!
- General LEE Clueless
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Genaciv
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
LTEC! is just MtG's brain in disguise.. and not only that, but she is pure evil! Beware her dirty tricks, and legendary predispostion to BETRAYAL...
- Genaciv
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zsozso
|
|
of Chiron
Oct 1999
time: 00:13
|
|
Some general anouncements and issues to discuss:
1. Certain messages only appear for 1 player, but would concern all, e.g. sea levels rising. The player who receives these, should let the other know about them (either email or post on the turn-admin thread). I'll add this to the rules, but wanted to anounce it here too, because it is a late-addition.
2. What should we do in SMACX games if 2 human players are eliminated but the AI is still active, so the game did not end according to the program, but practically over ? The question becomes even more interesting if the AI wins later 
One possibility is to record the victory year to be the MY when the second human player was eliminated. Other possibility is to let the last player play it out with the AI and report the victory year with the final save to the CMN - and in case the AI wins, the game is considered to bea draw - nobody gets or loses points for it!
3. Starting with several techs has its good points but it also slows down further research. Due to a bug that happened in some PK-games (ACT003 and ACT010 I think), it occured to me, that it would be possible and perhaps desireable to start the games with low tech cost, i.e. having 7 starting techs but still a low tech cost just like in a standard start. We could also alter the starting techs instead of all level 1 techs, start with all faction-starting techs, that way all factions have their usual starting techs, but there is still full balance... We could startin using the new start-tech system for 'seconf-level' games, i.e. those that are started after the player has already completed one.
4. How about a 6-player final amongst the best-scored players to decide the champion ?
I would create a large map, with 6 islands similar to these arranged in two rows of 3, with a minimum distance of 12 squares from each other. That way, each faction can still reach any other at roughly the same distance. I wouldn't put any pods on the start islands, but there would be plenty of them in the water and neutral territories. I would also put a lot of tiny islands on the map. This way, even jets couldn't reach the other islands in a single turn unless they have very high reactor (available much later).
5. And finally a player-specific question:
Genaciv, MtG and LTEC!, there are only the 3 of you who has unfilled game capacity, so I could start a SMAC game for you, but considering MtG-LTEC! relationship, it may not be the best idea... What do you think ?
Zsozso
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buddha
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Heh I thought this was where you sign up for PBEM games... has turned into more of a critique of the fine points of scoring.
Anyway please sign me up!
I'll play alphax or original, no real preference.
Faction preferences: Morgan,Lal,Drones, maybe Hive or Believers
NOT UOP!
Looking forward to it!
Oh, and unlimited games at one time.
[This message has been edited by Buddha (edited February 16, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buddha
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
double post
[This message has been edited by Buddha (edited February 16, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buddha
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Sorry I tried to post one last time before I left for the weekend but the forum forgot my account.
My normal email is hendrikv@home.com
Unfortunately Bresnan is going through a merger and I am not sure if my email is still functioning. I'll get back to you on that...
Sure I'll replace edgecrusher. Spartans are ok... but I would prefer Morgan. I dont like UoP any way.
I use icq A LOT.. but I dont have my account number with me right now and am not at my regular computer(I will be back at regular comp by 2-28). Anyone here care to give me their icq ##'s?
[This message has been edited by Buddha (edited February 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buddha
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Well two things to say...
first of all I am changing my account name as requested by DanQ. Never really thought that this name is offensive to Buddhists. Well go figure, I'll change it anyway.
My icq is 56192410.. set to authorize.
My new account name is..
heh not sure feeling lost identity. Hrm I'll make it...
Enigma
with signature
"The Artist Formerly Known as Buddha"
anyway zsozso please email me the starts, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Feb 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Yo zsozso? could someone please email me start for next multiplay game?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2000 20:19
|