15-08-2001 17:55									#1
	Pros Cons Maximizing-Rankings Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Posted by Max Webster: As you say ratings do not take into account diplomacy, which can have an effect on a player’s position in a game.

True they don't as they don't take the absence of it into account either or the timing on when to maximize diplomatic effect. To expand on that they don't take a more common factor into account terrain or starting location (sloc). Which can be equal to or a IMO a more important factor. CTP itself takes terrain difficulties into account in the score.

That leads to the obvious why do we not take the score as the ninth turn ranking? It seems that would take a few more factors into account when figuring rankings that are lets face it important to your standings in the game and your skill level. So if we use the current PG for rankings what about a terrain modifier?

There is a penalty for wishing to be removed from being rated in a poor terrain game which I don't think is right IMO. That penalty ensures that a person with poor terrain either takes a one time deduction or continued hits on their rankings why I don't know. Why not a bonus for bad terrain to counter this or just use the score which takes terrain into account for the ninth turn ranking?

Bringing up another point should you be able to view your starting location before you agree to be rated?

quote: Posted by Max Webster: One thing though about the ratings, shouldn't the number of games a person is involved with effect the person’s standings? Is this possible or necessary? Just think its kind of weird with one person doing well in one game being at the top of the ratings.

I agree it is weird especially with the terrain factor, if you were to think about rating as important to gamming. One would have to say it would be best as per the example, to play but one game especially if you were blessed with good terrain. That does not ensure you a victory but it does ensure a more predictable ranking and out come. So like you say should a bonus be added for participation?

Predictable= playing games with people of similar ranking and abilities a smart use of the ranking system. This of course leads to the hierarchy symptom. That is of course dividing high ranked from middle and lower ranked players. Not smart to be rated in a game on tundra with lower ranked players that have rivers and mountains. Most all ranking systems suffer this unfortunate side effect.

Ok let's look at one way to maximize the system to your advantage you get in a game wishing to be non-rated as you want to view your sloc. You have great terrain a good start you play for awhile other players have gone to war. You now find yourself about to take commanding lead during the game. The other players are well rated it would now be a good time to get rated. Thus capitalize on the situation and the rankings system.

Similar to this would be taking over a civilization that has a good standing in a game but that is timing and chance.

Expanding on the above I have done some calculations they are; if say berxpert took the penalty for becoming non-rated in the games he is doing poorly in and remained in the games he is ahead. He would be able at his going rate to make up this one time loss for a maximum gain on the rankings. This for the time stop his yoyo rankings the only way to go would be up not up and way down. That is if he continued to dominate in his games, a risk yes but chances are his standings would remain in the top 10 then he has now.

This of course is not an attack on the ratings system it is a discussion on how to maximize it to your advantage. We all acknowledge Quinn does a bang up job here and the system is ok as it stands IMO. So lets not turn this discussion into I love you, I love it or I hate you, I hate it ok pros and cons and maximizing and strategies...

So that said again I will have more later any comments? Other ideas on how to utilize or maximize the rating system to your advantage are the idea here?

	15-08-2001 22:53									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

3 or 4 Unsettled setlers makes the PG boom for some reason.... (very intimidating, dont know why)


anyway, cool avatar Blackice

	15-08-2001 23:07									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Thanks online Avitar site you can resize them online there to cool site.

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum10/HTML/000410.html


That is where you will find the PG broken down by Quinns it explains some of the PG meaning. Read the whole thread it is interesting. One point at the time there were no moderators or very few. Now in most games there are giving more merit to using a more in depth ranking score by using the civ score instead. That would take, tile improvements, wonders built terrain modifiers into account when ranking your 9th turn score.
And yes even diplomacy...

	16-08-2001 10:41									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: posted by lung: I just realised that your ratings system had influenced my gameplay! In Lung's FAST! pbem, i held off finishing off St. Jon for one turn because of the turn number! This is because we were up to turn 208, and i had the opportunity to finish off Jon. However, in a rare bout of misplaced mercy, i held off, knowing that for St. Jon to survive another turn would give me a bonus win against him. Then, come turn 210, i kill him!! This then gives me 3 more kills against him, as he automatically loses 3 times to every player! As it turned out, Stavros came out of the blue and hammered the final nail into St. Jon's coffin!!! DEPRIVED!!! At least someone killed him off

This is exactly what we are talking about think before you react...

Good job Lung er timing...

	16-08-2001 13:29									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

This would let somebody have better rating just because of the better/worse terrain he starts with. Pretty odd to me.
As for diplomacy, there's no real one in CtP. Not bad ideas overall, but look, the system stands as it is for ten months now, and is succesfull, why change it?

	16-08-2001 16:49									#6
	Got spare money?

Diplomacy is somewhat represented in the power graph. In US game, I was leading by quite a bit throughout the first have of the game. Then two new players join the game and one starts a tech trading alliance. Soon my lead in tech is gone. Then I find the whole world is allied with everyone but me. Aso I have been the only player attacked in this game. So diplomacy does have an effect on the power graph.

	16-08-2001 18:10									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yeaah - I am quite a bastard aint I Swissy

I say: Let the ranking system be as it is. It is not 100% fair and it really has some disadvantages. Agree to that.

But I think the things, you should consider if ratings should be "fair down to the last 10 th of a millimeter" would be endless.

Then - what time do you play. Are you tired or half drunk not un-normal among some of us I think.

How fast is your 'puter. If it is slow, you probably take the easiest way of playing

How about your starting terrain?

How about the difficulty level?

How about the island/continent settings. Some people prefers first other last to be their favorite battlefield.

Is your favorite opponent among the other players - the one you really want to shoot and kick around?

And all the other things already mentioned.

	16-08-2001 18:28									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: This would let somebody have better rating just because of the better/worse terrain he starts with. Pretty odd to me.

Most players including the Great Paul of GL fame conclude terrain is a major deciding factor. I have to agree with them all if war breaks out you have plains and your opponent has mountains who will out produce whom? since production is exagerated in the pg you will see an immediate surge in your pg with more productive land.

In many games I will use Gavrushka's, Paul's and my game for the purpose of this example. In that game Paul was 12 techs behind but his pg was way ahead one of the main reasons for this was the fact he had mountains. He had 20 times the production through mines this is common. I will use this same example to respond to Swissy yes you are right and yet in this same game Gavrushka and I traded techs it made little difference to the pg. The reason terrain and production, so while diplomacy is as you say some what involved production via terrain becomes more of a factor to the pg.

Try building mines instead of food and drop your science to zero and put all cities on infrastucture after you get factories you will see what I mean about the PG and production and I may add science. Experiment with it do it with plains and mountains you will see a huge difference between the two in the pg. On the other hand the civ score is barely affected by this...

I would say that better rating between two equal players is going to go to the player with better terrain. This is how it stands now if you look at the civ score in the game the score is modified for terrain difficulty. It would seem then the designers acknowledged this when they created the game and incorporated it in the civ score.

Finally this is not about changing the current system at all... it is about pros/cons and how to maximize your use of the current system to your advantage as the tittle reads. A discussion on the current system comments like Lungs is a perfect example of what I am getting at. But... without changing the current system I ask the question; should you be able to view your SLOC before commiting to being rated in a game?

I personally don't care if one likes the ranking system or not in fact I am trying to avoid that topic all together. I am trying to get a discussion going on strategies and ideas for maximizing the current system to your benefit to do that one has to understand it's pros and cons. And starting this thread was intended to avoid mucking up a cluttering the rankigs thread as it is now with I love it I hate it... with no real value to the conversation at all. IMO it should be used for reporting game rankings and kudos for Klair and others that are doing well. I think as we have all acknowledged again Quinns has done a great job the system is ok as it stands... Why do we need to beat that subject to death? I would like to get on with a more productive, usefull conversation about the system?

I would point out however that in the original conversation about a rankings system most agreed that the civ score was a better measure of your current ranking. At that time it would have been a pain to do, with moderators in most every game now it would not... But that is neither here nor there as changing the system is obviously a taboo subject and simply not going to happen even if the change was more realistic and better for all... So let's not go there it is pointless.

I will reiterate:

quote: This of course is not an attack on the ratings system it is a discussion on how to maximize it to your advantage. We all acknowledge Quinn does a bang up job here and the system is ok as it stands IMO. So lets not turn this discussion into I love you, I love it or I hate you, I hate it ok pros and cons and maximizing and strategies...

	17-08-2001 08:03									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Lol Bird

	17-08-2001 08:17									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I say: Let the ranking system be as it is. It is not 100% fair and it really has some disadvantages. Agree to that. But I think the things, you should consider if ratings should be "fair down to the last 10 th of a millimeter" would be endless.

Depends on how goofy you got,

I think we already agree to that don't we?


Civ score vs PG

Viewing Sloc before being rated does not change the ranking system just how you obtain the information for ranking and the option of being rated or not in a baren land game...

The rest can not be helped most all ranking systems suffer the same affliction...

Now back to strategies? any input, ideas on how to maximize the current ranking system to your advantage?