21-07-2002 21:01									#211
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How is it "flawed" it would help to understand better if you gave examples. Klair BTW was just one example as you know there were more but that is old ground now.

In this system now has a clear winner and a loser and everything in between is graduated. The winner takes the lions share of the pot as it should be. The ones in the middle lose or gain a bit but are not wiped out in the rankings. The loser is hit but again not wiped out in the rankings.

Seems fair to most and has the rankings moving again. Lung can not sit on top without losing his spot if he does not play more games and stronger opponents. That is primarly the only spot that feels that effect. The rest contiunue to play as per usual and the postions move quite frequently upwards and some slightly backwards. But no great dives.

	21-07-2002 22:29									#212
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, I think that the "Klair" factor could easily be eliminated by setting a minimum limit on how many rated games someone should be in to be allowed to be rated. For example he/she should be in at list 3 or more rated games before can make it to the ladder.

Now didn't I say something about starting a new thread and posting the old and new rules there?
Perhaps I should do that myself too?

	21-07-2002 22:53									#213
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Uh ah, scary Keygen, you can do it . I just have to get the guts to write all the rules.

Also for the "Klair factor". A penalty for not playing a long time could also be eliminating this. And 3 game limit is fine by me, too. Not more, though.

	22-07-2002 05:10									#214
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ok once again you eliminate people that want to play casual. I see no need to create this stigma we are a gaming forum not a hard core gaming forum. Lots of people here have two games and no time for more.

I don't get it you have a ranking system that works yet you want to go out of your way to make it hard on people. Or eliminate people to make an old system work. Or make rules to make it work dancing maddly backwards I say. Klair as posted is not the only reason the system was flawed so you need more...

I have not heard one good reasons so far to go backwards anyone else?

So again the question is how can you justify changing a system that works. I have challenged you all for reasons yet I get nothing. That speaks volumes....

Solver has spoke he said for all intents "because I can" that is a good reason is it not? Solver also told me to use Gary's system...Politics obviously.

But go ahead people make new rules to eliminate potential players to make an old flawed system that does not work, work

Stick your neck out start a poll and give the reason's for a change if you dare. Chances are it not only will not happen but the people who like this system will be over ruled.

Lots of politics no common sense....

Last edited by blackice on 22-07-2002 at 21:06

	22-07-2002 06:00									#215
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Here's my two cents worth...

I see no problem with the present system, except the obvious one which is that it is not being applied (updated)

Another ladder I play on has the system where if the winner is ranked below the loser, the winner moves half of the places toward the loser's rank. Loser stays stationary. Ranking is reduced as other players leapfrog past you.

If you're in a 5 player game and on top, you get 4 wins, if you're in say 4th place, you get 3 losses and 1 win. The system has the effect that if you are inactive you slip quickly, unless you're near or at the top, in which case the loss of rank due to inactivity is necessary, although not applied in the ladder I play on, which is frustrating.

Again I say: the present system is fine, it just needs to be applied

Edit: By the way, hello from the sunny Philippines

	22-07-2002 09:07									#216
	Inflate your Upload Space

Similar to the old system Rick. If you are in thrird place in each game you play you get two loses. Fourth place three some incentive. If you are first place in one game but third in the rest you nose dive down the ranks big time.

This system the third ranked my move up or down depending on the pot. They may also stay as they are.

So in the example above you may gain rankings depending on the pot not just nose dive to the bottom which in the old system was assured.
Klair was just one minor flaw...

This system is far more fair as far as movement and interest goes.

As far as stagnent players go look at the stats the top players that stopped playing are falling fast. No need for a penalty there they are gone.

I am still looking for other than politics to change the current system.

Add it up people all and all a more fair system and no need for inactive penalties. This system adds the incentive needed not the penalities which is negative to begin with.

Thanks for your input Rick come on people you do have a say I think?

None the less post your thoughts

	22-07-2002 21:54									#217
	Tired of ads?

I am not sure whether you are refering to Solver or me or both on your above comments Pete but I feel like I should properly responde to you anyway.

I have persistently asked for both the older Quinns/Solver and newer Gavrushka/Blackice full rules. If I remember correctly the latter had never been posted here but if I am wrong correct me. I didn't have the time to do a search on my own yet so if Pete could do that for the latter and Solver for the first since you possibly both will know where to look at first in the contrary to me I would greatly appreciate it.

Now Pete if you can straitly answer to me how your system or Solver would handle the following situation I would be more than glad to hear about it.

Someone plays in 8-10 games. He's a good player but not excellent. He's rated only in three of his game. He took over these games as a replacement in 90-120 turn when his predecessor was an excellent player and had a way ahead lead. In his rest games he is in the middle or bottom of the power graph. Another excellent player is playing in 5 games. He is rated in 3 of them. He leads in the first two but he's second position in the other with a significant distance from the first one. The same for his rest unrated games. Now supposedly all 6 rated games from both player is more or less the same how the hell will ever the excellent player going to beat the good player? Note that a good player can keep a huge lead from his predecessor in the above advanced stage that took over as a replacement perhaps up to the end of the game. Only other factors will give the excellent player chances to pass ahead if the good player get attacked by combined forces and be beaten (the most likely) and the excellent won't get attacked.

If you can solve this problem I will withdraw all my suggestions and pronounce your system excellent.

If you beleive that a system can be perfect from it's first release or second release and no further involve can not be made then I guess the 99% of the computer industry are dump!

Now I only intented to do some suggestions nothing more. Before you turn them down you should first pay more attention to them. For I care less for being rated and that can be easily seen from my lack of posting on the ratings for the past 9 months or so. Never was particularly interested on them and only agreed to get rated to help out. Mostly interested on helping with the rules but every time I tried to found myself under fire in any of my suggestion, not to say that nobody's else suggestions also ever accepted. Not sure what the fuzz with the ratings and everybody involved with the only expetion Solver (for the first time) are so hard to convise them that their work doesn't work excellent and could use a couple of suggestions to make them better.

Now do not take my post as offence, I am not here to offend anyone or fight with anyone, I find it completely useless but had point out a few things.

Now can you please keep me out of the ratings?

Thanks

	22-07-2002 22:40									#218
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It think there was a rule for that scenario somewhere. None the less the rules were not changed just the rankings system. In the old system both players would drop. We saw this all the time ask ber, faded, Lung or me. It did not go as far or in a fair way of promoting many games. As Klairs example that was the best way to stay on top.

In the new system they may or may not change a position. It depends on the rankings of the other players and how much is wagered in the pot. It does promote playing one or many games. Many games is obviously going to get you to the top faster but is that not how it should be? Mind you in this new system playing one game and winning it every ranking will keep you up there but not top spot. Also playing many games does not assure top spot either. Your ability does and your opponents strength. A strong player playing weaker ones may win but the share of the pot may be weak. Sooner or later this good player has to play stronger players to get any movement going. This works well here because generally games are made up of stronger and weaker players.

I think we have to be very clear here the "rules" and the "ranking system" are two different things. I agree with you Keygen some "rules" need to be updated and or spelled out better. But stress again the "rules" were not changed just the "ranking system"

I hope that clears it up seems we have been mixing the two

Last edited by blackice on 22-07-2002 at 22:58

	23-07-2002 00:58									#219
	Tired of ads?

Only true difference between systems is that first one (Quins/Solver) do not reward playing a lot (which is correct) and second one (Gawrushka/Blackice) promote playing a lot through inflation points. In both systems you must keep wining, but in second system is enough to play a lot against average/week players and be on top while in first system you must keep wining against the best.
Both systems can be improved. First one with not allowing one "lucky" game decide (only real flaw as I see it).
In both systems old points should decay through time (year?).

	23-07-2002 04:32									#220
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Keygen Well, I think that the "Klair" factor could easily be eliminated by setting a minimum limit on how many rated games someone should be in to be allowed to be rated. For example he/she should be in at list 3 or more rated games before can make it to the ladder.

I agree with this...

quote: Originally posted by Kralj Only true difference between systems is that first one (Quins/Solver) do not reward playing a lot (which is correct) and second one (Gawrushka/Blackice) promote playing a lot through inflation points. In both systems you must keep wining, but in second system is enough to play a lot against average/week players and be on top while in first system you must keep wining against the best. Both systems can be improved. First one with not allowing one "lucky" game decide (only real flaw as I see it).

And this.

All in all, I favor Quinn's system in conjunction with setting a min. # of games to join the ladder. Additionally, I like Birdman's idea of rating each player in every game for calculating ratings more accurately

	23-07-2002 05:22									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Kralj Matjaz-Lung can not play weak players and stay on top no one can. He was making no points in the game he was in. In fact he was getting negative points for playing weaker players. This system too promotes playing strong players but is balanced by the fact most games have a mix of players. This system allows for that the old system did too but the more games you played the more likely you dropped in the rankings. No one is that good or that lucky to have good land in every game. In the old system one loss was as good as three wins. That made no sense at all. You play three games win one lose two you drop in the rankings big time. Many positions usually that is why no one could catch up to Klair. It made no difference how many games you were in your losses were three times that your wins.

With the new system that simply does not happen. Yes you take loses but it does not drop you from 7th place to 15th in one ranking like the old one. You may drop a spot or even two max with the new system or not move at all depending on the ranking of the other players. If you play higher ranked and lose you go down. Average players it may not make a difference to you but the average ones more than likely will gain points for a second or third ranking. A win win scenario for all players...

As far as decay goes look at Klairs and other retired players standing it will take a few months and they will be all but gone with this system. The old one more than likely they would be still there.

jpww-what you are saying is in order to join this league you must play X games. Why would you want to eliminate half the players here and a whole slew of new people? Makes no sense at all the numbers here will more than likely shrink.

As far as Birdmans idea what you are saying is you must play rated games or go somewhere else to play? What is this the elitist's club?
If someone wants to join a game play with the people here why should we put rules on that? No you can't play go away because they do not care for rankings systems? Or they get bad land and quit because they do not want to take losses in every game. We need to promote play here even if they are not ranked they may decide to keep the bad land game going to learn from it. Or decide in the future when they have more time to play more games. With the old system they were digging dirt. With the new one they may not be top spot but chances are they may stay the same or improve in the rankings be it slow it is a positive not a negative. They are still here having fun though and you want to stop that? Maybe you could explain why you would do that? People come here for fun not more rules and not to be told they can not play because they do not want to be ranked... To much time has be put into making people play by a ranking system. Why no just let them play a game ranked or not?

JP do you even know how quinns system was calculated? Kralj you? My guess is niether of you do not many people did. If that is the case how are you making an informed decision?

Better yet if you do explain to the rest of us...or how about quinn or solver taking the time to spell out here with examples of the two systems so the newer people can understand? How about it put them side by side and compare them. Lets do it so we can all see the difference we are talking about here. Enough with politics lets compare them side by side...

It is easy here it is the old system:

1st place in for player game gets three wins
2nd place one loss two wins
3rd place 2 loses one win
4th place three losses.

2nd through 4th will drop in rankings period up to 7 positions or more. For one game ranking on the 9th turn.
Unreal and unfair IMHO.

new system:

Pot
1st place may or may not gain depending on the players
2nd place same
3rd place same
4th place same

In other words no one really losses and rarely anyone will drop more than a spot for one game ranked on the 9th turn. The average player even in 2-3rd place players will come out with a few more points than lost or even. Even with the losses you do not drop several places in the rankings for 9 turns of gaming. It would take many many such turns to drop like the old system.
More fair and promotes more games on it's own without rules...

Vote new It's better!!

Last edited by blackice on 23-07-2002 at 07:10

	23-07-2002 11:54									#222
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by blackice It is easy here it is the old system: 1st place in for player game gets three wins 2nd place one loss two wins 3rd place 2 loses one win 4th place three losses. 2nd through 4th will drop in rankings period up to 7 positions or more. For one game ranking on the 9th turn. Unreal and unfair IMHO.

Considering old system it's not true at all! (well maybe in some very particular case).
First of all you play against each opponent separately. It's important not to be behind someone with much lower ranking or you'll really dive. And that is absolutely fair because he's not so bad if he beat you and most important difference between two will get smaller and in some turns both will end in the deserved place. Through time everybody will find his place (if it's on bottom instead on top too bad for overestimate player) on the ladder and bigger changes will occur only when new player will find his place.

Yes in the beginning there will be a lot of jumping up and down, but more games you'll play more accurately you'll find yourselves on the right spot!

Minimum number of plays (let say three) is OK here. There is no drawback. If not rated in X plays you are not on the ladder. Plain and simple.
If you don't wish to be on the ladder, that's OK. You can still play as usual.

My vote is of course with old system

	23-07-2002 12:29									#223
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Considering old system it's not true at all!

Kralj right ok show me i am wrong come on post it!

Take the old system and do the math for us do it I dare you.

I bet ten bucks US you have no idea how to calculate the old system make it 50...

now show me it is not that way using current stats...Politics and BS.

quote: Yes in the beginning there will be a lot of jumping up and down, but more games you'll play more accurately you'll find yourselves on the right spot!

Right and klair was what a lot of games what ever!

The new system you play against each opponent separately too whats your point?

quote: It's important not to be behind someone with much lower ranking or you'll really dive.

Ok you have a bad start you are behind DIVE BABY DIVE.
Oh and don't forget you must be rated, unreal...

In the new system you will take a hit too but not 7 ranking positions for one 9 turn game pathetic logic and a bad system. PERIOD.

You will take a hit and maybe drop 2 or more positions for one 9 turn game think about what was just said for one minute. You have the required? 3 games minimum you have bad land start in all games each friggin 9 turns of each friggin game you drop several ranking spots...
Oh ya baby bring it on...rediculous.

In the new system with the same scenario you will drop but it will take mega 9 turn losses to produce the same effect. Hey what does a game last for 150 turns 200+
That is 22 times say 3 losses in a four player game.

Wow the old system would have you in China. The new system ya you'll drop near the bottom but it would take it all to get you there. The old system you would be one quarter of the way to the 200 mark and they would give you concessions because you could not go lower without showing a minus on your score. Do the math POST THE SYSTEM show us you know what you are taking about,

Right! now I say you have NO CLUE...

quote: Minimum number of plays (let say three) is OK here. There is no drawback. If not rated in X plays you are not on the ladder. Plain and simple. If you don't wish to be on the ladder, that's OK. You can still play as usual.

heh brown shirts comes to mind. Why the heck not let someone play one game rated the new system can handle it. Oh ya right you need to make rules to exclude people to make the old system work...Unreal...

My vote is of course with new system most voting for the old system do not even know how it works
politics

Post it people show the reason you are making up rules to excule players to make an old system work/ Tell them there is no reason to do it when the new system needs no such rules to work. Explain to them the politics and why they can not be part of the rankings because of it...
Pathetic really...

	23-07-2002 14:09									#224
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I bet ten bucks US you have no idea how to calculate the old system make it 50...

Luckily you didn't "challenge" me Blackice. I made my own copy in a spreadsheet about a year ago on how to calculate the results - and it works. I got the same figures as Quinns did (actually Quinns did a fine job of documentation how it should be done).

One thing however, I did disagree with was where he took the input for each "match".

Something like this (3 player game):

Player A is no 1 and had a points.
Player B is no 2 and had b points.
Player C is no 3 and had c points.

Match "1" A vs B used player As a points and resulted in d points to be added to player A and deducted from player Bs b points, resulting in e Points to player A (a+d) and f points to Player B (b-d).

Match "2" A vs C used player As e points and resulted in g points to added to player A and deducted from player Cs c points, resulting in h Points to player A (e+g) and i points to Player C (c-g).

Match "3" B vs C used player Bs f points and resulted in j points to added to player B and deducted from player Cs h points, resulting in k Points to player B (f+j) and l points to Player C (i-j).

I wanted it this way:

Match "1" A vs B used player As a points and resulted in d points to be added to player A and deducted from player Bs b points, resulting in a total of e Points to player A (a+d) and f points to Player B (b-d).

Match "2" A vs C used player As a points and resulted in g points to added to player A and deducted from player Cs c points, resulting in a total of h Points to player A (a+d+g to be published) and i points to Player C (c-g).

Match "3" B vs C used player Bs b points and resulted in j points to added to player B and deducted from player Cs h points, resulting in a total of k Points to player B (b-d+j to be published) and l points to Player C (c-g-j to be published).


Edit: Those letters...... It's hard to explain without real numbers .

	23-07-2002 15:06									#225
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A short notice from me: I actually preferred the Quinns/Solver formulas because those are well tested by the Chess organizations. Gavrushka/Blackice formulas were good, too, but maybe a bit too simple.

The former formulas do generally provide a fair rating, and if we put a minimal cap on rated players, it will also eliminate the "One lucky game factor". Yes, we might get off a few casual players, but that's the price...

	23-07-2002 15:39									#226
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Pete, I was refering to the rules, yes, but simply because I don't know how the ranking system works.
It is amazing how the ranking system changed but rules remained the same. I though you and Garry had changed a couple of rules But when I said I want to see full rules from both I meant ranking system incuded

I distinguish in your posts an anxiety whether poeple will drop their games because of the rankings or lose their interest or fun because of them. Wow, I didn't know that the ratings had that power. People come here to play not to get rated. From my experience you have to ask a new player if he wants to be rated and not vice versa. Yes, sometimes people ask for it but most of them simply don't. And I am sure that even if they were not permitted to be rated they would surely stay afoot and continue playing their games with the same joy

Now the rankings stand to rate people above all and the rest after. That is what its name defines, it's in the dictionary And you have the responsibility to ensure that people are equally and fairly rated. That's above all. The fun comes after. Because if the latter is your consern there are other ways to do that, more appropriate. What fun can I gain from poeple that can have unfairly high ranks even if I was one of them? I wonder... Either we make a ladder and rate people or make something else and have great fun.

Now can you explain to me how the hell Lung is on top of a game but goes down because of it as you mentioned above? Do you mean that he goes up slower than he would normally go if his opponents were tougher? Or do you mean that he actually loses because his opponents are weak?

For one thing I must admit that what I never liked in Quinns/Solver ranking system was the huge ups and downs But favoring people playing more games in both systems (?) might not be fair at all. Not sure if this is true, simply from what I read from your posts, but perhaps a formula that would give a slight advantage for been rated in many games but fading out as more games you add could be more fair, maybe not sure yet

	23-07-2002 15:50									#227
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Don't think the Quinns/Solver formulas favored many games too much, in fact, it didn't, unless you were very good in those games.

Huge ups and downs? They were only a bit bigger than those of the Gavrushka/Blackice ratings, and actually you would rarely get or lose a point for one game.

	23-07-2002 15:54									#228
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Birdman Edit: Those letters... It's hard to explain without real numbers

quote: Originally posted by Blackice Why the heck not let someone play one game rated the new system can handle it

Why the heck would you want another Klair popping back in the rankings chart?

	23-07-2002 15:59									#229
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, I have seen people dropping like 10-15 places (if I remember corectly) down. That's a huge down

Anyway, I would like to add that I see a point in Pete's view but so do I in most of the rest views as well.

We will have to step aside the temper postings and work together for better. I would suggest any interested spit out all his recommendations up to Saturday and then simulate how the ratings would work with each one of them. Then we can have a better view what can work and what can't work.

	23-07-2002 16:01									#230
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by jpww Why the heck would you want another Klair popping back in the rankings chart?

To be honest when Garry and Pete took over the rankings Klair left the top of the ratings for good

	23-07-2002 18:45									#231
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That's one of the good things about his rating system

	23-07-2002 20:09									#232
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

OK, Pete, when I was talking about the "other ladder" I play on (in a different game), I was not referring to the "old" apolyton system, and by the sounds of it, it is quite different.

This is the way it goes:

Each pair of players in a game is considered a match. If the winner is ranked below the loser, then the winner moves half of the places toward the loser. The loser remains where they are. If the winner is ranked above the loser, there is no change in rankings. If the winner is ranked immediately below the loser, the two players swap ranks.

Rankings are lowered by people in other games overtaking you.

[B]Example:[B/]

Rankings are:

1st Player A
2nd Player B
3rd Player C
4th Player D
5th Player E
6th Player F
7th Player G
8th Player H

Let's say there's a x9th game where the positions are:

Player F 1st
Player C 2nd
Player A 3rd
Player G 4th

Then Player F will move half way toward Player C, and halfway toward Player A, who are ranked above him/her. Similarly, C toward A (but not G, as that player is lower ranked), and A and G remain stationary, as A only defeated G, who is ranked lower, and G defeated noone.

Hence the new rankings would be:

1st Player A
2nd Player B
3rd Player C
4th Player F
5th Player D
6th Player E
7th Player G
8th Player H

(Note that F overtook C because of his/her victories, but then C overtook F because of his/her victories. Clear as mud, huh? )

Although robust and popular, this form of ladder has some disadvantages, namely:

- Players become interested in only playing against players ranked above them;
- The higher up you are, the harder you are to overtake, for example No 1 rank may only be dislodged by a defeat by No 2 rank, and No 2 rank may only be dislodged by No 3 defeating No 2 or No 1, etc. This leads to high ranking players being selective about who they play based on rankings;
- Cliques form, whereby players are given a leg-up up the ladder by their friends in higher ranks.

It is for these reasons that I'm in favour of keeping the present system. However I have reservations, mainly due to this Lung phenomenon that keeps getting mentioned where he actually lost points by playing. After reading the formulae I can't understand how this would happen. Would someone please explain it to me?

OK, now that I've achieved a half page post to compete with you guys I'm logging off to get back to reading books, playing golf and swimming in the balmy Philippines...

	23-07-2002 20:48									#233
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

birdy a+c Rick that is how the old system worked. I totally agree with what you said. See people another one that thinks that style of rankings is bad news for gaming.

You can not have a Klair in the new rankings. The new rankings will not create an instant star because they are in many games. Keygen you and I have the only reality here. Many people in the old rankings dropped 10 to 15 positions in one 9th turn ranking. That was just plain unbalanced and received many complaints.

This is not chess btw tell me are chess games ranked every 9 turns of course not. The old system may work if the game was over and the game was ranked one time (like chess) but it isn't. You take massive dives and little gains per 9 turns with the old system.

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.

quote: Zobo's loss in ranking 6 to what 14, for what really one bad ranking in one game compared to what three good ranking games.

This happened and Zobo was not happy lost 8 positions for one loss and three wins fair I do not think so no one did.

Another example:

quote: Teamhorses 4th place 04-28-2001 Starting points 21.723 BLACKICE 21.342 BLACKICE 20.966 BLACKICE 20.542 BLACKICE 20.679 down 1.044 High Voltage 1st place 04-25-2001 Starting points 21.364 BLACKICE 21.401 BLACKICE 21.630 BLACKICE 21.685 BLACKICE 21.723 up .359 Strife 1 st place 04-23-2001 Starting points 20.945 BLACKICE 20.945 BLACKICE 20.991 BLACKICE 21.094 BLACKICE 21.341 BLACKICE 21.364 up .419 Previous rating 008@ 20.995 Current rating 012@ 20.710 The Rating shown is the rating BEFORE adjustment. So your last adjustment was with the 20.679 which then went to 20.710 upon defeating Darth Viper. Your rating didn't go up that much in your first two games because of the average lower level of players in those games. But your recent losses in Teamhorses set you back because you lost to lower rated players.

This extreme simply can not happen in the new system. You will not go down 4 positions in one 9th turn ranking. The fact you play lower ranked people is not as much of a factor either unless you are in first place over all. Two wins and one loss and you drop four positions not right is it. On top of that the old system does not promote play with lower ranked people. You would be silly to take that chance with these losses. The new system promotes play with lower ranked people unless like LUNG you are in first place. Had I continued to play based on the old system I would have been in 40th spot in the rankings in five 9th turn rankings. This is fair? this is balanced? I think not. Obviously this old system did not benefit good play. It penalized heavy for a single loss VS. Two wins. This can not happen in the new system it rewards for good play and can even reward for bad play (not often).
So by far a better system which pomotes games with all players

The current game Lung was in he put out the lions share of the pot. He makes little or negative gains he needed to be playing in other games with stronger opponents to make the posibility of gains again. he could not stay in only one game and expect to retain top spot either. Obviously Lung or anyone else for that matter will have to work extra hard to stay in first place. As it should be

	23-07-2002 22:13									#234
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Blackice why don't you tell as rankings of your opponents at particular examples? If you have lose against much lower ranks you deserved to dive. It wouldn't happen against equal opponent. And your dive wouldn't drop to position 40, at 30 you would catch your ability and probably slowly start climbing.

It's said that because of personal frustrations whole system must be changed.

	23-07-2002 22:52									#235
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kralj Matjaz Blackice why don't you tell as rankings of your opponents at particular examples? If you have lose against much lower ranks you deserved to dive. It wouldn't happen against equal opponent. And your dive wouldn't drop to position 40, at 30 you would catch your ability and probably slowly start climbing. It's said that because of personal frustrations whole system must be changed.

The opponents are quite not nessary to post the facts they are clear. Any opponent under you in the rankings the rule applies in my case 40 or more players. Again this goes back to another problem with the old system. This was already pointed out. Rick also makes his point clear. Because of the loss factor you would be dumb to play lessor ranked players wouldn't you? The old system promoted a situation where the top players were not very inclinded to play a lower ranked player.
The new system elliminates all that without I STRESS THIS AGAIN the need for new rules.

The win loss ratio is 2 to 1 (or more) in other words if you win two and lose once you lose points and drop big time in the rankings. What you are saying is that is fair and good? ok... Kralj I don't know if you noticed but no one is equal. They are either ahead of you or behind you...The dive would continue if the rankings stayed the same yes they would Kralj. Especially if you had a bad land game. Chances are most if not all players in the top 20 will be in new games with at least 3 players ranked well below you. Now you have bad land and a manditory ranking rule. Rather silly to play it...

CTP online gaming you get restarts on bad land to make the game fair and even. With the old system and manitory ranking you lose fairness all together that is simply wrong. You should be ranking skill not ranking starting position.

The system had to change because it was unfair and unbalanced that was (is) very clear to most.

	23-07-2002 23:48									#236
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Okay. Thanks Birdman for stating how the old system works again. All the documentation on it, including examples, exists back in 2000-2001 Apolyton CTP posts. Maybe Solver can help with finding it if you all want to see it.

Why don't you all take a vote? That is the only fair way to resolve this. Some people like the old, some like the new. Why is this so heated? Just cast your vote and set a deadline. Once it is voted on, then you can decide on who and how to do the updates. Solver maybe can set up a "vote" here on Apolyton, where only the active PBEM players can vote.

Ice, it is not politics or bull****, it sounds like the people here just want a working system. I think that whatever system you all choose, in the end, someone must update it at least once a month in order to make it work.

	24-07-2002 00:10									#237
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I have changed my mind. Blackice is right: CTP is not chess. Therefore, a special rating system must be developed to cater CTP's individual characteristics. Whether the Blackice/Gavrushka rating system thoroughly satisfies this purpose is yet to be proven. However, it is the only available system that deals with the majority of the issues that have been addressed in the past.

Edit: I agree with quinns. Let's vote

	24-07-2002 00:44									#238
	Put an end to popups!

Sure Quinns, but how am I going to vote for something I don't know?
Still need the Gavrushka/Blackice formula in detail.

For Quinns/Solver ranking system and full rules click here.

	24-07-2002 01:57									#239
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

me i'm afraid i will remain nuetral as i play for fun and i don't get why every 10 turns and not the whole game ? also i most often don't start takeing off on the PG till year 0 or later against AI. also didn't i read somewhere about a patch to make the AI stronger?

	24-07-2002 02:17									#240
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I too play fer fun, for after reading how people look at other peoples turns and such, well, Ill just play fer fun.

I know all players dont, but me, well, I just like a good old fashioned fun-N-da-sun gameplay!

Now, I would like to vote, on the chance I change my mind and play, I like Pete's idea..I think he has a good head on his shoulders and he has helped me immensley with my playing ability and it has already reaped rewards, well, I been monitoring these posts and ya know, this is like a business meeting, "lets do this, lets form a committee to do this and report back" well, its been going on fer awhile now, no action, I would say this, not that i have any bearing on this matter, BUT I think the collective whole as a community should resolve this, by a vote, Name entered, not annonymous, and do so quickly, within a week or so, then get back to playing. All this talent here, a few too many insults and prima-donna's attitudes, but getting past that, without offending those whom are heading it up, I believe the players, whom are the core and have been through the good and bad oughta have the governing decisions to set parameters, and then finalize it (Solver, my suggestion this is where you move in and take the lead) and have a vote. Lets all help Solver generate this scoring system move forward, not sit and spin the wheels, I gotta be honest , all this talent and expertise, this should not be that big of a deal. As for heated discussions, well, thats part of the old human makeup, pride and determination!

Ok, please dont send me to Solver-Hall or Minapulco or chastise me fer my opinions, I am just an observer, trying to help!

I shall now sit down and let the gavel fall where it may!

Troll