 |
|
quinns
|
|
Please refer to the updated topic under "CtP Multiplayer -- CTP Ratings (21-Nov-00)"
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited November 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Hi Solver,
Thanks, but Microsoft Word did the conversion to HTML for me (from Excel).
Where did you see the paragraph tags P? I can't see them when I try to edit it. Where exactly in the code do you see the P's. It comes up fine in a regular browser, but when I post it to this site, it has a lot of blank space in the beginning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Fine with me King Thor. But the CTP PBEM Administrator, (Solver), has the final word.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 27, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Hello,
I will be posting new ratings tomorrow 31-OCT-2000. Anyone can be initially rated using our system. Please state in this thread what the single best level that you ever defeated the Call to Power Artificial Intelligence -- Chieftain, Warlord, Prince, King, Emperor, or Deity. We will automatically add you to the CtP PBEM Ratings shown above.
I'll continue to post ratings at the end of each month (unless popularity demands more frequent updates).
Best Regards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
As for me, the more rated games we have, the better and more interesting it is. I suggest we post at other game threads to ask if they want the game to become rated. I think that they will agree in most cases. I will either post myself, or if I don't I think Quinns can post.
And, once a Month is not enough IMO, I think we need once in 2 weeks. BTW, Quinns, as an admin I keep a track of all player ratings on my computer, so I think I should be the one to post this. You better go and ask in other games do they want to be rated. I think that the date today is Oct 31, so we might post again tomorrow. As the rankings will be posted each 10 turns (we'll ask for it in new rated games), I suggest the following actions:
1. Rating is posted
2. Quinns performs calcualtions
3. Quinns send me an email with the new ratings.
4. I update the ratings
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Solver,
That looks real good... except for those @#$% multiple blank lines in the beginning! (that's why I switched to the other format).
Once we decide on the best format, I think you should start a new topic with the name "CtP PBEM Ratings and Rankings". That way you can edit the first thread in the topic. I think your system for updating and posting the ratings is fine. I'll need for you to prompt the rated game players for the 10 turn status report for each rated game. (Maybe another topic with just the 10 turn status reports of ALL games. That would be good.)
Regards
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
No problem, The True Demosthenes. Check out the "PBEM LADDERS" topic. We did some fairly long winded explanations and examples in there. Let me know if it still doesn't make sense after you read that.
Regards.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited November 01, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Solver,
Right. Same problem I saw. It's best to use minimal HTML like I did in the first thread above. And use a true font type (I used Courier) so that the columns align better. I think it looks fine like that (and it's easier for someone to cut and paste it, if they wish).
Well, if you agree with that, I don't mind continuing to update this topic (instead of creating a new one). I'll just have you approve the changes before I post them. By the way, Arthur told me that he's beaten King level, so I updated the table to reflect that (okay?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
It seems the popular concensus is for "24 hours" instead of "72 hours" for delinquency to occur in rated games, with replacement moving to "72 hours". I.e. 24/72 instead of 72/168.
Opinions? Votes? We will leave it as is, until we get a majority vote. Abstaining from voting counts as leaving it as is -- 72/168.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stavros
|
|
Germany
Jun 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I'm not sure if I understand what the "no next-turn" rule is supposed to achieve. If I know that I'm going to be away for the weekend, and my game is in the early stages, or stable, I prefer to be next-turned, than to arrange a sub. It's quicker, and less hastle for all involved. If I overstep my return-by date, sure, penalise me, but I think it is illogical not to allow an absent player the option of being next-turned...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Regarding "next-turned". Stavros, I was referring to "FORCED next-turned" (I should have been clearer). If instructions are given by the player to be next-turned, voluntarily, then this is, of course, no problem.
I was referring specifically to the case where the 72 hour deadline is hit. No forced next turn, but A/I takes over. The ejected player would have to petition the rest of the players to get back in the game. Meanwhile, whoever is next on the replacement list takes over.
Again, these are all just suggestions  , but a concensus on this issue would be good, to avoid future disagreements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Ratings updated. (Not really, but I just wanted to cycle this topic to the top to get some yakkin' going.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
I agree with St Jon.
We have a majority vote on the switching the delinquency to 24 hours and the AI takeover to 72 hours. This rule will be "enforced" on all rated games from this point forward. That is, if a player does not respond with their turn within 24 hours after notice is posted, that player is marked "delinquent". If 72 hours pass, the player is permanently replaced with a computer player (AI'd) until a human replacement is found.
Apparently, some players have stopped posting turn notifications to this forum for rated games. The fairest way to handle this is to charge any delinquency to the next player following the person who last posted their turn notice. That is, FOR EXAMPLE, supposed that Solver in our rated game, "How About Some" (Solver - TheBirdMan - St Jon - Arthur - Quinns), does not post his turn notice, but just e-mails his turn to TheBirdMan. If TheBirdMan is late in sending to St Jon, then the delinquency is charged to Solver, not TheBirdMan. I can't think of any fairer way to do it, because, in this example, there is no record of Solver's turn notice.
Let me know of any agreements or disagreements with these rule modifications.
Best regards to all
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
To all rated players:
Are there any other games that any of you are playing in that you wish to convert to a "rated" game? (St Jon -- the "Love Conquers?" game is a candidate for this.)
I don't think it will be a problem to convert any game, as long as all rated players, that are playing in that game, agree. We just need at least two of the players in the game to be rated players. We cycle the ratings at the "end" of each 10 turns on the "9"s. 9,19,29, ... etc. The relative ratings will change based upon the powergraph rating of all players at that point, (as reported to me by the designated score keeper).
Regards.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-10-2000 04:31
!
. (Sorry, Arthur, I had to do it.) The delinquency doesn't really mean anything, other than show the relative "promptness" of players. 
)
|