06-02-2001 17:33									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Have you emailed Mark to keep the new thread on top?

	06-02-2001 18:11									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The amnesty period now is fine by me, but don't just have these too often.
I have done some calculations with the elimination rule, and came to interesting conclusions.
Eagles at War is a 8-player game. The first to lose there (I assume it will be Solver ), gets 21 defeat (7*3), and in average each would take at least 0.2 points. Basically, being the fist to lose in a game would always give a penalty of at least 1.5 points, I think. This is really nice to make others think twice before changing the status.

TheBirdMan,
I don't suggest you switch to unrated, that will drain your points in future, not now.
And yes, Quinns has mailed MarkG.

Franses,
My favorite footbal team is Brazil, and only then the Dutch. It was awesome to see how the Dutch do their penalty kicks in Netherlands vs. Italy match in Euro 2000 .

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

	06-02-2001 18:36									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I have already informed on Monkey 2, that I change status and "accept" to be eliminated. There was nothing to come for except for a constant drain in my ratingspoints

If the amnesty are accepted, I can do if for free.

If not, then the prize will be the same (penalty = elimination = 3 times defeat).

Read the topic, then you would understand.

And I will certainly not stay at the button for long anyway I have a job to do...... conquering my throne back.

	06-02-2001 21:46									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

To all rated players:

Please post your intent to change status in any game to the following thread:

Switch to Unrated Status

Quinns
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 06, 2001).]

	07-02-2001 02:57									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Birdman changed to Unrated in Monkey_2.

Please note that this "Unrated Amnesty" offer will never be made again. This is a one time only deal. (I sound like a used car salesman! )

	07-02-2001 09:02									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Love Conquers?" Turn 79 Power Graph Results:
Mobius, Stavros, Rick Elkins, St Jon, Quinns, The True Demosthenes.

	07-02-2001 16:03									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Quinns, never promise thing like that! You might never know what happens again . But, I really hope we will not have need in the amnesties too often.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

	07-02-2001 23:14									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I had to say that Solver, and we "must" follow that in the future. Otherwise the rule becomes a joke. They will say, "Oh, I see how it works, you give an AMNESTY when your friends are doing poorly in a game, let them get out unpunished, then re-enforce it when it is convenient for you ... THAT'S NOT FAIR!".

No, we must mean it when we state this "No more amnesties" rule. It is important in maintaining the integrity of the system.

Quinns

	08-02-2001 00:36									#39
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Proposal for additional rules
-----------------------------

Though I don't consider them essential for the correct function of the rating system I could say that it would be more fair if we had them added.

1. Rated players should gain or lose points from unrated players playing in the same rated game. AI excluded.

2. Players permanently substituting another player in a rated game in a late state shouldn't be permited to get rated. They could be rated only if the game is on an early stage and if they want to. An early stage should be consedered a game up to 20 turns. Deathmatches and already permanent subs on games currently rated are excluded.

3. Turns been temporary substituted more than twice in a row should not get rated. E.g. if turn 23, 24 & 25 would be played by a temp sub and not the legitimate player then that player shouldn't get rated for the turn 29.

I am not sure whether some of these rules are already in use but if not I find them a good idea to be rules .
You?

	08-02-2001 02:30									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Alright Keygen... thanks for the input!

Regarding proposal 1) I don't think we should do that as it might encourage some unrated players to intentionally become very weak in order to boost the ratings of the rated player(s) without penalty to the unrated player. Then, to return the favor, the players could switch positions in another game to "artificially" boost their ratings. Confusing scenario, I know, but it could very well happen.

Re: proposal 2) Very inflexible. I have personally entered two games that are now rated (Love Conquers? and Fixed Game) that were past turn 20 when I joined. Both were somewhat even when I took over. I think that becoming rated may be part of the reason people like to join games. This proposed rule locks out a lot of people from the ratings. I know what you are saying though, because Mobius brought up the same point earlier. One way to prevent players from becoming "rated" in games where they had nothing to do with the position, is to allow the other rated players in the game to "vote" on whether that person should be able to take over in a "rated" status or not.

Re: proposal 3) I think we already cover this. That is, the rated player who is the owner at turn *0 gets credited at the turn *9 mark regardless of what subs took control during that period from *1 to *9.

These are just my thoughts... we'll see what the other players think.

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

	08-02-2001 03:03									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM Regarding proposal 1) I don't think we should do that as it might encourage some unrated players to intentionally become very weak in order to boost the ratings of the rated player(s) without penalty to the unrated player. Then, to return the favor, the players could switch positions in another game to "artificially" boost their ratings. Confusing scenario, I know, but it could very well happen. [This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

That could happened anyway regardless of whether an unrated player would "participate" in the modulation of each rated player's score.
I mean even with the current rules an unrated player could give his cities to a rated player and both get benefit from that anyway.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on the 1st point.
Currently only the rated players are been calculated in the formula and from the wins and losts they lose or gain points. We can calculate the unrated players in the formula too. So if an unrated player is on the top of a game all the other players should suffer points, if an unrated player is at the last position everyone should gain points by that, etc.

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM Re: proposal 2) Very inflexible. I have personally entered two games that are now rated (Love Conquers? and Fixed Game) that were past turn 20 when I joined. Both were somewhat even when I took over. I think that becoming rated may be part of the reason people like to join games. This proposed rule locks out a lot of people from the ratings. I know what you are saying though, because Mobius brought up the same point earlier. One way to prevent players from becoming "rated" in games where they had nothing to do with the position, is to allow the other rated players in the game to "vote" on whether that person should be able to take over in a "rated" status or not. [This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

Accually I though about it. I don't thing that this would discourage other people of subing in a game. Many players were subing a long time before the ratings come out.
I know that it would keep some players out of the ratings although they would like to get rated but the system itself do not permit players from withdrawing from a game as they would suffer many points for such a desicion. So probably they won't be many free vacancies anyway .
It's very inbalance players taking over civilizations that have been developed by other players. It does not reflects the true ability of a player.
If this point is accepted I would recommend not to apply it yet as we should first test whether the system prevents rated players from resignation otherwise it will fail.
And Mobious just agreed with me in this point on an earlier post of mine! He knew what I was meant in the first place .

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-07-2001 04:30 PM Re: proposal 3) I think we already cover this. That is, the rated player who is the owner at turn *0 gets credited at the turn *9 mark regardless of what subs took control during that period from *1 to *9. [This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

Though it's not fair to rate turns which have been played from another player three or four times it won't make any difference anyway but if we are talking for subing a rated for a month that could mean 15-20 turns!!!
[This message has been edited by Keygen (edited February 07, 2001).]

	08-02-2001 03:15									#42
	Suffering from ads?

You are absolutely right Keygen, and you will see that I have modified my earlier post, already.

	08-02-2001 03:35									#43
	Support Apolyton

You have modified it for a second time!!
I have modified mine once but does not include your third modification on the first point so I will answer here.
Who would play a damn game for months just to intentionally be on the bottom and aid another player to the ratings
If there is such a person then a big "ole" to him

	08-02-2001 04:00									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You missed my point Keygen. Let me give you an example of three slightly shady players who want to boost their ratings quickly without really working at it. Let's call them Manny, Moe, and Jack. They all start three rated games playing amongst themselves in all three games. Manny is the only one rated in the first game, Moe is the only one rated in the second, and Jack is only rated in the third. In the first game Moe and Jack just get real weak and at every *9th turn, Manny gets two adjustments upward. Same thing happens with Moe in the second and Jack in the third. All their ratings go up and up, and nobody's rating "ever" goes down. And this is without any real playing from any of them. They have found a "loophole" in the rules, and there is no way to stop them from reaching ridiculously high ratings. Is that clearer now?

	08-02-2001 05:03									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Do you really believe that there are people around that will do this, quinns/Keygen? We would all know they did and what would they do it for? They are not getting rich, they are not getting famous. They are just spoiling the fun of the other 20+ players who would not like them for it and... we all know that cheating in PBEM is easy and much more difficult to discover. So if a person wants to be first in the rating, he would cheat. He would not go through all the trouble that is mentioned in the posts before this one.
We trust eachother to play honest. Well the above is dishonest. If somebody wants to be like that, let him.

	08-02-2001 05:15									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Franses,

Obviously, I used an extreme example to make a point. No, I don't believe there are people that would intentionally do that... but it would be possible. I think that it would surface more subtly in reality. Like, "Hey Quinns, how come so and so is the only one rated in that game and he is getting points for defeating nobody that is rated... hmmmm??"... and "Hey Quinns, why is it that so and so's rating always goes up and never goes down even though he's losing in MOST of the games he is in... hmmmm? And on and on... Yes, I DO believe that I would here THAT in the future if we implemented Keygen's first proposal.

Quinns

	08-02-2001 05:34									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

I think you over-value the 'Rank' that someone can achieve as opposed to the normal aim of the Game. Sure I could play for 2nd or 3rd place if all I cared about was how high I would climb statistically but I don't, and I am certain that the majority of other Players don't either.

I am in two Games with Birdman and our positions are reversed whilst we are Allies. If all I cared about was my Rank I would have abandoned him in DC rather than Nuke his aggressor and he certainly would not touch me in Lung's Fast. It's the Game that counts and not the points for we, all of us who have been playing eachother for any length of time, know who is good, bad, dreadful or utterlly superb. Whatever the Rankings may say I still reckon Mobius, closely followed by Klair, to be the best Player I have ever played.

Just my viewpoint.

	08-02-2001 05:46									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I suppose you're right Jon. I'm getting a little carried away with this. Maybe it's just that I would like to see the rankings be as pure as possible, as I am trying to achieve that in World Tennis Ratings. I'm hoping that this rating system will some day replace the Association of Tennis Players (professional men) and Women's Tennis Association (professional women) rating systems. (By the way, Klair and Mobius ARE at the top of the CTP PBEM rating system, so it's good to see that the system is matching your expectations.)

I've seen very good feed back on this forum (better than the World Tennis Rating forum!) regarding this system. So I guess I started to push too hard to try make it perfect. Sorry everybody. It's just a game for fun.

edit:

So let me ask all rated players this question. Do you all agree with St. Jon above? He says he speaks for most of you. If that is true, then I'm really going to question continuing this effort. Though these ratings are interesting and I don't mind doing it, it is a bit of work to keep all this straight. If you want for this system to continue, let me know. If you agree with Jon's attitude towards the ratings, then also let me know. Maybe I'm wasting my time. Most of you have shown good support for this so I'm a bit baffled by Jon's statements. Just let me know.

Quinns


[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 07, 2001).]

	08-02-2001 10:35									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think that the ratings are fun and when they have been going for a while they should probably give a reasonable indication of players' strength, but in my opinion it would be an illusion to think that the ratings will ever give a 100% accurate listing of players' strength. That doesn't mean that you should stop doing the ratings or that we don't appreciate the work that you put into this.

What I think Jon is saying is that although we appreciate these rankings, the players here are not the kind of people who would resort to this kind of cheating to get higher rankings. We are in the first place playing our PBEM games to have some fun, not to get to #1 on the rankings at all cost.

Regarding the rating of permanent replacement players, maybe these subs should not be allowed to be rated from the moment they join but only after they have played enough turns to have had an influence on their ranking.

I am a permanent sub in Monkey 1 from turn 97. The game is now at turn 188, so I have been in for almost half of the game. I would like to think that my current rank in that game is as much or even more my work than that of the player before me.

Maybe you could say that a permanent replacement player can become rated if he has played at least half of the turns in that game (or a third? or a fixed number of turns?).
[This message has been edited by Paul (edited February 08, 2001).]

	08-02-2001 11:26									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Paul,
I have already told Franses about the accuraccy of the system.

Quinns and Keygen,
I think we have the best sub coverage that we could possibly use. I would completely refuse proposals one and two by Keygen (sorry if it's too harsh), and I think that giving subs the points the way we do it is fair. For reminder of the substitute rules, see posts be Quinns, and also the PBEM Ladders thread.

So far, this should go as it is, but I am sure we will be adding more rules over time.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

	08-02-2001 13:20									#51
	Suffering from ads?

quinns, you asked whether we like the rating. Well, I do. So I would appreciate if you continue. I suppose everyone who is rated is of a similar opionion.

However, discussing the rating system is also fun. Do not take the criticism too serious. People always tend to criticize. If we stop liking it we will probably stop being rated. Perhaps that is a good measure for you whether your work is appreciated or not.

Franses

	08-02-2001 14:41									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I agree with St. Jon.

The game itself do mean a lot - more than the ranking.

But - when this is written - by supporting each other/be ally, it is much easier to protect your position in the game.

But nobody knows what will happen during a game.

Ally now, enemy later. Problem that could lead to a "divorsing" could be pollution. It could be trade. It could be one wage war against anothers old friend.

Or that could be simple gread for an extra rating point when all common enemies are destroyed

So, the rating system indeed does mean something in this game. Only later on. First you have to survive.

	08-02-2001 15:14									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

First of all, before I answer to the three points again I should say this.

The rating system came out from the combination of the vision and the hard work of both Solver and Quinns to deliver an amusing measurement for the PBEM players.
We all appreciate your work and we totally support you and the system the way it is.
MarkG has understood its value and had made it standing on top all the time .
But many players are already involved on the ratings plus that it isn't fully tested yet so I would consider it a necessity these players to mark any possible weaknesses and propose probably aditional rules if they judge that they worth of conversation.
It doesn't look right to me to be ready to drop the whole thing Quinns just because of an opposite proposal or preclude it before even the majority state their opinion on the subject Solver!
Of cource the Admin should have the last choice but just let it unfold first.

Regarding my proposals.

1st proposal: I still insist that the possibilities on someone cheating are bare. As Franses said we could find the cheaters. Quinns said in a post something about a rated game where only one player would get rated. Is this possible? I though that only those games where at list three players would agree to get rated would be rated!?!
Anyway the true ability of a player is messured against all the opponents of a rated game regardless whether some of the players are unrated and they should effect the ratings.

2nd proposal: Currently it truly might hurt the system in case many withdrawals occur. Let's wait a little longer and see. Maybe Paul is right when he says that a sub can affect decisively the civ's course but in some cases the former might be the one who could affect decisively the civ's future course. I will bring up the subject from time to time just for discussion.

3rd proposal: Only Quinns have answered .

One last thing.
As I had said in the first post (it's on the previous page) I don't consider them essential but a good subject to be discussed.
If these proposals make Solver or Quinns upset then please ignore them .

[This message has been edited by Keygen (edited February 08, 2001).]

	08-02-2001 19:08									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Keygen,
Rating system is never complete, and it always can be modified with new rules and proposals. We want to make it better than it, no doubt.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

	08-02-2001 19:11									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Quinns, Please do not believe that I dismiss the time and effort that you have put in to the Rating System. I do believe it to be a good thing, I would not be Rated myself otherwise, but they should be a reflection of relative ability rather than a motive in themselves.

I play for fun and to win. Settling for 2nd place is not my style and I would prefer to go out in a blaze of glory at least 'trying' rather than just feeding off the scraps from the rich mans table.

I am in several Games where I have known for many many Turns that my chances were slim to non-existant but that does not mean I don't still work as hard as I can to achieve victory. It is the Game that should make the Ratings, not the other way around, and I think most other Players would agree. The kudos of being No1 when it is unearned is worthless and it would be a pretty shallow human-being who would think otherwise.

	08-02-2001 21:07									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

Monkey 1 turn 189 powergraph:

1. Swissy - Jamaican
2. Paul - Russian
3. Slamp - English
(4. Max Webster - American)
(5. Robm - Roman)
6. Yeti - Chinese
(7. Duckhunter - German)
(8. Fraze - Scottish)

	09-02-2001 00:25									#57
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I won't adduce any additional explanation or try to persuade farther more.
I just want to reply on two points of Quinns answer.

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-08-2001 12:51 PM Let's use Paul's last "Monkey 1" example to help explain why Keygen's proposal would cause unfairness in the system (though it may not be intentional).

There is no "may" Quinns. There is defenetely no intention at all. For God's sake I am about to start 4 games wich will be rated!

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-08-2001 12:51 PM What happens is that the more games that someone plays, the higher their rating goes. This is not intentional cheating from players, this is just what happens. It is not fair that someone's rating should increase greatly just because they have time to play 10 rated games at once, while another player only has time to play 2 games at a time. Even though those two games could be against much better players than the ten games the other player is participating in.

What!?!?!?!
This is already happening Quinns!!!
That's why I had proposed to a previous post on the first page of this thread that the scores should come from the average of each independed score of every game the player is involved.
Are you jocking me?

quote: Originally posted by quinns on 02-08-2001 12:51 PM Keygen, the statistical model for this can get quite complex. Basically, if one player's rating goes up, another player's rating MUST GO DOWN by the same exact amount. This is crucial to the integrity of the system.

I hope this has nothing to do with my "intensions" Quinns.


Common man don't give me that crap.
All I wanted to do is to make the system as better as possible according to my crisis on the subject.
Maybe I am totaly wrong but don't try to present me with irrelevant cases which are already existing by the way.

	09-02-2001 00:48									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I might be the one, that are playing most (rated) games and I was in lead. Not because of my many games, but because of my positions in these games.

I was only able to stay on top until DC counted (one turn (119) should be cancelled - I talk to Slamp later on this matter).

I do see Quinns point now. Ratings are only for rated players. And I think this is the right way of calculating.

No player (well I think so) will ever go higher than say 30-40 rating points IF he/she is in more than one game UNLESS he/she was second to God in skill and knowledge AND with unlimited luck.

And none would go lower than 5-10 points UNLESS he/she was in only one game AND totally blank on playing this game AND with no luck what so ever.

"Problem" COULD be the player, that only played in one rated game - IF we WOULD do it to a problem. This player could be the highest (or lowest) ranked player ever, depending of luck/skill in only one game.

Ohh - I think I had better stop what I am doing and go to bed

	09-02-2001 01:11									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Thanks Birdman for understanding my points and seeing the reasoning behind them. Your support is crucial here, seeing that you were the one affected the worst by the last rating change.

Keygen... I give up on you. I tried to go to great lengths to kindly explain the reasoning behind why your proposals won't work, and instead of trying to understand them, you take it personally and start to throw insults. You resort to statements like, "Don't give me that crap!" . Well, I won't give you any more CRAP. Your proposals are rejected. No more explanations given.

	09-02-2001 02:37									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Can we cut the personal bo11ocks please!

I play for fun and I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of Players when saying that.

This is a bloody game at the end of the day, ie something we engage in for recreation after undergoing a day of harsh reality, not a qualifier for inclusion in the human gene-pool!

For ****'s sake, both of you, GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!