 |
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
The developers of Game league worked out a system for CTP. We adopted it here when it became obvious to most that Quinns extremely fine system. ( I mean that sincerely Quinn, nice work  ) Fell abit short in the players minds of addressing some issues with CTP and ranking.
The gl system was simple needed very few rules and minor tweeking to get it right.
PLAYERS
2..1ST..67%..2nd..33%
3..1ST..54%..2nd..31%..3rd..15%
4..1ST..46%..2nd..29%..3rd..17%..4th..8%
5..1ST..41%..2nd..27%..3rd..17%..4th..10%..5th..5%
6..1ST..36%..2nd..25%..3rd..17%..4th..11%..5th..7%..6th..4%
7..1ST..33%..2nd..23%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8%..6th..5%..7th..3%
8..1ST..30%..2nd..22%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8%..6th..6%..7th..4%..8th..2%
In the tweeked system the leader was capped and so was the loser. In that way thier was no need to quit a game for bad land reason's.
Each player waged 10% of thier ranking per game.
It was suggested that that 10% would remain static throughout the game. After testing it I concure it resolved the only bug in the system.
All players in the game except for the loser of course gained points. (Go figure  )
This system was designed for CTP with CTP in mind, score and pg and land etc...
But for reason's already stated and all to obvious the rankings died a slow death. Vote for me Solver
Don't get me wrong I like you, I think you are fair and a great admin, but this is not an admin decision. ( Or is it? because if it is quit wasting our time... Been there done that and? )
We are the community and without us you admin what? Toss in dictatorial democracy or allow a community to decide with unbias leadership, you decide.
So what we end up with in a skill only based system in a luck plus game is chaos. One person playing one game and winning leads the rest, ok. Total chaos...and a completely unbalance ranking system vs. game facts if there ever was.
So the end result people droping games like flies in a Raid test zone. So what did we do? Create more rules to stop people from quitting games they already lost because of bad starting positions. Then more rules and more rules.
It started to become endless, thats when I spoke up... Enough already I came here for fun and gaming not to memorize endless rules of play in order for a ranking system to adhere to a game.
Talk about participation... with the new system even the loser was capped, hey a little diplomacy and who knows? They stood a chance. In the old system you were the top player who ended up with bad land and your five year-old would be in first place had they the good land. No skill involved there really. Been there done that you?
This ended up with people of great skill being lambasted by people who needed to be shown the ropes. Now come on  Oh it can happen but this is CTP and terrain is a good reason to win but skill should play a role also in rankings... It should not be the only factor though....Terrain is a major player in any win, for those that think otherwise heh get your head out of the sand.
The new system brought the several unque compounded factors of CTP together.
People complained ( the ones that liked the old system, partisan politics ) that the more games you played the higher your ranking. ( They continued to add more rules, in the old system, to compensate the fact that the ELO, chess, tennis etc system created a one game only 1st place for what 2 years? wonder...)
Not true in the new system but it could be true if you won most if not all of the games you were in. I found this complaint rather stupid, lets face it the more games you play and you won them all, well no chit sherlock you should be leading the rankings... On the other hand Ben plays ten games and loses all and you play one and win, humm who is in first place?
The only other complaint was that a leader of a game who won over and over again in that game would get too many points. So the cap and the static 10% was put in place. That cured that problem quite nicely. Keep in mind there was a large bonus for winning the game...
Now on the other hand you could just play one game and win in the new system and have a good ranking. You just might not be the top dog if someone else played more games and won them all too... I guess we call that participation and reality, something you alluded to in this thread Solver... It was built into the system intentionally...NO RULES REQUIRED.
So the last complaint was the rankings were not updated fast enough and we had some players not active anymore that were not deleted. Well life in the food chain grab a beer, pop, remote control we all have lives too. I think this area is where Quinns shines he has a life yet still manages to do this I truely admire that Quinns 
As I said maybe enough said. 
Last edited by blackice on 20-07-2003 at 11:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Unlike you, Pete, I'll try to keep my point short.
1. I never had, and hope that I never will, dictate how people here play the game. Everything I post is my personal opinion that reflects, what I personally believe is better for the players.
2. My comparison of the systems is based on how I see the mathematical properties of them and stuff, not because of who, why and how invented the system. Here, I consider the fact that a certain system has been invented for ctp solely, as not being important. It can be good and bad, not mattering what it was invented for originally.
3. Definitely, whether to use ratings, and what ratings to use is solely a community decision. Nothing I can overrule, and I wouldn't even if I could. Again, I am merely stating my opinions on what I see as the best.
4. I think you have to admit that you, personally, have never liked the old system too much. However, we do not have a CtP MP High Council, and therefore, all of us are equal in decisions and equally likely to make mistakes.
5. Quinns, you're doing a great job! .
6. Maybe we would be better off if the proposal of rating games was never brought here ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
 |
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Unlike you, Pete, I'll try to keep my point short.
1. I never had, and hope that I never will, dictate how people here play the game. Everything I post is my personal opinion that reflects, what I personally believe is better for the players.
2. My comparison of the systems is based on how I see the mathematical properties of them and stuff, not because of who, why and how invented the system. Here, I consider the fact that a certain system has been invented for ctp solely, as not being important. It can be good and bad, not mattering what it was invented for originally.
3. Definitely, whether to use ratings, and what ratings to use is solely a community decision. Nothing I can overrule, and I wouldn't even if I could. Again, I am merely stating my opinions on what I see as the best.
4. I think you have to admit that you, personally, have never liked the old system too much. However, we do not have a CtP MP High Council, and therefore, all of us are equal in decisions and equally likely to make mistakes.
5. Quinns, you're doing a great job! .
6. Maybe we would be better off if the proposal of rating games was never brought here ? |
 
I think a timeout is needed,
Apolyton IS the great think tank-mixing bowl!
We need all inputs;
Solver-salad
Blackice Bacon
Quinn-(essential) sauce
Mathemagician (after-meal) mint
Birdman droppings 
Lets just agree to disagree and..USE MY SYSTEM!!!
 
Peace
Grandpa Troll
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
troll
quote:
Unlike you, Pete, I'll try to keep my point short. |
quote:
1. I never had, and hope that I never will, dictate how people here play the game. Everything I post is my personal opinion that reflects, what I personally believe is better for the players. |
As do I
quote:
2. My comparison of the systems is based on how I see the mathematical properties of them and stuff, not because of who, why and how invented the system. Here, I consider the fact that a certain system has been invented for ctp solely, as not being important. It can be good and bad, not mattering what it was invented for originally. |
Not being important just is just silly and not worth more comment.
quote:
3. Definitely, whether to use ratings, and what ratings to use is solely a community decision. Nothing I can overrule, and I wouldn't even if I could. Again, I am merely stating my opinions on what I see as the best. |
That being the case why have you dismissed the system the community voted for?
quote:
4. I think you have to admit that you, personally, have never liked the old system too much. However, we do not have a CtP MP High Council, and therefore, all of us are equal in decisions and equally likely to make mistakes. |
No one liked it or it would still be used, would it not?
We are but human...
quote:
6. Maybe we would be better off if the proposal of rating games was never brought here ? |
Why most think it is a great idea.
The problem is a fair and balanced system that is not just mere numbers...
Short enough for you? I have lots to say is it ok if I say it? I was unaware the was a word cap....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
I was merely attempting not to get some people too bored reading my posts, you can surely say whatever you want  .
quote:
That being the case why have you dismissed the system the community voted for?
|
Please show me how did I 'dismiss' the system. I may have at some point stated that I do not believe it to be the best system, but I am entitled to my opinion just like everyone else is.
quote:
No one liked it or it would still be used, would it not?
|
If noone liked it, it wouldn't be staying around for a rather long time initially. For the record, the new system didn't exactly continue to exist forever, either.
quote:
Why most think it is a great idea.
The problem is a fair and balanced system that is not just mere numbers...
|
As said, I am all for a fair and balanced system, and the one that the community will vote for. It is my opinion that the tennis system was rather balanced, but I am also ready to accept the ELO-based system, as long as it gets some work, or a return to the 10% system.
After all, I remember how were the ratings first created, and then the entire community was pretty much sceptical, it was only due to continued discussion that the ratings went ahead to exist - and so I am ready for any such discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
 |
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
btw, blackice, i already agreed to solver that rating MP games as several 2 player games is statistically probably the better idea. thus, unless i have a spontaneous enlightenment (i tend to have these sometimes ) i now suggest:
- calculate each player against each other in the 2 player system using either quinns' quadratic formula or the exponential ELO system.
- unless someone promises to program an automated tool for calculating the ratings (solver ?  ) im ready to do anything we decide on in an Excel sheet, so we can continously update the ratings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
- calculate each player against each other in the 2 player system using either quinns' quadratic formula or the exponential ELO system. |
Both these systems will create the One game wonder senario. So pick a game you are winning in drop the rest and grab top spot. Been there did that done that.
Both these system will require endless rules to make them work.
That was some of the major flaws to those two systems.
It seems easy to ignore that but not for long....
So you see both of you that a ranking system is more than just numbers, it is a system. That means you have to address the entire thing. The 10% did just that I can not stress this enough.
A rule intensive system or a non-rule intensive system/
A less games top spot system or a participation game system.
If any one can show me that either of those two system can do what the 10% one did I'll conceed the arguement.
Just a tip Math we have done all this before and no one was able to do it.
quote:
I was merely attempting not to get some people too bored reading my posts, you can surely say whatever you want |
One can be short and boring too... Thanks solver I am aware of that I figure I dissed you and you were just taking a shot
quote:
Please show me how did I 'dismiss' the system. |
From the onset of this thread, or did I miss something?
quote:
If noone liked it, it wouldn't be staying around for a rather long time initially. For the record, the new system didn't exactly continue to exist forever, either. |
Solver: quote:
And Blackice also just proves my point - the rating system was, erm, postponed or cancelled mainly not because of its drawbacks as a system - the main problems were time and some personal conflicts among the members. |
:hummm: One system dies for being voted out the other died, well you said it rather well. Now you want to see a system brought in that people voted out...So back to the point about the communities opinion. They voted the system out now we are talking about bring it back in... Why in pete's sake would we do that? Back to dimissing the only system the community voted for...
quote:
As said, I am all for a fair and balanced system, and the one that the community will vote for. |
Well then why all the talk about the other system? It was voted out.
BTW in case you missed it so was I and still am
quote:
It is my opinion that the tennis system was rather balanced, |
BALANCED? Heh you are joking right? You play one game and win it and you remain in top spot for what was it 2 years. That's balanced? Give me a break the reason it was voted out was because it was not balanced, we all know that.
quote:
so I am ready for any such discussion. |
Me too I do hope we can get something back again
quote:
I do not make promises, but is that a challenge ? I dunno... the program is simple, but I'm also lazy. Maybe, maybe... |
I remember this with the 10% system too...
quote:
While my vote still goes to the quadratic formulas, maybe you would like to do some, uhmm, tests with fake games and see how different are the results with the two systems? |
Which two? Certainly not the one the community voted out?
That would be the ELO and the 10% then right?... Well we already did that go back the the rankings thread. The elo ends up with the same problems as the one voted out. Mind you we could make endless rules to make it work again, but that again was a major dislike of the voted out system. People come here for fun, not to be reading rules by the page load.
That is why the 10% system was brought in...simplicity...
I urge you two to think about that, the community did...
Btw I think Quinns, Keygen, Solver, Math just to name a few and all the rest of the people here that participate in making this league what it is today are all doing a great job
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
|
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
quote:
- calculate each player against each other in the 2 player system using either quinns' quadratic formula or the exponential ELO system. |
Both these systems will create the One game wonder senario. So pick a game you are winning in drop the rest and grab top spot. Been there did that done that.
Both these system will require endless rules to make them work.
That was some of the major flaws to those two systems.
It seems easy to ignore that but not for long....
So you see both of you that a ranking system is more than just numbers, it is a system. That means you have to address the entire thing. The 10% did just that I can not stress this enough.
A rule intensive system or a non-rule intensive system/
A less games top spot system or a participation game system.
If any one can show me that either of those two system can do what the 10% one did I'll conceed the arguement.
Just a tip Math we have done all this before and no one was able to do it.
quote:
I was merely attempting not to get some people too bored reading my posts, you can surely say whatever you want |
One can be short and boring too... Thanks solver I am aware of that I figure I dissed you and you were just taking a shot
quote:
Please show me how did I 'dismiss' the system. |
From the onset of this thread, or did I miss something?
quote:
If noone liked it, it wouldn't be staying around for a rather long time initially. For the record, the new system didn't exactly continue to exist forever, either. |
Solver: quote:
And Blackice also just proves my point - the rating system was, erm, postponed or cancelled mainly not because of its drawbacks as a system - the main problems were time and some personal conflicts among the members. |
:hummm: One system dies for being voted out the other died, well you said it rather well. Now you want to see a system brought in that people voted out...So back to the point about the communities opinion. They voted the system out now we are talking about bring it back in... Why in pete's sake would we do that? Back to dimissing the only system the community voted for...
quote:
As said, I am all for a fair and balanced system, and the one that the community will vote for. |
Well then why all the talk about the other system? It was voted out.
BTW in case you missed it so was I and still am
quote:
It is my opinion that the tennis system was rather balanced, |
BALANCED? Heh you are joking right? You play one game and win it and you remain in top spot for what was it 2 years. That's balanced? Give me a break the reason it was voted out was because it was not balanced, we all know that.
quote:
so I am ready for any such discussion. |
Me too I do hope we can get something back again
quote:
I do not make promises, but is that a challenge ? I dunno... the program is simple, but I'm also lazy. Maybe, maybe... |
I remember this with the 10% system too...
quote:
While my vote still goes to the quadratic formulas, maybe you would like to do some, uhmm, tests with fake games and see how different are the results with the two systems? |
Which two? Certainly not the one the community voted out?
That would be the ELO and the 10% then right?... Well we already did that go back the the rankings thread. The elo ends up with the same problems as the one voted out. Mind you we could make endless rules to make it work again, but that again was a major dislike of the voted out system. People come here for fun, not to be reading rules by the page load.
That is why the 10% system was brought in...simplicity...
I urge you two to think about that, the community did...
Btw I think Quinns, Keygen, Solver, Math just to name a few and all the rest of the people here that participate in making this league what it is today are all doing a great job |
Hmm..all the time I spent..and I didnt even get an honorable mention!
But..I fear we are back to where whence we came..each system we approach and present..will be brought before The Great and Powerful Oz..I mean Apolyton Forum..and dazed and confused..(Yippur..Led Zeppelin type) and still not a system all can agree on?
I still like playing and if it could be one that if fairly simple to understand..I think thats great!
So far I see plenty of passion, debating presenting and proposing and counter-proposing..
Kinda like getting a Law Passed!
Keep up tyhe great work fellas..maybe we can get a system on board thats safe and secure and simlple?
Peace
Grandpa Troll
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
OK, OK... a few more words about the One-Game wonder. This can be prevented by a rule that, a rated player is obliged to have all his games rated - that will also make him lose points.
Again, let me say I'd like a few tests ran using each of the three systems and see the differences in numbers.
And may I mention that the Quinns formula system was voted out ages ago? Just mentioning... I still say we'd need to go with whatever is voted for this time. As said, I have my nostaligcal reasons for that system, too.
quote:
I remember this with the 10% system too...
|
So do I. I actually remember 3 people who said that . I am, however, not making any promises for good, merely stating the possibility that I MIGHT do that.
quote:
Which two? Certainly not the one the community voted out?
|
Well, admittedly, I'd like to see tests from all three. Math, is the ELO formula ready? I'd need you to specify that K constant and that... and if you've got nothing to do, program the Excel sheets for all three systems and let's see the changes .
quote:
That is why the 10% system was brought in...simplicity...
I urge you two to think about that, the community did...
|
Yes, simplicity, but let me say that, if we use the 10% system, we still need the rules. There will still be a rules set for various cases, and I think we're agreed at that.
quote:
Btw I think Quinns, Keygen, Solver, Math just to name a few and all the rest of the people here that participate in making this league what it is today are all doing a great job |
Thanks . Maybe all the time is not wasted after all
It is my belief that, at this moment, some final input from Math is needed on the ELO system, then some tests with all three (for the heck of it), and then a good summary and community voting. I say now that I expect the 10% system to win. I loved how easy it was to do calculations with it, yeah .
Maybe also some adjustements to the PBEM Rules, but that's another story.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheBirdMan
And I still think the greatest (only serious) disadvantage with the old system was, that a player could choose to go unrated in a rated game.
|
But even if that could be fixed, Blackice is right. Someone could just take their best game, DROP all the other games where they are not doing well, and just continue to be ahead at the *9 point, like Klair did (although, she did it unintentionally, I believe -- That really WAS the only game she was playing), and remain on top. That is the biggest flaw in the old system. This same flaw would exist in the ELO system (if I understand that it is similar to the old system.)
At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either.
I think that Solver should first do a poll to see how many people really would like a rating system -- THEN worry about working out and voting on a good rating system. Don't put the cart before the ox!
But I agree with Birdman on the challenge ladder.... It is a clean, fair, and easy system -- but it won't work with more than two players 
Last edited by quinns on 23-07-2003 at 21:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
All great points and all a combined community effort Great to see the old timers in this debate. Er well some of us are old
Ok so lets summarize we have three systems all with merit. The community liked less rules and no one game wonders. The 10% promoted games so Birdy they want top spot they have to play/ done. Mind you Birdy if people have a choice they play, why because this is the best game period.
Well then it would seem we have and answer here if we look real hard. Yes the 10% needs rules but less to make it work. Yes the challenge ladder works but only for two players, yet it promotes games to be the top dog, right?
Ok so what we have here is a simple rule based on a 10% system, use the challenge system to ensure participation, I see more involvement and more fun with this system.
No one game wonders we set out a rule that you are knocked back a ranking if you do not accept a challenge even by one player in a set time limit.
Now let’s face it hard to keep track of right? Not… come on the top 10 not accepting a challenge by anyone like the ladder it is going to attract attention.
So why not marry the two systems?
I would like to still see the three going though, that way if one only has time for the occasional game they have a choice. That I think is still important, we can not force people to play can we?
So if we really dig hard here I think we can come to some sort of mathematical, social, community, participation, fun based, easy SYSTEM that would incorporate all of what the community needs to thrive, rankings. Or am I just a born optimist with a big ego
We need:
1. fair
2. easy
3. no sucks allowed
4. workable
5. automated
6. minimal rules
7. agreeable
More beer, ok I just tossed that in, mind you, it could be a rule.
Interesting enough if it was done right we could work it out where all systems and gaming IE: Challenge, Multi-player and Online counted towards their individual rankings chart but have one master chart to cover it all?
Brain storming is it workable?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by quinns
But even if that could be fixed, Blackice is right. Someone could just take their best game, DROP all the other games where they are not doing well, and just continue to be ahead at the *9 point, like Klair did (although, she did it unintentially, I believe -- That really WAS the only game she was playing), and remain on top. That is the biggest flaw in the old system. This same flaw would exist in the ELO system (if I understand that it is similar to the old system.)
|
from my experience with the 2 player ELO ranking, i would say that resting your butt on 1 leading game wont do it. someone else would only need 2 leading games to overtake you, and so on.
so, the higher your number of games, the higher also the risk that you will not lead them all. one reason, btw, to allow a player to lose points in a game, like it is the case if all players' points in a game sum up to 0.
also, that flaw can be worked around by a simple rule, e.g. you would need to have at least one running game to not lose any penalty points. so, if all players in your only one running game think that you have too much of a lead they could simply drop out of this game - and if all other players dropped out of the game, the game automatically is finished and you have to start another one if you want to keep your rating.
quote:
At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either.
|
another argument why we need rating based point gains and higher risks (=losing points) versus weaker players.
i would also like to suggest that everyone clearly states what they expect from a possible ranking system.
likely, no system will fit all these characteristics, but seeing which system fits which, it will be easier to decide on one system.
Last edited by Mathemagician on 23-07-2003 at 14:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
Ok so what we have here is a simple rule based on a 10% system, use the challenge system to ensure participation, I see more involvement and more fun with this system.
No one game wonders we set out a rule that you are knocked back a ranking if you do not accept a challenge even by one player in a set time limit.
|
good point, but the penalty would need to be a point adjustment, as the ranking is directly point based.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mathemagician
i would also like to suggest that everyone clearly states what they expect from a possible ranking system.
likely, no system will fit all these characteristics, but seeing which system fits which, it will be easier to decide on one system. |
alright, i make the start.
criteria that are important to me:
- rating differences to influence rating gains by the winner(s), meaning the weaker your opponents the less you gain and vice versa.
- points CAN be lost in a game, that is the sum of all points gained and lost in a game is zero.
- rating updates by replacing the old score from that game every X turns, so no cumulative point gains from the same game.
- automated system to calculate the ratings, like Solver.exe or Math.excel
- system does NOT need to be simple, just managing the ranking table needs to be simple (by automated program). that means, combining more good traits is more important to me than an understandable system - as seeing the ranking table evolve will probably satisfy most people's desire for a 'just' system better than understanding the formulas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mathemagician
also, someone please tell me more about the 10% system...  |
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
PLAYERS
2..1ST..67%..2nd..33%
3..1ST..54%..2nd..31%..3rd..15%
4..1ST..46%..2nd..29%..3rd..17%..4th..8%
5..1ST..41%..2nd..27%..3rd..17%..4th..10%..5th..5%
6..1ST..36%..2nd..25%..3rd..17%..4th..11%..5th..7%..6th..4%
7..1ST..33%..2nd..23%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8%..6th..5%..7th..3%
8..1ST..30%..2nd..22%..3rd..16%..4th..12%..5th..8%..6th..6%..7th..4%..8th..2%
In the tweeked system the leader was capped and so was the loser. In that way thier was no need to quit a game for bad land reason's.
Each player waged 10% of thier ranking per game.
It was suggested that that 10% would remain static throughout the game. After testing it I concure it resolved the only bug in the system.
|
Last edited by quinns on 23-07-2003 at 21:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Very good points thus far.
For solving the One-Game issue, I recommend, as said, that every PBEM game is rated or not, and ALL players in it are then rated or not. And, the suggestion about penalty if not accepting a challenge.
Thinking ahead, we may want a participation level modifier for every player, in case it seems that playing many games is a disadvantage, to give a bonus for many games, but that's unlikely we need it.
I agree with Math's points, especially the last. It doesn't have to be necessary for the players to understand the system, a program is all we need.
How do we want the starting ratings? By highest AI beaten (as originally), or same for all? I prefer the former, as it gives a rough indication of player's skills, and creates a fair situation where Deity players (majority) get few points by beating a Prince player (someone new at the game).
And yes... definitely GREAT to see old-timers here .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mathemagician
|
|
Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Alpha-Quadrant, Milky Way
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
How do we want the starting ratings? By highest AI beaten (as originally), or same for all? I prefer the former, as it gives a rough indication of player's skills, and creates a fair situation where Deity players (majority) get few points by beating a Prince player (someone new at the game).
|
i prefer same starting points for all.
provided the system is running for a while, a natural balance will automatically exist.
if dependent on BAID level players will only lie about their BAID level or wait till they beat a higher AI level before they join.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2003 04:09
-as-it-hurts-me-opinion.
|