PBEM tournament, looking for players!

[zsozso]

Paul: When I wrote all victory conditions enabled, I meant the types of victory, i.e. conquest, economic, diplomatic, trascendence. Didn't even think about cooperative.

As MtG points out, it does not make sense to allow cooperative victory. Unfortunately, I did leave it on in the scenario files, so it is ON in theory...

Now I'd like to take this opportunity to ask all players to avoid cooperative victory, please! i.e. if two players pact to eliminate the third, they should cancel the pact before taking the last base.

I will turn off the cooperative victory flag for the games started from now on, but it is too late for the game ACT001-015 and AXT001-006.

As for the scoring system, I like the level based thing that was suggested by Decx first then Genaciv. But I am not sure about the 10 times scoring system. After all, you might be playing a very tough player in level 1, so the victory could be just as valuable as a level 2-3 or whatever. If the players are placed into separate 'leagues' according to levels, then it is better to say, that 3 level 1 victories simply do not raise the player to level 4, only to level 2. Then they are ranked in the level 2 table according to their victories from level 1, but they will only play each other in level 2 games.

So, all games started so far are considered level 1. Winner will be anounced at whatever level the game stops, i.e. no 3 players can make to that level to play another level game. E.g. if there are only 4 players in level N, then all 4 combinations are played between them, but only 2 players made victories, then those two are in level N+1 and the one with better rank is the Champion.

In fact we can talk about Champion starting from level 2, but the title may move o another player during the course of the tourney.

Thoughts, comments ?

[korn469]

Zsozso,

i think that you should leave on co-op victory, and make it where there can only be one winner but a player could "surrender" by annocuing it here in the forums and therefore be able continue to play, the player they surrendered to would have to accept their surrender...however once you surrender you would be ineligable to win the game

by surrendering you'd get a draw instead of a loss though, if the player you surrendered to won, if not you'd get a loss...but make the scoring system where you get more points for a win where your opponents don't surrender

it is my opinion that having a consolation prize for the leading player to give a weaker player would speed up the game and would still allow for diplomatic interaction later in the game, but that's just my opinion

korn469

[korn469]

instead of genaciv's level ranking system i think that we should have a point ranking system that works like this (al la starcraft's system)

Battle.net maintains both a win/loss record and a rating for each player who plays in ladder games. Players gain rating points for each win, and lose rating points for each loss. Because ratings take into account not only the number of wins and losses but also the skill of each opponent, they are a useful measure of the true skill level of a player.

The rating system used by Battle.net is the same Elo rating system that used in competitive chess, golf, and tennis. The Elo rating is a scientific model which provides a meaningful way to compare the skill level of different players, based on the assumption that skill levels follow a normal bell curve

Battle.net computes the probability of each player winning a ladder game based on that player's rating and the ratings of each of the players he is playing against. This probability is used to determine how many rating points the player wins or loses for winning or losing the game. A player who wins against a much higher rated player will gain many points for the victory, while a player who wins against a much lower rated player will gain very few points.

For two player games, the following formula is used to compute the probability of winning:

Probability = 1 / (1 + 10^(-difference_in_ratings / 400))

When more than two players participate in a ladder game, probabilities are adjusted downward accordingly. The probability of a player winning the game is the same as his probability of winning a tournament against all of the players in the game. The following formula is used:

AB = probability of player A beating player B
AC = probability of player A beating player C
etc.
probability = 1/3 * AB * (CD*AC + DC*AD) +
1/3 * AC * (BD*AB + DB*AD) +
1/3 * AD * (BC*AB + CB*AC)

Each player who completes a ladder game wins or loses points according to the following formulas:

Winner's rating increases by K * (100% - probability_of_winning)
Loser's rating decreases by K * probability_of_winning

the website i found this at is here http://www.battle.net/ladder/ladderfaq.shtml

korn469

[Pagan[CyC]]

An iterative method of scoring that takes into account the skill level of opponents may be what you are looking for. I wrote a program to do this for one vs one Quake results a few years ago, a basic description is below. NOTE: Round in this sense is an iteration of the scoring calculations, not rounds of competition.

1st round is purely win/loss

2nd round modifies the value of each win or loss based on the 1st round score of each opponent.

3rd round modifies the value of each win or loss based on the 2nd round score of each opponent.

Nth round modifies the value of each win or loss base on the (N-1)th round score of each opponent.

Rounds continue until the greatest change in score for a player is below a certain threshold.

With as few players as we have it wouldn't be that hard to do by hand or with a spreadsheet, it would almost certainly be less work than modifyig the Quake program. I'd be happy to do it if you'd like to do the scoring this way.

Pagan[CyC] <-- looking for an easy way to come out 1st! ;-)

[Lord Maxwell]

Genaciv: Your scoring system has one major drawback, it would take to long. We need to use a point based system for the simple reason that most games will take 6-9 months to even near completion. (By then even a fast game won't have reached 2300. So most wins will be by economy or war. Maybe peacekeepers on empath guild and early size 16 cities with pop-booming can squeeze in a diplomatic victory... Not in smac-x though...)
I don't think that there will ever be a third round in your sýstem. (Knowing the fickelness of attention online.

[zsozso]

Good point Lord Maxwell!
We could have followed a very simple direct fall-out hierarchical system: each player plays a single game, winner advance only to second level games, and so on until a single players comes out on top of the pyramid. The reason I dropped this idea right away, because that would take forever. The level based scoring is basicaly a variation on that.

On the other hand, there is also a big problem with the opponent strentgh based scoring systems (both ideas from Korn469 and Pagan[CyC]):
Those systems work fine for sequential games, i.e. when a single player never plays games parallel. Let's take an example why it fails.
Assume, player X starts 5 games at the same time, one of them with player Y. Player Y beats player X, but X wins all other 4 games. Now, if you do the scoring with all this knowledge at hand, it is obvious, that win of Y is a very valuable one. On the other hand if Y is so good, that he beat X faster than X won his games, then Y will get a low score for his victory. So, Y may get 4 different score values depending how fast/slow he wins, and he gets the highest score for the slowest victory against the same player. This is exactly the opposite of the realistic value of the victory!

I do see the importance of ranking victories against better or worse players, but we need a system that works for parallel games. Maybe we need to re-adjust the scores of earlier games in light of later ones ?

Zsozso

[korn469]

zsozso,

the value of the win should be determined when the game starts not when a the games are over if a player starts five games at a time then the records at the time of the games's start should be the record that determines the final outcome

and we should weigh the victory

if player A comes in first
player B comes in second
and player C comes in third

player A should get points from both B and C and B should get points (but not as many) from player C

lets start everybody out at 100 points

if you win a game you get 10% of the other players 100 points if you come in second you get 5% of #3 points

and if you surrender to a player they only get 5% of of points and you automatically come in second but only get 3% of the third players points

so you will want to play somebody with alot of points...and all point values are set at the begining of the game not the end

so if player A has 100 points and player B has 90 and player C has 80 here's how it would work

A wins
B comes in second
C comes in third

A get 9 points from player B and 8 from player C

B loses 9 points to player A and gets 4 from player C

C loses 8 to A and 4 to B

so
player A gets +17
player B gets -5
player C gets -12

the players total point value are determined when the game starts not when it finishes

we round all fractions and so if you have 94 points the winner would only get 9 points and you'd only lose 9

what do you think of that?

korn469

[zsozso]

Korn469,

If we award points according to the start-time as you suggest, then your system is practically equivalent to Genaciv's level based system. Just think about it: all games started so far and further ones started until the first completion award the same number of points: 20 to the winner, -5 to the second (-10 + 5) and -15 to the third.

Then all winners will want to play other winners which is the same as level 2 against level 2. Then those games award the same number of points, so after those the winners will want to play each other - equivalent to level 3 games, etc.

The only difference is, that playing a winner or a loser in the second round does not have so dramatic point difference. On the other hand the same problem occurs as I described above:
Assume player X will be the eventual champion. If player Y beats him in the first game, then he gets only 10 points for that masterful act, while player Z beating the champion in a later game may get a lot more for the same achievement.

A very simple equal scoring (each victory worth 1 point) would avoid that. The only problem with this, that it does not differentiate between beating weak and strong players. So we should either stcik to the simplest scoring or choose one that is sophisticated enough to avoid the timing problems.

[Genaciv]

Lord Maxwell, when you're dealing with SMAC, it'll take forever using ANY scoring system.. my method is to sort out the experts from the beginners, and after you use the points gained from wins in the different categories, you can still rank the players using secondary values (ie. TIME it took to win the game). Just like zsozso intended..
As for zsoszo's remark about player A beating player B (who is REALLY, REALLY good) in the first round, and then not getting enough recognition.. well.. i don't understand what he means..
If player B was defeated in the first round, one of his other first round games has to get him to the next stage.. and then for player B to eventually become champion, he will most likely meet player A again.. in level 2, or 3.. and whomever eventually wins (lets not say that.. but rather, whomever is in the lead..) will have deserved their ranking.. period. If you would like to rephrase the arguments against this method, please do, because at this moment i don't see any other better alternatives, and feel that this would be a great method to go by.. it had no ending, so players can push further and further, even if the all-time champion retires from smac, his title can be taken from him..
SUGGESTED REVISION to my METHOD: the differences between the different levels can be a factor of 4 or 5.. if you like.. this way level 1 and 2 aren't THAT DRASTICALLY different, but the difference should still be large enough to separate players..

or.. we could do this:
Level 1: winner=4pts, second=2, third=1
Level 2: winner=8pts, second=4pts, third=2pts
Level 3: winner=16pts, second=8, third=4

I'm not sure what ya'll want, all i know is that whatever we choose with the points, they should DIFFER based on LEVELS.. that's it.. whatever ya'll think is the best to hand out for trying, getting second, or winning, is up to you to decide, i guess.. my only concern is that only winners can advance.. (you could further complicate it by saying someone who gets 2 second places can go up.. or 3 third places go up, or something).. BUT I WAS TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, AND UNDERSTANDABLE..

LEVELS should be incorporated, points based on them in some way, ...

- Genaciv

[Genaciv]

After thinking it over some more.. in NO CASE should third get -ANY- points.. this could be abused to add up bunches of points in level1..

- Genaciv

[Genaciv]

double post ^
[This message has been edited by Genaciv (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Genaciv]

triple post.. ^
[This message has been edited by Genaciv (edited February 03, 2000).]

[zsozso]

OK, to clear out things, let's take the 2 extreme systems:

1. Hierarchical fall-out (aka. pyramid):
Everybody plays only 1 game at each level, only the winner advance to next level. Once somebody lost a game, he/she is out.

2. Full round system:
Everybody plays everybody else, numbers of wins counted and some secondary etc. scoring to decide any tie.

Which one is better?
Number 1 requires far less number of games, but it only decides who is the best, no further ranking is fair. Simple example, if the second best player gets to play the best in the first level: the second is out immediately and has no way to prove how good he/she really is.

Another problem with #1 is, that if one game finished at a level, the winner has to wait for 2 other games to finish, before a new game can be started.

Number 2 is perfect in the sense, that the final ranking properly reflects the skills, but the main problem is that it takes a lot of games. With 25 players, that would mean everybody has to play at least 12 games (with 3-player a game). Playing 1-3 at a time and estimating a game to last ~200 turns with an optimistic 1 full turn per day it takes about 7 months for a game, for those who play 1 at a time, the tourney would take 7 years even if no more people sign up...

So, we would like to get a nice compromise, which does not have the unfairness and waiting mode of the direct fall-out system, but does not take forever like the full round system.

Both the ranking and level-based systems offer some sort of compromise, and as I pointed out in my previous post, they are almost equivalent in their practical effect.

The main problem with the level based system, that it slows down thing by repeating games on the next level among the same 3 players.

The example where player A defeats player B (who is very good and wins many games after) in the first round and does not get enough credit for it, this example was not against the level based system, but against the ranking based point system.

[This message has been edited by zsozso (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Genaciv]

In my opinion, Korn's scoring system wouldn't work very well with this.. i mean, in StarCraft i've often play 3-4 games in a single hour (if i am able to rush them..), if not.. it drags on to up to 2.5 hours.. but in SMAC, we're talking weeks, or months of play.. just to get ONE result.. that wouldn't give you good results to use statistically-based scoring systems, as such a small number of results gives you seriously skewed numbers to work with..

With my system, you can advance a certain amount without REALLY playing hard players, but after a few levels, chances are the playing field WILL be populated by tougher players (looks like i won't get past Level 2.. LOL). Ties suck... if the person thinks he lost, and doesn't want to drag it on, have him obliterate all of his bases.. nice and quick..

Remember .. we're trying to keep this simple.. The reason i set such a high value to level 2 in comparison to level 1 games, and the same relationship to each ascending level, is that this would prevent stronger players from preying on the weaker players and only playing games in the first level, even after winning level 1 games..... sure, they can play them, but it won't count for much, and their time would be better used in more advanced games, which is where they SHOULD be for this system to work..
Eventually there will be very few players in the top levels, ...

We have 15 games right now.. lets say cetain people (MtG, etc.) win ALL of them, so lets cut that number in half or maybe 2/3 to represent how many people make it to level2, 5 to 10.. i'll say 10.
from 10 level 2 players, we can get 3 games, of which we have 3 players advance to level 3..... from that ONE level 3 game, there will be ONE person advancing to Level 4, and he will be reigning champion of the tournament until enough other players make it to level 4 to provide competition for said person.. If the person retires from smac, it would just mean that he is in the hall of fame until THREE new players make it to level 4 (joining the retired other player that is already there), and whomever reaches level 5 from that group is champion.. and of course, i'd expect to see some FIERCE competition in the advanced levels, and the system is simple enough.. no complicated formulas, just straight up-you win, you go up, .. you lose and you try again..
In fact, all that is required to keep track of this, is a spreadsheet, maybe even one for each level, whatever you like.. easily viewable and understandable by all, and in my opinion we should choose to do this...

If the 10 times factor of levels is too high, we could tone it down, i just wanted to make sure that the only way to win was to advance to the highest level, NOT playing vs all the newbies and causing general frustration amongst the level 1 people..

- Genaciv

[Pagan[CyC]]

Zsozso:

Your example from above:
On the other hand if Y is so good, that he beat X faster than X won his games, then Y will get a low score for his victory. So, Y may get 4 different score values depending how fast/slow he wins, and he gets the highest score for the slowest victory against the same player.

Why would player Y get a higher score for a slower victory? Are you giving more points for winning slowly?

I don't see how a well implemented scoring system that takes opponent quality into account is ever going to be inferior to one that doesn't. Of course, that could just be lack of imagination on my part. ;-)

Giving a scoring bonus for quicker victories will reward wins over inferior players, unless opponent quality is also taken into account. For example, using players ordered by skill from A-Z, with A being the best player and Z being the worst:
A beats Y and Z in 30 turns. B beats C and D in 200 turns. A gets a higher score for quickly crushing two duds than B does for eventually prevailing against two great players.

Of course, when it comes down to it I really don't care how the tournament is scored or how well I do, I'm just playing because I enjoy it! But I DO love to argue.
[This message has been edited by Pagan[CyC] (edited February 04, 2000).]