Announcement

**Horus** · December 12, 2000, 10:56

You are not very good at rallying players for your idea, are you. I like the idea with a ladder but just don't tell people that you are bored of the game, even if it is true; it is contra productive.

Good luck

**Solver** · December 12, 2000, 11:51

I didn't quite mean it, I meant I was bored of the AI, so started PBEM, and now too busy with the others for playing.

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

**Horus** · December 12, 2000, 12:45

I understood that, almost

Well I'm not very keen on doing my work today I guess.

**stuntman19** · December 12, 2000, 14:19

It seems like alot of work for someone who has lost interest in smac\x. I'm normally content with PBEM's that I actually get turns on a regular bases.
Have you contacted Tau Ceti about this at all, considering that Tau has put in alot of his time to setup the tournament. It seems that it might be the prudent thing to do in my opinion.

**quinns** · December 12, 2000, 17:03

I haven't yet purchased Alpha Centauri, so I don't have an opinion yet, Solver. (Maybe my wife will get SMAC for me for Christmas... right... more games, just what she needs ). But I don't see any problem with Alpha Centauri being rated, provided I get some help from someone. It would really help for the ladder administrators of CTP and SMAC to filter out all the results, emails, and postings from all the players, and just send me the pertinent information on a weekly, or twice weekly basis. Primarily, this would be listings of:
1) New Players -- (Name or Handle, E-mail Address, Intial Rating, Nation and Territory of Residence);
2) New Rated Games -- (Name of Game, Current Turn, How Many Rated Players Involved)
3) Results of Ten Turn Mark Rated Games -- (Name of Game, Current Turn, Names of Players In Order Of Power Graph Finish)

I would then send the ladder administrators the updated ratings and let them post to the respective forums.

We'll see how popular this is here, Solver, before we do any more work on this.

**WhiteElephants** · December 12, 2000, 19:11

I'm not familiar with CTP, but I have invested some time in SMAC and X fires. In my experience the power graph rarely accurately reflects the ability of a player or the actual status of who is "winning" the game. I'm also at a lose of what exactly is being rated. Is it the player (I assume so because of the starting rating formula)? Besides, some factions don't even begin research in the first ten turns while others begin with extra techs, particularly the crossfire factions, which automatically inflates their position on the power graph. And the fact of the matter is some factions are just plain better than others whereas in CTP there are no factions or social engineering choices (if I understand correctly) so every player essentially plays the same vanilla civ which would be more appropriate for a rating ladder.

I've gotta say this, and I hope it isn't taken the wrong way, but judging from your posts it seems you lost interest in SMAC before you ever got interested. If you had put more time into it I think you would realize that a sanpshot of the power graph every ten turns isn't enough to rate anything by.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go ahead and check the thread in CTP multi playing. Perhaps I'm missing something.

**Googlie** · December 12, 2000, 19:29

Not wanting to throw cold water over what might be a neat innovation in ranking PBEM'ers, I'm at a bit of a loss to see what a ladder adds to the Tourney stats that Tau Ceti keeps.

PBEM's fall into three categories - "official" or "sanctioned" games where stats are kept and published; "pick-up" games where someone just ups and organizes a game and others sign on; and "specialty" games, where there are restrictions/innovations/rules in play that apply only to that game (e.g. RP1, where we are playing the faction preferences to the hilt, or he two nato games which are team games, to name just some that I am in)

And team games might be unique to smac/x (I don't know about CtP) and these brign their own conventions - e.g. a pactmember might refuse a tech for several turns 'cos he/she doesn't want their tech costs to skyrocket (# of techs you have is a contributing factor to new tech costs). I don't know if that applies to CtP, but it could skew the ten year ratings significantly.

But let's air it out in this thread.

What do CtP players get from the ladder? Is it just a PBEM ranking, like a post count, so that we can say "I'm # 1 (or 101, or whatever) or is it used for matching skill levels for games?

I guess I should mosey over and read the proffered thread.

Don't lose heart, Solver. We just need to see what it would add to our gaming experience.

googlie

**WhiteElephants** · December 12, 2000, 21:16

I checked out the short thread on the ratings in CTP multiplaying and I don't think the same rules would apply to Alpha Centauri. I don't see how you can look at the University's ranking on the powergraph after 10 turns and look at the ranking of say the Believers, who don't even start research by then, and determine who is "winning". There are far too many factors in the game to just let it ride on the ranking in the powergraph, or any of the available stats in the game, to determine who is better. I could tell you now that the people with the highest ratings would be the players of The University and some of the Crossfires factions because they would automatically be "winning" because of their extra tech at the start of the game. I can't speak from a lot of multiplayer experience, but I'm under the impression that games don't last past 100 turns that often. Another interesting example would be from a PBEM I'm currently in where The University, who was leading on the power graph, was wipped out right around the 20th turn, by the Believers, who were far from first on the powergraph. In this instance the University would have gained points until they were wiped out and then what? Do they continue to lose points every ten turns the game goes on? And what if the other players concede shortly after one is wiped out? Wouldn't the person who lost, The University in this case, retain a gain in ranking even though they lost. Because the ten turns never elapsed when they were lossing on the powergraph it never effects their ranking? Or what if the opposite happend and the game lasted 200 turns and every 10 turns The University was penalized for being wiped out?

I'll try to get through the other thread and give a report back.

**quinns** · December 12, 2000, 23:28

Solver, it sounds like the Power Graph won't work over here, but I should really get the game and try it before saying for certain.

By what I hear in this thread, there are examples where some player has a high power graph rating but then that same player gets wiped out right away! This NEVER happens in Call to Power so there are definitely important factors here in SMAC that the Power Graph doesn't reflect at all. In CTP the Power Graph doesn't reflect everything, (like tile improvements and advances), but it gives a pretty accurate picture of who is the most POWERFUL (not necessarily the best player, Civilization wise, but the most powerful).

The Power Graph is something that all players can see all the time (i.e. it's public knowledge) so it is very good tool for ranking in CTP. Maybe there is something in Alpha Centauri that shows a better public graph of player progress, but it doesn't sound like there is any good method. I'll get the game and check it out.

Quinns (ratings processor for CTP PBEM)

**Solver** · December 13, 2000, 01:43

I know, it's a bit tough and difficult early on, but then it all goes better.

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

**Solver** · December 13, 2000, 11:33

Quinns, please note that I am a very experienced Alpha Centauri player, and quite a good one (even though I don't say I could top the rating table).
PowerGraph here is different. Like most real-time strat games (and unlike CTP), SMAC offers special abilities for each of the civilizations (called Factions here). Say, University excels at research, while the Gayans have excellent Nature factions that let them capture native wildlife creatures (called Mind Worms).
I see no reason why can't we create the same system as we did in CtP, with me being the ruler (once again, but if anyone minds, I won't ), and quinns calculating everything as I send to him.
Tomorrow my schedule will be better, so that in addition to some other ladder work done, I will here contact Tau for the tourney questions. I think it would be nice to leave the tourney here as it is, but at the same time make the tourney games rated.
Again about the way to rate players: powergraph isn't as objective here as it's in Call to Power, but we can take the Alpha Centauri rating of each player and that the rated players send them to me and Quinns.
You see, Quinns, just like in CtP, there are ratings (in %) in SMAC, so that while the turn goes, we could ask each player to take a snapshot of his achievements page (the one with the rating % shown), and send it to Quinns and me as the snapshot.
SMAC players, I think this is objective enough by all means, as this allows the integration with a PBEM tourney, and gets us rid of the Power Graph non-objectivity problem.
Example, IMO: after the first 10 turns, University will have some excellent research %, but due to more kills and military success, the Believers will yet have a nice overall %, too.
I have also got a question for the SMAC PBEM players: do you (I hope so) use quickstarts (more Colony Pods, energy and others) in the start as well? This happens in all CtP games, and some of them also offer more advances.

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

**Googlie** · December 13, 2000, 12:26

I'm still unclear as to the purpose of a Ladder, other than for bragging rights. (Yes, I did read the threads over at the CtP forums)

We do things differently here at AC.

Bragging rights are earned from success at the various challenges (mostly SP against almost unbeatable odds), mano-a-mano matches, compare games (fastest, largest, etc.) and, for those who are "score inclined" the Tau Ceti and other tourneys.

I sense a big collective yawn among SMAC'ers to the idea of a ladder.

Googlie

[This message has been edited by Googlie (edited December 13, 2000).]

**quinns** · December 13, 2000, 17:12

Fair enough Googlie. Let's see what the others players have to say. If they agree with your opinion of the "collective yawn" then so be it. Thanks for checking out the CTP set up and responding.

It was worth a shot, Solver, but if the other SMAC players share the same attitude as Googlie, you are wasting your energy.

Edit: If you remember though, Solver, they poo-poo'ed your idea over in CtP when you first mentioned it. Remember? Similar phrases, "...rain on your parade...", "...boring...", "...who cares?", etc. Now, it is very popular with CtP. We'll see what the others say first before giving up.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 13, 2000).]

**WhiteElephants** · December 13, 2000, 17:42

I kind of feel like Googlie and I are "beating up" on you two, but I have to note that Ctp and SMAC are "turned based" not "real time" as Solver suggests. Perhaps that was just a mix up. But, I also don't know what he is talking about when he says their is a screen with an achievements page. There are three things I can think of what he means 1) The page that shows the percentage of tech you have acquired in Discover, Build, Conquer, Explore catagories (which, again, favors the tech factions) 2) The screen which shows your individual score based on population, tech, and special projects build and 3) When you end a game you are given a certain percentage based on your end score which is derived from #2.

I wish others would post their opinions here, but as for me I feel like the ratings are just a picture of who looks the best at a given time when I think the important thing is who ends up winning. For example, if a football team is leading in the first quarter they don't move up the ladder because of it. They only move up if they are winning at the end of the 4th quarter.

Announcement

Ladders

Ladders

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment